This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Business High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India: Gujarat Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Top-importance). This article was last assessed in September 2012. Materials Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Mining Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Transport Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

User:Ratnahastin has revered my six edits to the lead, and asked that they be discussed here on the talk page before being implemented.

Those edits were:

• Added links for "Supreme Court" to reference Supreme Court of India, Securities and Exchange Board of India, military drone, war in Gaza
• Removed "+" after "~36,000"
• Removed sentence that is too detailed for the lead and is already summarized by the previous sentence. Readers can refer to the body of the article. The sentence that removed was: "According to bloomberg report the Supreme Court of India instructed SEBI to conclude its investigation into the Adani Group within three months, clearing the company from further probes in the Hindenburg saga."(with reference). The previous sentence was: "In May 2024, the Adani Group's market capitalization returned to over $200 billion after the Supreme Court directed the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to expedite its investigation."
• Capitalization of "bloomberg", add link for Bloomberg News.
• Remove India from Ahmedabad, India. It's already stated the company is Indian.

Please comment. ReferenceMan (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. You can restore your edits. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two points -

(*) Four months after the charges leveled against Adani, in May 2023, The then Finance Minister of Mauritius - Mahen Kumar Seeruttun - had completely trashed the hindenburg report and its allegations against Adani.

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/corporate/story/mauritius-minister-clears-the-air-on-hindenburgs-charges-says-no-shell-companies-in-country-380794-2023-05-10

https://theprint.in/world/mauritius-minister-debunks-hindenburg-report-on-adani-group/1566589/

https://www.theweek.in/news/biz-tech/2023/05/10/adani-group-has-no-shell-company-in-mauritius-hindenburg-allegations-false-mauritius-minister.html

(*) On the 11th of August 2024 hindenburg came out with their second round of allegations against Adani this time including ones against India's current SEBI chief. Within the next 48 hours, Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) COMPLETELY removed the freeze on Adani Group stocks that they had placed in January 2023, when the first charges were made.

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/markets/stock-markets/adani-group-stocks-adani-enterprises-adani-energy-adani-green-adani-wilmar-adani-ports-share-price-updates-13-aug-2024/article68515028.ece#

Why do neither of these appear in the article??? Anyone can see the pertinence of these two pieces/events.

Kindly requesting @Materialscientist @AquilaFasciata @Toddy1 @MainlyTwelve

Again pinging @Materialscientist @AquilaFasciata @Toddy1 @MainlyTwelve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.134.78 (talk) Note: Sock blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicEmperor. Capitals00 (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these aren't noteworthy to be included. A relatively insignificant minister in Mauritius whose verbatim quotes are copied and pasted from a syndicated ani/pti feed and then inclusion/exclusion of adani stocks from an index; are routine Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill news items, that shouldn't be included in an encyclopedic article. — hako9 (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of the lead section on the Adani Group's page has been called into question. It is recommended to review and discuss the removal of certain text in order to highlight differing perspectives. Engaging in a constructive discussion with other editors to reach a consensus is advised before making any necessary edits to ensure the page reflects a balanced and unbiased viewpoint. For quick reference; MOS:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Charlie (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be reworded, so far all it is doing is summarising every controversy the organisation has been involved in, which are far too many to even list in the body let alone in the lead. Therefore I think we should shorten it to "Adani Group has been involved in various controversies over the years." We can also remove the citations as they are not needed in the lead per WP:LEADCITE if the content is backed by the body.- Ratnahastin (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction of the Adani Group article currently includes detailed allegations and controversies, such as stock manipulation, political corruption, environmental issues, and other criticisms. While these topics are significant, I believe they would be more appropriately placed in the "Controversy" section rather than the introduction.

According to Wikipedia’s guidelines on maintaining a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV), the lead section should provide a balanced overview of the subject without delving into excessive detail or contentious points. Including such details in the introduction risks giving undue weight to controversies over the company's general achievements and business scope.

By relocating these points to the "Controversy" section, the article could maintain a more neutral tone in its introduction while allowing readers to explore the criticisms in a dedicated, detailed section. This structure aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines for clear, organized content.

I suggest we move the following content:

Allegations of fraud and market manipulation (Hindenburg Research report).

Claims of political corruption, cronyism, and tax evasion.

Environmental damage and actions against journalists.

These could be summarized in the "Controversy" section, which already exists for this purpose.

What are your thoughts on this adjustment? I welcome input and collaboration to ensure the article remains neutral and informative. JESUS (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy sections are discouraged, see WP:CSECTION. Even if the body of the article were restructured - the lead section is supposed to summarize the article, and that includes information about controversy, so this would not be a justification to remove mentions of this from the lead section. MrOllie (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, MrOllie. I understand the guideline you referenced and agree that the lead section should summarize the article in a concise and neutral manner. However, the allegations and controversies in question are significant enough that I believe they warrant more detailed discussion elsewhere in the article. Moving them to a dedicated section could help provide clarity and ensure that the lead remains focused on summarizing the key aspects of the article, without becoming too overwhelmed by contentious issues.

As per [[WP:CSECTION]], I understand that "Controversy" sections are discouraged unless the controversy is particularly substantial and pervasive throughout the article. However, I believe that a structured approach that provides more detailed context in the body of the article (and perhaps a brief mention of these controversies in the lead) would strike a balance between summarizing key facts while giving these significant concerns proper attention.

I’d appreciate your thoughts on whether a balance between summarizing in the lead and expanding in a body section would work here. JESUS (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The lead summarizes the body, so having detailed discussion of a significant point in the body of the article is a reason to have it also summarized in the lead. As you say, the lead summarizes key aspects, and the way you describe it very much sounds like it is one of these key aspects. There isn't an exclusive choice to make between having it in the lead or in the body, as everything summarized in the lead has to be detailed in the body. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, Chaotic Enby. I understand and agree that the lead is meant to summarize the most significant aspects of the article, as detailed in the body. However, my concern is that the current wording in the lead might give undue weight to the controversies, potentially overshadowing other key aspects of the article. While it is important to mention these issues, perhaps we could explore rephrasing or condensing the summary in the lead to ensure a balanced representation of the subject.

I’d appreciate your thoughts on how we might refine the lead to better reflect the overall content of the article while adhering to [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:LEAD]] guidelines.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]