Talk:Telangana movement

This article is biased. Many information sources are mentioned wrongly. A lot more facts require 'proper' sources. Needs clean up.

I see every sentence in the article with all good sources. Ramcrk (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

October 2013

The entire summary is biased heavily, favouring the pro-Telangana activities. Also, the information is not up to date because of the current scenario in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore I would recommend editing the summary and removing the lat three lines and putting up a "Current event" tag. Rajanala Samyak (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

February 2011

At some point we will need to consolidate things, trim the content, and remove some items, or the article will get too long. We are OK for now but it it something to keep in mind. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't agree more with you!

Especially content like - "Telangana Rashtra Samithi president K. Chandrasekhar Rao appealed to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to note that the people of Telangana were losing patience"; "The Telangana JAC steering committee, comprising experts from different fields,[175][176] studied the Sri Krishana Committee report and came to the conclusion that the report was a " bunch of lies"; "They threatened to immolate themselves on Parliament premises if Telangana state is not created" -- Vamsisv (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree to tgoo. We need to cleanup. As time passes we will know which events are significant which are not. Also, we have to leave some content alone to show ups and downs of movement which explains following major events. Ramcrk (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings fellow editors. The article is now over 100 kb and it is time to think about trimming the content. I will start by doing a round of routine copy edits, which always shortens the article a little. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Thanks for the Governor's page link, but it nowhere says that his speech will be prepared by the government.

Most of this article including your contributions quote news articles. We can go word-by-word of the article where the "truth" is disputed, but it was quoted here anyway citing news article references. So, I don't see anything wrong continuing the trend.

And, please I don't think Truth = POV.

Also, clearly the t-staff "withdrew" their agitation. Where in world is called off = postponed?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsisv (talk • contribs) 04:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. Here is link to Governer's page where it says "The Governor inaugurates the state legislature by addressing it after the assembly elections and also at the beginning of the first session every year. The Governor's address on these occasions generally outlines new policies of the state government."

I can't still understand how non inclusion of issue in governor's address implies silence by government. And like you quoted - it is only new policies. Sorry, but I don't see your point or your way of representation. Vamsisv (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Its true. Governors speech is prepared by government. I am not making it up. Its standard practice in India. Its true for President too. President's speech is prepared by central govt. Remember TRS lobbied with UPA govt to include Telangana in presidents address in 2004. You can see that link in this article. Ramcrk (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We would be glad to see actual references which says that guv's speech is prepared by govt. Even if that were the case, like u said, it would only "outline" "new policies". Even then, US president's speech is prepared by his secretary, doesn't mean the statements/opinions are of his secretary. Also, clearly, the link you gave states that ruckus created in the assembly that day was because his address didn't include anything on T. "The elected representatives from Telangana took a strong exception to the governor not including the contentious Telangana issue in his address. "Not because govt. was "silent". Vamsisv (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Governor is supposed to be apolitical. MLAs are supposed to maintain decorum in the house. Do we go about mentioning that everywhere? Vamsisv (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Here news paper article contradicts, live news video clipping. Thats why we are going back and forth. I am trying my best to present the truth. I welcome your contradiction. I welcome you to challenge any of the content. Our objective is to present the truth with our best. I just want to give background to each event as much as possible. If we don't give background, some events does not make sense and reader would not understand why that particular event happened. Why some group of people behaved certain way. I am in no way justifying any particular event.

Video clipping could not have covered the entire drama that happened. It could be edited to suit someone's POV. I agree with the background you gave and have retained it. Please read through before reverting edits. Vamsisv (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This particular video is news program specially prepared to show what happened that day. They shown each and every action in slow motion. Nobody can acuse TV9 with Pro-Telangana. If anything TV9 is pro-Andhra. Ramcrk (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Irrespective of what is "shown" in these clippings, it is your POV, that its a "slap" and "push". My POV is that it is "punch" and "shove". News reports were that it were "assault" and "blows" - so we can go with it. If you still have issues, you can feel free to take to Diannaa.

Punch means "a thrusting blow, especially with the fist."[1]. Slap means "a sharp blow or smack, especially with the open hand or with something flat."[2]. Just watch the video again and say which one is right word to describe the incident. I don't want to fight over it but just want to point it out. Ramcrk (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In this Link(Hindu) it says "Mr. Goud later issued an appeal to the employees in Telangana to attend offo-ices from Saturday. He, however, described the decision to call off the agitation as a “postponement”." Ramcrk (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Mr. Goud's clarification and have retained the same as clarification made. Vamsisv (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it after I reverted it. When I saw you reverted it; I did not think you made some changes too. I restored your changes. Ramcrk (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Million March

"Sometime" - How is this word giving any indication of timelines? "Some" - Why is it necessary to mention this word? Isn't it understood that if this word is not mentioned, it doesnt mean "all". If we start using this word, then we can use it anywhere.

Around 4pm, after KCR and Kondaram arrived at tank bund, all the participents in the rally vowed to fight for formation of Telangana state by saying pre-prepared "pledge". - "All" participants? really? Can we not use "some" here?

Protestors including women and childresn raised slogans of 'Jai Telangana', sang pro-Telangana songs and played games. - If we like the word "some", I'm sure we can prefix this statement also with "Some". Who knows if "all" participants sang songs. Some might be dancing too...

We can go on & on like this... it is just that we don't let our POVs and emotions affect the neutrality of this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsisv (talk • contribs) 07:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations and other problems

• YouTube is not considered a reliable source. Tapes can be edited, forged, or compromised. Much of the material on YouTube is there in violation of copyright law and we should not be linking to it.
• Someone has been copying material directly from websites, for example a section of this article http://www.deccanchronicle.com/hyderabad/ap-t-staff-sign-accord-694 was copied directly into the article without any editing whatsoever. This is illegal as it is in violation of copyright law. Please do not do this any more.
• The article is becoming an overblown wall of text. We are up to 107 kb. It is not appropriate or practical to post every single event of every single day. People with slow internet connections or those trying to look at the article from a mobile device will not be able to do so. Please try to trim the content as we go along. Events that seem important at the time might not seem so in a week or two, and could be eliminated or consolidated into more general statements.--Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Call for Major Clean-up

Please list your names here if you want to contribute to clean this page. This is too long and many irrelvant portions. We will start clean-up on August 15th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsisv (talk • contribs) 06:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Count me in. I would suggest moving some of the longer sections (like non-cooperation movement and million march) to new page while leaving the summary here. Ramcrk (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Summarized and moved sections to Telangana Non-cooperation movement and Million march of Feb-March 2011 Ramcrk (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm in too. The article seems dangerously long to me and i decided to split it away. *chop chop* as i go... no time to waste. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

•  Done - Mission complete! I chopped the article into 3 more separate articles, now making a total of 5 articles. After we get into 2012, we will further chop out the 2011-2012 protests. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Superb work! :) Vamsisv (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Links to other page

I was going through this page and it struck me as rather inconvenient that there are so many pages that a person needs to visit in order to familiarise themselves with this issue. The pages I am referring to are links like:

1. Background of the Telangana movement
2. Pre-2004 Telangana protests
3. 2004-2010 Telangana protests
4. Early 2011 Telangana protests

I think, it would be best if all the information was present in one page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix5389 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are navigation bars at the bottom of each page so you can easily drift through every page and peacefully read. The problem is, if all the information was present in one page, the page size would exceed 150kb and it will be too long. Therefore, most editors here have decided to split away the content into separate pages. I find having separate pages an advantage, because you can drift through the story in chapters. I will be just like reading a novel. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me add to what Anirudh said. The summary of all those sections are still on this page. You have to go other pages only if you want to see details of those sections. We don't want to delete that details of those section to reduce the size of this page. Thats why deatils of those sections moved to another page and leaving the summary here. Ramcrk (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Too many references - A problem.

As i have seen, the second-sub-section, Losses due to the Strike contains too many references in each line. This is a problem. Each line should have a maximum of two references. Currently, i have decided to remove extra references and leave only one. Make sure that not too many references are added and cite web is used. Thank you. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fear of Maoism

Vamsisv, Why this section is needed? If its needed, why we should not give intriduction to Maoism in a sentence ot two? Why a single Maoist joining TRS should be hightlighted when all leaders from all parties are joining TRS? Specially its a fact that leaders from right wing BJP party joined TRS and even became MPs. Its known fact that when Maoist gave for bundh there was no response in Telangana. Its means Telangana movement has nothing to do with Maoists. Maoists might be taking advantage of situation in this political crisis. Its well known thing that Andhra media, Andhra leaders, Andhra dominated state bureaucracy is trying to highlight the Maoists to scare investors and to influence the national public onion against Telangana. I have to assume you doing same thing by highlighting irrelevant things. Its no secret that you oppose Telangana too. Your political beliefs making you start this section which is not needed which no way explains the movement and confuses the readers of the article.Ramcrk (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for opening up for a discussion.

Need for this section: There is genuine fear of maoism among the people & government machinery (both state & central) and it is not something that started recently. :References show that this existed since 2009. It is a matter concerning national security (internal)

Konapuri Illaih joining TRS is important to show how ex-maoists are actively taking part in the T movemement. Though we can remove the part about his death, I think it will show that he is no longer part of TRS

It is very evident from other parts of the article that the movement is supported by all sections of people including "right-winged" parties like BJP. No point reiterating the same in this section.

That Andhra media or Andhra leaders or Andhra bureaucracy is trying to highlight this is your POV. It can play no role in deciding content on this article.

I will not assume anything about you as I've no POV on this issue nor against you. I will not make any personal allegations.

Hope this is clear.

Vamsisv (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Maoism exists in 1/3 of the districts in India. What is the link between Maoism and Telangana? Maoism gets the recruits whenever there is poverty and whenver there are forests where they can hide from Police. Maoists exists in Seema-Andhra too. Its true Maoists try to exploit the situation. Its ridiculous to say that Maoism increases because of Telangana state. If any thing it should decrease. With Telangana state, with faster development; there could be less poverty and less people will get attracted to Maoism.

This article or section is not about Maoism or its spread in the country or its causes. It is ONLY about Maoism concerning T movement. My inclusions to this section are all facts supported by sources. I understand your difficulty to digest this since you have strong POVs on this, but view this objectively. Your POVs cannot be mentioned in the article. Vamsisv (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

When you introduce new topic you need to introduce it briefly. Why you want to deny that info to the reader? Why you are deleting the info with sources that too BBC article? Ramcrk (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

When you start a section about Sachin Tendulkar's 100th century, you don't talk about where he was born etc even if you substantiate it with his birth certificate as a source. Please don't be blinded or agitated by your POVs. Vamsisv (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why you don't want world to know that Maoism exist though out India not just in Telangana. Why you don't want to know that Maoism exists in Seema-Andhra region. Its your ploy to show Telangana movement in bad light. Its your bad intentions making you to start this section. Ramcrk (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not stopping you in letting the world know about Maoism's spread in India or about Sachin's birth place. But I'm trying to explain that this is not the right place. Vamsisv (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Which policy of Wiipedia stops us from giving introduction to a new section? Don't make up your own rules. Ramcrk (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And let me make this clear - I have no intentions or POVs about the movement. My ONLY intention is to keep this article as neutral as possible and relevant and adherent to Wikipedia. Vamsisv (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Telangana movment which supported by all parties not just TRS. How some people joining TRS is relevant here? Even in TRS there are lot of people from other right wing parties joined TRS. In last few months several MLAs from TDP, Congress joined TRS. There are thousands of lower level party members from all parties joined TRS. Not just ex-maoists. We hardly mentioned about who else jopined the TRS. If I include every leader joined TRS,this article is filled with only that info.

I reiterate my reason. Illaih joining TRS is important to show how ex-maoists are actively taking part in the T movemement - which is the subject of this section. In earlier sections, we have mentioned about other prominent leaders joining TRS from Congress & TDP. Vamsisv (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Few ex-maoists are joining TRS. There are many people from all walks of life joining the movement but not joining TRS. Why are you mixing TRS with movement? Why few people joining in TRS is important? Why it should cause fears? Ramcrk (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

TRS is at the forefront of this movement. So, it is as important to state this as it is to write about their public meetings or statements of their leaders about losing patience. Vamsisv (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Joining few people is not affecting the movement and it does not reflect on movement. Attendance to a TRS meeting can be shown as support to the movement. There are lot of people from lot of backgrounds from right wing politicians to left wing people joining the TRS. You can not include one side without including other. You can include everybody in TRS article. Not here. Ramcrk (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Andhra people and Andhra leaders highlighting the maoist angle is open secret. No Telangana leader from any party talked about Maoist problem. Only Andhra leaders are talking about it. Even BJP who is idealogically opposite side of Maoists are not talking about Maoists. Because there is no Maoist problem. Ramcrk (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, your POV which can have no place in the article. Vamsisv (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If its my POV show me one statement from Telangana leader who said Telangana state will cause Maoist problems. Its only Andhra leaders who is saying this. Reason is clear. They just want to use this bogey to stop Telangna state formation. See this links [3][4]Ramcrk (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That it is an Andhra bogey or whatever is your POV and like minded individuals. The statements I've included are not Andhra leaders POVs, these are government security reports and releases. Vamsisv (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion for Dispute Resolution

Request the arbitrator to post his/her comments here as per discussion above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsisv (talk • contribs) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to comment on this when Ramcrk's block expires if nobody else has by then; anyone else should feel free to offer a 3O if they want. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Vamsisv and I have disagreements about the section "Maoist Influence in the movement". My argument is there is no Maoist influence in the movement. Even State police chief said there is no active involvement of Maoists in Telangana movement[5]. While we are trying summarize the whole article to reduce the size of the article, allocating so much space for irrelevant info is distraction at best and falsification at worst. Isolated incidences of some ex-Maoist joining TRS party being highlighted while so many people from so many ideologies joining TRS is being ignored. Maoists are active in 1/3 rd of the districts in India. But Vamsisv don't want that info in this article. Without that info it looks as if Maoists are only present in Telangana. As I see, Vamsisv is trying to show movement in bad light at the expence of truth. Its out right falsification and propagonda. His personal oppostion to Telangana state is affecting his neutrality. Writ Keeper, as a neutral person, who is not attached to Telangana movement, you can help us resolve this. Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, lets start talking about removing irrelevant stuff. How about starting with those quotes of Vijayashanthi & Sushma Swaraj? Vamsisv (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you confirm that this is the only incident where an ex-maoist joined TRS? This is the only incident reported in public and I've highlighted the same in the article. Again, MLAs from other parties joining TRS have already been mentioned in other sections of article. I've explained this a gazillion times above - but you continue your rant. How can I mention about "so many people" joining TRS in this section? This is about maoists only. If you have a list of Maoists joining the party and can substantiate with valid sources, I'll be glad to add the same in this section. I don't want to be partial to Mr. Illaiah only. Vamsisv (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Maoists are active in 1/3rd of India - This has been updated now - please check. Vamsisv (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to have content dispute, but a POV dispute. You want me to think the same way about the movement like you do. Sorry, but I'm not the kind to fall into hallucinations or sentiments. If all your arguments are around speculating my motivation or personal opinion, I have nothing more to say. And I've gone ahead and clarified that I've no POV about the movement and that I'm just representing facts with valid sources. Vamsisv (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Distraction at best & falsification at worst? At the expense of truth? Really? What part of my inputs in this article are false? Vamsisv (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Researching the dispute now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've created a page for my notes on the section within my userspace at User:Writ Keeper/Telangana; please don't edit it, but feel free to look at it to see where I am in working through this. Thanks for your patience! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my initial perception is that the section is probably significant enough to be in the article, but it will require extensive rewrite due to copyright issues and some apparent OR. Once I finish working through it, I'll try to write a new section, and then we can discuss it from there. see below Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've finished my review of the section as it currently stands. At the moment, it appears that the concerns of the Maoist influence actually within the movement is limited to the one leader ("KCR"), whose influence appears to be waning according to source 117, and some low-level people who are not "worth the name." There does seem to be some *external* effects from the Maoist party, but there are multiple sources indicating that it has no effect on the movement itself. Consequently, I'm concerned that giving this information its own section (especially in its present form, which seems to imply that there is a large Maoist element within the movement) would violate WP:UNDUE. If we could integrate the comments of KCR and the like within the rest of the article, that would be fine, but I don't think it warrants its own section. Any thoughts? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I fail to understand why you think that this would violate WP:UNDUE. Firstly, it is not a minority point of view that Maoist influence is rising due to the movement. It is sourced from valid references quoting statements from government authorities. Even in the Occupy Wall Street article, there is a section for criticism of the same. Vamsisv (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your take on it. KCR has seperate page. We can include Maoist influence(if any) on that page. But TRS or KCR is not really influenced by Maoist ideology. People with all idealogies joining TRS a party led by KCR. So, if and when we include influence of Maoists on KCR/TRS in a wiki article, we should include influence of other ideologies on him and his party too. Politically he and his party is left of center. Originally,(before he founded TRS party), he was in TDP party, which is left of center party. But lot of people from right wing parties joined TRS too. One of Two of TRS miniters in central govt(2004-2006) is ex-BJP person. Narendra, a former BJP MP, second in command in TRS, one of the two central ministers from TRS, has been associated with TRS since its inception.[6] Another ex-BJP person, Vijayashanti, joined TRS and is one of two TRS MPs from 2009.[7]. In 2009, TRS joined alliance at national level led by right wing BJP party. [8]. This proves that TRS is defenitely not left wing party. At most we can say it is left of the center party. Whatever we include in the article it should reflect the truth. It should not let readers to think that TRS party influenced by Maoists or its left wing party. All sections of people from all parties in Telangana supporting Telangana. Maoists are no exception. People are joining TRS because of its stand on Telangana. Not because of their idealogy. Four TDP MLAs(legislators) joined TRS in last 2years.[9] Three MLAs from ruling congress party joined TRS couple of weeks back in protest for the delay in the formation of Telangana(including one who resigned from cabinet few months back). [10] Both TDP and Congress are left of the center parties too.

Statements in this section are not just about TRS. It is about the influence is rising due the movement. How can all of this be put in the TRS article? Vamsisv (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding TRS/KCR economic policies: per press reports, on Sep 10, 2010, KCR sought to project an industry-friendly avatar in a meeting with representatives of business outfits. KCR is learnt to have assured nearly 100 business representatives gathered there that not only would it be business as usual once Telangana is formed, it would also prosper after separation from Andhra Pradesh. Telangana would go out of its way to roll out the red carpet for creative business enterprises, he said.[11] This proves that TRS/KCR is not influenced by Maoists.

Wrong, it doesn't prove TRS/KCR is not influenced by Maoists. It only proves that publicly atleast he wants to create a better image for the movement and assure businesses an encouraging atmoshphere. I'm astonished at the way you can draw conclusions. Vamsisv (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Telangana movement is not just TRS party. It is supported by all parties. Because of formation of Telangana state is single point agenda of TRS party, people tend to get confused with TRS party and Telangana movement. Ramcrk (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WritKeeper - Thanks for providing your views. The section heading started off as "Rise of Maoist Influence" due to the movement rather than in the movement. Somewhere during the Edit wars, it changed. See below: Vamsisv (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Source#108 - A govt. appointed committee reported concluded that Maoist influence can increase if state is not formed sooner (read as the movement continuing) Vamsisv (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Source#110 - IG of police has told "that intelligence reports indicated that Maoists had definitely infiltrated the movement." Vamsisv (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Source#111 - Proves how the movement is resulting in rise of Maoist influence. Vamsisv (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Source#114 & 115: Pretty obvious how Maoists are linking with parties who are in the forefront of the movement Vamsisv (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Source#117 & 118: Explains how maoists participated directly/indirectly in the movement Vamsisv (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Source#120: ...."It is reliably learnt that the reason for the move was due to certain inputs which suggested that certain underground cadres of the Maoists may mix with pro-Telangana activists and attempt to disrupt the proceedings" Vamsisv (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Source#121: explaing how maoists are encouraging the movement so that they gain mileage (to keep their party alive & violent activities) Vamsisv (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Source#122: DGP said there is no "Active" involvement. He DID NOT comment on rise of their influence due to the movementVamsisv (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As we discuss here, see this link which talks about the rise of Maoist influence in Telangana region after 7 years. Vamsisv (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not indicated in your original version of this section (diff), where the first sentence talks about the infiltration of the movement by Maoists. An extensive rewrite will be necessary if that is the intent of the section.

The problem is that you're talking about the rise of Maoist sentiment in the region, not in the movement specifically, and so I'm not sure this is relevant in the article about this Telangana separatist movement. In the article about the Telangana region, possibly, but not the article about the movement. Sources 108 and 118 say nothing about Maoists (at least, not in the section you cited). Source 120 says nothing about any interaction between the movement and the Maoists; it only talks about "precautions" since it has been "suggested" that a crowd of Telangana supporters "may" have some Maoists mixed in (implying that they're separate groups), despite the lack of "input on increased threat either from terrorists or Maoists." This is very far from saying *anything* conclusive about the Telangana movement. Source 122, at best, says nothing relevant to the secton. At worst, it flatly contradicts it, and it certainly does appear to contradict it.

The problem here is that it seems like a lot of your conclusions are original research, stemming from the synthesis of sources. For example, source 115 says that a member of the movement was at one time a Maoist; the implication that he is influencing the movement towards Maoism, while reasonable, is not supported by the source and is therefore OR. Source 114, by contrast, does directly show evidence that a member of the movement is supportive of Maoist policies. That is a good source to use for a section such as this. But it is one of the few, along with 110 and (weakly) 117. So we have two sources that support the concerns section, with weak support from a third. I don't think that's enough to justify an entire section of the article. Many of the sources you cite say some variant of "There are Maoists who like the Telangana movement" or "People think that the goals of the Telangana movement would aid the Maoists," but to conclude that this means that the Telangana movement is Maoist is synthesis, which makes it OR, which makes it inappropriate for Wikipedia, and without that leap, I don't think it's relevant this article, which describes a specific Telangana movement, not the ramifications of a creation of a separate Telangana state. It's a subtle distinction, but I think it's a true one. Without a Maoist link to *this* Telangana movement, I don't think it should be in the article. As I said, I'm not opposed to talking about Maoism (as long as there are sources that specifically support it), but I don't think it's worthy of its own section.

By the way, Vamsisv, just a friendly note: it's not a good idea to break people's comments up by inserting your own within theirs. You should stick to making a block comment at the end of the discussion; consolidated block comments make the discussion (and especially its chronology) much easier to follow, and editing other people's talk page postings is generally frowned upon. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Note taken about replying to comments. I thought that way my response would relate to specific comments.

The intent of the section is to explain the rise of influence of Maoists due to the movement not necessarily in the region. I would appreciate your comments in helping to rewrite the section accordingly.

If you read source#121 carefully, "Though Naxals ...security forces feel that the rebels have thought that backing such factionalism will weaken the central power which is threatening to them." The incident cited in that link is not in the region of Telangana. I believe it only proves how Maoists are exploiting the movement to their benefit.

The intention about Source#115 is NOT to say that the movement is being influenced towards Maoism. Agreed it doesnt talk about rise of Maoist influence due to the movement. We can move the same into other sections of article. Ditto on Source#112 ,Source#120 & Source#122.

Agree with you on source#114. Very important.

Need for separate section - Source#108 & Source#110 are key to this. Also Source#117 quotes top police officials from a special branch which deals with Maoists. They have "credible information" about Maoists carrying "their" activities under the guise of TJAC (the movement). "Militant Elements" referred to in source#118 are Maoist elements.

As I see it now, we are arriving at some consensus where I agree that certain points can be moved to rest of the article. But, I still strongly feel the need for this separate section. Vamsisv (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding source 114 in User:Writ_Keeper/Telangana, we have to take it with pinch of salt. Every party in Telangana one time praised or understood the social causes of Maoists/Naxals. Chiranjeevi of PRP did it.[12]. NTR of TDP did it.[13] YSR of congress did it. [14]. No party supports the violence of Maoists. All parties understand the social issues raised by Maoists and they try to address them. TRS statement in source 114 is no different from it. Hence no need to highlight it. This latest article in Times of India pretty much sums up the topic.Ramcrk (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the real problem here lies in the organization of the article itself. Right now, it is organized as a timeline of events (especially the two sections with dates in their titles). The addition of a concerns section at the end is jarring because it isn't within the timeline, and therefore appears to put much more emphasis than is due on its contents. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge (or the time, really) to rewrite the whole article, but a reorganization would go a long way, I think. It could provide more opportunities to integrate this information within the body of the article, and would make a separate section more fitting, if it is still necessary.

Short of rewriting the article, I don't think a section talking about possible benefits to the Maoists from this movement is unreasonable, as long as it's *well* sourced, as long as *great* care is taken to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and as long as we make sure that we don't imply things that the sources don't support, such as Maoist control of the Telangana movement. I still think it's unnecessary, as I think that by its very nature it will be somewhat speculative, but if you can provide sources that *specifically and directly* state that Maoists would benefit from this movement, I wouldn't be vehemently opposed.

As an aside, Ramcrk, I have to disagree with you about source 114 (now source 116 in the article). It says that a leading member of the movement said he would implement the Maoist agenda. That's pretty significant, and worth mentioning. Nobody's saying anything about him condoning violence, but he's certainly showing support for Maoist political views. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In 1982, when TDP was founded, its founder, NTR, said that Maoists are true patriots; and came to power with their support. Again in 1994, when TDP was in opposition, it came to power with the help of Maoists. [15] A Naxalite/Maoist, with lot of muders cases against him, joined TDP and became minister in the TDP govt 1994 and continued until 2004.[16] Should we call TDP a maoist party? In 1989, Congress party, when in opposition, enlisted the support of Maoists to come to power.[17] In 2004, again when Congress was in opposition, it came to power with the help of Maoists.[18] After coming to power, Congress chief minister, YSR, said "We are extending the hand of friendship to naxalites and they should reciprocate by eschewing violence. The talks will be held within the framework of constitution". Land distribution to the poor, ending 'World Bank dictated economic policies', democratic empowerment of the poor, separate state for Telangana region and total prohibition would form core of the naxalite agenda during talks.[19]. Should we call YSR and Congress party Maoist party? Per source 114 KCR said "TRS should not have objection to toe the line of the naxalites because their struggles were aimed at fulfilment of basic needs of the poor like food and land." How this statement is different from NTR's statement in 1982 or YSR's statement or his govt stand in 2004? Every major party in AP, when they are not in power, tried to get the support of Maoists to reach their political goals. When they are in power they have the responsibility of law and order and they tried to crack down on Maoists. This is true in the state since 1982. TRS/KCR is no different. TRS is trying same tricks now. We don't know how they behave when have power. Given this kind of politics in the state; highlighting this statement gives wrong impression to the reader. Ramcrk (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, nobody's calling the Telangana movement a Maoist party. That's not what the source says, and that's not what we should say, either. But in the context of whether the Maoists would benefit if the Telangana movement succeeds, the fact that a leading member of the movement said that he wants to implement the Maoist agenda is significant. We're not (or at least, we shouldn't be) saying that they're all Maoists, or that they're under the Maoists' thumb, but that doesn't mean we just disregard what he said and sweep it under the rug.

At this point, there's really nothing more I can usefully say. You two are both set on your views of what should be in the article; it's not a bad thing, but a lone third opinion seems to be insufficient to find a compromise. If you still can't agree on what to add to the article, you might want to try a more formal means of dispute resolution. I'm going to bow out of the conversation at this point; let me know if there's anything more I can do by dropping me a note at my talk page. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Writ Keeper for your help. I still disagree you regarding Source 114; KCR usage of word "Maoist agenda" NOT significant. He interpreted Maoist agenda as same old poltical rhetoric of "taking care of and empowerment of poor and marginalized". That kind of talk is normal in Indian politics. If some American politician says same thing it would be significant. But not in Indian politics. I understand if you think its significant(Assming you are not familiar with Indian politics).

Vamsisv, Should we go ahead make changes to section based on the agreements we had with this dicussion so far. I would let you take the first shot. Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, give me a day's time to do this. I'll summarize here what we agree and if its ok with you, I'll go ahead with the changes. Else we can look for other means of dispute resolution before editing the article any further. Thanks Vamsisv (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The section can look like below. All *other* points can be moved to appropriate sections of the article (as per timelines). It is important that they be moved and retained in the article because it shows how time and again, certain maoists also took part in the movement either actively or indirectly. Vamsisv (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Will wait for your views before making the actual changes. Vamsisv (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Just a reminder.. For events happened before Sep 2011, we only keep the summary in this article. to reduce the size of the article we moved all the details to 2004-2010_Telangana_protests and Early_2011_Telangana_protests etc. To where you want to move these statements? I will leave it upto you. You use your best judgement. We worked hard to reduce the size of the article. Ramcrk (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the section and moved the relevant content to other sections of the article and to 2004-2010_Telangana_protests and Mid_2011_Telangana_protests. Ramcrk (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didnt agree for the section to be removed. I said points not relevant (I missed the word *other* in my previous comment - but didnt realise it confused you) to the section be moved to other parts of the article and that this section can look like below.Vamsisv

Even 3rd party opinion believe this section needs to be removed. We discuss later while removing the section. Its upto you to cconvince the 3rd party neutral person that this section is needed. Uttil we resolve this we should remove this section. Burden is on you to convice us before putting the section back. Ramcrk (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerns regarding the movement

Rise of Maoist Influence

Sri Krishna Committee said delay in the formation of Telangana will create Political crisis and the Maoist movement is likely to get a fillip in such a situation(page 411).

Before 2009, Absence of any violent action by the extremists for long in the region made everyone believe that naxals have been wiped out. Even in 2010, Security establishments have submitted an assessment to the Prime Minister that the creation of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand helped Maoists entrench better, as they took advantage of administrative problems in a new state. Similarly they said “Remnants of the Maoist movement are strongest in Telangana so any break-up of the state (Andhra) will help them”.

On January 6, 2010, Telangana political Joint Action committee(T-JAC) said the strikes, rail-blockades, various protests would not have been held peacefully if Maoists had inflitrated the pro-Telangana movement. JAC blamed some Andhra leaders for such talk who is trying to bring bad name to the Telangana movement. It questioned, how the Maoists could have joined the movement when state government claims that the naxalism had been wiped out in the State?

KCR who is leading the movement also promised he would implement the ‘Maoist agenda' after formation of separate Telangana. Mr. Rao said the TRS should not have objection to toe the line of the naxalites because their struggles were aimed at fulfilment of basic needs of the poor like food and land.

In 2011, according to government sources, Maoists are active in 1/3rd of districts in India. Special Intelligence Branch (SIB) of Andhra Pradesh Police, which monitors the Maoists, gathered "credible information" about the outlaws carrying their activities under the banner of the TJAC. "When the agitation for a separate state began in late 2009, some Maoist elements joined ranks with the students of Osmania University and indulged in violence. Now, they seem to have 'graduated' to a higher level and started working under the so-called political JAC, though the latter as such exists only on paper," a top-ranking police official remarked.

On Jan 11, 2011, Madhu Yaskhi, Ruling Congress party MP, said "There is police deployment in every nook of Osmania University and Telangana. Not a single Maoist has been arrested despite police having draconian powers and having searched every hostel over and over again. That proves the lie, They(Andhra political leaders and Andhra dominated state bureaucracy) are raising the Maoist bogey to defame the movement."

In November 2011, Police in Gadchiroli district of Maharastra seized several documents from Naxals after encounters which pointed out that the Naxals have decided to actively support the separate movements for Vidarbha and Telangana. They had also undertaken resolutions to ensure that their party remains active in fuelling the division. Their motto was to give support to the pro-Telangana outfits and their violent activities.

After the encounter of Maoist Politburo member Kishenji, Maoist Central Military commission also wanted to use the situation of the Telangana movement to build a revolutionary movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsisv (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 Telangana March

{{3O}} Vamsisv, You removed some of the content I added to this section even though there are sources.

1) Police closed Osmania university gates. See link. (Closing the university gates means police inprisoned entire university. Closing the gate and blocking at the gate is different.)

Pls tell me what is the difference between closing & blocking the gates? That closing means imprisonment is your PoV. Every day at a school/college the gates are closed after it starts. It doesn't mean that the students are imprisoned - it only means that access thru gates are blocked. Don't read too much between the lines to draw unusual conclusions. Vamsisv (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

2) Police put the blockades though out the city not just near necklace road. This link says "Though the police sealed all the entry points to the Necklace Road and opened only the Buddha Bhavan route, Telangana activists tried to barge into the venue from all sides, leading to clashes with the police."

I've already written in the earlier paragraph that police only gave permission for 3 routes. And in the "Day of the march" section, I've written that by 4pm protestors reached from all routes. I've also written that Police blocked protestors at several places in the city. What else are you expecting here? Vamsisv (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

3) JAC leaders appealed for peaceful march though out the event repeatedly. Kondadaram even apologized for the vandalism on the stage.(don't tell me you don't understand Telugu in SakshiTV's video . Its not always possible to get English sources for whatever reasons. I will include English sources when I found it). Kodandram said "He asked the supporters to maintain peace, aplologized for the damage to the properties and wondered about the identity of individuals who vandalized properties and guessed it could be Seema-Andhra agents or police in civilians cloths who want to show movement in bad light."(why you don't want to include this. This proves Telangana leaders not encouraging violence and disowned the people who are doing vandalism. At the time of violence 99% of people are nowhere near the place of violence. They are near the stage listening to speeches. Lets make sure article reflect that reality)

I'm more than willing if statements are supported by "valid" (English language) sources. Further, I've included TJAC convenor's statement where he repented the violence during the march. Pls don't try to include something just to "prove" something (your PoV). Pls present facts with sources, so reader can make his/her own judgement. That is the spirit of NPOV in wikipedia. Vamsisv (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I choose not to revert your changes to avoid edit wars like before. Lets discuss this. Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't revert and started this discussion. I welcome this approach.Vamsisv (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

1) Blocking the students at the gates is different from closing the gates.

2) But on the day of the march, Police allowed only one route near Buddha bavan(not 3 routes as published before).

3) Why only English sources? Why Telugu video can not be source? Do you think my translation is wrong? I understand if my transalation is wrong. Video is better source than a English news paper article. All national news agencies depend upon some translators. Here we don't have to depend upon translators. All Telugu people can view the video and can judge it for themselves. Why you removed such content with sources? Ramcrk (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

1) My questions is what? what is it difference?

2) Pls provide source and exact statement that you want to include

3) Pls take time to read Wikipedia guidelines, if required pls reach out to admins. For english wikipedia, English sources are always preferred. Even if translated, it is first preferred to have translations by reliable sources not wikipedians. Video is better than news paper -> your PoV; All ntional news agencies depend on translators -> irrelevant to discussion here. Vamsisv (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

1) If you block the rally at the gate, you will allow individuals to leave University. If you close the gates even idividuals(not in a group) can not leave university to attend the march or to go anywhere else.

2)I would like to say "Police sealed all the entry points to the Necklace Road and opened only the Buddha Bhavan route, Telangana activists tried to barge into the venue from all sides, leading to clashes with the police." [20]

3) English language references are preferred. But if they are not available we can use non-english video as sources with wikipedian translations. WP:NOENG

1) I still don't see a reasonable explanation from you on this. But we can change the sentence to: Police closed the gates and blocked the students..

2) We can mention as: Though Police sealed all the entry points to the Necklace Road and opened only the Buddha Bhavan route, by 4pm around 2 lakh protestors including various party leaders and their supporters reached the venue from all routes

3) Your translation is not acceptable since I see a lot of bias as you want to "prove" something. Wikipedia would prefer a reliable source of translation. You can reach out to admins on how to resolve this. Vamsisv (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

1) ok

2) ok

3) I ask you put your own translation(I understand you speak Telugu) of the video specially between minute 8:30 to 9:00 at which time Kondandaram asked protestors to maintain peace and apologized to vandalism from the stage in front of thousands of people. I want it to reflect it in some way to show the correct picture. We included all the violence happened on that ay. Why you don't want to include the sentence where organizers worked for peace. There are several speakers on that day who appealed for peace on that stage. You don't want to include even single statement. Why? We can resolve it within ourselves. Since we are in talking mode. If we can not resolve we can go to admins. All I ask is to do the translation yourself. Ramcrk (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I will make changes for 1) & 2), but for 3) it is better to avoid the practice of interpreting video sources (legal or otherwise) - the reason being that interpretations can vary and it will open a pandora's box. There are many video sources in which many T leaders including KCR made very caustic remarks against people of the other regions. Similary many allegations flew between various parties in T region which only have so called "video sources". We would not like all of these to be translated and included in this article. It is best to stick to english language sources.

Coming to this particular point, if there are other sources where Kodandram or other people have appealed for peace there should be no problem to include the same. If you would see, I have included sources where TJAC promised that the rally to be Gandhian and without violence. Similar sources are welcome. I ask you to think on these lines again for a couple of days and if we still dont have consensus we can approach admins. Vamsisv (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I included Eenadu news paper link as source along with Sakshi video link. Ramcrk (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I provided english source of Kondandaram speech. (This news source did not cover his speech as much as Eenadu news paper.) Hope this resolves the issue. Ramcrk (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Telangana suicides

I did the spot check some the sources they mentioned in the doc with archives in Hindu and Andhrajyothy web sites. The information in the document is accurate.

Info provided by items 1, 6,370, 456, 884 in the document is verified by these links.

If you wish you can verify more sources. In the midst of claims and counter claims, its better to have some info with which we can verify. Some info is better than no info. Most of the items mention the newspaper sources(gives the date and newspaper) which can be easily verified. You can not expect any better sources than this. Ramcrk (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate your interest in starting this discussion. You want to retain this extra-ordinary claim of close to 1000 suicides just because there are sources for 5 suicides? You need to know that even these sources cite that these are "claims" of suicide on the issue and they have not verified the same. Even the SKC committee which spent an year didn't verify these claims. So it would be very imprudent to push a view (and a strong one at that) based on sources citing "claims" of 5 suicides.

Wherever there are genuine verified sources, they have already been mentioned in this article.

I can understand politicians making such claims, but then again - wikipedia cannot be made a vehicle to take those forward. Vamsisv (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

SKC report (para 7.12.02 in page 387) says "There were a purported 313 suicides in Telangana between 30th November and 27th February, many of them in Warangal, Karimnagar and Medak with fewer numbers in Nalgonda, Adilabad, Nizamabad, Mahbubnagar, Khammam, Rangareddy and Hyderabad. About 60 of these were by persons between the ages of 18 and 25. About 158 were by persons between the ages of 25 and 50. "

I did spot checked only sources for 5 suicides mentioned in the document. Every source I checked is accurate. I did not check all the sources mentioned in the document. That does not mean only 5 sources are correct. We, time to time, see lot of articles in wiki which says source is this book and that book(even though book is not available online). How is this different? Here document is saying source is this edition of Hindu, that edition of Andhra Jyothy etc. Hindu keeps archives of all its news articles. Andhra Jyothy also keeps archives of some of their editions. You can check the authenticity of document by verifying with the newspaper archives(by checking online editions on web or offline editions at library).

Every claim of suicide is investigated by police. If any of the claim is incorrect, it would have come in the news too. Unless and until such report we have to accept the original suicide report as suicides. Not just claims.

We did not include a suicide in this article unless it became a big new item in news paper. We see suicide reports(with suicide note saying Telangana as reason) in newspapers on regular basis. If we include every report in this article, entire article will be filled with suicide reports. Ramcrk (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

SKC report only stated those numbers based on newspaper reports but the committee did not verify the veracity of that data. This is already mentioned in the article.

Such sources which mention the book contain the page number ISBN number etc. That is how they are different. I agree that there will be newspaper archives but the link content should directly point to those sources rather than leave it to reader to establish the link and sources. You cannot just add content to wikipedia and ask the reader to go fetch the sources and check authenticity.

Not all claims of suicides have been investigated by police. Not all investigations have come to an end. Some investigations proved that there were other reasons for suicides. Vamsisv (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper name and date is as good a source as ISBN number. If you want to verify you have check the book in a library or check the news paper. Both are same valid sources.

We can say this list is as per the news reports. We can use the word "purported", as SKC used. How about title "List of people purportedly committed suicides for Telangana Movement since 2009(per News reports)". Ramcrk (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree since this is a sensational claim and no amount of word-play can reduce the significant wrong impact it can have. We can get others views too. Also the format of the link (a document as attachment) is still not acceptable on wikipedia. Vamsisv (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This document is on yahoo web site. Nobody can change this document(even the author of document can change it). All we care is content. All we have to worry is whether the content has verifiable sources. I see the sources. The content is very much relevant to this article. I see no issues including that link in this article. If you wish we can involve other wiki editors to resolve this conflict. Ramcrk (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have requested 3rd party opinion. Listed in WP:30 Ramcrk (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Material, such as this, from Yahoo groups from is clearly user generated, and as such is unacceptable. Anybody can publish material on Yahoo groups. We have no way of knowing whether the attributed authors are the actual authors, now way of knowing whether they are actual University professors as they claim, and no way of knowing what their area of expertise is. Even if this could be established to the satisfaction of all editors, there is still no oversight of the work. We have no way of determining the accuracy of this material since it hasn't been fact checked in any way at all. It fails all the requirements of a reliable source, and should not be included. Those sections which are verifiable via news reports can be included, but referenced to the news reports. Everything else is unverifiable. Mark Marathon (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Documents of this nature are not WP:RS. If it is just a list of sources, then you should validate those sources and use them directly. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Changes

Per this:

1. in line 205 it removes content and cites it as a "copy edit" that is not a copy edit and no mention for the change is given.
2. Likewise Andhra Pradesh is more descriptive than merely "The CM..."
3. Then mention of "formally requesting" is the political process that's elucidated to tackle the view that the creation of Telegana has already happened. No it was just the formality that passed.
4. "BJP state level leaders" is wrong as there was just one individual who said that.
5. Reactions are important for readers of an encyclopaedia to gauge who stands where.
6. Likewise why is the name of the prez and PM removed? They were the prez and PM at the time of the incident.(Lihaas (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)).

1. CM hasn't actually resigned after that meeting. So daily political posturing needn't mentioned in wikipedia.
2. It is very evident the discussion/article is abt AP not Assam. Repeated mention of "AP" chief minister & "Indian" PM is unnecessary
3. There is nothing called an "informal" request. Request means a formal way of asking something.
4. replaced by "a" state level leader. But really doesn't matter and you cannot count that.
5. These aren't reactions, they are political banter. Its best to summarize the same rather than copy-pasting quotes. Which is what I've done before your blind reverts.
6. It is the President & PM that are involved in the process. the posts and not the persons. whenever the said bill reaches that stage these may not be the individuals in those posts, so really not necessary to mention their names. Vamsisv (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Umm, that's his reaction to the news and certainly notable in that it was so deeply opposed.
2. There are a lot of reactions and his position has to stand out. But I can accommodate here if you insist as, even thugh its a long article, the topic is covered.
3. Yes there certainly is an informal request )as in demands/agitation). But that apart, it also manetion what step was made to tackle misconceptions (and it was on WP/ITN when the announcement was made) that the state was created.
4. These are notable reactions and you removed content and violated BRD. You also removed the INC reaction. See that as a blind revert.

1. If they are not there, then we can signed by the next person. It is the person's policy, not the post (which has not POLUICY).

Please don't edit wasr euntil consensus is formed. You refused to discuss it so I initated this talk page. Now gain consensus.(Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)).

1. That is not notable enough since it never happened
2. I don't get you
3. Demand / agitation are not considered "Requests". Take any dictionary's help to understand the meaning of request
4. It is not blind revert. I've only removed long quotes which were copied verbatim by you. I have retained the summary. If it not good enough for you that is your problem
5. You must be kidding yourselves with this argument

You have started this edit-war. I had only made copy edits which you refuse to see and are rubbing your POV on this article. I repeat that this is a wikipedia article. Your kind of content is suitable for a blog that you may write. I don't have to gain consensus. You need to. Vamsisv (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Both of you need to justify your edits if asked, not just Lihaas. And the current opening sentence makes no sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvment NeilN. I have already given my justifications above. Appreciate if you can see the edits and read my justifications and help out here. Vamsisv (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I will dig into this later on today. Meanwhile, can one of you fix the first sentence so it makes sense? "The Telangana movement refers to masses of Telangana(Hyderabad State) to support" is not proper English. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)