Talk:Hyderabad State: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:04, 12 October 2013 editNeilN (talk \| contribs)134,455 edits →Hyderabad State ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:37, 12 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 28 discussion(s) to Talk:Hyderabad State/Archive 1, Talk:Hyderabad State/Archive 2) (botTag: Replaced
(162 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{WP India
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
	\|class=Start
			{{WikiProject Former countries}}
	\|importance=low
			{{WikiProject India\|importance=low\|history=yes\|history-importance=mid\|hyderabad=yes\|hyderabad-importance=high\|telangana=yes\|telangana-importance=high}}
	\|history=yes
			}}
	\|history-importance=mid
			{{afd-merged-from\|O Osman\|O Osman\|13 January 2022}}
	\|hyderabad=yes
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|hyderabad-importance=high
			\|archive = Talk:Hyderabad State/Archive %(counter)d
	\|andhra=yes
			\|algo = old(30d)
	\|andhra-importance=high}}
			\|counter =2
	{{WikiProject Former countries\|class=Start}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 50K
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 5
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			}}

	==Untitled comment==		==Untitled comment==
Line 15:		Line 20:
	# Role of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Police Action		# Role of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Police Action
	] 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)		] 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

	==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). <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== POV tag ==

	I have added the {{tl\|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, -- ] 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== References added ==		== References added ==
Line 35:		Line 25:
	With reference to Jeff's "references needed", I would like to point out that I have added relevant references.		With reference to Jeff's "references needed", I would like to point out that I have added relevant references.

			== Forced annexation ==
	==Rubbish==
			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
	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? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			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
	Where is Tamil spoken anywhere in the erstwhile areas of Hyderabad State ? Only Telugu, Marathi, Urdu ( Dakhini Dialect ) and Kannada are spoken. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			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
	You fellows Hyderabadi Muslims speak Urdu and Others(Hindus,Christians,etc) speak telugu. Some malayalis are too there(in the city and secunderabad)--] (]) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
			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 ] itself describes it as a military intervention) I will be restoring the sentence as censoring this information is not what Misplaced Pages is for. ] (]) 21:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
	== Culture of Hyderabad State ==
			: Forcing to re-install troops doesn't amount to "annexation". The term "annexation" is not even used in this source. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
	A section '''Culture''' should be added which explains the peoples culture under Hyderabad State.
			::: 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. ] (]) 21:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
	If the article is strong enough a separate article "Culture of Hyderabad State" or "Culture of Old Hyderabad" also can be made.
			:::: 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. ] (]) 22:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
	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 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== 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 ] for present day city. Let me know for any objections before removing that section. ] (]) 21:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

	:Good call. ] (]) 11:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


	== ] ==
	(redirected from editor talk page)

	"brutally put down", "committed horrendous atrocities", "Countless Hindu", "preceding MIM/Razakar atrocities" is the exact opposite of neutral language. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 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. Misplaced Pages must be NPOV. Thank you.

	] (]) 01:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::These terms are not appropriate to use with Misplaced Pages's voice. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ]). --] <sup>'']''</sup> 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. ] (]) 05:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::You're not presenting the highly-POV statements as quotes, you're presenting them in Misplaced Pages's voice. And if you think my edits are vandalism, then ] 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. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 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, as "'''Countless Hindu''' 'women became victims of rape...'" (emphasis added). This is blatant POV pushing.<p>
	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. ] (]) 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 ] 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). ] (]) 03:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Completely agree with this. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 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.

	::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.] (]) 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 ] 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 ] process, I will. ] (]) 04:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I have reported him (before I saw this) as he's been editing Misplaced Pages long enough to know not to do this. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 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. ] (]) 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 ] report. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 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
	::::::::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:

			* Here is the of the lead, based on the sources cited. A disruptive sock called {{U\|Magichero1234}} apparently 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. -- ] (]) 13:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
	::::::::"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.
	] (]) 05:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

			== Line that makes no sense ==

			{{talkquote\|Hyderabad's location in the middle of the Indian union, as well as its diverse cultural heritage, was a driving force behind India's annexation of the state in 1948.}}
	::::::::::. 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. ] (]) 06:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
			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. ] (]) 18:42, 12 February 2023 (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. ]] 22:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

			:This and the repeated insertion of "country" (see ]) despite consensus to the contrary is the handiwork of socks from the ] network. Be wary of these and similar additions to the article. ] (]) 11:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
	{{od}} Regarding , I agree with what ] 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..."''. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:37, 12 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hyderabad State article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This

level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

India: Telangana / History / Hyderabad Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Telangana (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hyderabad (assessed as High-importance).

O Osman was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 January 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Hyderabad State. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Untitled comment

Razakar movement and the violence that followed
People's movement within Hyderabad state for unification with India
Role of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Police Action

Ramashray 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References added

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Magichero1234 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

Hyderabad's location in the middle of the Indian union, as well as its diverse cultural heritage, was a driving force behind India's annexation of the state in 1948.

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)

This and the repeated insertion of "country" (see #Country) despite consensus to the contrary is the handiwork of socks from the Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Magichero1234 network. Be wary of these and similar additions to the article. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: