Talk:Indiabulls

Ok... this is my first contribution… send me suggestion and comments at mailnike@gmail.com , Keep Rocking!!!

Removing information about controversies surrounding Indiabulls

Someone has been trying to do these changes to Indiabulls which are disruptive and are attempts to hide news and facts about the organization. Requesting mods to please take note and monitor this article. -Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.83.248.32 (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This has continued and there have been edits from the India Bulls IP (see User talk:125.19.51.106), to remove facts and news references. This was all done within an edit war. Spaceriker (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am placing the advert tag again. The language has been smoothed over and actual details about origins and operations have been removed. Undoing that. Nshuks7 (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Notes on recent NPOV cleanup & regulatory additions

Just a heads up to page watchers: what started as a regular partial revert from the dashboard led to a fairly substantial janitorial pass on this article to bring it in line with WP:NPOV and WP:PROSE.

The history section was reading heavily like a sanitized PR brochure, so I stripped out the WP:PEACOCK phrasing (e.g., "flagship company", "second-largest") and condensed the massive timeline of demergers into something actually readable. I also restructured the subsidiaries list at the bottom per WP:NOTDIRECTORY to accurately reflect the 2025 merger, rather than just leaving a disorganized list of defunct brands.

More importantly, I added a "Regulatory actions and controversies" section. Omitting a nationwide identity theft crisis (the 2022 Dhani PAN leak) and a direct monetary penalty from the RBI is a massive WP:DUE failure. I've anchored this section exclusively to tier-one financial dailies (Mint, Hindu Business Line, etc.) and hardcoded web archive links for all of them to prevent future WP:LINKROT.

Given how often financial corporate pages get whitewashed by WP:COI editors, please do not blank or remove the reliably sourced regulatory information without establishing consensus here first. Happy to discuss any tweaks if anyone feels the wording can be improved. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

A brief follow-up regarding editorial restraint and the limits of WP:DUE on this page, specifically concerning loan recovery tactics.

While researching the RBI penalty, it's impossible to ignore the broader media landscape regarding digital lending in India. There is extensive tier-one reporting on unregulated loan apps employing severe extortion and harassment tactics—which in some cases have tragically driven borrowers to extreme measures over defaults as small as ₹3,000. Indiabulls Dhani, is one of the frequently mentioned NBFCs in the excessive harassment reviews.

However, I'm leaving this note to explicitly state why those reports have been omitted from this article:

1. WP:SYNTH: The RS (like Economic Times and Mint) that document these severe extortion rings explicitly attribute them to illegal, unregulated "Chinese loan apps." In those exact same articles, Dhani is consistently classified as a regulated NBFC. Taking a generic media report about the "digital loan app crisis" and stitching it onto the Indiabulls/Dhani page is a textbook WP:SYNTH violation.

2. WP:PRIMARY and WP:USERGENERATED: If you look around online, there are certainly hundreds of complaints on places like MouthShut, Consumer Complaints Court, Quora, and Twitter regarding aggressive collection calls for standard Dhani loans. However, we cannot use them. They fail basic verifiability.

3. Strict Scoping: The only time top-tier RS explicitly verifies Dhani's recovery agents crossing the line is in the highly specific context of the 2022 PAN identity theft crisis (where agents were hounding non-borrowers). That is the exact, limited scope currently reflected in the article. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)