Talk:Reservation in India

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mobeenb98 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dinakmehta, Na.annamalai.

latest advances in reservation syastem

the section in which you have shown the advances in reservation system of india . there must have some more changes took place after 1995 so i need to know that

The information which you have mentioned under title “Beneficiary groups of the reservation system” may miss guide the reader.

Actually reserve category person can apply to Open or Reserve category. But as per you sentences they can apply both (Open and reserve category) which is not real fact, please confirm with the writer of this article.

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)

Repeated attempts to censor information by User:Skr15081997 and User:Vanamonde93 despite providing citations and following WP:NOR WP:NPOV

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.

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)