Talk:One Rank, One Pension

Suggestions for MOS and NPOV

Hi all,

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

More basics

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)

Excessive quotations were removed

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)