Talk:Indian Administrative Service/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Orphaned references in Indian Administrative Service

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Indian Administrative Service's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "history":

  • From Indian Police Service: "Data History of Indian Police Service (Official Raj Govt. Page)". Retrieved 2010-04-26.
  • From International Standard Book Number: See discussion of the history at isbn.org.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cab Sec not Constitutional Authority

The cabinet secretary is not a "constitutional authority". The constitution does not refer to the post as such, and there was no "cabinet secretary" per se, until the 1960s. Just because of the fanciful assumptions of a few, we should not distort the truth. The item designating the cabinet secretary as a constitutional authority should be removed. The Cabsec is a professional, and serving government servant, and cannot be deemed to be a const. authority on a par with Judiciary, Commission members, the President, and other such. The Cabsec is fully liable to dismissal at the pleasure of the President, if the government so chooses, without any recourse to parliamentary ratification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.75.210 (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian Administrative Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Indian Foreign Service

Indian Foreign Service is not an All India Service. It is a Central Service. Indian Forest Service is an All India Service.

Yes . 

Phuntunampucholi (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

All India Services are services common to the States and the Union. The terminology is from Article 312 of the constitution http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/Const.Pock%202Pg.Rom8Fsss(19).pdf http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/coi-indexenglish.htm which creates the AIS. There is no implication about the status of the AIS vis-a-vis the Central Services, nor the Indian Forest Service vis-a-vis the Indian Foreign Service.

Nagarajan08 (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Nagarajan.

Factual Error in the IAS and IPS article

Quote from MV Kamat

"For example, M. V. Kamath said that the ICS was neither Indian, nor civil nor a service."

Are you sure that it is MV Kamath who told this first? In Glimpses of World History, Jawaharlal Nehru has written (in 1932) -- "Someone has said, ICS is neither Indian, nor civil nor a service". So it has been told before 1932, and MV Kamath is not that old to have said before that. I'll change the MV Kamath reference if there is no objection. --Sahodaran (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The above quote is a paraphrase on the witticism of Voltaire on the Holy Roman Empire that it was "neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire". - Gopalan evr (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the three 'Category A' civil services of Govt. of India as designated by UPSC are:

1. Indian Administrative Service 2. Indian Police Service 3. Indian Foreign Service, not Indian Forest Service.(wrong. see below Gopalan evr 11:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

In fact, Forest Service is a lower category service, and has a separate examination and interview conducted by UPSC. It is not a part of the All India Civil Services Examination. Foreign service officers typically hold the ranks of Indian Diplomats in foreign countries Request appropriate correction.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. :D 68.39.174.238 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The only three All India Services are the Indian Administrative, Police and Forest Services. The Indian Foreign Service is a Group A service of the Govt of India. An All India Service is created by a resolution initiated in the Rajya Sabha (House of the States, Upper House) of the Indian Parliament. Its members are then "loaned" to the State governments. While the officers of the IAS and IPS, and twenty five other services, are selected through a common examination, the Forest Service is selected through a separate examination. The inclusion of the Foreign Service in the Civil Services Examination has created an impression that it is an All India Service. It is not.- Gopalan evr 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The term "All India Services" means that the civil servants of these cadres can be / are scattered all across India (like every district needs an administrator, police authority and a forest conservator) on the other hand, Indian Foreign Service officers are generally stationed at New Delhi (at Ministry of External Affairs or consulates) or serve at other countries as India's diplomats so that doesn't qualify them as a part of All India Services. This has nothing to do with stature or rank, all the civil services are quite tough to get into, especially the IAS and IES (Indian Engineering Services). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.123.160 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

All India Services are created under Article 312 of the Constitution http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/coi-indexenglish.htm and as Mr Gopalan mentions above, are loaned to the State Governments. The nomenclature does not have to do with the physical location of the officers in the Districts or in New Delhi. Nagarajan08 (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Nagarajan.

Concerns and reforms

Would a paragraph about the 7th pay commission discussion on pay parity be in place here? And also about the committee constituted to look into the issue of empanelment - major reform?

Nagarajan08 (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Nagarajan.

How do we make this good enough to be an A-class article?

Suggestions? We can discuss. Nagarajan08 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Nagarajan.

List of IAS officers

This article has a link to a list of IAS officers convicted of corruption , which leads to one further article only about Neera Yadav. How about a category : list of IAS officers ?

Nagarajan08 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Nagarajan

I have added a section linking to Category: List of IAS officers.

Nagarajan08 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Nagarajan.

Cadre strength

Should this article include cadre strength of each State with persons in place and vacancies? I had made the table but it has been deleted by an anonymous user stating that the table is an internal matter of DOPT and need not be present in an encyclopedia.

Nagarajan08 (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Nagarajan

== I have included the cadre strength of each State since there is no discussion. Please discuss with a name ; do not delete anonymous! Why does someone think it an advertisement or promotion of IAS? An a non-sequitir that Wikipedia is not Indian? Please suggest what can be included to make it a comprehensive A-category article.

S.Nagarajan (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Nagarajan.

Career Progression

The number of years of service to reach a particular level is typical and the minimum required under the IAS Rules. It had been part of the table before I edited it and segregated the State / Central designations. Later it has been deleted by anonymous, with an anecdote about someone they know. Should the column be included or not?

~~Nagarajan.

I have added the column showing number of years required to reach the level based on the IAS Pay Rules 2016, with a note regarding the posts in the Union.

Nagarajan08 (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Nagarajan.

I have added the designations Deputy Commissioner (used e.g. in Punjab), District Collector (used in TN, AP, TS, Maharashtra) which are identical to DM used in UP, Bihar, Bengal. The Collector was the revenue authority created under the appropriate revenue regulation e.g. Madras Collectors Regulation 1803, and the designation District Magistrate is from the Criminal Procedure Code. They both refer to the same post and are vested in the same person. Due to differing focus historically, commonly they are called preferring any one nomenclature.

Nagarajan08 (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Nagarajan.

1. The number of years to reach a particular position is given in the IAS Pay Rules 2016, and also in the service profile document of DOPT. An earlier edit deleted the column 'years of service' stating that the years of service was not the same for posts in the Central government and 'knew someone who became JS in Govt of India in 27 years'. I suggest we can have the years of service without talking about the exceptions. 2. Nomenclature of postings - please see http://persmin.gov.in/ais1/Docs/ServiceProfile.pdf which has the names District Magistrate / District Collector / Deputy Commissioner as an entry on page 2.

S.Nagarajan (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Nagarajan.

IAS as sole successor to ICS; Administration in civil service

  • Indian Administrative Service presently canot term itself as the sole and the only successor to the Imperial Civil Service. Candidates who were selected in the ICS went through mandatory probation training and education in England and UK. This period was spent at the University of Oxford (Indian Institute), the University of Cambridge, colleges in the University of London, Trinity College, Dublin and few other top universities in UK. At present, IAS dont write their exams either in UK or go through their probationary period in London or have anything to do with British Empire. So IAS is not ICS. ICS was terminally dead as a service when British left India after 250 years of rule and Indians as a slave race in India.
  • During British rule in India, a member of Provincial Civil Services (now called the State Civil Services) could take posts in the Imperial Civil Service but technically never promoted to the ICS, because PCS officer never in the first place took their exams in UK or went through the probationary training as ICS officers did.
  • Imperial Civil Service were the most intelligent people and elite educated people who ruled over 300 million people in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma (then comprising British Raj). ICS officers were known for their purpose of mission, love for their duty, loyalty to British Empire and looking after matters of permanent British settlement in India. However, IAS fraternity have been in recent years have been found guilty of crimes in 2G, Colgate, CWG and all other major scams in India. Now, many members are dismissed by Cabinet of India and PM due to pathetic job they do in administration.
  • Public Service itself is "Public administration" . There is an academic degree called MPA/MPPA which teaches about public administration as a field and a job. All members in the civil service of India (3 All India Services) and Central Civil Services (Group A and B) and Central Secretariat Service is all about Public Service and respective administration in their tasks. IAS is a generalist service which knows nothing and has been proved good for nothing. The members in IAS have neither technical skills and neither specialized skills. Their jobs can be done by a qualified CSS cadre or even a IPS cadre. Gautam Sanyals appointment as Principal Secretary in West Bengal has proved this reality and theory.

Japanmomo (talk • contribs) References


_______________________________________________________________________________

  • Indian Administrative Service is the sole successor to the Imperial Civil Service, just like IPS is the successor of Imperial Police, and CSS is successor to ISS. The job profile of both ICS and IAS is eerily similar. Also, State Civil Services are feeder services to IAS. And even then, PCS officers occupy positions that IAS officers hold in the state government, i.e. Special Secretaries in State Secretariats, VCs/Commissioners of Development Authorities, Municipal Commissioners, and of course SDM.
  • Most IAS officers too are educated from some of the most prestigious institution in world and India, like the Oxford University, Cambridge University, Harvard University, London School of Economics, IITs, IIMs, Delhi University Colleges, NITs and IITS. Getting an All India rank between 1-100 in an exam written by 1 to 1.5 million people is an exemplary feat in itself.
  • 2 or 3 officers out of a total 5 thousand, being dismissed from service doesn't equate to majority or even significant. Even IPS and CSS officers have been dismissed from service.
  • IAS officers being good for nothing is subjective, and purely your opinion. IAS as a generalist service fills key management positions in every level of government. IAS officers like TN Sheshan have served the nation very well in positions like the Chief Election Commissioner of India, RBI Governor, UPSC Chairman, among others. IAS officers also have uncovered major scams while serving in a 'specialist' position like Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
  • CSS officers are generalist too, and if one goes by your argument, one would arrive to the conclusion that they are good for nothing too. And, CSS officers being appointed to positions in state governments proves nothing, rather I would say it's an outlier. The Prime Minister's Principal Secretary heads his office, and he's an IAS officer. And Gautam Sanya was appointed as PS to WB CM because of he is close to the WB CM (as PS to CM/PM should be), before his appointment as PS/S to CM, he was OSD to Railway Minister (Mamta was the Railway Minister then). SshibumXZ (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


_______________________________________________________________________________

  • Indian Administrative Service is not the successor or has anything do with Imperial Civil Service. The ICS entity died the day British white European people moved out of India in the year 1947.
  • In regards to history of civil service, the British wouldn't have known nothing about it, if it were not the Chinese or Imperial China. The origin of the modern meritocratic civil service can be traced back to Imperial examination founded in Imperial China. The Imperial exam based on merit was designed to select the best administrative officials for the state's bureaucracy. British efforts at reform were influenced by the imperial examinations system and meritocratic system of China. Thomas Taylor Meadows, Britain's consul in Guangzhou, China argued in his Desultory Notes on the Government and People of China, published in 1847, that "the long duration of the Chinese empire is solely and altogether owing to the good government which consists in the advancement of men of talent and merit only," and that the British must reform their civil service by making the institution meritocratic.[1]
  • I regard the golden period of civil service in India to be from 1945 to 1970. ICS members were outstanding. They let outstanding members in other services to come on the top. The Education Secretary, Labor Secretary and Member of UPSC (1967-1973) were all members from the Central Secretariat Service. During this period CSS cadre officers were allowed, by then serving ICS officers on top in GOI, to serve as diplomats at embassies/High Commissions of India abroad. Notable officers include - K Shankar (1969), FA High Commission of India London and H K Kochar (1970), DG ISD London. They are all CSS cadre officers.
  • Also, a well known civil servant U. Sagayam cleared the UPSC CSE and served in Central Secretariat Service, and later went to state civil service and got promoted to IAS (2001 TN). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japanmomo (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bodde,, Derke. "China: A Teaching Workbook". Columbia University.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

History

  • In the British Raj, the primary job of ICS officer was revenue collection, revenue administration and money generation for the Government of India. However, after creation of the Indian Revenue Service and Income Tax Service, Group ‘B’, revenue generation and money collection/generation has come under the Central Civil Service and not IAS of state cadres.
  • Before the creation of IAS as a service, India was pretty doing well without it. India was once the richest subcontinent on the planet. However now IAS is the most corrupt service in the country with being arrest in CWG, 2G, Hawala and all other major scandals in India. I will not be surprised to see IAS filled up in Tihar Jail.
  • In the British Raj, candidates who qualified for ICS were those who came from extremely rich families (including royalty in India) and those who could at that time had money and brains to travel to UK. In comparison, candidates in the IAS are majorly from poor and lower middle class backgrounds. There is nothing to compare. Rich families and wealthy people dont send their children for IAS or any other pity, government low salary jobs.

Japanmomo (talk • contribs)
_______________________________________________________________________________

  • ICS officers were in-charge of General Administration, Law and Order and Revenue Collection in their divisions/districts, also, ICS officers occupied the same position as IAS officers do now. For example, they too used to be Union Secretaries. The only great difference is that ICS officers were empowered as Magistrates and Judges, and served as Justices in High Courts, and also served as Regional Governors whilst still in service.
  • IAS officers are still in-charge of revenue collection, that's why DMs are also called Collectors. IAS officers head revenue departments in States, and the Union Revenue Secretary is an IAS officer too. And after the passing of GST act (amendment) IAS officers are also in-charge of State GST and Inter-state GST.
  • IAS officers too come from well-off and wealthy families. Plus, what you are saying makes little to no sense, and is straight-up discriminatory in nature. One who gets rank between 1-100 in an examination written by 1-1.5 million people has to be special. Also, many IAS officers are alumnus some of the most prestigious institution in world and India, like the Oxford University, Cambridge University, Harvard University, London School of Economics, IITs, IIMs, Delhi University Colleges, NITs and IITS.
  • Sagyam being a former CSS officer has nothing to with the argument we are having. Yes, he cleared CSE and was allotted CSS, but he had already given TN CSE, and was allotted the Tamil Nadu Civil Service, and was later promoted to IAS in 2001. The only thing that shows is that PCS is preferred over CSS.
  • Again, what you consider to be the golden period of Civil Service, is purely your opinion, and should have no implications on the Wikipedia article whatsoever. SshibumXZ (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


_______________________________________________________________________________

  • An IAS officer cannot match the education standard of a CSS cadre officer, who was recruited through the UPSC CSE. One such example would be Dr KV Jacob (See Profile Link: https://linkedin.com/in/kvjacob). This guy served as Joint Secretary GOI in the Ministry of Defence and served as OSD to then Defence Minister of India for 7.5 years (co-terminum term). This guy has 2 bachelors degree. 4 Masters Degree and a PhD in Agricultural Botany. He was awarded Gold Medal for his PhD by then Governnor of Karnataka Govind Narain, ICS. I want to see an IAS officer with equivalent academic and professional credentials. He is currently a visiting student at University of London.
  • Your statement "Also, many IAS officers are alumnus some of the most prestigious institution" is a blatant fraud. Few IAS officers cannot be generalised for all IAS retired and serving officers. As per my research and understanding, 80% of IAS are local graduates from India, mostly humanities and arts. There are exceptionally few engineers, scientists and doctors. I personally think Engineers and Scientists should be banned from entering the IAS because it ia a waste of talent as Indian Engineering Services and Defence Research & Development Service has been made solely for these specific fields. IAS as a generalist cadre has proven a total failure for a 3rd world country like India.
  • After creation of the Indian Revenue Service and Income Tax Service, Group ‘B’, revenue generation and money collection/generation has come under the Central Civil Service and not IAS of state cadres. If IRS does not do its job, tomorrow state government and GOI would be begging on streets. IAS officers wont be getting its pension and monthly salary.
  • There is a fundamental difference why India is a poor dirty 3rd world country and China is now has the largest economy in the world (soon the richest country on planet). Indian civilian administration and bureaucracy led by IAS has failed the system and destiny of 1.2 billion Indians. Aren't you IAS lobby/stooges ashamed that "Communist one party" China is leading over a "flawed and fraud democracy" called India?
  • In developed country like US --> technical, field and subject specialised and mainstreamed qualified person reigns over a generalist. India is different because Indians are still a colonized people. Neither the politicians or the civil service or the citizens of India have come out of slavery mindset.
  • Have you even read this article "Mystery of the missing IAS dozen by The Telegraph" (Link: https://www.telegraphindia.com/1150614/jsp/frontpage/story_25696.jsp). It just proves IAS are traitors.

Japanmomo (talk • contribs)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Damn, don't you think that you are teeny bit rude?

  • "80% of IAS are local graduates from India, mostly humanities and arts." - That statement is a straight up lie, most IAS officers are engineers, from institutes like IITs and NITs.[1][2]
  • Dr. KV Jacob, again, is an outlier. Most CSS officers are people who couldn't get IAS in CSE. Dr. Hasmukh Adhia, the Union Revenue Secretary is an IAS officer. And he's a PhD, and has a post graduate degree from IIM Bangalore. Talking about other qualified IAS officers check out Shrikant Jichkar, the guy had twenty degrees.
  • IAS officers are responsible for revenue collection in states, and serve in strategic position in both Union and State governments, guess who is the secretary of the GST council? An IAS officer. IRS officers are in-charge of collection direct taxes (IT), and India is moving towards indirect taxes.
  • IAS, the generalist service (so is CSS, have you forgotten that?) occupies most of the strategic positions in India. Ever heard of Vinod Rai? TN Sheshan? If you haven't check them out, both of those 'generalists' served the nation well while serving in 'specialist' positions.
  • Yea, US is different from India. The people are different, and the politicians are different. The whole climate is different. In US too generalists lead department (hospital administration, for example). And you know Japan? The third largest economy in the world? Well, it also has the same permanent bureaucratic system. So do countries like Canada (higher HDI than US), UK and Australia.
  • China doesn't have the largest economy in the world, it is in PPP though, but India is the third/fourth largest then and some nerve you have calling India a third-world country, we're not first world/development, but we're progressing at a great pace.
  • Ah, calling one stooge is a sign of decency one must assume. Well, at least you good sir, are better than us with your superior use of vocabulary, and your superiority complex.
  • All in all, you're just imposing your opinion on everyone, your comments illustrate very well that you're biased against the IAS, and have affinity for CSS. SshibumXZ (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Engineers dominate IAS exam (UPSC Civil Services Exam) - Statistical Analysis". Dainik Jagran. Retrieved August 18, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Ramachandran, T.K. "IIT graduates in the IAS". The Hindu. Retrieved August 18, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)


__________________________________________________________________

Abolition of IAS

Japanmomo (talk • contribs)
__________________________________________________________________

  • You quoting some stuff doesn't change anything, one can just as easily quote the opposite. The fact is tat the Administrative in the IAS means, of or relating to administration or an administration : executive administrative duties.[1] . And just for your information, Law Secretary is an advocate.
  • A lot of IPS and other Service Cadre officers are missing too, and you writing the word 'traitors' in bold text, doesn't make them traitors. And the government should take action against officers on unannounced leave.
  • Again, you saying that Engineers and Scientists shouldn't be allowed in IAS should've no implications on the article, it is just your personal opinion. And like I have already said that most IAS officers are Engineers, and are from top engineering institutes.
  • And, I agree that attracting talent to IES is imperative, but the service should offer better wages do it.SshibumXZ (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "administrative". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved August 16, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

__________________________________________________________________

Japanmomo (talk • contribs) __________________________________________________________________

Again, don't you think that you're a tiny bit rude with your language? Especially with your frequent use of the word 'vandal' in all caps.

  • Factually, India is developing country, not a third world country. Also, I don't think you have a clear idea of what NPT is. India can ratify NPT at any moment, what's more momentous is that it is a Nuclear Power. We also spend around 2.5% of our GDP ($50 billion, which is the fifth largest in the world) on national defence. China is a Communist state in name only, it's economy is heavily liberalised.
  • More than 1/2 JS positions are occupied by IAS officers, 98/107 Addl. Secy.s are IAS officers, 73/91 Secy.s are IAS officers.
  • Modi was cautioning IAS officers, and was rallying them, not accusing them. He has praised IAS officers and Civil Servants on quite a few occasions. In fact, he was the one to introduce IAS trainees interning as Asst. Secy.s after completion of foundation course.
  • IAS, on a whole is not incompetent, but yes a lot of IAS officers are, and that's why reforms like checks after 15, 25, and 35 years of service are necessary.
  • "All IAS engineers can do nothing do about it." - It's not like you and I can do anything about it.
  • And yes, we should include articles such, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its articles should have both sides of an argument.SshibumXZ (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to merge. The community consensus was clear that the articles are independently notable.
SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 14:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of District Collector into Indian Administrative Service.
Someone added a merger tag on District Collector in 2016, but forgot to create a discussion, so here, I am doing that job, albeit a year late.SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions) 20:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pre-GAN check

  • 1a. The prose is superb, but as I have just copy edited it I would say that wouldn't I.
  • 1b. See 1a.
  • 2a. A bibliography is provided in an acceptable format. It would be nice, but not a GA requirement, if these were in alphabetical order by author.
  • 2b. Broadly good, but it seems to me that several items in the infobox are neither directly cited nor feature separately in the main body of the article. There are also occasional, minor, unreferenced statements. Eg "The Imperial Civil Service was one of the ten All India Services. "; "This system, practised since the mid-1980s, ensured that officers from different states were placed all over India."
  • 2c. It contains no original research.
  • 2d. The only issues which Earwig throws up are appropriately cited quotations.
  • 3a. In so far as I can tell as a non-expert, the article covers all of the major areas of the topic.
  • 3b. The article uses an appropriate summary style and does not give inappropriate detail.
  • 4. There is no evidence of bias and the article is presented with a NPOV.
  • 5. The article is stable and has been for some time.
  • 6a. All images are free to use.
  • 6b. Borderline. Three images is low for an article of this size. The two photographs used are poor quality. Are there not generic pictures on commons of IAS officers doing something? Eg here. Or free use copies of the rank insignia. Or anything really.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: sorry I couldn't respond earlier, was busing removing copvio from Constitution of India; now onto the points.
  • I would arrange the bibliography in alphabetical, that's an easy task.
  • I also would provide sources for things claimed in the infobox.
  • The image thing is a bit complicated; how many images do you think would suffice? I think finding good-quality pictures of IAS officers/things related to IAS officers would be easy now, as Wikipedia has been authorised to use pictures on Indian government's websites with the {{GODL-India}} license; as for the generic things point, what in your mind would be better this or this?
On a related note, I sincerely appreciate your support as an experienced Wikipedian with a good-few GAs under his belt. Thanks!
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 00:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi @SshibumXZ:. No problem. It is a nice article and in good shape. Images. If you could get good ones, and a mix, then 3 should do. I would not do more than 5, max. I have added one myself. Feel free to delete if you don't like it. (That section is a bit of a wall of facts so I thought that an image might break it up.) At the risk of stating the obvious, if you can fins=d a relavent image including a female IAS officer that would be good, but is optional.

I have contributed to, usually by copy editing, quite a few Indian orientated articles. (With a speciality in Gujarati literature!) So if you need an additional pair of eyes on anything in the future, feel free to ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Indian Administrative Service/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Carabinieri (talk · contribs) 04:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for a review. I haven't reviewed the article in detail, but here are a few initial comments:

  • "often abbreviated to I.A.S., or simply IAS" Do we really need both? I'd suggest simply "abbreviated IAS"
  • "and is an inseparable part of the executive of the Government of India" I'm not sure what that means. What would be a separable part of the government?
  • "As such, the bureaucracy remains politically neutral" I'm not sure what the "as such" means here.
  • "On attaining the apex scale" I'm not sure what that means.
  • Names of laws should not be italicized.
  • Why does the history section end in 1951?--Carabinieri (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    Carabinieri, hi! As I currently am on a Wikibreak, can we delay this review for a bit? I’d be much obliged. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 01:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    Carabinieri, I have been back from my wikibreak for than a week (sorry for not updating this earlier!), so, if it's all the same to you, should we restart the review? Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 14:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    Carabinieri, still waiting for a response. In the meanwhile I have done I think two rounds of copy editing and will now proceed to answer your queries. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Now on to your queries:

  • "often abbreviated to I.A.S., or simply IAS" Do we really need both? I'd suggest simply "abbreviated IAS"

Good point! The line has by and large remained the same since I started working on the article more than a year ago, but, I do see your point. I will consider your advice. The only issue I can think of here is that, I.A.S. redirects to Indian Administrative Service whereas IAS redirects to, well, IAS.

  • "and is an inseparable part of the executive of the Government of India" I'm not sure what that means. What would be a separable part of the government?

I am not totally sure as to what you're getting at here. Inseparable is I guess a kind-of a Commonwealth-ish term to describe the civil service, in that they they remain a part of the executive even as governments and legislatures change.

  • "As such, the bureaucracy remains politically neutral" I'm not sure what the "as such" means here.

It means that even after changes in the political executive, the bureaucracy supposedly remains politically neutral. As such is a continuation of the inseparable line, couple the both of them together and you'd get the intent of the paragraph.

  • "On attaining the apex scale" I'm not sure what that means.

The wording has now been changed to give, I hope, enough context as to what is being meant by that line.

  • Names of laws should not be italicized.

Yep, you're right, I somehow thought that laws need to be italicised as well; not to worry, though, I have un-italicised the names of laws, so to speak.

  • Why does the history section end in 1951?

Because that's when the All India Services Act, 1951 when was enacted. The history section—to me—serves its purpose by informing the average reader of the civil service, in general and the Indian Civil Service, in specific in the British Raj. The only other that can be added here I reckon would be the merger of the Indian Frontier Administrative Service (an ad-hoc creation) with the Indian Administrative Service in the 1960s. What do you advise?
That's about it for your queries, I hope that you continue with the review soon. Wishing you the very best! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Comments
Looks like the reviewer Carabinieri hasn't been on wikipedia since November. I'll ping now, and hopefully they will resume. If not, I'll give this one a full review. Could you remind me SshibumXZ in a couple days? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, will do. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 03:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
SshibumXZ - I'm just going to go ahead and start a new review. I hope that's ok. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

FAILED
No response from nominator. Issues outstanding.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Indian Administrative Service/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 12:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Red XN Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It contains copyright infringements - Copyvio is clean Red XN Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - Red XN Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - Red XN Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Links

Prose

Lede

  • Not a fan of references in lede. The lede should be a summary of information throughout article, not a place for new information. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As such, the bureaucracy remains politically neutral and guarantees administrative continuity - Can this be guarenteed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ledes should be a summary of the article, but primarily discuss the subject. This lede mentions what officers do "Upon confirmation of service, an IAS officer serves a probationary period as a sub-divisional magistrate", this seems like undue WP:WEIGHT. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd argue the third paragraph of the lede shouldn't be there at all (the information is fine, but not for a lede). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "On attaining the higher scales of the pay matrix," sounds very promotional to me. We shouldn't really mention pay unless it's contentious. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

History

  • Is the Premier's conference independently notable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Is the quote neccesary? Seems like puff to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Recruitment

  • Any ideas if there is any specific MOS for Politics articles? I couldn't find anything, so wanted to make sure these are the correct titles/layout. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Officers recruited this way are called direct recruits - known as Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Only about 180 candidates out of over 1 million applicants, who apply through the Civil Services Examination (CSE), are successful, a success rate of less than 0.01 per cent.[10][21] As a result, the members of the service are often referred as "heaven-born" - only around - I'd reword this, something like "From every 1 million applicants, only around 180 are successful... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The "State cadres" subsection should have at least a line stating what this is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Should names like "Department of Personnel and Training" by italicized? not sure. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the subsections should be previous and then current to be in date order. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


Responsibilities of an IAS officer

  • is this a notable section? Seems very POV and crufty to me. Is this a normal inclusion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd much prefer this in prose to bullets even if kept. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Career progression

  • outside of prize money for sports, wikipedia generally doesn't discuss payscales (at all), unless really notable (such as someone being paid a world record amount, or say the article on minimum wage). The "scales" should be removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems quite badly WP:WEIGHTed towards workers, rather than an overview of the civil service itself. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The Assessment of suitability for promotion and posting section is complete fluff. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Major concerns and reforms

  • This title is weird. Could it not simply be called "Reform"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Needs a restructure. The info on corruption is clearly the most notable here, so should be at the top Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "itiveness and bring in alternate perspectives.[82][83][84][85][86][87]" - removed some refs. This is WP:REFBOMB. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Media personalities, some retired IAS officers and a few academics have argued in favour of lateral entry into the IAS to inject fresh blood into the service" - Such as whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The quote seems out of place. Could this not be summarized and avoid copyvio issues? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "In 2017, a Central Bureau of Investigation special court in Delhi sentenced a former Union Coal Secretary and two other IAS officers to two years in prison for their involvement in the coal allocation scam.[132][133]

In 2017" - Two paragraphs start with the same two words. As they are short, merge the paras. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Fake cases - this subsection for one sentence is pointless. Absorb into somewhere else Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "reported that twelve IAS officers had gone missing, and had not reported to either the union" remove the comma.
  • Notable IAS officiers looks fine for now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes & References

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

For reference, I know very little about politics (even that of the UK, where I live), so I may bring up information that is obvious to a reader either from India or one versed in Politics/Bureaucracy. However, as Wikipedia GAs are supposed to be written for ease of access.

On another note, I hope this review is helpful. Let me know if I'm reading anything wrong. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I've placed on hold, as per above. My main issue with this article is that it is very bias towards the employees of the IAS, and not the company itself. I've also some issues regarding to structure as noted above. However, I don't think it's too hard a fix. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

Please add this to the External Links section:

An objective view of a Career in Indian Administrative Service from the perspective of a real IAS Officer: http://www.lifepage.in/career/20170205-0005/Arts/Public-Administration/Career-in-Indian-Administrative-Service/english Kapil LP (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Doesn't seem particularly suitable - take a look at WP:ELNO. Regardless, you need WP:CONSENSUS before requesting its addition Begoon 11:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
He went on to spam his website on other pages. I reported him at WP:AIAV, and now he is blocked indefinitely as a promotion / advertising-only account. I love it when the system works. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Administrative_Service/Archive_1&oldid=1073879963"