Talk:N. Chandrababu Naidu

Mass revert
@Chinnusaikrish Why did you revert my edits as well as that of the other editor? I did not remove any incidents or present anything in a substantively different way. Those were simple incremental edits meant to improve structure. Very very little was removed by myself, such as the word "miserably" which is unencyclopedic WP:TONE. Please restore all those edits of mine which you don't actually object to, and we will discuss those that you do object to. Regards —Alalch E. 18:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@ChinnusaikrishThe tone that you added is clearly disruptive and is not according to the concensus. Most of the sources you cited belong to unreliable websites- not secured as per Wikipedia. There's clearly no point of neutrality. Other sources are mere political statements by people from other parties as part of political allegations cannot be taken as souces. There must be strong evidence of secondary sources. 4 5 6 legend (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

hello @User:Alalch E., I reverted his edits as of now again. We will wait from hom to discuss. 4 5 6 legend (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * By WP:BOLDly proceeding with your idea about what should be removed, I now understand what you talked about, with regard to describing actions of entities who are not exactly Naidu individually. However, I don't agree with you that this should be removed. It's relevant because he was the party leader. I prefer that the removed content be restored first, but we can still discuss it. —Alalch E. 19:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Alalch E., Yes we must discuss before performing any actions, but to explain further the user already disrupted multiple pages with a negative tone and also has been warned by another user. He already is having a biased nature of editing (refer to his edit history, that I have observed today of his past edits), In this case I don't think we need to restore the content this user added. Or are you referring to the previous content that this user removed? 4 5 6 legend (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Also to mention as you said you can mention about other enties but is it really required to glorify the foreign entities that do not belong to this subject. I also don't mean that we need to glorify this subject. I just wanted to say that we must ensure neutrality. The words like complete, entire, overall is subject to question of the neutrality. This page was already effected with a fan point of view template earlier but that also dosent mean we need to defame the subject in a way so that we can remove the template, that is what exactly this user did here. Lastly I want to say that we need to discuss the facts before restoring the content that this user added because it is very much questionable in the initial instance itself since he added titles with a negative tone, not one or two but all of them...I suppose you were the one who rectified it, so we must discuss before restoring these kind of edits. And to mention this user removed/replaced the sourced content of this subject (check the edit history) does that not say these are clearly disruptive edits? (Still pending to be added them too....are we actually not supposed to restore that part first?) Alaach E. 4 5 6 legend (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * [ec] I'm talking about these removals diff, which you made. I don't agree with most of them. Most of that content is relevant in this article but the language needs to be more neutral. We do not need to discuss everything before performing actions. /this is a reply to your first comment, as you made two; I can't reply in more detail now/ —Alalch E. 20:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The words like "complete useless" is not something neutral. Padayatra of a opponent should be clearly placed on the respective page or okay it's fine to discuss about it. And lastly to the third one was not sources that said "given advantage" and "sympathy" (not sourced) 4 5 6 legend (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You are correct that attributing to Naidu a statement that power subsidies to farmers are "completely useless" is unacceptable, based on current sourcing; these words are not in the cited source, and using them to describe his position is not neutral. However, he did oppose the power subsidies; his government raised electricity prices -- that is in the source. So that needs to be said. While Naidu raised prices, the opposition promised free power; this influenced voters, which was a factor in his electoral loss. The source explains this. If we include this information, we are not taking a side; maybe Naidu was right to raise the prices, while the promise of free power by the opposition was a hollow one -- it doesn't matter when we are describing a concrete election cycle. I know that you understand that this is how politics works :) About Reddy's padayatra -- ths is very relevant in the article. It's information necessary to understand how Naidu fell from power. Context is important. This is also in the source. This is an example representing other content which you object to, that needs to be rewritten, not removed. However, regarding this sentence: Chandrababu Naidu who had just escaped from an assination attempt thought of having an advantage of sympathy. -- I completely agree with your removal. That is an example of the prohibited practice of original synthesis. —Alalch E. 17:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understood, this is what we must do and reach to concensus before adding it. That is what I have suggested the other user to discuss it first. Thank you for understanding the intention. And to mention please see this revision history where the content was blanked without even providing any summary by the same user and he has not yet provided the reason for it. [] 4 5 6 legend (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

February 2023
Your major rewrite of the whole article, while probably good in various parts seems to have removed all criticism of Naidu which is against WP:NPOV; please remake this change in a series of incremental edits (section by section) so it's easier to review; some references were removed too such as https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/chandrababu-naidus-son-nara-lokesh-takes-oath-as-minister/article17762250.ece Sincerely. —Alalch E. 12:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Alalch E., I am still in the process of segregation of the content and I will add them accordingly. Since majority of the content was previously removed unexplained. 4 5 6 legend (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alalch E.You should revert it again by checking the previous edits and add the criticism by yourself instead of removing the sourced content that was previously removed (mass removal) by another user. Please check the edit history. 4 5 6 legend (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alalch E. sir, I have now added the criticism part too, I think this is enough or are we left with anything else? 4 5 6 legend (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Alalch E., I have added the criticism part again as a separate section since the previous editor removed the other content. I am still in the process of correcting the data after the analysis of the sources since most of the sources were not claiming any statements. 4 5 6 legend (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Alalch E.I have now added the criticism part in a different section. 4 5 6 legend (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I will need to take a closer look. A "criticism section" is something that should be avoided whenever it can. You restored certain points of criticism that you had removed but grouped them all under the criticism heading. That is usually seen as a step back. —Alalch E. 16:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I grouped them because the information was not consistent with any of the categories present. None of the sources actually put forward those particular statements that is present in criticism, but just give a cite about the info. But I ensured to not delete the consistent information for example: the defeat in the 2009 and the backlash from farmers, the criticism of the Opposition and also the cash for vote scam. I haven't removed any of them because it was consistent with the information and was very much neutral like any other wiki article. Anyways you are free to add any further criticism if necessary citations are available and also you are allowed to de-integrate the grouped criticism and add it in the other categories if you feel they are consistent. Other than this, the rest of the info that I have added is sourced content that has been removed unexplained 1 month ago. I hope you analysize the edit history and the article and reach me out for any discussion or concensus if required. 4 5 6 legend (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Untitled
Page is full of misleads and previous pages are removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhal.sasthry (talk • contribs) 06:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Role in National Politics
Chandrababu Naidu's involvement in national politics during an era dominated by non-Congress coalition politics in Delhi is notable. In the aftermath of the 1996 parliamentary elections, he assumed the role of convenor for the United Front, a coalition comprising 13 political parties that secured power at the Centre. The coalition government was headed by H.D. Deve Gowda and later I.K. Gujral between 1996 and 1998. The United Front had its headquarters at Andhra Pradesh Bhavan in New Delhi.

Subsequently, Chandrababu Naidu's significance in national affairs amplified after the 1999 Lok Sabha elections.The TDP and the BJP, which had a pre-poll understanding in the state, together won 36 MPs out of 42. The BJP emerged as the largest single party in the Lok Sabha. The TDP extended the support of 29 of its MPs to the National Democratic Alliance government headed by A.B.Vajpayee. TDP did not join the government, extending only ‘issue-based support’. Naidu claimed that though Vajpayee offered eight cabinet berths to his party, the TDP stayed away from the union cabinet and offered external support. Salivahana (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead of the page
Alalch E. Seems u mistook and didn't clearly follow my explanation. I don't intend to present anything in a negative tone but rather in the present status and position of a politician. A politician's recent major electoral achievement or debacle has to be established which were present in my edits. This has nothing to do with the violation of the policy as a politician holds a position in the governmental/public activity. So that has to be represented for a clear understanding of his present status which I did. The lead section added by you has no citations and many of it are way out of context.

Some of it follows: He directed the founding of HITEC city which is false as that was inaugurated and directed by former CM Janardhan Reddy. You even added a sentence about directing the construction of new capital city which is not yet completed or in the mid-way and the matter is sub-judice in the court. These are not needed since they had already been present in the page's respective sections. Mine looks crisp and up to the point. ~ Chinnusaikrish (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Mention of HITEC City in the lead follows what is said about it in the body. Things that are present in the body are precisely needed in the lead, because the whole purpose of the lead is to restate them in a summarized way, per MOS:LEAD. A lead section does not need citations per MOS:LEADCITE, unless there is some exceptional reason why a citation would be beneficial. Your "crisp and up to the point" lead is utterly unacceptable. Your "explanation" is terrible and you must urgently give up on this WP:RECENTIST and WP:POV idea, or it may be concluded that you are unable to contribute constructively to this article. —Alalch E. 07:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But this way of summarizing whole of the body into the lead didn't quite present a crisp idea and makes it a mini-version of the history of a politician. Is it alright ? And what about the HITEC city issue which was wrongly mentioned and the capital city thing which is sub-judice. These can be included in the respective sections as well. ~ Chinnusaikrish (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's right, it's a mini version of the biography, a summary of the whole biography. See other well-developed articles about politicians, such as Liz Truss or Bill Clinton. Please give me some time to think about mentioning the HITEC City and the other city in the lead. I think that these are due mentions, especially the HITEC City, which is one of the things Naidu is known for, especially in the west (example), but I'm less certain about the need to mention the new capital of AP. —Alalch E. 07:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with mentioning some of the body here. Mentioning the start of his political journey and some events afterwards are a bit needed. But the whole body of the page is presented as a fan POV where it missed true sense. Summarizing this fan POV body in the lead might not appeal proper as they need more precise explanations which is why I excluded them all. This is where you misunderstood me. And for HITEC City and the capital can be discussed in the respective sections as they seem controversial. ~ Chinnusaikrish (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't the same whether HITEC City is controversial as something that may be assessed positively or negatively, or if it's controversial in the sense that sources disagree about whose idea it was and under whose government it was built. There is no controversy in the sources that Naidu is the initiator of the HITEC City project. The same holds for Amaravati. Amaravati seems less important so I've removed it from the time being, but there is not way that removing HITEC City, which is basically the main thing Naidu is known for in the West is appropriate. I agree that the body is pretty weak, and needs much work. As the body of the article is improved, the lead will be adjusted accordingly. —Alalch E. 08:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making a change and I would like to edit the body as well as many events are not unfolded properly and needed clear explanations with sense which might make the lead more convincing and neutral. And regarding the HITEC city, it is not about being credited for or known for but the initiation of it had been by some other CM but it is presented as if it was established and conceived by Naidu which is far from reality and incorrect. Such events need clear presentation which is missing. Better to avoid them in the lead by elaborately mentioning them in the respective sections. ~ Chinnusaikrish (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources attribute the project to Naidu in an unqualified way. According to the sources, it was his idea and the project was put into motion by his government, during his chief ministership. But you may be right, and it may not be so clear cut. But a reliable source is required to present this in a less-clear-cut way. It would be great if you would make the needed improvements to the body. What he did during his terms in both policy and politics is pretty weakly covered. —Alalch E. 08:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems you mistook Cyber Towers to HITEC City. This project was envisioned by the then Central Congress Government with the inauguration by Rajiv Gandhi under the regime of former CM Janardhan Reddy. Under Naidu's regime several IT companies were fielded with further expansion in many areas. This was misproperly Rpresented as his vision and inauguration which has to be differentiated properly. Better to expand this in the respective section. efer - (https://www.sakshipost.com/politics/2018/12/05/a-timeline-of-cyberabad-history-fact-check-for-chandrababu-naidu )
 * And as I said before I'm going ahead with improving the body in a better way so that the facts and events may get presented true to the sense and Thanks for allowing me. ~ Chinnusaikrish (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Have not assumed the office yet
Someone restore to the last incumbent office until 12 June immediately EntrepreneurPedia (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)