Talk:Hyderabad State

Untitled comment

1. Razakar movement and the violence that followed
2. People's movement within Hyderabad state for unification with India
3. Role of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Police Action

Ramashray 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transition from princely state to province of India

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)

POV tag

I have added the {{pov}} 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)

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)

References added

With reference to Jeff's "references needed", I would like to point out that I have added relevant references.

Rubbish

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)

Culture of Hyderabad State

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)

Aug 30, 2013 - Remove Hyderabad section

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)

Good call. Abecedare (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hyderabad State

(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)

It is neutral language given the accounts of the period. You are welcome to research, to verify, and even to reword, but not section blank--that's vandalism. You didn't do that, you outright reverted (removing referenced content) without touching on the substance. A good faith edit would change language not considered NPOV, while keeping core--referenced/verified--substance. Blanket removing content is indicative of a desire to skew the article. Furthermore, there is nothing even remotely non-NPOV about "preceding MIM/Razakar atrocities" when this is well known and was referenced in my edit. Please do not attempt to blank out sections of the article to tailor a desired image of the event. Wikipedia must be NPOV. Thank you.

Devanampriya (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

These terms are not appropriate to use with Wikipedia's voice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You are being evasive.

Which terms? "preceding MIM/Razakar atrocities" are npov--they did commit atrocities (i.e. murder, rape, arson, etc). I have provided sources that confirmed this. Also, you still fail to explain why my new paragraph could not have been reworded without being deleted in toto. This was sourced information. Please do not engage in edit warring simply to skew the article to your preferred version. Detailed explanations are required to arrive at a consensus version so that reader can properly understand all associated historical events with this article. You cannot understand the allegations of executions of razakars and other communal violence without having a paragraph on the razakar atrocities that initiated the communal violence to being with. Rather than one line drive by sentences, please provide detailed explanations in the future so that a consensus can be reached. Devanampriya (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have listed the exact terms in my first post. I have no interest in this topic beyond making sure edits comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines which, in my opinion, yours fails to do. Reword the terms I mentioned or attribute them properly and I'll be satisfied (and ignore your blatant misunderstanding of WP:VAND). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been removing sourced content without rewording text outside quotes. Simply rewording or providing new suggestions would be demonstrative of desire to collaborate. If you have not researched the topic and have no understanding of it, do not attempt to cite wikipolicy you don't understand. Section blanking is vandalism--particularly when you don't respond with a detailed explanation when requested. Abecedare has listed a concern that I responded to by rewording text. If you have a problem with the original quote, you have to do research and discuss--you can't hold content hostage merely because you don't like it. Devanampriya (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not presenting the highly-POV statements as quotes, you're presenting them in Wikipedia's voice. And if you think my edits are vandalism, then WP:AIV is the way to go. Be prepared to get shot down rather quickly, though. Much better if you suggest NPOV text here on the talk page first since you have editors who feel your current addition clearly has POV issues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:11, 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)

Completely agree with this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Abecedare. The kate book says "some" because actual estimates are not available. The selectively leaked sunderlal report (ref'ed in the bbc article) only issued estimated figures for muslim victims in the reprisals, but not hindu victims in the preceding violence. Nevertheless, unlike Neil N, you appear to be interested in discussion, so let's discuss.

Let me reiterate. I am open to rewording--but this is obvious deletion. To demand that the entire paragraph should be removed because you disagree with some words, is an overreach since wikipedia sanctions bold editing. You have also changed the title of the section to one that ignores the hindu victims in the conflict--this is pov-pushing as well. Even your concerns about "straight line action" are touched on by the skewed bbc article, which conceded the "pretext" of preceding razakar atrocity. I am however glad that you wish to discuss. Rather than hold content hostage--let us do what wikipedia intends--collaborate on the edit--so feel free to edit my version and we'll work together to reach consensus.

In the interest of good faith, I will change my original wording from Countless to unknown number to allay your concern. The actual numbers of raped women are more than a few or "some". These ambiguities are the result of unavailable statistics. At the same time, it is important to recognize the scale of the atrocities that were taking place in hyderabad prior to its liberation. See for example: "To face this challenge from the people, the Nizam encouraged the Razakars to terrorise the Hindus and also to change the communal complexion of the State by forcibly converting Hindus into Islam and inviting Muslims from outside to settle in the State." Rao, P.R. "History and Culture of Andhra Pradesh". p.281-282.

See also: "From the beginning of 1948 the Razakars had extended their activities from Hyderabad city into the towns and rural areas, murdering hindus, abducting women, pillaging houses and fields, and looting non-muslim property in a widespread reign of terror." p.394. Large scale atrocities

What we have here is clearly large-scale violence. Even Kate cites hindu refugees in the thousands. There is also at least one documented incident of razakar atrocity resulting in the rape and murder of at least 70 hindu women.

In sum, I am more than happy to collaborate in order to reach a consensus. But let's boldly edit each other's work rather than tie it up in committee. I will make the first gesture by rewording the previous paragraph. Feel free to do the same. Thanks.Devanampriya (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As Neil and I have mentioned above, just changing "countless" to "unknown number" or similar tweaks do not resolve the POV issues with your text; both the content and wording of the paragraph need to be overhauled. If you are interested, propose text here, gain consensus, and only then introduce it to the article.

Also note that you have breached WP:3RR on this page despite prior warnings, and are eligible to be blocked from editing wikipedia. I don't intend to report it this time, but if you continue edit-warring (which need not involve breaches of 3RR) in the coming days instead of following the WP:BRD process, I will. Abecedare (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reported him (before I saw this) as he's been editing Wikipedia long enough to know not to do this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have also been editing long enough to understand when I am faced with editors who have problems with the actual referenced content rather than my rewording. If you want this to go to an admin, fine. But I have demonstrated a desire to collaborate. If you have issues with the text--propose changes--don't hold mine hostage until you are miraculously satisfied under some subjective standard. That's bad faith editing.

You explained your issue with my wording (which I changed the wording and which editors can plainly see), but not the actual quotes from my sources. What is the problem with that? How can this be "overhauled"? Suggest improvements based on your own research (gaping silence here from you both) rather than speak in vague terms. You two don't own this page, so either collaborate, or I myself will report you both and take this to the next level. Again, I am giving you both one more chance to provide your own references to discuss this topic to reach a neutral text--but you have to do your own work too--I am well within my rights to change this text. The onus is on you both to do your own research and provide a knowledgeable counter point for me to respond to. Devanampriya (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You changed one instance of blatant POV-pushing to slightly less POV-pushing. Not a great improvement. As I've now stated multiple times, either replace the POV terms, or present them as quotes (xxx stated that "yyy..."). And, as you've breached 3RR, it would be good if you did so on the talk page so as to not add to your WP:3RR report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

And with that, you just undercut your own argument here and on your Admin noticeboard complaint. You and abecedare mischaracterized my good faith reword as a 3RR breach (the one word I changed is crucial). Second, you clearly need to read and understand wikipedia's bold editing policy. You have to make the changes to the text to show me what you want. You can't dictate a subjective standard--so either show me what you think the text should look like or your actions will be considered disruptive editing. Here's text from the BRD policy Abecedare himself cited:

"Revert[edit]

Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible."

The onus is on you both to refine and modify. So modify it instead of engaging in vague generalities. Unless you have no understanding of this topic, propose your version of text involving the referenced content. Why are you both scared to do this?

To move things along, I will now provide the text in quotes, and edit the page with the new content. This is brand new content I will be adding:

"From the beginning of 1948 the Razakars had extended their activities from Hyderabad city into the towns and rural areas, murdering hindus, abducting women, pillaging houses and fields, and looting non-muslim property in a widespread reign of terror." p.394. Large scale atrocities

Devanampriya (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff to my latest refinement. If both of you are actually editing in good faith, respond to the changes by making your own refinements (instead of demanding changes from me). Because there was a desire expressed by NeilN to see more quoted text to avoid alleged pov issues, I have concentrated on providing those quotes ("some women" reword issue now moot). As an expression of good faith, I have even removed the "brutally" wording. However,there remains an onus is on the both of you to propose changes by making your own edits (while explaining on summary or here on talk)--rather than reverting mine and dictatorially demanding vague changes. Bear in mind, this issue has already been brought to the notice of admins by you guys, so your willingness to collaborate will be watched by others. Devanampriya (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this edit and conversation today. I found the new changes to introduce some POV to some areas while POV was taken out of others. I would generally avoid words like "horrendous" and "patriotic" as they are used more often in political opinion literature instead of fact descriptions. I would edit some fixes in (instead of making recommendations) if I had knowledge of the event, but I am not nearly enough of a scholar of Hyderabadi history to know if the sources are reliable. AVAAGAA↪ 22:46, 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)

Recent edits by User:Acad Ronin have helped lessen some of the POV issues in the Communal Violence section (attribution; redundancy; unexplained terminology; and excessive and selective quote-mining problems remain). The sourcing in the Communal Violence section (Rao, Kate, BBC) is of pretty poor quality too, especially since scholarly sources on the subject are available (except possibly for the Sunderlal report, which may be too recent). Eventually though that section needs to be merged into the "After Indian Independence" section, which too needs additional work to provide more context and less tick-tock.

I'll try to rework the two sections in the coming week to address these issues.Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Capital

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)

Independent kingdom?

@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)

Whatever you want to call it, you need to provide a reliable source to say that it was "independent." Otherwise it is unsourced and your edit will be reverted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:10, 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)

Sorry, the source (Imperial Gazetter) doesn't say anything about 1724. It says that, by the time of his death in 1748, he was "firmly established as a sovereign." There was never any formal declaration of independence.

This is the problem with Mughal successor states. They were virtually independent, but they still needed the token umbrella that the Empire offered. I have changed it to "Mughal successor state," a term that is often used in scholarly sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:10, 22 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)

Or, the Chauth and Sardeshmukhi before that?

The best I can gather is that in 1742, the British recognised Asaf Jah I as a sovereign. After he died in 1748, his heirs quarrelled and went to the British and French companies for help. Whoever was installed was supported by that company. So I barely see 6 years of "independence," that too informally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

[2] The Nizam declared independence in 1724 after a weakening Mughal empire. I can't really find any info, on when Hyderabad became a princely state of the British. Is 1798 a correct year? Hammad.511234 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Please state exactly what the sources say, not your own interpretation. This source does not say that he "declared independence." It says he became "independent in fact, though not in name." In reality, he just became the Viceroy. Pretty soon, the Marathas attacked him and forced him to pay Chauth, according to the Asaf Jah I page.

In 1798, according to the Benichou book, Nizam signed subsidiary alliance with Wellesley. That means he came under British Paramountcy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

POV and primary sources User:CAKrutesh

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)

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)

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)

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)

This version is much better. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:D5AA:E7F2:540C:E498 (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have protected the article for two days due to the content dispute. Work it out on this page, please. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC).

Determined - to "assimilate", nay to "annex"

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)

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)

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)

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:

• Smith, Wilfred Cantwell (January 1950), "Hyderabad: Muslim Tragedy", Middle East Journal, 4 (1): 27–51, JSTOR 4322137
• Sherman, Taylor C. (2007). "The integration of the princely state of Hyderabad and the making of the postcolonial state in India, 1948 - 56" (PDF). Indian economic & social history review. 44 (4): 489–516.
• Hyder, Mohammed (2012). October Coup, A Memoir of the Struggle for Hyderabad. Roli Books. ISBN 8174368507. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Muralidharan, Sukumar (2014). "Alternate Histories: Hyderabad 1948 Compels a Fresh Evaluation of the Theology of India's Independence and Partition". History and Sociology of South Asia. 8 (2): 119–138. doi:10.1177/2230807514524091.

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)

Accession

[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)

Can you prove that I added a tourism site?

Can you show that the FK book is authorless?

Sure, I can find better sources for you if you ask me nicely. But, aggressive content-deletion and edit-warring won't buy you any cooperation from any one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Textbooks are not exactly the most desirable source for an issue like this. Especially one which has been universally trashed by readers for distorting history and presenting the view of an historian. Furthermore I have not read anywhere that the Nizam signed a succession the state was annexed hence why the Indian army invaded however due to nationalist POV by Kautilya the word annexed was removed there is no other way to describe this article but its pure pro-Indian propaganda at best. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

V. P Menon more POV

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)

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)

Invasion and annexation

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)

If this was a genuine question, I would be glad to answer it. Since it is merely rhetorical, I suggest that you see my discussion above in the section Talk:Hyderabad State#Determined - to "assimilate", nay to "annex". Please keep WP:RS and WP:NPOV in mind, refrain from making WP:OR arguments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So I take it you agree that Operation Polo was an invasion of one sovereign state by another sovereign state? The only question then is whether the incorporation of Hyderabad into India was "assimilation" not "annexation"? How many sources are necessary to use the term "annexation"? Acad Ronin (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with anything, but that is not the point. Going by policy, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the consensus of the views expressed in reliable sources. I can guarantee that no such consensus exists for "annexation." So I suggest that you give up on this project. A case can be made that "integration" is the term that finds scholarly consensus, the reason why the page has been called Indian integration of Hyderabad.

Now, "invasion" is a factual situation in the sense that armed forces were sent into a territory. Even Normandy landings are called invasions, but they don't constitute an "invasion of France." Rather, they represent a liberation of France. So, like I said earlier, you need to get off your high horse and consult the reliable sources to find out what is going on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have consulted a number of sources, and am gathering another, a recent book, all of which refer to Operation Polo as an invasion, and India's motivation and action as an annexation. Hence my question, how many sources before we declare the terms "invasion" and "annexation" acceptable? I find this BJP whitewashing of Nehru and Patel rather tiresome, but that aside, how do we establish a "consensus" when none exists, and in its absence, whose words do we use? Acad Ronin (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As you well know, consensus is not a numbers game. Please present your sources, and let us see what they say (and who is saying). WP:ASPERSIONS about BJP don't help. So I suggest you leave them out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

First, I agree that consensus is not a numbers game, but that doesn't obviate the problem of reaching for a "consensus" where none exists. (Israel-Palestine is another area that comes to mind.) I would be happier if we could find books by for example, Japanese, Korean, or Brazilian scholars, but so far I haven't found any on the topic of Hyderabad. The problem with your saying that I should present my sources and that then "let us see what they say (and who is saying)" is that the "us" is not well-defined. As for Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, a) it is not a policy, and b) I had not thought of my remark as being directed at you personally, though I probably should have, for which I apologise. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The "us" is always the collection of involved editors on the page, in the first place. If that is not enough, we can use an RfC to get wider opinion.

The nationality of the scholars doesn't matter to me. What matters is how well they have examined all the evidence.

As for BJP, I haven't seen them make any fuss about the Hyderabad operation. Even if they did, "annexation" would be a perfectly acceptable description as far as they are concerned. For Nehru and Patel, on the other hand, it wouldn't be. So, the BJP is really a red herring in this context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Side note

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)

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)

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)

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)

Official languages

@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)

@Kautilya3: All the four scripts were present in previous versions of the page. All the four languages were administrative languages. Nizam government ran Telugu, Marathi and Kannada medium schools. All the records at my home before 1948 are in Marathi. What is the problem of all the four languages are present on the page? Even the Hyderabadi rupee had all for languages.

I don't think all "previous versions" had four languages. Even if they were, it doesn't matter. Our policy on the inclusion of scripts for political units is clear. Only the official languages or the languages used at the seat of power are included. You claimed that the Hyderabad State had four official languages. Please WP:Proveit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Flags

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)

External links modified

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.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Error in Organization

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)

Country

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)

As I said in the edit summary, you need to provide a reliable source, in fact multiple sources, as counts as a contentious WP:LABEL. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@RahulRamchandani: I am afraid this source is not good enough. The author is unknown and I couldn't find any book reviews for it, despite it being a 700-page work labelled "history". The Evening Standard News said:

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).

Did you find any other sources? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@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)

You need to read the article on country before calling it obvious that something is a "country". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: And like I said again, it was a country...RahulRamchandani (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That is what you say. But you can't call it "obvious". It needs to be attested by multiple reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Kautilya3 The term country rightly fits, it was independent in its early years, and then partially independent, and then again independent. Princly states were not considered a part of "British India". The term "state" also refers to an independent country. These sources are quite reliable. https://books.google.ca/books?id=EKD3AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT347&dq=hyderabad+was+a+country&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifpeO3tanZAhUK1oMKHb3WAD0Q6AEIRDAF#v=onepage&q=hyderabad%20was%20a%20country&f=false

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)

Please don't give me random google hits. You need to check the WP:RS criteria and understand what the sources actually say. The first book is that of Francis Pike, which has already been discussed above in this thread. As for the second source, K. v. Krishna Rao, what does it say to show that Hyderabad was a "country"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 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)

"State" and "country" are not synonyms. Please use the terms that the sources use without adding your WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

References

• I don't see any consensus here that Hyderabad be described as a country but it currently is in the article. The sources used are the same as above and don't seem reliable (the first one mentions even old kingdoms of India as "countries", the second one gives no context as to why it was a country but just mentions it as such). Seeing the inconclusive discussion above and the quality of the sources this should be removed for now. Gotitbro (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Attempted censorship for reason of Indias annexation

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

@NizamAA: cut out the WP:SOAPBOX. What exactly does the book say, and how does it support your content? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The book states that Indian feared a hostile independent state in the middle of the country and that further states may follow and it wanted to avoid the balkanization of princely states.

The view (Indian government government one) that "militant" razarkars were behind Indias invasion of the independent state is one sided and to put it bluntly propaganda to justify its invasion and does not tell the whole story why should only the Indian governments excuses be stated we should also add the view of neutral scholars to show both perspectives NzamAA (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Page 223 I believe. NzamAA (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC) blocked sock

You have not answered the question. What does the book say and how does it support your content? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you answered it in your first line. The book doesn't say it. Please provide an exact quote. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are struggling to comprehend basic english. The author of the book states clearly India feared princely states gaining independence which could create "balkanization" hence India invaded in contrast to the Razarkar Indian government line. NzamAA (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Its a sorry state of affairs when the parent article about the annexation of Hyderabad [5] clearly refers to it as an annexation but in the parallel universe in which this article exists its called "integration"or "assimilation" laughable if it were not so tragic. NzamAA (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC) blocked sock

Hi NzmaAA. You misunderstand Kautilya3's request. You need to provide an exact quote that supports your statement, not a summary in your own words. Merely stating, in your own words, what you think a reference is saying is insufficient. Out of curiosity, I took a look at the Metcalf reference, and the balkanization reference is not in the context of Hyderabad at all (see page 219). The annexation of Hyderabad is barely mentioned in the book (except to say that the Nizam was a holdout - naively according to Metcalf - see page 224). When challenged, you need to resort to specific quotes with specific page references so that they can be verified. --regentspark (comment) 15:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronounciation

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)

You mean to say that the Telugus are not the natives of Hyderabad? -- Kautilya3 (talk)

Princely state of "British India"

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)

Hyderabad Deccan

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)

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)

References

The section starting "In 1798, Nizam ʿĀlī Khan" and ending with the mutiny isn't the Raj.

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)

 Done. As a registered editor, you are perfectly able to do such edits yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Princely state

@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)

"Mughal successor state" is how I would describe Hyderabad was before it became part of the British empire. The term "kingdom" is not used for it. It was an instance of an empire fragmenting into semi-independent feudal estates. In any case, the term is unsourced, as I have pointed out. We follow WP:V and WP:NPOV in our use of language and do not make up our own. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no preference for whether it is termed a successor state, kingdom, sultanate etc. I only think that princely state in the lead should be qualified with a mention that this was its status within the British period only. It's already mentioned in the article that the entity was not a princely state from 1724-1798.HaoJungTar (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

As it was ruled by a Nizam, would Nizamate be appropriate?HaoJungTar (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

HaoJungTar: Almost nobody, nobody in English language readers knows what a "Nizamate" is. It isn't appropriate for the lede. I looked at your references before reverting, and they solely mentioned the term in passing. They certainly don't introduce the Hyderabad state as a nizamate nor make a big deal about it. The relevance of using such an obscure term isn't clear; yes, it applies to Hyderabad State, no, it isn't a proper introduction. Per Kautilya3, "Mughal successor state" is probably closer if you really don't like "princely state". (Which, by the standard you're using for Nizamate, has like 10000x as many passing references to "princely state."). SnowFire (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"Almost nobody, nobody in English language readers knows what a "Nizamate" is." That's a bold and generalised comment. I'm sure many have not heard of terms such as "khanate" or "khaganate" either. Nevertheless, a territory ruled by a Khanate is known as such. Likewise, a territory controlled by a Nizam would be called a Nizamate. In any case, if you can think of a better term then please add it but leaving princely state in there unqualified is incorrect.HaoJungTar (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@HaoJungTar: You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. You don't get to just declare that princely state is "incorrect" when there are hundreds of sources that do in fact refer to Hyderabad as a princely state. And yes, per my edit summary, your "reference" isn't useful here - nobody is contesting that Hyderabad State can be referred to as a nizamate, but your reference is on a completely different topic and happens to just refer to it as a nizamate in passing. What would be appropriate would be a WP:RS book, journal, chapter of a book, on Hyderabad State specifically that said something like "While commonly referred to as a princely state, this is actually wrong, it should be referred to as a Nizamate because...". We don't just accept passing or trivial mentions on Wikipedia, because with the Internet, it's easy to search through 1 million sources and find the 2 that correspond to whatever crazy view is being proposed. By your own standards of a random Google Book search, https://books.google.com/books?id=Loiq3YrFy40C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hyderabad+%22princely+state%22&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQ5cynmpLlAhURWN8KHdGYB7kQ6AEwBHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=%22princely%20state%22&f=false shows Hyderabad State being referred to as a Princely State, if it makes you happy. (I don't actually place much weight on this "reference" at all, but it's still better than your reference, because at least this book is specifically on the topic - and has 0 occurrences of "nizamate", by the way.) This is getting dangerously close to WP:3RR; please back down on this. SnowFire (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Your patronising comments aside, if you were actually familiar with Hyderabad State, you would see that it was a princely state from 1794 onwards. It literally says as much in the infobox. And I never claimed it wasn't a princely state, I merely believe that since the term "princely state" only covers the British period, then that should be reflected in the lead. It literally says as much in the article; princely state Please don't misrepresent me in the future. You seem more keen on entering into an argument as opposed to resolving the issue.HaoJungTar (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

And Nizamate was never a major point of contention for me. Merely an alternative to princely state (which covers the British period only). I have removed it in place of autonomous state.HaoJungTar (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing in the term "princely state" that suggests that it is supposed to be under British suzerainty. The British used that term for any state ruled by a prince, which they didn't think qualified to be called a "kingdom". There were certainly "kingdoms", even "empires", that were called so, e.g., Durrani Empire, Sikh Empire, Maratha Empire etc. Even Oudh is occasionally called the "Kingdom of Oudh". I suspect the reason the Nizams never qualified to be "kings" is because they were always dependent on somebody or the other for the sustenance of their power, first the Marathas, then the French and finally the British.

Your edit is confusing things quite a bit because "autonomy" implies being subsidiary. But you don't state what it was subsidiary to. And this supposed "autonomy" covers only part of the period. All said and done, "princely state" is a much better description than any of the alternatives. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed (and it was the Mughals first of all, no?). Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

External link clarification

• 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.

regentspark (talk · contribs), please explain why its not considered, I'm trying to understand... Bhagya2 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Bhagya2:. 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)

Ok. Thanks , I'll leave it to you here Bhagya2 (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Raj era sources

@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)

Whats the problem there are source before raj era in 1819 that says state of hyderabad s ruling dynasty is of turkoman origin and there are source that says the founder is Turkic sunni nobleman. Loveisthebest1 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Has there been an Request for Comment (RfC) on Raj era sources, such as the ones for WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303#RfC: Fox News, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334#Mashable, WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, & WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312#RfC: Xinhua News Agency? I ask this for two reasons:

• It would be good to have in one place a general list of the suspect sources.
• It would be good to know for what purposes these sources are proscribed.

I, myself, was unable to find an RfC, although I found about a dozen discussions scattered through the archives. If there has been no RfC, would you please open one at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard so we can codify this? I suspect that Raj era sources might be RS for train wrecks & bureaucratic promotions, but prohibited when colonizer or oppressor points-of-view are concerned. I might be stating the obvious to some here, but not everyone, myself included, has a clue of what qualifies for what. Peaceray (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please you can find also, few source say turkoman origin of the founder/rulers Loveisthebest1 (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop hiding truth Loveisthebest1 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Loveisthebest1: Please learn to indent as per WP:THREAD. Also, I suggest losing the snarky commentary. Citations provide currency & purchase here, not opinions. Supply verification from reliable sources & you will find that Wikipedia is not censored.

As for sources, please sift your way through www.google.com/search?&q=Turkoman+Hyderabad+-site%3Awikipedia.org+-wiki. Please note that there are a few reliable sources there & most are not. If you have not done so already, verse yourself at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources content guideline to learn the difference.

Also see scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Turkoman+Hyderabad

Also look at wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hyderabad (native state). This should be okay as per WP:BRITANNICA, although I suppose it could be contested as "Raj era". This is exactly why I want to see an RfC to codify what is or is not acceptable. Peaceray (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Peaceray:. Raj era sources were discussed on RSN a while ago (@Sitush: can help point to the correct link. Regardless of all that, references to historical events should use modern academic sources rather than older sources, especially non-academic ones. Historiography is not static, and if there is anything useful to say about a historical event, surely a modern academic source can be found that says just that. I suggest that Loveisthebest1, since they seem to be interested in historical articles, read WP:HISTRS, particularly the easy to follow "nutshell" section. Neither an 1893 "India office and Burma office list" nor the 1911 Britannica satsify the two requirements listed there. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know which source I are allowed to use Loveisthebest1 (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have add new source is it approved? Loveisthebest1 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Asaf Jah dynasty of Hyderabad state claimed Siqqiqui lineage. So, it would not be correct to label them as "Turkic" Aglrochisat (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but Thats dont make them a siqqiqui or what that is, you use bad sources seems ok for everybudy here, but when l have a source it is not agreed, my last source on Qamuraddin khan is Good Loveisthebest1 (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If claiming ancestry did not make them as such; them I don't know what else would make them. Aglrochisat (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There are many smiliar pages on wikipedia, you must have evidence to clarify such claim, if modern historian dont find it then its only claim, everybody can claim somehting to fit in or glorify their past Loveisthebest1 (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Forced annexation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [6] and [7] note none of these are government associated and are neutral. DavosBarton (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Here is the original version of the lead, based on the sources cited. A disruptive sock called Magichero1234 apparently changed it to his own views, claiming that the source was "difficult" to access. How he knew that Razakars were not "cited" in the source without even accessing it, I have no idea. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Line that makes no sense

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)

Country

The article talks about the kingdom, country, and princely state, not just the princely state. Bangarukodipetta (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)