text:
Talk:Hyderabad State

Untitled comment
Ramashray 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Razakar movement and the violence that followed
 * 2) People's movement within Hyderabad state for unification with India
 * 3) Role of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Police Action

Transition from princely state to province of India
The information here focuses on trivialities and emphasizes some things (communist & muslim militias) that have very little to do with the actual transition. I strongly suggest seeking out and referencing non-Indian sources of information on this transition to avoid local bias (as feelings still run high on this topic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.238.172.147 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
I have added the pov tag to this page because of statements like this:
 * "His weakness for women and the consequent vices have impoverished him and he now lives by selling the bequeathed property in Hyderabad in periodic instalments. Much of his wealth has been lost in giving alimonies and maintenance to his divorced ex-wives. The case of former Miss Turkey Ms. Manolya Onur, the third officially divorced wife of the present 'Nizam', was the toast of Indian tabloids in 2006. She succesfully defended her rights in an Indian Court and won a judgement against the 'Nizam'."

I don't know much about this, but such a statement needs to be first referenced, and section written in a Nuetral point of view. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Have specifically added the POV tag to the After the British Rag section, for statements such as: "the brits very cunningly left the choice of unification with the local rulers." "The Razakars, a motley group of Islamic bigots" and " The Indian government, in a deft act of political maturity and statesmanship, appointed the humbled and mellowed Nizam as the Rajpramukh(Governor) of Hyderabad, a title which he retained till 1956."

The RAZZAKARS had humiliated HINDUS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.252.178 (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

References added
With reference to Jeff's "references needed", I would like to point out that I have added relevant references.

Rubbish
I am removing the rubbish saying that Telugu has prospered and Urdu is no longer spoken in Hyderabad today. Does someone actually believe that Urdu is no longer spoken in Hyderabad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.8.187 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is Tamil spoken anywhere in the erstwhile areas of Hyderabad State ? Only Telugu, Marathi, Urdu ( Dakhini Dialect ) and Kannada are spoken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.30.174.15 (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You fellows Hyderabadi Muslims speak Urdu and Others(Hindus,Christians,etc) speak telugu. Some malayalis are too there(in the city and secunderabad)--Monareal (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't put that in, but Tamil was spoken in Hyderabad state, when the Nizam ruled the Carnatic.Hammad.511234 (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Culture of Hyderabad State
A section Culture should be added which explains the peoples culture under Hyderabad State. If the article is strong enough a separate article "Culture of Hyderabad State" or "Culture of Old Hyderabad" also can be made. Currently, the whole Article explains Hyderabad State only in the view of politics and Geography. Culture should include subtopics of
 * Language
 * Customs
 * Traditions
 * Religion
 * Art and Architecture

I would appreciate people collecting matter from Genuine websites on traditions, customs of the people of Hyderabad State those days. The Article "Hyderabadi Muslims" signifies the culture from Hyderabad State and New Hyderabad too, But this article on culture should be based on both Hyderabadi Hindus and Muslims only from the era of "Hyderabad State". The article should be neutral based on common mans culture and free from political culture and political history.

Please discuss with me on this topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotWick (talk • contribs) 09:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Aug 30, 2013 - Remove Hyderabad section
This page is related to Hyderabad State as it existed prior to disintegration and merger into Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh. We should just have a reference to Hyderabad, India for present day city. Let me know for any objections before removing that section. Lanet303 (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Good call. Abecedare (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hyderabad State
(redirected from editor talk page)

"brutally put down", "committed horrendous atrocities", "Countless Hindu", "preceding MIM/Razakar atrocities" is the exact opposite of neutral language. -- Neil N  talk to me  01:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 * It is neutral language given the accounts of the period. You are welcome to research, to verify, and even to reword, but not section blank--that's vandalism. You didn't do that, you outright reverted (removing referenced content) without touching on the substance. A good faith edit would change language not considered NPOV, while keeping core--referenced/verified--substance. Blanket removing content is indicative of a desire to skew the article. Furthermore, there is nothing even remotely non-NPOV about "preceding MIM/Razakar atrocities" when this is well known and was referenced in my edit. Please do not attempt to blank out sections of the article to tailor a desired image of the event. Wikipedia must be NPOV. Thank you.

Devanampriya (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * These terms are not appropriate to use with Wikipedia's voice. -- Neil N  talk to me  01:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 * You are being evasive.

 * Which terms? "preceding MIM/Razakar atrocities" are npov--they did commit atrocities (i.e. murder, rape, arson, etc). I have provided sources that confirmed this. Also, you still fail to explain why my new paragraph could not have been reworded without being deleted in toto. This was sourced information. Please do not engage in edit warring simply to skew the article to your preferred version. Detailed explanations are required to arrive at a consensus version so that reader can properly understand all associated historical events with this article. You cannot understand the allegations of executions of razakars and other communal violence without having a paragraph on the razakar atrocities that initiated the communal violence to being with. Rather than one line drive by sentences, please provide detailed explanations in the future so that a consensus can be reached. Devanampriya (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have listed the exact terms in my first post. I have no interest in this topic beyond making sure edits comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines which, in my opinion, yours fails to do. Reword the terms I mentioned or attribute them properly and I'll be satisfied (and ignore your blatant misunderstanding of WP:VAND). -- Neil N  talk to me  02:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 * You have been removing sourced content without rewording text outside quotes. Simply rewording or providing new suggestions would be demonstrative of desire to collaborate. If you have not researched the topic and have no understanding of it, do not attempt to cite wikipolicy you don't understand. Section blanking is vandalism--particularly when you don't respond with a detailed explanation when requested. Abecedare has listed a concern that I responded to by rewording text. If you have a problem with the original quote, you have to do research and discuss--you can't hold content hostage merely because you don't like it. Devanampriya (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not presenting the highly-POV statements as quotes, you're presenting them in Wikipedia's voice. And if you think my edits are vandalism, then WP:AIV is the way to go. Be prepared to get shot down rather quickly, though. Much better if you suggest NPOV text here on the talk page first since you have editors who feel your current addition clearly has POV issues. -- Neil N   talk to me  05:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the text from the article for now, since it was a clear instance of POV. Besides the issues pointed out by Neil above, the text also selectively and misleading quoted from the cited sources. For example while the Kate book says, "Some women became victims of rape...", in the article, it was presented as as "Countless Hindu 'women became victims of rape...'" (emphasis added). This is blatant POV pushing. I would suggest that Devanampriya or others propose properly sourced and neutrally worded text here on the talk page, gain consensus for inclusion, and only then add it to the article. Simply edit-warring is not an alternative. Abecedare (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC) FWIW, I do think that Hindu-Muslim tensions and violence in Hyderabad prior to the entry of the Indian army merit inclusion in the article. But the material needs to be well-sourced, presented neutrally, and not fall afoul of no synthesis guidelines by drawing a straight line between the actions of Razakars and the actions of the Indian army (unless scholarly consensus supports such a conclusion). Abecedare (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with this. -- Neil N  talk to me  04:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Abecedare. The kate book says "some" because actual estimates are not available. The selectively leaked sunderlal report (ref'ed in the bbc article) only issued estimated figures for muslim victims in the reprisals, but not hindu victims in the preceding violence. Nevertheless, unlike Neil N, you appear to be interested in discussion, so let's discuss.

 * Let me reiterate. I am open to rewording--but this is obvious deletion. To demand that the entire paragraph should be removed because you disagree with some words, is an overreach since wikipedia sanctions bold editing. You have also changed the title of the section to one that ignores the hindu victims in the conflict--this is pov-pushing as well. Even your concerns about "straight line action" are touched on by the skewed bbc article, which conceded the "pretext" of preceding razakar atrocity. I am however glad that you wish to discuss. Rather than hold content hostage--let us do what wikipedia intends--collaborate on the edit--so feel free to edit my version and we'll work together to reach consensus.

 * In the interest of good faith, I will change my original wording from Countless to unknown number to allay your concern. The actual numbers of raped women are more than a few or "some". These ambiguities are the result of unavailable statistics. At the same time, it is important to recognize the scale of the atrocities that were taking place in hyderabad prior to its liberation. See for example: "To face this challenge from the people, the Nizam encouraged the Razakars to terrorise the Hindus and also to change the communal complexion of the State by forcibly converting Hindus into Islam and inviting Muslims from outside to settle in the State." Rao, P.R. "History and Culture of Andhra Pradesh". p.281-282.

 * See also: "From the beginning of 1948 the Razakars had extended their activities from Hyderabad city into the towns and rural areas, murdering hindus, abducting women, pillaging houses and fields, and looting non-muslim property in a widespread reign of terror." p.394. Large scale atrocities

 * What we have here is clearly large-scale violence. Even Kate cites hindu refugees in the thousands. There is also at least one documented incident of razakar atrocity resulting in the rape and murder of at least 70 hindu women.

 * In sum, I am more than happy to collaborate in order to reach a consensus. But let's boldly edit each other's work rather than tie it up in committee. I will make the first gesture by rewording the previous paragraph. Feel free to do the same. Thanks.Devanampriya (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As Neil and I have mentioned above, just changing "countless" to "unknown number" or similar tweaks do not resolve the POV issues with your text; both the content and wording of the paragraph need to be overhauled. If you are interested, propose text here, gain consensus, and only then introduce it to the article.
 * Also note that you have breached WP:3RR on this page despite prior warnings, and are eligible to be blocked from editing wikipedia. I don't intend to report it this time, but if you continue edit-warring (which need not involve breaches of 3RR) in the coming days instead of following the WP:BRD process, I will. Abecedare (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reported him (before I saw this) as he's been editing Wikipedia long enough to know not to do this. -- Neil N  talk to me  04:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I have also been editing long enough to understand when I am faced with editors who have problems with the actual referenced content rather than my rewording. If you want this to go to an admin, fine. But I have demonstrated a desire to collaborate. If you have issues with the text--propose changes--don't hold mine hostage until you are miraculously satisfied under some subjective standard. That's bad faith editing.

 * You explained your issue with my wording (which I changed the wording and which editors can plainly see), but not the actual quotes from my sources. What is the problem with that? How can this be "overhauled"? Suggest improvements based on your own research (gaping silence here from you both) rather than speak in vague terms. You two don't own this page, so either collaborate, or I myself will report you both and take this to the next level. Again, I am giving you both one more chance to provide your own references to discuss this topic to reach a neutral text--but you have to do your own work too--I am well within my rights to change this text. The onus is on you both to do your own research and provide a knowledgeable counter point for me to respond to. Devanampriya (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You changed one instance of blatant POV-pushing to slightly less POV-pushing. Not a great improvement. As I've now stated multiple times, either replace the POV terms, or present them as quotes (xxx stated that "yyy..."). And, as you've breached 3RR, it would be good if you did so on the talk page so as to not add to your WP:3RR report. -- Neil N  talk to me  05:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 * And with that, you just undercut your own argument here and on your Admin noticeboard complaint. You and abecedare mischaracterized my good faith reword as a 3RR breach (the one word I changed is crucial). Second, you clearly need to read and understand wikipedia's bold editing policy. You have to make the changes to the text to show me what you want. You can't dictate a subjective standard--so either show me what you think the text should look like or your actions will be considered disruptive editing. Here's text from the BRD policy Abecedare himself cited:

 * "Revert[edit]
 * Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible."

 * The onus is on you both to refine and modify. So modify it instead of engaging in vague generalities. Unless you have no understanding of this topic, propose your version of text involving the referenced content. Why are you both scared to do this?

 * To move things along, I will now provide the text in quotes, and edit the page with the new content. This is brand new content I will be adding:

 * "From the beginning of 1948 the Razakars had extended their activities from Hyderabad city into the towns and rural areas, murdering hindus, abducting women, pillaging houses and fields, and looting non-muslim property in a widespread reign of terror." p.394. Large scale atrocities

Devanampriya (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Here is the diff to my latest refinement. If both of you are actually editing in good faith, respond to the changes by making your own refinements (instead of demanding changes from me). Because there was a desire expressed by NeilN to see more quoted text to avoid alleged pov issues, I have concentrated on providing those quotes ("some women" reword issue now moot). As an expression of good faith, I have even removed the "brutally" wording. However,there remains an onus is on the both of you to propose changes by making your own edits (while explaining on summary or here on talk)--rather than reverting mine and dictatorially demanding vague changes. Bear in mind, this issue has already been brought to the notice of admins by you guys, so your willingness to collaborate will be watched by others. Devanampriya (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just saw this edit and conversation today. I found the new changes to introduce some POV to some areas while POV was taken out of others. I would generally avoid words like "horrendous" and "patriotic" as they are used more often in political opinion literature instead of fact descriptions. I would edit some fixes in (instead of making recommendations) if I had knowledge of the event, but I am not nearly enough of a scholar of Hyderabadi history to know if the sources are reliable.  AVAAGAA  ↪  22:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this, I agree with what AVAAGAA  said. Also, attributing quotes does not mean putting quotes around text and adding a reference. It means (as I stated above) writing something like xxx stated that "yyy...". -- Neil N  talk to me  17:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Recent edits by User:Acad Ronin have helped lessen some of the POV issues in the Communal Violence section (attribution; redundancy; unexplained terminology; and excessive and selective quote-mining problems remain). The sourcing in the Communal Violence section (Rao, Kate, BBC) is of pretty poor quality too, especially since scholarly sources on the subject are available (except possibly for the Sunderlal report, which may be too recent). Eventually though that section needs to be merged into the "After Indian Independence" section, which too needs additional work to provide more context and less tick-tock.
 * I'll try to rework the two sections in the coming week to address these issues.Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Capital
I have removed (now shared between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India) from infobox because this article is about Hyderabad state between 1724-1948. writing about 2014 Hyderabad city shared between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in infobox is not required. I reckon one can find this information under history in Hyderabad city page. Muzi (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Independent kingdom?
Your claim of Hyderabad as an "independent kingdom" needs a reliable source. Certainly "Nizam-ul-Mulk" doesn't indicate any form of independence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not my claim.... it's history. The Nizam declared independence in 1724 when the Mughal empire was weakening, and then Hyderabad became a princely state under British India in 1803. This is from the wikipedia page, I just added it to the infobox. But thanks for clarifying it. I also noticed the point in this wikipedia page doesn't have those sources, but I'll add it. Hammad.511234 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever you want to call it, you need to provide a reliable source to say that it was "independent." Otherwise it is unsourced and your edit will be reverted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

ahhhh, got it. Sorry for the late response. I have a source, and I'll add it in. Hammad.511234 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the source (Imperial Gazetter) doesn't say anything about 1724. It says that, by the time of his death in 1748, he was "firmly established as a sovereign." There was never any formal declaration of independence.
 * This is the problem with Mughal successor states. They were virtually independent, but they still needed the token umbrella that the Empire offered. I have changed it to "Mughal successor state," a term that is often used in scholarly sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

, and So, Mr. Hammad, what was Subsidiary alliance ? LoL! Nizam was indeed toeing the Company's line from 1760s. --Ghatus (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, the Chauth and Sardeshmukhi before that?
 * The best I can gather is that in 1742, the British recognised Asaf Jah I as a sovereign. After he died in 1748, his heirs quarrelled and went to the British and French companies for help. Whoever was installed was supported by that company. So I barely see 6 years of "independence," that too informally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 * The Nizam declared independence in 1724 after a weakening Mughal empire. I can't really find any info, on when Hyderabad became a princely state of the British. Is 1798 a correct year? Hammad.511234 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Please state exactly what the sources say, not your own interpretation. This source does not say that he "declared independence." It says he became "independent in fact, though not in name." In reality, he just became the Viceroy. Pretty soon, the Marathas attacked him and forced him to pay Chauth, according to the Asaf Jah I page.
 * In 1798, according to the Benichou book, Nizam signed subsidiary alliance with Wellesley. That means he came under British Paramountcy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

POV and primary sources User:CAKrutesh
I have a strong suspicion that the above user is the same user who had issues way back in 2013 with the article. He is adding primary sources (v.p menon was the mastermind behind the annexation of the state) and blogs to push a very pro Indian point of view of events can someone protect the page at least? 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:D5AA:E7F2:540C:E498 (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you know what happened in 2013? You have been here for barely a day. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Indian pov pushers there is a thing called talk page look back at previous discussion many pov pushers have tried to push a pro Indian spin on things before thats why I know. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:D5AA:E7F2:540C:E498 (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted it back to this version. Whatever changes have been made since then, please discuss them here first and obtain consensus for them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This version is much better. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:D5AA:E7F2:540C:E498 (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I have protected the article for two days due to the content dispute. Work it out on this page, please. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC).

Determined - to "assimilate", nay to "annex"
This edit introduced the phrasing that India "were determined to assimilate Hyderabad into the Indian Union, even if it were by compulsion." No citations. And, this one changed it to "determined to annex", "even if it were by force." Obvious WP:OR and POV-pushing, probably spread all over the article. I am going to do a major clean-up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes the article is full of pro-Indian pov please do clean it up it presents the invading Indians as angels. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:C841:4298:8132:238 (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Assimilate is blatant pov. Annexation is the correct term since India was the invading force into another country. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:C841:4298:8132:238 (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I notice that you have added that India annexed Hyderabad to the lead. I am going to revert it. In the first place, the sources given there don't say any such thing. Even assuming we can find sources, that is not enough. Wikipedia represents the consensus among the reliable sources as per WP:NPOV. So, unless a great majority of the sources use the term "annex" we can't use it. Here are a few sources that I consider reliable and important, and none of them use it:

This doesn't prove that "annex" is wrong. But it does prove that all the people that are so convinced of themselves need to get off their high horse and investigate what the issues are. Just POV pushing doesn't cut it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Accession
[Link to revert]

An authorless source from FK Publications, a non-notable publisher is added by Kautilya3 to support his POV about accesion of the state. He pushed this same POV using a tourism website earlier. There are better and more reputable sources out there which stop short of Indian occupation and never mention accesion. I am adding POV tag until this is corrected and supported by a source from a renown source.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 18:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that I added a tourism site?
 * Can you show that the FK book is authorless?
 * Sure, I can find better sources for you if you ask me nicely. But, aggressive content-deletion and edit-warring won't buy you any cooperation from any one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Textbooks are not exactly the most desirable source for an issue like this. Especially one which has been universally trashed by readers for distorting history and presenting the view of an historian. Furthermore I have not read anywhere that the Nizam signed a succession the state was annexed hence why the Indian army invaded however due to nationalist POV by Kautilya the word annexed was removed there is no other way to describe this article but its pure pro-Indian propaganda at best. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

V. P Menon more POV
I do not think the man who orchestrated the annexation of the state should be given space here its a primary pov source Kuatilya should know better than this please stick to NPOV I have yet to read a neutral respected source stating that the Nizam signed any document its annexation for a reason. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Our policy on WP:PRIMARY sources is that they can be used with care, for factual information, especially when supported by secondary sources. Whether the Nizam signed accession or not is an issue of fact, and not any "POV". I am afraid yours is the only "POV" here, which is entirely irrelevant to what goes into the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Invasion and annexation
In what way was Operation Polo not an invasion, one of many that India has carried out against enclaves (see also Goa, for instance)? And in what way was the incorporation of Hyderabad into the Union not an annexation? I don't recall any referendum in Hyderabad, or even passage of an act of union by any Hyderabadi body. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If this was a genuine question, I would be glad to answer it. Since it is merely rhetorical, I suggest that you see my discussion above in the section Talk:Hyderabad State. Please keep WP:RS and WP:NPOV in mind, refrain from making WP:OR arguments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So I take it you agree that Operation Polo was an invasion of one sovereign state by another sovereign state? The only question then is whether the incorporation of Hyderabad into India was "assimilation" not "annexation"? How many sources are necessary to use the term "annexation"? Acad Ronin (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with anything, but that is not the point. Going by policy, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the consensus of the views expressed in reliable sources. I can guarantee that no such consensus exists for "annexation." So I suggest that you give up on this project. A case can be made that "integration" is the term that finds scholarly consensus, the reason why the page has been called Indian integration of Hyderabad.
 * Now, "invasion" is a factual situation in the sense that armed forces were sent into a territory. Even Normandy landings are called invasions, but they don't constitute an "invasion of France." Rather, they represent a liberation of France. So, like I said earlier, you need to get off your high horse and consult the reliable sources to find out what is going on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have consulted a number of sources, and am gathering another, a recent book, all of which refer to Operation Polo as an invasion, and India's motivation and action as an annexation. Hence my question, how many sources before we declare the terms "invasion" and "annexation" acceptable? I find this BJP whitewashing of Nehru and Patel rather tiresome, but that aside, how do we establish a "consensus" when none exists, and in its absence, whose words do we use? Acad Ronin (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As you well know, consensus is not a numbers game. Please present your sources, and let us see what they say (and who is saying). WP:ASPERSIONS about BJP don't help. So I suggest you leave them out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I agree that consensus is not a numbers game, but that doesn't obviate the problem of reaching for a "consensus" where none exists. (Israel-Palestine is another area that comes to mind.) I would be happier if we could find books by for example, Japanese, Korean, or Brazilian scholars, but so far I haven't found any on the topic of Hyderabad. The problem with your saying that I should present my sources and that then "let us see what they say (and who is saying)" is that the "us" is not well-defined. As for Casting aspersions, a) it is not a policy, and b) I had not thought of my remark as being directed at you personally, though I probably should have, for which I apologise. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The "us" is always the collection of involved editors on the page, in the first place. If that is not enough, we can use an RfC to get wider opinion.
 * The nationality of the scholars doesn't matter to me. What matters is how well they have examined all the evidence.
 * As for BJP, I haven't seen them make any fuss about the Hyderabad operation. Even if they did, "annexation" would be a perfectly acceptable description as far as they are concerned. For Nehru and Patel, on the other hand, it wouldn't be. So, the BJP is really a red herring in this context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Side note
Irrespective of any content disputes for now, I am going to move around the categories so that the layout of the article is not all over the place. As an example, I had combined early history and british raj sections into one large History section. Vagbhata2 (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, this article is currently considered start class, and doesnt have a lot of references for the material. Lets try to find sourced content for the material, and then we can focus on the grammar next. Vagbhata2 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see plenty of sources listed in the Bibliography and Further reading sections. So I am not sure what you mean by "it doesn't have a lot of references". Please note also that the Wikipedia policy is verifiability, not citations. So you need to make an honest effort to verify the content before you decide to delete it as being unsourced. For example, when there are wikilinks to other related articles, you need to check there for the sources. At the moment, there is probably no great harm in your deletions, because there was probably plenty of WP:OR mixed in with verifiable content, and one can write new content based on good sources. However, Encyclopedia Britannica is not a great source. It is first of all a WP:TERTIARY source, and most of its articles and unsigned and unverifiable. It doesn't meet the criteria for WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What I mean was that there was a good deal of content which did not have any citations or references that went along with it. That content was deleted and replaced with cited content. In the case of the Britannica content, I had to use this as I had trouble finding better sources. The history sections which I had used Britannica on had no sources initially, so this is an improvement. In the link that you gave me in your explanation, it asks to go to the next reliable source, and that is what I have done. Anyway, thanks for your input, ill try to get some better references and content. Vagbhata2 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Official languages
You have been edit-warring over scripts in the infobox,. Your latest claim is that the state had four official languages. Please provide reliable sources saying so, or self-revert. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All the four scripts were present in previous versions of the page. All the four languages were administrative languages. Nizam government ran Telugu, Marathi and Kannada medium schools. All the records at my home before 1948 are in Marathi. What is the problem of all the four languages are present on the page? Even the Hyderabadi rupee had all for languages.
 * I don't think all "previous versions" had four languages. Even if they were, it doesn't matter. Our policy on the inclusion of scripts for political units is clear. Only the official languages or the languages used at the seat of power are included. You claimed that the Hyderabad State had four official languages. Please WP:Proveit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Flags
Please see this link (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/in-hyder.html) to confer for future edits.Messiaindarain (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyderabad State. 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/20090112003648/http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl1805/18051140.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl1805/18051140.htm

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) 05:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Error in Organization
There are duplicates of sections "References" and "Bibliography;" please fix. Biologicarp (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, duplicate of section "External Links" present. Biologicarp (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Country
Hyderabad was a former country, as well as princely state, and should be included in the intro paragraph. RahulRamchandani (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said in the edit summary, you need to provide a reliable source, in fact multiple sources, as counts as a contentious WP:LABEL. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am afraid this source is not good enough. The author is unknown and I couldn't find any book reviews for it, despite it being a 700-page work labelled "history". The Evening Standard News said:
 * Did you find any other sources? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you find any other sources? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was a reliable source. But I can still look. But its also common sense, Hyderabad was an independent state, meaning it was a country. RahulRamchandani (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to read the article on country before calling it obvious that something is a "country". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And like I said again, it was a country...RahulRamchandani (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is what you say. But you can't call it "obvious". It needs to be attested by multiple reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

https://books.google.ca/books?id=G7xPaJomYsEC&pg=PA40&dq=hyderabad+was+a+country&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifpeO3tanZAhUK1oMKHb3WAD0Q6AEIVTAI#v=onepage&q=hyderabad%20was%20a%20country&f=false Hammad.511234 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 The term country rightly fits, it was independent in its early years, and then partially independent, and then again independent. Princly states were not considered a part of "British India". The term "state" also refers to an independent country. These sources are quite reliable. https://books.google.ca/books?id=EKD3AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT347&dq=hyderabad+was+a+country&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifpeO3tanZAhUK1oMKHb3WAD0Q6AEIRDAF#v=onepage&q=hyderabad%20was%20a%20country&f=false
 * Please don't give me random google hits. You need to check the WP:RS criteria and understand what the sources actually say. The first book is that of Francis Pike, which has already been discussed above in this thread. As for the second source, K. v. Krishna Rao, what does it say to show that Hyderabad was a "country"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3 What exactly is wrong with those sources? And the second source mentions it as a state... a synonym. Princely state refers to those native states that had subsidiary alliances with British India, but how about when it did not? Did it just not exist? Hammad.511234 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC) This article is also under the former countries wiki project. Hammad.511234 (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "State" and "country" are not synonyms. Please use the terms that the sources use without adding your WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't see any consensus here that Hyderabad be described as a country but it currently is in the article. The sources used are the same as above and don't seem reliable (the first one mentions even old kingdoms of India as "countries", the second one gives no context as to why it was a country but just mentions it as such). Seeing the inconclusive discussion above and the quality of the sources this should be removed for now. Gotitbro (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hyderabad State. 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/20131220113947/http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/hist-cult/history_post.html to http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/hist-cult/history_post.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613204008/http://archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.tcl?document_id=9308 to http://www.archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.tcl?document_id=9308

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) 08:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Attempted censorship for reason of Indias annexation
The book I referenced is reliable and provides another reason for why India annexed Hyderabad Razarkars were not the only reason and its censorship to try and eliminate other facts due to the nationalistic sentiments of certain users please read this asap. NzamAA (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC) blocked sock
 * cut out the WP:SOAPBOX. What exactly does the book say, and how does it support your content? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The book states that Indian feared a hostile independent state in the middle of the country and that further states may follow and it wanted to avoid the balkanization of princely states.
 * The view (Indian government government one) that "militant" razarkars were behind Indias invasion of the independent state is one sided and to put it bluntly propaganda to justify its invasion and does not tell the whole story why should only the Indian governments excuses be stated we should also add the view of neutral scholars to show both perspectives NzamAA (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Page 223 I believe. NzamAA (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC) blocked sock
 * You have not answered the question. What does the book say and how does it support your content? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you answered it in your first line. The book doesn't say it. Please provide an exact quote. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are struggling to comprehend basic english. The author of the book states clearly India feared princely states gaining independence which could create "balkanization" hence India invaded in contrast to the Razarkar Indian government line. NzamAA (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Its a sorry state of affairs when the parent article about the annexation of Hyderabad clearly refers to it as an annexation but in the parallel universe in which this article exists its called "integration"or "assimilation" laughable if it were not so tragic. NzamAA (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)  blocked sock
 * Hi NzmaAA. You misunderstand Kautilya3's request. You need to provide an exact quote that supports your statement, not a summary in your own words. Merely stating, in your own words, what you think a reference is saying is insufficient. Out of curiosity, I took a look at the Metcalf reference, and the balkanization reference is not in the context of Hyderabad at all (see page 219). The annexation of Hyderabad is barely mentioned in the book (except to say that the Nizam was a holdout - naively according to Metcalf - see page 224). When challenged, you need to resort to specific quotes with specific page references so that they can be verified. --regentspark (comment) 15:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronounciation
The audio pronunciation provided is in a presumably Telugu accent, not indicative of the native pronunciation. Hammad.511234 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean to say that the Telugus are not the natives of Hyderabad? -- Kautilya3 (talk)

Princely state of "British India"
Princely states were not considered a part of British India. Please correct.

India under the British Raj (the "Indian Empire") consisted of two types of territory: British India and the Native states or Princely states. In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted the following definitions:

(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India. (5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.

Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 18

 * Technically, you are correct. In fact, if you click on the blue link to "British India" in the infobox, it leads you to the British Indian Empire. When the British were still around, "British India" meant the part of India that was under British administration. But in the common usage now, "British India" is used to distinguish it from independent India. I would like to get input from other editors if this needs correction. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hyderabad Deccan
The citizens of the state referred to the nation as "Hyderabad deccan", also present in the name of the Hyderabad Deccan railway station in Hyderabad city. https://books.google.ca/books?id=YlgoAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=hyderabad+deccan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4xLKpg6vZAhWn64MKHRuCBBMQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=hyderabad%20deccan&f=false https://books.google.ca/books?id=z_r7QwAACAAJ&dq=hyderabad+deccan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4xLKpg6vZAhWn64MKHRuCBBMQ6AEIQjAF https://books.google.ca/books?id=sZKHDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA217&dq=hyderabad+deccan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4xLKpg6vZAhWn64MKHRuCBBMQ6AEITDAI#v=onepage&q=hyderabad%20deccan&f=false Hammad.511234 (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that it was used by some people. But to actually mention the term, you need a proper source that explains who used the term and why. Standard scholarly sources don't use it, e.g., Barbara Ramusack. Your claim that is "commonly known as" Hyderabad Deccan is not evidenced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The section starting "In 1798, Nizam ʿĀlī Khan" and ending with the mutiny isn't the Raj.
Before 1858, it's dealing with the East India Company. The Raj is what it's replacement - direct British rule - is known as. Ganpati23 (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. As a registered editor, you are perfectly able to do such edits yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Princely state
Princely state only refers to the British period and was not used in the early years of the state. Wouldn't it be better to reflect this in the lead i.e "the state/kingdom was later a princely state during British rule".HaoJungTar (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Mughal successor state" is how I would describe Hyderabad was before it became part of the British empire. The term "kingdom" is not used for it. It was an instance of an empire fragmenting into semi-independent feudal estates. In any case, the term is unsourced, as I have pointed out. We follow WP:V and WP:NPOV in our use of language and do not make up our own. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no preference for whether it is termed a successor state, kingdom, sultanate etc. I only think that princely state in the lead should be qualified with a mention that this was its status within the British period only. It's already mentioned in the article that the entity was not a princely state from 1724-1798.HaoJungTar (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As it was ruled by a Nizam, would Nizamate be appropriate?HaoJungTar (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 * HaoJungTar: Almost nobody, nobody in English language readers knows what a "Nizamate" is. It isn't appropriate for the lede.  I looked at your references before reverting, and they solely mentioned the term in passing.  They certainly don't introduce the Hyderabad state as a nizamate nor make a big deal about it.  The relevance of using such an obscure term isn't clear; yes, it applies to Hyderabad State, no, it isn't a proper introduction.  Per Kautilya3, "Mughal successor state" is probably closer if you really don't like "princely state".  (Which, by the standard you're using for Nizamate, has like 10000x as many passing references to "princely state.").   SnowFire (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 * "Almost nobody, nobody in English language readers knows what a "Nizamate" is." That's a bold and generalised comment. I'm sure many have not heard of terms such as "khanate" or "khaganate" either. Nevertheless, a territory ruled by a Khanate is known as such. Likewise, a territory controlled by a Nizam would be called a Nizamate. In any case, if you can think of a better term then please add it but leaving princely state in there unqualified is incorrect.HaoJungTar (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 * You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. You don't get to just declare that princely state is "incorrect" when there are hundreds of sources that do in fact refer to Hyderabad as a princely state.  And yes, per my edit summary, your "reference" isn't useful here - nobody is contesting that Hyderabad State can be referred to as a nizamate, but your reference is on a completely different topic and happens to just refer to it as a nizamate in passing.  What would be appropriate would be a WP:RS book, journal, chapter of a book, on Hyderabad State specifically that said something like "While commonly referred to as a princely state, this is actually wrong, it should be referred to as a Nizamate because...".  We don't just accept passing or trivial mentions on Wikipedia, because with the Internet, it's easy to search through 1 million sources and find the 2 that correspond to whatever crazy view is being proposed.  By your own standards of a random Google Book search, https://books.google.com/books?id=Loiq3YrFy40C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hyderabad+%22princely+state%22&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQ5cynmpLlAhURWN8KHdGYB7kQ6AEwBHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=%22princely%20state%22&f=false shows Hyderabad State being referred to as a Princely State, if it makes you happy.  (I don't actually place much weight on this "reference" at all, but it's still better than your reference, because at least this book is specifically on the topic - and has 0 occurrences of "nizamate", by the way.)  This is getting dangerously close to WP:3RR; please back down on this.  SnowFire (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Your patronising comments aside, if you were actually familiar with Hyderabad State, you would see that it was a princely state from 1794 onwards. It literally says as much in the infobox. And I never claimed it wasn't a princely state, I merely believe that since the term "princely state" only covers the British period, then that should be reflected in the lead. It literally says as much in the article; princely state Please don't misrepresent me in the future. You seem more keen on entering into an argument as opposed to resolving the issue.HaoJungTar (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And Nizamate was never a major point of contention for me. Merely an alternative to princely state (which covers the British period only). I have removed it in place of autonomous state.HaoJungTar (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is nothing in the term "princely state" that suggests that it is supposed to be under British suzerainty. The British used that term for any state ruled by a prince, which they didn't think qualified to be called a "kingdom". There were certainly "kingdoms", even "empires", that were called so, e.g., Durrani Empire, Sikh Empire, Maratha Empire etc. Even Oudh is occasionally called the "Kingdom of Oudh". I suspect the reason the Nizams never qualified to be "kings" is because they were always dependent on somebody or the other for the sustenance of their power, first the Marathas, then the French and finally the British.
 * Your edit is confusing things quite a bit because "autonomy" implies being subsidiary. But you don't state what it was subsidiary to. And this supposed "autonomy" covers only part of the period. All said and done, "princely state" is a much better description than any of the alternatives. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed (and it was the Mughals first of all, no?). Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

External link clarification

 * https://archive.siasat.com/news/nizam-vii-took-care-people-despite-being-monarch-198446/

The Nizam used to call Muslims and the Hindus as his two eyes.

, please explain why its not considered, I'm trying to understand... Bhagya2 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . External links should point to further research that expand on the topic or to material that should be in the article but cannot be included because of copyright reasons. The material you're adding does not fit either of those criteria. Perhaps, assuming it is a reliable source, you could add it - as a reference - in a section on the Nizam's relations with his subjects. But not as an external link. --regentspark (comment) 19:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, I'll leave it to you here Bhagya2 (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Raj era sources
I reverted your Turkoman addition because the source you're using is a Raj era source. The consensus in India articles is that Raj era sources for ethnic identites are not reliable and should not be used. If need to find a recent academic source that supports the Turkoman identity. Please also read WP:BRD. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Whats the problem there are source before raj era in 1819 that says state of hyderabad s ruling dynasty is of turkoman origin and there are source that says the founder is Turkic sunni nobleman. Loveisthebest1 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Has there been an Request for Comment (RfC) on Raj era sources, such as the ones for WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334, WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, & WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312? I ask this for two reasons:
 * It would be good to have in one place a general list of the suspect sources.
 * It would be good to know for what purposes these sources are proscribed.
 * I, myself, was unable to find an RfC, although I found about a dozen discussions scattered through the archives. If there has been no RfC, would you please open one at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard so we can codify this? I suspect that Raj era sources might be RS for train wrecks & bureaucratic promotions, but prohibited when colonizer or oppressor points-of-view are concerned. I might be stating the obvious to some here, but not everyone, myself included, has a clue of what qualifies for what. Peaceray (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please you can find also, few source say turkoman origin of the founder/rulers Loveisthebest1 (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop hiding truth Loveisthebest1 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Please learn to indent as per WP:THREAD. Also, I suggest losing the snarky commentary. Citations provide currency & purchase here, not opinions. Supply verification from reliable sources & you will find that Wikipedia is not censored.
 * As for sources, please sift your way through https://www.google.com/search?&q=Turkoman+Hyderabad+-site:wikipedia.org+-wiki. Please note that there are a few reliable sources there & most are not. If you have not done so already, verse yourself at the Reliable sources content guideline to learn the difference.
 * Also see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Turkoman+Hyderabad
 * Also look at wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hyderabad (native state). This should be okay as per WP:BRITANNICA, although I suppose it could be contested as "Raj era". This is exactly why I want to see an RfC to codify what is or is not acceptable. Peaceray (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping . Raj era sources were discussed on RSN a while ago ( can help point to the correct link. Regardless of all that, references to historical events should use modern academic sources rather than older sources, especially non-academic ones. Historiography is not static, and if there is anything useful to say about a historical event, surely a modern academic source can be found that says just that. I suggest that Loveisthebest1, since they seem to be interested in historical articles, read WP:HISTRS, particularly the easy to follow "nutshell" section. Neither an 1893 "India office and Burma office list" nor the 1911 Britannica satsify the two requirements listed there. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know which source I are allowed to use Loveisthebest1 (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have add new source is it approved? Loveisthebest1 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 * The Asaf Jah dynasty of Hyderabad state claimed Siqqiqui lineage. So, it would not be correct to label them as "Turkic" Aglrochisat (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Sorry but Thats dont make them a siqqiqui or what that is, you use bad sources seems ok for everybudy here, but when l have a source it is not agreed, my last source on Qamuraddin khan is Good Loveisthebest1 (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 * If claiming ancestry did not make them as such; them I don't know what else would make them. Aglrochisat (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 * There are many smiliar pages on wikipedia, you must have evidence to clarify such claim, if modern historian dont find it then its only claim, everybody can claim somehting to fit in or glorify their past Loveisthebest1 (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Forced annexation
Seems like cherry picking sentences from Sherman Taylors reference is acceptable however as soon something is added which is already in the source which does not go with the justifications of the annexation its regarded as unsourced "On 13 September 1948, therefore, the Government of India declared a state of emergency, and sent its troops into Hyderabad State. During the ‘police action’, the Indian Army entered Hyderabad with the objective of forcing the Nizam to re-install Indian troops in Secunderabad to allow them to restore order in the state. The Nizam surrendered in four days, and the Government of India appointed Major-General J.N. Chaudhuri as Military Governor. Delhi decided that the Nizam could retain his position as Rajpramukh, though law-making and enforcement power rested with the Military Governor" This is on page 9 and ignoring the fact that it was a forced annexation (clearly it was forced as the main article Indian annexation of Hyderabad itself describes it as a military intervention) I will be restoring the sentence as censoring this information is not what Wikipedia is for. DavosBarton (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Forcing to re-install troops doesn't amount to "annexation". The term "annexation" is not even used in this source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you now denying that it wasn't an annexation ? Please just read the main article on the annexation and yes sending in troops to invade Hyderabad state to force the nizam is a method to achieve annexation the main article itself is called "Indian annexation of Hyderabad" why are you even arguing this point you know better. I am sure more neutral editors could also contribute as I feel some are still attached to some nationalistic narrative surrounding this annexation which for long they tried to term as "integration" you dont end up with hundreds and thousands of dead for no reason a military invasion which is always forced results in these fatalities. DavosBarton (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking back at your previous comments in regards to the annexation you were still arguing that it was not an annexation which raises a few questions on your judgement. However even Sherman Taylor (which uses mostly Indian sources and Indian government claims and is slanted heavily towards Indias narrative) also calls it an invasion and seizure of territory by the Indian military I can post the quote if you want. DavosBarton (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here as some neutral sources which refer to Indias invasion as a annexation (Please not I am not great with adding books as a source so I will just copy and paste the web link and page and   note none of these are government associated and are neutral. DavosBarton (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Here is the original version of the lead, based on the sources cited. A disruptive sock called apparently changed it to his own views, claiming that the source was "difficult" to access. How he knew that Razakars were not "cited" in the source without even accessing it, I have no idea. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Line that makes no sense
This barely makes sense. Nothing about the Razakars, the Nizam's atrocities, the Communist-led rebellion etc. I will rewrite the lead in a couple of weeks. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hyderabad State


text:
Mister X

Mister X or Mr. X is commonly used as a pseudonym for someone whose name is secret or unknown.

Mister X may refer to:

Comics

 * Mister X (Marvel Comics), a supervillain in the Marvel Universe
 * Mister X (Vortex), the protagonist in Dean Motter's comic book series of that title
 * The Amazing Mr X (comics), Britain's first superhero, who first appeared in The Dandy comic in 1944

Video games

 * Mr. X (Resident Evil), antagonist first appearing in the 1998 video game Resident Evil 2
 * A villain in the video game series Streets of Rage
 * The villain in the video game The Ship
 * The final villain in the video game Kung-Fu Master
 * The pseudonym of Dr. Wily in Mega Man 6
 * Xander Payne, a character from the Mega Man Archie comics
 * The pseudonym of Olga Gurlukovich during the Big Shell Incident in Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty

Film and television

 * Mister X (1958 film), a 1958 Soviet musical film directed by Yuli Khmelnitsky
 * Mister X (1967 film), a 1967 Italian superhero film directed by Piero Vivarelli also known as Avenger X
 * Mr. X (1987 film), a 1987 Bollywood sci-fi film starring Amol Palekar directed by Khwaja Ahmad Abbas
 * Mr. X (2015 film), a 2015 Bollywood sci-fi film starring Emraan Hashmi
 * Mr. X, a recurring puppet on The Canadian Howdy Doody Show
 * Mr. X, a recurring arch-criminal of comic Arabic films played by Fouad el-Mohandes
 * Mr. X, in the animated series The X's
 * Mr. X, a villain in the anime series Lupin III
 * Mr. X (Simpsons), Homer's pseudonym in The Simpsons episode "The Computer Wore Menace Shoes"
 * X (The X-Files), a character in the television series The X-Files
 * The Amazing Mr. X, a.k.a. The Spiritualist, a 1948 thriller film
 * Mr. X, the main character in the 1940s and 1950s radio and TV series The Man Called X
 * Mr. X, an assassin in the 2008 film Wanted, played by David O'Hara
 * Mr. X, a character who appears in the Fringe episode "Lysergic Acid Diethylamide"
 * Mr. X, the pseudonym for Goofy in the animated short Aquamania
 * Mr. X, a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles character associated with Mondo Gecko
 * The placeholder name the farmer is given when he gets amnesia in the Shaun the Sheep Movie
 * Mr. X, a secondary character in Big Time Rush
 * Mr. X (Amphibia character), a character in Amphibia
 * "Mr. X" (Amphibia episode), the character's eponymous debut episode

Music

 * Mister X (band), a street punk group from Belarus
 * "Mr X", a song by Ultravox from their album Vienna
 * "Mr X", a song and single by Pauline Murray And The Invisible Girls
 * Mister X, a character in the operetta Die Zirkusprinzessin (The Circus Princess) by Emmerich Kálmán
 * Mr.X, American DJ also known as Afrika Islam
 * Mr. X, mystery music composer of the film Enai Noki Paayum Thota
 * Mr. X, drummer formerly in the band The Meatmen
 * Mr. X, a character from God in Three Persons

Pseudonymous uses

 * Donald Graves (Kremlinologist) (1929–2008), U.S. State Department analyst, from the 1982 Washington Post article "The Secret Files of Mr. X"
 * George F. Kennan (1904–2005), American historian, in his essay "The Sources of Soviet Conduct"
 * Carl Sagan (1934–1996), American astronomer, in an essay on his experiences with marijuana
 * Norman Wexler (1926–1999), American screenwriter, in Bob Zmuda's Andy Kaufman Revealed
 * Gaston Defferre (1910–1986), French Politician, using this pseudonym during the 1965 Presidential Elections
 * Ben Zygier, a prisoner who was held in Israel
 * The former longtime boyfriend of American radio talk show host, Robin Quivers

Other uses

 * Aeros Mister X, a Ukrainian paraglider
 * "Mr. X", nickname of American golfer Miller Barber (1931–2013)
 * Mr. X, a masked professional wrestler in the 1930s and 1940s, one of the identities of Cyclone Mackey
 * Mr. X, a masked professional wrestler in the WWF in the 1970s, one of the identities of Jerry Balisok
 * Mr. X, a masked professional wrestler in the WWF in the 1980s, one of the identities of Dan Marsh
 * Mr. X (Straub novel), a novel by Peter Straub
 * Mr. X, a player character in the board game Scotland Yard and its spin-off, Mister X
 * Mister X, an alias used by Mayuka Kondō in the manga and anime series, Oniichan no Koto Nanka Zenzen Suki Janain Dakara ne!!

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mister X


text:
Balraj Sahni

Balraj Sahni (born Yudhishthir Sahni; 1 May 1913 – 13 April 1973) was an Indian film and stage actor, who is best known for Dharti Ke Lal (1946), Do Bigha Zameen (1953), Chhoti Bahen (1959), Kabuliwala (1961), Waqt (1965) and Garam Hawa (1973). He was the brother of Bhisham Sahni, noted Hindi writer, playwright, and actor.

Early life
Sahni was born on 1 May 1913 in Rawalpindi, Punjab, British India. He studied at Government College (Lahore) and Gordon College. After completing his master's degree in English Literature from Lahore, he went back to Rawalpindi and joined his family business. He also held a bachelor's degree in Hindi. Soon after, he married Damayanti Sahni.

In the late 1930s, Sahni and his wife left Rawalpindi to join Tagore's Visva-Bharati University in Shantiniketan in Bengal as an English and Hindi teacher. It is here that their son, Parikshit Sahni was born, when his wife Damayanti was earning her bachelor's degree. He also collaborated with Mahatma Gandhi for a year in 1938. The next year, Sahni, with Gandhi's blessings, went to England to join the BBC-London's Hindi service as a radio announcer. He returned to India in 1943, and his wife died in 1947 at age 26. In 1951, he remarried, to writer Santosh Chandhok; they remained married until his death in 1973. While at the BBC, Sahni worked alongside George Orwell.

Career
Sahni was always interested in acting, and started his acting career with the plays of the Indian People's Theatre Association (IPTA). Incidentally, his wife Damayanti became well known as an IPTA actress much before Sahni made a name for himself in films. He started his film career in Bombay with the film Insaaf (1946), followed by Dharti Ke Lal directed by KA Abbas in 1946, Damayanti's first film, Door Chalein in 1946, and other films. But it was in 1953, with Bimal Roy's classic Do Bigha Zamin, that his true strength as an actor was first recognised. The film won the international prize at the Cannes Film Festival.

He followed it up with an encore in the 1961 classic Kabuliwala penned by Tagore.

Sahni's wife Damayanti, who was the heroine of his 1947 film Gudia, died at a young age that same year. Two years later, he married his first cousin, Santosh Chandhok, later known as an author and television writer.

He acted opposite heroines such as Padmini, Nutan, Meena Kumari, Vyjayanthimala and Nargis in films such as Bindya, Seema (1955), Sone Ki Chidiya (1958), Sutta Bazaar (1959), Bhabhi Ki Chudiyaan (1961), Kathputli (1957), Lajwanti (1958) and Ghar Sansaar (1958). His character roles in films such as Neelkamal, Ghar Ghar Ki Kahani, Do Raaste and Ek Phool Do Mali were well received. However, he is perhaps best remembered by the current generation for his picturisation of the legendary song "Ae Meri Zohra Jabeen" from the movie Waqt (1965). Sahni appeared opposite Achala Sachdev in the number.

He also starred in the classic Punjabi film Nanak Dukhiya Sub Sansar (1970) as well as the critically acclaimed Satluj De Kande.

His role as the angst-ridden, but stoic Muslim man who refuses to go to Pakistan during partition, in his last film Garam Hawa, has often been called his best performance by critics. Balraj, however, could not see the completed film to rate his own performance, as he died the day after he finished dubbing work. The last line he recorded for the film, and hence his last recorded line is Hindustani: "Insaan Kab Tak Akela Jee Sakta Hai?" which can be translated to English as: "How long can a man live alone?"

Later life
Sahni was a gifted writer; his early writings were in English, though later in life he switched to Punjabi, and became a writer of repute in Punjabi literature. In 1960, after a visit to Pakistan, he wrote Mera Pakistani Safarnama. His book Mera Rusi Safarnama, which he had written after a tour of the erstwhile Soviet Union in 1969, earned him the "Soviet Land Nehru Award". He contributed many poems and short stories in magazines and also penned his autobiography; Meri Filmi Aatmakatha. Sahni was an extremely well-read and politically conscious person.

He and P K Vasudevan Nair worked on the idea of All India Youth Federation with firebrand Delhi communist, Comrade Guru Radha Kishan to organise the first national conference of AIYF in Delhi. Their wholehearted efforts were visible as more than 250 delegates and observers representing several youth organisations of various states of India attended this session. Balraj Sahni was elected as the first president of All India Youth Federation, the youth wing of Communist Party of India. The organisation was a huge success and strong presence of the organisation was noticed by other political groups and the senior communist leaders everywhere.

Sahni also dabbled in screenwriting; he wrote the 1951 movie Baazi which starred Dev Anand and was directed by Guru Dutt. He was also a recipient of the Padma Shri Award (1969). Balraj Sahni also wrote in Punjabi and contributed to the Punjabi magazine Preetlari.

In the 1950s he inaugurated the Library and Study Centre for the underprivileged in Delhi.

His acting in Do Bigha Zameen and Garam Hawa were the highlights of his career. He believed in what is known as neo-realistic cinema.

Balraj's brother Bhisham Sahni was a well-known writer who wrote the book Tamas. His son Parikshit Sahni is also an actor. Balraj Sahni died on 13 April 1973 of a massive cardiac arrest, at age 59. He had been depressed for some time by the untimely death of his young daughter, Shabnam; she died a year earlier.

"Punjabi Kala Kender", founded in 1973 at Bombay by Balraj Sahni, gives away the annual Balraj Sahni Award, also given by the "All India Artists Association".

Works

 * Balraj Sahni: An Autobiography, by Balraj Sahni. Published by Hind Pocket Books.
 * Mera Pakistani Safarnama (Punjabi ), 1960.
 * Mera Russi Safarnama (Punjabi), 1969.
 * Kamey (Labourers) (Punjabi)
 * Ek Safar Ek Daastaan (Punjabi)
 * Gair Jazbaati Diary (Punjabi)

title: Balraj Sahni


text:
Talk:Mass storage

"Mass Storage" and "Mass storage"
Both Mass Storage and Mass storage now exist. Sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.98.5 (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2005 (UTC)

See the articles re Case sensitivity and Case Sensitivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.98.5 (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2005 (UTC)
 * Resolved. § Music Sorter §  (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed and removable disks
The differences between fixed disk and removable disk, hard/rigid disk and floppy disk should be brought out. Now they are not. There are merely a few notes. I changed redir of fixed disk to hard disk but it would need a page of its own, for example. Not it almost reflects current usage as most fixed disks are hard disks. Not all hard disks are fixed disks, though.

There should probably be a clear tree and explanation on the terms by physical stature and function. Perhaps here. Then you could add the definitions and jumps to the different related articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.199.14 (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Why is it so important if a device is removable or not? This is trivial. Hard-or-floppy is orthogonal to removable-or-fixed. In fact, almost all contemporary hard drives are removable in their nature (except PATA). --Kubanczyk 18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This Article Is Way Off Point
Mass storage should be descriptive of very large storage of data as in the [http://www.msstc.org/ IEEE Mass Storage Systems Technical Committee] and not the local storage of personal computers or even servers. As such the mention of USB drives, floppy drives, etc in this article is way off the mark. The article needs to be completely rewritten. To that end I sent an email to the IEEE MSS Executive Committee members suggesting one of them rewrite this article. Tom94022 18:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it may be a case of semantics with the word Mass (i.e. and what you mean by 'very large storage' - exactly how much?), but most references found include USB drives, floppy drives in their descriptions (pretty much any storage device really). If you find a cite that excludes such mediums from the Mass Storage category, then go ahead and fix.
 * Jwoodger (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I have to belatedly agree with Tom94022 on this. To describe a 2000 word drum or a 320 KB floppy disk as mass storage is bizarre at best. Historically the term mass storage has meant quantities of data well in excess of what could be economically stored on disk, e.g., IBM 2321 (Data Cell), RCA 3488 (R.A.C.E). Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I've been working with computers since 1960, and I've never seen the term mass storage applied to either perforated paper/mylar tape or to punched cards. The first devices to which I saw the term applied were the NCR Card Random Access Memory (CRAM), the RCA 3488 R.A.C.E and the IBM 2321 Data Cell.

 * The reference to volatile versus nonvolatile is flat wrong. RAM implemented with magnetic core or magnetic thin film is nonvolatile, but it is certainly not mass memory. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 * — The term “mass”, traditionally applied to “high-capacity” persistent storage, has always been linked to the greater capacity of those units compared to the smaller capacity of work memory (directly addressable by the processor). Of course, the capacity of any mass-storage device (such as a floppy disc) has to be compared to the RAM capacity on contemporary systems. In the 1960s, this was megabytes versus kilobytes; nowadays, it’s terabytes (or petabytes) versus gigabytes. The scale has changed, but the relationship is the same: for performance reasons, we’d like to store all our data in RAM; but economy (linked to capacity) and persistence requirements dictate that we store it on mass-storage devices and load it into RAM as needed for processing. So, yes, the term applies (and has always applied) to local storage devices (including floppy disc drives, hard drives, USB storage devices, etc.). Not that there was anything other than local storage when the term was coined! If some new meaning (for example, very large storage) ever becomes widespread, then the right thing to do would be, not to “completely rewrite” this article but, instead, to either expand this article to explain the new meaning, or to create a new article if the new meaning warrants it. — Wlgrin 04:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Needs a disk drive? Puppy Linux doesn't
"Desktop operating systems such as Windows are now so closely tied to the performance characteristics of magnetic disks that it is difficult to deploy them on other media like flash memory without running into space constraints, suffering serious performance problems or breaking applications." -- Um, AFAIK, Puppy Linux and its associated applications runs great from a pen drive. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of non-rotating removable storage versus CDRW and DVDRW?
Should there be a discussion of the inroads made by nonrotationg stoage into the CD and DVD R/W marketplace? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't think CD and DVD R/W have ever been considered Mass storage nor can I find anything along this line in the article so I wouldn't add such material here. Note there have been a couple of Blue Ray DVD Changer products proposed that would rise to the level of Mass storage and could be mentioned the article if they became real. Tom94022 (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Well, CD and DVD media are a lot larger than some things that were written up as mass storage. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Not really in contemporaneous terms. CD-RW came to market circa 1997 at about 650 MB at which time HDDs were for the most part > 1 GB (source: 1997 Disk/Trend).  Similar issue with DVDs.  It seems their capacities were never higher than the then contemporaneous other secondary storage (HDDs for the most part) for anyone to label them mass storage.  The whole concept of "mass storage"  is greatly affected by the time and context of usage.  Tom94022 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mass storage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050421170245/http://www.acmqueue.org:80/modules.php?name=Content&pa=printer_friendly&pid=43&page=1 to http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=printer_friendly&pid=43&page=1

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 02:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Not used by SNIA Dictionary
Term is obliviously vague, do we need dedicated Wikipedia page for this term? This article seems very trivial to me. Ushkin N (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 * — The term has been used for decades and that is well documented (I’ll add a citation). It may feel dated, but it is still in use. The SNIA dictionary (which you cite) is not an encyclopedia of storage-related technologies; it is a glossary of technologies that are currently pertinent to the on-going activities of the SNIA. For example, quite logically, it does not have an entry for “floppy disc”. That doesn’t diminish the merits of Wikipedia’s article on that topic, nor does it indicate that floppy discs were not storage devices. — Wlgrin 04:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 * It's well documented with inconsistent meanings. On PC-based platforms it typically means storage larger than the DRAM, but on other platforms it has the original meaning, storage larger than that provided by disk drives. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't think it is well documented in the article and as Chatul stated the definition has been inconsistent over time. To paraphrase Chatul I would state that on small systems such as PC's "mass storage" typically has meant storage larger than primary memory  (the FDD was early on described as "mass storage") and that on large systems such as mainframes and servers "mass storage" has typically meant on-line storage larger than secondary storage.  I'm not sure if it has any meaning today - is Cloud Storage mass storage?  The problem will be finding reliable sources for such definitions.  Maybe we just have to state the facts historically Tom94022 (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mass storage. 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/20090822172353/http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html to http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=printer_friendly&pid=43&page=1

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) 06:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Mystery malformed citation
A recent citation

.

of an article in ComputerWorld is rendering literally, as though it were in . It's also missing trailing brackets, precedes the punctuation and doesn't have appropriate markup for a newspaper article, but none of those is the cause of the problem. Can anybody see what's wrong?
 * Adding the missing trailing brackets as I did above seems to fix the rendering problem but that is moot since the ref was been removed in a subsequent edit. Tom94022 (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mass storage


text:
Talk:Nicotine gum

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Januvia Nguyen, Kwokt.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawal and reenforcing addiction
I'm glad someone had the good sense to delete the editorial below. Clocke (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to put the following into the nicotine patch article, but it was removed within minutes:

Nicotine is a relatively easy drug to quit. As far as I know, not one person has ever died from nicotine withdrawal. Moreover, nicotine dependency is short-lived. Nicotine is completely out of the body in 48 hours. At that point, physical cravings cease. Anyone who can go 48 hours without a cigarette stands a really good chance of quitting. Nicotine is highly addictive, however. Any small amount, even from second-hand smoke, will immediately reenforce nicotine addiction - resetting the clock back to 48 hours. The nicotine patch will guarantee that the addiction clock is reset back to 48 hours every time it is used. Logic might suggest that one cannot end nicotine addiction by taking nicotine. Unlike heroine or alcohol withdrawal, you cannot die from smoking cessation. Therefore, a step-down program would appear to be unnecessary, and fails as a quitting aid in a great many cases.

Perhaps the best method to fight cravings is exercise which causes the body to produce its own endorphins. These endorphins in turn negate many of the effects of withdrawal.

It seems likely that the cigarette industry would love to convince everyone that it is impossible to quit smoking. That way, people would not ever try to quit. Short of this, the next best thing would be to convince everyone that it is very difficult to quit smoking. Then people will give-up trying more easily.

CP133 2019 Group #2 Proposed Edits
Kaycee: An additional section I think could be added is about the gums use as a combination therapy agent with other NRT for tobacco cessation and how that would be used depending in comparison to monotherapy, as well as include data of how efficacious monotherapy vs combination therapy is. Could potential turn the efficacy comparison into its own separate section as well.Ksangustinnordmeier (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How can this information be included in the article? Or is this article monitored by the advertising agencies and public relations firms for the patch sellers and the cigarette companies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ai: In the Medical uses section, I want to start off by describing stepwise how to chew the nicotine gum properly in bullet points to make it easier for readers to follow. In addition, it should include the definition of light and heavy smokers (first cigarette within 30 minutes of waking up or not), so the strength recommendation can be more informative. I would also use a more reliable source (Lexicomp or Medscape) to cite the dosage instead of Dental-professional.com website. After the usage instructions, other special notes such as warning for pregnant women, when is the best time to use the gum, etc can also be grouped together in a separate paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aivu93 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Tiffany: The section about availability mentions that there was a steep price fall in Australia in 2010, which was over 9 years ago. Consider revamping this section so that it's more organized (headers for different regions?) and doing an updated search on state of the market now. (Same with Britain and 2016). I think something to show efficacy would also be good, to demonstrate to readers that the nicotine gum works. (show efficacy in terms of relapse/remission, how efficacious it is compared to other nicotine replacement products) Kwokt (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy: In the availability section, it would be helpful to include a table of the countries in which nicotine gum is available, and this table should also be stratified by prerequisites before obtaining said gum. For example, some countries require passports over a certain dose, while others can be sold OTC. If the countries listed could include North America (USA/Canada), the EU 8 countries, and ASIA PAC, that would be helpful for the readers to discern where they can obtain these nicotine gums. Moreover, the tables can also include another column that lists the name of the brand within the native language as well, so that the readers know what to search for or can show the associates to help them locate the nicotine gum. Januvia Nguyen (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Januvia Nguyen (talk • contribs) 05:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

POV/sources
This article very few sources and has a very strong bias. I will do what I can but I can't write the whole thing. I would appriciate some help cleaning this up. I am not going to bother pointing out the POV issues as they are very clear. Foolishben 09:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot needs fixing
There are no sections, the text is often speculative, and there seems to be a lack of factual information. I'd like to help, but as someone quitting smoking, I came on here looking for education, so I don't have much to contribute. Pipedreambomb

I'm with you on that. I've just removed "Popular brands include Nicorette, Commit, NicoDerm, Nicotrol, and Nicotinell in the UK." from the lead/head section as Nicotinell and Nicorette were the only 2 gum products in that list. (Commit is a lozenge, NicoDerm is "the patch", Nicotrol comes as either an inhaler or a nasal spary.) They are all Nicotine replacment therapies but.... really, just sloppy. All I did was go to their websites. Syrrys 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this entry should be combined with Nicotine polacrilex, as that is the active ingredient in all these nicotine replacements -- or combined with Nicotine replacement therapy, as that is the more general topic. In any case, focusing on the gum alone is misleading; as has been pointed out, this stuff also comes in patches and lozenges. Also, focusing on (or arguing about) brands is beside the point, as there are dozens of generics on the market, and surely, it would be inappropriate (and likely impossible) to name them all. Clocke (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute
The first paragraph under "Risks" is biased and non-encyclopedic.

Must be neutralized.

Agree with neutrality problem
The article strongly understates the benifits of replacing smoking with (even chronic) nicotine gum use. Has it been verified that none of the (thousands of) other compounds in cigarette smoke are addictive, really? Seems unlikely. Meanwhile of course, its abundantly clear that some of these compounds ARE carcinogenic and that cigarette smoking causes emphysema and heart disease.

Disagree
If it 'strongly understates' the benefits of replacement therapy, then it also strongly understates the poor efficacy of such therapies. Few who use gum will be non-smokers after a year or more (UK Gov figures)
 * But very few who try try to give up smoking without it will be non-smokers after a year or more too.195.195.109.138 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that and wish to dispute the references both to the gum being a gateway to oral tobacco use (this is absurd and there is no evidence to back it up) as well as the reference to smokeless tobacco as hazardous. Current evidence indicates that (1) smokeless tobacco and pharmaceutical nicotine sources are relatively similar when it comes to health risks and (2) anything that replaces smoking is an improvement. At some later date, I'll have a go at editing the article up however though I know quite a bit about relative health risks I don't know quite enough about this product to do a good job on it. Pbergen1 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nicotine content relative to cigarettes in first paragraph
It should be relative to the amount of nicotine absorbed when smoking a cigarette; as a cigarette contains more nicotine that is burnt off. I don't really want to edit it in a misleading way so can someone else edit it? Sources; other wikipedia articles on nicotine and nicotine poisoning ('As shown by the physical data, free base nicotine will burn at a temperature below its boiling point, and its vapors will combust at 308 K (35 °C; 95 °F) in air despite a low vapor pressure. Because of this, most of the nicotine is burned when a cigarette is smoked; however, enough is inhaled to cause pharmacological effects.' and 'Sixty milligrams of nicotine, the amount in about five cigarettes' in the articles respectively). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.51.155 (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Gum Disease Section
So there was a section saying that there was (fairly baseless in my albeit completely inxperienced opinion) "speculation" that prolonged use of nicotine gum may leaad to gum disease, without referencing anyone who speculated this, but instead a citation to a paper showing that there was no link between nicotine gum and oral health. I removed this section, but if anyone wants to look for conflicting evidence feel free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.19.110 (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

source of nicotine?
Where do the manufacturers get the nicotine which they put into the gum? Is it synthesized through some industrial process? Or is it extracted from tobacco plants? If so, is it fair to say that purchasing nicotine replacement therapy products support tobacco farmers (even to a small degree)? Thanks140.180.254.221 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

CP133 2019 Group 1 Peer Review
I believe that Group 2 improved the article by elaborating on the already provided information in the article and thus making it more detailed, especially from a pharmacological perspective. By doing so, they made the article more informative for the reader. However, with that being said, I believe that there could have been more citations with each piece of information provided. It appears that they did not completely achieve their goals for improvement; for instance, one citation that a team member had intended to replace with a more reliable source still remains in the References section. I think that more primary sources could be referenced throughout the article with additional information provided. Furthermore, not all of the intended edits were yet made: the "Availability" table appears to be unfinished, and the "Availability" section as a whole could still use a lot of improvement in terms of updated information and organization. I think that the group has done well at improving the article overall, and the group's edits thus far reflect a neutral point of view. Hollycly (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

As I investigate the edits from group 2, it is clear that they are keeping Wikipedia’s guiding framework in the back of their mind as they reshape this article. Some members of this group are clearly very detail-oriented as evidenced by their addition of pristine tables that emphasize key aspects of the drug including availability and dosage. As a reader, I am a big fan of tables as they allow me to skim through the article and conveniently obtain important information on the drug without wasting time. I was also impressed with this group’s literature-based modifications to the article, as they presented key findings from reliable studies (with large sample sizes) in their edits. In my opinion, the information this group has edited in so far, has been very relevant and useful. Despite the fantastic work mentioned above, there is still work to do for my colleagues in group 2. I look forward to the previously proposed updates involving comparing efficacy of monotherapy to combo therapy; I would even suggest briefly comparing these options to other popular NRT options (i.e. nicotine patch) on the market. Another table could be helpful for this! I also think this article could use some new headers/formatting; the special populations section only discusses pregnancy related complications, so maybe change the header to “pregnancy-related complications” or add more special populations. I like Ai’s idea of replacing the Dental-professional.com website with a more reliable source, and I might even recommend citing a reliable piece of primary literature on nicotine patches and pregnancy. So far, I don’t see much evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation, as these group members seem to be very diligent when it comes to citing their sources. Upon reviewing the original sources of information, I am impressed with how these editors adapted the information from their sources into their own style and to fit the Wikipedia article. I want to highly encourage this group to continue to provide information from reliable studies and to continue to be cognizant of how they are citing their sources. Wahib EadWahibsGardenofEADen (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Group 2 has contributed to the Nicotine Gum article by providing some edits to clarify the correct use, mechanism and dosing of this product. For example, there was a stepwise addition of how to chew the nicotine gum and a dosing regimen from the FDA included. They added citations for this dosing section, as well. From their edits, they clarified what else nicotine gum can be used in combination with. Overall, I think that this group made substantial edits from a pharmacological perspective that other editors might not have provided. They provided useful information that is easy to understand, especially in table forms. In terms of achieving all of their goals for improvement, I think they made a majority of the edits they talked about in their Talk page such as information about combination therapy, stepwise instructions on use, dosage, and a table of availability in different countries. I think that the table with country availability and restrictions needs citations for each specific country to make it reliable information. I felt that the dosing had the most adequate citations. The “direction for use” section needs to have more citations to validate the information. I think that the draft submission has a neutral point of view. They only made edits that are information in nature. No opinion or hyperbole was included.Rashleynepomuceno (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

After reading through the changes made to the Wikipedia page, I believe that Group 2 has substantially improved the article with additional detailed information. They added relevant information such as medical use, special population section, dose regimen with a table, reputable reference, and availability policy. The group achieved most of their overall goals for improvement. Some of their goals such as efficacy in terms of relapse/remission, comparison of different nicotine replacement products are still remained uncompleted. Also, in the availability section, the old information such as steep price fall in Australia in 2010 is still remained in the article. Their edits are formatted consistently with Wikipedia’s Manuel of style. The each section is recognizable. All the edits reflect a neutral point of view. Qingni-Liu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Wikipedia for the Medical Editor
— Assignment last updated by SnacksAtParties (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am a fourth-yr medical student at the University of Illinois College of Medicine - Rockford. I plan to revise this article over the next three wks as part of my "Wikipedia for the Medical Editor" elective rotation. Below is a brief overview of elements I'd like to add/expand upon; things are subject to change as I begin drafting (certain information may end up in different sections, etc.), but any general feedback is appreciated.

'''1) LEAD (save for last)

2) MEDICAL USES

a) what is it: mention that it is short-acting NRT for tobacco cessation. used alone or in conjunction with other forms of NRT, often a long-acting

b) how it works: chewing releases nicotine, which is absorbed through oral mucosa. requires repeated use throughout day; more variable nicotine levels than patch, therefore requires more instruction for correct use

- instruction for proper chewing technique ("chew and park")

c)monotherapy vs combination therapy

- include research regarding efficacy of mono vs combo, efficacy compared to other forms of NRT

3) DOSING

- available doses, and cigarette equivalent

- determined by how soon first cigarette is smoked upon awakening

- at least one piece/1-2h, and PRN with urge; up to 24 pieces/day for first 6wks; tx duration 3mos; etc.

4) SAFETY CONCERNS

a) side effects

- vasoconstriction

- due to excess nicotine release from vigorous chewing

- list side effects, explain how related to vasoconstriction

b) google search for nicotine gum revealed commonly asked qs (eg, how long can you safely chew, is nicotine gum hard on your liver --> consider addressing these qs in this section)

5) SPECIAL POPULATIONS

a) pregnancy-related

b) TMJ and oral health

6) AVAILABILITY

- OTC vs prescription, cost, common brands in different countries; consider keeping chart format

7) SEE ALSO

- link list of other short-acting NRT, nicotine replacement therapy

204.93.126.25 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nicotine gum


text:
Ardcroney

Ardcroney, officially Ardcrony is a village and townland in County Tipperary, Ireland, 9 km north of Nenagh. It also forms a civil parish in the historical barony of Ormond Lower. It is halfway between Nenagh and Borrisokane on the N52 road.

Buildings of note
Ardcroney church is a T-plan gable-fronted church, built in 1838. Along with a later (c.1975) detached round bell tower with conical slate roof, it is listed as a protected structure by Tipperary County Council (RPS Ref S583). The local Church of Ireland church was moved to Bunratty folk park where it was unveiled in 1998. Ardcroney Burial Mound is located about 2 km east of Ardcroney; It is listed as a national monument and is in state care.

Sport
The local junior soccer club, Ardcroney FC, was formed in 1982.

title: Ardcroney