Talk:Nizam of Hyderabad/Archive 1

Paigah family were nizams bodyguards.
Please re-add with citation supporting the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakura6977 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

nizams kotwal "Raja Bahadur Venkatarama Reddy" was a hindu
Have supported this statement with a supporting citation..Please let me know if you find anything contradictory about it.Sakura6977 (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is not about whether Reddy was Hindu. The problem is that you have been edit-warring over this dubious content, without any adequate explanation. You have altered the original text, removing its context, and add a dubious "on the contrary". What is this contrary to?
 * The original text said that Hindus were "under-represented". How does Reddy being Hindu contradict the fact of under-representation? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, then any reason to remove mention of honorable Mr. Venkatramana Reddy?Sakura6977 (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Subdivision of the Mughal Empire
Asaf Jah I was the first Viceroy of the Deccan and Asaf Jah II was the last under the Mughal Empire. Hyder Bale297093270- (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request from, 11 October 2011

 * 1) Sahibzada Mir Azmath 'Ali Khan (1944-). Son of Nawab Mir Husain 'Ali Khan Bahadur (1923-1987), the second son of Sahibzada Mir Habib 'Ali Khan Bahadur.
 * 2) Sahibzada Mir Himayath 'Ali Khan (1985-). Eldest son of Sahibzada Mir Azmath 'Ali Khan.
 * 3) Sahibzada Mir Azam 'Ali Khan (1989-). Second son of Sahibzada Mir Azmath 'Ali Khan.
 * 4) Sahibzada Mir Maqsood 'Ali Khan (2001-). Third son of Sahibzada Mir Azmath 'Ali Khan.

Himayath (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what should be changed; This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".. In addition, you have not supplied references.  Chzz  ► 00:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nizam.jpg
Dear Author of the Wikipedia Article Named "Nizam of Hyderabad",

Just by pure chance, I came across your article, and there is something about it that I must tell you. There is a picture called "Nizam.jpg" in your article, with the address "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nizam.jpg". I must inform you that it is a picture of Nizam al-Saltaneh Mafi, the Prime Minister-in-Exile of Iran, during WWI, accompanied by his cabinet; and has absolutely nothing to do with Nizam of Hyderabad, or with India, for that matter. -- Timelesstune (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war, re Nizams in Australia
Can the anonymous user who keeps adding a frivolous paragraph about the "nizam" living today in Australia please desist? Your efforts would be welcome were they relevant and properly referenced, but they are currently written in an unencyclopedic style, and lack reliable sources. Please consider registering or at least have a look at the Five Pillars. Thank you! -- TinaSparkle 11:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening heading
One thing I would ask, how is the fifty year old Qamruddin young? The first Nizam was born in 1671. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.137.197 (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nizam - broader meaning beyond Indian history?
The history if seen from the victors side can never be factual. Indian governement has totally misrepresented history of Hyderabad and the Nizam in particular. It does not highlight the excellent governance with total peace and harmony it provided. A true history on Hyderabad is very difficult to get because of the controls the government has on information creation, dissipation and management. Thank God internet is there so some truth at least can come out.

Had internet been there 50 years back when the players and subjects were still alive the true picture would have come out. Now the people who knew facts are dead and gone. Now the victor writes history whent that happpens it is fiction authored by the victor. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftab Kiran (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Idleguy 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is misleading to have an article on "Nizam" refer only to a very specific meaning of that word within South Asian history. "Nizam" has several meanings in Arabic (revolving around order) and it stands in a complicated historical context that extends to Persian, Ottoman, and other Near Eastern histories.

Could someone please disambiguate the current Indian history Nizam page in order to open space for more specific articles on the concept of "Nizam"?


 * It is very easy to do the disambiguation yourself. Just create a new page, say Nizam (Persia) to refer to a persian context and then we can try to accomodate information about it on that page and so on. Idleguy 16:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that power allows you to create/make/write history. Be it Alexander in Europe, Moghuls in India or for that matter the recent case of US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never did the perspective of two warring groups match.

In order to achieve common good, some facts have to laid to rest and left inaccessible to general public. We dont talk about the atrocities of Zamindars and Jagirdars who worked directly under the rule of Nizams. We dont talk about the forceful conversions either. We dont talk about the poison given in small dozes, so lets lay the devil of big doze also to rest.

Instead of thinking about what went wrong in the past and worrying about how the facts are being mis-interpreted, we should move towards the attitude of overall and trans-community development. Shakeup people and make them work towards single goal of self upliftment.

If we still try to rue and argue about what is past, our fate will also be same of those Hyderabadi Nawwabs who did not let go of their oppulency and ended up on streets.

Avinash Dyagala Jan 26 2007. (Born in Hyderabad and lived there for 23 years)

Cleanup
I have performed article and removed the tags. It seems to me that the article is pretty fair as regards NPOV. I do and perhaps something on their extraordinary wealth. -- TinaSparkle 22:50, 7 April 2007 (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 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)

The section on Operation Polo is obviously biased. The phrase 'to see reason' needs to go straight out the door, and this portion can hardly be considered fully accurate unless mention is made of the death, destruction, and violence wrought by the Operation. Data for this can easily be found and cited from Hyderabad After the Fall, in the section that presents the findings of the National Commission charged with looking into the operation, conducted by Qazi Abdul Ghaffar.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nizam → Nizam of Hyderabad
 * Nizam on its own is a very ambiguous title as there are many other aricles also referred to as Nizam. However Nizam should still redirect to Nizam of Hyderabad as it is the most common usage of the term. A separate Nizam (disambiguation) page should be made for articles such as: Nizam al-Mulk, Nizam-ı Cedid, Nizam al-Din and many others. Urduboy (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Page Nizam (disambiguation) now is a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support -- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I assum you mean redirect when you say revert? --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes that was a typo error. I've changed it to "redirect" now.--Urduboy (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Agree on request and reasoning. VasuVR  ( talk,  contribs ) 11:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - per the nom's reasoning.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - makes sense.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal to remove scripts
Why must there be so many scripts on the page? Wouldn't it be better if only native ones are used? Secret of success (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Big text had issue, five sons and five daughters: Hashmat Jah, Nawab Mir Hashmat ‘Ali Khan Bahadur [Prince Hashmat Jah]. b) Sahibzada Mir Husain ‘Ali Khan. b. at King Kothi Palace, Hyderabad, 1942. c) Sahibzada Mir Atau’llah Khan [Nawab Atau’llah Khan]. b. at King Kothi Palace, Hyderabad, 1953. d) Sahibzada Mir Habib Khan. b. at Hyderabad, 1955. e) Sahibzada Mir Rahmat ‘Ali Khan. b. at King Kothi Palace, Hyderabad, 1963 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbasdude (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) a) Sahibzada Mir Hassan ‘Ali Khan [Temoin Bahadur]. b. at King Kothi Palace, Hyderabad, 1939.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Article expansion
Wanted to bring it to GA and then FA, need cooperation and advises from interested and active users. 1) Initially i believe we need to expand the Sections, later shall move them to Main Pages.--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge with Asaf Jahi dynasty?
Should this page be merged with the page Asaf Jahi dynasty? Both have almost the same content and topic. --Hadescurve (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, albeit could be a bit of work to tie up the loose ends. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So, who is going to do it? I've started asking Pinkbeast's help every now and then! Moreover, it's quite some work I guess.Sakura6977 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE emphasis on religions?
how do you decide that this is an UNDUE emphasis on religions? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In the para above, Every other word is either hindu or muslim, which is not healthy per wikipedia norms.

You may also see WP:RNPOV. Sakura6977 (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you misunderstand what WP:RNPOV is about. It says that Wikipedia should not advocate or endorse religious beliefs. It never says suppress information about religions practised by people.
 * It is also untrue that the passage only dealt with "Hindu" or "Muslim". It mentioned Christians and Parsis for example. But even if it was restricted to Hindus and Muslims, that wouldn't change a thing.
 * They are facts regarding the regime of the Nizam of Hyderabd, and they are taken from notable scholarly source, Wilfred Cantwell Smith. I am afraid your deletion of this well-sourced content counts as WP:CENSORing. Your idea of a "healthy Wikipedia" is precisely CENSORship. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * reg ur 2nd point, please re-read my earlier comment wherein I have already mentioned "Other Religions". #2, I've no doubts on the source, but the unnecessary and trivial religion-based demographics. given the page is not a small one.Sakura6977 (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the statistics given seem out of place. It looks like this particular passage occurs on several Wikipedia pages, indiscriminately copied from one to the other. I will have to investigate at more leisure another time.
 * Instead of deleting the passage, why don't you summarise it in a nicer way? The point is to convey that the administration was overwhelmingly dominated by Muslims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would strongly discourage trying to rewrite it. Perhaps Sakura6977 might suggest a change here, but I do not want to see it rewritten by one of the many editors who come and go past this page apparently on a mission to construct a hagiography of the Nizams. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem remotely trivial, in the context of a dynasty of one religion ruling over a country whose citizens are largely of another religion. The statistics serve to illustrate the point, that the regime discriminated heavily on the basis of religion. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Paigah family were nizams bodyguards.
Please re-add with citation supporting the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakura6977 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

nizams kotwal "Raja Bahadur Venkatarama Reddy" was a hindu
Have supported this statement with a supporting citation..Please let me know if you find anything contradictory about it.Sakura6977 (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is not about whether Reddy was Hindu. The problem is that you have been edit-warring over this dubious content, without any adequate explanation. You have altered the original text, removing its context, and add a dubious "on the contrary". What is this contrary to?
 * The original text said that Hindus were "under-represented". How does Reddy being Hindu contradict the fact of under-representation? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, then any reason to remove cite-backed mention of honorable Mr. Venkatramana Reddy?Sakura6977 (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we get some explanation from both Kautilya3 and Sakura6977 about recent edits especially Kautilya3 who is removing sourced content citing WP:STATUSQUO? 103.60.175.111 (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because you're grossly misrepresenting what the source says. The source says that kotwal was "a post that was almost exclusively held by Muslims during the Nizam’s rule". What I wrote in the article was "Almost all kotwals, police commissioners, were Muslims"; this accurately represents what the source says. To entirely omit that, but instead to mention one particular kotwal who was a Hindu, is egregious; you are trying to give an entirely false impression.
 * You have also added the statement "However some Hindus did serve in high government posts such as Prime Minister of Hyderabad - Maharaja Chandu Lal, Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad". This is completely uncited; I don't dispute that these Prime Ministers were, in fact, at least culturally Hindu, but the paragraph says Hindus were "under-represented", not that they were not allowed to hold such posts at all, so that some of them were Hindu is not remarkable.
 * You've also removed the cited content pertaining to the Nizam's many bastards, but we're having a slightly more sensible discussion about that at Talk:Mir Osman Ali Khan and I suggest we just do here whatever is done there.
 * I don't think the addition of content about Mir Najaf Ali Khan is appropriate. He is not a Nizam, and the page is about the Nizams. The addition of material about Azam Jah and Moazzam Jah might pass muster, but needs to be rewritten because of the poor English it is in.
 * In summary, I think that has been quite right to revert you. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you . To amplify further, not everything that published somewhere needs to be included in Wikipedia. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. To include it, you must argue that it is appropriate to be included and generate WP:CONSENSUS. Every thing edit is subject to CONSENSUS.
 * In this particular case, the material you have added is WP:UNDUE. As Pinkbeast explained, the earlier statements did not say that Hindus were excluded, just that they were under-represented. Moreover, in a page on the Nizam of Hyderabad, it is unseemly to include the names of cherry-picked individuals, that too prominently at the very beginning of the article. Whatever statements you make about Hyderabad must be general and at a high-level.
 * That the Hindus were under-represented is a fact. The statistics are included just to give an idea of how much under-representation This is not an axe-grinding exercise.
 * Finally, your edits are an excellent example of WP:SYNTHESIS, a form of original research. The sources you have provided did not use them as examples to contradict the facts of Hindu under-representation. But that is what you are using them for, thereby making inferences that were not in the sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Pinkbeast, I've added Mir Najaf Ali Khan so that people know that he's a grandson of the Nizam, who represents the family and their charitable and other trusts, having given many press conferences. Please refer his page to view the same. What is the problem in having a mention about a notable person who also has a wiki page on his/her name with supporting citations?
 * It would be great if You would infact rewrite the part you find poorly written in better English..!
 * @kautilya3, PLease stick to the topic OR "add a new section" when you want to discuss other topics. I'll be happy to answer things related to the topic. So, please make new section if needed rather than dragging other topics into 1 section.
 * Reg: the kotwal part, Please recheck prior to making a statement. I "Did NOT" completely remove your part of addition mentioning "almost all...were muslims" at all! Infact, I added the part mentioning about hindu subjects in his administration.
 * Isn't saying "almost all" a clear attempt to make it delusional, given the number of Kotwals in Nizams state was nothing close to 20-30 something?! Previously, You did try to put the same under notes when I have clearly added that line with supporting citations and inline wiki tags. What you are doing is clear example of WP:UNDUE and Lacks impartial tone
 * Regarding my statement, "However some Hindus did serve in high government posts such as Prime Minister of Hyderabad - Maharaja Chandu Lal, Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad"...you say "This is completely uncited"?! All I can say in response is that Please refer the pages to find a number of citations supporting the same!
 * Being a history graduate, I do know a lot about Nizam and other Indian Kings and noticed that not much content previously used to exist about them on Wikipedia... @ the same time, this doesn't mean that I want to puff up anybody. I am a person who accepts representation of facts as they are. But, I do have an issue when somebody tries to misrepresent them thereby giving a false impression about them/anybody for that matter.
 * Unfortunate to see @pinkbeast and @kautilya3 ganging up against me and taking it personally. What a coincidence is it that both editors being online at the Same Time AND replying to each one's comments within a span of exactly 20 mins!! I have your seen histories and noticed both of you previously supporting/taking each other's help on articles where you have disputes. So there's a clear link! Given which, request WP:3O @, ,,, /anyone else to help close this discussion by maintaining a WP:NPOV.Sakura6977 (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Sakura,
 * Thanks for remembering me. I too notice that fellow editors seem to have bias against Nizam. I honestly, agree with you about your mentions of Kotwal/(Prime minister of Nizam) and grandson(Najaf Ali Khan). Infact, it's clearly adding a Communal colour to the Page. Indeed, it is delusional to write stating "almost all .... were muslims".
 * During my research on edit history, I also found out that the part of temple donations was removed stating "trivial" donations. I will create a new section for your and others' reference. Thank you.Pandya34 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Pandya


 * Kautilya3 your objections are not clear. Fiest you say that verifability wont guarantee inclusion and then you also allege Sakura6977 of original research and WP:SYNTH. Unless you can again clarify your objections I would recommend you to recall what EdJohnston had told you. You should point the biggest concern for now and see if we will need RfC to resolve it. 103.60.175.111 (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the last Nizam's grandson is not a Nizam, and the page is about the Nizams.
 * I will rewrite your terrible English as soon as the page protection is over.
 * You did remove the statement that almost all kotwals were Muslims. . Saying "almost all" is in accordance with the cite that you added to the article, which says kotwal was "a post that was almost exclusively held by Muslims during the Nizam’s rule". Note that this is the second time I've pointed this out.
 * If that's all you can say in response to the correct observation that the assertion these men were Hindus is uncited, you're missing the point. My very next sentence explains why in any case it is unremarkable.
 * Your accusation of sockpuppetry is ridiculous, but feel free to launch an SPI. It might backfire, given the number of accounts with a dozen edits each who seem to have no purpose but to agree with you. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, folks, take it to WP:DRN. I don't think a consensus can be reached in this kind of a free-for-all discussion, with stone walling, canvassing, wild allegations and what not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you want to, or should I? Since it's your edits being reverted out, I think it's up to you. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Pinkbeast, I never removed the whole sentence (please check).. I infact removed the part stating "almost all.." My objection was removal of sentence where hindu Prime inisters were mentioned:)
 * I have already replied to your objection about mention of nizam's grandson(Please see my earlier comment)
 * Being a wikipedia editor I do encourage anybody who improves the language of an article as long as he/she doesn't point out towards other's English. Please dont make personal comments, let's focus on the purpose! Pleasae see WP:ASPERSIONS

I also see a Talk:Nizam_of_Hyderabad
 * Im being asked again and again to explain my points!! wherein I have already done that. And it is pointed out that My English is supposedly terrible! please help us arrive at a unbiased consensus.Sakura6977 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is also clearly noticed that Kautilya and Pinkbeast have both displayed every possible aspect of WP:TAGTEAM characteristic.
 * You did remove the statement that almost all kotwals were Muslims. I literally linked above to the edit in which you did it. I think essentially I agree with Kautilya3 that we must now seek dispute resolution here, and will do so. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Other donations
He also donated Rs.82,825 to the Yadgarpally temple at Bhongir, Rs.29,999 to Ramachandraswamy temple, Bhadrachalam and 8,000 to Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala also known as Tirupati Balaji Temple.

Would like to ask what the fellow editor why was this part Removed? What about WP:CONSENSUS you guys keep talking about? With all due respect, Non-Indians do not know what value Indian Rupee held decades ago. Those were the times when 1000 Rupees was enough for a family of 4 to survive for atleast 2-3 years.Pandya34 (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

As nobody has objected on this talkpage, I shall then add this part to the page.Pandya34 (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)