Talk:Bengal Sultanate

Flag(s) of the Bengal Sultanate
The flag shown on the page has no source

Amartya Sen reference failed verification
I have moved from the article to here a paragraph, the source for which failed verification:

"In 1494, the Hussain Shahi dynasty was founded by Alauddin Hussain Shah, an Arab-Bengali noble. His reign marked a flourishing period of religious pluralism and the development of Bengali literature. Sultan Hussain Shah and his governors patronized Bengali writers to produce Bengali adaptations of Islamic and Indian epics."

No page number was given. No mention of the Hussain Shahi dynasty or Alauddin Husain Shah was found in the book. The closest thing to a match is on page 60, where Nasira Saha, the Emperor of Guada (ruling 200 years before Alauddin Husain Shah) is mentioned as ordering translation into Bengali of the Mahabharata. No mention is made there of Islamic epics or a flourishing period of religious pluralism. Perhaps the editor got the Sens muddled. Anyone who can provide an accurate citation is welcome to restore the text.

--Worldbruce (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think something along those lines was mentioned in the first chapter. I can tell that you are making your claims based on the partial book view available on Google books.--Vaza12 (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bengal Sultanate
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bengal Sultanate's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "r3": From Alauddin Husain Shah: Majumdar, R.C. (ed.) (2006). The Delhi Sultanate, Mumbai: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, pp.513-4 From Mughal Empire: R. Siva Kumar, "Modern Indian Art: a Brief Overview", Art Journal (1999) 58#3 pp 14+. From Delhite invasion of Bengal (1358–1360): Hussain, Syed Ejaz (2003). The Bengal Sultanate: Politics, Economy and Coins, A.D. 1205-1576. Manohar. ISBN 978-81-7304-482-3. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed sockpuppet content from culture
I've removed from the culture section the following text, added by block-evading sockpuppet Vaza12 on 29 April 2016 and reintroduced by IP 82.12.212.24 on 5 August 2017:

"The ruling class of the Bengal Sultanate combined heavy Persianate influences with the rich cultural heritage of Bengal. According to historian Richard M Eaton, the Bengali court was modelled on Iranian tradition. The Sultans were styled as the "King of Kings in the East"."

Eaton doesn't mention Persia at all in his section on culture in Bengal under the sultans. Eaton covers Persian influences on the Bengal Sultanate only in terms of articulation of political authority (royal paraphernalia, court ceremony). To cherry pick this out of everything Eaton writes and assert that the sultans combined Persian culture with Bengali culture is a misunderstanding, distortion, or original research. Eaton makes it clear that these Persian influences were confined to the court, they provoked tensions with powerful Bengalis, and external references to Persian sources of authority were dropped part way through the sultanate. The modeling of the court on Persian tradition is mildly interesting, but needs context to make clear what that means (the court had a polo field, they used a certain style of throne, etc.). It may find a place elsewhere, but does not belong in the lead of the culture section. With respect to "kings of the East", Eaton says the opposite. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)



Flag
This in reference to your edit to the Bengal Sultanate page. First, to note, in the 18th century the Nawab of Bengal was ruling significant portions of the erstwhile Bengal sultanate, and hence highly unlikely that this flag was in use as the royal Bengal flag in the 18th century. Second, for the centuries preceding that, what historical record accounts for the design of this flag? Please provide with a WP:RS here. -- Tamra vidhir  (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In case you are not able to provide with a WP:RS I shall nominate the image for due deletion. -- Tamra vidhir  (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This flag was reported twice. FOTW also lists of both these reports: https://fotw.info/flags/in-benga.html. Found in a Dutch book of flag charts from "Vlaggen van alle Natien" from 1862: https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2014/6/9/2/9/4/294f8ffa-efb9-11e3-99ec-ac83e78c4a8a.jpg and in another source from 1868 that I unfortunately can't seem to find. The file and its name was based off another file that is now deleted called "Flag of the Principality of Bengal (15-18th Century).gif". As far as those dates go, the claim that it was in use from the 15th to 18th century might be dubious. Dekodrak (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Prima facie, these sources do not seem reliable and also do not mention that, even if this flag was listed by some old source, it was in use as the royal flag of the Bengal sultanate. -- Tamra vidhir  (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruption
Could you please explain how Scroll.in (a digital news website) is a "reliable secondary source" and how I am "destroying the article"? So far you have edit warred your way in this article without heeding to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS. If you can't explain your edits, then I will to revert it back, and if you keep reverting, report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The disruption is not coming from me. The sentence you keep inserting isn't well written. You haven't written it but you have to see the sentence may not be NPOV. Plus, Scroll is obviously a reliable secondary source.--202.84.46.101 (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Scroll is obviously a reliable secondary source' is not an argument. As I said, the source is not reliable per WP:RS - this is a historical article, thus we use historians, not journalist/news sites, who have no credentials in this topic (you don't have to read the rules to know this kind of stuff). Last time, please explain why you find it reliable. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does it say we cannot use news sources as references? Where does it say that only historians can be sources? You're just looking to edit war and not trying to uphold the quality of the encyclopedia.--202.84.46.101 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has said that only historians can be sources. But it certainly goes without saying that we use historians for historical stuff, not journalists, who again, have no credentials in this topic. This is what it says on the lede of WP:RS, if you would just click it and read; "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources."


 * More on this (WP:SPS);


 * "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers'' (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos:


 * The University of California, Berkeley library states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee."
 * Princeton University offers this understanding in its publication, Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011): "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe."
 * The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition states, "any Internet site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work." Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.''"


 * And don't accuse me of nonsense please (No personal attacks). --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Proof that you're only trying to edit war. Scroll, as well as the YouTube link from the Financial Times correspondent, all qualify as reliable sources.--202.84.46.101 (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How is that proof? You haven't reached WP:CONSENSUS, and even though I gave you the chance to explain yourself here, you haven't. Instead, you've focused on me, rather than the subject. I'm restoring back the original revision, if you revert me I'll report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I should be reporting you.--202.84.46.101 (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The Ujjainias at the Battle of Surajgarha
A paragraph was recently added about the participation of about 2,000 Ujjainia soldiers at the Battle of Surajgarha. There are several problems with it. First off, the source cited only supports about half of the statements made in it: it makes no mention of the plunder of Bengal or of the killing of Ibrahim Khan. Also, it doesn't appear to be particularly reliable: it's barely four paragraphs long (the page numbers in the citation are wrong, it's on pp. 351–2), it doesn't go into any evaluation of the primary source it's used and it seems to uncritically repeat what I imagine must have been that primary text's exaggerated language.

The so far unverified statements can be sourced from elsewhere (example). However, a more fundamental question is why this sort of information should be given here in the first place. Why should an article about a major state that existed for several centuries have any content at all about a single one of the several soldier groups that participated in one battle against this state? I really can't see a reason for that. Therefore, I'm going to remove that paragraph. – Uanfala (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Suth Asia with Bengal Sultanate in 1500s.jpg

Typo in my revert
When I reverted you, I made a typo in the edit, which meant the sources could not be seen. Please check this version, which I edited right after reverting you. Two good sources are clearly given. 182.163.96.93 (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The map that is already in the infobox shows it clearly expanded into Jaunpur as corroborated, while the two sources you've added (or more specifically the quote you added), didn't mention anything about Assam. Noorullah (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The conquest of Assam in 1498 is key feature of Alauddin Hussain Shah's reign. His own son Danyal was appointed governor of Assam. This is discussed in this article, as well as other articles. 182.163.96.93 (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The map already shows that Hajo is under the Bengal Sultanate, you are adding a map without improvement. Noorullah (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Does it really? The map I added covers the Brahmaputra Valley. You are assuming it covers all of northeast India; but it doesn't (Arunachal Pradesh is clearly excluded). Since most sources say Hussain Shah took the Brahmaputra Valley, it would be fair to cover the Brahmaputra Valley. 182.163.96.93 (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have some reliable sources to back that? Because otherwise it can just be added unto the already posted map. Noorullah (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The current map also does not include Arakan, which goes against reliable sources.
 * Regarding the Brahmaputra Valley, please refer to Chapter II: The Turko-Afghan Invasions in The Comprehensive History of Assam by J. N. Sarkar and H. K. Barpujari. 182.163.96.93 (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have page numbers? Or a source for Arakan? Noorullah (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For Assam, it is Chapter 2 as clearly mentioned above. For Arakan, pages 44-45 of David Lewis in Bangladesh: Politics, Economy and Civil Society. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-50257-3.
 * I do not know if the SPI will hamper this discussion, but page numbers are clearly given in my sources. Improve the map if you can. While it is a good map, it should also show Tripura and Arakan. 182.163.96.93 (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)