Talk:Hyderabadi Muslims

Thanks
Hi All, thanks to Wikepedia Team who gathered and posted the following information on it... I would like to call Hyderabadis for a discussion forum on this topic...
 * Hi, but WP is not a discussion forum. Regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Junk linguistics
I've removed:
 * Hyderabadi Urdu is very reflective of the relaxed attitude of the Hyderabadi citizens which allowed the coinage of words, much like ebonics.

I'm not sure if this means coinage within "Ebonics" (AAVE) or the coining of "Ebonics". There's nothing remarkable about the coining within AAVE, the coining of "Ebonics", or the coining within any language or lect: All languages and lects do it. I also find extremely doubtful any claim that any language or lect reflects the attitude of its speakers. Finnish is agglutinative: is this because its speakers agglutinative or otherwise "sticky" in some literal or metaphorical sense? If no, you mean something else, then just what do you mean, and what evidence do you have for it from a reputable linguistics text? -- Hoary 10:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of References
There appears to be a serious lack of references for some of the claims in this article. Specifically, the reference to "The Nizam was the riches man of the world in his period." How was this determined? What reference claims he was the richest in that period? To a certain degree, it sounds like a bit of well-intentioned patriotic pride, claiming a past ruler of Hyderabad to be the richest man in the world. If it's true, references should be provided. If not, it should be stricken. Kemkerj 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the same as Andhra Muslims
There seems to be some confusion about the Muslim culture of Hyderabad. Hyderabad, as a princely state ruled by an Urdu speaking Muslim prince developed a unique culture that other areas of the modern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh did not. Those areas of Andhra Pradesh that were part of Madras Presidency--Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema have a population of mostly Telugu speaking Muslims who see themselves as a distinct community different from Hyderabadi Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.182.19 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

South Africa
There appears to be a significant Urdu-speaking Muslim community who are identified with Hyderabad in South Africa, who may have formed part of the indentured migration to the country. Does anyone have sources that verify this ancestry, and if they do, could they incorporate it? Park3r (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

images

 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2012-Hyderabad-India.jpg :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * sherwani image New York Hyderabad association


 * Pakistani diaspora


 * American diaspora --Omer123hussain (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Mohammed Azharuddin in sherwani--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hyderabadi wedding culture images--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * From Nizam to Nation: The Representation of Partition in Literary Narratives about Hyderabad,Deccan. Thesis by; Nazia Akhtar


 * Muslim tribes in Hyderabad


 * Ramadan in Hyderabad


 * percentage of Islamic education

Removed Deendar name
Is there any reality about Deendar, being a Islamic/Muslim scholar. Please provide the reliable source. Until then I shall remove the text. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Hyderabadi Muslim Identity After the Integration
This section is looking like opinion piece and has recently been tagged with related concerns.. If not addressed appropriately, this section may possibly be removed.

Adamstraw99 (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hyderabadi Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gc-database.co.uk/alpha.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Shahrukh Khan is half Hyderabadi Muslim
Recently, I've been in an edit war with Adamstraw99 regarding Shahrukh Khan being a Hyderabadi Muslim (Half), and whether his personal twitter account can legitimize his name being put under Hyderabadi Muslim artists. What do y'all think? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magichero1234 (talk • contribs)
 * You need to read WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply

The user @ Magichero1234 seems to be having only 1 article in his watch-list, that is Hyderabadi Muslims.. As I have seen with other dudes who are having only 1 article to their watchlists, they become somehow possessive about their 'sole' article and in most cases i have seen they appear to be emotionally attached to their article (or the subject of the article) and start showing WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (maybe unknowingly)...in these cases, when you revert their edit(s) they will first go on reckless random reverts ignoring your edit summaries (interestingly, they are least bothered about writing edit summaries themselves, including this fellow) and when you try to get them following certain Wikipedia policies, they will start hurling abuses at you violating WP:NPA and will continue with their WP:DE... This guy Magichero1234 is hell bent on pushing his POV in the article Hyderabadi Muslims for several months now and perhaps not willing to understand that any article published in Wikipedia ONLY belongs to Wikipedia and is released in public domain all the times and anybody can edit the text/content or question the same.. but this fellow seems to be a self-proclaimed 'expert' in 'Hyderabadi Muslims' and hence seen in confrontation with other editors... my view is to be only abide by policies especially WP:RS which he has been seen contravening in past more than once.... --Adamstraw99 (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Population
Does anyone know a real population figure? The current is very vague, and there isn't a lot of info on their population. Magichero1234 (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

That seems tough to source from current availability of sources.. though correct/accurate population figure would be great for this article.. Let me try digging in for some Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Serious POV issues
I am afraid our Muslim brethren have been adding serious amounts of WP:OR, which hasn't been verified or isolated. Even the citations don't make any difference, because WP:OR is being added within the cited material. An example is this edit, which adds material under citations with no explanations whatsoever. I am afraid somebody will need to go through this article from top to bottom, and throw out all the unsourced WP:OR. I have added a POV tag to the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I Am aware of this and have stopped touching this article since these 'Muslim brethrens' are too confident about their POVs and used abusive language in the past when i tried to correct the original research and fake sources issues.. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Citation Needed
Whoever was questioning the sources used in the article, may you please clarify your statement? Idk what the other user put was, nor what you were asking clarity on. Magichero1234 (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Every word and phrase added in this edit needs a precise citation, with a page number. I reverted the edit once as WP:OR and you have reinstated it without any explanation. (I have explained to you in detail on your talk page, how Wikipedia's verifiability policy works. I am afraid you have mostly ignored all my advice. It is time to go and re-read it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

How are any of those things not in the sources? Magichero1234 (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is one example. Your edit says "the invasion resulted in the massacre of thousands of Hyderabadi Muslims". Where is this coming from?
 * Here is one source, Sherman, that you have used in another article:
 * Indeed, before reports emerged of fighting within the state, Nehru had ventured to declare that Hyderabad had ‘suddenly opened out a new picture of communal peace and harmony’.
 * Quickly, however, stories began to seep out of large-scale violence within the territory in the immediate aftermath of the police action. It is unclear exactly what happened between the people of Hyderabad, the members of the falling regime, and the invading forces during and immediately after the police action, but it appears that there was widespread bloodshed as the population took the opportunity to commit acts of violence against the Razakars and other Muslims.
 * Here is another source, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, which is also in the Omar Khalidi volume that you have been citing:
 * The instrument of their disaster was, of course, vengeance. Particularly in the Marathwara section of the state, and to a less but still terrible extent in most other areas, the story of the days after "police action" is grim.
 * Responsibility for the massacres and the accompanying terror is not easy to fix. ... But the important point, apparently, was that police administration broke down, partly because of a collapse of morale on the part of the Muslims who constituted the force. The damage seems to have been done in the crucial days that elapsed between the invasion and the setting up of martial law.
 * Both the sources (one a Cambridge professor and one a McGill professor) say, it is not clear what happened; responsibility is not easy to fix. In contrast, your edit claims to know what happened. And you are ready to fix the responsibility. How come? Are you imagining that Wikipedia is your personal blog site? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

this particular user indeed considers Wikipedia as his personal blog site. moreover he believes hez an expert in this article's topic.. he got blocked previously for similar activities, POV Pushing, citing fake sources and personal attacks in Biryani article... --Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hyderabadi Muslims vs. Hyderabadis
The term Hyderabadi commonly refers to the Hyderabadi Muslim ethnic group as well Magichero1234 (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That source deals with the historicity of the community. Hyderabadis is not a common term for the group. You are basically asking to represent one religious community with a term that is not exclusive to it, this is simply WP:POVPUSHING and note done. Gotitbro (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * that source is from 2007. And yes, it deals with the historicity of the community, but which community? You need sources for your claim. The note on people from the city and people from the former state is mentioned. Magichero1234 (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would I need sources to counter your selective and POVPUSHING use of sources? Anyway seeing the history of the page and Talk page it is clear you are personally attached to this topic. can look into your recent wide ranging lead and infobox changes since he seems to be more familiar with the edits here. Gotitbro (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "Hyderabadi" identity is mainly used by Muslims because Hindus use other identities, "Telugu", "Telangana" etc. But nothing stops Hindus from using the label either. So, the equivalence Hyderabadi Muslim = Hyderabadi doesn't hold, but it is frequently the case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * And what is Shah Rukh Khan doing here? That guy's paternal ancestry is hardly clear [Hindkowan/Pathan] (which is probably more prominent, i.e., Khan) and I'm pretty sure there are better faces to represent in the infobox. Gotitbro (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that's how wikipedia works, you need sources. Shahrukh Khan claim? Also sourced. Magichero1234 (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am talking about your selective use of sources don't need any source for that. Sure it might be "sourced" does not mean its appropriate or relevant. Gotitbro (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)