Jump to content

Talk:Mir Osman Ali Khan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Razakar

This article says that the Razakars were organised by the PM of Hyderabad but the Razakar article attribute it to one Qasim Razvi. From a quick google, Razvi was leader of Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (whatever it was) not the PM. It would be good it someone who knows the topic take a quick to look to see which is the correct one. Tintin (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Razvi was certainly not the PM of Hyderabad; he was an agitator who opposed the accession of Hyderabad unto India, ostensibly on behalf of a section of muslims. The Nawab of Chhatri was PM. ImpuMozhi 02:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Razakar was for Nizams what RSS is for the BJP today, "Couldn't IGNORE, COULDN'T GET RID OFF..." KASIM Razvi was not solely selected by nizam, but by the council through voting. Even Nizam himself had a hard time controlling kasim Razvi 2409:4070:818:6B62:0:0:F67:A0B0 (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger

Merger proposal has been standing for long and hence I shall now effect the merger. ImpuMozhi 02:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nizam.jpg

Image:Nizam.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article needs citations at a lot of places, and needs a cleanup to remove weasle words and POV statements, especially since it deals with the issue of the Partition of India and communal conflict. --Shree (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Concentration of Wealth

The first Finance Commission of India reported that in 1950, the Union government treasury registered annual revenue of £334 million. Nizam Asaf Jah VII's fortune then was easily estimated at twice the sum.

How on earth was it possible? Rajasthan had more minerals than Andhra Pradesh. Anwar (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

@anwar, Don't you have any idea about the famous mines of Golconda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadirsaab (talk • contribs) 06:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Alleged frugality

Although he was one of the richest men in the world along with his brother Nawab Sakawath Jung Bahadur, the Nizam led a very simple life. His lifestyle was frugal, bordering on the miserly, and many legends about his parsimony have become apocryphal in Hyderabad. He would, paradoxically, use the 185-carat Jacob Diamond as a paperweight.

The previous seems dubious and trite. Let's see some sources for this and try to state it in terms of concrete and knowable facts rather than vague and haigiographic statments. Savidan 04:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Member of Parliament

Was he elected to Indian Parliament from Anantapur and Kurnool. The pages on Anantapur (Lok Sabha constituency) and Kurnool (Lok Sabha constituency) states he was elected in 1957 and 1962 respectively. Can somebody clarify. Dr. Rajasekhar A. 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That MP's name was Osman Ali Khan, but he was not the Nizam. He died in 2011.--I am not a Seahorse (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
There you go. This reference clearly speaks of the 7th Nizam himself being the Rajpramukh [1]
2 more websites clearly speaking of the same http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/telangana/2019/feb/18/when-nizam-came-to-rescue-of-rabindranath-tagore-1940209.html; https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/tracing-life-and-legacy-hyderabads-last-nizam-who-died-50-years-ago-57706
Moreover, even the wiki pages of kurnool and Anantapur constituencies speak of the same. Hope I'm helpful in clarifying on the same.Sakura6977 (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.maahyderabad.in/who-was-the-rajpramukh-of-hyderabad-after-the-police-action-in-1948/

sources collection

his first rr car in hyderabad

Does anyone know what happened to the fabulous capital amassed by the Nizams (over $2 trillion in 2012 dollars)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsuckow (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I question this line.

"Swami Ramanand Teerth and his team fought the battle of freedom on the streets of Hyderabad and other regions."

Its in the third paragraph of Operation Polo & Abdication. It sounds bias and entire section lacks references. If no one objects, I will remove the "battle of freedom" part and just say they fought in/on the streets of such and such.FusionLord (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Changes made.FusionLord (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2011/feb/20/taj-falaknuma-palace-nizam. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary source

@Emir of Wikipedia: would you please explain why do you think it is primary source? —usernamekiran(talk)(log) 13:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a claim being made by CelebrityNetWorth with themselves being the reference, and not a third party like in the other two sources. Next time please make these comments on the talkpage of the article for others to view and contribute to. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: erm... I dont think it was you who initiated this discussion. But then again, I might be wrong. Also, see WP:PSTS. I think you are getting confused between OR, primary source, and secondary source. —usernamekiran(talk)(log) 14:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: That is my point. You should have had initiated the discussion on the talkpage. Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. The article was written by CelebrityNetWorth so they are directly involved. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for any confusion I thought you posted on my talkpage and not the one for the article, but my point about the primary source still stands. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: lol. It is quite alright about the confusion. :-)
Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved Your own words: The article was written by CelebrityNetWorth so they are directly involved.
If anybody writes anything, they are involved! If the seventh Nizam had written that article, then it would have been primary source. Quoting Christina Ricci from her blog "I am 5'1" tall" is a primary source. You meeting her and measuring her height is WP:OR. If somebody else discusses about her blog, and if we quote that discussion, then that discussion is secondery source for us. If Tom Cruise praises his own performance, it would be primary source cuz the person is directly involved in it. But if a critic praises it, who has no COI, nothing to do with the movie, or Cruise, then it can be stated as reliable source. If somebody else explains that criticism, lets say Tom Hanks, then Hanks becomes the secondary source. —usernamekiran(talk)(log) 14:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The secondary sources are from NY Daily News and The Times of India as they didn't compile the list but merely reported it. I have not mentioned WP:OR nor claimed that is has taken place.Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The observations of CelebrityNetWorth itself are notable even if they are not reported by other secondary sources. So citing the primary source here, for writing that content is not at all an issue in this context, as far as I can see. — Tyler Durden (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we should put it as the first reference and not the last one if you both think it should be included. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia and Tyler Durden: you are both getting it wrong. The point here is: CelebrityNetWorth can't be considered as a primary source as long as Nizam, or anybody associated with him didn't write the article, nor provided the information regarding Nizam's wealth. It is not a primary source. If we quote Kanye West's or Kim Kardashian's blog/official site stating "West has more money than Bill Gates", that website will be considered as primary source. But if CelebrityNetWorth posted it, and assuming there is no connection between them; then adding on wikipedia "CelebrityNetWorth quoted Kardashian that West has more money that Bill Gates" would be completely appropriate. —usernamekiran(talk)(log) 17:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Usernamekiran You are absolutely right. And on a side note, I'm not sure why this is even being disputed. I have no particular intention to keep/remove that citation. As nothing is going to chance anyway, since the content remains intact. This is silly! :-) --- Tyler Durden (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

My point was not that it was primary source for his net worth, but rather his ranking in the specific list. The list was directly involved as used their own inflation adjusting. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tyler Durden: lol. I see your point. :-) The discussion was never about the content. It was about the source being primary or not.
  • @Emir of Wikipedia: I don't think one can adjust for inflation by themselves. It is usually based on GDP, and some complicated stuff. :-)
    you two should decide together what to do. Just on a side note, wiki allows primary source if it is in a supporting role. They are not entirely forbidden. —usernamekiran(talk)(log) 18:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not a reliable source, listed at WP:RS/P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipal (talk • contribs) 00:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Osman Ali Khan, Asaf Jah VII. 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.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Number of children

The below links states that the Nizam had 34 children, 149 seems humanly impossible! https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/why-wealth-of-hyderabad-nizams-heirs-depends-on-pakistan-493417

Need more clarity though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.62.126 (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There are three cites in the article for the figure of 149. It seems eminently possible; he lived to a ripe old age and if he had been sexually active for 50 years he would only have had to father a child every 4 months, with a break 25 years in to eat a sandwich or something. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The latest revision to claim the Nizam had only 34 children is not particularly justifiable. You cannot simply throw out cites with figures you don't like - and the edit introduces a cite saying "He d. at Nazri Bagh, King Kothi Palace, Hyderabad, 24th February 1967 (bur. there at Judi Masjid, Nazri Bagh), having had issue, twenty-eight sons and forty-four daughters"... and keeps a cite saying "Bear in mind that the seventh Nizam is said to have fathered 149 children or more, so the complexity of the legal tangles were immense", so in other words two of the cites being used for "34 children" actually say he had 72 children and 149 "or more".

One of the removed cites says he "had more than 100 illegitimate children". It seems unlikely there is a highly precise count of those; and since 23 of his children died in infancy, if the royalark cite is to be believed, it also seems likely the figure of 34 only includes those who survived infancy (although that only gets us down to 49) and were at least acknowledged bastards.

I suggest the only thing we can say is "The Nizam was reported to have fathered many children; as few as 34, and as many as 149 or more, including more than 100 illegitimate children". We certainly should not try to divide them up into sons and daughters when we don't even know to the nearest hundred how many there were. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Is Providing 7 legit sources not enough! it's not that I've provided unreliable sources like blogs for reference. Taking 1 incorrect mention will not make it a fact. Please see comment under #Number of children where you yourself say " 149 seems humanly impossible!"
Does this mean these 7 citations provided are false.? Each of them is a big name in the news and other respective platforms. I would admit had it been 2/3 or even 4 citations mentioning wrong information. But 7 sources giving "wrong information" seems impossible to me though. Moreover, the verbiage/words you have used are quite offensive. How would you feel had I used offensive words 8@$# about the king/people of whichever nation you hail from? Let's say Prince charles a b@5r##. Would you really feel good about it? So please refrain from using such words. Sakura6977 (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I did not say it seemed humanly impossible. An IP editor said that. I illustrated that it would be entirely possible.
Once again, please note that your 7 sources include one saying he had 149 children or more, and another saying he had 72. Even cherry-picking the sources to ones that suit you, you ended up with two that don't agree with your figure of 34.
Furthermore, none of the sources you removed from the article are blogs. What makes some better than others, besides that they give a figure you like?
Your complaint in the your second paragraph is absurd. While "bastard" is used as a term of abuse, it is also a term with a specific meaning; an illegitimate child. It is perfectly sensible to use it when discussing the many bastards some sources suggest the Nizam fathered.
As far as I'm concerned you can call Prince Charles whatever you please - provided it pertains to improving a Wikipedia article. In the mean time, unless you can produce some actual rationale for preferring some sources to others, I intend to make the change discussed above. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
How strange is it that you simply choose to "ignore the 7 sources" I have provided for reference- each of them being legit and reliable in every sense of the word and choose to cherry-pick the 1 which opposes the remaining.
You are the 1 doing Cherry picking! As you choose to take "the 1" source for reference as opposed to 7 sources provided by me and say I am the one cherry picking ?! Really, this is heights!
How can you use abusive words yet again? Clearly, You have got absolutely No respect for other's cultures and sentiments!! The fact is that you are exploiting your experience as a Wikipedia editor and unfortunately taking it way too personally.
What purpose does the talkpage serve if you post something without talkpage consensus, what is the point ..really!? In that case, you may even go adding and removing as you please ; without talkpage consensus! Sakura6977 (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I haven't ignored them. As I said, one of the sources you provided lists 72 children - the one that lists them all by name. Another quotes the figure of 149, including over 100 bastards. These are your sources. You can't get it to come out to 34 even when you try and ignore sources you don't like. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
After going through both the views, In "my honest opinion", based on the given, [1] and other links provided. Don't think "The richest man in the world" of the time would have any prblem in accepting a few more, when he's already accepted 34...
104 is the number of grandchildren as mentioned here. My guess of what must have happened is : that some big source must have by mistakenly put 104 children (instead of grand children) and added his wives and children to totalling it to 149, which makes complete sense.
Mathematically, speaking 34 children+104 grandchildren+11 wives equals to exactly 149. Simple as that. Will put the same in neutral point of view. Sarvarkar (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
That's your own guesswork, not in any source. It's not appropriate to put it in the article - and it doesn't explain why the one source that lists children's names explicitly lists 72 children. (A better explanation might be that he had 34 legitimate children).
Currently these supposedly NPOV changes have made the article less in accordance with the sources. The claim now is either 34 or 149, but in fact one source gives a figure of 72 and one "149 or more"; furthermore you have omitted any mention of his many bastards. That's not NPOV, it's whitewashing.
It's not clear to me what was non-neutral about "The Nizam was reported to have fathered many children; as few as 34, and as many as 149 or more, including more than 100 illegitimate children". Please explain what is not neutral about it, because as I see it, it's a perfectly sensible summary and has the twin advantages over what you have written of actually reflecting the sources and not needing rewritten into grammatical English.
Additionally if the cite "Floarl Tribute to Nizam VII" says anything about the number of his children, it escapes me. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I think you need to stop it, you clearly seem to take this way too personally. Can't you respect the neutralised POV I provided? neither do you wait for @sakura6977 to respond to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvarkar (talk • contribs) 08:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Two weeks on, Sakura6977 hasn't responded to it, and while you keep proclaiming what you wrote is more neutral, you've yet to explain how. In fact what you wrote is in poor English and doesn't match the sources.
Emir of Wikipedia, you've rewritten it, but can you have another go? What we have now is still "either 34 or 149" when in fact some sources quote figures in between, or "149 or more". We still also have no mention of the illegitimate children. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Pinkbeast, Are the illegitimate children included in those two numbers though? Or are they separate? I don't feel comfortable rewriting unless it would make that situation more clear. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I think in any event it is necessary to rewrite it to avoid the current apparent dichotomy where either the Nizam had exactly 34 children or exactly 149. These are common figures, but as you will see some of the sources produce others - the one that lists them all by name lists 72, for example, and one says "149 or more" (a cite which I regret to say currently is being used to justify the figure of 34).
The cite that mentions the illegitimate children says both that "he sired children from 86 mistresses in his harem and had more than 100 illegitimate children" and (in discussion of his heirs) "Of the Nizam’s 34 children". I don't see any way to interpret that other than that he had 34 legitimate children and over 100 illegitimate children. (I'm not sure how we square that with the cite that lists 72...).
To forestall any objection that that is just one cite, [2] is a cite from The Daily Telegraph to the same effect, and [3] here is one from The Guardian (only saying that "family sources" say that, but all I propose to add is that some sources say that).
I appreciate the difficulty you face with the vagueness of how these figures combine, but I think there is no disputing that the over 100 illegitimate children appear in multiple sources and so need to be in the article. Of course, you could put my wording back, which I have yet to hear any explanation of the supposed non-neutrality of; I'm not saying you have to do that (but I would be grateful if you would at least consider it - notwithstanding the claims above, do you actually see anything wrong with my wording?), but if you don't, I do feel it is incumbent on you to represent accurately what the sources say.
(Essentially this same material appears at Nizam of Hyderabad, but we can leave that alone until we finish here and just cut-and-paste the end result across). Pinkbeast (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Pinkbeast, This is a tricky situation. We'll have to think carefully about it. Regarding the copying we must remember to comply with WP:CWW. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, by all means think about it, but something needs to be done; right now wording which does follow the sources has been replaced with wording that does not. I don't care which of us fixes that, but it should be fixed. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm pinging Kautilya3 who is engaged in essentially the same mess at Nizam of Hyderabad. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

References of Nizam's 5000Kg gold donation to Indoo-china war

Contribution to India's war effort:- Lal Bahadur Shastri, the Prime Minister, asked the Nizam to contribute to the National Defence Fund, set up in the wake of the Indo-Chinese skirmish. The Nizam contributed five tonnes of gold to the war fund; at the time this had a value of about Rs 75 lakh, or about three-fourth of the annual Privy Purse he received from the Centre. This was the largest contribution by any individual or organisation in India.[1]

With ref to above para of previous verison...more URL's supporting the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWiefwvBA5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM-QbABnN_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gucNFBgd4OE

And most trusted website stating the same: https://www.wefornews.com/nizam-of-hyderabad-gave-his-wealth-for-india-yogi-distorts-history

I see a respected senior editor @Pinkbeast stating "Those "three sources" appear in fact to be the same material - the same sentences appear in all"

Not denying the basis of the decision, but little does a non-Indian know to what extent can the communal forces stoop down to so as to distort history, unfortunate there is no one else supporting the bases of claims that He "indeed" donated the gold.

Again, I leave it to the discretion of the Senior editor Sakura6977 (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not a senior editor; there are no senior editors. However, Youtube is not a reliable source; and on the face of it, your "most trusted website" appears to be a blog, which are also not generally considered to be reliable sources. Is there any reason to suppose that Nadeem Naqvi is an expert on the finances of the state in the 1960s (or, indeed, an expert on anything at all)? The article appears to be more about modern politics and, while I appreciate the modern political situation in India leads people to wish to diminish the Nizams (and others to puff them up), I simply don't see any reason to suppose the author is an expert, or is doing more than quoting what The Hindu article assesses as a persistent urban myth.
The situation is always unsatisfactory when two apparently good sources - here the Deccan Chronicle and The Hindu - disagree. However, two things incline me to accept The Hindu article. The main one is the reference to their own coverage of the situation in 1965. That, obviously, was written without the current situation in India in mind.
The second is that frankly the story of the 5 tonne donation is too pat. He asks for the chests back afterwards because of his noted frugality? "Frugal" is not how I'd describe someone who casually disposes of 5 tonnes of gold, and the whole detail with the chests seems more like the stuff of myth to me.
Your best move would be to refer to newspaper archives from the period. What other newspapers wrote at the time will be far more informative than modern-day speculation. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Nadeem Naqvi, infact "Yes" he is a financial expert.
It should not matter if it appears too unreal/pat for anybody, many a times, "truth is stranger than fiction!";
In the meanwhile, I will get more reliable sources, as suggested by you.
Thank you. Sakura6977 (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Nadeem Naqvi is a prominent economist, yes, although he is not an expert on the history of India in the 1960s. However, this is a bit moot because Nadeem Naqvi is not the author of that blog post. It is obviously someone else using the same name. (For instance, the discrepancy between the blog post author and Dr Naqvi is fairly evident.) Pinkbeast (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

In its current version, this wiki section seems like a joke. First sentence contradicting the second. Fix it please. The cited source (The Hindu article) indeed confirms it as an investment and not donation. 

In October 1965, after the Sino-Indian War, the nizam donated 5000kg gold to the Indian government. But recently some sources say it is investment of gold bonds.[26] The Nizam donated 5000kg of gold to India. [27]

-Sathiyaraj (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The rich legacy of Nizams". Deccan Chronicle. 1 June 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2017.

Should this part be removed? taking way to much space.

1911–1912: His Highness Rustam-i-Dauran, Arustu-i-Zaman, Wal Mamaluk, Asaf Jah VII, Muzaffar ul-Mamaluk, Nizam ul-Mulk, Nizam ud-Daula, Nawab Mir Sir Osman 'Ali Khan Siddqi Bahadur, Sipah Salar, Fath Jang, Nizam of Hyderabad, GCSI 1912–1917: Colonel His Highness Rustam-i-Dauran, Arustu-i-Zaman, Wal Mamaluk, Asaf Jah VII, Muzaffar ul-Mamaluk, Nizam ul-Mulk, Nizam ud-Daula, Nawab Mir Sir Osman 'Ali Khan Siddqi Bahadur, Sipah Salar, Fath Jang, Nizam of Hyderabad, GCSI 1917–1918: Colonel His Highness Rustam-i-Dauran, Arustu-i-Zaman, Wal Mamaluk, Asaf Jah VII, Muzaffar ul-Mamaluk, Nizam ul-Mulk, Nizam ud-Daula, Nawab Mir Sir Osman 'Ali Khan, Sipah Salar, Fath Jang, Nizam of Hyderabad, GCSI, GBE 1918–1936: Lieutenant-General His Exalted Highness Rustam-i-Dauran, Arustu-i-Zaman, Wal Mamaluk, Asaf Jah VII, Muzaffar ul-Mamaluk, Nizam ul-Mulk, Nizam ud-Daula, Nawab Mir Sir Osman 'Ali Khan Siddqi Bahadur, Sipah Salar, Fath Jang, Faithful Ally of the British Government, Nizam of Hyderabad, GCSI, GBE 1936–1941: Lieutenant-General His Exalted Highness Rustam-i-Dauran, Arustu-i-Zaman, Wal Mamaluk, Asaf Jah VII, Muzaffar ul-Mamaluk, Nizam ul-Mulk, Nizam ud-Daula, Nawab Mir Sir Osman 'Ali Khan Siddqi Bahadur, Sipah Salar, Fath Jang, Faithful Ally of the British Government, Nizam of Hyderabad and Berar, GCSI, GBE

We could let the below part remain : His titles were:

  • 1886–1911: Nawab Bahadur Mir Osman Ali Khan Siddqi
  • 1941–1967: General His Exalted Highness Rustam-i-Dauran, Arustu-i-Zaman, Wal Mamaluk, Asaf Jah VII, Muzaffar ul-Mamaluk, Nizam ul-Mulk, Nizam ud-Daula, Nawab Mir Sir Osman 'Ali Khan Siddqi Bahadur, Sipah Salar, Fath Jang, Faithful Ally of the British Government, Nizam of Hyderabad and Berar, GCSI, GBE.

[citation needed]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvarkar (talk • contribs) 08:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

rolls royce story true or false?

Once upon a time, he visited the Rolls Royce showroom in London, when the car adviser insulted him by saying that "hey you poor Indian man, you don't have enough money to buy this car, get out from here." He got angry and came back to India. After coming, he brought 6 latest Rolls Royce cars at that time and kept it on the duty for cleaning the city waste (Wastage Department of City). The owner of the company came to know this thing, and he apologized Nizam.And told him that Remove the cars from picking up waste,as the company's reputation was decreasing.Today also the cars exist at Chowmallah Palace in Hyderabad

The above text was found in previous edits, how true or false is it? because it was Removed without a discussion. 2409:4070:2091:CA61:9A0:56DA:3EEA:7DF1 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It's an urban legend / hoax. See Talk:Rolls-Royce Limited#Hoax / Urban legend. utcursch | talk 20:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Category

@Abbasquadir: regarding this revert: it wasn't unexplained, "removed parent category of" was the explanation. We should not put articles in parent categories and child categories at the same time, per WP:SUBCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for the explanation! Cool! Abbasquadir (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

can't give reference for every other line!! please show some leniency IF NOT please help by adding citations yourself by all means

Dear Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs),

No article of wikipedia, can be given refeence for every other line!

what do you say? @Omer123hussain: @Deccantrap: Please show some leniency IF NOT please help by adding citations yourself by all means.

Sincere regards, Abbasquadir (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Abbasquadir, if you can't give a reference then leave the line alone or remove the statement. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Have alone added 30+ references in last 25 days. Abbasquadir (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Please remember to make sure they are WP:RSs. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone Confirm : nizam's mother name ? Suggestion

Can anyone Confirm : nizam's mother name ? Was it Azmat-uz-Zahrunnisa Begum OR Azmat-uz-Zahra Begum ?? Abbasquadir (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Copy editing not required in this stage of article.

Dear Emir we are not in a phase of copy editing, the article is in dire stage, so for now initially we need to fill the article by reliable citation and organize the section. So I suggest you rather than copy editing support us to organize the article sections.

For me, now entire article is like a dust bin, who ever want they came and dumped ‘’kachra’m here. So in this stage we need to clean it and later we can do copy editing.

Later when article will be establish we can go for copy editing and infact it will all get filtered during assessment by GoCE. Omer123hussain (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning the Nizam's 149 children in the lead

I'm recommending the removal of the phrase "the Nizam had 149 children" from the article lead. Aside from the fact that the clumsy placement badly breaks up the flow of the paragraph, having the statement be the second sentence of the lead gives a misleading impression of its importance in the main article. Note that as per MOS:LEAD, an article lead is "a summary of [the articles] most important contents". Yet this fact regarding the Nizam's fecundity is given a total of 7 words in the main article, therefore falling far short of being considered among the "most important contents".
Alivardi (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Re your recent edit summary, my above message justifying the removal of the content has been up for 4 weeks and no editor has yet voiced any disagreement. However, if you believe that having the content remain in the lead is to the benefit of the article, I am happy to have a discussion about it with you.
Alivardi (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

does anyone think the article have many images? Suggestion

Reg the tag : This article contains too many pictures, charts or diagrams for its overall length. If anyone thinks the article have many images, please let me know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibhai110 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed a deleted image. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mir_Osman_Ali_Khan/Archive_1&oldid=1219485034"