Talk:Programs renamed by Modi Government

Untitled

Most of the claims in the article are very poorly sourced - that is, the source is unreliable or does not support the claim at all. Why should these claims not be removed until reliable sources could be found to back those claims? Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

From the point when it started, the number of citations has grown. Given a few more days, I'm sure more items links can be added. Like any organically written article, everything will not come together at once. If the entries had been missing (removed with unwarranted aggression), these items wouldn't have been cited and remained unkown. Chirag (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Many of the new sources added recently also fail verification (I will tag them as such soon). To be counted as a source for an entry in the list, the source must specifically state that the old scheme or program has been renamed to the new one. A source that says that an old scheme has been revamped or subsumed by a new one or simply mentions and old scheme and compares it to the new one is not sufficient. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Programs renamed by Modi Government or Programs *allegedly* renamed by Modi Government

Is this article supposed to list allegations (including by politicians from opposition parties) or just verifiable claims of programs being renamed from reliable sources? This is an important difference because, for instance, an opinion piece by P. Chidambaram can not be considered a reliable source for the claim that Basic Savings Bank Account program has been renamed to Jan Dhan Yojana, but it is a reliable source for the claim that it has been alleged that it is. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

There are no allegations here. If any allegation like language surfaces , it may be delted and article tagged. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You haven't understood my question. I am not saying that this article is making any allegations. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

then please rephrase your question. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I can express my question any more simply than I already did. Is this article a list of programs renamed by Modi Government or a list of programs allegedly renamed by Modi government? Can you address the specific example I have given? Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I would consider indian express link reliable. Other editors may comment. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

here is another piece that points to JDY as a renamed repackaged scheme. While you are correct opinion pieces should ideally not be used for lists, but there are different other non opinion RS that say the same thing. As said earlier, let us allow the author adequate time to put RS for his article. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that most of the linked sources does not state anywhere that the scheme was renamed, this Indian Express article for example have no mention of any kind of change of name of said scheme. Razer^{Text me} 09:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The correct way to address such a situation on wikipedia is either to falsify or to verify the claim. Till then, thank you for marking "not in citation" at various places. It helps the wikipedia community to focus on what is missing/incorrect in the article. ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You fail to understand my point here, This is some kind of attack page without any reliable sources. The general wiki policy in case of attack page is to blank the article and nominate it for speedy. As the article is already nominated for AFD , the best solution here is to remove any entry that is not properly sourced with verified and reputed media outlets. Razer^{Text me} 09:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That is still not answering the question though. If the article is supposed to list Modi govt programs that are allegedly renamed older schemes, then P. Chidambaram's opinion piece would have been a perfectly fine source since it shows that a major opposition leader has made that claim. Anyway, I can infer your answer to my question from your reply. BTW, the source you mention is also an opinion piece, so that is still not RS, going by WP:NEWSORG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk • contribs) 09:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop reverting edits without discussion on the talk page

The entries from the article were removed with good reason. The sources provided do not support the claim being made in the article for most entries currently in the article. Removing unverifiable claims is not overzealous deletion WP:ZEAL. The entries can be added again as sources are found for them. I have already started this process and added an entry with a source in an edit. Reverting to older edits is just undoing all this work. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a new article, 3 days old as of now, and author may need time to add reliable sources. the wikipedia community can pitch in too. However, if most of the entries are deleted, the wikipedia community may not be able to pitch in. Its one thing to delete blatantly false information, and completely another to delete potentially true information just for the want of WP:RS/. in the latter case, "citation needed" tag may be placed instead of deleting some material altogether. ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This page falls in the borderline category of WP:HOAX and WP:ATTACK and with the influx of new editors, It is clear that this page is mentioned in some kind of forum or talk board. Please get consensus here on this talk page before reverting any more edits. Razer^{Text me} 08:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Razer2115, you have been deleting and reverting the edits too. Please desist from deleting material from a new wikipedia article. Wikipedia allows new authors the courtesy to have time to add reliable links to support the article. Lets us not pounce upon a new article. I disagree that this is WP:HOAX or WP:ATTACK. renaming schemes happen all the time, it is never a hoax. whether or not a separate page is warranted, is being discussed on AFD page. any propaganda material may be removed as per wiki. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You have again reverted the article, despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. This is you third revert on this article. This is simply not acceptable. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the article to the point where information started to be deleted by various editors. Lets us give time to the author to post RS. In the meantime, you may please tag the entries with citation needed tag instead of outrightly deleting them. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

How do we know whether a claim is "potentially true information" in the absence of verifiable sources? I went through the sources mentioned in the article and for more than half of the entries, the source does not support the claim being made at all. Why should potentially false claims be retained on a wikipedia page, especially one that is generating a lot of pageviews? Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia assumes good faith on the part of authors, unless explicitly displayed. Absence of RS does not automatically imply false information. A new author as well as wikipedia community should be given time to verify the material in the article. Deletion of information must be based on falsifiability of information. current information is verifiable as well as falsifiable. if the information is demonstrated to be false, it should be deleted. Absence of RS in the initial stages of the article should not be a reason to edit-warring like behaviour while succumbing to WP:ZEAL. Page views have nothing to do with reliability of the article. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Added half a dozen sources. There is no original research in this article, just citations. Not sure why this claim has been made Chirag (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That's because in more than half of the entries, the source does not directly support the claim being made. In many cases, the "source" is simply a link to an announcement or an evaluation of the old scheme, with no mention of the new scheme at all. The natural conclusion is that the author has compared the old scheme with the new one and it is his own claim that the old one has been renamed, which is original research. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding a couple of sources

The sources 4 and 5 in the article (regarding renaming of Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan and Rajiv Awas Yojna) both don't directly state that these programs have been renamed by Modi government. They contain statements by certain politicians that make such a claim. Clearly, such statements can't be taken as reliable source for the claim that these are indeed just renamed programs. I am not sure whether unreliable source or irrelevant citation tag is more relevant here, I have tagged them as unreliable source for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Notability of the subject of this article and relying too much on one source

The lead has a paragraph that lists sources to support the notability of the subject of this article. However, four out of the five articles cited are opinion pieces of the same person. Two of the citations actually point to the same article reproduced on two different websites. As it stands, too much of this article is based on the same source of dubious reliability. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverting a couple of unproductive edits

Removed failed verification tags: In both cases, the source does not support the claim being made. For Soil Health Cards, the source simply states that such cards were also being made earlier. There is no mention of any renaming of any program. In the case of Atal Pension Yojana, the source says that the old Swavalamban Yojana scheme has been replaced by the new scheme, which isn't the same thing as saying that the old scheme has been renamed. Please discuss why you think that the source provided supports the claim before removing the failed verification tag.

Also, "In a few cases, some cosmetic changes have been made to programs and minor administrative tweaks and then renamed" is far from being an accurate summary of the evidence presented in the sources so far. For many of the entries in the list, the source provided specifically states that the old scheme has been "revamped" or "restructured". The claim about only a few of the programs in the list getting some "cosmetic changes" and "minor administrative tweaks" seems entirely to be the subjective opinion of the editor. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing citation needed tags from "In many cases.."

This sentence is meant as a remark on the citations provided in the article, and should not require further citations as far as I can see. Examples-

1. Accelerated Irrigation Benefits Program. The source says "PMKSY is a revamped (if not simply renamed) version of the Accelerated Irrigation Benefits Programme".
2. Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan. The source says "SBM-Rural is an amendment of an earlier rural sanitation programme, Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan, started on April 1, 2012, according to ministerial responses in the Rajya Sabha". The original source itself (the ministerial response) reads "(a) and (b) The Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA) was implemented with effect from 1.04.2012. This programme has been revamped as Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin), which has been launched on 2nd October, 2014".
3. Indira Awaas Yojana. The source says — Cornerstone of the government's housing-for-all initiative, this is meant to mark the start of an overhaul. "The name is being changed and many upgrades being made to the scheme," a senior official said.
4. Rajeev Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana.
5. INSPIRE. The source says "The Department of Science and Technology (DST) is revamping a popular outreach programme, conceived to hook children early on to science and research, and tweaking it to reflect a thrust on technology and exposing children to the “innovation cycle.”" and describes the changes being made to the program.

This is orignial research. Reverted. Chirag (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not. All of this is in the sources already in the article. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

New References added

Large scale and indiscriminate removal of content was removed. Have added another citation that corroborates. Chirag (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

In almost all entries the cited source does not mention about the renaming of the concerned schemes. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research , You will have to provide a reliable source before adding entries to this article. Razer^{Text me} 11:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion ignores new edits. Clearly You are not reading the citations. New citations from fact checker show it to be correct. Reverting. Chirag (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Fact Checker is not a reliable source. Razer^{Text me} 12:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Ownership of articles

The Creator of the article seems to believe that he owns the article and only he has the right to make changes to the article .Please see WP:OWN and discuss here first before reverting edits Razer^{Text me} 11:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No such claim has been made. Please read citations, before deleting entries.

Requested move 7 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural Close.Wrong venue.Approach WP:RFD.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 06:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Programs renamed by Modi Government → ? – This was redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programs renamed by Modi Government, with a recommendation to merge some of the content, but there's nothing about the Modi government or renaming, and probably won't be unless the list is split chronologically. If the renaming is a significant controversy this could be added to Modi ministry or (more likely) Premiership of Narendra Modi. The current redirect is misleading, and the history should be kept somewhere but this title should not be kept as a redirect. Peter James (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong venue Use WP:RFD instead. Pppery 01:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.