Talk:Namaste Trump

Namaste Trump and COVID-19
As per media sources their is a direct correlation between the event and sport of cases in Ahmedabad. If there are no objections I will be adding this to a separate section titled controversies or something similar.

www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/infections-rise-in-modis-home-state-81413 www.amarujala.com/amp/india-news/congress-blames-namaste-trump-program-for-corona-virus-in-gujarat Abhuik (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Objection. Please post a more popular publishing source. I will personally restructure and add this to the article then.✘ anonymousвهii 19:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's OK to say that a report was published in a major publication saying there was such a claim. We need to be sure a) the claim is properly attributed, i.e. who made the claim (definitely not passive voice "claims were made") and b) the claim is not confirmed in Wikipedia's voice. I.e. scrupulously follow WP:WIKIVOICE, part of the NPOV policy. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we even promote an unverified and a nonsensical claim about a disease in lieu of a mass misinformation campaigns and politicization of this disease? We should only use authoritative sources for any claims related to COVID-19, not political propagandists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.228.147 (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple reliable sources are reporting this, they can be added with proper attribution. It doesn't matter if you personally think they are wrong, I would recommend self reverting your removals. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 10:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you find a better source than a political propagandist for making a claim that the event caused COVID-19? See WP:MEDRS and try finding one. This political propagandist has no degree in medical nor he has carried out any research. Why you are buying his fake news into Wikipedia? 110.227.228.147 (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understand attribution. Attribution means presenting a statement as a claim made by someone or some entente rather than as a statement of fact, which has been presented as such. In this case, his claim has been reported by multiple reliable publications (e.g: Amar Ujala, NDTV, etc). MERDS is irrelevant here. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your claim that we can spread fake news related to COVID-19 by attributing it to a political propagandist is meaningless. As for MEDRS, see Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine). A political propagandist cannot be used for making claims about a non-existing COVID-19 claim.
 * He is a member of legislative assembly and his claims can not be used as statements of fact in this case. That doesn't mean his claims can not be mentioned at all, they can be if there's significant coverage which is present in this case. WP:MEDPOP is again irrelevant here, it deals with the usage of popular press as sources of factual information on medical topics. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 10:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Still, nothing more than a political propagandist. You are absolutely trying to get around the fake news he is spreading. Stop doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.228.147 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree this is a blatant violation of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RGW. Wareon (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * An analysis for review. There is no harm in including the removed text as a stated possibility rather than as a 100% established fact. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why you don't find source which could pass WP:MEDRS or even basic WP:RS in general? This is a fake news and you need to stop being obsessed with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.228.147 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Randomly throwing inapplicable policies doesn't do anything. I will help you, the policy that can potentially be applied here against an inclusion would be WP:DUE which is determined by if it has received enough coverage or if other related information is not being presented. In this case the claim has received media coverage from several mainstream publications. Attempting to remove it on the basis that it is "fake news" is in fact an explicitly stated instance of WP:RGW. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * True. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. You are the one trying to WP:RGW big time by promoting lies about covid-19. It is a fake news and no covid-19 spread from this event. You can dedicate a fanpage outside this site if you are so eager to promote this political propagandist but don't use wikipedia for such baseless purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.228.147 (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I should probably mention at this point that calling him a propogandist is potentially a WP:BLP violation (it applies even on talk pages) unless you have reliable sources which do state that he is a "propogandist" in verbatim. None of what you have stated is yet to be substantiated while the content you are trying to remove is substantiated by the sources used. It isn't for us to determine if his claims are factual or not, that would constitute original research. His claims can be included as "allegations" and "claims" with proper attribution to him if they receive the required coverage. Your refusal to engage with the explanations provided to you is a sign of disruptive editing. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 11:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And what is more disruptive and unbelievable is that you still think this fake claim made by a political propagandist requires discussion. Many crackpots, hoaxers are also getting coverage by your so called "mainstream publications" but Wikipedia is not a platform for that. Are you just going to litter this page with each of them and don't care about the relevance/reliability. Bet you never heard of a popular idiom which goes to say "quit beating a dead horse". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.228.147 (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not have 2G spectrum case article which is the result of more propaganda than anything concrete, as the court verdict later found out.--Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are free to nominate it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.228.147 (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I highly recommend reading WP:OR, you can't claim things to be propaganda without appropriate reliable sources explicitly stating so. And even more importantly, you should seriously reconsider continuing to not heed to WP:BLP among all the others. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC
Please consider creating a Request for comment about the topic discussed above, to properly determine consensus. At the moment, it seems to be a matter of who shouts the loudest, and a mixture of personal and content-related arguments, the former of which are not helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe an RfC would be necessary or helpful here. The argument devolved the way it did because the IP address kept on repeating the same thing ignoring any input from others which is just plain disruptive. If you look at the page before the disruption, you will see that there is consensus to include it with attribution which is what I attempted to explain to the IP editor. Unless someone were to illustrate a genuine point against the inclusion, an RfC would be a waste of time and effort. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 00:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * An RFC could be very helpful to prove the required consensus per WP:ONUS, as at least three editors (110.227.228.147, and ) have opposed the inclusion, citing policies that can't be ignored without proper assession of consensus, such as by someone closing an RFC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and have both stated that it violates WP:SOAPBOX once but have not engaged further on why and how. The IP address, kept repeating WP:MEDRS when it is inappropriate in this context, no medical facts are being presented here. Before an RfC becomes necessary, the former two should at least attempt to engage in a discussion here.  Tayi Arajakate  Talk 00:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a claim that this was a transmission nexus for COVID-19 is reasonably called a medical claim. And would need extraordinary evidence under WP:MEDRS to be stated in Wiki voice. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because you don't need more explanation than "WP:SOAPBOX" for eliminating the content in question. Go over the argument made by the IP, he is after all correct that you cannot use a political opponent as a source, or else it is WP:RGW. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was never in question that the claim can not be stated in wiki-voice. The political opponent isn't being used as a source for anything, other than his own words. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 01:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apart from Gujarat state opposition Congress leader Amit Chavda about Trump's visit and the spread coronavirus in the state (discussed here), we also have Maharashtra's ruling Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut's statement in the media: "The event held in Ahmedabad to welcome US President Donald Trump in February was responsible for the spread of coronavirus in Gujarat and later in Mumbai and Delhi, which some of his delegates had visited." Both Amit Chavda's & Sanjay Raut's statements are highly placed statements, carry their own weight, and should be referenced as assertions, NOT something as established facts. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

, I had added it but it was reverted by as WP:RGW, which I don't disagree with. There's no proof that the virus actually spread due to the event, these are just statements. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what even I am saying. Don't add these statements as divine or gospel truth - it is just a significant statement or allegation. We do have Moon landing conspiracy theories - they are significant because some people we believe them, though personally we might not subscribe these views nor can they be termed as established facts. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , absolutely, I had added them with proper attribution anyway, but I think we should not even add the statement here (unless it carries more weight in the future through a proper contact tracing of coronavirus). SerChevalerie (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think there's enough weight already for the allegations to be included. It was widely reported and treated as a singular stance taken by Gujarat Congress and Shiv Sena by the mainstream media; if I remember correctly it also included the filing of a petition in the Gujarat High Court. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 03:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

, that's true, but is not an attempt at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS if it is not proved? SerChevalerie (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Righting great wrongs mostly deals with original research and as long as it is not presented as a statement of fact it wouldn't be so, the existence of the allegation itself is verifiable so the only question that remains is that of due weight. For the matter of due weight, there hasn't been much reported lasting effect of this event other than the reception it has received of which the specific allegation is a significant part. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, so do we add it or not? SerChevalerie (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , In my opinion, we should. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC).
 * , here is something for you to note: In late February, weeks before the pandemic gripped the city, there were frenzied preparations for the high-profile visit of U.S. President Donald Trump to Ahmedabad. A mega event, ‘Namaste Trump’, was scheduled at the Motera Stadium where President Trump and Prime Minister Modi were to address a crowd of 1.25 lakh people. The entire State government machinery and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation were tasked with making arrangements for the ‘Namaste Trump’ event, scheduled on February 24. They spent half of January and the whole of February preparing for the President’s visit. This was despite the fact that nearly a month earlier, on January 30, the World Health Organization (WHO) had declared COVID-19 as a ‘public health emergency of international concern’. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Then the question arises about the exact text to be used. Here is the text that I had added before it was reverted: SerChevalerie (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems alright, although from the refs it looks like Gujarat Congress raised the issue before Sanjay Raut and only attributed the spread in Gujarat to it. I'd suggest a bit more contextualised paragraph; something like this.


 * Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Politicians claim all types of stuff. But as already clarified by IP and Bri above, we shouldn't be using these problematic claims unless backed by a qualified medical source. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Wareon (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:SOAPBOX states that "an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view", while Bri so much as states that "(it) would need extraordinary evidence under WP:MEDRS to be stated in Wiki voice", both of which have been taken into consideration here. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 17:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I like your draft. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 May 2020
Please clean up the bare URLs using tools such as Reflinks. Thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 May 2020 (2)
Please remove the uncited last sentence, supposedly a quote from the U.S. President. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Eek for the above edit. "really up to India" was actually Trumps reaction to the new citizenship law, as we find in The Washington Post. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Request to add information (1)
Please add include the following information in the article as can be referenced from this article - ref(1):

Ahead of US President Donald Trump's visit to Ahmedabad, the Gujarat state government built a new wall at a few patches to hide slums dotting the road through which the presidential convoy was supposed to pass through.

The construction of this wall was protested by social workers (ref(2)).

--Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)



Request to add information (2)
Please add include the following important information in the article:

Trump's visit to India was unofficial. It was criticized by India's main opposition over the 'extravaganza' as it principally served as a promotional tool for the forthcoming US Presidential elections. Its leader Priyanka Gandhi wanted to know asks who is spending an estimated amount of Rs 100 crore for the event. India's Ministry of External Affairs clarified that an organisation Donald Trump Abhinandan Samiti was responsible for felicitating Namaste Trump event.

--Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was unofficial, here is the transcript of the U.S. President's speech on official letterhead from the official White House website. The Hindu called it official travel here. And I don't recongize your ref #1, letesthindinews.unaux.com – not too impressed by their spelling of "Muvies" in the navigation banner either. Is it a blog? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Bri, for asking another source for the first requested input, i.e. Trump's visit to India being unofficial. I've replaced the existing reference with two other references - one from Times of India and another from Huffpost. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Still no. The India Times piece was referring to the Russians' visit as unofficial. The Huffington Post thing is an editorial finishing up with a description of the "unofficial Show-Trump-Only-A-Clean-India drive", clearly about events outside the stadium, plus HuffPo is questionable in any event per WP:RSPS: some editors including this one think "the site reports with a political slant, which makes it biased or opinionated". I'm going to have to ask for a word-for-word RS establishing the U.S. visit as unofficial. Another note, the state-to-state defense purchasing deal made in India is also at odds with the characterization as unofficial. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that Hindustanilanguage should refrain from editing this page. His littering of the page with sloppy criticism and WP:OVERKILL is ruining the page.

2402:3A80:1562:FCEC:4F38:AE65:73AC:6CD0 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Out of the blue assertion. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hindustanilanguage Stop falsifying sources. Your sentence "It was criticized by India's main opposition over the 'extravaganza' as it principally served as a promotional tool for the forthcoming US Presidential elections" is not supported by the sources. After we cut that out what will be left? Just one irrelevant question by Priyanka Gandhi. It is not needed here. 2402:3A80:1562:FCEC:4F38:AE65:73AC:6CD0 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * rejoinder. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * An unregistered IP unilaterally undoes what is discussed and edited, while editors try to unnecessarily apply their minds and discuss issues. Thank you, Bri and Eek for your cooperation. Also umpteen thanks to 2402:3A80:1562:FCEC:4F38:AE65:73AC:6CD0 for your kind intervention. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't change anything whether a person is registered or not. We are discussing the article, there is nothing personal. 2402:3A80:1562:FCEC:4F38:AE65:73AC:6CD0 (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unilateralism does matter. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've asked at WP:EAR for more people to participate. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Official vs unofficial visit
We've had some back-and-forth editing over this. Let's get it straight, then change the text.

The Deccan Herald quotes an official saying a political party organized the event. The tone of the article seemed sceptical to me, stating that "government officials refused to respond when asked about" who is paying. It may be fair to say it was an unofficial event that was part of an official US state visit to India at which more government business was conducted. Official business and official connections appear to include: The officialdom is in question because other sources also stated that government funds were expended, not just on security but on other arrangements specific to the rally. So, with all these questions, I think this takes some extra care in vetting sources before we state in Wiki voice whether it was official or not. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * summit-level defense sales
 * summit-level trade negotiations
 * summit-level 5G infrastructure talks
 * government re-naming of the event (source 7)
 * government funded beautification


 * There was also some discussion/deal over Harley-Davidson. But I agree that for this, as well as to incorporate some concrete stuff about the nature of Trump's visit, we might have to look for some other resources than those cited or discussed at present. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SYNTH and don't add anything which is irrelevant to the event. 2402:3A80:1562:FCEC:4F38:AE65:73AC:6CD0 (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring. Hindustanilanguage has stopped it on his end, but you're continuing. Let this discussion play out before you continue. —  Czello  07:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't be a wannabe police. The dispute was resolved before you revived edit war with your rollback misuse. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it was not resolved. There's currently a thread about this dispute at both EAR and the 3RR noticeboard. What you're currently reverting is the fact that the event was criticised (not whether it's official), which it clearly was. As per the source, "Raising objection over the "extravaganza" being carried out at the Motera Stadium in Gujarat's Ahmedabad, senior Congress spokesperson Anand Sharma asked where the money was coming from and accused the government of hypocrisy." —  Czello  08:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Still the quote you presented does not support the word "criticise". It is made up. 1.38.164.204 (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Loaded terms should be used with extra care. I removed it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The usage of "criticised" hardly qualifies as a loaded term and is semantically consistent with "raising objections" and "accusing" in the context. Replacing that with a "described" as you have done on the other hand is inconsistent with the source and in fact inappropriate taking into consideration that the disruptive IP editors are attempting to do the same. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 18:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Being critical isn't same as being polemical. You need to learn English. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(Fully understanding that I am further taking the original dispute on a tangent:) The whole Times Now article describes how the Congress is unhappy with the event, describing how they wanted some positive outcomes but could only see "extravaganza". Further, it is described that the Congress did not want Modi to "repeat the same mistake" as the Howdy, Modi event. , as described by, the usage of the word "criticised" is justified in this case. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds more like "whinning" or being "polemical" because these remarks ultimately shown their own poor understanding of the event. To say that say congress "lamented" or was "polemical" of the event would make more sense but we can leave it here. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We present the facts as they are and allow the readers to interpret the facts for themselves. SerChevalerie (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "because these remarks ultimately shown their own poor understanding of the event" is an unsubstantiated POV derived from a personal analysis of their conduct and can neither be the reason for whitewashing or for inserting terms which are in fact loaded such as "polemical", "whining" and "lamented". Tayi Arajakate  Talk 06:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * First, @ the IP, the language variety shouldn't be changed arbitrarily (MOS:RETAIN), and per MOS:TIES I believe it should stay Indian English and not be changed to American English. Second, on removing entire bodies of text, if you can make mild adjustments to make a sentence accurate rather than remove a couple of sentences for "not exactly what the source says" (to paraphrase), you should do that. Some of your removals of trivia are good, others not so good.
 * Just a suggestion, perhaps all parties should follow WP:BRD. And as a sidecomment: Czello didn't abuse rollback, because they don't have rollback; they reverted using Twinkle and (for the most part) used edit summaries. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

, So why insert your own analysis that it was a "criticism"? Your own message completely contradicts you. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC) , Congress didn't even knew who organised the event. I didn't said we should add "whinning", but if you want keep engaging in OR then "lamented", "was polemical" would be more justifiable. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @IP user, please reply at the bottom of the thread. I have taken the liberty to format your last few comments.
 * Further, you are taking this discussion in circles, so I am considering it closed. Multiple users have already explained to you why you are wrong (with little support for your disruptive editing), so we have achieved WP:CONSENSUS. SerChevalerie (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is just filibustering at this point. @IP User: Summarising source material is not OR but in fact a requirement to avoid copyvio. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 03:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not depend on headcount and my argument still stands strong. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

We have clearly explained to you why you are wrong and your edits are disruptive. Please stop. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere you described how mere whinning would constitute "criticism". 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We have, you are too obstinate to see it. Your usage of the word "whining" violates WP:NPOV. -- SerChevalerie (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not violate NPOV because I am not adding it on main page. However you are doing original research. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See No original research/Noticeboard. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't original research. The quote makes it clear the event was criticised; as Tayi Arajakate said, criticised is "semantically consistent with "raising objections" and "accusing" in the context." We clearly now have a consensus for it, and meanwhile you're engaging in edit warring, personal attacks, a lack of good faith, and the level of your edits is entering WP:OWN territory. You have even been reported to the 3RR noticeboard. At this point in time I think this should all be a clue to give it up before you get banned. —  Czello  07:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Whinning must not be confused with "critising". It is original research to make up own words and add them on main article. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * SerChevalerie your recent edit supports the word "criticism" so I am fine with the wording now. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@IP user,, the Times Now source in question described in great detail how the opposition party had multiple doubts about the whole issue. The title of the article itself says "Congress fumes over extravaganza". I don't see how it is not an accurate summary of the source to describe it as "criticism". I added a new source now because it was easier than arguing with you here over something so trivial (that others had clearly explained already). Next time please WP:DOITYOURSELF. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Mandela Effect of Namaste Trump
Me and my friends were have just a casual talk and all said this event was in September. We asked strangers too but they said September Bhooteshwar (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)