Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:28, 16 August 2013

India: Andhra Pradesh B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Andhra Pradesh (assessed as Top-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Andhra Pradesh will not be the residual state

The new state that Telangana will be carved out of (the residual state), as per the latest information will be called Seemandhra, not Andhra Pradesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.15.250 (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Warrangal World Heritage Status!?

Warrangal has NOT been accorded World Heritage Status. The sources provided in the article is misleading. Local bodies have merely indicated an interest in getting the city listed, which the sources have misinterpreted as a formal designation. In reality, the UNESCO is yet to receive any formal application, and the city does not feature on the tentative list. As per the July 2013 UNESCO Summit in Cambodia, Hill Forts of Rajasthan has been inscribed as India's latest World Heritage Site, the only one from the country for 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prayashgiria (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Reminder

Just a reminder to editors that Misplaced Pages is not the news: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Misplaced Pages may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." --NeilN 20:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any facts to suggest anything.But leaving that, why dont you people write the article in a way that will be easy to understand for international users ?. dont expect all the people of the world to know about treta yuga etc.What is this thing called "Devende Goud is 'number two' in TDP" ??. what kind of terminology is that ?. --from 117.195.197.41

Not Official

The statehood is not official yet. It is better to wait until it is, before declaring it a state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.173.74 (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; it is factually wrong to say it is now a new state. Imc (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The facts are totally wrong, how you can say Hyderabad is a part of Telangana when the state is not formed yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.4 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what portion in the article are you specifically referring to? --NeilN 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The process of Telangana was already started and Hyderabad could be part of Telananga, if concenses is arrived at by all the concerned, as per Mr. G.K. Pillai, Home Secretary, Govt. of India. http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/home_secretary_to_retract_hyderabad_statement.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshvancha (talk • contribs) 07:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not exactly what is in the source. Better to wait until Hyderabad is formally put forward by the government. See WP:CRYSTAL. --NeilN 07:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The State is nor declared yet, neither it is officially proposed by the government of India. Today, development is INC / UPA Point of view -- do not jump the gun.

                   - Abhijith Jayanthi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijithsince1986 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Creation of new state

Wrong to Say that Central has agreed to create telangana, a bill will be passed and it has to succeed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waternsnake (talk • contribs) 08:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you: I deleted this. Chidambaram clearly says: "The process for the formation of a separate state WILL be initiated. An appropriate resolution WILL be introduced in the assembly.

Let us not come to 'premature' conclusions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.206.111 (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

References

If you add a reference to this article, please include the title of the reference, rather than just the URL. The {{cite news}} template makes it easier to do this. I just added two references using this template. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.greatandhra.com/newsimages/indiamap151260772208.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.237.218 (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

References have been provided on most of the contentious parts of the article, leaving only some trivial areas. It would be safe to remove the global notification of additional citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btarunr (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Actual Meaning of Telangana

Telangana means the place where telugu ganam( 'gumpu' of telugu speaking people) lives. gumpu means crowd in telugu

so TELANGANA means ; it is a place where telugu speaking people live

TELUGU language evolved at the heart of telangana, ie., WARANGAL( Oorugallu )and spread 

across all the ANDHRA PRADESH gradually.

with time the word TELUGU GANA PRANTAM  got transformed into TELANGANA PRANTAM or TELANGANA.

we can as well call the entire Andhra Pradesh as TELANGANA because, ANDHRA PRADESH is a place where TELUGU GANAMs live now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvramaraju52 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Jai Telangana

Do you have a source we can cite for this? --NeilN 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also add regarding KCR:

He started TRS after he was booted out of TDP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.70.84.66 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this article is about Telangana, not KCR. That fact is in the Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao article. --NeilN 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Did Telangana ever exist as an official independent region? Prior to its merger with Andhra in 1956, it was officially called the Hyderabad state. Before that - I gather from your and other sources - it was a part of numerous kingdoms under different names. Was any of them named Telangana? Can anybody cite any sources to that effect?

I have never come across it being spelt as TELENGANA except in this wiki page. Please spell it correctly as TELANGANA or cite a source to prove that the other version is also acceptable.

But it did not have a convincing answer to why it could not create Telangana state in last 5years.

The statement is not backed by the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericvermeers (talk • contribs) 00:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Thany you for pointing that out. --NeilN 00:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

POV tagged: Merger of Telangana and Andhra

I had placed a POV tag on the section Telangana#Merger of Telangana and Andhra. The reason is this: The section presents the SRC report on the Telengana Andhra merger but only the points that pertain to keeping Telenagan seperate. The section conviniently does not mention that the SRC report had examined the pros and cons of all three moves: keeping Hyderabad state, Merging Telengan with AP, and, a new Telenagana state) It presents an incorrect view that SRC was against merger.

The first para states:

The States Reorganization Commission (SRC) was not in favour of merging the Telangana region with the then Andhra state.

The concluding para states that:

The central government decided to ignore the SRC recommendations and established unified Andhra Pradesh on November 1, 1956

Here are the conclusions from the SRC:

386. After taking all these factors into consideration we have come to the conclusions that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telangana, if for the present, the Telangana area is to constitute into a separate State, which may be known as the Hyderabad State with provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961 if by a two thirds majority the legislature of the residency Hyderabad State expresses itself in favor of such unification.

387. The advantage of this arrangement will be that while the objective of the unification of the Andhras will neither be blurred nor impeded during a period of five or six years, the two governments may have stabilized their administrative machinery and, if possible, also reviewed their land revenue systems etc., the object in view being the attainment of uniformity. The intervening period may incidentally provide an opportunity for allaying apprehensions and achieving the consensus of opinion necessary for a real union between the two States.

388 Andhra and Telangana have common interests and we hope these interests will tend to bring the people closer to each other. If, however, our hopes for the development of the environment and conditions congenial to the unification of the two areas do not materialise and if public sentiment in Telangana crystallises itself against the unification of the two states, Telangana will have to continue as a separate unit.

So based on the SRCs report, the commision was

1. Not against merger
2. recomended Telangana only as an interim measure towards a union with AP
3. recommended a permanent sepeartion only if "conditions congenial to the unification of the two areas do not materialise"

--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

SRC wants to give Telangana 7 more years(until after 1961 elections) to make up its mind. Even after that, SRC wants merger should happen only if 2/3 of Telangana legislatures supports merger. In that sense, Central govt ignored SRC recommendations and created Andhra Pradesh immediately.

May be we can change first para to

The States Reorganization Commission (SRC) was not in favour of immediate merger of the Telangana region with the then Andhra state.

If you agree, we can remove POV tag. Ramcrk (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats better. May I suggest rewriting the section as follows:

In December 1953, the States Reorganization Commission was appointed to prepare for the creation of states on linguistic lines. The States Reorganization Commission (SRC) was not in favour of an immediate merger of Telangana region with Andhra state. Para 382 of States Reorganization Commission Report (SRC) said "opinion in Andhra is overwhelmingly in favour of the larger unit, public opinion in Telangana has still to crystallize itself. Important leaders of public opinion in Andhra themselves seem to appreciate that the unification of Telangana with Andhra, though desirable, should be based on a voluntary and willing association of the people and that it is primarily for the people of Telangana to take a decision about their future". The concerns of Telanganas were numerous. The region had a less developed economy than Andhra, but with a larger revenue base (mostly because it taxed rather than prohibited alcoholic beverages), which Telanganas feared might be diverted for use in Andhra. They also feared that planned dam projects on the Krishna and Godavari rivers would not benefit Telangana proportionately even though Telanganas controlled the headwaters of the rivers. Telanganas feared too that the people of Andhra would have the advantage in jobs, particularly in government and education. Para 386 of States Reorganization Commission Report (SRC) said "After taking all these factors into consideration we have come to the conclusions that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telangana area is to constitute into a separate State, which may be known as the Hyderabad State with provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961 if by a two thirds majority the legislature of the residency Hyderabad State expresses itself in favor of such unification." The commission proposed that the Telangana region be consituted as a seperate state with a provision for unification with Andhra state, after the 1961 general elections, if a resolution could be passed in the state assembly with two-third majority.

However, following the "Gentlemen's agreement, the central government established a unified Andhra Pradesh on November 1, 1956 . The agreement provided reassurances to the Telangana people as well to Andhra people in terms of power sharing as well as administrative domicile rules and distribution of expenses of various regions.

We also need to state why the central govt did not implement the SRC recommendation. A commisions report is not binding on the govt; but there must have been a good reason for them to do so. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your change sounds good to me.

Regarding "Why" .. Telangana proponents feel Andhra leaders (who fought British during Independence movement) have better influence with Central congress leadership hence could able to convince them better. I am not sure whether we can really know what happened during that time. Or simply that Telangana leaders really thought Gentleman's agreement will protect their interests. I will try to do research and see whether I can find any source regarding this. See this link which might give some insight into the thinking of Chief Minister of Hyderabad. Hyd CMs view

I also, feel the reason for SRC to wait until 1961 was; by that time Telanganites would have faced 3 elections(in 52, 56/57, 61/62) and would know more about electoral politics and may be merger could become election issue etc. FYI, Andhrites (in British India) knew about elections since 1920. For Telanganites, 1952 was 1st ever elections. - Ramcrk (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes and removed the NPO tag. I feel that the central governments decision was motivated by economic factors: one state was cheaper than two; those were the days of austerity. And by now the government was commited to linguistic states. Anyway we can look around for refs and discuss them later. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood you. I did not realize you were removing the para(s) related Telangana objections to merger. Those statements gives wiki reader an understanding about the oppostion of Telanganites to the merger and why there was a need for Gentleman's agreement. If you agree we can include those para(s) back. Also, we should include that Central govt ignored SRC recemendations. I made appropriate changes. If you disagree, we can discuss. Ramcrk (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

i believe the fact that state govt ignored the SRC report.. is true..because, src report clearly states that the unification of telangana with andhra shall take place after the general elections that are to be held in 1961, and the resolution to be passed by two thirds of hyderabad state assembly, and with ignoring these recommendations only, they have unified in 1956.it makes a clear sense to include these lines irrespective whether hyderabad state would have faced 3 general elections.., so government clearly ignored the SRC recommendations.pavan kumar.

Please do not delete talk page sections. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The reasons I removed the SCR recomendations were:

1. It only presented the SRCs anaysis of the Telengana state option and not of the other two options
2. Even if we keep it and add the other two views it becomes too cluttered.
3. Such a detailed analysis would be more appropriate in an article on the Telengana Movement itself. Here, it tends to take up space. remember that the section is about the history of Telengana, not about the statehood movement. That is why I recomended a split.

Second, we need reliable references to say that the central govt (and not the state government of Andhra state , as stated by pavan kumar here) ignored the SRC recommendation. The central government may have given a reason no matter how justified or unjustified the various factions felt it was. Simply saying that the government "ignored" without trying to even see see if the government provided a reason is a clear case of putting personal opinions into the article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this is Telangana article, it should talk about how each decision affected Telanganites. In 'Case of Vishalandhra' sectio of States Reorganization Commission , I don't see a single benefit for Telangana other than merger will take care of food scarcities in Telangana. If you want you can include the benefits of merger for Telangana in the article. We can not, in the name of neutrality, deny the reader to get the accurate picture of Telangana psyche and the reasons why Telangana movement is active even after 50 years. Fears mentioned in Para 378 came true(all the statistics & documents referred in the article talks about this) and it is the cause for the Telangana movement. Without including para 378, Telangana article is incomplete. Ramcrk (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I must point out that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia.We use Talp pages to discuss about the article and not about the subject istelf. So your personal views about "dont see a single benifit for Telengana" etc. are frankly unwelcome here. Secondly just becuase this article is about Telengana doesnt mean that we emphaise the Telengana point of view. And let me make this clear: The question isnt just about a balanced point of view: it is about selectively presenting the SCRs points in favour of a seperate state while hiding the fact from the readers that the SRC had considered all three options. This is downright falsification! --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if you misunderstood me(When I said "don't see .." comment, I did not mean to discuss about subject; but was wondering what portions to include to balance the article). I am only interested about giving reader the correct background about Telangana movement. I would like to include point of view of all sides too. I am only insisting on including paras(at least summarized form) which can explain the Telangana grievances, which bacame basis for Gentleman's agreement. We can include any other para or portion of paras which can give balanced view. I will leave it upto you what and how much you want to include. Ramcrk (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Split to Telengana Movement

There should be an article on the Telangana movement. The reasons are obvious: notable movement which succeded in its mission. large section which occupies a significant portion of this article. Any good reasons to oppose this ?Please list them --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Without regard to the potential for POV mischief, this seems like a reasonable proposal. Ronnotel (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is so much interest in the Telangana article because of the Telangana movement. Lets keep the "Telangana movmeent" section in this article untl this interest die down and until Telangana state formed. Ramcrk (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I dont get your point. The size of the section is too large and hogs the entire space. It takes attention away from the subject: Telengana and only focusses on the movement. It should be rewritten in summary style here and go into details in the main article. You can always link to the new article from here (from within the article itself and also in a "See Also" section. Please read WP:SPLIT . --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of readability, Whole history section should be together. Size of the Telangana article is 40k. Out of it history section (including related external links) of size 32k. As per Misplaced Pages standards 40k file is not too big. I would have agreed with you if History section is less than 50% of the article. Right now history takes 80% of the article. If you think 40k is too big, even history with 32k is also big. You don't want to split the history section. As per Misplaced Pages:Article_size#Occasional_exceptions, "when a long or very long article is unavoidable, its complexity should be minimized. Readability is still the key criterion.". But if its keep growing we can try to to summarize certian portions of history in future. If non-history portion of article is growing a lot in future, we can think about moving history to somewhere else. For now, I don't think there is a need for split. Ramcrk (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly enough information to justify a separate article on this topic. I have created Telangana movement and copied the relevant section. It will require some clean up on this page, as well as converting the existing section to a summary of the main article. Ronnotel (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Good enough. As an addition let me point out that size in itelf is not a criteria. There are many one-line articles on Misplaced Pages simply because they meet Misplaced Pages's notability critieria. And for a start can someone interersted in a clean up start with the breaking-news-as-it happens kind of writing that has been taking place over the past two weeks. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Geography

there is no mention of

• flora and fauna.
• Soil type
• Landscapes

please consider to expand this too.--Bigsuperindia (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please post true articles.Satish.ponna (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Hyderabad Zone VII ?

Someone is deliberately removing the references to Hyderabad as Zone VII. It is a fact that Hyderabad was declared as zone VII as part of 6-point agreement in 1972. You can see those references to it even in telangana idealogue Mr. Jayshankar's essay as well. Please dont distort the truth. This article should be about the truth not someones fancy. - 69.64.223.4 (talk) at 09:35, 26 January 2010.

There is some confusion about this issue. I was going thruPresidential order. At page 24 it clearly says it has only 6 zones. As per this page: Zone VI Hyderabad, Rangareddy (15th August, 1978), Nizamabad, Mahboobnagar, Medak and Nalgonda Districts. Please let me know where you see Zone VII. For you info, every sentence of this article has reference from independent sources. Only grievances section has references from Jayashankar article(I don't consider Jayashankar article as nuetral source either) because it clearly says those grievances are from Telangana proponents. Every sentence without references are and will be deleted. We all are trying to present truth here. Ramcrk (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

urdu name

if you don't mind name in urdu can also be included (Urdu:تلنگانہ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsuperindia (talk • contribs) 19:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN 20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A real map of Hyderabad region in which Telangana existed

I think we should place a section, which shows the actual map of Hyderabad state over the years. Here is a good link that I came across.

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/haxhyderabad.html

One thing wrong with it. It is showing only the current Telangana borders which only came into existance after the merger. Part of Khammam district towns along Godavari were never part of the then Hyderabad state.

Telangana was an area in the Hyderabad state, and as pointed out in the article, the people from this region were telugu speaking and hence the area was called Telangana. The other regions were Urdu, Marathi and some kannada speaking areas.

So the section, which talks about "Telangana was a separate state" has no backing and I think has to be rephrased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.79.2 (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In 1953 even after Andhra state was seperated from Madras state; remaining state was still called Madras state(because it has capital city). In 1956, Malayali and Kannada speaking regions were seperated from Madras state but remaining state was still called Madras state(because it has capital city). In sameway, even after Kannada and Marathi speaking regions of Hyderabad state was seperated from Hyderabad state, remaining state(Telangana) should still be called Hyderabad state(because it has capital city). All those mergers mentioned above happened willingly. In case of Meger of Telangana(or Hyderabad state) and Andhra, Telangana people resisted the merger. Even SRC documented that resistance and recommended against immediate merger. Merger happened only after Gentlemen's agreement. By your logic Madras state(called as Madras Presidency before 1950, renamed as Tamil Nadu in 1968) never existed before 1956. Ramcrk (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the nomenclature or the fight around the nomenclature is. Just to correct your logic vs my logic vs someother logic, the point is, let us at least in the process of getting this documentation on "Telangana" right, don't mislead or provide incorrect information and let us try to put hard facts as much as we can. The political maps don't lie nor the nomenclature at that time. The sentence '"Telangana" was a separate state' is incorrect and that is what I am trying to point out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.135.130 (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

it seems the above person trying to mislead over the telangana issue. In context of the andhra vs telangana, telangana was termed as seperate state. else we have to keep the terminology as madras state and hyderbad state, which clear confusion of the geographic area under karnataka and tamil nadu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.143.233 (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lot of sentences were simply copied from SRC report. We are not trying to come up with new names or new concepts. We are trying to present facts as best as could. Ramcrk (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

ADDED on 22.02.2011 @ 2035 hrs GMT:

One has to discuss the basic point of the mere existance of Telangana before the Nizam rule in Southern India. All the pro-Telangana activists and pundits start the history mainly from the Nizam era. Obviously Hyderabad state of Nizam is consisted of parts of the present Maharastra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and probably Madhya Pradesh. But before the Nizam dysnasty the same area was ruled by several Emperors like Kakateeyas, Vijayanagara dynasty and so on (not the exact borders though). But people are made to think that the history started from the Nizam rule and the Telangana state is demanded. If at all to be divided a new HYDERABAD state has to be formed dividing the Telangana area of AP and parts of MP, Maharastra, and Karnataka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarkaywee (talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wootz steel

It is confirmed that large quantities wootz steel was produced and exported from River Godhavari basin from north telangana region. We need to look at the economic situation of population and state. As there was a lots of exports from the region the cosmopolitan nature of region and Hyderabad in particular.

TRS

Why should a TRS meeting be mentioned here? Smacks of propaganda! I doubt if it can even be mentioned in the TRS wiki page!

I've been trying for quite sometime to maintain neutrality in this article. My whole point is that as long as the non-neutral tag isn't removed from this article - no reader would give a serious thought about its content. I've strived a lot to edit/rewrite areas but have always faced opposition with strong biases. I'm close to giving up my case here...

It is a pity that a topic as important as Telangana is not being depicted/described properly in wikipedia.

Where are we going from here?

Vamsisv (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Vamsisv, This has to be mentioned because, the meetings sole purpose was to show that the there is genuine public support for Telangana cause. Over 2 million people attended voluturily. We need to mention because its done in the name of Telangana; because of its timing(few days before SKC report); because of the number of people attended. TRS said this will be a message to SKC and central government. So this meeting is relevant info and related to Telangana movement and can affect SKC report and central govt decision. This is no ordinary party meeting. Ramcrk (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have one point: When Chiranjeevi launched his party more than a million people attended his meeting - Does this have to be mentioned under the article Andhra Pradesh? We all know it means nothing now!

Similarly, 2 million people attending TRS meet wouldn't mean a thing a year or two later. I understand that this top of our heads today, but trust me - mentioning it here doesn't do any good to the article! May I request you to put under the TRS wiki page instead?

And talking about message - many people have done/said many things as message to SKC & Central govt.? Has it been mentioned? Is it worth it?

And numbers - we all know how politicians manage numbers at these meetings.. don't we?

Will leave it to your discretion now.. Let's not dilute the Telangana movement by showing some biases or defeating the purpose of this article.

Vamsisv (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My interest here is not to highlight TRS. My interest is to higlight the mood of Telangana people weeks before SKC report. No political party can provide transportation to 2million people. I belive majority people came volutorily for Telangana(I persoanally know people who are not TRS party members but attended the meeting for the sake of Telangana). This shows people's mood. This meeting can have huge consequences to Telangana. It can affect the thinking of SKC and central government. Hence, we need to include this important fact in Telangana article. Ramcrk (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Even I feel it should be mentioned, because I guess the TRS is the primary party which is asking for a separate state. But it should not be given undue importance, because yes, it will induce bias. MakingTheMark • 18:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Telangana movement

The section titled "Separate Telangana state movement" is currently over-large and is overwhelming the article. It also duplicates a lot of the material in the separate article titled Telangana movement. I propose moving most of the content from this section over to the other article and leaving a short summary here, with a link to the rest of the material. Comments? --Diannaa 23:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Since my idea has been posted here for ten days and no one has objected or commented, I am now proceeding with this change. --Diannaa 04:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Good work --Vamsisv (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I might put the political parties into a bulleted list, or add a bit more about the protests, but it's a start. --Diannaa 15:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your efforts on this article will be met by strong vandalism and POVs. How do you plan to tackle that problem? :) --Vamsisv (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a little experience in patrolling volatile articles and I am not the only one watching. We will do our best to keep it encyclopedic :) Another concern is trying to keep the section compact so that it doesn't once again overwhelm the article.--Diannaa 20:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

<redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.241.133 (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Misplaced Pages, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Farm Distress

The statement I removed is completely baseless and has no sources whatsoever. It is unsourced statements like these that paint a very wrong picture about the T problem to readers. This seems to have originated from just a statement that came up on a blog (which can never be considered as primary sources). All other sources about this seem to be a direct copy word-to-word from this blog.

This is unacceptable for a neutral medium like Misplaced Pages.

The closest data point I have found out for this is that in 2006, Govt. of India identified 31 districts out of only four states (not entire India) - AP, Maharashtra, Karnataka & Kerala which it declared as facing Agrarian distress. 9 out of these are from Telangana but so are 8 other districts in other parts of the state.

I request everyone to stop this false propaganda. These statements in the hands of politicians can cause massive havoc and unrest among the public who will never understand if this has been properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsisv (talk • contribs) 05:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If we can not use reputed media organizations like BBC or Business world as sources, I am not sure whether we can write single sentence on Misplaced Pages. Do you expect every piece of goverment data to be avaialable online? I would like other senior/experienced editors/contributors to look into this. Mean while I will try to look for the sources this info on govt websites. Here is govt website which tells all 9 Telangana districts are backward. . These sites already proves that Telangana districts are backward. You already agree to that. Here we are only talking about degree of backwardness. Why do you think Business world reporter is wrong? Why do you think BBC reporter would be wrong? Is it not possible for BBC reporter or Business world reporter to have more reources at their disposal(Compared to us)? Ramcrk (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The BBC link is a blog - which means opinion of a single person - thus, it CANNOT be quoted as a source. The BW link is also opinion of an individual and NOT a "report"! Please, please try to understand the difference.

And when you ask if every piece of government data has to be available online - Yes, it has to be. Especially if such information is being used on wikipedia it has to be supported by corresponding sources.

I or you agreeing on something doesn't qualify for it to be stated on wikipedia. Again, no POVs of any person are entertained here. Any senior/experienced editors/contributors can tell you that.

We are not talking about degree of backwardness - this is very specific to Farm distress.

I appreciate your effort in trying to find relevant info, but the onus is on you to support your statements with worthy & qualifiable sources. I'm sorry, but till then the statement should not find a place in this article.

I again implore you to understand the gravity of the situation, it is wrong unsourced statistics like these that politicians use to trigger public anger. As responsible netizens & wikipedians, it is our responsibility to ensure every bit of information here.

Vamsisv (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as to whether or not the blogs of reputable news services can be considered reliable sources. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Blogs of respectable news organisations?

Here are two other sources that are not blogs that give the same facts: http://www.businessworld.in/bw/2011_01_08_Political_Quicksand.html and http://www.theindiadaily.com/telangana-issue/ --Diannaa 21:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. Vamsisv, hope with the link Diannaa provided this issue will be resolved. If you agree I will restore the content. Ramcrk (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I restored the content. Ramcrk (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ramcrk - I again request you to think this through - this is not a fact. One person wrote on his blog, and the others merely copied it from there. As I've mentioned previously - Govt. of India identified 31 districts out of only four states (not entire India) - AP, Maharashtra, Karnataka & Kerala which it declared as facing Agrarian distress. 9 out of these are from Telangana but so are 8 other districts in other parts of the state. I believe all blog authors have twisted this statistic to their convenience.

Can we replace the statement with this content? I will provide credible reference from govt. website.

Diannaa - I beg to differ with your opinion, here. All 3 links that have been provided have the same EXACT sentence word-to-word. How can this be anything but blatant copy-paste of one opinion to another. And again, all three of them are BLOGS. Please spend sometime in reading through and you will see each of them signed by the author. The writings are in no way an news articles stating facts - all of them are blogs stating opinions disguised as facts! How can it be that no data points are accompanying this statement - which year etc. And please read the language in the indiandaily link that you have shared - it is no way close to that used by a reporter.

Diannaa - Govt. of India identified 31 districts out of only four states (not entire India) - AP, Maharashtra, Karnataka & Kerala which it declared as facing Agrarian distress. 9 out of these are from Telangana but so are 8 other districts in other parts of the state. This was declared in a report by a commission appointed by govt. of india.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsisv (talk • contribs)

Please see if you can get the original content from a Government website that lists all the 31 districts. If 9 are in Telangana and 8 are elsewhere in Andra Pradesh, then we need to say so, but we should not put it in without a source. To be honest I am willing to trust the BBC blog as a reliable source (and so are these other websites, apparently), but they are only telling us part of the story. Thanks. --Diannaa 05:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Some search and you would know how "believable" the author of the BBC blog is. Anyways, I guess trust on a blog is POV and diff. people can have diff opinions about it. :) ThanksVamsisv (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ramcrk has gone ahead and edited the article, and it is two different things. There are 34 districts experiencing farm distresss, and there are 31 districts which will be getting watershed development projects. By the way the other two sources are not blogs. --Diannaa 05:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How I wish I could ask Mr. Soutik Biswas to clarify his statement. Is there any way that you would suggest to get this done?Vamsisv (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If you read the original article http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/05/mumbai_verdict_and_the_media_bloodlust.html rather than this other man's critique of it, it puts Mr Biswas in a different light. I do not know how to contact Mr Biswas and even if we could, that would be original research and could not be used as a source for our article. --Diannaa 05:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Grievances

Grievances are complaints of one group people. How can we have NPOV for grievances? Without including grievances how do we explain the movement? Article referred is authored by Telangana ideologue, "Kothapalli Jayashankar", who attended all party meeting on Telangana called by Govt of India on TRS behalf. --Ramcrk 23:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The bulk of this information appears at the separate article Telangana movement. A summary of the information was left here when the new article was created. --Diannaa 23:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This message was for "MikeLynch", who removed the section completely. I reverted his deletion. I am ok with your summary. Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I misunderstood. --Diannaa 03:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ramcrk, when you yourself say "Grievances are complaints of one group people", that itself implies that it is the POV of one group. Include that information neutrally in the separate article if it is tweaked to conform to NPOV. This is about the region. A mention of the separation movement is already done (in much detail actually). Yes Michael? • 08:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The leaders who are professing that the creation of telangana state will resolve the all problems of the people of telangana where as there is no cohesion or agreement between the leaders of all parties. If separate state is created in near future , there is a possibility of political instability like in Chattisgarh which will inturn defeats the purpose of the very movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.203.233.108 (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

History of Telangana should start with Assaka MahaJanapada (700–300 BCE)

From wikipedia entry about Assaka MahaJanapada

<< Assaka (Sanskrit: अश्मक, Aśmaka Pali: Assaka), was one of ancient Indian regions (700–300 BCE). It is one of the solasa (sixteen) mahajanapadas in the 6th century BCE, mentioned in the Buddhist text Anguttara Nikaya.

The region was located on the banks of the Godavari river, between the rivers Godavari and Manjira. It was the only Mahajanapada situated to the south of the Vindhya Range, and was in Dakshinapatha. It corresponds to districts Nizamabad and parts of Adilabad, Nanded and Yavatmal in current-day India. >>

So Telangana had a history unique from rest of the Andhra pradesh, notwithstanding the recent propaganda that Andhra and Telangana shared a common history under Satavahana Dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalithadithya (talk • contribs) 14:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Pallavas

VAmsisv, Pallavas article starts with "Pallava dynasty (early 4th century - late 9th century CE) ruled northern Tamil Nadu and southern Andhra Pradesh of present day India with their capital at Kanchi".

Introduction section says "From sixth to eight centuries CE, the long struggle between the Pallavas and the Badami Chalukyas for the supremacy over the Tungabhadra-Krishna doab(Telangana and Seema border) was the primary political activity in peninsular India.".

Early Pallavas section says "Skandavarman extended his dominions from the Krishna in the north to the Pennar in the south and to the Bellary district in the West. In the reign of Simhavarman IV, who ascended the throne in 436 CE, the fallen prestige of the Pallavas was restored. He recovered the territories lost to the Vishnukundins in the north up to the mouth of the Krishna."

I don't see any refereces where Pallavas ruled the region north of Krishna river. That means Pallavas never ruled Telangana region. Please provide references if you think Pallavas ruled Telangana region. Ramcrk (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating the discussion. Please see the section "Languages Used" in the Pallavas article.

...there are good historical grounds for supposing that Parthian colonies (Pallavas) established themselves in the Deccan at a very early period...

... they found the Pallavas in possession of its western districts, as far at the least as the vicinity of Badami in the middle basin of the Krishna...

Hope this clarifies

Vamsisv (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Badami is south of Krishna river. See map here. Deccan is defined by the region between western ghats, eastern ghats including Rayalaseema. Its very clear that Pallavas ruled north Tamilnadu, south coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. But your above statements does not say they ruled Telangana. Krishna basin is on both sides of Krishna river. Badami is south of Krishna river and in the middle of Krishna basin. So, your statements does not prove that Pallavas ruled the region north of Krishna. That means your statement does not prove that Pallavas ruled Telangana. Where as my references above clearly says that Krishna river is Pallavas northern border. So, Pallavas never ruled any region north of Krishna river including Telangana. Ramcrk (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your statement/references proves X (your statement), but doesn't disprove Y (my statement). Jainath temple in Adilabad was built by Pallavas. Even Nalgonda region was once ruled by Pallavas.. I'm providing reference from government website. I hope you would agree that Adilabad & Nalgonda are part of Telangana.. please don't distort historical facts. Vamsisv (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Nalgonda link you provided says "After Ikshvakus, Pallavas and Vishnukundins fought for supremacy over the region(Nalgonda). Luck favoured Vishnukundins in the form of Samudragupta's invasion of the South. ". No where it says Pallavas ruled Nalgonda. You did not provide link for Adilabad temple. Here I am providing link from AP govt website. The AP govt website says "By A.D.514, the land north of the Godavari, known, as Kalinga became independent. The area south of the Krishna fell to the share of the Pallavas, who ruled from Kanchi. The Vakatakas occupied the present Telangana". further it says "The entire territory south of the Krishna held sway over by Mahendravarman (A.D.600--630), son of Simhavishnu of the Later Pallavas. From the 7th century A.D. onwards, the Pallavas has to face the expanding Chalukya power. The conflict continued for a long time with varying degrees of success. But the extermination of the Chalukyas of Badami by the Rashtrakutas gave respite to the Pallavas to consolidate their power. The Pallavas continued till the end of the 9th century A.D., when a new power, the Cholas of Tanjore, displaced them and occupied Kanchipuram". I am still open mind about it. But I don't see references where it says Pallavas ruled Telangana region. They might have tried to conquor it. I would like to see the references where it says they ruled it. Ramcrk (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Vamsisv, I am waiting for your response. If you could not find references which proves Pallavas ruled Telangana, please remove Pallavas from article. Ramcrk (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please allow couple of days' time. I've found sources and will reply here within 4 days.. Vamsisv (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Its 7days. For now I removed the reference to Pallavas. When we find the reference proving that Pallavas ruled Telangana region we can put it back. Ramcrk (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Telangana to become 29th state of India

Telangana to be the 29th state of Independent India.

Incidentally, the first state to be formed in the recent times in south india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raju galipalli (talk • contribs) 03:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Population in Telangana

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following information was churned out from various sources and painstakingly calculated to arrive at the percentage of Muslim population in the proposed Telangan State, as both the electronic and print media are silent on this important aspect of the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh.

Muslim Population in Telangana 29th State of India Total Population (Current) : 3.5 crores+

Muslim Population Details are Available for 2001

District / Total Population / Muslims / Percent

Hyderabad: 3,829,753 / 1,576,583 / 41.17%

Nizamabad: 2,345,685 / 338,824 / 14.4%

Rangareddi: 3,575,064 / 408,281 / 11.4%

Medak: 2,670,097 / 296,486 / 11.1%

Adilabad: 2,488,003 / 236,844 / 9.5%

Mahbubnagar: 3,513,934 / 296,975 / 8.5%

Karimnagar: 3,491,822 / 213,811 / 6.1 %

Warangal: 3,246,004 / 177,217 / 5.5%

Nalgonda / 3,247,982 / 170,553/ 5.3%

Khammam : 2,578,927 / 137,639 / 5.3%

Total Population in 2001: 2,84,08,344 Muslim Population in 2001: 38,53,213 Percentage of Muslims: 13.56%

Population in 2011: 3.5 crore+ Muslim Population in 2011: 47,47,283 +

Source for the Census 2001 details: http://www.aicmeu.org/Muslim_Population_Distribution_in_India.htm 117.204.26.180 (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I did the recalculation using the numbers from the site you mentioned above. Still I got 12.43%. (which is what mentioned in Telangana#Demography_and_language). That is the same number quoted in http://twocircles.net/2009dec12/telangana_and_muslims.html . You must have done mistake in calculation. Per 2001 census, Telangana total population:30,987,271 ; Muslim population: 3,853,213 ; Percentage : 12.43% Ramcrk (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Telangana

It was created when exactly ♥€ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.226.203 (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Etymology section

Can we restructure the etymology section to state Telangana means "Land of the Telugus" and then a sentence saying Telugu might derive from Trilinga ? --NeilN 13:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Andhra Pradesh to be formed with safeguards to Telangana
2. Andhra Pradesh formed
3. http://sakthidaran.learningprofessor.info/blog/?p=1861
4. http://nalgonda.ap.nic.in/historyofdistrict.htm

• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class Andhra Pradesh articles
• Top-importance Andhra Pradesh articles
• B-Class Andhra Pradesh articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Andhra Pradesh articles
• WikiProject India articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists