This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
O Osman was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 January 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Hyderabad State. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Ramashray 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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)
I have added the {{ pov}} tag to this page because of statements like this:
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)
Have specifically added the POV tag to the After the British Rag section, for statements such as: "the brits very cunningly left the choice of unification with the local rulers." "The Razakars, a motley group of Islamic bigots" and " The Indian government, in a deft act of political maturity and statesmanship, appointed the humbled and mellowed Nizam as the Rajpramukh(Governor) of Hyderabad, a title which he retained till 1956."
The RAZZAKARS had humiliated HINDUS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.252.178 ( talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
With reference to Jeff's "references needed", I would like to point out that I have added relevant references.
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)
Where is Tamil spoken anywhere in the erstwhile areas of Hyderabad State ? Only Telugu, Marathi, Urdu ( Dakhini Dialect ) and Kannada are spoken. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
124.30.174.15 (
talk) 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You fellows Hyderabadi Muslims speak Urdu and Others(Hindus,Christians,etc) speak telugu. Some malayalis are too there(in the city and secunderabad)-- Monareal ( talk) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't put that in, but Tamil was spoken in Hyderabad state, when the Nizam ruled the Carnatic. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 18:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
(redirected from editor talk page)
"brutally put down", "committed horrendous atrocities", "Countless Hindu", "preceding MIM/Razakar atrocities" is the exact opposite of neutral language. -- NeilN talk to me 01:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Devanampriya ( talk) 01:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the text from the article for now, since it was a clear instance of POV. Besides the issues pointed out by Neil above, the text also selectively and misleading quoted from the cited sources. For example while the Kate book says, "Some women became victims of rape...", in the article, it was presented as as "Countless Hindu 'women became victims of rape...'" (emphasis added). This is blatant POV pushing.
I would suggest that Devanampriya or others propose properly sourced and neutrally worded text here on the talk page, gain consensus for inclusion, and only then add it to the article. Simply edit-warring is not an alternative. Abecedare ( talk) 02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC) FWIW, I do think that Hindu-Muslim tensions and violence in Hyderabad prior to the entry of the Indian army merit inclusion in the article. But the material needs to be well-sourced, presented neutrally, and not fall afoul of no synthesis guidelines by drawing a straight line between the actions of Razakars and the actions of the Indian army (unless scholarly consensus supports such a conclusion). Abecedare ( talk) 03:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Devanampriya ( talk) 05:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this, I agree with what AVAAGAA said. Also, attributing quotes does not mean putting quotes around text and adding a reference. It means (as I stated above) writing something like xxx stated that "yyy...". -- NeilN talk to me 17:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
@ Hammad.511234: Your claim of Hyderabad as an "independent kingdom" [1] needs a reliable source. Certainly "Nizam-ul-Mulk" doesn't indicate any form of independence. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: It's not my claim.... it's history. The Nizam declared independence in 1724 when the Mughal empire was weakening, and then Hyderabad became a princely state under British India in 1803. This is from the wikipedia page, I just added it to the infobox. But thanks for clarifying it. I also noticed the point in this wikipedia page doesn't have those sources, but I'll add it. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 21:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
ahhhh, got it. Sorry for the late response. I have a source, and I'll add it in. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 18:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3, and Hammad.511234 So, Mr. Hammad, what was Subsidiary alliance ? LoL! Nizam was indeed toeing the Company's line from 1760s. -- Ghatus ( talk) 05:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
This 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)
I notice that you have added that India annexed Hyderabad to the lead. I am going to revert it. In the first place, the sources given there don't say any such thing. Even assuming we can find sources, that is not enough. Wikipedia represents the consensus among the reliable sources as per WP:NPOV. So, unless a great majority of the sources use the term "annex" we can't use it. Here are a few sources that I consider reliable and important, and none of them use it:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)This doesn't prove that "annex" is wrong. But it does prove that all the people that are so convinced of themselves need to get off their high horse and investigate what the issues are. Just POV pushing doesn't cut it. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
[Link to revert
An authorless source from FK Publications, a non-notable publisher is added by Kautilya3 to support his POV about accesion of the state. He pushed this same POV using a tourism website earlier. There are better and more reputable sources out there which stop short of Indian occupation and never mention accesion. I am adding POV tag until this is corrected and supported by a source from a renown source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
In what way was Operation Polo not an invasion, one of many that India has carried out against enclaves (see also Goa, for instance)? And in what way was the incorporation of Hyderabad into the Union not an annexation? I don't recall any referendum in Hyderabad, or even passage of an act of union by any Hyderabadi body. Acad Ronin ( talk) 20:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
@ Mayur12025: You have been edit-warring over scripts in the infobox [3], [4]. Your latest claim is that the state had four official languages. Please provide reliable sources saying so, or self-revert. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
There are duplicates of sections "References" and "Bibliography;" please fix. Biologicarp ( talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, duplicate of section "External Links" present. Biologicarp ( talk) 21:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hyderabad was a former country, as well as princely state, and should be included in the intro paragraph. RahulRamchandani ( talk) 03:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The book describes its author, Francis Pike as a "historian" although it's not easy turning up any previous works by the 55-year-old author. Surprisingly, for someone who is presumably concerned with accuracy, the blurb omits Pike's unfortunate involvement with what was one of Asia's largest banks: the Hong Kong-based Peregrine Investment Holdings. This is clearly one of those common lapses of memory and has nothing to do with the fact that Peregrine went spectacularly bust in 1998 with estimated debts of $400 million (Pike had been Chairman of Peregrine India and a director of Pergerine Asset Management from 1993-97).
@ Kautilya3: I thought it was a reliable source. But I can still look. But its also common sense, Hyderabad was an independent state, meaning it was a country. RahulRamchandani ( talk) 17:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
https://books.google.ca/books?id=G7xPaJomYsEC&pg=PA40&dq=hyderabad+was+a+country&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifpeO3tanZAhUK1oMKHb3WAD0Q6AEIVTAI#v=onepage&q=hyderabad%20was%20a%20country&f=false Hammad.511234 ( talk) 02:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Kautilya3 What exactly is wrong with those sources? And the second source mentions it as a state... a synonym. Princely state refers to those native states that had subsidiary alliances with British India, but how about when it did not? Did it just not exist? Hammad.511234 ( talk) 18:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC) This article is also under the former countries wiki project. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 18:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
References
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The book I referenced is reliable and provides another reason for why India annexed Hyderabad Razarkars were not the only reason and its censorship to try and eliminate other facts due to the nationalistic sentiments of certain users please read this asap.
NzamAA (
talk) 20:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC) blocked sock
The audio pronunciation provided is in a presumably Telugu accent, not indicative of the native pronunciation. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 03:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
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
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)
References
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)
@ Kautilya3: Princely state only refers to the British period and was not used in the early years of the state. Wouldn't it be better to reflect this in the lead i.e "the state/kingdom was later a princely state during British rule". HaoJungTar ( talk) 11:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The Nizam used to call Muslims and the Hindus as his two eyes.
regentspark ( talk · contribs), please explain why its not considered, I'm trying to understand... Bhagya2 ( talk) 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks , I'll leave it to you here Bhagya2 ( talk) 17:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Loveisthebest1: I reverted your Turkoman addition because the source you're using is a Raj era source. The consensus in India articles is that Raj era sources for ethnic identites are not reliable and should not be used. If need to find a recent academic source that supports the Turkoman identity. Please also read WP:BRD. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 18:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't know which source I are allowed to use Loveisthebest1 ( talk) 14:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I have add new source is it approved? Loveisthebest1 ( talk) 16:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
Hyderabad's location in the middle of the Indian union, as well as its diverse cultural heritage, was a driving force behind India's annexation of the state in 1948.
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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
O Osman was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 January 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Hyderabad State. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Ramashray 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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)
I have added the {{ pov}} tag to this page because of statements like this:
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)
Have specifically added the POV tag to the After the British Rag section, for statements such as: "the brits very cunningly left the choice of unification with the local rulers." "The Razakars, a motley group of Islamic bigots" and " The Indian government, in a deft act of political maturity and statesmanship, appointed the humbled and mellowed Nizam as the Rajpramukh(Governor) of Hyderabad, a title which he retained till 1956."
The RAZZAKARS had humiliated HINDUS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.252.178 ( talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
With reference to Jeff's "references needed", I would like to point out that I have added relevant references.
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)
Where is Tamil spoken anywhere in the erstwhile areas of Hyderabad State ? Only Telugu, Marathi, Urdu ( Dakhini Dialect ) and Kannada are spoken. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
124.30.174.15 (
talk) 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You fellows Hyderabadi Muslims speak Urdu and Others(Hindus,Christians,etc) speak telugu. Some malayalis are too there(in the city and secunderabad)-- Monareal ( talk) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't put that in, but Tamil was spoken in Hyderabad state, when the Nizam ruled the Carnatic. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 18:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
(redirected from editor talk page)
"brutally put down", "committed horrendous atrocities", "Countless Hindu", "preceding MIM/Razakar atrocities" is the exact opposite of neutral language. -- NeilN talk to me 01:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Devanampriya ( talk) 01:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the text from the article for now, since it was a clear instance of POV. Besides the issues pointed out by Neil above, the text also selectively and misleading quoted from the cited sources. For example while the Kate book says, "Some women became victims of rape...", in the article, it was presented as as "Countless Hindu 'women became victims of rape...'" (emphasis added). This is blatant POV pushing.
I would suggest that Devanampriya or others propose properly sourced and neutrally worded text here on the talk page, gain consensus for inclusion, and only then add it to the article. Simply edit-warring is not an alternative. Abecedare ( talk) 02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC) FWIW, I do think that Hindu-Muslim tensions and violence in Hyderabad prior to the entry of the Indian army merit inclusion in the article. But the material needs to be well-sourced, presented neutrally, and not fall afoul of no synthesis guidelines by drawing a straight line between the actions of Razakars and the actions of the Indian army (unless scholarly consensus supports such a conclusion). Abecedare ( talk) 03:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Devanampriya ( talk) 05:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this, I agree with what AVAAGAA said. Also, attributing quotes does not mean putting quotes around text and adding a reference. It means (as I stated above) writing something like xxx stated that "yyy...". -- NeilN talk to me 17:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
@ Hammad.511234: Your claim of Hyderabad as an "independent kingdom" [1] needs a reliable source. Certainly "Nizam-ul-Mulk" doesn't indicate any form of independence. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: It's not my claim.... it's history. The Nizam declared independence in 1724 when the Mughal empire was weakening, and then Hyderabad became a princely state under British India in 1803. This is from the wikipedia page, I just added it to the infobox. But thanks for clarifying it. I also noticed the point in this wikipedia page doesn't have those sources, but I'll add it. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 21:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
ahhhh, got it. Sorry for the late response. I have a source, and I'll add it in. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 18:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3, and Hammad.511234 So, Mr. Hammad, what was Subsidiary alliance ? LoL! Nizam was indeed toeing the Company's line from 1760s. -- Ghatus ( talk) 05:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
This 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)
I notice that you have added that India annexed Hyderabad to the lead. I am going to revert it. In the first place, the sources given there don't say any such thing. Even assuming we can find sources, that is not enough. Wikipedia represents the consensus among the reliable sources as per WP:NPOV. So, unless a great majority of the sources use the term "annex" we can't use it. Here are a few sources that I consider reliable and important, and none of them use it:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)This doesn't prove that "annex" is wrong. But it does prove that all the people that are so convinced of themselves need to get off their high horse and investigate what the issues are. Just POV pushing doesn't cut it. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
[Link to revert
An authorless source from FK Publications, a non-notable publisher is added by Kautilya3 to support his POV about accesion of the state. He pushed this same POV using a tourism website earlier. There are better and more reputable sources out there which stop short of Indian occupation and never mention accesion. I am adding POV tag until this is corrected and supported by a source from a renown source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
In what way was Operation Polo not an invasion, one of many that India has carried out against enclaves (see also Goa, for instance)? And in what way was the incorporation of Hyderabad into the Union not an annexation? I don't recall any referendum in Hyderabad, or even passage of an act of union by any Hyderabadi body. Acad Ronin ( talk) 20:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
@ Mayur12025: You have been edit-warring over scripts in the infobox [3], [4]. Your latest claim is that the state had four official languages. Please provide reliable sources saying so, or self-revert. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
There are duplicates of sections "References" and "Bibliography;" please fix. Biologicarp ( talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, duplicate of section "External Links" present. Biologicarp ( talk) 21:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hyderabad was a former country, as well as princely state, and should be included in the intro paragraph. RahulRamchandani ( talk) 03:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The book describes its author, Francis Pike as a "historian" although it's not easy turning up any previous works by the 55-year-old author. Surprisingly, for someone who is presumably concerned with accuracy, the blurb omits Pike's unfortunate involvement with what was one of Asia's largest banks: the Hong Kong-based Peregrine Investment Holdings. This is clearly one of those common lapses of memory and has nothing to do with the fact that Peregrine went spectacularly bust in 1998 with estimated debts of $400 million (Pike had been Chairman of Peregrine India and a director of Pergerine Asset Management from 1993-97).
@ Kautilya3: I thought it was a reliable source. But I can still look. But its also common sense, Hyderabad was an independent state, meaning it was a country. RahulRamchandani ( talk) 17:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
https://books.google.ca/books?id=G7xPaJomYsEC&pg=PA40&dq=hyderabad+was+a+country&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifpeO3tanZAhUK1oMKHb3WAD0Q6AEIVTAI#v=onepage&q=hyderabad%20was%20a%20country&f=false Hammad.511234 ( talk) 02:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Kautilya3 What exactly is wrong with those sources? And the second source mentions it as a state... a synonym. Princely state refers to those native states that had subsidiary alliances with British India, but how about when it did not? Did it just not exist? Hammad.511234 ( talk) 18:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC) This article is also under the former countries wiki project. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 18:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
References
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The book I referenced is reliable and provides another reason for why India annexed Hyderabad Razarkars were not the only reason and its censorship to try and eliminate other facts due to the nationalistic sentiments of certain users please read this asap.
NzamAA (
talk) 20:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC) blocked sock
The audio pronunciation provided is in a presumably Telugu accent, not indicative of the native pronunciation. Hammad.511234 ( talk) 03:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
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
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)
References
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)
@ Kautilya3: Princely state only refers to the British period and was not used in the early years of the state. Wouldn't it be better to reflect this in the lead i.e "the state/kingdom was later a princely state during British rule". HaoJungTar ( talk) 11:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The Nizam used to call Muslims and the Hindus as his two eyes.
regentspark ( talk · contribs), please explain why its not considered, I'm trying to understand... Bhagya2 ( talk) 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks , I'll leave it to you here Bhagya2 ( talk) 17:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Loveisthebest1: I reverted your Turkoman addition because the source you're using is a Raj era source. The consensus in India articles is that Raj era sources for ethnic identites are not reliable and should not be used. If need to find a recent academic source that supports the Turkoman identity. Please also read WP:BRD. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 18:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't know which source I are allowed to use Loveisthebest1 ( talk) 14:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I have add new source is it approved? Loveisthebest1 ( talk) 16:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
Hyderabad's location in the middle of the Indian union, as well as its diverse cultural heritage, was a driving force behind India's annexation of the state in 1948.
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)