Talk:Nawabs of Bengal

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

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. defunct .BengalWikipedia:WikiProject BengalTemplate:WikiProject BengalBengal articles

	Former countries
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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 articles

India: West Bengal / Bihar / History High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Bihar (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in June 2015.

Bangladesh Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. The article falls into the work area of the History workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: edit history watch purge Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton.

History High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad was copied or moved into Shia Islam in Bangladesh with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This review is

Talk:Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thine Antique Pen (public) (talk · contribs) 12:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I shall review this article.
  (public) 12:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Welcome! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Image	Comment
	Looks good, should use commons:template:pd-old-100 though.
	Good. PD.
	Good. PD.
	Good. PD.

Changing to h3 heading! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All other images are good. Thine Antique Pen 16:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations

• To start with, the articles needs to be moved to Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidbad. The ampersand is not acceptable in the title, per
  WP:AMPERSAND
  .
• The article begins with a completely wrong sentence, that the nawabs were rulers of Bengal from 1740 to 1969. Are you kidding? India became independent in 1947. Even befor that Bengal was under the Britsh crown. The nawabs can not be rulers during this time. I do not know what exact official roles they played, but definitely they were not rulers. May be they acted as jamindars or something like that under the British. The ruling part perhaps ended with the battle of Plassey. So please clarify and use appropriate terms.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I may fix the problems. Tamravidhir(২০১২) 10:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Tamravidhir(২০১২) 11:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not resolved. I do not think they were rulers of Bengal even under the British rule. if you have reference, please provide it. I do not know about the Nawab's status before 1857, but after that the Bengal area came under the direct control of the

British Crown, so Nawabs were not rulers anymore after this. Even for their ruling status before 1857, you need to provide reference. And what exact area wea ctually under them? The whole Bengal? Or just around Murshidabad?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Please note: Bengal was a province of the British during the British Raj. During the partition of Bengal (1905–1911), a new province, Assam and East Bengal was created as a Lieutenant-Governorship. In 1911, East Bengal was reunited with Bengal, and the new provinces in the east became: Assam, Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. After the rebellion of 1857 the power to rule was passed over to the British Crown. Administrative control of India came under the prestigious Indian Civil Service which had administrative control over all districts outside the princely states. So Nawabs of Bengal were still the rulers of Bengal but they followed the system of Dual Government. And it has been well mentioned in the article that the Nawabs of Bengal ruled over Bengal, Bihar and Orissa while the Nawabs of Murshidabad ruled over Murshidabad. At last I would say that after finding reliable sources I would surely add them as soon as possible. Thank you. Tamravidhir(২০১২) 12:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal (section)

• Last two sentences are unreferenced. Please add references.
  (public) 13:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Resolved

Tamravidhir(২০১২) 14:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History before the Nawabs' rule (section)

• Rule over Bengal in BC: last sentence is unreferenced  Done
• Ilyas Shahi dynasty: missing a full stop at the end of the last sentence  Done
• Mughal Empire and others: last sentence in paragraph 1 is unreferenced  Done
• Mughal Empire and others: entire second paragraph is unreferenced  Done
• Emergence of the Nawab of Bengal: space needs to be added after ref #26  Done by the way it's ref #29 not ref #26
• Emergence of the Nawab of Bengal: ref required at end.  Done

History during the Nawabs' rule (section)

• Dynasties: first paragraph is unreferenced  Done
• Under the Mughals: no references at all
• Maratha expeditions: looks good Thank you
• Under British Rule: looks good Thank you
• Decline of the Nawab of Bengal: looks good Thank you
• Emergence of the Nawab of Murshidabad: last sentence in first paragraph is unreferenced.  Done

List of the Nawabs of Bengal (chronologically) (section)

Please remove the reference from the title, and include in a header in the table.  Done

List of the Nawabs of Murshidabad (chronologically) (section)

Please add a reference. Done

Overall

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B.

   lists

   :

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A.

   References to sources

   :

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Good job! Passed. Thine Antique Pen 11:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A big big Thank you!!!! Tamravidhir(২০১২) 11:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120423033859/http://www.30-days.net/muslims/muslims-in/asia-south-central/india/murshidabad-india/ to http://www.30-days.net/muslims/muslims-in/asia-south-central/india/murshidabad-india/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120106125513/http://murshidabad.nic.in/history1.htm to http://murshidabad.nic.in/history1.htm

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.—

Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad

Most recent review

Result: kept Wizardman 02:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]
• 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).[reply]
• Keep: Looks like the issues have been addressed by a handful of edits. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106000000/http://murshidabad.nic.in/history1.htm to http://murshidabad.nic.in/history1.htm

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.

• 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)[reply]