Talk:Telangana/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 ^{talk to me} 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 ^{talk to me} 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.[45]

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 ^{talk to me} 00:37, 13 December 2009 (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)

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 [1] . 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia simply because they meet Wikipedia'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)

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 ^{talk to me} 20:39, 2 January 2010 (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)

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)

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 •^{Wassup doc?} 18:01, 23 December 2010 (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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia. 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. [2] [3]. 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. Wikipedia: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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 05:52, 17 February 2011 (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)

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)

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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 13 October 2011 (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[4]. 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)

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.[5] --Ramcrk ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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? •^Talk 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)

Reminder

Just a reminder to editors that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 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 ^{talk to me} 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 ^{talk to me} 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)

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)

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)

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)

---

This has not been officially declared anywhere. The supposed new state of Telangana has not been created yet, and the remainder of Andhra Pradesh has certainly not been named. Seemandhra is simply the name that the media is using.

Muslim Population in Telangana

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: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. 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" [6] and then a sentence saying Telugu might derive from Trilinga [7]? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Its otherway around. Telangana is derived from Trilinga. See the map here which shows that the triagle formed by these 3 lingas covers mostly Telangana region. Telugu is language spoken by Telangana(Trilinga) people. Now people outside Telangana(Trilinga) speak Telugu. We have link for that from a book published in early 1800s. Book in page iii says "These three lingums are said to have marked the chief coundaries of the country known in modern times are by the names of Telingana". Also read page vii of same book which says Trilinga -> Tilinga -> Telinga -> Tenugoo > Telugu "which is the name now generally given to the language in the country where it is spoken". Also page v of the same book says third lingum may be not the one at Draksharama but one ".. near the southwest junction of the Mahratta, Mysore and Telingana territories". So we may say that Telangana is derived from Trilinga and Telugu is language spoken by Telangana people. Ramcrk (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ramcrk: Trilinga is one of etymology for Telugu language. Even the links provided by you say the same thing.

''By Mohammed Ayub Khan

The meaning and origin of the word ‘Telangana’ is subjected to much scholarly dispute. However, there is near consensus that the term (Telangana) was first used by Muslim chronicles of late 14^th century. We find the particular use of the term only after the emergence of the powerful prime minister Khan-e-Jahan Malik Maqbul Telangani. Earlier, we find the use of several variations of the term. As Prof. Raychaudhuri writes. “Students are apt to be bewildered not only by the use of alternative names Adnhras and Trilinga but also by the numerous variants of the expressions Trilinga itself.”

To Avoid confusion, Please rephrase this to "Telangana term is coined from the spoken language (Telugu) of the region"? Nagarjuna198 (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ramcrk: Your links clearly says that Trilinga Desa is land surrounded by Srisailam, Draksharamam and Kaleshwaram. But the Kaleshwaram area was later part of Hyderabad state and Telugu speaking area in Hyderabad state was given the name "Telangana". Nagarjuna198 (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I gave the wrong link originally. "Land of the Telugus" is sourced to this. Are we discounting this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me repeat. Telangana is derived from Trilingas. See this early 19th century book(published in 1816). The book says "A tradition current in Telingana, and noticed by many of its best nation Authors, states the original name of this language, as well of the country it is spoken to have been tri-lingum; namely the language or country of the three lingums". It futher says "These three limgums are said have marked the chief boundaries of the country known in modern times by the name of Telingana". Ramcrk (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ramcrk: Can I show you 100 various sources that the Telangana is a term coined by Nizam rulers? The book you are quoting is not saying what you are suggesting. You should restrain from original research. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ramcrk: The source you quoted says Telugu is spoken in Srisailam(Rayalaseema), Draksharamam(Andhra) and Kaleshwaram(Present Telanga) regions. These regions together are called Trilinga desham and language spoken in that area derived its name from Trilinga. Please change it to "Land of Telugus" as suggested by Neil. "The word Telangana is coined by muslim rulers of Asafjahi dynasty after they have conquered this part of the country. " Nagarjuna198 (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Term "Telangana" was designated to Distinguish the Telugu region from Marathwada as part of Hyderabad State See India Today EncyclopediaNagarjuna198 (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed this to "The Term "Telangana" was designated by Nizam rulers to distinguish the Telugu region from Marathwada as part of Hyderabad State.. Telugu is the spoken language in this region and it is thought to have been derived from trilinga, as in Trilinga Desa, "the country of the three lingas". According to a Hindu legend, Shiva descended as linga on three mountains namely, Kaleswara, Srisaila and Bhimeswara, which marked the boundaries of the Telugu country." This makes more sense. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The triangle formed by the three lingas covers mostly the region currently known as Telangana. See map here. I am fine with including all the sources. But we should restrict ourselves to old sources. Because latest sources could be corrupted by ongoing politics and/or authors bias. The book(published in 1816) clearly says "These three limgums are said have marked the chief boundaries of the country known in modern times by the name of Telingana". This is not original research. I am just copy/psting from the book which was pubished 200 years back. We need to include this sentence. If we have conflicting statements from other sources we can include both of those. Let reader make sense out of it.Ramcrk (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ramcrk: You are misquoting the books. The book you quoted talks about Telugu language and not Telangana region. Even according to your logic, Telugu language derived its name because of 3 shiva Temples in Telugu country. Its tri-lings in Telugu country but not the triangle(Tri-konas) formed from it. Anciently whole telugu country was also called as Trilinga Desha(not from triangle, but because of the fact that there are 3 shiva temples in Telugu land). Present Telangana region is coined by Nizam. I am just trying to make article better with proper facts and not original research. This logic is widely accepted. I can quote more citations if you need :-) Nagarjuna198 (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Rajahmundry part of present Telangana? is guntur, Vijayawada part of present Telangana? is Shrisailam part of present Telangana in that triangle? By the way, the map you posted is not even triangle, its a Rhombus and surprisingly your map takes only roadways and highways.Nagarjuna198 (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

According to your logic, This should be Telangana(roughly). Please tell me if this is acceptable?Nagarjuna198 (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This triangle does not include north coastal Andhra, South coastal andhra, barerly touches western part of central coastal andhra(west godavari, Krishna, Guntur), just touches Srisailam part of Rayalaseema and nothing else in Rayalaseema. But the triagle includes big part of current Telangana region. Its possible that Telangana is original Telugu country. Then Telugu spread around. Thats what I read from it. Thats what that 19th century book says. We should include the sentence from the book. There is no reason not to include it. You can show me more sources which tells me the borders of original Telugu country. What I object most is removing the a oldest source on this topic. You removed the source which is there for long time(its nothing but vandalism). You removed it without giving reason. I did not expect this from you(an experienced wiki editor). Ramcrk (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ramcrk:Its possible that Telangana is original Telugu country. May be/ May be not (its original research). The triangle does cover Bhadrachalam which was part of west-godaveri dist which is now included in Telangana 60 years back. However the triangle only includes couple of Telangana districts. But as per your logic, its etymology of Telugu not region. but all this is original research. More sources which refute your argument below.Nagarjuna198 (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ramcrk: Telugu country Trilinga describes Kalinga as a portion of Trilinga and Kalingaputra. - This was only mentioned to address Telugu. You know Kalinga is Andhra.Nagarjuna198 (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ramcrk:Trilinga is the same as Andhradesa. The mention of Trilinga kingdom in Viddhasilabhanjika of the early 10th. century a. d. and in Prataparudriya of the early 14th.

@Ramcrk: Finally, Present Telangana regional term is coined by Nizam and Trilinga is etymology of Telugu language. Tamilians and rest of south-India calls Telugu as Telungu. I included Trilinga also but that refers to language and separate one for Telangana region. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Kept your text and links. Added couple of links. Moved a sentense to bottom of the section. Hope this ok for you. Ramcrk (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ramcrk: you are reiterating your point of view and I dont agree with you. Telangana was derived from trilinga is just your personal agenda. Earlier sentence was fair enough. The lead only says Telugu or Telungu(language) MIGHT HAVE got its name from Trilinga. None say Telangana(Region) got its name from Trilinga. I even kept Trilinga referring to Telugu. As per wiki standards, article should emphasize the spirit of the rule. You are making it sound ambiguous. I am just trying to make article better. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Also Nowhere it mentions the region is between that triangle formed. Those 3 lingas formed boundaries means that they are the guidelines of Telugu country and not the triangle. To refute your POV, Telugu country Trilinga describes Kalinga as a portion of Trilinga and Kalingaputra. - This was only mentioned to address Telugu. You know Kalinga is Andhra. and Trilinga is the same as Andhradesa. The mention of Trilinga kingdom in Viddhasilabhanjika of the early 10th. century a. d. and in Prataparudriya of the early 14th. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Did I put any sentence not supported by sources? Dont remove anything which is supported by sources. You can add anything you like as long as its supported by sources. Etymology means when the name started. It did not start with Nizams. Nizams also called the same name.Ramcrk (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I did put your source but you are misquoting. If you cant read english, we will need 2nd opinion. I did not put anything unsourced either. You quoted a Telugu grammar book and its talking about Telugu language etymology and you are attributing to Telangana region's etymology.Nagarjuna198 (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me repeat. The book says "These three limgums are said have marked the chief boundaries of the country known in modern times by the name of Telingana". It can not be any clear than this. It is talking about Telangana. Not Telugu. Ramcrk (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with this ? "The Word "Telangana" might have been derived from Telugu which is the spoken language in this region and Telugu language is thought to have derived its name from trilinga, as in Trilinga Desa, "the country of the three lingas". According to a Hindu legend, Shiva descended as linga on three mountains namely, Kaleshwara, Shrishaila and Bhimeswara, which marked the boundaries of the Telugu country"

You are quoting Telugu grammar book. Another book is stating, Trilinga is the same as Andhradesa. The mention of Trilinga kingdom in Viddhasilabhanjika of the early 10th. century a. d. and in Prataparudriya of the early 14th. . Another one Andhra Desa is also known as "Trilinga Desa" Another one Muslim Historians refer to land of andhras as "Telang". Another source (old source) says The word "Telugu" is derived from the word "Trilinga" which was the language spoken in Trilinga- desa . Another source "Andhra Desa or Vengi Desa, and both were generally replaced by another territorial term Trilinga Desa. Another source - Bheemeswara of Draksharama, Mallikarjuna of Srisailam and Kales- wara of Kaleswaram gave Andhra Desa its other name "Trilinga Desa" "Telugu and Telungu are synonymous. You are refuting widely accepted fact that Telugu language derived its name from "Trilinga" and "Telangana" came into existance only from Nizam rule. Do you have any proof that any Kingdom by name Telangana existed before nizam? Whole Telugu country was called Andhra Desa as per sources. Why do you want push your Narrow minded point of view? Can you quote another book other than Telugu grammar book?Nagarjuna198 (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is Telangana article. Telugu might be derived from Trilinga. Andhra desa may also be called Trilinga. Thats irrelevant. Sources says, Telangana derived from Trilinga. We need to tell that info here in this article. Its relevant info. Just because it does not fit into your own scheme of things you can not deny this info. Here some more sources for you. [8] [9] [10] [11][12][13] Ramcrk (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your links clearly says Muslim rulers use to refer andhra as Telang. None of the sources you produced were not peer reviewed articles or published books except one. I request you to check the references. Please provide more sources and I will wait for a week before changing it back. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This one clearly state that "Modern Telangana was then not known as the Telugu country and it was only in the late Kakatiya period that it was called Trilinga applicable to the entire region under Andhra rule.".

Another one : "'Draksharama belongs to the coastal Andhra and hence it cannot be of the Telangana region. The said three Saiva shrines simply denote the three prominent Saiva centres in Andhra Pradesh during the medieval period. The word Trilinga applies to whole Andhra Pradesh'" However, there are other conflicting views and my point is that this etymology is well accepted for Telugu language but even this is not certain. If you want to attest this to Telangana, Just mention "Etymology is uncertain but some believe <Your point>". Then it will be more appropriate. (Nagarjuna198 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC))

Thats why I said "Telangana and the language spoken in that country "Telugu" is thought to have been derived from trilinga". Rest of the 3 sentenses are just copy/pasted from sources. If you want additional sentenses to include all definitions of Telangana its fine too. Please attach source to each sentense. But dont delete the sentenses I included which have sources. FYI, English_language#Etymology has roots in Germany(But German dont even speak English). We dont know how things evolve in history. We definitely need more reserach on Etymology of Telangana and Telugu. How those terms were use through out history. Lets be honest ourselves. We include all definitions we found in all sources. Hope someday some researcher will give us better answer about our history. Ramcrk (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Lede edits by IP

I believe this conveys no new information is completely superfluous. Other thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Until Parliament bill passed anything can happen and anything may change(That is obvious and no need to mention that). Let just say what is decided by ruling party and alliance and mention Samaiikhya movement. Ramcrk (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Times of AP

I have undone Keithbob's restoration of this material as there's no indication how reliable the source is. The "About us", "Contact us", "Privacy policy" and "Terms and Conditions" links go nowhere (not a good sign) and "Ram from Seattle" hardly inspires confidence in the credentials of the author. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Recentism in lede

As far as I can tell, this area has a history that stretches back over two thousand years. Yet the intro describes events that only go back two months. This is pretty obvious WP:RECENTISM. I think there should be only one or two sentences in the intro that cover the proposed formation of the state. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Like all intros its a good idea to give brief introduction(including history, geography/demography info and significant events). We already covered brief history which included Nizams and later. We can add another line to include various kingdoms in Telangana history before Nizam. Ramcrk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph you recovered helped. I did a bit of rearranging. See what you think. [14] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This is again an issue. The lede is supposed to summarize content already existing in the body, not provide a date-by-date account of the road to separation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Tinypics

Hello, you should not put screenshots as sources because we need to see the actual source. If they become deadlinks, you should instead look for a copy on an archive like archive.org and if that's not possible then look for another source. Please look at WP:USERGENERATED for the reasoning. Green Giant (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I used the tinypics for only few sources which are rare to find. Sometimes tinypic is better than no source. For eg: I know http://eenadu.net keeps news articles only for 90days. For eg Telugu articles are not archived on archive.org, even if they are archived, I always had fonts issue. Hope this explains why used tinypics. If you further want to discuss this topic lets open section on talk page of the Telangana article. Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:USERGENERATED does not talk about screen shots. Dont you think screen shots of reliable sources is better than no sources at all? Ramcrk (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand your reasons for using screenshots but I believe this comes under WP:USERGENERATED, i.e. we cannot count them as reliable sources because a user has created them. Although the guidelines don't specifically mention screenshots it is user generated content, but it might be worth asking at the Village Pump about screenshots. If we find dead links then the best course of action is to look for the last stable copy on an archive website like archive.org. If there is no archived copy then we must look for other sources and if there are none, then we should remove the appropriate text in the article. If there are websites which delete their articles after certain time periods and no archived copies can be found, then we must consider such websites to be unreliable sources and avoid using them. Green Giant (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a very big difference between user generated and user archived. While a screengrab is certainly at the bottom of the list in terms of preferred records of a reliable source, USERGENERATED is about who made the content, not about how that content happened to be preserved. An official archive link would fall at the top of the preference chart, with sites like archive.org being next, and personal copies of content on the bottom. But these are all records of that content, and unless you have reason to doubt the veracity of someone's archive of a reliable source, it is still a reliable source. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify that the core issue here is verifiability. I think WP:USERGENERATED applies here because this isn't a case of someone uploading directly to Wikipedia. These are images stored at another website and whilst I am not doubting Ramcrk's credibility, we cannot verify that the original source presented the text in the manner shown on the screenshots. Is there anything in the guidelines that says screenshots are acceptable? I have posted a message at the village pump and the first reply suggests that "linking to them would not be allowed by our copyright rules. and as we have no guarantee of authenticity prior to the user uploading, they are not acceptable as sources in and of themselves" (quoting The Red Pen of Doom). I am fairly convinced by this argument. Green Giant (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability and accessibility are different. Just because something is difficult to access doesn't effect the verifiability of a claim, which is an empirical, not a pragmatic criterion. Don't confuse verifiable with easy to verify - they are absolutely not the same: sites behind a paywall or other access restrictions are just as legitimate as those freely available. If you are looking for guarantees in sources, you are in the wrong plane of existence. There is no guarantee that a page you are accessing on the New York Times hasn't been hijacked by an editor to read something else. But we do have WP:AGF; if you are going to mistrust another editor, you need to have an actual reason, not just a generalized skepticism. A screenshot that is the only archive of a site is sub-optimal on the scale of records of reliable sources, but it is, nonetheless, a good faith attempt to make sources verifiable on a pragmatic, as well as the theoretical level. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is very simple. Ramcrk asserts that some websites delete their articles after a short period of time and those articles are not archived. The question is this: can we treat screenshots as reliable sources when the original article no longer exists? The answer to that is no because it is exactly the same as citing those webpages directly in the Wikipedia article and then finding it is a dead link with no archived version. If you can accept another editors screenshots, how much credibility will an uninformed user give us? None at all because they will say that we probably invented those screenshots. Green Giant (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that really doesn't matter whether some random person thinks something is reliable, only whether it actually is reliable. People can choose to believe a source or not, and the only thing we can do is due dilligence to make sure that sources meet our standards of reliability. If eenadu.net is a reliable source, then an archive of eenadu.net - even someone hitting print screen and saving the pic - is a reliable source. Unless you have an actual, substantive reason to believe it was fabricated, or believe eenadu.net to not be a reliable source, then you are either ignoring WP:AGF, or you are ignoring the actual meaning of core policies like WP:V. If you can find an automatic archive of this same information, please cite it. If you can find a direct link of it, please use that. But you can't just ignore a cited piece of information just because you don't like how it's been preserved. To do so is an WP:NPOV violation. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 09:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

1) we cannot link to a tinypic copy of a website as it is a violation of the copyright policies. 2) without any guarantee of provenience the tinypic picture uploaded by a user is no more evidence of what a site may have said than a user claiming that a site said X. its not acceptable.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

1)I am not fully versed in all the vagueries of copyright, but my gut reaction is that this would fall firmly under fair use. 2) there is no guarantee of provenance for any archive service, so there is nothing unique about this situation. The fact is, this picture preserves the page layout and URL of the source document, so there is certainly information to at least conduct a cursory investigation if any legitimate questions of provenance are brought up. But if anyone actually believed this to have been falsified, they would have presented the evidence here. But no one believes it to be false, and no one has any legitimate reason to suspect that it might be. If we actually follow AGF, you need a positive suspicion of falsification, not the mere possibility that things could have been falsified; otherwise, we'd never have any online citations due to the possibility of hackers manipulating content. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

oh please. AGF means that we assume that editors are here to make an encyclopedia. If it meant that we assume every thing they say or post is true then we wouldnt need WP:V or WP:RS because we assume that anything added to the article is true because why would anyone lie? and there is no FAIR use for copyright materials to take them wholesale and plop them on a website. if that were the case then copyright would be meaningless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No, AGF means that you don't assume that other editors are being duplicitous. Either Ramcrk (talk · contribs) is lying about not having changed that image from what existed at the clearly identifiable URL in the address bar, or it is an accurate reflection of the contents of that page. If Ramcrk did not falsify his record of that content, then it is just as much an RS as the original source. The only way that that pic is not reliable is if you believe that Ramcrk is a liar who falsified the record, and any insistence that it is not reliable (as opposed to the completely legitimate question of whether eenadu.net itself is RS) is a direct accusation that Ramcrk deliberately falsified that screencap. There's no other way about it. Without any evidence, that is a stunningly blatant violation of AGF in every conceivable way. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 02:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My entire argument is based on THE RELIABLE SOURCE GUIDELINES. Anyone can post or say anything on the web. We only use sources who have an editorial oversight and Tinypic DOES NOT COME CLOSE. But you are correct in that the real question is: is eenadu.net a reliable source?, but there is NO question about whether something posted on tinypic can be used as a source - that is a cut and dry flat out NO. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Reliable Source guidelines are about the source of the information. Just because something is hosted on archive.org doesn't automatically make it RS, no matter how trusted archive.org is. In the same way, just because something is hosted on tinypic doesn't automatically disqualify it as RS. This pic has the reliability of the New York Times, not wikipedia, not tinypic, not imgur, and not www.mysecondcounsinsroomatesfriendswebserver.org. It is the source, and only the source, that is reliable or not, and in this case, that source is eenadu.net. If you think eenadu.net is not RS, please take it to the reliable sources notice board. If you have any reason to believe that Ramcrk falsified his record of that content, please state your accusation openly instead of assuming it in blatant violation of AGF. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You are just not getting this are you. The New York Times is a (pretty much always) reliable source. A Tinypic image claiming to be a copy of a NYT story is NOT EVER a reliable source and cannot be cited. We cite the NYT and we have nothing to do with the copyright violation posted on Tinypic.

The issue gets a little more murky for a source that is considered reliable but only exists as a web page and they do not keep archives available of their old pages. Then there is no way to verify what was on the reliable source, not even a picture posted on tinypic purporting to be an authentic copy of the no longer existing web page -BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO VERIFY its authenticity.

and the question becomes why are we considering a web-only site that does not archive its pages a reliable source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:V is not a pragmatic criterion, it is absolute. The fact that you don't have the resources to verify a particular source is completely irrelevant, only that it can be verified, say by living in Andhra Pradesh and going to the Eenadu offices to look at back issues. That's why it is completely kosher to cite books, sites behind paywalls, print newspapers, or any other limited access source. Hell, if he had just cited the newspaper edition (Eenadu; April 1, 2011) and not even attempted to record a copy of the article, you wouldn't even bat an eye. But the fact that he was being transparent and providing information so that others can actually verify the claims he put in the article, and it's the openness that's treated with such disdain? That is truly perverse. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A more thorough analysis has confirmed my fears of poor/sloppy editing style. There is no need for the three images in question:

• the eenadu.net image showing census data, located here (with the raw image), with a mix of English and, I assume, Telugu. Fair enough eenadu.net is unreliable but surely you could have searched the census website itself, and found this PDF, on page 2 of which, the middle table has the same data except it is entirely in English (a bonus for en.wiki).
• a Google newspapers image of a page from the Indian Express in October 1953, with a particular paragraph highlighted. I accept that the newspaper itself doesn't seem to have archives that go back to 1953 and I accept that that one day Google might collapse under its own weight or that a server might burn out or Google might decide they aren't making enough money out of this service. However, this does not justify providing a screenshot when a perfectly good link is available at the original website and there is a direct quotation available in Google books.
• a Frontline magazine article image which is found at a slightly different website name from the one in the tinypic image, as well as an archived version on thehindu.com and an archived version on archive.org. I accept that the magazine seems to have changed its URL several times but the content is still available in more than one location.

Like I said before I fully understand the reasons given but if a website is so ephemeral that it deletes content in 90 days (or any short time frame), well then I would ask myself if it is worth citing that website. It took me ten minutes to check whether the same content is available elsewhere, and there is nothing stopping any other editor doing the same instead of uploading screenshots. Green Giant (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Eenadu is largest circulated news paper in the state of Andhra pradesh. So, we cannot say its not reliable news source just because it does not archive its articles indefinitely. Now only question is, if we found the info on that paper and could not find anywhere else(luckily you found the alternate sites; issue is not just about these links but about general policy), should we use screen shots as source or not. Thats the question. I would like to know the policy so that I wont waste my time taking screen shots next time. Looking at the comments here, I guess there is no consensus on this topic. Personally I thing screen shot is better than no source at all. Would you rather have me give "Eanadu 1-4-2011 or Indian Express 10-1-1953" as source instead of the link to screen shot on tinypic? Like I told you,I had to deal with other editors removing the content because the links were dead. Hence started using tinypics for some of the sources to support the content which I think is important. Ramcrk (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually luck had nothing to do with it, just perseverance. As for eenadu.net, I would rather that you used a more reliable source but if you must use eenadu then at least use WebCite. Green Giant (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Tehelka as a source

Whether or not this content [15] was originally inserted by a "vandal" - i have reinserted it and take responsibility for it.

Tehelka appears to be a fully reliable source WP:RS and Sai Manish as a Sr. Correspondent seems to be a fully legitimate commentator WP:RS / WP:NPOV and the points made seem to be fully logical WP:UNDUE and not any wild-eyed polemic WP:FRINGE, and seem to be fully related to the content adjacent to them WP:BALANCE- there does not seem to be any reason not to include it.

If there is any error in my presumptions, please explain below. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Its opinion of one journalist. Should we give that much importance to his opinion? If I give every opinion of every journalist we will not have enough space on this article. There are articles that show Telangana opponents in very bad light too. Should we include those opinions too? Its indisputable fact that hundreds of people committed suicides who said they are committing suicide because of the delay in telangana. Some even gave their dying declaration to magistrate, some to television camaras; some wrote letter. Obviouly opponents of Telangana wants to show suicides in bad light and discredit the Telangana movement. There are using every weapon in their arsenal to discredit the movement including influencing the media. We have to be careful in what to include in the article. Obviously every movement leader shower praises on whoever sacrificed for the cause. It does not mean that they encouraged the suicides. In reality they repeatedly appealed to stop the suicides. Ramcrk (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Tehelka is a trusted source but this particular news item looks one sided to me. There is not any proof available for the suicides of people belonging to backward classes. No other media share this opinion. Plz avoid that part.Rameshnta909 (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not "just the opinion of one journalist" - the journalist is quoting a commission report and university professors and professional psychiatrists. plus things like "However, many photojournalists who were present near Yadaiah recall he was shouting, “Save me, please save me” rather than “Jai Telangana”, as the TRS claimed." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Its obvious that everybody playing politics and playing to their gallery including journalists and professionals. Entire AP is divided on regional lines. And some are influenced by rich Andhra lobby. Its impossible to get unbiased view in this scenario. Best thing is to look into the suicide letters and quote the letters and lets have readers make sense of it. About 60% of AP population is is from Andhra(who oppose Telangana), entire AP state administration is dominated by Andhras(over 90% of senior bureaucrats are from Andhra), all TV channels and newspapers are from Andhra. Obviously local media is biased and national media picked up the stories from local media. SKC committee was critricized for its anti Telangana and undemocratic report by Hig court. Its like expecting postive stories about Indian independence movement or American revolution from British media. Ramcrk (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The "best thing to do" is to follow policy WP:NPOV and where there are contested claims from reliable sources, we include ALL significant points of view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not against including all points of view. I object people predicting things. Nobody have crystal ball. If its a speculation, we should say its speculation. At least use the word "may". Ramcrk (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Why include information about the suicides at all then? That they may continue is pure speculation and that they may have an effect on the outcome is pure speculation as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Because people who committed suicides left a dying declerations in the form of letters, media interviews, statements to court officials. So suicides are not speculation. They are facts. You can mention facts. But nobody can Predict whats going happen in future. Not Tehelka. Not so called experts. Ramcrk (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of my commentary on Telangana suicides

By principle, I object to emotional justification of any issue citing examples of people committing suicide for a cause. Unfortunately, politics of Telangana has degraded from a cause that started with justification based on economic backwardness and exploitation to emotional justification based on cultural uniqueness and number of suicides. Having been brought up in Adilabad, the most backward district of Telangana, I have seen first hand the reasons for backwardness where people are left behind due to lack of will and development policies by the new generation of elected representatives who have vested economic interests.

Andhra Pradesh in particular has seen a increased number of suicides since 2000 even before Telangana agitation got revived. Regarding farmer suicides, respected journalist Sainath has written well researched articles that confirm this trend . The same has been confirmed by NCRB . Youth unemployment has been exacerbated by institutions incentivized by government's social welfare programs through Fee_Reimbursement_Scheme_(Andhra_Pradesh) producing large number of graduates without proper skills. These socio economic factors have been exploited by politicians to further the cause of Telangana. It is a fact that some of these lives could have been saved without the suicide worship culture that has been pushed by these politicians. Movies released on telangana theme have repeated these disturbing images influencing our youth. Even the mother of the first recorded student suicide has put a case stating that a local TRS politician instigated her son to resort to suicide.

Regarding the wiki article, I am fine for the entire paragraph on suicides to be removed. However if the article were to retain the number of suicides to justify the movement, I want the alternative view on why the suicides occurred to be present as well. - 75.49.252.7 12:27, 5 January 2014

Nobody justifying the suicides. There are lot of efforts in Telangana to stop suicides. Telangana people saddened by suicides. Suicides only indicate the how high the emotions are. We saw suicides every time people thought Telangana is not possible. It stopped every time when people thought they are closer to Telangana. This phenomenon needs research and sociologists and medical community needs to understand it better and come up with better mechanisms and strategies to stop this kind of tragedies in future. But facts are facts. Suicides happened because of the movement. It should be mentioned in the article. Ramcrk (talk)

Ram,My issue is with politicians who have exploited the despair for their personal benefit and political careers. I don't like to bring caste in this conversation but it is a fact that there have been 0 suicides from Velama community that KCR and the TRS leadership belongs to. I agree we should state facts but let us not forget history as well. These doralu (Velama and Reddy caste heads) baring a few exceptions sided with Razakars and exploited telangana peasantry. The fight against Razakars was led by communists and many of their leaders came from coastal Andhra who were principled and fought against economic injustice on the peasantry. I don't deny that some of the suicides can be attributed purely to the movement. It is a shame on the movement even one of those lives was lost due to political leaders influence. I studied in OU and saw first hand evidence of impact to young minds due to these suicide theatrics. Many of our OU students were affected deeply by TRS leader's Harish Rao's attempted self immolation when he poured kerosene on himself but could not find a match box. With the live news channels repeating this footage, many more were influenced. I am fine if you don't want to state the facts on the socio economic conditions impact on some of the suicides, but my preference is to remove entire para on suicides incl. stats. A true leader drives a just cause with non violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.252.7 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

People from all kinds of back grounds forward/backward classes/castes, people from all religions committed suicides. News papers reported that they committed suicides giving Telangana as reason. Some gave dying decleration on hospital bed, some wrote letters(some letters are few pages long). I am sure each and every case is different. Nobody knows what triggered them to take that extreme step. I included the phrase "unfortunate glorification of suicides and propaganda by Telangana politicians that may have resulted in many ‘copycat suicides’". Only sentence I removed is, suicides will continue in future. That has no basis. Suicides completely stopped after UPA govt took decision to grant Telangana. Its clear proof that progress on Telangana is clearly linked to suicides. Suicides are extremely tragic step and its unfortunate that some people are using that as an act of protest. Nobody knows how to stop it. No amount appeals stopped the suicides. Only Telangana announcement by CWC and UPA govt stopped suicides. Not sure why talked about Razakars etc. BTW, middle class/lower middle class Reddys/Velamas(so called upper castes) are at the fore front of Communist movement in 1940s. Andhra communist leaders might be mentors but Telangana communist leaders were working on the field to remove the inequality(most dont even know the communist ideology). Over 90% of forward castes(who are marginal farmers) also were victims of excesses of Razakars and Jagirdars/landlords(though all the land lords are forward castes). Because that history land reforms are much more successful in Telangana than in outer regions. Because of all those struggles Telangana is much more equitable society than lot of regions in India including Seemandhra. You need to study Telangana history more before we discuss that topic. It seems you are more interested in dividing Telangana community on caste lines or community lines to stop Telangana formation. Telangana people believe that they lost lot of opportunities because of the merger of Telangana and Andhra. They want demerger. Whoever supported that cause became big leaders. Why do you think over 100 MLAs resigned supporting Telangana state formation? Ramcrk (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We have different points of views. I am for telangana and am personally actively involved in a apolitical NGO seeking social upliftment. We can use different data points to convincingly justify our views. The removed line stated that "suicides may not stop post telangana" and did not state that "it will continue". I am well informed on history and various philosophies. I cannot be branded as a divisive because I don't agree on a view. If you claim that suicides have stopped you are in illusion. Only last week about 4 farmers committed suicide due to poverty. I am ok with your removal of the line now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.252.7 (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me be specific. Since July 30, we hardly seen any suicides which gave Telangana as reason. People always committed suicides for other reasons. Suicides happened thought the world for one reason or other. They will continue to happen. But here we are talking about suicides that caused by the delay in Telangana state formation. Regarding other suicides, society should look into the causes for those suicides and see whether we can do some thing to stop those. Ramcrk (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2014

now onwards its not a region now onwards its state i.e; telangana state new state Cdineshc (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The bill has to be passed by upper house of the Parliament(rajyasabha) and President. With main opposition party on board, its just formality. But until President signs it not done deal yet. Ramcrk (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand the emotions must be running high, but passing of the bill in the Lok Sabha, does not constitute creation of a new state. The Bill will need to be passed by the Rajyasabha, signed by the president and a gazette notification regarding commencement of the Act need to be made, before it can be legally called a state. Once the process is complete, the relevant changes can be made. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 12:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Parliament passes Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Bill - 2014 creating India's 29th state "Telangana" on 20th Feb 2014

As explained above, the procedure of formation of state is still incomplete. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

References

A Plea For a Better Map, and leaving your Bias At The Door.

Hi all - it would help if people could reduce their discussions 80% or more, and stop debating history, and debate how to get all the viewpoints across through proper citations. For instance, suicides. Mention the high rate. Mention any published speculations on the reason for the high rate. Move on. Wiki is about facts. The suicide rate is a fact. Speculation is just speculation, no matter how soul piercing the issue may be.

This article is also crying out for a good map showing the regional development of the “states” in the area over the last 1,000 years. I can’t see the new development clearly. Thanks Billyshiverstick (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The article currently gives the pronunciation in English as /θɛlənˈɡɑːnə/, where the first consonant is given as the TH sound in 'thigh'. This is bizarre. The first consonant in the original Telugu pronunciation is /t̪/, an unaspirated voiceless denti-alveolar stop, like the T sound in most Romance languages. I see no reason why this sound (which is also the first consonant in 'Telugu') shouldn't simply be mapped to the English /t/. I would write the pronunciation in English as /ˌtɛlənˈɡɑːnə/. Am I missing something? --Iceager (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Both Telugu and Telangana pronounced with "Th" sound as in Thailand or Thigh. See these links. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8kXglngDEk#t=20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25DdTnALeg Ramcrk (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't access those videos at the moment. But in practically all varieties of English outside of India, "Thailand" and "thigh" have different initial consonants. "Thailand" begins with the normal T sound of English, as in "tie". "Thigh" begins with the same voiceless TH sound as in "think" or "theft". Look up [16] and [17] to hear the difference. Telugu and Telangana should be pronounced with the normal T sound of English. --Iceager (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We pronounce both Telugu and Telangana with TH sound (as in thigh). See above youtube links for correct pronunciation. I looked into links you sent, Even Thai also pronounced with TH sound. Ramcrk (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

'Thai' is clearly pronounced /taɪ/, where the /t/ is phonetically an aspirated stop [tʰ]. The /θ/ in 'thigh' /θaɪ/ is a fricative—it is a sound that is missing as an independent phoneme in most major Indian languages with the exception of Bengali. Listen closely to the difference in the pronunciation in the links. To native English speakers in most of the English-speaking world, the difference is clear.

Stop and fricative refer to the manner in which the sounds are produced. In stops, there is a momentary closure of all airflow during the pronunciation of the sound. In a fricative, the airflow is forced through a narrow channel but there is no complete closure. Now, in Telugu, the sound /t̪/ is classified as a stop, but in the middle of words where it comes between vowels it can be pronounced as a fricative, [θ]. We can say that in Telugu, [θ] is an allophone of /t̪/; allophones are variant pronunciations of a single underlying sound. Native speakers of a language are trained to hear allophones and process them mentally as a single sound, which is why you might hear the stop and fricative pronunciations for 'Telugu' and 'Telangana' as the same sound. However, trust me—for the vast majority of native English speakers, the first consonants in 'Telugu' and 'Telangana' are emphatically stop sounds, which map to the normal T sound in English.

In the video links, 'Telugu' and 'Telangana' are almost always pronounced with an unaspirated stop sound, even by those who use an aspirated stop [tʰ] for the normal T sound in English. But the operative word here is 'stop'. Most native English speakers outside India (with some exceptions such as speakers of Irish English) will never identify a stop sound as the TH sound in 'thigh'. The second video has one instance where the T in Telangana is actually pronounced as a fricative, probably influenced by Telugu allophonic behaviour, but the other numerous mentions of Telangana are realized with the stop sound.

Take a look at the International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects which shows that in some dialects of English, [t̪] is an allophone of /θ/. But for all the widely spoken standard varieties of English (British, American, Australian, etc.), /θ/ can only be pronounced as a fricative.

I know this is all very technical, so the short summary is that if you know Telugu pronunciation, then you may identify the T of 'Telugu' and 'Telangana' with the TH sound in English. But this doesn't work for the vast majority of native English speakers, for whom the Telugu sound here can only be mapped to the English T sound. Check for yourself that all dictionaries give the pronunciation of 'Telugu' in English with the T sound: see [18], [19], [20]. I'll change the pronunciation in the article to reflect this. --Iceager (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Iceager, Thanks for technical details and for taking time to explain it to me. I am still not sure I get it(though living in US for so long). I know how Telugu speaker pronounce it. But You are more knowledgable about the signs and how native English speakers understand those signs. We put those signs for the benefit of non-Telugu readers anyway. I am fine with whatever you choose. Let me know if you need any other info. Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Andhra Pradesh

(Copied from user talk page)

The page now does not belong to AP. Hence, kept only Telangana. Now I edited it with summary.--Vin09 (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Pages don't "belong" to projects. The relevant line in the banner would have said "This article is supported by WP:WikiProject Andhra Pradesh." Do you have any reason to believe that they don't want to support it any more? Are you a member of the project?

I am also copying this discussion to the article talk page where it rightly belongs. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:Wikipedia:WikiProject Telangana page do not exist earlier. But now the page exist. Hence, I moved. Taking your opinion into consideration we can also add Wikipedia:WikiProject Andhra Pradesh as well. As it was earlier was a part of it. You can also see the categories section below also.--Vin09 (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to remove it. I don't know. But a discussion with WP:WikiProject Andhra Pradesh would need to happen first. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Updating the Map

After the transfer of 7mandals in Khammam district to AP, maps of Telangana and Andhra are changed. We need to update the maps on this page. Google already did. See these links for Telangana map and AP map on google. Ramcrk (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Population

Which is correct? 35,193,978 or 35,286,757? Ref has both.--Vin09 (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

According to http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/data_files/andhra_pradesh/DCOAP-PAPER-1-BROCHURE.pdf the population is 35286757. (2737738+2552073+3811738+3031877+4010238+5296396+4042191+3483648+3522644+2798214=35286757). Its possible that 35,193,978 is provisional numbers and 35,286,757 updated numbers. Lets go with census website numbers. Ramcrk (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine.--Vin09 (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How come history become Summary of the topic Regarding Telangana page ? (discussion moved from User talk:Human3015)

How history before the formation state becomes Lead ? if thats the Case ,India page should say that it was ruled by British for more than 200 yrs in Lead Section, Andhra pradesh State was part of Madras, should be in Lead also ? all the countries history becomes the Lead then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.n.narin (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@K.n.narin: Ok then. You read featured article India, article is not only talking about British but also about Indus Valley Civilization. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  18:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: I read it , But that is not in 1st paragraph, right ?, 1st para introduces India , 2nd parah introduces history, thats well writtened. but here there is no introduction of telangana but directly introduced history of Telangana ? thats something to think about !. I am just trying make more sensible

@K.n.narin: Ok, lets make second para for summary of history on Telangana. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  18:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  18:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: that makes more sense !

@K.n.narin: You should revert yourself and write history summary in 2nd para. Let the other editors review your version. But one can't remove history summary from the lead. It was the basis of formation of Telangana, it was long movement. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: I am not removing history buddy i am just trying to make more sensible to read, without introducing Telangana just giving history doesnt make any sense as per my knowledge and as a Reader,any how i restored content .

it is Formation of Telangana Not bifurcation of Andhra pradesh

Do not change Heading to Bifurcation of Andhra Pradeh If that is so , in Andhra state Page need to mention Bifurcation of Madras State not Creation of the Andhra state. When there is a new state or new country carved out it should not be said as Bifurcation ofor , Cutting the existing one. it should be in a positive note saying Creation or Formation . Stop reverting the changes about the Heading . As per the bill also it would be clearly mentioned "Formation of Telangana", "29 th State of India" i.e Telangana would be created from existing Andhra pradesh State , hence no one can use word Bifurcation

There is nothing wrong with the use of bifurcation - it is not pejorative, it is the correct description - Telangana did not suddenly appear from thin air on 2 June 2014, it was formed by the subdivision of Andhra Pradesh - as it was split in two, bifurcation is the correct term - Arjayay (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thats fine , So why dont we update all other states saying they where bifurcated from the existing, gujarath from Mumbai , Andhra pradesh from Madras, Uttarkand from UP etc . Why are we saying it as creattion or formation ? why dont we say Madras bifurcation Day rather than AP formation DAY ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.241.174.15 (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Before adding word "bifurcation" , which is not even mentioned in the AP reorganisation Act , 2014 Please Make sure you reach consensus Narin.K 18:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.n.narin (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please sign your posts in talk pages with 4 tildes ( ~~~~ ) to leave your signature and date
Secondly Other stuff exists it is never acceptable on Wikipedia to use examples of other articles to justify something that is incorrect
Thirdly, please don't say something is alright and then change it.
Fourthly please do not try to claim consensus - you have no consensus whatsoever for your removal
Fifthly please stop inserting dates in formats contrary to WP:DATEFORMAT

Telangana was formed by the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, I don't know why you think that is perjorative, it was formerly part of Andhra Pradesh which was split into two - which is all that bifurcated means. Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That was Big reply, We should have a standard to write a post, why cant we compare to other posts, of course even other states where formed by bifurcating the Existing, then why cant we update them as Bifurcation. give a Valid reason for the use of Word Bifurcation. and even in Constitution of India , they use word formation As per Article 3 . Narin.K 18:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.n.narin (talk • contribs)

There is too much WP:OR in this debate. Are there reliable sources that use the term "bifurcation?" If so, please cite them and we are done. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Calling it (small 'b') bifurcation is absolutely non-controversial. Sources can surely be found but this is just standard use of the English language. For anyone insisting that the word is pejorative, here is the opening sentence from the official reorganization website, "Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 for bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh received the President's assent on 01 March 2014." Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

abecedare thanks for identifying word in the website, anyhow I don't find it in bill which is passed in the parliament neither in Constitution of India . i have no idea if we can consider just a news on website could be considered more important than Bill passed in Parliament. then it should be right to say all the states where bifurcated too. No more Arguments for this from me . Narin.K 21:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.n.narin (talk • contribs)

We don't give any special treatment to Acts passed in Parliaments. Scholarly sources are our gold standard, of which there are plenty [21], [22], [23]. As for other states, if you can find reliable sources that call them "bifurcations," please feel free to use the term for them, not otherwise. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks that clarifies my doubts and good learning about wiki editing rules. Narin.K 21:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.n.narin (talk • contribs)

• (edit conflict) This seems to be more a case of lacking language skills than anything else. As Wiktionary says bifurcation is a standard word that simply means that something, anything, is split or divided into two, and there are absolutely no pejorative overtones about it. It simply means "divide into two". Thomas.W ^talk 21:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Support @Thomas.W:, there were numerous attempts on which my edits were reverted by IPs on this issue. So, Bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh is the standard title.--Vin09 (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vin09: @Thomas.w:, Formation of Telangana is also a Standard Title , Why cant we just stick to that ?, though formation of Telangana was through Bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, It is more relevant to give details on how it formed in Description , Rather than in Heading, my 2 cents .198.241.174.15 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@K.n.narin: This edit is not correct when a discussion is taking place.--Vin09 (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vin09:Well bifurcation word was not existing prior to this Edit[24], this discussion was started on June 4,2015 but again the discussion started before 2 days. After this Discussion on over here [25] most of the page changes where done, so that it would sound more relevant as Telangana History.There was discussion regarding the same over here . [26] Narin.K 16:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed unsourced content in Kakatiya dynasty

Content is unsourced and original research. Kannada rulers ruling Telangana regions does not make it Kannada region. We need sources about what general public spoke. Name Telugu and Telangana came from Trilinga. We have sources for that in Etymology section. Krishna Devaraya ruled Seemandhra and Tamils regions that does not make those regions Kannada regions. Please discuss here before adding it back. Ramcrk (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I deleted duplicate copies of this stuff from History of Telangana [27], Adilabad district [28], and Adilabad [29]. If you can identify who added it, please give a warning on their talk page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Found the original edits: [30], [31], [32], [33]. Hopefully, I caught them all! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Devreddybalreddy: Can you explain why you have reinstated this unsourced content on various pages [34]? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It turns out they were all socks, and now blocked. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Telangana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140625040229/http://www.telangana.gov.in/Pages/PortalHome.aspx to http://www.telangana.gov.in/Pages/PortalHome.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141111151025/http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/telangana-braces-to-celebrate-its-birthday-celebrations-kcr/1/364724.html to http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/telangana-braces-to-celebrate-its-birthday-celebrations-kcr/1/364724.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Telangana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140602204801/http://www.telangana.gov.in/Pages/PortalHome.aspx to http://www.telangana.gov.in/Pages/PortalHome.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121023090101/http://www.scribd.com/doc/15377979/Decline-of-a-Patrimonial-Regime-The-Telengana-Rebellion-in-India-194651 to http://www.scribd.com/doc/15377979/Decline-of-a-Patrimonial-Regime-The-Telengana-Rebellion-in-India-194651
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140218081502/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/telanganathetroubledstate/parliament-adjourned-till-noon-over-telangana-issue/article1-1185194.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/telanganathetroubledstate/parliament-adjourned-till-noon-over-telangana-issue/article1-1185194.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141013110734/http://sezindia.nic.in/HTMLS/578FormalapprovalsgrantedunderSEZAct19thJune,09.pdf to http://sezindia.nic.in/HTMLS/578FormalapprovalsgrantedunderSEZAct19thJune,09.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140607011018/http://www.hyderabadisearch.com/AboutAndhrapradesh.aspx to http://www.hyderabadisearch.com/AboutAndhrapradesh.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Telangana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140602204801/http://www.telangana.gov.in/Pages/PortalHome.aspx to http://www.telangana.gov.in/Pages/PortalHome.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Telangana. 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/20120405033402/http://www.nird.org.in/brgf/doc/brgf_BackgroundNote.pdf to http://www.nird.org.in/Brgf/doc/brgf_BackgroundNote.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917143549/http://apsrtc.gov.in/Contact%20Us/Grievances/Citi-Chart.htm to http://apsrtc.gov.in/Contact
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007142943/http://www.rgukt.in/home-aboutrgukt.html to http://www.rgukt.in/home-aboutrgukt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 13:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Useful citations

• Political, Geography and climate conditions.
• Socio-Economic system and condition of Telangana--Omer123hussain (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• TG GSPD and comparison National average

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.

Hi sir this is vikram Singh a senior journalist in india and am doing a jounalism job in telangana Hyderabad I have so many string operations how to give wikipedia to you please any freelance or as a staffer your organization please mail mesuggest me thanking you My mail I'd vickey00006@gmail.com Vikram singh00006 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Urdu has no offical language status in Telangana government

Urdu has regional status but is not an official state language of Telangana like Telugu. Please help stopping Urdu lies in Telangana article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.165.128.185 (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No Urdu as official language

Thats wrong Vivek kanaparthi (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

List of political self-immolations

After all the deaths of supporters in this list, and nothing is mentioned here? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 18:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

The Etymology section states:

According to Kingshuk Nag, who authored Battleground Telangana (2011), the etymology of Telangana is uncertain; it is believed that the word Telugu is derived from Telu, which means "white-skinned" in Gondi, a Dravidian language related to Telugu spoken by Gondi tribals in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The plural form of Telu is Telunga, thus making the word Telangana.

The statement seems to have been first added in 2016 by User:Omer123hussain. The source cited is: Nag, Kingshuk (2011). "5". Battleground Telangana : Chronicle Of An Agitation. HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 9789350295304. Retrieved 11 December 2016.

However, a Google Books search for "etymology", "white-skinned", "telunga", "Gondi", or "Telu" in this book returns zero result. Searching other books doesn't help either. The only results that Google returns for this claim are websites that get this information from Wikipedia. Does anyone have a relevant quote from Kingshuk Nag's book? utcursch | talk 16:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Telangana Official Logo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

29th state

The lead correctly states that, when formed, Telangana became the 29th state. However, following the change of status to J+K, there are currently only 28 states, The 29th, in the lead, has been changed to 28th and back to 29th, and I can understand the confusion. What I can't do is think of a very brief explanation, which could be added to the lead, without being undue. - any ideas? - Arjayay (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Language data

In this edit, C1MM supposedly added figures from the 2011 census. But the cited source does not provide any sort of data for Telangana (because the state was formed after the 2011 census). I assume that CMM1 arrived at the figures for the state by adding the district wise data of 2011 and I have no doubts about the accuracy of this method. But it fails WP:Verifiability and may amount to WP:Original Research. Fylindfotberserk, thoughts? -- Ab207 (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ab207: Strictly speaking, it does, but this may be the only way to reproduce data pre-partition of the state. It would be better to use specific link (excel sheet) from this set, which typically stratifies the linguistic data by district, region, town, etc. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk:: Right. But I think it should be indicated clearly as a note. Also is there a way to cite this calculation? There are 10 districts with 4-5 languages, so something like a table would do. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Right. Apart from a note, a table with clear indication of district in the language section of the article will do IMO. HAve to use this reference. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Language table in the article should solve our problem. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Name Pronunciation

At the beginning of the article it lists pronunciations in the three major languages, but only Telugu is actually labeled. I’m not sure how to edit the source so that at the very least the last pronunciation is marked as Urdu (the current formatting is very confusing in my opinion). I looked around for a while but I couldn’t find a way to make it display automatically. Does anyone have a good suggestion? Thanks!

Telangana (/ˌtɛlənˈɡɑːnə/ (listen); Telugu: [ˈtelaŋɡaːɳa], [ˈtɪləŋɡɑːna]) Andyharbor (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Telangana seal.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Government of Telangana Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sports

Please add olympic gold winner NIKHATH ZAREEN in the list if players from telangana state. 106.76.214.15 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done I have added Nikhat Zareen to List of people from Telangana and moved the other sports people there as well, since there were two split lists - Arjayay (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Indian state or territory has an RFC

Template: Infobox Indian state or territory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tojoroy20 (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox replacement

The {{Infobox settlement}} used on this page is going to be replaced with {{Infobox Indian state or territory}} as per the Proposal and Consensus of RFC. Any questions/suggestions? Discuss Here.

You can also contribute by replacing Infobox settlement with Infobox Indian state or territory on other pages , or by improving this one. Tojoroy20 (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Replaced — Tojoroy20 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

restoring and assessing

I will be making lot of changes to this article, to make it more easy to read and encyclopedic. In this process may be there could be errors-and if you find some please let me know. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Re-Write

Could someone who specializes primarily in state affairs kindly improve this article, please? The article is in very bad shape. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 10:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"TELANGANA STATE" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect TELANGANA STATE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 5 § Some overly capitalized redirects until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)