Talk:Razakars (Hyderabad)

Untitled
WHICH COMMUNAL PERSON WROTE THIS ARTICLE? how could such communal articles survive so long in wikipedia? I am shocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.182.227 (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Thousands went to jail and braved the cruelties perpetuated by the oppressive administration."
This language is far too emotive which means it doesn't sound impartial. It needs to be rewritten and sourced or if it's from a book, use a direct quotation. -- Ganpati23 (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. It was a direct quotation, but I agree it is too emotive. I revised it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Types of Razakars

 * 1) Hindu razakars
 * 2) Muslim razakars
 * 3) Communist razakars
 * 4) Congress razakars

1 more... just gathering online references.

"Captain L. Pandu Ranga Reddy while addressing the function said that a particular community is being targeted in the name of Razakar which is not appropriate.

"In fact the Andhra communist Razakars who were struggling against the Nizam were looters. In addition to this, there were Congress Razakars too, who looted Umri Bank. reference: http://www.ummid.com/news/2014/February/04.02.2014/seminar-on-nizam.html -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.62.200 (talk • contribs)
 * Newspapers are not reliable sources for history, especially not community newspapers like this one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This is from the mouth of the famous Captain L. Pandhu Ranga Reddy himself

, I have reverted your addition. In addition to the newspaper history issue already discussed above, you are also enlarging the scope of the page by using new definitions of the subject of this page. You cannot do that without discussing and achieving WP:CONSENSUS to expand the scope.

Your citation for Kane, p.77 did not produce anything. The fact that P. Sundarayya uses "Congress razakar" does not mean anything. He is the leader of a rival party, hardly a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Hindu Razakars bit can be reliably sourced but it is quite a misnomer. Some Hindu landlords etc. did send their men (almost insignificant; notwithstanding compulsion) with Nizam's forces to suppress revolts; they hoped to curry favors with such a stance. In later stages, as the tide turned against Nizam/Rizvi, they were nonexistent. I have no idea about the rest. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , please stop restoring this. You need to achieve consensus first, almost none of the sources you used are reliable in this context and half of them don't even support the epithet Razakar. Not everyone who fought was a Razakar, the term is specific to the MIM paramilitary organised by Razvi. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , can you explain the reasons for the two tags you have added to the lead? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, regarding this, the verification tag should be present since most of the text lacks inline citations and the article still uses a lot of news sources (the worse example being the Trunicle piece), though there are scholarly sources in the article as well so I suppose second tag can be omitted. I'll admit I only made a cursory glance at the rest of the article. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are edits with proper citations being reverted?
New info is added with references from Books and other sources. However all the edits were reverted by Kautilya3 stating two reasons - WP:UNDUE & WP:PRIMARY. This needs to be discussed. Anand2202 (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It appears that the bulk revert was done without going into the merits of each edit. 20 reverts all at once? all reverts with same reasons? Anand2202 (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Undoing the revert will not be as per civility. It won't be done right away, in this very instance. I would like to have a discussion so that things get more clear. Anand2202 (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit 1, 4, 5 were sourced from a Book authored by Sundarayya, who participated in the rebellion against the atrocities by Razakars under Nizam rule. My friend Kautilya3 implies that since the information comes from the first person directly involved in the circumstance, it needs to be avoided as per the principle of WP:PRIMARY. Alright, fair enough. This can be resolved by citations and references to other secondary or tertiary sources, if possible. I hope we can move ahead this way. Anand2202 (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Further edits 2 & 3 were minor. Wikilinks were added to the terms which redirects to the entire article page on the subject. This helps broadening the horizons of reader. Anything wrong in that? Still, these too, were reverted. Anand2202 (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit 6 cites a book titled "Constitutional Development and National Movement in India" which I am sure does not violate the WP:PRIMARY principle. Author RC Agarwal is prominent in the field of law & polity. The article already contains the information that finally the standstill agreement was signed. My edit throws light on the logic that led to finally signing the standstill agreement. Edit summary clearly mentions. Any valid reason to revert this edit? Anand2202 (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Minor edit 8 was to harmonize the terms Kasim and Qasim. Edit summary is self evident. Anything wrong in this? Anand2202 (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit 9 is about the Nizam's inclination. Existing article says the Nizam neither wanted to join India nor Pakistan. My edit shows his Inclination towards Pakistan. Please note that I have not deleted the existing information. It is well known that Nizam abstained from joining any of the two countries in the beginning. However it is also a fact that Nizam was conspiring with Pakistan. Interestingly, my citation is a reliable book titled Pakistan's Defence Policy 1947-58 authored by Pakistani nationals. This in no way violates WP:PRIMARY or WP:UNDUE. I am wondering how erroneously the edit was reverted? Anand2202 (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit 10 cites a book titled Anatomy of Rebellion authored by Claude Emerson Welch published almost 30 years ago by State University Press of New York. The edit was to show that the Razakars were active in erstwhile state of Hyderabad but the present area is now segregated into states of Karnataka and Maharashtra as well. This edit warrants a revert? How? Anand2202 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The acts of violence committed by the Razakars were no secrets. Edit 11 cites to a book which says there were frequent reports of atrocities published in dailies & periodicals during Nizam rule. Why was this properly sourced information reverted? Anand2202 (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * After a several edits and addition of new information, it was felt that the added content needs to be re-organized in order to improve the article. This was what I did in minor edit 12. Anand2202 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In no way edit 13 qualifies for WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE. What Razakars did in the 1940s is mentioned in this edit sourced from a book authored by Frank Moraes first published in 1959. How is that a problem? Dear Kautilya3 I would like to know from you. Anand2202 (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Existing article mentions that the Nizam was asked to disband the Razakars which he did not and hence Operation Polo was carried out. The edit 14 throws light on the reasons why Nizam was asked to disband the Razakars. It mentions the proverbial final straw that broke camel's back. This too, with all the proper citation! But you felt that the edit needs to be reverted? Anand2202 (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit 15 was removal of the reliable source tag. Your reason of WP:PRIMARY is understandable. There is no difference of opinion now. Anand2202 (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit 16 showed the kind of aspirations Razakars had and the extent of their views. The source here is again same as edit 13. Please explain how it be included in a better way. Anand2202 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit 17 and 18 are clearly cited from an independent secondary source same as described previously. It is historic fact with no opposing views. How does this qualify for a revert? Anand2202 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit 19 uses the word militia instead of paramilitary volunteer force. The citation is a secondary source. Any rationale behind the revert? Anand2202 (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The last edit missed the citation of a source. It will be added. Anand2202 (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

P. Sundarayya has always been rejected as RS on this page. See, e.g., the section immediately above. He was a politician, activist and rebel. His views cannot be reproduced in Wikipedia voice.

Then you used an S. Chand book that is supposed to be preparatory book for competitive exams. No citations. No reviews. Not scholarly at all. Why aren't you using the solid sources already listed in Bibliography?

If you want to do a major expansion of the article, you need to do it one section at a time. And do it slowly enough that we can review them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Atrocities
Doesn't this article need an "Atrocities" section as a main component ? It is a known fact Massive atrocities were perpetrated by the Razakars on the general populace especially Hindus. Sources are easily available. SatyaAmarRahe (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)