Talk:Nyuntam Aay Yojana

Review
If and when you have some time, I would appreciate if you would please take a look at the summary and the sources, since this is not my field of expertise. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't followed the related news coverage and commentary closely enough to be the best person to review the article. A couple of quick notes though: "minimum income guarantee" would be a preferable to "free income"; avoid 'claim(ed)', which can almost always be replaced be 'say'/'said'; and, ₹3,600,000,000,000 may be better written as "₹3.6-lakh crore" or "₹3.6 trillion" (will need to check what the relevant MOSes prefer). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Abecedare: That long 3,600,.... number is an auto-output from our template INRConvert. A useful template it is because it provides USD equivalent for readers outside of India, but I too would prefer what you suggest. Fixing our wiki-template code is well beyond my competence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was about to request RexxS for help, checked the template documentation to prep my request. Well, our coding wizards have already provided for this. Voila!, fixed. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete?
The article already cites many sources, meets the notability and other requirements for an article. Please discuss any concerns here in. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC

Poorly formatted article
This article has several flaws, many of which are immediately apparant to non-editors but apparently need spelling out for editors, particularly those with an interest in regulating its content beyond protocol. Here are some of the issues I think need to be addressed:
 * 1) Poor formatting: Wall of text, poorly formatted/missing paragraphs, no logical flow of arguments or content. Sub-par writing displays a non-encyclopedic tone and deviates from a thorough representation of the subject. Criticism of Nyay has not been spun off into a separate section as it should, where the community and readers could access it easily.
 * 2) Lack of comprehensive sourcing: There are several sources cited, doubtless. The real issue, however, is the several assertive statements made with regards to the program's feasability that are floating in between, with no sources attached, or with the implication that the cited source for another statement references these statements as well, when it often does not, representing a probable case of original research. See the Wikipedia policy on articles possibly containing original research.
 * 3) Potential political biases prevalent: These have not been properly addressed either here or elsewhere on Wikipedia. There has been virtually no discussion of the very pointed one-sided view taken of the program. An example: Before a thorough description of the policy's proposals has been completed, or even attempted, the article floods with criticism about affordability et cetera. I don't have a vested interest in this article, only the knowledge that India has an election underway right now, and that Indian readers deserve an exhaustive, balanced investigation of this politically sensitive subject, something Wikipedia has not done with this page.

I would be happy to respond to requests for further substantiation, but would encourage editors to read the article in the first place, and seek to connect the dots. Wikipedia's reputation when it comes to articles covering Indian politics has been notoriously poor due to the abundance of poorly-researched, poorly-written and politically tilted articles. Let's try and fix that with this page!

Club-sandwich (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Club-sandwich: I have reversed the recent format vandalism. Your "Lack of comprehensive sourcing" allegation makes no sense, and it seems like you have not carefully read the cited sources. Instead of vague allegations, please identify what is not sourced and is OR. On "potential political bias", again you need to be specific because the summary is from the cited published sources. Your "Indian readers deserve an exhaustive, balanced investigation of this politically sensitive subject" statement suggests you have an agenda here and are advocating a political side. A better constructive approach would be for you to offer additional WP:RS that if summarized would improve this article further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Apropos your reply- Seriously? "Indian readers deserve an exhaustive, balanced investigation of this politically sensitive subject" means I have an agenda and am advocating a political side? Would you like to specify, or should I just slap on the 'vague allegations' epithet? Club-sandwich (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Your allegations and comments are difficult to understand in light of your past edit summary. This and other article talk pages are not a forum, please see our WP:TALK guidelines on how best to continue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This comment was previously deleted in violation of the good-faith policy- the user being criticized saw deleting the comment as a useful way to censor it to the general public. Here it is, with removed links to 'attack pages' as demanded by said user, who has since threatened an editing ban on the user who criticized them.


 * ''"Have absolutely no interest in continuing to discuss with presumed good faith with a definite troll and a possible sock-puppet of users with a history of this kind of unproductive behaviour on Wikipedia. You can have your page, buddy. Congrats on making Wikipedia a little less reliable for everybody." Club-sandwich (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)"

''


 * This comment, while vigorous, violates no regulations on WP:Talk, and deserves to remain on this talk page. Should this user be banned for expressing these views, ironically by the very user that is being criticised and obviously cannot handle that? Welcome back to another entry in Wikipedia's long and inglorious history of overly-empowered users treating an encyclopedia like their private fiefdom, and utterly intolerant of dissent. My views remain unchanged- congrats on making Wikipedia a little less reliable for everybody, buddy. Club-sandwich (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)