Talk:Uttar Pradesh Police
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uttar Pradesh Police article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
 | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
"Yadavisation"
editEatcha, I've removed your addition of the subsection called "Yadavisation by Samajwadi Party", this appears to be particularly egregious violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, it reads like a polemic against Yadavs.
The first line you have added states, "Yadavisation, refers to excessive hiring of new recruits from Yadav community by the Samajwadi Party, often by rejecting candidates from other castes or religions by giving them lower scores in tests." Of the three sources, you have cited one of them explicitly states "There aren't any hard numbers in the public domain to support the BJP, or even Mayawati's allegations that Yadavs are being favoured in postings and recruitment in the state police." Another one makes no comment about why Yadavs are over-represented among new recruits. The only one that even vaguely supports the assertion you have made in this line is clearly attributed to a "S K Mishra Committee" and with regards to a specific district where it has apparently found that OBCs were favoured over general category. Not a single one your sources can be used to verify that line.
The second line states " In 2007 the Uttar Pradesh Police, had around one lakh(100,000) constables, more than 20 per cent of which were Yadavs." Of the two cited sources, one of them doesn't support it and the other one only supports the more than 20% figure.
The next three lines state, "According to a 2014 UP home department source, in districts under the influence of Samajwadi Party, about 60% police stations were headed by Yadavs. Yadavisation caused lawlessness in Uttar Pradesh, as the recruits from Yadav community often protected criminals and goons who were members of the Samajwadi Party. The police refused to file cases and where cases were filed, these were never investigated." Of the two cited sources, The Times of India (RSP entry) article written by a certain Subhash Mishra is not a reliable source. There is no indication that this person is a subject matter expert to make claims "based on empirical evidence as well as home department sources" as he asserts in the article. Not to mention, for this part, you definitely need high quality academic sources and not opinions pieces disguised as news in sources with questionable reliability.
Regardless of all of this, you need to stop repeatedly inserting your addition when someone is contesting them. Since you have clearly not read WP:ONUS even after I had highlighted it to you on multiple occasions, let me spell it out for you. When you make an addition to an article and it is reverted inspite of whatever sources you may or may not have used, then the onus is on you to start a discussion on the talk page and arrive at a consensus for it. You should only restore it, if and only when you have achieved a consensus over what should be added in the article. Unlike in the case with me, here you didn't even bother to start a discussion when Far from average and Yrishabh123 reverted your addition and instead just restored it on both occasions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Section about corruption
editSee WP:BLPCRIME, WP:LISTN, WP:NPOV.
Knowing that there are more than 250,000 members in this force, I don't see why very few examples (mostly non-notable ones) need to be added. Similar sections can be also written about other organizations, even about Microsoft but WP:NPOV is a policy. Listing every possible event just to create a section about 'corruption' violates these named policies. Mukt (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)