Talk:History of Andhra Pradesh

Editing
The editing process is on which may take considerable time. Inputs are welcome.Kumarrao 11:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Be brief
Please keep the sections brief and create links to detailed and separate articles.Kumarrao (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing
I deleted the duplicated information and started writing from 'Introduction'.Kumarrao (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wallace McDonald (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)I went through the entire article to correct the English. In some places it was good, but in other places needed considerable work. I am NOT an authority on Indian history, and I may have misunderstood some passages. The article definitely still needs going over by someone who does know the subject well.

Undue importance to 'Musunuri Nayakas' section
I'm surprised to note that the Musunuri Nayakas section is larger than Vijayanagara Empire section or Kakatiya Section. Even Primary school children would concur that Kakatiyas and Vijayanagara Empire were the most important periods of our history. Also I notice a lot of peacock terms in Musunuri Nayakas section, which leads me to suspect bias in the editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.23.4 (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Some more editing to help remove the copy edit tag
Does anyone prefer BC and AD or BCE and CE? I don't mind either but I will make it consistent. Also, in improving syntax, I apologise if I inadvertently altered any particular meaning. Let me know. Very interesting topic. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Bifurcation sections
The last few paragraphs show signs of bias towards the developments of the time and do not report history objectively as facts. It has been largely written keeping only one side's view while injecting needless emotion into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.138.140 (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The last few paragraphs, about the reorganization of states on linguistic lines, are much less coherent than the others and seem to include some distinctly partisan material. The last paragraph is very badly written, and I was unable to clear it up entirely.

The last paragraph (as I see it on the page today 29 Jan 2016) seems irrelevant to article section and may need to be mentioned elsewhere. I've attempted some edits to the rest of the section. Uaiyer (talk)


 * I agree. Given the scope of this article, I would say that the last section should be one-fourth of its current size. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Andhra Pradesh. 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/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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Andhra Pradesh. 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/20120716182646/http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/hist-cult/history.html to http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/hist-cult/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Editor notes December 2021
Did a pass through, but was hampered by utter unfamiliarity with both the history and the geography, not to mention any of the languages. I was interested and careful and I think what I did improved the article, but am approaching a level of diminishing returns for my time. I will probably do another pass but it probably will not improve everything that could be improved. However, some thoughts:


 * The different sections of the article were clearly written by different people and I think my first pass probably missed a lot of repetition.
 * Article could still badly use an edit for organization. The organization does not seem to be chronological, and I think this would make it easier to read.
 * Removed a lot of overlinking. Krishna River was linked fifteen or twenty times for example. The rule of thumb is once, the first time something is mentioned. Maybe a time or two more further down in an article this long or this dense, maybe.
 * I am often skeptical of POV claims but there does seem to be some of that in the sections about Mughal conquests and resistance to them. This is sometimes inevitable when it comes to ethic heroes and differing creation myths, but somebody familiar with the history should attempt to present both sides if that is what is going on, rather than have the article attempt one “true” narrative as it seems to try to do now. I am extremely unqualified for this task.
 * There also seems to be a vast disparity between the time spent on later history, such as the British Raj, for example, which is barely mentioned, and the matrimonial alliances of sixth-century clans. I am not about to attempt to weigh relative importance as I know how much I don’t know, but the length of a time period might also be an important factor in deciding WP: DUE. I have no strong feelings about how or if this suggestion should be implemented.
 * The section on the capitals was badly written in terrible English, and I question whether the little new information it contains should be moved into the sections on those periods of history. I boggled at the part about the marbles depicting Buddhist art. There must be a better way to say this.
 * The list of dynasties should probably be a separate article. All of them were mentioned earlier in the article, with the possible exception of the Guptas.
 * One of the original writers seems to like putting a comma after the subject of a sentence for some reason. Something to watch for. Also, “the” is also frequently missing, at least according to English as I speak it. As far as I know this is not a characteristic of Indian English, but my best attempt at that was to leave the British spellings alone and wikilink unfamiliar vocabulary. Sorry if I inappropriately edited any of that.

HTH Elinruby (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * *In the Overview section, this sentence puzzles me: “At the end of the Satavahana period, the Telugu region was divided into individual fiefdoms.“ Does this mean that this is not true of other parts of the region ruled by the Satahavana?


 * The reference to ethnicity feels gratuitous, but since removing it may make the sentence untrue, I am leaving it and asking this question here. Also, “Satahavana” is in this sentence because I put it there. Would some other descriptor be better? Article previous just said “the region”. Maybe the is just hand waving that means central India? Elinruby (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * --answering myself: think Quebec. (In other words, for other editors unfamiliar with the history, based on some more browsing, I thinking it is a region strongly correlated with the language, which apparently does not (in English at least) have a historical name such as Ulster, or Quebec, which are also both areas with distinct demographics in a specific area whose boundaries have changed back and forth over time but are still fairly distinct. This issue arose repeatedly in the article as I found it, so if I am somehow mistaken about this could someone please be aware of this assumption that I made?)
 * Isn’t this a bit early for Telugu?*
 * Tegulu appeared after the Buddhist period, doesn’t it say, about the inscriptions on the marbles? Or was that just the script?


 * *also re passive tense above, who divided it? Would “split up” or “splintered” be better?
 * --Found account on a related mage, they basically fragmented

* “After the independence of India in 1947, modern-day Andhra Pradesh was a part of Madras State.” This is roughly a quarter of the current lede. Isn’t there a whole lot more to be said just on the boundaries and nomenclature alone?
 * --I merged the lede with the Overview section and trimmed some wordiness and repetition. It is still rather long as a lede and needs work from the point of view of representing what is most important in the article, and this should really be done by someone with more background in the topic. But it did fix the question of WP:DUE I raised above


 * In the Brihatpalayanas section: "During the third century CE, the Brihatpalayanas ruled northern Andhra from their capital, Kodur, in the Krishna district. One dynasty was the Jaya Varma." The linked Brihatpalayana atricle says that Jaya Varma was a ruler not a dynasty, so I removed the second sentence and am leaving this as a question here Elinruby (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)