Talk:PM CARES Fund

Please note

@Netha Hussain: Hi. I see you added an ET article as a source for Sabyasachi Mukherjee. However the source says that this was made to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF) and to the Chief Minister of West Bengal's Relief Fund.
Should it then be mentioned in this list, since this is a different fund?
Also it would be great if you could help adding a line or two differentiating this from Prime Minister's National Relief Fund> Thanks. DTM (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't notice it. I think it is best to remove everyone who contributed to funds other than PM-CARES fund from the list. --Netha (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion before deletion

Should this stay in the article or go? Please provide some reasoning at least before removing it again and again.

On 28 March, Syed Ataur Rahman, a citizen of India, donated ₹501 (equivalent to ₹590 or US$7.40 in 2023) to the fund tweeting about it as "just a little donation". PM Modi tweeted back that "There’s nothing big or little. Every single contribution matters. It shows our collective resolve to defeat COVID-19."

DTM (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this should go, because this fund is going to last forever and doesn't have an end date. The list of contributors will never be exhaustive and different prime Ministers will tweet/state different things in different situations as and when it is required.

I think if we have a subsection of the inception of the fund then this particular part can be embedded into it.  Parzival2204 (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple instances of PM tweeting about the PMCARES fund, it would be inappropriate to highlight just one of these here because the article is about the fund itself; better to keep the reference to specific comments out. --Deepgandotra (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Remove it Ppa20 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog or news channel, I would highly recommend removing it. It does not contribute to any encyclopedic value to the article. It is also pointed out that we cannot add all the donations. WhiteTheme (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal or no removal of the entire contributions section

The contributions section is becoming messy. I propose it is entirely removed.

• 1. It should be removed entirely.
• 2. No table but content adapted into paragraph form.

DTM (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It is rwmoves. Let it continue. The list can never be exhaustive Parzival2204 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It is recommended to move it to another page/topic and reference it from here. --Deepgandotra (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with DTM; recommend permanent removal. Stuff like this is a coatrack for corporate PR and is of little to no encyclopedic value. See WP:Identifying PR. The last iteration had an Instagram reference, also a sure-fire sign of WP gone haywire. This is just not compatible with volunteer editing and maintenance of a quality work. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Organisation Infobox data

The field Leader = Narendra Modi is ambiguous. What does the leader of a fund mean? The main article body clearly states that the Prime Minister is the ex-officio chairman of the fund. To give credit to Shri Narendra Modi, it would be more apt to change the title to 'Founder' or 'Established by'.

--Samrat Roy 04:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.samrat (talk • contribs)

References

A useful source

A source from the BBC, that may be quite useful, in that it's one of the more comprehensive overviews of this topic, from an international source. I don't know that I have the time to add the content soon, so flagging this here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I've incorporated this as well as other sources to make the article more comprehensive, thanks. - R1988 (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyvios

Hi ‎R1988, the Copyvio report is really high after your changes, please rephrase every single sentence until it falls to well below 10%, as per WP:COPYVIO. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I had a look. The only issue (highlighted) in the report seems to be that the objectives of the Fund, as mentioned on their website (and attributed by me as such) are repeated in every news article about the Fund. If that's an issue I can attempt to paraphrase, but given the sparse wording I think that might end up being misleading or inaccurate. I do want to point out that the articles that are popping up on the Copyvio report don't attribute the phrasing of the objectives to the PM Cares website, whereas as I explicitly do attribute this. I've placed these objectives into quotes as well, hopefully that addresses the issue. 10:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R1988 (talk • contribs)

R1988, ah that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Good work, in any case. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PM Care Fund Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussing problems with the article and solutions

To discuss with fellow editors on ways to improve the article and make changes accordingly after reaching consensus. AnM2002 (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I think the article is very lengthy and some content is repeated several times in different places. It might make sense to merge some sections e.g. there's a main accountability section and a separate accountability section in litigation. Do you have any suggestions? - Naushervan (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Naushervan apologies for not acknowledging your reverts earlier, wasn't able to spot your notifications while in editing mode.

Coming to the problems with the article the first and foremost is that article has criticism and opposing views scattered all over the article. I tried accommodating them all under a dedicated section. Accountability and transparency can be made a subsection like I did here[1]. All the flaws and issues with the fund can be mentioned here itself for better structuring and ease of access. For example, the expenditure and spending section has comments of political leaders, a fact finding report about who is to be blamed for PSA plants(NPOV-someone very conveniently tried putting the onus on the central government when even the cited source had completely different mentions). These things don't belong in the expenditure section. I just moved all this under the criticism and related issues. would like to hear what others have to say. AnM2002 (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, the popular section has the mention of some web gimmick which I think is just giving Undue weight irrelevant topics without any real encyclopaedic value. AnM2002 (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The expenditure and spending section discusses mostly issues with meagre information on the spending. AnM2002 (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

and do discuss any issues you had with the edits I made, it would be too time consuming to make those changes all over again. I hope you understand ! AnM2002 (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Naushervan reminder for the above discussion ! Please take a look whenever you find time. :} AnM2002 (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

For reasons relating to the 2021 Covid outbreak in India I have to take some time off from editing. I hope someone else can step in. My apologies. --Naushervan (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PM Care Fund Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)