Jump to content

Talk:Reservation in India/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

wording unclear

I can't make sense of the following sentence... "For example, the caste-based reservation stands at 69% and the same is applicable to about 87% of the population in the State of Tamil Nadu." You have to find the sentence in the main article to see it in context. Could this be re-written? But before focusing on how to say it better, what is it actually trying to say, at all? --doncram 20:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't add personal views

I have edited the entire introduction. The introduction had an extremely bigoted paragraph in favour of Brahmins and upper castes who hate reservation. It goes like this-

"Reservation in India are quotas given based on caste and religion in school, college, university admissions, and later in jobs, and promotions in jobs. Political parties found a way to gain votes by dividing Hindus as Scheduled Castes, Backward Castes and so called "upper" castes. These political parties perpetuate these quotas since 1950. After 2000, these political parties also started giving quotas in college seats/admissions and jobs to Muslims in India. More than 50% of available seats in college admissions and more than 50% of jobs are filled/allotted based these caste quotas. There is no end date to these quotas. The caste based quotas may go on for another few hundred years."

Myself being from a backward caste, I was pained on seeing this. On a general note however, I appeal to anyone who is editing this article not to write edits in favour of reservation or against reservation. Wikipedia articles are meant to be neutral. Rammi123 (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Quality of introduction

A large scale edit was made to the article on April 15th by an unnamed user. I haven't gone through it all, but the introduction has some pretty serious issues. Though the older intro wasn't great, this new one is considerably worse, going into far too much detail for an intro, not making any attempt to maintain a neutral or encyclopedia-like tone, and uh, going crazy with italics. It reads like a newspaper editorial. Unless someone can justify why this intro should be kept, I'm going to revert to the old one and do any cleanup it needed. Yourself In Person (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


Reservation is needed because it is all about upliftment of socially backward communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.223.51 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reservation in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

organization

I think that there are too many sections in the article. Each slightly new topic seems to have its own section. Some of these could be blended together. I think that the organization could be improved. -KaJunl (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@KaJunl:I did some re-organization here in the article. See if it helps, thanks ABTalk 05:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't remove content

I see some editors removing content here stating no/unreliable citation - e. g. I see reference to Hunter commission is missing from the article after some re -organisation. @Sitush: Have you done it? ABTalk 08:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You know I have. You said as much in your edit summary of a few hours ago. You also now know the reason: it was unsourced. Feel free to reinstate the information if you can find a reliable source that supports the entirety of whatever you claim. Wordpress blogs are not reliable, for example. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I knew, definitely. :) Oh btw, Hunter Commission gives a google hit of about 2,45,000 results. Only wordpress? What happened to the good faith assumptions? Or is it works only in some certain POVs? ABTalk 09:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the Commission existed but what we say about it and whether that is sourced. I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you refer to AGF: we avoid blogs like that and I think it even says so at WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Now that's some removal - two lines and you say too much detail?( No, it is not covered in next para, that is something different) For me it is important as it signifies demands for reservation on the basis of community existed even in the 19th century in India, and succeeded in varying degrees. I am going through some other sources where in reservation in State of Mysore and other various demands in Bomabay presidency etc are included. I feel the two lines has a significance. Yes the extra 'l' may be removed. :) ABTalk 11:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
PS: I just realised that there is a whole detailed para for communal award - which has no equivalence in today's system - exist there. Hilarious!! :) ABTalk 11:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Consider yourself talking in an echo chamber now, ABEditWiki. Your attitude is irritating to me - I know you have gloated about your sarcasm etc but it is difficult to work out when you are being serious and when you are being facetious etc. Maybe someone else will deal with you. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
No worries. Let your edits stay. ( Not because it is irrelevant, but those lines won't add anything significant to the article, in its present state. I may try creating a sandbox and ping you, if you got time do have a look) ABTalk 19:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Depressed classes

The Depressed classes article currently redirects to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Can anyone find a decent source that verifies it doesn't ever include OBCs? I've always thought it to be a rather woolly term but we use it in this article because our sources use it. We're going to have to clarify, probably in a footnote. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I have seen, the term Depressed Classes were invariably used to denote category of people mentioned as 'Harijans/Dalits/Untouchables/Atishudras'. Nowhere I have come across sources that included 'backward classes/castes' in Depressed Classes. Rather the term Backward Classes was used contemporaneously with Depressed Classes as early as 1920 See Link ABTalk 20:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. No idea why I haven't seen your reply until now. I did take a break around the time I asked but I've been back for ages. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Primary objective of the reservation system

I went through the article cited and could not find anywhere the claim; instead the source mentions the rational behind the policy as ..The overall package, as it operates today, is addressed to three sets of policy goals. First, to remove social and religious disabilities of certain specified groups suf-fering disabilities on account of their social segregation and spatial and cultural isola-tion; namely the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) Second, to facilitate and promote equal participation with others, of all socially disabled and disadvantaged groups in organised sectors of the country's economic and political life. This is sought to be achieved through provisions for preferential treatment in education, in government employment, reservation of seats in parliament, state legislatures and local bodies and through other ameliorative measures and schemes designed to improve their life chances With exception of reser-vations in legislatures the other preferential measures are not confined only to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes; they also extend to the category described in the constitution as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, better known as the Other Backward Classes (OBC). Third to protect, if necessary through legislative action and executive orders, all these groups, also described in the constitution as weaker sections of society, or simply, the backward classes, from all forms of social injustice and exploitation.Reservations, along with other measures of protection and uplftment of the weaker sections of society, should thus be viewed as an instrument of a larger social policy of the state addressed to a long-term goal of creating a civil society through extending effective citizenship rights to the vast sec-tions of the popualation who have been historically deprived and marginalised.. @Sitush: ABTalk 21:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@ABEditWiki: sorry - see my response immediately above and also below. I was away for a while and your ping was lost. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2017

Hi, I am formally requesting editing rights for this article. As a native Indian citizen and with an impartially neutral thinking, I would like to improve this article. Thank you. SammyWikiCheck (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You can't edit the article until you get some experience with editiing Wikipedia and get "auto-confirmed". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Article scope

Many months ago someone began expanding this article to include other legal provisions for affirmative action than those relating to caste issues. During and since that time, the article has become even more of a mess than it was and I think the recent spate of edit warring, with people claiming "propaganda" etc, is the outcome. We need to define the scope of the article and the level of detail that is reasonable, as well as enforcing such things as WP:V and WP:RS. I asked for temporary protection in the hope that people will discuss these issues and any others which they may have. I've also mentioned it at the talk page of the India Project in the hope of getting wider input. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with the scope. The only thing I would suggest to leave out reservations for legislatures, because there the issue is getting a representative legislature rather than to provide opportunities. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem with scope lies in the recent history, with some people trying to narrow it and others wanting to concentrate even more on the caste element. I really couldn't care less: I just want the warring to stop and people to write stuff that actually complies with our policies and, preferably, our guidelines, too. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The source of the articles paints a different picture than mentioned in its title. Either this article should be removed (the information on this article is controversial to say the least) or it should be thoroughly revamped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SammyWikiCheck (talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Replacement of old image with a new one which is more recent in term of the year of survey

File:Caste and Community profiles of poverty line in India as per NSSO.jpg
Caste and Community profiles of poverty line in India as per NSSO
Caste and Community of Profile People below povertyline in India

DOES IT NEEDS VOTING? Djsnape (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No. That is fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3, So what should I do now? Djsnape (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Replacement of old image with a new one which is more recent in term of the year of survey

File:Caste and Community profiles of poverty line in India as per NSSO.jpg
Caste and Community profiles of poverty line in India as per NSSO
Caste and Community of Profile People below povertyline in India

DOES IT NEEDS VOTING? Djsnape (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No. That is fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3, So what should I do now? Djsnape (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

New reservations

Djsnape, please do not take this opportunity to make wholesale revisions to the page. The kind of edits you have been doing suffer from poor grammar, WP:POV and other problems. None of the existing content is invalidated by the new reservations. Please create a new section for the new reservations using the best sources you can find. We can revisit the rest of the content later. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that there is nothing called a "general caste". The new reservations are meant for economically backward sections irrespective of caste. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

New reservations

Djsnape, please do not take this opportunity to make wholesale revisions to the page. The kind of edits you have been doing suffer from poor grammar, WP:POV and other problems. None of the existing content is invalidated by the new reservations. Please create a new section for the new reservations using the best sources you can find. We can revisit the rest of the content later. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that there is nothing called a "general caste". The new reservations are meant for economically backward sections irrespective of caste. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Advocacy groups etc as sources

Please note that it is rarely a good idea to use advocacy groups as sources for information except with regard to themselves. For this reason, I have just removed the BSP and Dalit News Bureau sources, and also the World Christian Federation source that in any event did not support the statement for which it was cited. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit status

Seriously, why has no one done this yet? With a topic like Reservation there are bound to be idiots trying to promote their agendas on Wikipedia about how reservation is either the greatest thing to happen to India or lamenting the "plight of the General category student" denied their rightful place or how the rich sc/sts take all the benefits. C1MM (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Additions to the lead section by User:JusticeCM

The following text added to the lead section by User:JusticeCM in these edits has been removed:

  • It is observed that even after 70 years of reservation the backward classes haven't been benefitted the way they should have been and reservation keeps getting extended after every 10 years.[2] One of the major reasons for this is no income cap on ST/SC reservations unlike OBC and EWS reservations where there is an income cap so that once a person is benefitted by reservation and is capable of earning a livelihood, he is no longer entitled to reservation. As there is no concept of creamy layer in ST/SC reservations, even the son, grandson and great grand son of any other class A officer gets the benefits of reservation who himself got reservation.[3] So the benefits get siphoned off by the effluent ST/SC's and are not able to percolate to the lower strata. Even the supreme court has directed the central government to introduce creamy layer concept in ST/SC reservation, but this is not possible because of vote bank politics.[4] So reservation is necessary in a country like India but rules for availing it should be changed for the overall development of people of backward classes.[5]

for the reasons mentioned below:

  • It is observed that even after 70 years of reservation the backward classes haven't been benefitted the way they should have been and reservation keeps getting extended after every 10 years.[2] One of the major reasons for this is no income cap on ST/SC reservations unlike OBC and EWS reservations where there is an income cap so that once a person is benefitted by reservation and is capable of earning a livelihood, he is no longer entitled to reservation. — WP:Original Research
  • As there is no concept of creamy layer in ST/SC reservations, even the son, grandson and great grand son of any other class A officer gets the benefits of reservation who himself got reservation.[3] — Adequately covered by However, no income criteria has been set for members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.
  • So the benefits get siphoned off by the effluent ST/SC's and are not able to percolate to the lower strata. — WP:Original Research
  • Even the supreme court has directed the central government to introduce creamy layer concept in ST/SC reservation, but this is not possible because of vote bank politics.[4] — The given citation doesn't say that the Supreme Court gave the claimed directive.
  • So reservation is necessary in a country like India but rules for availing it should be changed for the overall development of people of backward classes.[5] — Reads like essay and personal opinion.

The following text was modified:

  • Today anyone whose forefathers belonged to ST/SC community gets the benefits of reservation irrespective of his socioeconomic status.[1] to However, no income criteria has been set for members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • User:JusticeCM, it's high time that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. The text you are repeatedly adding to the article is clearly biased against the topic and the citations you are including in your additions don't support the claims you are adding to the article. I had explained earlier to you above, why your additions were reverted. The language you are using in the article isn't what would ideally be used in an encyclopedia. For example, you are repeatedly adding the line As there is no concept of creamy layer in ST/SC reservations, even the son, grandson and great grand son of any other class A officer gets the benefits of reservation who himself got reservation. The "creamy layer" thing has been adequately summed up as However, no income criteria has been set for members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. You are constantly, in your edit summaries, asking other editors to Provide citations to contradict whatever has been written and dont engage in an unnecessary edit war. Provide evidence that a son of IAS/IPS or any other class A officer cannot avail reservation and if you do then i wont edit it further. That's not exactly how things are done here. You are expected to provide citations to the text you are adding to the article, which has to be neutral in tone. What you are doing is providing citations for part of your text and based on them adding your own interpretation of the subject. The text you are continuously adding to the article is original research as explained above and doesn't deserve place in the article, let alone the lead section. Please go through the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Supreme court opinion

Some editors have been continuously trying to censor edits made by other editors and have been trying to hide the reality. Edits made are in reference with suggestions given by the judiciary of India. These are neither personal thoughts. Despite repeated requests to reframe the edit in case any editor finds a problem with it, the entire edits are deleted. PLease do not try to censor edits of other editors.

These are some citations in accordance with my edits.

  • "Does great-grandson of IAS officer need quota in promotion, asks Supreme Court". India Today.
  • "'Creamy layer' concept not applicable to SC/ST: Centre tells Supreme Court". hindustantimes.com.
  • "Rethink design of SC and ST reservations". Economic Times Blog. 23 April 2020.
  • Rajagopal, Krishnadas (8 December 2019). "Why does government want Supreme Court to reconsider stand on SC/ST creamy layer?". The Hindu.
You are stating the court's opinion as fact, whereas even the source you are citing presents it as an opinion. Please read through WP:RS carefully before making any further edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


@ User:Vanamonde93 That opinion given by Supreme Court is based on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhistleBlower15 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone please put protection on this page

Since reservation is of course highly charged many people will want to impose their own opinions on the page. Due to high chance of Vandalism, please put protection.— Preceding unsigned comment added by C1MM (talk • contribs) 00:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The current introductory paragraph is biased

The current introductory paragraph reads as extremely biased against the beneficiaries of the reservations and in fact reeks of the exact attitude toward them that the reservations were meant to protect them from. It may make sense as criticism of reservations, but surely the introductory paragraph as to be about what they are and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.17.196 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC) 

1.39.140.182 (talk) Agree, sample these sentences in the opening paragraph, which reads like fumigating drivel 'Reservation was intended to uplift these communities but the government's failure to control the amount of reservation and lack of comprehensive review of the policies have resulted in wide criticism and backlash. Critics have often described it as a menace primarily due to its anti-meritocratic nature, which they claim is causing further division and discrimination in the society.' We already have a separate section on criticism of reservation, what purpose does such sentences serve in the introduction? this is non NPOV

1.39.141.196 (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Editors, any comment? Can we remove the above text? 19:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)~~ 19:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)157.40.171.176 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Editors, still awaiting go ahead for the above change ~~ hi @JRDkg Can you please explain why you reverted the edit?

Reservation

What is reservation 59.89.187.45 (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reservation_in_India/Archive_2&oldid=1131218383"