Talk:Agnipath Scheme

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

Not discussed in parliament[edit]

Not discussed in parliament is a major point of contention that needs to be discussed. see[1][2][3] Extorc why are you removing this? Venkat TL (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That can be added in the Criticism section of the scheme. Undue in the Lead. >>> Extorc.talk 12:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that MOS:LEAD requires that important points be included in the lead, I believe this is entirely due in the lead. Venkat TL (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Parliament was consulted or not and all other such details come under the process of bringing the scheme. They don't count under "important points". Moreover, as you have already stated, this is "a major point of contention", hence it must find its place in the criticism section. >>> Extorc.talk 12:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will include this in the Criticism section too as it is a reasonable ask. However I want it included in the lead too. Which is why I started this thread. Venkat TL (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we add "point[s] of contention" to the lead, that appears to me to be a NPOV violation. Let it sit in the section specifically made for it. >>> Extorc.talk 12:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
because I consider it "major" point of the article. Something that all the veterans/protestors/parties are repeating. Venkat TL (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which veterans are you talking about? About the protestors, we have a section for them as well. >>> Extorc.talk 13:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me recollect my point.
The "not discussing" can only be classified as 2 things.
One is that it comes under the process of bringing this policy which could be added to the Background section.
Or this could classify as a criticism of the policy for which there is a section.
I dont understand how is this more "Major" criticism than the ineligible aspirants who are protesting, or the concerns over the 4 year period not being long enough. Definately not major enough to find place in lead. >>> Extorc.talk 13:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is just a day old. let's focus on expanding the other sections and revisit the lead once it is done so as to better cover the main points and summarize the article in the lead following the MOS:LEAD. Venkat TL (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Singh, Sushant (16 June 2022). "'Agnipath': What is India's new military recruitment system?". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 17 June 2022.
  2. ^ "Left parties demand scrapping of Agnipath scheme | India News - Times of India". The Times of India. PTI. 16 June 2022. Retrieved 17 June 2022.
  3. ^ "Put Agnipath on hold, take it up in Parliament: Opposition | India News - Times of India". The Times of India. 17 June 2022. Retrieved 17 June 2022.

OROP need to be summarized in the background section[edit]

I think OROP need to be summarized in the background section. Please help. Venkat TL (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal[edit]

I propose that sections Protest be split into a separate page called 2022 Agnipath Scheme protest. The ongoing protest against the Agnipath scheme is notable to have a different Wikipedia page. The ongoing protest is enough notable like farmers protest against farm bills. Information related to protest and responses and reactions of various state governments will be added there. NiteshTALK 08:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose splitting, User:Nitesh003 has created a fork for the protest section at 2022 Agnipath Scheme protest, since the protest article essentially duplicates the article Agnipath Scheme and there is not enough material to justify a WP:SPLITTING, I have Merged and redirected the protest page back to here. Please see WP:SIZESPLIT. In future this may change if and when the protests continue, and there is lot of content to be added in protest section, but right now I am not in favour of splitting. Venkat TL (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split - Keeping the protest-related detail here will overwhelm the page. The focus of this page should be on the wisdom (or lack) of an important military recruitment strategy of India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The protest section is only 1.5 KB, I must remind you that WP:PAGESIZE recommends a split after 100KB. So there is no reason why the protest section cannot be discussed here. Moreover The protest size is duplicating the scheme, Background etc and becoming a copy of this page. Venkat TL (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm telling you again the protest page wasn't copied. Some articles needs time to expand. This ongoing protest has a wide coverage in national and international media. NiteshTALK 09:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ventak TLs reply to Kautilya. The protest section isnt too big right now. If it gets big in future, then we might split it later. >>> Extorc.talk 11:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents of 14 and 15 missing[edit]

The article lacks the events and Incidents of 14 and 15. @Nitesh003 Please help to add the major events. Venkat TL (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shashank4a1 can you please help here, this would need custom google search for specific dates. Venkat TL (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Will start adding content soon. Shashank4a1 (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead figures[edit]

@Shashank4a1 This is unsourced and unnecessary.No need for lead figures. Please do not add it. Provide source for SFI first. Discuss all edits that were reverted on the talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This are the sources for SFI.
https://indianexpress.com/article/delhi/agnipath-recruitment-scheme-protesters-detained-at-ito-metro-station-7976359/
https://www.shiksha.com/news/agnipath-protest-sfi-aisa-and-other-student-organisations-protested-at-ito-delhi-blogId-94023 Shashank4a1 (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shashank4a1 Ok thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added Democratic Youth Federation of India. Cited the same in the protests paragraph. Let me know if you want me to cite it in parties as well. Shashank4a1 (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added Defense Service Aspirants. Plz check if ok? Shashank4a1 (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Everything must be first added to the paragraph along with the reliable source. DYFI can be added in infobox, I dont have objection. "aspirants for defence jobs" seem to be most appropriate according to me. I suggest Defense Service Aspirants be cahnged to "aspirants for defence jobs" or "aspirants for defence services" Venkat TL (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure...Ill do that! Shashank4a1 (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shashank4a1 yes, I am suggesting to mention "aspirants" first so as to avoid any misreading, that they are armed forces on one side. Venkat TL (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got It! Thanks! We need to add data in protests column for today as well. Shashank4a1 (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to the scheme[edit]

@Shashank4a1 I think so far the only update to the scheme is the one time extension of age for 2022, and this is already covered in the overview section. The 10 per cent reservation is not really an update to the Agnipath scheme, it is a related to a future offer (yet to be formally declared) from other departments and PSUs and they can even renegade on these announcements. I believe the 10 per cent reservation announcements should be covered in statements. Moreover according to experts the % is misleading. I think the section "Updates to the scheme" should be removed due to only 1 valid entry that is already covered. Venkat TL (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I merge it with press statements issued? The updates issued are by top government officials. Shashank4a1 (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SunDawn your recent revert should be undone. @Shashank4a1 added it and now after discussion he removed. Shashank4a1 please use WP:EDITSUMMARY Venkat TL (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes statements appear to be the better place for this content Venkat TL (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • All copyrighted images have now been removed. Venkat TL (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agnipath vs Agneepath[edit]

@VenkatTL I see a few news outlets use the term Agnipath while a few use Agneepath. Same is with government agencies. Could you please help me rename the article to Agnipath/Agneepath Scheme?

@Shashank4a1: Both are correct transliterations of the word. Wikipedia will use the more common version, Agni is both common as well as official. so I think no need to change. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Thanks! Shashank4a1 (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the Infobox in Protests[edit]

Why is an infobox required in Protests section? It doesn't add any significant information to the section as far as I can see. I propose the removal of it. Lord Clayton7 (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the infobox summarizes the main points of the protests. I see a definite value add for the reader. It should be kept. Venkat TL (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Venkat TL. >>> Extorc.talk 12:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fork at Agniveer redirected to this page[edit]

Agniveer was an unnecessary duplicate of Agnipath Scheme everything is already discussed at the scheme page, documents etc are not encyclopedic, candidates should check website of the scheme for such information. User:Gardenkur please check WP:SPLIT procedure and discuss on the talk page if you wish to create related pages. Venkat TL (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venkat TL. Nice to see you. However the subject of Agniveer with its substantial coverage becomes notable. The article in future will have informational requirements for personnel who are interested to apply in different categories. Also as per Wikipedia policies if inclusion of an article makes the other article lengthy it can be separate article. Request you to kindly notify before redirecting as per the policy too. Wanted to add isnt biography of a person different from any public role they are handling. Kindly let me know your reservations on this. Thank you. Gardenkur (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The future will bring what future will bring. As of now, there is absolutely no need for a separate page on "Agniveer". It is part and parcel of the Agnipath scheme. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gardenkur, There is hardly anything new to be added on the Agniveer page that cannot be discussed here. I believe you are talking about Wikipedia:Splitting#Size_split, but the required page size of 100 KB prose has not reached yet, so it is too early to propose a split on size grounds. Venkat TL (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kautilya3, Venkat TL. Thanks for your prompt response. However, Iam not talking of distant future,but near future as guidelines for the same are released. There is so much about Agniveers coming out slowly. Wikipedia needs to be an informational platform to highlight important things. Why an Agniveer candidate will be interested in Agnipath scheme. In the interest of general public kindly consider and give a thought. Thanks again. Gardenkur (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gardenkur, just now I installed Wikipedia:Prosesize and found that Prose size (text only) of this article is: 12 kB (2019 words) "readable prose size". So there is a lot of margin to expand whatever you want to add about Agniveer on this page, if it is encyclopedic and not WP:UNDUE it will be kept. Guidelines of Agnipath will be same as Agniveer. I can't see how you are seeing Agniveer scheme different from Agnipath scheme. WIkipedia article is not a replacement for the Agnipath website. We should not copy the website. Venkat TL (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Venkat TL. Nice to see your response. However, we have to think that Agniveers are appointed for various positions. I opened this article for others also to edit like Agnipath scheme and with details coming on their terms of office with other information this will become a reliable platform. Recently I requested Preventive and Social medicine article to be independent of Preventive Healthcare and it was accepted and this too I feel same. Kindly give a thought again. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gardenkur The positions of Agniveer should go into the overview section of this page. I still believe, there is nothing new to be added. So I dont agree to create 2 pages for these. Please add whatever you wish to add on this page, until the size rule is applicable. Venkat TL (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venkat TL. Thanks for your time and efforts and for your valuable inputs for guiding me. Looking forward to work with you to make Wikipedia a reliable and effective platform for public information. Thanks again. Gardenkur (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources used[edit]

Article excessively uses the unreliable WP:TOI even though there are more reliable sources available. Please avoid adding times sites and replace them with better more reliable sources. @Shashank4a1, please note. Venkat TL (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted! Shashank4a1 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bana Singh PVC[edit]

@Shashank4a1, The news about Bana Singh and his tweet should be added. Venkat TL (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few more citations for the same. I am not able to find his tweet. However, I have cited reliable media outlets covering his opinion. Shashank4a1 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL Shashank4a1 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shashank4a1 according to reports, he was forced to delete his tweet. Venkat TL (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I add the article containing this as well? Where in there is significant evidence he was forced to delete his tweet? @Venkat TL Shashank4a1 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shashank4a1 yes please add Venkat TL (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL Done! Shashank4a1 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kargil committee[edit]

WP:TOI is not a reliable source. Please get consensus for adding the content you are adding. Venkat TL (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

I think if criticism is added then Support must be added and facts regarding recruitment must be disclosed so there will be no misunderstanding amongs reader. And I think from my past edit with reference Agnipath scheme has got lots of support and also all doubts are cleared by Army Chief so without late we should add support section in this article Het666 (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No such sections are created on Wikipedia. Give me 1 example. Venkat TL (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I think NSA and all Armed Forces have given consent to Agnipath scheme and criticism is polical. Millions of enthusiastic youth has applied for Scheme it directly means that they also support this scheme. And Venkat TL please read Vandalism on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Go ahead, vandalize Het666 (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey this Article itself is saying in Response by Government and in my reference it is particularly said that youth moving towards Agnipath scheme Het666 (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly put information with reference Het666 (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agnipath_Scheme&oldid=1198169176"