|This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|WikiProject India||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Instead of complaining/criticizing Reservations in India why Forward caste people are not taking their share of land from India as per Communal Award and build their own nation? 4thAugust1932 14:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4thaugust1932 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia talk pages are not a place to discuss the topics of the article (that is, we're not a comment site or social networking site or online forum); please use this page only to suggest improvements to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Article is a mess
Yes, I know that it has been said before that this article is a mess. I have read all of the threads above but am approaching it from a non-India position and from that position the article makes very little sense at all. Since Wikipedia is intended to be accessible worldwide there is some work to be done here.
I have just rewritten the lead, neither adding nor taking away a thing. It is a pure style issue and doubtless some people would prefer the old version. However, my immediate query is this, which is used in support of the statement that estimates for FCs vary from 5% to 15%. Nowhere in the source does the term Forward C or General C appear. The only item with a figure that could possible correspond refers to "anti-reservationists". Has someone made the assumption that anti-reservationists are FCs? If so, why? That seems to me to be original research. While I am sure that most people who are anti- are those who have nothing to gain from the reservation benefits, it does not necessarily follow that they are all FCs and, in any event, the article does not say it & so we cannot say it, simple as that.
The second source for the statement is this. It seems to be much clearer, even though it uses the term "upper caste". It also contains other useful information that might be added to the article.
I propose that the first source be binned as vague, not merely on the numbers but on a lot of other stuff (The Hindu seems to be like this some times); that the figure be changed to estimated 15% per the second source; and that we point out that this was in 2006 & according to Raj, since he is an "involved person" and may be biased. The last point is important, given that the article says the lists are dynamic. I shall now don my armour! - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please broaden the first table's first column and replace the initials of the states with their full names? Some of us from outside the subcontinent, and not from India, would prefer not having to find HP as Hewlett-Packard in everywhere we look including Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I am adopting a strategy of reverting any changes to the population figures unless the citations are full. There are far too many adjustments going on which claim to be supported by this or that source but which seem usually to be very difficult to track down in the source itself. I previously tagged for some page numbers and people have even been changing the statements post-tagging without providing the info. If they can find the information in order to change the percentage figure, then they should be able to supply the page number for verification. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Clearly, no-one is paying any attention as the situation remains the same, ie: people come along and fiddle with the percentages but do not fix the citations. In consequence, I will soon remove all of the stuff from the article: it is not being cited correctly and verifying it using the existing cites seems to be impossible ... therefore it is invalid content. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
My recent reverts
I have twice in the last hour or so removed some content from the Karnataka section of the list. I have nothing against Karnataka and, indeed, in the absence of full citations for much of the rest of the list I will soon be cutting it right back. In this specific instance, The Hindu clearly states that there is no reliable information and this supports everything that I have been saying here for months now. User:Irrigator also wanted to include figures from 1931 but, of course, the forward class designation did not exist then, the census figures were subject to the machinations of sanskritisation and, in any event, why on earth would we want to include data that is 80 years old? - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have also noticed that the percentages by state are among the many statistics in this article which are hopelessly jumbled: different stats are taken from different sources, compiled at different times, using different methodologies. It is utterly meaningless, and all the more so because they are presented as if they are in fact comparable. We have to get to grips with this. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Any combining of statistics from 2 or more different surveys in some sort of attempt to provide an overall statistical picture is WP:SYNTHESIS and not allowed. We can report the entirety of 2 different surveys, but not take parts of 2 surveys together to draw or imply a single conclusion. If this is being done anywhere on the article, it should be removed ASAP (well, I suppose we can wait until after the blackout :) ). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
OBC where C stands for class is well defined as those people who belong to socially and economically backward CASTE........sp please dont claim that C stands for class ....hence to call the people who do not recieve reservation benefit as FORWARD CASTE is well justified ...