Talk:Nawab Sayyid Husain Ali II Khan Bahadur

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Contradiction

The article states that he was "the Nawab of Banganapalle between 1722 and 1732" and then says "He abducted his father and succeeded him on 1922." and later that he "died shortly after 12 July 1848"?! The dates are wrong in this article. Chesdovi 14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Nawab of Banganapalle

I have read your message. Actually it seems, you havenot read the article clearly. While he was on his throne, because of his inability to rule, the HEIC have taken the territory for a brief period. Finally it was returned to him just before a few days before his death. Now, does it got clarified.

It was indeed true that he abducted the throne in 1822(actually, it was gimmic done by the family to continue the lineage, ok). Then, he ruled upto 1832 untill the british annexed it. Got, clarified. If you want more information, then refer the website, http://www.4dw.net/royalark/India/bangana2.htm.
Bsskchaitanya 07:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect dates

The dates in the article are inconsistent/incorrect as per the previous message (from another user). It appears that this person lived in three centuries, the 18th (1722-1732, should read 1822-1832 ?), 19th (which appears to be correct or at least most consistent) and 20th (1922, should read 1822?). 212.36.43.34 14:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the dates accordingly, I doubt he lived over 126 years! Chesdovi 11:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]