Talk:Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/interpreting-a-federal-constitution/article5649745.ece. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Unconstitutional role played by the President

I am not entirely sure if this section is POV or just needs a rewrite. It seems to assume prior knowledge by saying that something doesn't exist, without saying why it would be assumed to exist. Did the President make a claim that it does exist? Start with what happened before saying what was wrong. The rest follows along similar lines, and at least appears to be POV and/or OR. —PC-XT+ 23:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the section accusing the president of unconstitutional acts for now given the POV/OR (and potentially BLP) concerns. To be clear: The issue of presidents rule can be meaningfully discussed using sources such as this one in the article. But we cannot present unattributed and OR analysis along the lines of:

• "It is reimposed again unconstitutionally..."
• "President could have summoned..."
• " Instead of averting constitutional crisis as defender and protector of the constitution, the president wilfully brought constitutional crisis ..."

Given the magnitude of issues with the section, I don't think tagging it with templates will suffice. So I am removing it till someone can work on a neutral sourced section on the topic that makes it clear how the issue is linked to the APRA, 2014. .Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• "It is reimposed again unconstitutionally..." Reply: According to constitutional expert Subhash Kashyap of this one
• "President could have summoned..." Reply: Rajya sabha or Lok Sabha MPs busy in electioneering can not be valid reason for not calling it to sit & conduct the constitutional obligation. It is the duty of president to see that all the organs of government to follow the constitution (Article 60)
• " Instead of averting constitutional crisis as defender and protector of the constitution, the president wilfully brought constitutional crisis ..." Reply: From the answers to above two points, learned President with all types of advisers has not followed the constitution being its defender & protector is fact & there is no question of any bodies POV or OR.

Reply: You are like me with an additional logging name. First let us restore the status prevailing before your edit and then —PC who is on this job, may decide on this issue. You are welcome to express your views why the above replies are not correct. Replies provided by 49.207.229.47 (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you read wikipedi'a policies on WP:POV and WP:NOR, rewrite the section to take care of the above-mentioned problems here on the talk page and gain consensus for its inclusion. Continuing to edit-war over it, will just get you blocked, which won't help you or the article. Abecedare (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I was on wikibreak and never got the above notification. I just found this again, while going through my watchlist. Abecedare gave good advice. The section should be fixed before being re-added. —PC-XT+ 23:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Tag & Assess review

• The article has previously had a "start-class" rating. I am retaining the rating even though there is enough content to be rated as "C-class" because it requires considerable clean-up. At the moment, it is quite confusing, and has excessive detail about the parliament proceedings which fall under WP:NOTNEWS. I suggest that the article be submitted for revaluation after cleanup is completed. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Lexicographical approach

• The article is full of technical details and even exact timestamps, though doesn't explain why the bill was necessary and what the reasoning behind it is. Before getting into numerous details of "shouting slogans" only relevant for a temporary period of time, giving more background should be part of the narrative at the beginning. 193.202.20.11 (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302182514/http://www.niticentral.com/2014/02/18/lok-sabha-to-debate-telangana-bill-today-191070.html to http://www.niticentral.com/2014/02/18/lok-sabha-to-debate-telangana-bill-today-191070.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140518043714/http://www.aplegislature.org/en_GB/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=7d75ff22-eb59-4a24-9c03-348d89498ee4&groupId=11343 to http://www.aplegislature.org/en_GB/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=7d75ff22-eb59-4a24-9c03-348d89498ee4&groupId=11343

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)