Talk:Programs renamed by Modi Government

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)