Talk:Sultanate of Bijapur

Info Addition

After visiting pages of Delhi sultanate and Bahmani Sultanate, I had seen some space in Deccan Sultanates and this page. So I added info box containing former countries. Hope readers made appreciate. Muhammad Aslam Razvi

IN the interests of a complete survey of Bijapur, I would suggest more data be added on the impact of the Portuguese arrival in India, and the struggle over Goa. We know that Bijapur was deeply involved in both diplomatic and trade relations with the Portuguese from 1510 CE on. 98.193.56.181 (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition of articles

I have just added below mentioned articles relating to different sections of Adilshahis of Bijapur.

2 Sufis of Bijapur

3 Bijapur; The Great Metropolis Of The Medieval Deccan

4 Palmyra of the Deccan

5 Population and Suburbs

6 Elaborate Water System

7 Bazaars and Petes

8 Foreign Accounts

9 Gardens and Water Pavilions

10 Education and Learning

11 Medical Aids and Darush-Shafa (Hospitals)

12 Abode of Music

13 Unprecedented Art and Architecture

14 Conclusion

15 Adil Shahi arts and heritage

16 Adil Shahis of Bijapur

I feel it is my job to provide maximum of information about Bijapur city. Muhammad Aslam Razvi

Greetings MA Razavi

I appreciate your additions to the Adil Shahi page, but feel that you have added far too many materials that really are not directly pertinent to the history of the Adil Shahi per se, but to the city of Bijapur in general. I would like to recommend that these sections all be moved to the wiki article about Bijapur.

  1. 2 Sufis of Bijapur
  2. 3 Some of the notable Sufis of Bijapur
  3. 4 Bijapur; The Great Metropolis Of The Medieval Deccan
  4. 5 Palmyra of the Deccan
  5. 6 Population and Suburbs
  6. 7 Elaborate Water System
  7. 8 Bazaars and Petes
  8. 9 Foreign Accounts
  9. 10 Gardens and Water Pavilions
 10. 11 Education and Learning
 11. 12 Medical Aids and Darush-Shafa (Hospitals)
 12. 13 Abode of Music
 13. 14 Unprecedented Art and Architecture
 14. 15 Conclusion

The article about the Adil Shahi should contain specific, primary information about the that dynasty, nothing else. If you would like to go back and add specific information related to each ruler, that would be acceptable.Jemiljan (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added some observations and references made by the scholar T.N. Devare that greatly clarifies and enhances our understanding of Yusuf Adil Shah, and provides clear proof that contradicts the fictitious, albeit very popular account by Firishta of of Yusuf's Ottoman origins.--Jemiljan 21:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Sultan Ibrahim Adil Shah II.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sultan Ibrahim Adil Shah II.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sultan Ibrahim Adil Shah II.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

a Turkic state

Böri (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

help

can someone help me whit reference! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.191.74 (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Tehvildah, Mushrif

Any comments on this edit? Can someone comment on what is going on, or provide a source for the information? User:Moinkm5, you'll receive a notification of this discussion. Thanks. Skittle (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Religion

There was not always Shiya Muslims, it changed often, but finally sunni islam was the state religion in the family.

as you can see by the different shahs... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.105.20 (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Source is here under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Adil_Shah_II

Under Religion you see: Shia till 1552 and accepted SunniIslam in the hands of Shah Sibghatullah Shuttari and Sunnism became the official religion of Bijapur Adil Shahi Dynasty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.105.20 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no source supporting this information. Anyone could have added anything to the religion section of the template. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Adil Shah not Georgian

--88.233.7.216 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Was A Turk

https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=-BB-CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT633&dq=Adil+Shahi+dynasty+origin&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFndDhhszNAhVKB8AKHcInBZUQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&q=Adil%20Shahi%20dynasty%20origin&f=false

That does not appear to be a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Palmyra of the Deccan?"

Just a question: What does “Palmyra of the Deccan” mean?

I've been to Palmyra, the desert city in Syria with its half Roman, half pre-Islamic Arab ruins, back in 1992. It also was famous in that the ancient temples resembled the more ancient Jewish temple of Jerusalem (destroyed by the Romans in AD 70). Most of the ruins were destroyed in the Syria war later on. Palmyra also was infamous for its prison, where the Asads kept most of their political prisoners.

But Palmyra as a symbol for a multicultural society that supported poets freely is entirely alien to me. Where do you have that from? Greetings, Curryfranke (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Not only is the grammar somewhat incomprehensible, the source cannot be verified and is not even properly cited. Removed. 50.111.52.253 (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it! --Curryfranke (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

abode of music section -

What does 'some of them attained high order' mean, exactly? Doesn't read well in English at all. Please elaborate, whomever edited. Thanks. 50.111.52.253 (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

12 colour artwork

the Deccan Sultanates were all adherent of Shi'a Islam, they all knew how to complete masterpiece artworks in just 12 colour.

21:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)21:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)21:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)21:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)137.59.145.217 (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\21:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)21:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)137.59.145.217 (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\21:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)~

Requested move 30 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that titling these articles after the sultanates would improve titling consistency across the articles on the Deccan sultanates. Retitling these articles after the sultanates, rather than adjusting the other sultanates' articles to be named for the ruling dynasties, was identified as providing more clarity on the articles' scope. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

---

• Adil Shahi dynasty → Sultanate of Bijapur
• Imad Shahi dynasty → Berar Sultanate
• Qutb Shahi dynasty → Sultanate of Golconda

– These articles are about the states themselves, the Sultanates, not the dynasties. We should also standardize whether the Deccan Sultanates are titled by their dynastic or geographical name, and the geographical name makes more sense here both for what these articles are actually about for what a reader would actually search. The other two Deccan Sultanates are already titled for their geographic-based names (Ahmadnagar Sultanate and Bidar Sultanate). The first and third pages to be moved have the "Sultanate" first as that is what seems to be more common per ngram [1] [2] Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. Noorullah (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom PadFoot (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Adil Shahi of Bijapur and Qutb Shahi of Golconda is how these two were described in my history text books which was from some decades ago. By same logic, are we also going to change the name of Mughal empire to Delhi empire? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, but what your history books from decades ago said doesn't really matter toward how these articles are titled; that's just one source of many, and really not even an academic one. We also don't usually use the format of "Dynasty of capital" (as you used with Adil Shahi of Bijapur) even if it is used in some sources as a name which just says either the dynasty (how these three are currently titled) or the polity itself (how these should be titled) are more simple and likely to be searched by the general audience.

  The logic also wouldn't have the Mughals changed to "Delhi empire" as that simply is not the common name in any way; I'm not proposing we change the names here just based off what their capitals were but what sources actually called them, taking into account that these articles are about the Sultanates themselves rather than the people who ruled them; these five articles are the Deccan Sultanates, after all, not the "Deccan dynasties". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  On google scholar, I get way more hits for Adil shahi/Adilshahi,and Qutb shahi/Qutbshahi than for Bijapur sultanate and Golconda sultanate respectively, and so in my opinion the former are the common names used by historians to describe thse kingdoms.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but again the Qutb Shahi and the Adil Shahi were the dynasties of the Golconda and Bijapur Sultantes; these articles are again about the states themselves, not the dynasties; we could make separate articles for the dynasties, for example with Timurid dynasty, Ottoman dynasty, Safavid dynasty, etc. but right now these articles are about the Sultanates, so calling them by the name of the dynasty would not be correct. Using the geographic name for the other two deccan sultanates is already correctly done, which does seem to be more common, and we should have the use of geographic names standardized throughout the five Deccan sultanates articles. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: Noticeboard for India-related topics and WikiProject Former countries have been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support While dynasty & sultanate names are often interchangeable, it would be preferable to decide on a consistent form for the article titles of Deccan sultanates. I don't see a good reason to have some in one form and others in another form. So between titling them all dynasties or all sultanates, my preference would be for the sultanate form. It tends to be more clearly more about the country, rather than the royal family, and lends itself better as an adjective used in relation to other features, like economy, culture, society, etc. Walrasiad (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing source

@Flemmish Nietzsche, your recent addition added a bunch of sfn references to Eaton (2009), which is not present in the source list. Could you either add it or change the sfns (if they're a typo for a different Eaton book)? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, when I copied the Eaton source over from another article it for some reason had the wrong year; I fixed it and there are no longer the sfn errors. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick fix! Wham2001 (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

List

Hello @Flemmish Nietzsche, I do not see much of a reason to have a list of the sultans in this article and then have a separate article listing nearly no additional info other than a family tree. I say we should either merge that article here or do away with the section in this article completely as there already a link to that article in the infobox. PadFoot (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 I think the current situation is fine. A link to the list article in the infobox is not enough, and having a list of rulers section in a polity article is a sensible addition, and the have-a-separate-article-but-have-a-list-of-rulers-in-the-main-article occurrence is done in the Bahmani Sultanate article as well; I think we should have a section for the list of rulers, and also have a separate article for the list as that does provide more information, (as you said, a family tree, and also the titular name and Persian name of the monarchs) and having a section with only a {{main article}} template is no better than an empty section in my view, and thus we should have a list of rulers in both articles. Repeating some info from a stand-alone list in the article where that list is introduced is completely fine and falls under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the list is short, how about if we move the list into this article and redirect the list article to the section here? I sort of agree with PadFoot that having it in two places is unnecessary since the list article doesn't really provide much additional information. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @RegentsPark. That's what I suggested above as well, when I said to merge the list article into here. PadFoot (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sultanate of Bijapur/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Flemmish Nietzsche (talk · contribs) 19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam Are you going to review this article soon? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche Sometime in the next fortnight. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam You sure? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam, do you mind if I delete this page to return this article to the GAN queue? -- asilvering (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering They say that they are "reading the sources". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Round 1

TrangaBellam (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam, if there's no further progress towards a review in the next two days, I'm going to close this review and relist it at GAN - it's not fair to the nominator to leave them in limbo for this long. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The only map on the page is incorrect and dubious and has been removed. The removed map was an "own work" of an indefinitely banned user. And THIS article has been nominated for GA.

I have replaced the incorrect map with the appropriate one from Joseph E Schwartzberg's "A Historical atlas of South Asia" from the University of Chicago. That map along with the exact reference was on here for a long while till the [of April 2024] when a certain User "Kemilliogolgi" replaced it with one he created on his own. He based his "map" on some book written by an ex-IAS (Indian Administrative Service) officer SK Sinha who was "Director of Commerce and Export Promotion" in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. The author appears NOWHERE as ANY scholar of remotely any repute. The book is a 1968 publication and also appears nowhere as a scholarly work and probably was not intended to be too. There is no map in the book let alone mentioning the period for the alleged "peak" of its extent. The map created by this indefinitely suspended user stretched the extent of this kingdom way too much to the South compared to the Schwartzberg map. Encyclopedia Brittanica mentions Mysore as its Southernmost limit for the brief peak period and Mysore is significantly to the North of the two Southernmost states of Tamilnad and Kerala. Further fwiiw right here on Wiki neither the "History of Kerala" nor the "History of Tamil Nadu" pages mention bijapur even once. Through the end-March to April to early-May period the various socks of this fraudster made a slew of edits including sneaking in this incorrect dubious and vague map with vice typical of their ilk. The original user was one "AdityaNakul" and they also had other socks named "DeepstoneV" and "Hassan Ganju" among others. On 2024 April 17th that they tucked in this map they made multiple edits right here using three different socks within a few hours of each other. Whichever other information I have been able to look up the Mysore area appears to be the Southernmost limit of bijapur and that is what the Schwartzberg map also shows along with Gingee Fort in the Southeast (for the 28 year period of 1649-77). I will take this to the Admins if the wrong map is put back. 117.194.193.211 (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You're definitely right about the incorrectness of the former map, and I admittedly should have checked both who created the map and the reliability of the source which claimed such extreme advances before nominating this article or rewriting it; upon further inspection no reliable sources that I've found mention any claims of territory further south than Tanjore or Mysore, like you said. Thanks for the info on the map's inaccuracies. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sultanate of Bijapur/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Flemmish Nietzsche (talk · contribs) 19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 11:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I am really sorry, but the article must be quick failed for the following reasons:

• it does not address the topic's main aspects because we receive almost no information on the geography, population, and government of the sultanate
• it does not stay focused on the topic because it goes into unnecessary detail in regard to the sultanate's history (for instance, we are informed many details of the conquest of Goa by the Portuguese)
• the prose is unclear, so it should be copyedited (I refer to the introductory text before section 1.1 and section 1.1 - I doubt that those who have no information about the sultanate's history could easily follow them)
• its lead is too long.

I suggest that the present article be splitted to create a new, detailed article on the sultanate's history. Then section 1 "History" should be radically shortened (at least by 60%), and the article should be expanded on the missing fields (government, geography, population, etc.) If you need any assistance or further comments, please ping me. Again, I highly appreciate your hard work, but the article needs significant improvements. Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Borsoka The extensive coverage of history and the lack of coverage of the subjects you mentioned is done because there really is no information in reliable sources on content beyond the history (of which there is copious amounts, thanks to Firishta and Shirazi) and culture. I believe it does address the main aspects of the subject as, based on what the most reliable sources say and cover, more content on history and some on culture is due and in the article's scope, while the things you mentioned are not, as they are not covered by those sources; I should not have to adhere to arbitrary standards of completeness that cannot be reached using the most reliable and relevant sources.

I can take the article to GOCE if you think it would help, but some suggestions on what in the prose is "unclear" would be great. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I added some examples above. Try to develop a separate history article into a GA. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No, the amount of content on history is, as I said above, due, while information on the other topics you mentioned is not covered in reliable sources; a split is not necessary. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)