Talk:Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge

This article should be merged with another similar aticle "National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA)" as there is nothing new here except for the credit to an economist. 210.212.145.161 (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

− − − There were detailed sections in the article which were later removed (edit history). Can it be returned to the old version easily? --Altonego (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

− −

The article had been first severely cut down (lots of content and references removed without any explanation) and then added to (a lot of rather hard-to-read text added without a proper introduction and no references). I have restored it to a version before the unexplained content removal. --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

− − Added an NPOV. This sounds like something that was written on a GOV India website or a public school essay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.80.35 (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

− − Would authors please remember to use the metric system instead of the subcontinental crore and lakh system? Also, it would help if someone in the know fixed the English, explaining for instance what the last two sentences in the section 'History and Funding' are supposed to mean. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.105.47.82 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

− −

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring and WP:BRD

Unilateral warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please discuss all changes here before restoring. Thanks. Notabede (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that the poster above has been blocked for edit warring on this page and attempting WP:BULLY / WP:OWN this page. Toddst1 (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
As the article history shows, Notabee removed about two thirds of the text of this GA nominee, based on very flimsy grounds, and without discussing any of this on the talk page. In the edit summaries to his removals, he complained of OR (for sections that were meticulously sourced), Synthesis (when removing sections that did not have obvious synthesis problems), overuse of primary sources (in a section called "The law and the Constitution of India", two primary sources), "self published praise for themselves" (in the subsection "Evaluation of the law by the government", etc. Bizarrely, his edit summary complained of "soapbox issues" when removing a section "Assessment of the act by the constitutional auditor". At one point, he even removed a section with the self-contradictory edit summary "Based on Primary sources. Also OR or SYNTHESIS". It can't be all three! It's obvious he's looking for any excuse to remove content from this article, and he's throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. None of it is sticking.
Notabee, you don't get to remove two-thirds of the article with no discussion on the talk page, and then tell people "Please discuss all changes here before restoring." That's absurd. Instead, please discuss all large removals you would like to make, and wait for consensus for removing cited material. Thanks. – Quadell (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Since this article is a GA nominee, we (the Wikipedia community) invite a list of critical comments in order to present our very best for GA nominations. The longer the list, the more it is welcome. Although the GA requirements are comparatively lenient, yet we believe that the Wikipedia should have it's very best even for GA. It took us some time and effort to bring this article to this stage, hence verifying, addressing and incorporating any list of suggested changes also require some patience from all of us. From the feasibility perspective, it would be better if suggested list is on a statement basis or paragraph basis. Acknowledging the variable style of presenting comments of various users, the list could also be on a much broader 'section basis'. We request cooperation in terms of not deleting content right away because it gets very difficult to make changes to parts once it is removed. However if there is some part that is strickingly in violation of Wikipedia policies, the content is better removed with a sense of urgency. So in nutshell, please present a clear list of critical comments on this talk page and also please give us some time to incorporate them. And last but not the least, the longer the list the more it is welcome. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Going forward

It appears that the contended material has been restored. I considered protecting the article at several points during this dispute to prevent further disruption, but I chose not to. I expect that any further proposed removal or major modification of that contended material will be discussed here and a consensus reached before making such edits. Toddst1 (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Turnitinpro (talk · contribs) 03:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

  • This article reads like a rambling overlong amateur essay. Previous editors have commented on the talk page that the article lacks NPOV and reads like a GOV handout. I agree. Article does not generally respect MOS lead requirements, for instance on the CAG objections it is repetitive. The text does not correspond to section headers at several places. eg. Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey said that "the MGNREGA Sameeksha is a significant innovation to evaluate policy and delivery". is this evaluation official?. Similarly "The anthology reportedly draws on independent assessments of MGNREGA conducted by Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs)..." why qualify it by "reportedly", does it or doesn't it ? Similarly the next quotation attributed to the Prime Minister extensively praising the scheme, is a deliberate misrepresentation of the source which actually has Singh "expressing surprise that concurrent evaluation of NREGA scheme is "not in good shape" and directed the Planning Commission to address the deficiency and "gaps". Making it clear that he was not "fully satisfied" with the way the scheme is working, he noted the problems like delayed payment to workers under the government's flagship and said these should be addressed at the earliest." The article abounds with such NPOV examples. poor

Verifiable with no original research:

  • The article contains a list of references. Most of these are Government pamphlets published by the same departments which are implementing the scheme ie. Planning Commission and Ministry of Rural Development. This reinforces suspicion that this article is NPOV and promotional. The entire section "Details of the Law" has been directly derived (brazenly copied) from a single document (in the nature of an FAQ) on the scheme published by the same Government department responsible for the scheme. Similarly the section "The law and the Constitution of India" seems to be original research by the author who stitches it together with vague allusions to the Constitution of India. The section "Assessment of the act by the constitutional auditor" contains a great deal of cruft (referenced to pad up the distinct lack of secondary sources for much of the article). Large chunks of this article seem to be Original Research by the author. poor

Broad in its coverage:

  • Can't say anything about this as yet. Article is excessively long and promotional in tone, and goes into excessive detail.

Neutral:

This article is one-sided since it is sourced from Government handouts and it reflects them. Previous versions of the article had many instances of complaints and controversies for the scheme, which have been airbrushed out in this version. I've already spotted several examples of lack of NPOV and distortion of the few secondary sources this article has. unfair, unbalanced and biased

Stable:

This article has experienced some instability and edit-warring very recently involving multiple editors and content disputes. Allegations have been made that the nominated article contains copyright violations, synthesis and original research. I can't comment on the copyright violations, but there are strong indications of synthesis and original research in this article. This article also seems to have been rapidly developed by a single contributor in the space of a month.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

Yes article has several images as illustrations. The infobox image is a self created image by the primary contributor. It appears to be a direct copy of the law itself. Can't comment if this falls within Free Usage till its known how it was created. The image of Sonia Gandhi has been inserted as captioned "Sonia Gandhi .. is believed to be instrumental in making the Mahatma Gandhi NREGA into law". In that case ought her image to be placed here if there is any doubt about this claim ? Similarly an image of a quotation attributed to Gandhiji has been bunged in with the tag "The law is based on Gandhian principles.". The source for this has nothing to say on the scheme, and in fact predates it by 16 years. Just another example of Original Research by the author. The image of the Constitution of India has also been bunged in unnecessarily. In fact all modern laws of India are derived from the Constitution, so this section and the image seems a COATHOOK to hang somebody's agenda on. The image on "Capacity Building .. Effective Management" is Original Research created by the author whose connection (if any) to the CAG audit report is tenuous and unexplained. Why Mohandas Singh's image has been inserted is not clear. The adjacent quote attributed to him is a deliberate misrepresentation of his statement. very poor

SUMMARY

This article Fails GA for me.Turnitinpro (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

*** Another comment on this article ***

The December 9 2013 version of this article is highly biased, and reads as if written by the public relations office of Indian government or some political party behind this program. For balance and neutrality, please reduce excessive reliance on Indian government documents. Remove off topic pictures of all political names. Remove advocacy. Trim out coatrack digressions. Include summary from other secondary reliable sources that have reviewed MG-NREGA program, such as:

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Carpenter (talk • contribs) 04:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Final Review Recommendations

FAIL. The nominator is unwilling to either defend or copy-edit this overly lengthy, poorly written, politically motivated, highly promotional and POV, badly sourced, virtually self written article hastily cobbled together from handouts of the concerned Government agencies responsible for this controversial program. (NB: additional comments by the new account have been disregarded while arriving at my conclusions).Turnitinpro (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have made significant changes (improvements in my opinion!) - please see if it seems better now.

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MER-C 12:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

POV

There is still huge amount of POV and unsupported promo claims in this article. It doesnt talk about corruption in MGNREGA. The title should also include MG. I doubt that the citation actually contain relevance to text written at some points in this article. It's length is too much and there is little mention of the activities undertaken in the scheme. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Name change

The name of the article has been changed from NREGA to MNREGA, I wonder why the title hasn't been updated yet GrandVizierWazir (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Split

This article needs to be split into two - one for legislation and other for scheme. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Yohannvt (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure why. Can you please explain a bit more in detail? What would be the difference between the contents of the proposed two? Notthebestusername (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Why would we need to split the article into two if we can just have 2 different chapters for both? Wikigupta713 (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC) WikiGupta
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi_National_Rural_Employment_Guarantee_Act,_2005/Archive_1&oldid=1223679567"