This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic in India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 60 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

|topic= not specified. Available options:

WikiProject COVID-19 consensus WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page. General Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular ((Current)) guidance. Refrain from using Worldometer (worldometers.info) as a source due to common errors being observed as noted on the Case Count Task Force common errors page. (April 2020, April 2020) For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020) "Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020) Page title COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021). SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020) Map There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray   for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020) There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020) For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020) To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020, when it received 18,895,254 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 9 times. The weeks in which this happened: March 8 to 14, 2020 (13th) March 15 to 21, 2020 (6th) March 22 to 28, 2020 (2nd) March 29 to April 4, 2020 (6th) April 5 to 11, 2020 (9th) April 12 to 18, 2020 (6th) April 19 to 25, 2020 (12th) April 26 to May 2, 2020 (19th) May 17 to 23, 2020 (23rd)

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Current events This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles COVID-19 B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. India: History B‑class High‑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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance). Medicine: Pulmonology B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force. Viruses B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses 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.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Section sizes Section size for COVID-19 pandemic in India (68 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 12,886 12,886 Timeline 331 43,695 2020 10,749 10,749 2021: Second wave 28,185 28,185 2022 1,219 1,219 2023 3,211 3,211 Response 186 153,309 Health care and testing 6,526 73,861 Initial testing 4,100 4,100 Expansion of tests 9,314 9,314 Testing community transmission 5,254 5,254 Daily samples tested 9,169 9,169 Research and treatment 15,340 15,340 Vaccine development and production 8,785 8,785 Vaccination policy and distribution 15,373 15,373 Immediate relief 421 14,684 Welfare 6,050 6,050 Economic relief and stimulus package 8,213 8,213 Lockdowns 55 17,072 First wave: Nation-wide 13,147 13,147 Second wave: State-wise and localized 3,870 3,870 Administration, committees and task forces 15,737 15,737 Pseudoscience practices 1,157 1,157 Military 4,919 4,919 Private sector 4,884 4,884 International 22 13,866 International support 13,844 13,844 Response shortages and criticism 6,943 6,943 Evacuations by India related to the COVID-19 pandemic 208 47,162 Background 20 6,159 COVID-19 pandemic 2,712 2,712 Migration 1,470 1,470 Previous evacuations 1,957 1,957 International 22 31,182 January–April 2020 10,757 10,757 May 2020–present: Vande Bharat Mission 3,515 3,515 Phase I 7,677 7,677 Phase II 2,609 2,609 Phase III 650 650 Phase IV 1,483 1,483 Phase V 1,759 1,759 Phase VI 363 363 Phase VII 526 526 Samudra Setu II 1,821 1,821 Domestic 1,415 1,415 Reception 6,577 6,577 Incidents 19 1,621 Air India Express Flight 1344 565 565 Air India Flight AI-312 27-Aug Fiasco 1,037 1,037 Impact 14 71,367 Displacement of migrant workers 7,705 7,705 Drug shortages 4,026 4,026 Education 5,638 5,638 Economy 7,755 7,755 Freedom of expression 3,305 3,305 Other diseases 2,823 2,823 Healthcare and frontline workers 6,460 6,460 Religion 7,978 7,978 Rural and semi-rural India 4,799 4,799 Transport 9,102 9,102 Other 11,762 11,762 Statistics 1,538 11,756 Undercounting of cases and deaths 10,218 10,218 See also 287 287 Notes 263 263 References 33 33 Further reading 2,391 2,391 External links 2,162 2,162 Total 345,311 345,311

Text and/or other creative content from this version of COVID-19 pandemic in India was copied or moved into Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by governments with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

There were subpages for 2020, but nothing for the last 4 months? I've been wondering what's causing this recent spike but apparently there was no initiative. I would help but I can't create articles, nor do I know enough from India's data and coverage to know what's going on. - 60.52.104.111 (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even I was thinking the same thing. There are very few volunteers for the 2021 coverage. I'm trying to do my best. It's not even an India-only problem, but an issue around the world. Sitaphul (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's heartbreaking what's going on in India right now. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not (or cannot be) the best source to inform yourself about the corona / health crisis currently unfolding in India, because it can only describe the events summarily and retrospectively. I myself try to follow the events via the English-written Indian media, mostly via thehindu.com, which has a good reputation . It is considered reliable and devoid of hyper nationalistic / sensationalistic or paid news reporting (the hindu.com's headquarters are in Chennai, Tamil Nadu). JeanSept (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

very less is written about super-spreader event kumbh-mela. Nenetarun (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dog in this fight, but your assertion that the removal was "unexplained" is patently untrue. The section was removed on grounds of undue by another editor. If you believe that that's not the case, you need to demonstrate that the information is due to the extent of warranting a separate section of its own. Regards, MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - yes it does need its own section [1]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I see it as WP:UNDUE given there have been no independent report whether Kumbh Mela is directly contributing into spread (that is little compared to Tablighi Jamaat) or infections are overall cases of Haridwar the 2nd most populated city of Uttarakhand. We should not rely on speculations. Furthermore I believe that we should get rid of the "Situation" section entirely because it reads like a collection of indiscriminate information. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Kautilya3.. Abhishek0831996 has left me a baseless edit warring warning on my talkpage..pure case of WP:bullying
  

Request Kautilya3 to re-add kumbh mela event back. Nenetarun (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the messages above. You haven't explained why you are removing info about Tablighi Jamaat event which contributed 1/3 of the cases that time, more than any other minor events you are talking about. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think it needs its own section/sub-section - there are several Kumbh related Covid positives that have been reported in the media, some of these are quite significant. [2][3][4][5] I think apart from mentioning the spread of Covid at the mela we should also provide some background on the special arrangements that were made, the rules that were initially proposed and then partially reverted [6][7], requirement for returning devotees to self-isolate in several states [8], etc. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTNEWS. As for the Kumbh Mela, I must note that no scientific study or evidence has come out yet to prove that Kumbh Mela and rallies were superspreader events. Dubious and raunchy headlines or news reports are not enough especially when dealing with this subject which is a victim of poor reports. You need to familiarize with WP:MEDRS when you are making claims related to medical science-related events. Otherwise you can find reports about Farmer protests, weddings, etc. to have been bigger superspreaders but that would again look dubious without actual confirmation. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding WP:MEDRS does not apply to this section at least as long as claims aren't made tagging it as a super-spreader. Those rules are specific for Wikipedia:Biomedical information and a section on Kumbh mela activities (including arrangements, rules, etc as I proposed) would not qualify for that definition. As far as WP:NOTNEWS goes I believe that large enough events surrounding the 2nd wave should all get a mention here as and when they get covered within context in other sources - be they articles, news, books or more. That would mean that as and when we get more coverage on say the election campaigning in Bengal specifically related to Covid-19 it would merit at least a mention. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "mention" already exists at "Timeline" section. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

!vote - clarifying that the Support refers to the overall direction of the answer and focus should be on the reasoning. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: According to my opinion, there should be a seperate article on this topic similiar to 2020 Tablighi Jamaat COVID-19 hotspot in Delhi. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 02:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Tablighi Jamaat involved 30% of the total cases but Kumbh Mela (which lacks enough conclusion) has not contributed to even 000.1% cases of entire country. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Aman.kumar.goel, how does this even make logic? Tablighi Jamaat happened during a time where the virus had just started spreading and daily cases were very few. It only involved less than ten thousand people. Procedures like tracing the route map of infected people and making the list of primary and secondary contacts were quite easier back then and was stricly followed. But things has changed now. Its like three lakhs people are getting infected daily. Nobody is going to make the route-map and they dont have the time to do it. People are dying. Also Kumb Mela is participated by millions. So will the government go make a route map of these much people.? So its unclear that how many people from Kumb Mela might have spreaded the infection. I think there is no logic in applying WP:FALSEBALANCE here. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are creating a false balance between the two events. Tablhigi Jamaat contributed to more than 30% cases of that time and resulted in 22,000 people to be quarantined. Being participated by millions is irrelevant. Information about 1700 - 2000 infections in Haridwar over a week or more, cannot be attributed to Kumbh Mela alone because Haridwar is a big city as already explained above. Officials and scientists have all the necessary details and they haven't provided a thing as of yet to indicate that Kumbh Mela was anywhere near Tabhlgi Jamaat event but in fact looks too tiny in comparison. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Better accommodate both events under "religious congregation" section or alike. I see Kumbh mela as a more severe violation of social distancing guidelines that were developed after one year of covid related learning. AdithyaKL (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: There should be separate section for Kumbh Mela because of following reasons:

1. Many news article have mentioned it as a super spreader event [9][10] including some doctors [11]

2. Visuals of Kumbh Mela make it very clear that Covid rules were being flouted in it [12][13]

3. Numbers are also high (atleast 1700) [14]. Some news articles have mentioned it till 5000 too [15][16]

4. Many state governments have come up with guidelines regarding isolation and quarantine for Kumbh returnees. It clearly means their health departments found some basis to reach to such a decision.[17][18]

5. Last but not the least. India's Right Wing Media bias is clearly visible regarding how they covered both the Tablighi Jamaat and Kumbh events. While Jamaat members were called "Covid Jihadis", people participating in Kumbh were being called "devotees". But, wikipedia is not a place where such biases should hold their ground. So, in all fairness, there should be a separate section (and even page) on Wikipedia for Kumbh Mela super spreader event. A very good analysis of this bias on The Print.[19] Jasksingh (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What is with all these bold marking Support for inclusion of grossly problematic content? Are you even aware of WP:NOTAVOTE? Anyway, there are 100s of superspreader events by now but none of them other than the most significant one has got a section. Your news links (see WP:NOTNEWS) are weeks old and don't reflect scientific view but only speculates. Your own analysis which is WP:OR does not help in making it look anymore authentic. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Then are you suggesting that the Tablighi Jamat event also be reduced to a single statement of mention linking to the main article? Because that also works for me and I do agree that it would be quite practical given that we should be seeing more coverage of all these events in the near future. Said coverage should at the very least result in a sub-section of the article of the event and should be linked here. For instance the impact of Covid-19 on the WB election warrants a section on the article, which it already does here 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election#COVID-19 outbreak. As far as I understand WP:NOTNEWS asks us to consider the enduring notability of events before inclusion. The continued measures by various states in quarantining Kumbh returnees does seem to meet that criteria. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please do the needful and create a page on "Kumbh Mela super spreader event". Nenetarun (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the reports mentioned here are opinions not facts, no data-based authentic report supporting it. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove

resulted in the recovery of three patients in March.

and add

resulted in the recovery of three patients in March 2020.

March 2021 is now in the past, so this reference is ambiguous. The source dates from last year, so it's clearly not talking about last month. 2603:7080:E807:C300:806D:90B3:9B6D:1E04 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ViperSnake151 In the future, please close edit requests once you have acted upon them. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not even see that this was specifically requested, it's just something I wound up doing via my own boldness :) ViperSnake151  Talk  15:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sense that this might turn into an unnecessary edit war when clear data is available out there. Putting some links here for other editors (especially those already involved with these edits in particular) to review and put the correct info in lead (that India now has the highest new infections detected per day).

• CDC chart for US - [20]
• NY Times (basically a mirror of the CDC chart) - [21]
• WHO data for India (select daily on the graph) - [22]
• GoI data for India (showing me an increase of 3,52,991 for today) - [23]
• Independent media sources noting the global record in daily new cases - [24][25]

- Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITESHOT. In this case it is not relevant because you can find many sources for either claims. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your tagging this as a WP:CITESHOT - since there have already been multiple edits of back and forth on this specific piece of information. Moreover these are highly regarded official sources (in line with WP:MEDRS as this comes under population data ) and not just random citations. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel: This news article you cited is incorrect, and is from ANI/Sputnik, not known for the reliability of their stats. You can see the full historical data from the CDDC on their own site. – SJ + 01:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enough reliable sources reported that US reported 403,359 cases on a single day in December. It includes Hindustan Times, Xinhua, Live Mint, US News which added that "The CDC figures do not necessarily reflect cases reported by individual states." You can't solely rely on website of CDC website, which itself notes that: "On December 18, 2020, Texas started reporting probable cases, which included 171,505 new probable cases, in addition to 13,253 confirmed cases, for a total of 184,758 new cases reported. This raised the total number of new cases in the US on December 18 to 403,359; without the influx of reporting from Texas, the daily new case count for the US would have been 231,854."[26]

We are allowed to second guess media reports once we have reason to and that reason exist in this case. Your best bet is to find report which dispute 403,359 cases of the US from a single day in December 2020 instead of repeating same sources that have obviously miscalculated the scenario. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar claims can be made wrt to India. So either we compare official figures with official figures or speculative figures with speculative figures. And as you've noted with the last citation from CDC that number (of ~400k) includes probable cases and not just confirmed cases - 171,505 new probable cases. The secondary news sources you have linked to do not make this distinction even though they use the same source data. This is mostly an issue of semantics -> do we represent confirmed v confirmed or probable v probable? In confirmed v confirmed India has surpassed the US count. In probable v probable we don't even have reliable data as far as I know. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Data from Texas can be seen here [27]. If you switch to the trends tab you will notice that the new confirmed cases on 20 December 2020 was ~6k and new probable cases on the same day was 1372. Adding them up brings us to a value of much less than the 170k count - implying that was probably added up over the previous few weeks. I would not be surprised that these numbers have been rationalised in the CDC data with the numbers being backdated and added to the day those results were detected. Again back to the semantics question - which set of data do we represent? Plus now that this data from Texas can be taken into consideration how do we deal with data that represents cases detected over a long time but added on a single day (and then rationalised later). - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That may explain the anomaly - it is a challenge of mixing apples and oranges -- probable cases are always much higher than confirmed, and not reported in any standard way (depends on the model you use for inference, &c). Dec. 20 wasn't the highest day in US history; it was just the day that data of different types was mixed together. – SJ + 10:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD I am taking this to the talk page. There have been disputes with multiple editors removing material that states that there has been criticism of Prime Minister Modi holding crowded campaign rallies, with arguments that it is a violation of WP:BLP, "dubious information", and "mudslinging". One user who reverted me most recently used a one-sided editorial, suggesting that the criticisms were invalid because there was no data actually supporting arguments that the rallies had caused cases.

The most recent version of the text was as follows:

Alongside the Mela, Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party have also faced criticism for hosting campaign rallies for the West Bengal Legislative Assembly election despite the severe state of the pandemic in India, which have similarly featured large crowds flouting guidance such as social distancing and wearing face masks.^[1][2][3][4] On 24 April, Chief Minister of Maharashtra Uddhav Thackeray stated that he was unable to get in contact with Modi to address shortages of oxygen and Remdesivir because he was busy campaigning.^[3]

This article, in my opinion, is too positive. There needs to be more critical reception to India's response to the pandemic, especially during the second wave. I had got rid of the person accusing him of being a "superspreader", and instead put in reference to a state chief minister who had criticized Modi for focusing more on campaigning than managing the response. The disputed section is cited to multiple reliable sources, including two multinational news agencies (Bloomberg, Reuters), and is written neutrally. It is clear that this is a notable aspect of the situation. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ViperSnake151, be bold and go ahead. If the content are added are supported by reliable sources, it should be definetely added in a neutral point of view. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ViperSnake151 You are supposed to link the message made by the "person" which can be found [28]. You haven't addressed the issues raised there i.e. how these baseless speculations that election rallies spread covid-19 are any valid. Modi or any prominent politician gets criticized for everything he has done thus you need to read WP:UNDUE and avoid distracting the article's focus from the main subject. Wareon (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying per undue weight we cannot include any negative coverage because it is considered a "distraction from the main subject"? Even if covered by the worldwide press? In fact, the mere fact that these aspects of the pandemic have mainstream coverage means that it is not undue weight to include because it is no longer a minority viewpoint. In fact, the version you reverted no longer includes the now-disputed claim that the rallies spread COVID-19, and instead placed a larger emphasis on Modi campaigning at all. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not merely 'negative' but grossly misleading because contrary to what you are adding, facts say that election rallies aren't superspreader. Since you also consider it "disputed" then you must avoid spewing the half baked assessments. Wareon (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have high quality secondary sources that support your argument? ViperSnake151  Talk  06:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The para added mentioning a certain chief minister was unable to reach out to the PM because he was busy campaigning, what encyclopaedic value does it hold in relation to the context of the article ? It's an accusation that one person made against the other does it qualify as a valid NPOV addition ? I propose the the sentence by rephrased to better suite the wikipedia guidelines.

All political parties were doing campaign rallies and how come just the BJP is pinpointed, isn't it against WP:NPOV singling out only one party ?AnM2002 (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnM2002:, it isn't POV to blame BJP. All the mainstream western media are doing so. BJP currently controls both the houses of parliament and 17 out of 28 states. If it doesn't share a large blame after this, that is POV editing. Roller26 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roller26 don't know if you inferred correctly but it's totally fine to blame the BJP but doesn't make others free of blame. I was talking specifically in the context of rallies and don't know if you understand what a "multi-part democracy" is! but if Modi was out campaigning so was Mamata Banerjee(CM of WB- tasked with running the state of WB), Rahul Gandhi and others. It's completely against WP:NPOV to just single out one party just because the so called "unbiased and forever Pious arbiters of truth"-the western media is saying so, had you done some NPOV research the very same western media also mentioned about other parties as well. If this is not POV don't know what is! Happy editing. AnM2002 (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and just so you know BJP doesn't control the Rajya Sabha nor does it rule the worst affected states of Kerala, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, Delhi where the second wave started initially so it's better to broaden restricted perspectives and avoid singling out a specific group. AnM2002 (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnM2002:, your patronizing tone, your cherry picking of facts to single out non-BJP states, your limited knowledge of who controls Rajya Sabha makes your biases in your editing lie pretty bare. Roller26 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roller26 wow! so putting up facts that are not aligned to your POV is cherry picking and writing a one sided story isn't ? The very fact that you so vehemently ignore to acknowledge that even other parties held rallies and the opposition ruled states are in an equally if not more dire state very clearly lays out what your inherent POV is. It's ok to have an inherent POV but you must acknowledge it yourself and try addressing it before making edits! and don't worry I expected that you would make such preposterous statements and the subsequent "BJP supporter peraphernalia" in the Darth of facts! Rest assured i adhere to NPOV not that I can say the same for you! AnM2002 (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnM2002:, lets dissect your "facts" shall we? You went all the way down to Punjab and very conveniently forgot to mention Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana - all states with higher active cases than Punjab, and expect for Bihar (where while CM is non-BJP, BJP has much higher MLAs), the CM is from BJP [29]. You mentioned Delhi. Hospitals in Delhi are at 3 tiers - central, state and municipal level. 2 of them are controlled by BJP. In RS, NDA controls 118 seats, UPA + all others control 118 seats and 9 seats are vacant. For more than a year, even Indian media has declared that RS is in BJP's hand. Go read [30]. And don't just throw WP:NPOV around without understanding it, go read and try to understand WP:VALID and WP:DUE and then put in context with reliable sourcing about the topic. Roller26 (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What your are doing goes exactly against WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. If you are going to derail the subject with criticism about politicians then the list will never end. What really matters is that the specifics of the criticism are unfounded because there is no significant spread of coronavirus related to election rallies. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roller26 Dude the way you are writing all this i seriously doubt you understand what this discussion was about and what is NPOV. Let me get down to some not so convenient dissection do read it carefully!

1. You proved my point when you accused me of conveniently ignoring the “BJP-ruled states” , I never said BJP should not be blamed but as should be the others. The discussion was about election rallies which all parties did but and even your “pious arbiters of truth”(the unbiased western media!) have made mentions of the same. But it’s convenient to blame “Modi” as it suites concocted narratives. So it’s alright to vehemently blame the central government but a crime to question the response of state governments who are actually tasked with maintaining healthcare, quite convenient!

2. Delhi really hit the nerve! Before distorting the governance mechanism I think you should enlighten yourself as to whose responsibility it is to micromanage the health and education of Delhi, this will help[31] this Delhi government document clearly proves whose responsibility it is! where did all that talk of world class healthcare and Mohalla clinics go ? I guess all the budget went into ads! Now don’t respond by bringing in GNCTD act and all that here’s a clarification for that as well[32], still centre government is conveniently blamed right ? Here’s some court observations for the oxygen crisis that I am sure you’ll jump to in your next reply [33], [34]. Even the court has observed the centre alone cannot blamed for the mess Delhi is in, but that’s not convenient is it ?

3. Coming to the paraphernalia about only BJP ruled states being in mess have look at the following[35], [36] here it’s clearly indicated most opposition ruled states including Delhi are not even testing enough but ignoring that conveniently just blame the “BJP” or Modi ! Out of the 11 states with highest case loads 7 are opposition ruled but that too is conveniently ignored[37].

4. The Rajya Sabha has a simple majority of 123 here is the source[38] yours is outdated so there too you have resorted to suiting your POV rather than cross verifying.

I’ll only say this my whole point was that yes it’s alright to blame the BJP but completely singling out and turning blind to the role of other sides is neither in accordance to WP:NPOV nor the ethos of this encyclopaedia. This concocting is best suited to tabloids/newspapers and not wiki because [[WP:NOTNP]. Cheers! AnM2002 (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnM2002:, you have accused me repeatedly of being "this" and "that" while I only commented on your remarks nature, your “pious arbiters of truth”(the unbiased western media!) statement clearly shows who you are. Read my comments properly and try to absorb what I have really said. And go show your support for BJP on the street and not here. Roller26 (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roller26 Well clearly it was you who distorted the whole intent behind the discussion which was Rallies and and Maha CM's remarks, the hard truth is you have failed to understand what Wikipedia is truly about. And here starts the "BJP supporter" paraphernalia. I support NPOV not some hubble bubble hypocritical pov pushing. Good luck writing for some tabloid/newspaper because as I said earlier Wikipedia WP:NOTNP or some AAP advert! May good sense prevail! AnM2002 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnM2002:, you shoo off and go work for BJP IT cell or you probably already do so. Roller26 (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roller26 lol! look at the fuses going out, I can feel the sheer sense of dejection, but it's understandable for someone with not even an iota of idea about What Wikipedia is or What Wikipedia is not to make such remarks! AnM2002 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnM2002:, you have barely written content here on WP, but seem to have far more superior sense of WP is and isn't. You entire argument and sourcing used is flawed. I have much more precious things to do with my time then argue endlessly with a editor who themselves have no idea and isn't willing to listen to reason. Roller26 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so all you have got as counter is edit count comparison and a serious dearth for logic and facts ? of course my entire argument and the sources cited are flawed because they expose your POV pushing. Rest assured I have 'read' and written enough for Wikipedia to know to what it is and isn't!(though I got a fairly good idea about tabloid and newspaper writing from this exchange) AnM2002 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support with Roller26 and without clear any consensus, the well sourced facts from the article should not be removed. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comments, I'd like to make some amendments to at least clarify other parties' responses, and maybe mention the fact that posts on social media showing the flouting of guidelines at Modi rallies was what set off this controversy;

On 16 April, the Election Commission of India (ECI) pushed up its nightly curfew on campaigning from 10 p.m. to 7 p.m., and stated that those organising in-person events would be responsible to provide face masks and hand sanitizer to all attendees, and ensure their usage.^[5] Indian National Congress (INC) leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Modi for praising the turnout of a rally on 17 April, and announced the next day that he would suspend the party's rallies. Gandhi, who had only held two rallies, advised political leaders to "to think deeply about the consequences of holding large public rallies under the current circumstances."^[6][7] On 20 April, Gandhi tested positive for COVID-19.^[5] On 22 April, the ECI enacted restrictions on in-person campaign events in West Bengal beginning that evening. This included restricting meetings to a maximum of 500 people with social distancing enforced, and prohibiting any rallies or roadshows. Chief Minister of West Bengal and All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) leader Mamata Banerjee subsequently announced that she would suspend all further in-person campaign events in favour of virtual meetings. Modi also cancelled a planned visit to West Bengal on 23 April, and announced plans to hold meetings via videoconference with oxygen manufacturers and the chief ministers of current hotspots respectively.^[5]

ViperSnake151  Talk  15:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds better though it may require a new section called "Political events" or something than addition into "Timeline". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though the amendments proposed are apt, the initial statement about some social media posts singling out only Modi rallies again misses the whole point of the discussion hope you'll accommodate it accordingly. Also, what about the Maha CM's remark I don't know how an accusation made by a CM that PM didn't pick up his phone because he was too busy addressing rallies even when the latter has denied, is of any encyclopaedic value to this article concerning COVID-19 ? Please share the rationale behind these two. AnM2002 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is the accusation that Modi was focusing more on holding large rallies rather than placing as much weight as possible behind the response as per his job as prime minister. Also where did he deny this? You keep bringing up bits and pieces of detail without sourcing them. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your source [39] which clearly says PMO refuted these allegations which were made by some MAHA minister Nawab Malik, even the CM himself has not said anything of this sort. So it would be better to keep this chatter out of the article as it's merely an accusations.

And again you are missing the whole point if you are to blame one politician for doing rallies in a multi party democracy at least make mentions of the others too, it would be better to write the following- "Political parties including the BJP were criticised for holding large rallies amidst the pandemic without following the SOP's issued by Election Commission. AnM2002 (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it's undue to mention this because I have failed to provide sourcing demonstrating similar criticism of all other parties? Is there even criticism of other parties for doing so? I think Modi was getting singled out because A. he is prime minister, and B. he personally bragged about one of his rallies being bigger than the last time he was in that particular area. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ViperSnake151 you clearly have some serious level POV, had it not been the case you wouldn't have distorted the point of discussion here. Though it is "futile" to discuss when you continue to conveniently circumvent the discussion but I'll try one last time please READ carefully:-

1. I am not against you blaming the PM for handling the COVID-19 crisis but just so that you know "Prime Minister is not in-charge of Micromanaging things at state level" had it been the case states would not need Chief Ministers. Now don't say BJP is running most states that would be against NPOV too because opposition ruled states are in a bigger if not equal mess. See,[40]

2. You continue to single out Modi for holding rallies, yes it's true he was holding rallies but so were the others, India is a Multi-party system and it is both an NPOV violation and UNDUE contrary to your believes. Here are the sources [41],[42]. All these sources have clearly mentioned all parties doing the same but ignoring those mentions and cherry picking excerpts to suite a particular point of view is not a good editorial ethic see 5P2

3. Your whole narrative is based on a comment by the PM where 'He bragged about crowds at a rally' but you conveniently chose to ignore the fact that the same article the following line too "Large crowds at election rallies by major political parties - including the BJP, the Congress, and the Bengal's ruling Trinamool - where social distancing is absent are being viewed with increasingly greater concern by experts, particularly with more aggressive variants of the virus in circulation." See[43]. So Modi wasn't the only politician bragging about crowds in election rallies, election rallies irrespective of the party usually have crowds same was the case during the "BLM protests" when the pandemic was raging in the US and West. That time it was the mainstream media itself which bragged about the crowds.

4. When I produced reliable sources countering the "PM was busy in rallies and didn't pickup" accusation which has no "Encyclopaedic value" you conveniently chose to ignore it. These kind of things really put a question mark on NPOV.

I don't think it is worth the effort because you'll just ignore all this and blame me of being one thing or the other but still in the interest of a more neutral and unbiased Wikipedia I tried. Oh and that would be a violation of 5P3 specifically NPA! AnM2002 (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have revamped the article in Special:Diff/1020305654, primarily in terms of sectioning. Since it is a big change, I'm leaving this note on the talk page. Before the change, the article had sections called Government response, Relief and Situation. The first section contained a listing of sub-sections on the impact on various sectors, I have moved most of them to a new section called Impact. I've moved the second section and the starting paragraphs under the first section under a new section called Response. The third section was an arbitrary and ambiguous listing of sub-sections which I have either moved to one of the two sections, where-ever appropriate or removed them. In terms of removal I've removed the sub-section called Tablighi Jamaat event and Breaking quarantine; the first sub-section is a repetition of a paragraph under the Timeline of the article and the second sub-section consisted of two lines which highlight specific instances of breaking quarantine which are too minor in the greater scheme of things to be due in an article at this level, this could be re-added if and when this article is well developed.

An additional note, the article as it stands consists mostly of listing of events, occurrences or actions by various ententes and lacks broader overviews, which needs to be amended in a high level article like this one. The article also needs an update, most of the occurences are in reference to events of early to mid 2020. I've added an update template in this regard. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're wondering, I was trying to adjust things based on work I had done for COVID-19 pandemic in Saskatchewan. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to INOX, this is happening because its supplies for Delhi have been cut down by the Centre and the majority of its production has been allocated to Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. From 105 metric tonnes, its allocation to Delhi has further been reduced to 80 metric tonnes, INOX said.... “The Delhi government has issued an order to supply 125 MT to hospitals yesterday while the Centre has also issued an order yesterday, revising our allocation to only 80 MT to Delhi. What should we do?” Siddarth Jain, chief of INOX, told the court.^[1]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 what about this [44], [45]. It appears the Delhi HC has an entirely different opinion , looks like it's the AAP Sarkar which is equally responsible, Do go through WP:NPOV once would help a lot! The problem truly lies with logistics and not central allocation, have a read![46] AnM2002 (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start a blame game here. A supplier has testified in court that the Centre had diverted its supply to Delhi to other states. Detailed coverage of the Court's opinion appears in India Today. It says that the Centre had allocated oxygen supply to Delhi from West Bengal and Orissa, which too far away and don't arrive in time. All international newspapers have covered Delhi's oxygen shortage. It is ridiculous for India's elected government to treat its own capital city as if it is some foreign country! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Draft:Oxygen Crisis in India. While I think the draft should be accepted with the title Oxygen crisis in India due to Covid-19 pandemic, some others are with the opinion that this article should be expanded instead of creating a new article. So if anyone is interested to expand this article with the new heading as Oxygen crisis, please refer the draft and do the honours. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 13:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, someone can surely do it. 103.44.0.232 (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need of a specific article. If has been already covered on this article. Wareon (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wareon, this has been not covered in the present article. It needs a seperate section. Since nobody is going to do it, I am going to do the honours soon Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The oxygen crisis is mentioned in context in the 2021 section of the timeline. It's all kind of intertwined, though if it gets too detailed an "Oxygen shortages" section could be placed somewhere under health care. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ViperSnake151, I think there should be seperate section or may be a new article for it. Because this is one of the heaviest crisis that India gone through in the several years. Please tell your thoughts on it. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. The summary of these events should be succinct. Unless the issue is long-term (for which we will have to wait for some more weeks), it can be kept limited the way it has been so far. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wareon: and @Nguyentrongphu:, you both seem to think that my edits on the section 2021 seem to be against WP:UNDUE. As far as I can see, I am sorting the section into logical paragraphs, and adding more proposed reasons for the spike in cases. Can you specify why you feel that my edits are giving undue importance? Alternately, can you suggest changes to any parts of my edit you object to? - Jose Mathew (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jose Mathew C: The surge is one of many surges during the covid pandemic in India. The causes of the latest surge are not justified to have an entire paragraph on their own. My suggestion is that you should condense the causes into 2-3 sentences max. One sentence can list multiple factors such as A, B, C, D and... Nguyentrongphu (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nguyentrongphu:, please note the following points:-

• This is not just one of many surges. It is the biggest surge so far in India, and, if I remember correctly, the second biggest in the world.
• The points I have added myself can be condensed into a sentence. However, the article already has about 3-4 sentences about the 2021 Kumbh Mela, which I feel should be included in this section.
• I assume you have no objection to the rest of my edit?

Nevertheless, if you feel that the causes paragraph is too long, I can suggest something like this:-

Multiple reasons have been proposed for the sudden spike in cases - undercounting of cases leading to models underestimating cases and deaths,^[1][2] economic woes putting the government under pressure to reopen the economy,^[2] a feeling of exceptionalism based on the hope that India's young population and childhood immunisation scheme would blunt the impact from Covid-19,^[2] variants with increased virulence, such as the B.1.617 double mutant,^[3][4][5] lack of preparations (temporary hospitals were often dismantled after cases started to decline, and new facilities were not built),^[6] and state and local elections in several states, often without necessary precautions.^[7][8] In addition, social distancing was poorly enforced at festivals, sports events and public places; the Hindu spring festival of Holi on 29 March saw large crowds with many people flouting health and safety guidelines.^[9][10] The Haridwar Kumbh Mela was described as having become a superspreader,^[11][12] being linked to at least 1,700 positive cases between 10 and 14 April alone, and 68 cases among Hindu seers between 5-14 April.^[13][14] Normally four months in length, the festival had been shortened to a single month due to the pandemic. On 16 April, Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked residents to "keep Kumbh Mela symbolic" in order "give strength to India's fight against the virus", and Swami Avdheshanand urged devotees to avoid large gatherings and follow health guidance while participating in the Mela.^[15][16]

Note that only the first sentence is mine, the rest is from the existing section. - Jose Mathew (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jose Mathew C: It is no doubt the biggest surge so far, but it's still one of many surges. It would make sense if this article is only about the new surge (for example "COVID-19 Surge in India (2021)"), but the scope of this article is much bigger than that. Plus, there is no guarantee that there won't be a bigger surge in the future. In any case, I like your new proposal and support it. Please feel free to add this paragraph to the article and remove repetitive sentences elsewhere. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I am also editing the rest of the section to combine logically related points. Please take a look when possible. - Jose Mathew (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way our style has been to capitalize COVID-19. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ViperSnake151, the Timeline section is meant to be a quick summary of events, not a detailed analysis. Please feel free to create a separate section on the 2021 surge, where you can cover the issues in more detail. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the brunt of 2021 right now has been this surge. If it does eventually end, then we can talk about it. Implement that paragraph and I can streamline it further. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... nor I think any links to this article. Could someone please fix this. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]