Wikipedia

Talk:Nawabs of Bengal/Archive 1

< Talk:Nawabs of Bengal
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Renaming it as the Principality of Bengal

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
 
 
 

Bengal was not a subah in the Nawab period, since it was governed by hereditary nawabs and not subedars (appointed governors). And the nawabs were independent rulers with nominal allegiance to the Mughal Emperor. In most histories in English, they are referred to as the Princes of Bengal, since the word nawab actually means prince. The state was a principality and a realm of the Mughal Empire. The article should be appropriately renamed as the Principality of Bengal, a Mughal imperial realm. It should also include the architectural and artistic legacy from this period, such as ivory art, ruins of Murshidabad and scrolls and paintings such as the Bengal style Mughal miniature and the Gazi folktale etc

Also, the muslin trade reached its zenith during this period. Prior to Company rule, Bengal was India's wealthiest region in terms of trade and exports. The puppet Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad should be a separate article, it undermines the value and importance of this large, prosperous and practically independent principality. And important history articles such as these should not be referenced from a district website! --ArmanJ (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but the information you want to add will be better for an independent article on Bengal or the Bengal Province or the Principality of Bengal. This an article its rulers i.e. the Nawabs not on the province or principality of Bengal. --Tamravidhir (২০১২) 10:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Split

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should this article be split into Nawabs of Bengal and Nawabs of Murshidabad? The section discussing the succession indicates that it is two different entities almost. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's quite possible that the Bengal Nawab house had several branches, not just Murshidabad. There is also no basis for the current title.--Vaza12 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion

Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: kept Wizardman 02:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this page has fallen far from the original GA version from 2012. One problem is that it's not currently stable with repeated attempts to restore some old version (including hard number citations like [4][5][39]). The infobox is a mess and the introduction before was a full page long and extensively repetitive of the content below. It's also not using reliable sources as there's overly extensive citations to this page (careful, music plays) which is basically a blog. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist - Firstly the three line lead hits you in the face like a sack of bricks that something odd is going on here. For a 46k article, three lines doesn't even remotely cut it. The reverting that was going on back in December seems to have calmed down and hasn't taken place since, so hopefully that can now be ruled out. Bengal section is uncited as are the ends of paragraphs of a couple of other sections. The tables are actually completely uncited. The reliability of some of the citations are questionable or are just incomplete, and cite #22 has the details for Google Books rather than the actual book. Miyagawa (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Significant improvements from the first listing means that I'm happy for this to be kept. I haven't given it a line by line read through, but the issues I previously had have all been recitified. Miyagawa (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist: as Miyagawa notes, the lead clearly fails GA requirements per WP:LEAD: an article this size should have at least two and probably three paragraphs in the lead section, and should summarize the whole article. The Bengal section has prose issues in addition to being uncited. Stability has not been an issue in 2016 (four non-bot edits over the course of two and a half months), but there are plenty of other problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist: The April 2016 version is nowhere even close to the August 2012 version. A lot of work had gone in to make the article a GA but since 2012 the quality of the article has steadily fallen. In the current version most of the content of the 2012 version has either been altered or removed, thus making it a repulsive mix of some randomly inserted content (by badly trimming and cutting and altering the GA class article) and few bits and pieces of the original August 2012 GA class article (which remain). I have not been actively involved in editing for quite a long time now, because I have been tremendously busy with my real life. And I will be able to work on this article only after the first week of May 2016. So for now, I would rather want to see this article delisted from the GA list, 'cause the current version does not meet most of the requirements of a GA class Wiki article. --Tamravidhir (talk!) 06:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm neutral when it comes to this article. @Vinegarymass911: has done a lot to improve this article since its listing here, and the article has also increased in size since the aforementioned "August 2012 version", but the "Bengal" section is a bit too short in contrast to the sources in that section, and could very well be expanded even more. That's my two cents. Carbrera (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC).
  • Keep: Looks like the issues have been addressed by a handful of edits. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep There have been significant improvements in the past 2-3 months, WP:LEAD is no longer an issue. The Bengal section, while it could use some expansion, has solid cites now. The only issue I'm having is some formatting issues with regards to the List of the Nawabs of Bengal section, which I would fix but I am unsure as to how. UiLego (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd say that the big issues have been resolved sufficiently to keep the GA status. The citations look good and the article is well organized and written clearly.StoryKai (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: There have been major improvements since I commented in March, but the table still has no cites for the last five Nawabs of Bengal or the first three Nawabs of Murshidabad. Those really need to be reliably sourced. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: sources were recently added for those remaining eight Nawabs, so I have struck my original "delist" from last March. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nawabs_of_Bengal/Archive_1&oldid=1234962985"