Talk:Reservation policy in Tamil Nadu

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reservation policy in Tamil Nadu article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

India: Tamil Nadu / Politics High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as High-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Source[edit]

@Man of failures: The source literally says

The creamy layer concept has been misused in many parts of the country by excluding the creamy section and converting the reserved seats into general category in the name of not finding the suitable candidate within the OBC section.

SUN EYE 1 18:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of the article being jeopardised by @User:Suneye1[edit]

1 that is a line written by Dr. Venkatanarayan S. in an opinion piece with a disclaimer given below the article that "Views expressed are his own" does not come under WP:RECENTISM? But 2 which is a statement about a policy being implemented all over India but rejected by Tamilnadu govt comes under WP:RECENTISM? User:Suneye1 is involved in WP:GAMING removing one side of the story and completely supporting the other side thereby jeopardising the WP:NEUTRAL policy of Wikipedia. The title of the sub-topic [1] also does not comply with WP:NPOVTITLE policy.Man of failures (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wire's opinion are in a separate category https://thewire.in/opinion/all, that is an analysis by the author. How do you know that sentence is the author's opinion?. Did you read the policy on WP:RECENTISM?. How does the title does not comply with WP:NPOVTITLE? SUN EYE 1 05:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just see the bottom of the source which clearly writes " Views expressed are his own ". "Policy Abuse" is a sub-title used by you as to show the other side having different view in bad light. The thing written under that "Policy Abuse" heading is nowhere the standard accepted theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Man of failures (talk • contribs)

I can see that, that is an analysis of the data by the author. This is an example of the author's opinion. The title can be used for both sides and what is the title you propose SUN EYE 1 06:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section as it is about the entire country not only about the state. My mistake here. SUN EYE 1 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]