Talk:Sultanate of Bijapur

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

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

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

2 Sufis of Bijapur

3 Bijapur; The Great Metropolis Of The Medieval Deccan

4 Palmyra of the Deccan

5 Population and Suburbs

6 Elaborate Water System

7 Bazaars and Petes

8 Foreign Accounts

9 Gardens and Water Pavilions

10 Education and Learning

11 Medical Aids and Darush-Shafa (Hospitals)

12 Abode of Music

13 Unprecedented Art and Architecture

14 Conclusion

15 Adil Shahi arts and heritage

16 Adil Shahis of Bijapur

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

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

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

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

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

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

a Turkic state
Böri (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Adil Shah not Georgian
--88.233.7.216 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Was A Turk

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


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

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

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

But Palmyra as a symbol for a multicultural society that supported poets freely is entirely alien to me. Where do you have that from? Greetings, Curryfranke (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. Not only is the grammar somewhat incomprehensible, the source cannot be verified and is not even properly cited.  Removed. 50.111.52.253 (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting it! --Curryfranke (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Requested move 30 June 2024

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

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

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


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


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


 * Oppose. Adil Shahi of Bijapur and Qutb Shahi of Golconda is how these two were described in my history text books which was from some decades ago. By same logic, are we also going to change the name of Mughal empire to Delhi empire? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, but what your history books from decades ago said doesn't really matter toward how these articles are titled; that's just one source of many, and really not even an academic one. We also don't usually use the format of "Dynasty of capital" (as you used with Adil Shahi of Bijapur) even if it is used in some sources as a name which just says either the dynasty (how these three are currently titled) or the polity itself (how these should be titled) are more simple and likely to be searched by the general audience.
 * The logic also wouldn't have the Mughals changed to "Delhi empire" as that simply is not the common name in any way; I'm not proposing we change the names here just based off what their capitals were but what sources actually called them, taking into account that these articles are about the Sultanates themselves rather than the people who ruled them; these five articles are the Deccan Sultanates, after all, not the "Deccan dynasties". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On google scholar, I get way more hits for Adil shahi/Adilshahi,and Qutb shahi/Qutbshahi than for Bijapur sultanate and Golconda sultanate respectively, and so in my opinion the former are the common names used by historians to describe thse kingdoms.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but again the Qutb Shahi and the Adil Shahi were the dynasties of the Golconda and Bijapur Sultantes; these articles are again about the states themselves, not the dynasties; we could make separate articles for the dynasties, for example with Timurid dynasty, Ottoman dynasty, Safavid dynasty, etc. but right now these articles are about the Sultanates, so calling them by the name of the dynasty would not be correct. Using the geographic name for the other two deccan sultanates is already correctly done, which does seem to be more common, and we should have the use of geographic names standardized throughout the five Deccan sultanates articles. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: Noticeboard for India-related topics and WikiProject Former countries have been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support While dynasty & sultanate names are often interchangeable, it would be preferable to decide on a consistent form for the article titles of Deccan sultanates. I don't see a good reason to have some in one form and others in another form. So between titling them all dynasties or all sultanates, my preference would be for the sultanate form. It tends to be more clearly more about the country, rather than the royal family, and lends itself better as an adjective used in relation to other features, like economy, culture, society, etc.  Walrasiad (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Sorry about that, when I copied the Eaton source over from another article it for some reason had the wrong year; I fixed it and there are no longer the sfn errors. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the quick fix! Wham2001 (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)