Talk:Hyderabad State

message: # Razakar movement and the violence that followed
# People's movement within Hyderabad state for unification with India
# Role of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Police Action
Ramashray 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled comment

message: The information here focuses on trivialities and emphasizes some things (communist & muslim militias) that have very little to do with the actual transition.  I strongly suggest seeking out and referencing non-Indian sources of information on this transition to avoid local bias (as feelings still run high on this topic).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.238.172.147 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transition from princely state to province of India

message: I have added the  tag to this page because of statements like this:
:"His weakness for women and the consequent vices have impoverished him and he now lives by selling the bequeathed property in Hyderabad in periodic instalments. Much of his wealth has been lost in giving alimonies and maintenance to his divorced ex-wives. The case of former Miss Turkey Ms. Manolya Onur, the third officially divorced wife of the present 'Nizam', was the toast of Indian tabloids in 2006. She succesfully defended her rights in an Indian Court and won a judgement against the 'Nizam'."
I don't know much about this, but such a statement needs to be first referenced, and section written in a Nuetral point of view.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I am removing the rubbish saying that Telugu has prospered and Urdu is no longer spoken in Hyderabad today.  Does someone actually believe that Urdu is no longer spoken in Hyderabad?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.8.187 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rubbish

message: A section Culture should be added which explains the peoples culture under Hyderabad State.
If the article is strong enough a separate article "Culture of Hyderabad State" or "Culture of Old Hyderabad" also can be made.
Currently, the whole Article explains Hyderabad State only in the view of politics and Geography.
Culture should include subtopics of 
* Language
* Customs
* Traditions
* Religion
* Art and Architecture
I would appreciate people collecting matter from Genuine websites on traditions, customs of the people of Hyderabad State those days.
The Article "Hyderabadi Muslims" signifies the culture from Hyderabad State and New Hyderabad too,
But this article on culture should be based on both Hyderabadi Hindus and Muslims only from the era of "Hyderabad State".
The article should be neutral based on common mans culture and free from political culture and political history.
Please discuss with me on this topic  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotWick (talk • contribs) 09:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture of Hyderabad State 

message: This page is related to Hyderabad State as it existed prior to disintegration and merger into Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh. We should just have a reference to Hyderabad, India for present day city. Let me know for any objections before removing that section. Lanet303 (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. Abecedare (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aug 30, 2013 - Remove Hyderabad section 

message: I have removed (now shared between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India) from infobox because this article is about Hyderabad state between 1724-1948. writing about 2014 Hyderabad city shared between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in infobox is not required. I reckon one can find this information under history in Hyderabad city page.  Muzi (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital

message: I have a strong suspicion that the above user is the same user who had issues way back in 2013 with the article. He is adding primary sources (v.p menon was the mastermind behind the annexation of the state) and blogs to push a very pro Indian point of view of events can someone protect the page at least? 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:D5AA:E7F2:540C:E498 (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly do you know what happened in 2013? You have been here for barely a day. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Indian pov pushers there is a thing called talk page look back at previous discussion many pov pushers have tried to push a pro Indian spin on things before thats why I know. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:D5AA:E7F2:540C:E498 (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I have reverted it back to this version. Whatever changes have been made since then, please discuss them here first and obtain consensus for them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This version is much better. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:D5AA:E7F2:540C:E498 (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and primary sources User:CAKrutesh 

message: This edit introduced the phrasing that India "were determined to assimilate Hyderabad into the Indian Union, even if it were by compulsion." No citations. And, this one changed it to "determined to annex", "even if it were by force." Obvious WP:OR and POV-pushing, probably spread all over the article. I am going to do a major clean-up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the article is full of pro-Indian pov please do clean it up it presents the invading Indians as angels. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:C841:4298:8132:238 (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Assimilate is blatant pov. Annexation is the correct term since India was the invading force into another country. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:C841:4298:8132:238 (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determined - to "assimilate", nay to "annex" 

message: I do not think the man who orchestrated the annexation of the state should be given space here its a primary pov source Kuatilya should know better than this please stick to NPOV I have yet to read a neutral respected source stating that the Nizam signed any document its annexation for a reason. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Our policy on WP:PRIMARY sources is that they can be used with care, for factual information, especially when supported by secondary sources. Whether the Nizam signed accession or not is an issue of fact, and not any "POV". I am afraid yours is the only "POV" here, which is entirely irrelevant to what goes into the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  V. P Menon more POV 

message: Irrespective of any content disputes for now, I am going to move around the categories so that the layout of the article is not all over the place. As an example, I had combined early history and british raj sections into one large History section. Vagbhata2 (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, this article is currently considered start class, and doesnt have a lot of references for the material. Lets try to find sourced content for the material, and then we can focus on the grammar next. Vagbhata2 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see plenty of sources listed in the Bibliography and Further reading sections. So I am not sure what you mean by "it doesn't have a lot of references". Please note also that the Wikipedia policy is verifiability, not citations. So you need to make an honest effort to verify the content before you decide to delete it as being unsourced. For example, when there are wikilinks to other related articles, you need to check there for the sources. At the moment, there is probably no great harm in your deletions, because there was probably plenty of WP:OR mixed in with verifiable content, and one can write new content based on good sources. However, Encyclopedia Britannica is not a great source. It is first of all a WP:TERTIARY source, and most of its articles and unsigned and unverifiable. It doesn't meet the criteria for WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I mean was that there was a good deal of content which did not have any citations or references that went along with it. That content was deleted and replaced with cited content. In the case of the Britannica content, I had to use this as I had trouble finding better sources. The history sections which I had used Britannica on had no sources initially, so this is an improvement. In the link that you gave me in your explanation, it asks to go to the next reliable source, and that is what I have done. Anyway, thanks for your input, ill try to get some better references and content. Vagbhata2 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side note 

message: Please see this link (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/in-hyder.html) to confer for future edits.Messiaindarain (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hyderabad State. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112003648/http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl1805/18051140.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl1805/18051140.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are duplicates of sections "References" and "Bibliography;" please fix. Biologicarp (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Organization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hyderabad State. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220113947/http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/hist-cult/history_post.html to http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/hist-cult/history_post.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613204008/http://archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.tcl?document_id=9308 to http://www.archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.tcl?document_id=9308
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Princely states were not considered a part of British India. Please correct. 
India under the British Raj (the "Indian Empire") consisted of two types of territory: British India and the Native states or Princely states. In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted the following definitions:
(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.
(5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.
 Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 18 
: Technically, you are correct. In fact, if you click on the blue link to "British India" in the infobox, it leads you to the British Indian Empire. When the British were still around, "British India" meant the part of India that was under British administration. But in the common usage now, "British India" is used to distinguish it from independent India. I would like to get input from other editors if this needs correction. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princely state of "British India" 

message: The citizens of the state referred to the nation as "Hyderabad deccan", also present in the name of the Hyderabad Deccan railway station in Hyderabad city. 
https://books.google.ca/books?id=YlgoAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=hyderabad+deccan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4xLKpg6vZAhWn64MKHRuCBBMQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=hyderabad%20deccan&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=z_r7QwAACAAJ&dq=hyderabad+deccan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4xLKpg6vZAhWn64MKHRuCBBMQ6AEIQjAF
https://books.google.ca/books?id=sZKHDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA217&dq=hyderabad+deccan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4xLKpg6vZAhWn64MKHRuCBBMQ6AEITDAI#v=onepage&q=hyderabad%20deccan&f=false
Hammad.511234 (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see that it was used by some people. But to actually mention the term, you need a proper source that explains who used the term and why. Standard scholarly sources don't use it, e.g., Barbara Ramusack. Your claim that is "commonly known as" Hyderabad Deccan is not evidenced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyderabad Deccan 

message: Before 1858, it's dealing with the East India Company.  The Raj is what it's replacement - direct British rule - is known as.  Ganpati23 (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: . As a registered editor, you are perfectly able to do such edits yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section starting "In 1798, Nizam ʿĀlī Khan" and ending with the mutiny isn't the Raj. 

message: * https://archive.siasat.com/news/nizam-vii-took-care-people-despite-being-monarch-198446/
The Nizam used to call Muslims and the Hindus as his two eyes.
, please explain why its not considered, I'm trying to understand...
Bhagya2 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . External links should point to further research that expand on the topic or to material that should be in the article but cannot be included because of copyright reasons. The material you're adding does not fit either of those criteria. Perhaps, assuming it is a reliable source, you could add it - as a reference - in a section on the Nizam's relations with his subjects. But not as an external link. --regentspark (comment) 19:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link clarification 

message: Seems like cherry picking sentences from Sherman Taylors reference is acceptable however as soon something is added which is already in the source which does not go with the justifications of the annexation its regarded as unsourced "On 13 September 1948, therefore, the Government of India declared a state of 
emergency, and sent its troops into Hyderabad State. During the ‘police action’, the 
Indian Army entered Hyderabad with the objective of forcing the Nizam to re-install 
Indian troops in Secunderabad to allow them to restore order in the state. The Nizam 
surrendered in four days, and the Government of India appointed Major-General J.N. 
Chaudhuri as Military Governor. Delhi decided that the Nizam could retain his 
position as Rajpramukh, though law-making and enforcement power rested with the 
Military Governor" This is on page 9 and ignoring the fact that it was a forced annexation (clearly it was forced as the main article Indian annexation of Hyderabad itself describes it as a military intervention) I will be restoring the sentence as censoring this information is not what Wikipedia is for. DavosBarton (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Forcing to re-install troops doesn't amount to "annexation". The term "annexation" is not even used in this source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you now denying that it wasn't an annexation ? Please just read the main article on the annexation and yes sending in troops to invade Hyderabad state to force the nizam is a method to achieve annexation the main article itself is called "Indian annexation of Hyderabad" why are you even arguing this point you know better. I am sure more neutral editors could also contribute as I feel some are still attached to some nationalistic narrative surrounding this annexation which for long they tried to term as "integration" you dont end up with hundreds and thousands of dead for no reason a military invasion which is always forced results in these fatalities. DavosBarton (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking back at your previous comments in regards to the annexation you were still arguing that it was not an annexation which raises a few questions on your judgement. However even Sherman Taylor (which uses mostly Indian sources and Indian government claims and is slanted heavily towards Indias narrative) also calls it an invasion and seizure of territory by the Indian military I can post the quote if you want. DavosBarton (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here as some neutral sources which refer to Indias invasion as a annexation (Please not I am not great with adding books as a source so I will just copy and paste the web link and page  and   note none of these are government associated and are neutral. DavosBarton (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced annexation 

message: This barely makes sense. Nothing about the Razakars, the Nizam's atrocities, the Communist-led rebellion etc. I will rewrite the lead in a couple of weeks. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line that makes no sense