Talk:One Rank, One Pension

India Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Suggestions for MOS and NPOV[edit]

Hi all,

This is a very informative Wikipedia article. I would like to discuss the following changes to the article

Break the article in to sections for background and current debate. The background would cover the various pay commissions' and current debate would have more recent developments.
Change the language to more neutral phrases such as Government led by so-and-so prime minister instead of saying so-and-so prime minister's government, this would give scope to add opinions / recommendations of people during those time periods who were not in politics.
Question of point, has the Congress (I) ever used OROP for its own political purposes before the current government? It would help if anyone could include such sources to show that the issue is being used by all sides.

Please let me know if such changes are OK. I understand this is a very debated issue and I would like to ensure that all facts are maintained while I try to change this article for NPOV. This will allow Neutral editors to participate in this article.--Wikishagnik (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More basics[edit]

The article does not explain the current, non-OROP-based system, so the issue is not made clear. Before going into the details of the political controversy, it would be helpful if the different systems for calculating pensions were explained and contrasted.Bill (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive quotations were removed[edit]

I have removed excessive quotations from non-free content. This material violates our non-free content policy. Wikipedia articles should be written mostly in your own words, and should be in summary style. Adding a chronological list of quotations from every word spoken on the subject is not the way to build an informative and useful article. The article is still nearly double the recommended length. — Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]