Talk:Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
More information about this article...

Raja sekhar reddy page is under the grip of congress symphathizers.Why no links provided on the on personal and family land holdings when every day we hear of huge land holdings unearthed.Why no references to the ring road land scams.The objectivity of this entry is highly suspicios

Please feel free to add sourced information (but don't remove sourced information in the process). NickelShoe (Talk) 22:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] October 2, 2006

Let me reorganise the data and add information over next 2-3 days, please bear with me for the time. And we can further demarcate or discuss any matter of contention without simply putting back the old and obsolete material as it was. thanks. harsha


missing some real facts

Alleged Illegal Activities

Dr. Reddy, who claims to have come from a middle class family reported during December 2006 that his family illegally owned 618 acres of land[2] in excess of Land Ceiling Act which existed for more than 30 years. He claimed he did not know he was over the limit. The opposition parties asked for his resignation for this violation of the law[3].


[edit] controversies

IF it says "Hindu groups" accuse him of trying to take over the TTD, am I justified in using RSS material to source their concerns? Bakaman 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, credit it to the RSS. That entire section needs a rewrite to sound less like acknoledged fact and more like opinion. I have deleted it till then; this is not a judgment on whether it is notable and encyclopaedic or not. As a prominent Christian in India, what the RSS says about YSR is certainly of interest - if just for what it says about the RSS. The Pioneer opinion should be credited to the relevant columnist, Sandhya Jain; it should be qualified that she is notably sympathetic to Hindutva; the first ghit for her is the RSS-published Voice of Dharma website. The other links are to extremist sites like christianaggression; I am not sure that they should be used as sources in an article subject to WP:BLP. Hornplease 10:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Her political leanings are irrevelanl, otherwise nearly every article (on India) would be filled with qualifications of leftist mao-vadis and Conservative Hindus. She is a well-known journalist. I also notice that you cite BLP for Reddy a Congress politician but are "unaware" of the application of WP:BLP#Reliable_sources to Koenraad Elst. Until you prove yourself to be neutral and even quotable on wikipolicy, I will wait for an actual third party. I also fail to see what authority you have on separating "acknowledged fact" from "opinion". I use the RSS only as an example, as they are one of the larger Hindu groups existing in India (with BAPS, Swadhyay, etc.)Bakaman 17:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
She is a columnist. She is notable for her views; if I were to quote George Will in some article, I would say 'notable neoconservative', to indicate that he is being quoted as a representative of a certain strand of opinion. Ditto with say, Arundhati Roy or Alexander Cockburn. (Noted activist and left-libertarian resp., or whatever.) If you must quote opinion articles for facts, then the nature of the opinion person should be stated.
I will ignore the rest of your comments, as that is the only charitable thing to do. Hornplease 11:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't endorse RSS, owing to the fact that they are the mount piece of BJP, the main opposition of Indian National Congress which Dr. Reddy represents in his state. It's quite natural that RSS voice dubious concerns. You must acknowledge the fiasco RSS created when Sonia Gandhi, the president of Indian national Congress was supposed to become Prime minister of India. Hence RSS can never be a reliable source, because it's not religion play, buy political inclination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.116.69.163 (talk • contribs).
Even if you don't acknowledge RSS as objective, you have to at least acknowledge them as a reliable source for their own opinion, right? As long as the information is clearly stated as an attributed belief, it should be okay, unless the belief is of an insignificant, uninfluential minority. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It's RSS opinion and concern, Dr.Reddy has already completed half his term, but never ever the allegatations made by RSS surfaced in his tenure, which puts RSS into defence, since there is no single person to dent or defend their allegations against Dr. Reddy, but he has shown great maturity in a secular country. Maybe RSS is in a paranoid state after thier political wishes are doomed. Every person /organization can level allegations on anybody who is not dancing to their tunes, but who cares if they are correct or not and some people here are hanging on to some old references which would never happen in a secular country. 203.116.69.163 (talk • contribs).
If the conclusion is obvious, the readers will figure it out on their own. If RSS is that bad, their actions will condemn them without us having to spell it out. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection and dispute resolution

This article has been protected from further editing as there was a pro-longed editwar. Protection is not an endorsement of this version. Please discuss your issues here and when you have reached consensus, the page would be unlocked for editing. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Controversies is indeed maligning, the film davinci code has been released in Andhra Pradesh[1]. The initial protests from some christian minority groups can't be attributed to head of state who is a chirstian. I request if anyone has a credible source that Dr. Reddy indeed has taken action to ban the film in Andhra Pradesh. Also his religious background, is not presenting the ground fact. It is his father who took to christianity well before he was born, and it can't be attributed it to Dr. Reddy who is following his father's religion. It further shows how pseudo hindu fanatics play politics on an honest person who is following a religion of his liking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.116.69.163 (talk • contribs).
Certainly if he's a Christian, and that fact is important to the way he is received (which it obviously is), then the information ought to be included in the article. It seems that it would be just as POV to imply that we sdn't hold his religion against him because it was chosen by his father as it would be to say that his being a Christian means he persecutes Muslims and Hindus. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Anon poster should learn about |No original research,a policy that is repeatedly violated on wikipedia by political propagandists. Notable accusations should always be cited, whatever the motivations. If the motivations are discussed by notable source then that should be included always. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


India being a secular republic, every person has right to choose any religion (not merely the one he is born in) and follow it. If a state of head is a christian, it doesn't mean that their policies are pro christain. In India, head of the state is chosen by the elected members indirectly, but not by people. Hence if he acts on his own, he iis bound to lose confidence of the house and it's members. It's highly unlikely that any party, let alone a single person can damage the secular image and the principles on which Indian democracy runs. It's deplorable to blame and level allegations simply his family is converted their religion. 203.116.69.163 (talk • contribs).

It's not Wikipedia's job to only represent good viewpoints. If a group has "deplorable" views, the reader will read their view and know it--without us having to censor material for them. Just because we report that someone believes something doesn't mean we also believe it. I could say that Hitler believed that Jews were a danger to society--that doesn't mean that I actually think they are. Check out WP:NPOV for the basic policy. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. However, dozens of accusations are leveled at major political figures yearly, and only some of them are notable. We need to ensure that only the notable ones get on WP. In terms of the wording of the Tirupati/Tirumala problem, please see my post above. Hornplease

Just get back to me when you want the page unprotected. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

All the people who vandalised have vanished in thin air. None seem to care to talk/discuss, except me who has been maintaining the content over months. I wonder how long does it take for those blind opposers to realize that mandate is clearlt aginst them, and falsifying on wiki makes little difference to their whims.

203.116.69.163 (talk •

[edit] Religious background

Under Religious background, it has been stated that "Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy asked the Seventh-day Adventists to build a church on his estate [7] for his workers who converted to Christianity ."

The citation is invalid link, and moreover there is no other source that a church has been built or ordered to be built within his private estate. And recently he handed over most of the land of the estate to the govt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.5 (talk • contribs).

the citation is invalid link, and there is no source available on internet to prove that he ordered builidng a church in his own estate. 203.116.69.163 (talk)

[edit] Request to merge Alleged illegal activities and Controversies and the head "Controversies"

I don't see a reason to have 2 different sections and they can be merged, otherwise can be made sub-sections. Also the tile Alleged illegal activities is misleading, it can be put under controversy since no legal action has been taken or a it is not under a court's consideration for the excess land holdings by his family members beyond allowed legally.203.116.69.163(talk)

Makes sense to me. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Request to put the page under semi - protection

Please enable editing with semi-protection. 203.116.69.163 (talk)

Doesn't semi-protected mean anonymous users can't edit? NickelShoe (Talk) 15:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think so, not just anonymous, but those new users of 4 days old or so can't edit. something like {{semi-protect}} or so, i couldn't recall. thanks. 203.116.69.163 (talk)

Requests for page protection are made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. See the semi-protection policy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual corrections

YSR is the 2nd child of the family and not the eldest as mentioned in the article. Please enable editing of the article. Maaparty 07:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I just verified Dr.Reddy official homepage, and he is 2nd of 5 children. I still endorse for semi-protection-level 2. 203.116.69.163 (talk)

What is blood group of Y S Rajasekhara Reddy? Known 19:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, why? We don't have his fingerprints on file either, I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is desirable to include their blood group in biography. Known 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In case of medical emergency I'd refer to Wikipedia article. --God and religion are distinct. 11:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is useful for blood donors. --God and religion are distinct. 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack on Ramoji Rao

It's been highly popularised. Shouldn't we include it ?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/2E/_/Talk%7EY._S._Rajasekhara_Reddy_03cb.html"