Talk:Narendra Modi

Covid management under Modi - Successful

Modi oversaw India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which 4.7 million Indians died, according to the World Health Organization's estimates.

Yet another BBC reference , can someone add here India's production of free vaccines.

Seems like covid management was a failure mentioning the number of million people in face The overall case fatality rate in India was 1.2%, which was the lowest among the top 20 worst-affected countries.Publisehd by an offficial website of US ([1])

See the john hoping's university , India is no where : https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Say that under Modi rule , covid management was successful citing these references. Afv12e (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Find multiple reliable sources to say that Covid management "was successful" and that could be reasonable. But we can't just spout statistics and extrapolate from them - see WP:SYNTH. For example, demographics; India has a life expectancy of 70 and a median age of 28.7 - and we know that Covid mostly killed the very elderly. Black Kite (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• BBC was only reporting what WHO said.[2] Don't shoot the messenger. Capitals00 (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No, we cannot say Covid management was successful, as there are several reports and statistics that indicate the opposite and would consider deaths due to the migrant crisis, deaths due to the Oxygen crisis, and so on. Only fatality rate is not enough. Also, What @Capitals00 has pointed seems reliable. Thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 10:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No need of concluding it being success or unsuccess

Instead of highlighting the number of people died , which is having a tone that a huge population died , let's highlight what the us official site says :

The overall case fatality rate in India was 1.2%, which was the lowest among the top 20 worst-affected countries Afv12e (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You don't appear to be listening. Did you read what I said above about SYNTH and statistics? India's CFR will always be lower than other developed countries because it has a much younger population and a shorter life expectancy, given that CFR was directly related to age. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm listening and always up for constructive discussions.

I agree with you and I can see it's evidences in this paper : https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27696/w27696.pdf

But covid management has multiple factors and it was a new experience to the world. covid was not a disease to be treated but to be handled through vaccination.

India stood higherst in the world in terms of vaccination with 98 [3] of people taking atleast one vaccine.

Is it that worth highlighting , where a country having 121 crore population?

This sentence :

Modi oversaw India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which 4.7 million Indians died, according to the World Health Organization's estimates

This sentence looks like modi was insufficient in handling covid pandemic and that made the death of these people.

India has made their own vaccine during the covid time and was freely available to the people to vaccinate.

Why can't we add their also India's own vaccine development and it's free vaccines exports to African countries, when west were failed to give assistance to African countries

Why can't we highlight that ?

https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/policy/india-supplied-made-in-india-covid-vaccines-to-42-african-countries-eam/101009408

https://academic.oup.com/jtm/article/28/7/taab064/6231165

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/10/29/how-did-india-beat-covid-19?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=17210591673&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAvoqsBhB9EiwA9XTWGVnBMoWlAEgG6gqviU6lZD8T922_UxraOr7u3eoqf4lD5Y8gtvPJaxoCq6IQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds Afv12e (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Our discussion here is about Modi government's handling of COVID-19 in India. You have to provide sources to establish how it was successful.

Your first two sources are about vaccine exports and that is irrelevant.

Your last source said: "The plain fact is that, instead, covid-19 beat India. The world watched anxiously in April and May, when the caseloads were climbing almost vertically. The terror was justified. India was gripped by the first outbreak of the Delta variant (briefly called “the Indian variant”, until the WHO insisted on switching to Greek letters). Its ferocity taught lessons that some parts of the world are still learning. Indians died in untold numbers. To judge by the number of excess deaths, something like 4.6m lost their lives because of the pandemic. Those who survived rued the government’s failure to procure vaccines earlier, when India had positioned itself as a pharmaceutical factory for the world."[4]

I wonder if that is what you really wanted to show. Capitals00 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

As others have already said, if you wish to change the article text, you need to provide reliable sources supporting a different narrative without relying on original research. Indian vaccine manufacturing isn't relevant unless RS say it is, and unless RS make the connection to the Modi administration's policy (which, for deaths, they do). Vanamonde (Talk) 04:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is the reliable source publishing study by lancet. Add this fact "Vaccines against COVID-19 prevented over 42 lakh deaths in India in 2021, said a study published in Lancet Infectious Diseases, which based its findings on estimates of “excess” mortalities in the country during the pandemic." BlackOrchidd (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, though, that's simply a number. Is it good or bad? How does it compare with other countries? We need equivalent information from other countries or saying this is "good" or "bad" is simply WP:SYNTH. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I dont ask to add whether this is "good" or "bad". I only ask to add a scintific study carried out by Lancet to be added BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If the reader has no context to that figure, it is meaningless to them. It's a fact (or is at least claimed to be by the authors of the study), but it is not a useful fact. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, could we have the direct link to the Lancet article? This is what would need to be quoted in the article. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

As BK says, this needs context; specifically, context tying it to actions or policies of the Modi government. The death statistics explicitly are tied to the administration by reliable sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The context is clear. Death stats by WHO is independent of death prvention(as studied by peer reviewed medical journal Lancet) by COVID vaccine developed by India and the same is in line with deaths claimed by India. All the sides(backed by RS) must be presented neutrally with attribution. NPOVBlackOrchidd (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No, the context is NOT clear. For example, if I reliable sourced that there were 120,000 deaths from Covid in Spain, and 180,000 in Germany, which country would you say has dealt with it better? Well, you could argue that Germany has more deaths. But someone else could also argue that Germany has fewer deaths per head of population than Spain, because it's population is much greater - but you didn't know that from the statistic I presented. And that's a very simple example, because the effects of Covid on various countries had multiple different drivers as to whether they were higher or lower. Which is why we don't present statistics without context. Also - again - could we have the Lancet article weblink, please, since the Hindu article is hidden behind a registration wall? Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Black Kite , you are confused between context and conclusion. I am not worried here that which country has done better and which country has done worse. This is encyclopedia not a critics journal, don't getby the heading of this thread. BlackOrchidd (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Having been here 17 years, I am aware this is an encyclopedia. Again - can we have the Lancet link, please? Even if the content is suitable, we cannot assess the quality of the source without it. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok , submitting hereBlackOrchidd (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the Lancet study titled Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study. And here is the country wise infographics depicting Median deaths averted by vaccinations per 10 000 people by country in the first year of COVID-19 vaccination. The lead author of this study Oliver Watson from the Imperial College London, quoted this "For India, we estimate that 42,10,000 deaths were prevented by vaccination in this period. This is our central estimate, with the uncertainty in this estimate ranging between 36,65,000-43,70,000," to PTIBlackOrchidd (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think this fits here. The Lancet study is about the efficacy of covid vaccinations in general and not about the actions or policies of any particular government. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Regents, thats a weird arguement. For the first time I am hearing somebody say that fact from the study of a peer reviewed, world's highest-impact academic reputed journal didnt "fits here" BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't fit here because this article is a biography of Modi and the study is about the efficacy of covid vaccinations in general and not about the actions or policies of any particular government. Deriving that this is Modi govt's achievement based on the study is simply WP:SYNTH. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  @ BlackOrchidd (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Server, its not about writing about achievement. Its stating a fact from Lancet. BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  And I have a fact that Earth is round, doesn't mean I get to state that in an unrelated article. You're missing the context as to why that "fact" needs to be mentioned here. Is it because of Modi's policies and governance? If so, please bring a source that examines that as the presented study doesn't do that. Also, please read WP:SYNTH. It seems to be pretty clear that you'll need a better understanding of that policy. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  "Earth is round" Nice word play. Well, what could be bigger "action" that India under Modi's leadership developed homegrown pandemic vaccine with an impeccable efficacy studied by the world's lagest peer reviweed journal Lancet. And further administered over 2.2 billion doses overall. BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is the contextBlackOrchidd (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Modi oversaw India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which 4.7 million Indians died, according to the World Health Organization's estimates.

  This sentence itself has no relevance in Wikipedia article.

  Ever countries' president/prime minister oversaw covid-19 response. It is not relevant to mention here.

  Why to mention 4.7 million Indians died here ? How is it associated with Narendra Modi?

  Entire article lacks neutrality and written in way from someone's point of view and agenda. Afv12e (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hang on a second. You wanted a claim that 4.2m lives were "saved" by vaccination in India in this article, but don't want to mention the death toll from COVID-19 because it's "not relevant"? You can't have it both ways. Have a look at Boris_Johnson#COVID-19 pandemic, for example. Most countries' leader's reaction to COVID-19 are mentioned in their articles, whether that be positive or negative (and Johnson's is quite clearly negative). Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Black, why did you want to put your word in Af's mouth. Where did he said "4.2m lives were "saved" by vaccination in India"? BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies, it was you that wanted to include that statistic. But the point still remains - statistics are just that without context. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  "India under Modi's leadership developed homegrown pandemic vaccine and its efficacy studied by the world's largest peer reviweed journal Lancet, which states 4.2 million deaths were prevented by vaccination in this period. And further administered over 2.2 billion doses overall." This is the context BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Lot's of leaps here. The lancet article only says that 4.2 million deaths were prevented by vaccination. It doesn't say which vaccine (India used both its own vaccine plus the astra Zeneca version). And, of course, perhaps more lives could have been saved by a better vaccination job or more lives lost by a worse vaccination job! The point of that article is that vaccination overall was effective, not that India, or Europe, or wherever did a particularly good or bad job. The correct place for this information is in COVID-19 pandemic in India (which is hopelessly dated and fixing it, if you care about wikipedia, might be a good use of your time). --RegentsPark (comment) 17:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark

  Modi oversaw India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which 4.7 million Indians died, according to the World Health Organization's estimates

  This means that 4.7 million people died just because modi has mishandled and failed in the covid response in india.

  Is that true ? Afv12e (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Lets fix the leap. "India under Modi's leadership developed Covid pandemic vaccine and its efficacy studied by the world's largest peer reviweed journal Lancet. The study conducted by Lancet states 4.2 million deaths were prevented by all the vaccines combined in this period. And further administered over 2.2 billion doses overall." BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please do the work and provide the articles rather than a category? God knows which article you're referring to!! The Lancet says 4.2 million but does it say it's because of Modi or does it say it's because of vaccination? If they didn't attribute the figure to Modi, we may not use Lancet to do so.

  It's probably the time for someone to be rather blunt now. Let me try. This is getting into loops and loops with you not being able to comprehend that "if the sources did not attribute A to B, we cannot do the same in Wikipedia". — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Plz do the effort of going through the thread to find out the artciles I have given in support of my argument BlackOrchidd (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, one point if you're going to raise the "homegrown vaccine" issue - 80% of vaccinations (1.75bn out of 2.2bn) in India were with Covishield, which is the Astra-Zeneca vaccine developed in the UK, manufactured under license in India. Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Lets fix it. "India under Modi's leadership indigeneously developed Covid pandemic vaccine Covaxin. According to a study that was published in Infectious Diseases journal The Lancet , vaccinations avoided almost 4.2 million possible deaths in India in 2021. The study's conclusions were based on estimates of "excess" mortalities that occurred in the nation during the pandemic. India administered over 2.2 billion Covid-19 vaccination doses overall in the time spam of 18 months." BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nah. This is nonsense. All nations had a duty to vaccinate their citizens. Just because India has 1.4 billion people, you can't say that the ineffectual vaccine Covaxin, which most Indians avoided like the plague, saved 1.4 billion lives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Dear Fowler&fowler, please provide the source for your your unfounded claim of "ineffectual vaccine Covaxin, which most Indians avoided like the plague". If you can't, this just simply shows just how non-sensical your claim is, and thus, reflects on your other arguments when this one is taken into whole picture.

  Also, if it is explicitly mentioned "Modi oversaw India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic", then there shall be no issues with forwarding BlackOrchidd's arguments. 157.34.23.157 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, please don't boldface your answers. We can read the simple unbolded font just fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Here are some references:

  • "At the country level, the highest numbers of cumulative excess deaths due to COVID-19 were estimated in India (4·07 million [3·71–4·36]), the USA (1·13 million [1·08–1·18]), Russia (1·07 million [1·06–1·08]), Mexico (798 000 [741 000–867 000]), Brazil (792 000 [730 000–847 000]), Indonesia (736 000 [594 000–955 000]), and Pakistan (664 000 [498 000–847 000])." Lancet. 2022 Apr 16; 399(10334): 1513–1536. Lead author: Haidong Wang, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, and nearly 100 coauthors.

  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  • "Key findings:Total excess deaths, Globally, there were nearly 15 million excess deaths which is about 13 per cent above those expected. Countries in the ESCAP region accounted for more than half of these deaths, with 8.2 million excess deaths. Most of the excess deaths in the region were accounted for by just three countries: India (4.7 million), Russian Federation (1.1 million) and Indonesia (1 million), with these numbers considerably higher than the official COVID-19 numbers reported." United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, "Excess mortality estimates: how many people have really died in the COVID-19 pandemic", 19 August, 2022

  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  "you can't say that the ineffectual vaccine Covaxin, which most Indians avoided like the plague, saved 1.4 billion lives." I never said this. Plz read my argument again BlackOrchidd (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  https://www.mygov.in/corona-data/covid19-statewise-status/

  Why this data on Covid death is not mentioned anywhere in this article?

  The total death is 5.33 Lakh according to this article.

  If you read third line it mention each state report data individually. This is a platform which aggregate all districts data. Around 2021 there were 13 states which was not ruled by NDA government. The mortality number in this site should be mentioned somewhere 117.213.8.141 (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  +1 BlackOrchidd (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Your suggested paragraph above insinuates that Covaxin saved 4.2m deaths (it didn't), and it also suggests that 2.2bn doses of Covaxin were applied (they weren't). Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

BlackOrchidd, please go read WP:NOR, particularly the section on synthesis, and return when you have fully understood it. Your desired addition has never complied with that policy. You need to find much better sources, or accept that the sources don't support what you would like them to, and move on. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Kite, Where did I said "Covaxin saved 4.2m deaths" & "2.2bn doses of Covaxin were applied"?

• Fixing for more clarity "India under Modi's leadership indigeneously developed Covid pandemic vaccine Covaxin. According to a study that was published in Infectious Diseases journal The Lancet , vaccinations by foreign and indigenous vaccines combined avoided about 4.2 million possible deaths in India in 2021. The study's conclusions were based on estimates of "excess" mortalities that occurred in the nation during the pandemic. India administered over 2.2 billion Covid-19 vaccination doses(indigenous & foreign vaccines combined) overall in the time spam of 18 months"

BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Better, but I think you'd still need to mention that the vast majority of vaccines were AZ, for the reason I mentioned. There's also the issue of "avoided" deaths vs excess deaths as pointed out by Fowler&Fowler above, otherwise you're only citing one half of the narrative. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This really has no place in this article. The lancet article is making a bland statement about the efficacy of vaccines, the 4.2 million number is attributed to vaccinations rather than to the actions of the government. Definitely include it in the covid pandemic in India article but not here. However, I do think the covaxin development should be included here (assuming it is not already) because that is a government initiative under Modi. (Also, is there a reason for the separate existence of Premiership of Narendra Modi article if everything is also going to be included here?)RegentsPark (comment) 15:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, about the substance. The premiership article in theory is a valid spinoff, allowing a much greater degree of detail (and articles on various aspects of policy would be further spinoffs). In practice drive-by accounts care much more about this page, and established editors don't have the time to maintain and expand the sub-articles. Something like Foreign policy of the Narendra Modi government is consequently a disaster; it's announcements coupled with Modi's travel itinerary, with no substance about policy. As such I'm not sure the spinoffs are really adding value, but I'd still oppose a merger because we'd end up with any amount of trivial detail on this page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Is vaccination not action of government?

Kindly answer, because I want to know whether you think vaccination was done by government, or otherwise. Waiting an answer for my question in bold, please do not play around words and answer directly. 157.34.23.157 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

yes it is one of the action amongst many in response to the pandemic BlackOrchidd (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was asking to RegentsPark about their statement - "the 4.2 million number is attributed to vaccinations rather than to the actions of the government.", not you. 49.35.232.180 (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

you can ping him @RegentsPark BlackOrchidd (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

+Suggestions. "India under Modi's leadership indigeneously developed Covid pandemic vaccine Covaxin. According to a study that was published in Infectious Diseases journal The Lancet , vaccinations by foreign and indigenous vaccines combined avoided about 4.2 million possible deaths in India in 2021. The study's conclusions were based on estimates of "excess" mortalities that occurred in the nation during the pandemic. India administered over 2.2 billion Covid-19 vaccination doses(indigenous & foreign vaccines combined) overall in the time spam of 18 months, the majority of vaccines administered was AstraZeneca. BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

A better idea would be to include this sentence in WP:SYNTH as an excellent example. I note that you've been referred to WP:SYNTH many (six?) times in the above discussion but you don't seem to have read it yet. Give it a shot when you have a spare moment. RegentsPark (comment) 16:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I dednt see this as synthesis, care to point? BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

There are no original research in my statement and there is no conclusion either. Point any if you find, we will work out. BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Gentle reminder BlackOrchidd (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more I can say. The bottom line is that the lancet article is not about Modi's handling of the covid crisis and therefore it has no place in this article. Any use of it to make some point about Modi and the crisis is going to be WP:SYNTH. RegentsPark (comment) 20:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

+Suggestions. "India, under Modi's leadership, indigenously developed Covid pandemic vaccine Covaxin. According to a study that was published in the Infectious Diseases journal The Lancet, vaccinations by foreign and indigenous vaccines combined avoided about 4.2 million possible deaths in India in 2021. The study's conclusions were based on estimates of "excess" mortalities that occurred in the nation during the pandemic. However, as per the WHO estimate, the total COVID deaths in India stand at 4 million. India administered over 2.2 billion COVID-19 vaccination doses (indigenous and foreign vaccines combined) overall in the span of 18 months, the majority of vaccines administered were AstraZeneca. BlackOrchidd (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested comments as per above thread. BlackOrchidd (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@BlackOrchidd, RegentsPark: I mean, what is true is that the current wording is an example of lying with statistics. Saying in the lead that "4.7 million Indians died" during the pandemic is meaningless without expressing this as a proportion of the total population; the same goes for the statement further down, that "India's death toll was thus the highest worldwide, accounting for more than 20% of all Covid deaths.[349]" I mean, duh, India is the most populous nation on the planet. 4.7 million out of nearly 1.5 billion is a rather better rate than the UK (232,000 out of a population of 67 million). Could we agree to do a bit of work on those statements, without engaging in SYNTH? Andreas JN466 20:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Section break

To be honest @Jayen466 and BlackOrchidd:, I hadn't looked carefully at the text in the article but was merely responding to the lancet study inclusion discussion. Using that article as a comment on the Modi administration's response to COVID-19 is clearly synth. Now that I have, I think it does need some rewording. Note, though, that the statement on total deaths is not about total deaths but rather about the difference between the WHO estimate and the Indian government estimate. Also, it may be synth to add India's population when discussing the WHO estimate, unless a cited source is available. For the entire covid para, I suggest the following:

In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Modi administration invoked the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Disaster Management Act, 2005.[336][337] A 14-hour curfew was initiated on 22 March,[339] and a three-week "total lockdown" two days later.[340][341] Restrictions were gradually lifted beginning in April 2020, and were completely revoked in November 2020.[338][342][343] Beginning in March 2021, the delta variant was significantly more devastating and parts of India experienced shortages of vaccines, hospital beds, oxygen cylinders and other medical supplies.[344] India began its vaccination programme in January 2021;[346][347], using an indigenously developed vaccine (COVAXIN) (citation) and (whatever other vaccines it used) (citation) and, by January 2022, more than 720 million people were fully vaccinated with about 1.7 billion doses.[348] According to government estimates xyzzy people died of COVID-19 in India (citation) though, according to WHO estimates, the actual figure is closer to 4.7 million people.(citation)

There may be more we can add about the government response to the delta variant and its significance in the number of deaths. But, beyond a general statement that content here should be minimal and clearly associated with the Modi administration, I'm not qualified to do that. I'm pinging others who have contributed to this discussion and are likely better versed on the topic than I am. @Afv12e, Black Kite, Capitals00, 25 Cents FC, Vanamonde93, DaxServer, and Fowler&fowler: --RegentsPark (comment) 15:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Broadly in agreement ... the main point of criticism, if any, should be the discrepancy between Indian government figures and WHO estimates, rather than the overall death toll of 4.7 million per se. The latter is a result which – for whatever reason – compares quite favourably even to more developed countries' death tolls per million. Andreas JN466 15:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I wonder who would want to praise Modi administration over COVID in the light of researches like this. Capitals00 (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm broadly okay with this. I agree the mention of India's population in the lead is synthesis, but there's been enough edit-warring over it that I didn't want to prolong it further. We're also glossing over a lot in the lead; Modi's initial handling of the pandemic was in fact praised by health experts, but was sharply criticized later, particularly during the Delta wave. I don't think we can cover all that. I think the proposal above does overcome some of the NOTNEWS problems in the current version, so I would support it. I also think the explicit contrast between WHO and Indian government estimates needs to remain. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm traveling, @RegentsPark:. Generally agree with your paragraph. Here are a few additional points.

(a) Modi's lockdown was an unmitigated logistical and social disaster that caused untold suffering to the urban poor in India.

(b) Covaxin is an old fashioned rudimentary vaccine, the only kind that India's federal establishment could produce in short order. Predictably, its effectiveness was in the range of 45%. Whether the funds employed in its development might have been better used in importing mRNA vaccines (such as Pfizer and Moderna) or increasing the production in India of the Oxford-Astra-Zeneca vaccine, I can't tell. Covaxin orders were canceled by several foreign governments and WHO, after giving it failing grades, OK'd it half-heartedly very late in the pandemic.

(c) The excess mortality in India during COVID-19 is in the range of 4.7 million deaths (WHO's study authored by nearly 100 scientists is the most respected), nearly ten times the official Indian estimate. The UN/ESCAP report is a good source to cite.

(d) That India held up the release of the WHO report by nearly six months (NY Times) was perhaps more symptomatic of something (e.g. the Indian government's unprincipled nationalism (COP 2? in Glasgow was another example)).

(e) The sources are not hard to find. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"the WHO accorded Emergency use listing (EUL) approval to Covaxin on 3 November 2021 after several delays, its Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) having previously recommended two doses spaced 4 weeks apart in all adults (15). Several South American and African nations have also been using it in their programs, though not without reservations."[5] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

UN/ESCAP, though a blog, is a good summary.[6] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"GLASGOW, SCOTLAND—COP26 president Alok Sharma held back tears as he accepted India’s last-minute motion to weaken the summit’s pledge to “phase out” coal. Sharma had been saying for months that he wanted COP26 to “consign coal to history.” And until India insisted otherwise at the 11th hour, it looked like the summit might achieve that scientifically imperative task."[7] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

A new example of the unprincipled nationalism, barely several weeks old, is the Indian government's fully shutting off the water of the Ravi river just before it enters Pakistan, i.e. via a dam, and thereby affecting the complex ecology (the flora and fauna) of the river system. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

And this is one of the Rigvedic rivers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Rigvedic river on Modi's page? I think fowler is having jet lag short of thing. They added nothing useful today. BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• @BlackOrchidd could you include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue per WP:RFCOPEN? Just pointing to 67 comments isn't very helpful. Nemov (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  +1. Andreas JN466 18:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: What's the question or proposal? Reading a discussion doesn't help clarify that and TL:DR. TarnishedPath^talk 01:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: As a very general comment, this is a complicated situation. There are good and bad aspects of history to choose from. Other factors, such as politics and India's population size and young age, also come into play. It would be difficult to say whether the outbreak was managed "successfully" by Modi without more solid sources. Senorangel (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Nemov for pointing. I will try to summarize and give you pointed question soon. BlackOrchidd (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: this RFC is not about Covid management under Modi - Successful

My questions are

• Question-1: 2.2 Billion Vaccines : India administered over 2.2 billion COVID-19 vaccination doses in the span of 18 months.

• Question-2: COVID vaccine: indegeneously developed by India under Modi's "Atmanirbhar Bharat" Initiative.

• Question-3: Lancet study: study that was published in the Infectious Diseases journal The Lancet, vaccinations by foreign and indigenous vaccines combined avoided about 4.2 million possible deaths in India in 2021.

In this thread I was arguing about whether the above informations can be conveniently added to the article?

• I'm pulling the plug on this RFC. It still fails to ask a brief, neutral question. Nemov (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Nemov, I asked in the RFC for the inclusion of 3 points which you removed. Going by your suggestion I could more shorten the question. But, i didnt get the how really this RFC was non-neutral BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Because you're asking whether it's OK only to include "positive" statistics about COVID under Modi, without any context (or indeed any of the less positive statistics or facts). This is, of course, non-neutral. I would have thought that this would have been obvious from the lengthy discussion above by now. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Eight times the word "COVID" is mentioned in the article. All the instances are used negatively for Mr Modi from "parody Ig Nobel Prize" to "Modi oversaw India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which 4.7 million out of 1.4 billion Indians died,". Rightly pointed above by @Afv12e that "This sentence looks like modi was insufficient in handling covid pandemic and that made the death of these people." Truckload of peoples on this talk page talk about the neutrality of the article. If one goes through the archieves, they can easily find it. Remember NPOV is not the neutrality of the article but neutrality in editing . @Black Kite by consistently resisiting to add any positive events about Modi for COVID you are indicating a non neutral behaviour. And as far as the the "context " is concerned I have already given the context above in this thread BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I (and others) have already pointed out the problems with adding those particular three statements without any context multiple times. If you can write an actual neutral prose paragraph that doesn't cause an issue with WP:SYNTH on the topic and offer it up to the community via an RFC, then we could get somewhere. At the moment, we're going round in circles. Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Here is the context "India, under Modi's leadership, indigenously developed Covid pandemic vaccine Covaxin. According to a study that was published in the Infectious Diseases journal The Lancet, vaccinations by foreign and indigenous vaccines combined avoided about 4.2 million possible deaths in India in 2021. The study's conclusions were based on estimates of "excess" mortalities that occurred in the nation during the pandemic. However, as per the WHO estimate, the total COVID deaths in India stand at 4 million. India administered over 2.2 billion COVID-19 vaccination doses (indigenous and foreign vaccines combined) overall in the span of 18 months, the majority of vaccines administered were AstraZeneca. BlackOrchidd (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

RSS, NCC, Ramkrishna Mission. Why only RSS is mentioned prominently?

Modi joined NCC in his chilhood days. Why only RSS is mentioned so prominently? BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

ANd surprisingly, NCC & Ramkrishna Mission has zero mention in this page BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

seems like nobody got an answerBlackOrchidd (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. If you think the material is WP:DUE and is well sourced, add it yourself. Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I've an answer here, actually; which is that Modi's link to the RSS is widely covered in reliable sources about Modi, whereas affiliation with any other groups barely receive mention. Note that the source you've provided attributes the claim to Modi's website; if an independent source makes the claim, I've yet to see it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"the source you've provided attributes the claim to Modi's website" Pretty true.

• What do you think, from where the info about Modi's RSS affiliation comes from? RSS never gives formal membership/certificate. The claim is based on heresay and/or the declaration by Modi himself in some of his interviews/journals/books etc. Vana, you would like to read the book by Andy Marino which is used as ref in this page where Marino talks about Modi's connection with RSS based on more than half a dozen interviews with Modi. BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I have read a decent bit of that book. The difference between that and Modi's NCC membership is that Marino, and dozens of other reliable secondary sources, describe Modi's RSS involvement in their own voice, meaning we can state it as fact. As things stand, I'm not seeing such sources for NCC membership. Please read WP:YESPOV and WP:DUE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Vana, here you go BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources:~:text=Reputable tertiary sources,WP:SELFSOURCE). BlackOrchidd (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The NCC website is a primary source, as you would know if you had read the guidelines you link to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there are no more arguements left, its better to invole an uninvoled admin at this point of time BlackOrchidd (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

People have stopped responding to you because you have not provided the sort of sources needed to include the content you want in the article. All you've done is repeat yourself; at some point you're going to be ignored. That does not mean you have consensus for your change, quite the contrary. Feel free to ping as many uninvolved admins as you'd like, but they're not going to take a position on the content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you didnt read my content thoroughly WP:READFIRST. For your ref I am again pasting the source [8]https://indiancc.nic.in/prominent-alumini/

BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 +Reminder BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added a reference to Modi's childhood NCC membership, based on Chaturvedi, Arvind (2020-08-28). The Real Modi: The Man Who Would be Prime Minister. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-93-88414-96-8. Andreas JN466 13:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Going by the publisher's description, the book is obviously aimed to market Modi — "A thrilling read, this is an account of Modi's life experiences before becoming the prime minister and the lessons and wisdom that he gathered on the way." It is far from an academic work — not that it claims to be one — and unsurprisingly, the book is endorsed by Modi himself. The author appears to be some barely-known journalist and has written no work of significance prior to this.

So, in light of the fact that much of Modi's early life is hazy (the education controversy, etc.) and that Jaffrelot, et al have noted a tendency to hagiographize him, this is an unreliable source. Arguendo, even if I accord marginal reliability, passage of DUE remains to be shown. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt that there is a lot of hagiography out there, but are there any sources out there saying Modi's specific claim to have been an NCC member as a kid is false, and the various pictures he publicised are fake? If there are, I'd be interested to read them; otherwise it seems an odd thing to argue about.

For what it's worth, a mention in a scholarly source is here: Perwita, Anak Agung Banyu (2019-11-30). "The Modi Factor: The Role Of Narendra Modi's Idiosyncratic Factors In India's Foreign Policy Responses Towards China Pakistan Economic Corridor". Andalas Journal of International Studies (AJIS). 8 (2): 117–142. ISSN 2355-9500. Andreas JN466 14:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

DUE needs to be met with; a Wikipedia article is not a dumpyard of whatever can be scraped from the interwebs. As to the journal, it is a fringe venue and unindexed in any bibliographic database of repute. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

How about this one then:

• NP, Ullekh (2015-01-26). War Room: The People, Tactics and Technology behind Narendra Modi's 2014 Win. Roli Books Private Limited. ISBN 978-93-5194-068-5.

The author does have some international standing and surely isn't a mere Modi hagiographer? Andreas JN466 08:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Andreas The author has good reach. You may go ahead and add BlackOrchidd (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dougweller could add? BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 Bloomsbury Publishing plc is a British worldwide publishing house of fiction and non-fiction. Bloomsbury's head office is located in Bloomsbury, an area of the London Borough of Camden. Listed in [https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bloomsbury-publishing-lse:bmy-price-target-increased-by-7.17-to-609.45 Nasdaq]. Good source to use. In case of doubt RS notice board is proper place to discuss. BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

Remove "right wing" in first paragraph. 2402:8100:303E:A115:130D:47B8:DC0F:C203 (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Jamedeus (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 February 2024

please change" A Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against him" to "A Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence of Modi's involvement in 2002 Gujrat riots to initiate prosecution proceedings against him"

•  Not done The context of the sentence is already clear, and the suggested one is not good English. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackOrchidd (talk • contribs) 07:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Writing is so one sided to create a narrative

Recent additions in summary page can be added as controversy or something else as subtopic. Current entire summary just tries to mention a politician with having one of the highest rating as killer of Muslim community which is not right at all as well not justifiable. Also, summary literally just focus on negatives, creates a false-narrative. If writers only wants to focus on writing negative about a leader, make a subcategory as negatives of Modi and put them there. Why such updates are allowed to be written at first place in summary of a leader with such high stature. If there are disliking or bad decisions or controversies can be a subtopic, not part of a summary. Also, thise things are already mentioned in details as well. Give proper justice to personality when writing about him. 142.122.91.180 (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

As covid-19 death mentioned with numbers of death. Mention ‘Vaccine Maitri’ initiative started by Modi government.

One of the best thing India did during Covid-19 was gifting vaccine to developing and poor countries when vaccine were exclusive to mostly developed nations. Because of Vaccine Maitri, many poor country and developing nations got vaccine to safeguard their first responders and medical staff. Even Brazilian President as well Guyanese president and many leaders from African nations had thank PM Modi for this. This page Vaccine Maitri needs to be mentioned. 142.122.91.180 (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Mentions of Modi government reforms and schemes

Modi has initiated great schemes which created base for modern India, which are ‘Digital India’, ‘Made in India’, ‘Jan Dhan Yogna’, ‘Smart Cities Mission’, ‘Ayushman Bharat Yogja’, ‘PM JAY’ (world’s largest health insurance scheme), ‘National Digital Health Mission’, ‘PM-KISAN’, ‘PM GKY’, ‘PM Surya Ghar’, ‘PM AWAS’ etc . All those has done fabulous work for Indian citizens. None of those mentioned in summary and most are missing in details. 142.122.91.180 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

no point. no mention of chandrayaan or any other achievement of india under his tenure like current gdp growth of 8.4 percent which is unexpected and unprecedented throughout the world? no one is even close. why it is not even mentioned? only negatives? and that too in lede? like all the negatives and rumors you can find. lede feels like modi kills muslims on sight. like what?he has been prime minister since 2014, did so much for india and indian people and all these editors and admins can talk about is 2002,farmer protest etc etc. i mean if india achieves something then its the people, the scientists, the previous government etc etc is responsible not pm but even if a random madman out of a billion people lynches someone for some random reason in pms tenure , its the responsibility of the pm???? i mean if your soros filter dose not allow you to add these points, someone atleast put a neutrality template in the article. but its highly unlikely it will stay. 2409:40E3:6E:A553:551A:5462:F682:7558 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear IP, you can register and use RFC for this where the opinion of numerous editors will be helpful in adding the content BlackOrchidd (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

nah. its hopeless. i refuse to believe no one ever challenged it before. its of no use. modi is targeted world wide. not gonna waste my time and energy. i only ask for neutrality disputed tag .it would be fair. no ones gonna mention things like how left wing think tanks puts india below pakistan in hunger index and then cry when india bans export of rice.

heres one more current news btw which you'll never see in the article: The American think tank Brookings Institution, in its latest report, lauded India for eliminating extreme poverty, marking a significant milestone in the nation's socio-economic landscape. Authored by economists Surjit Bhalla and Karan Bhasin, the report attributes the achievement to the Indian government's robust policy initiatives focused on redistribution, fostering inclusive growth throughout the past decade.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-has-eliminated-extreme-poverty-says-us-think-tank-brookings-5162867

https://indianexpress.com/article/business/india-eliminated-extreme-poverty-brookings-report-9192018/

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/economy/story/india-has-officially-eliminated-extreme-poverty-says-us-think-tank-brookings-report-419770-2024-03-02 2409:40E3:6E:A553:1D6A:EE82:E7E7:BB1D (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You can use dispute resolution to tag non-involved administrators and arbitrators. If you find any editor biased, take them to the admin noticeboard BlackOrchidd (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

"Request for Comment"

Should the COVID coverage on this page include the indegenous development of the COVID vaccine COVAXIN? BlackOrchidd (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Reviewing the discussion above there doesn't appear to be any logical reason to include this information. This addition requires WP:SYNTH so this an easy no per WP:NOR. In stronger terms, this RFC should be withdrawn and the stick should be dropped. Thanks - Nemov (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose No per Nemov. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Nemov: no proposal has been put forward that does not violate WP:SYNTH. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose (bot-summoned) nothing to note that has not already been discussed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Plz add "The national Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM)"

Add following "The national Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM) was introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on September 27, 2021. Its goal is to establish an online platform that facilitates interoperability across the digital health ecosystem. Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission provide a digital health ID, which will allow their medical records to be safely stored online." in this section Narendra Modi#Health and sanitation.

[9]https://www.financialexpress.com/healthcare/healthtech/nha-organises-multi-stakeholder-meet-for-ayushman-bharat-digital-mission-microsites-in-delhi/3342689/

[10]https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/up-awarded-for-work-in-pm-health-scheme-pmjay-ayushman-bharat-digital-mission-4426714

[11]https://www.business-standard.com/health/first-abdm-microsite-under-nha-100-microsites-project-launched-in-mizoram-123082300324_1.html

[12]https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/ayushman-bharat-digital-mission-dharwad-district-hospital-tops-the-country-in-linking-highest-number-of-health-records-in-the-last-year/article67353326.ece

[13]https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/revolutionising-healthcare-and-empowering-patients-with-ayushman-bharat-digital-mission-86221/ BlackOrchidd (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done please provide reliable sources that document this initiative substantively and show that it is a large part of Modi's legacy, rather than just news sources covering announcements of it. There are literally hundreds of programs started by this government (as by any government); we cannot cover them all in a biography, and WP:DUE must be met for any individual piece of information to be included. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 NDTV, The Hindu, Financial Express, Business Standard and on other occasion Lancet are not reliable sources? You have used The Wire diff to state that The percentage of the budget spent on children's nutrition, education, health, and associated programs was reduced by nearly half by the Modi administration between 2014 and 2022. and didnt care if this is a news source or not .

Whats wrong in covering Mr Modi's governance initiative, there is a separate section for that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narendra_Modi#Governance_and_other_initiatives [14]

You have done 5.25% of the total edits made to the page. All of them neagively. At this point I can understand, this is your concious effort to make this article into negative light. Plz follow wikipillar NPOV. Consider this as a warning. Any further violation of NPOv and you will be reported at Admin's noticeboard. Thanks * Best WishesBlackOrchidd (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 is not saying that these are not reliable sources. He is saying that if we included every single government initiative, the article would be so bloated that it would be unreadable. Is there a particular reason why this one is important enough to be in the Modi article, since pretty much all of the sources don't mention Modi at all? Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I've spent several years trying to bring this article into line with the best sources on the subject. If you would like to bring that to a noticeboard, by all means do so. Be aware that "your concious (sic) effort to make this article into negative light" is the sort of personal commentary that isn't permitted on talk pages. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I think its perfectly fine, untill you defend it. gazillions of peoples talk of neutrality of this article see archives plz see WP:NEUTRALEDITOR BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 And your 615 edits (5.65% of total edits ) indeed gives an obvious pattern BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@BlackOrchidd I believe you already are aware of dispute resolution, given that you started 2 RfCs here. Please have another read at that page and see if other processes would help your cause instead of attacking based on the number of edits made. You must stop that. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Non-useful ranting

100% agreed here. Most people read mainly first few paragraphs of anyone. In case of Narendra Modi, all I see written is negative or negatively put sentences. He has never lost elections and reason for that his developed work & vision for his state and now for the country. But, as person who don’t know about him checks out this wiki page, all he see is negatives, turned him into right-wing & Nazi, based on some articles written by some organization or person who are known left or far-left wing, and considered as source of truth while those articles are mere an opinions than facts. 50.101.117.133 (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC) +1 BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC) its not gonna change in one discussion or day , the problem runs deeper. just keep taking notes of these admins and keep an eye on their every move keep collecting patterns and evidence. one day truth will surely win. evil cannot reign forever. 2409:40E3:55:3345:C19D:557:F850:611E (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC) and also wait for the wiki meltdown of yogi 2028.it would be pure comedy gold. 2409:40E3:55:3345:C19D:557:F850:611E (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Thing is anything positive you ask to put here, they reject saying give a good source, while negatives are put based on some opinionated articles. 50.101.117.133 (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you it's not "perfectly fine". Whilst it's not a personal attack to accuse another editor of being biased on a contentious article, you'd better have some excellent evidence to back up that accusation, or it then is a personal attack. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)