Talk:States Reorganisation Commission

Copyright questions
Note: It is fairly apparent that the text is copied from the Commission Report, but it is not clear whether that report is copyrighted or not. I can't find a copy online, so can't be sure. Jakew 22:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is part of the government of India report which was submitted way back in 1955. I am trying to find this content on govt of India web site but could not find it. We have hard copy of the report. If needed we can update the scanned copy of the report. Let me know what should I do to avoid the deletion. Thanks. Ramcrk 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Publishing this report does not violate Indian copy right laws. According to section 52.1.q.iii of Indian copy right act ...
 * "52.Certain acts not to infringement of:- (1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely : --- q) the reproduction or publication of ---( iii ) the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the Government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the Government"

You can also find the same info at page 36 of http://education.nic.in/CprAct.pdf

Also, States Reorganisation Act is different from States Reorganisation Commission. States Reorganisation Act implemented most of the recommendations of States Reorganisation Commission. Here is document on govt of India web site about States Reorganisation Act at http://india.gov.in/govt/documents/amendment/amend7.htm - Ramcrk 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * While I am aware that the States Reorganisation Commision and the States Reorganisation Act are different, they are of course related. It is my hope we can move some of the background content from the Act page to the Commission page, and continue to expand this one. - BillCJ 04:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright October 2010
Two users ( and ) have pasted material into this article. The text appears to have been copied from http://www.thengapattanam.net/kkhist.pdf, and there is a presumed copyright on all published work. See WP:Copyrights for an overview, and WP:Donating copyrighted materials for how copyright material can be donated for use on Wikipedia. I have again reverted the addition because it is not satisfactory to include a GFDL license in the text because that does not establish that the license does in fact apply. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles very rarely include large amounts of text pasted from an external source: even if such pasting is legal, it is usually not the right thing to do. At any rate, no copyright notice is ever included with material, although where appropriate it is possible to acknowledge use of a suitably licensed source in the references section.

Another problem is that the material may not be suitable. For example, we do not use text like "cheated the tamilians" or "did not have this honesty".

Wikipedia works by collaboration, and it is essential that anyone wanting to perform large edits should be prepared and able to discuss their changes on article talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect both users are the same. Edwardjeni was being reverted by others and suddenly marshalnesamony (a term e jeni was very fond of) shows up all of the sudden)--Sodabottle (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Clear POV issues
This article has clear POV issues.

In the "Nesamony in Parliament" section the rewriting that is needed anyway would presumably sort out the hints of POV (such as the use of "disfigure"). However, the real problem is of course the section "S.R.C cheated the Tamilians": Apart from the heading itself, we have the uses of "cheating" and "cheated", an imputation that someone's actions were the result of his ethnicity, and an accusation of dishonesty. None of these seem to rest on anything other than the viewpoint of the person who added them to the article.

Also, although the footnotes seem to be for non-contentious matters, they all reference a work (the only secondary source cited in the entire article) that by its very title seems of doubtful worth: "LIBERATION OF THE OPPRESSED A CONTINUOUS STRUGGLE".

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC).

Merge with States Reorganisation Act, 1956?
A lot of stuff (e.g. background, decision, controversies etc.) is common between these two articles: States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and States Reorganisation Commission. Would it be a good idea to merge the two articles?


 * Commission(SRC) submitted report after 2years of study which recommended how to reorganize the states. Central govt and various state govts and their legislatures discussed that report for over an year and came up with an act (state reorginization act) upon passing of which in Parliament the states are reorganized and news states were created. "Act" did not follow all the recommendations of the "Commission's" report. So, commission and act are two different things. Ramcrk (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

work now
Is States Reorganisation Commission working now?--Kaiyr (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)