Talk:Mughal Empire/Archive 2

Please correct or remove the map
The map placed in the article is very inaccurate. It shows parts of modern day Nepal under Mughal Empire. There is no mention of the states, which merged to form modern Nepal, of being under Mughal Empire in any of the historical literature. I would like to request the regular editors of this article to either cite the source of this map or remove this map from the article if there is no source of such a malacious original research. Thanks--Eukesh (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remove map as it shows irrelevant data to appease somebody's self-blasted ego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.93.152 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The map of the Mughal Empire doesn't seem to show it's right extent. The map shown says that this extent was around 1700, but during this time Aurangzeb was engrossed in the 27 years war against the Marathas. Although Aurangzeb was able to bring down the Bijapur and Golconda Empires, he still was not able to contain the Marathas. He at that time was in the Deccan, but hadn't had any significant gains against the Marathas. In contrast, Marathas were running riot through the Mughal army under Santaji Ghorpade and Dhanaji Jadhav. A place can be shown as an extent of an empire if the concerned Empire has total control of the region, which is not the case here. This map should be replaced by a more appropriate one. ThanksKesangh (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Mughals ? Imperialists ?
I have removed the use of the term "imperial power" in the very first definition of Mughal Empire. How do you define imperialism ? Unlike British who were the imperialists, Mughals weren't ruling this nation to prospere their "home state". Most of the Indian subcontinent was theirs. And they were an empire like the Mauryas, Marathas or Guptas. Would you call all these kingdom states as imperialists ? Its a wrong defintion of imperialism.

Mughals claimed themselves as emperors. I don't find any thing wrong in referring Mughals as imperialists. I don't even object calling Mauryas and Guptas as imperialists. Kumarsarma (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Imperial" is simply the adjective relating to the noun "empire". Anything that relates to an empire can therefore legitimately be described as "imperial", whether it's a military adventure, a customs policy, or a postal system. Jonathandore (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Its wrong to call Baburs empir to Mughuls its Timururis Empir such they call hemself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisherr (talk • contribs) 12:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Population
"Its population at that time has been estimated as between 110 and 130 million" How is this possible? Okay, population sizes have been increasing but to state that the entire population of the Indian subcontinent was this low sounds totally absurd. I hope someone can look this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentthoughts (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article describes no maternal ancestry!!!
The Article does not delve into the ancestry of the mughals from their mothers side. It is only right to describe their maternal ties also. only a small reference is given, Their ancestry should also have a section, minor as it may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardock (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This comment seems to be about the emperors, and not the empire. If you wanted to add some general info on the emperors' mothers, the place to do it might be at List of Mughal emperors (a page which has become more than a list and may need renaming). To add info on a particular emperor's mother, the place to add it is surely on the page for the emperor. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nawabs of Amb
The family of the Nawabs of Amb have long history of rule over the former Amb State also known as Mulk e Tanawul in pre-british rule documents, which is now a part of the NWFP, Pakistan. They are said to be descendants of Barlas tribe of the Mughals and this has been mentioned in many historical books, for example; The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British and Foreign India, China, and Australia (1841), in the following words; "There is one chief who, though not an Eusofzye, yet from his position in the midst of, and intimate connection with, the Eusofzyes, and his singular history and character, must not be omitted in a description of the Eusofzye country. Paieendah Khan, of Tanawul, is a Mogul of the Birlas tribe, the same from which the Ameer Timoor was descended. All record of the first settlement in Tanawul of his family is lost, and it has long ago broken off all connection with the other branches of the Birlas, which are still to be found in Turkestan." (The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British and Foreign India, China, and Australia Published by Parbury, Allen, and Co., 1841, Item notes: v. 39, Original from the New York Public Library, Digitized 1 Apr 2008, pg 220-224)

I believe this article must include these notable families which have Birlas descent, in what ever way it may look appropriate.Wikitanoli (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:Mugals.JPG
It seems that the picture created of the Mughal Empire is incorrect. It is anachronistic and the boundaries shown extend further than they actually were. For example when the Mughals made a southern push into Andhra, several of the Northern parts had been lost to the Marathas and the Sikhs. Although the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Nawabs of the Carnatic had Mughal origins (later to become independant), the Mysore Kingdom of Hyder Ali and Tippu Sultan were not connected to the Mughals (Hyder Ali having come from a poor background rose to prominence in the Mysore Army). Although they established Muslim kingdoms, they were not Mughals. The Nizam of Hyderabad and Nawab of Carnatic territories can be added to the image provided that the date is before when they achieved independence. To do otherwise would be like including the map of India and parts of the United States on a map of the current British Territories. Furthermore, the southward push of the Mughals did not reach further than Bangalore (in the image the extent is shown as far as Trissur where the Mughals never even stepped foot in, where even Tippu Sultan barely reached). The common procedure in making images of empires is to represent the greatest extent of the empire at a given time (in this case would be under the rule of Aurangzeb). I think this would be the most historically accurate and unbiased depiction. See here for an example http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/1/16/Mughal_empire.pngNizaat (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the map has been removed . I make no comment on whether it was adequate or not, or on whether the map is accurate or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This map is correct. It shows Mughal Empire at its greatest extent under Aurangzeb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.1.23 (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mughals today?
Sorry to add to this long talk page, but is there any information on what happened to the Mughals after they lost power? Are they still extant today? If so, how many exist? Are they influential in Indian politics in any way? Are they equal to the Mughal (tribe)? Brutannica (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

v —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.226.55 (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mughal empire map
Could someone help me find a map image that correctly represents the Mughal empire at it's fullest during the reign of Aurangzeb, something like this or this, in it's current image is not even half the actual size in the 18th century. Khokhar (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate flag Inaccurate Turkish name
The yellow crescent flag that is shown on this page is highly anachronistic. The Mughal Empire had no real flag one now expects all political entitites to have. If a flag is to be shown for the Mughals, it should be their fish banner, similar to the fish emblem of the Nawabs of Awadh that one sees throughout Mughal miniatures depicting Mughal armies. In the same way that the Roman Empire had no real flag, but perhaps could be represented by their eagle standard, so the Mughal Empire could be symbolized by the fish banner, although personally I find it highly unneccessary, and quite frankly misleading.

An encyclopedia should inform its readers of the truth, not give them versions of the truth that the reader is expecting. That is to say, just because someone wants to know what the Mughal flag looks like, doesn't mean we should give them the closest approximation to a flag. Instead we should simply note that there was no standard symbolism used by the Mugahls.

As for the name in Turkish (Babur imparatorlugu) this is a completely unnecessary and anachronistic addition. Imparatorlugu is a 20th Century MODERN Turkish word coined to mimic the European word Empire. It would NEVER have been used by the Mughals who spoke CHAGHTAI Turkish of the 16th-17th century. I don't know why a modern Anatolian Turkish term for the Mughal Empire should be placed on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahassan05 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mughals did indeed use flags, ,Abu Fazl in Plate 19 of H Blochmann's edition of Volume I Ain-i-Akbari actually shows the Mughal flag with a sun insignia and in yet another source in Page 10 of Francis Robinson's The Mughal Emperors and the Islamic Dynasties of India,Iran and Central Asia,where Dara Shikoh's wedding procession is shown the Shir o Korshid is clearly shown with the lion sitting in front of the sun in typical Irani fashion,here is the image that I am referring to:



a close up of the flag from Francis Robinson's book on the Mughal emperors:



maybe you missed this miniature which clearly shows a flag?

I hope that someone changes the flag soon to reflect these historical sources and not nationalism (which I suspect is the source of the current flag on Wikipedia)

If a 2D artist can be contacted on wikipedia then this historically inaccuracy of the Mughal flag in Wikipedia can be corrected.

--82.35.46.171 (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputing Neutrality under Mughal influence on the Indian Subcontinent
This section presents a very biased tone in favour of the mughal empire and its rule over the subcontinent.

Words used in terms such as splendid palaces, fruitful blending and remarkable flowering.

This section presents no negative factors of Mughal rule.

Sentences such as : resources unparalleled in the history of the Subcontinent negates any earlier, and previous achievements of the indigenous people and overall gives a feeling of positivity.

The section should be re-structured and re-written so as to include references aswell as a more neutral tone. It also presents irrelevant and useless "tidbits of information" on islamic dynasty and such lines as these :

"Mughal rulers themselves were extraordinary patrons of art, whose intellectual caliber and cultural outlook was expressed in the most refined taste"

- are extremely biased.

It fails to give any indication of negative effects such as, imperialistic taxes aswell as civil unrest caused by the, then, foriegners.

Ncwys (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 'WP:BOLD, if you see something wrong fix it yourself. All that you've mentioned is correct; much of the information is extremely biased. I will support you in your changes. -- Afghana [talk]  07:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I will edit accordingly. I though it best to let other people know my views beforehand to mitigate any feelings of hostility, because I was changing it.Ncwys (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thank you very much for your concern. Generally what editors will do for controversial changes is that they will make the change and then make a section on the talk page discussing the changes and why they made them, therefore allowing other editors to comment. -- Afghana [talk]  04:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have edited and taken a few "chunks" out. Several links were irrelevant and unnecessary, and possibly misleading so they too are gone. For the removal of "collectively known...urban settings of pakistan", I though this was needed as hindustani can refer to several things within indian culture and so, again referencing to bollywood and pakistan is rather a hindrance.

Secondly pulled down "Which all introduced notable changes to subcontinentel society and culture", to the bottom to avoid any confusion with the ordering of the text.

Removed the "remarkable flowering of art and architecture" -- personal tone.

"They once" -- changed to mughals.

Also, question : what's "His successors, with fewer memories of the Central Asian homeland he pined for, took a less prejudiced view of cultures of the Subcontinent" referring to ? Who is he ?Ncwys (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Babur, due to his writing being filled with his sorrow of being away from Central Asia. -- Afghana [talk]  07:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Error of punctuation
It's not a major thing, but the word 'Invaded' should have a small 'i'. Doesn't look good, since it opens up the article. Can't change it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew schaug (talk • contribs)
 * Done. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Akbar: POV
Akbar being shrewed etc. is POV and therefore has been removed. Please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManasShaikh (talk • contribs) 05:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Persecution?
While i understand that this article is kept brief and therefore many things are kept short, there seems to be a lack of information ON Aurangzeb's persecution of non-muslims. I know that it is mentioned but it is only a very brief mention and considering the effect this had on the stability of the empire it could perhaps do with slightly more focus.

Just using one source for example ("The Collins Encyclopedia of Military History from 3500BC to the Present"....yes its very long!) says that "Aurangzeb's revival of persecution and discrimination alienated the Hindu masses and encouraged revolt. The consequent unrest resulted in constant turmoil during most of his long reign." It then goes on to explain (perhaps most significantly) that his policies turned the previously peaceful Sikh population into a "community of fanatic warriors dedicated to the destruction of Moslem rule." The powerful Sikh kings would have a major impact on Northern India as the Mughal Empire collapsed and the British Raj rose. Finally militarily the Mughal's lost one of the best components in their armed forces by creating a "Rajput revolt". It says that "Under a popular Mewar leader named Durgadas, the Rajputs drove out most of the Mughal garrisons (1675-1679)....This resulted in the elimination from the imperial army of the Rajput cavalry, one of its most effective components. This loss was particularly serious at a time when the empire was becoming engaged in a major military effort in the south."

I recognise that not all of this can, or should, be included, and that perhaps the criticisms here go slightly too far. For this reason i am not editing the article until agreement or disagreement is reached. But this is a very important point in the history of India and the Mughal Empire that should not be brushed over. I must say though that i believe the rest of the article to be first class! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How did i forget to sign! I feel so impolite!--Willski72 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

unclear antecedent
"During this period, the Empire was marked by" does this refer to the 150 years mentioned in the immediately preceding sentence, or to the "classic period" mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph?

From context, it appears to be a reference to classic period, but being personally ignorant of the truth, I'm reluctant to make the obvious change:

"During the classic period, the Empire was marked by"

72.220.100.184 (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

[[Media:[[idk how they treated nonmuslims]]Bold text]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.121.215.140 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Name
Why is it spelled Moghal when the Persian is more like Moghul (or Moghool)? (My American Heritage Ddictionary says that even Mughal is pronounced like mʊgʌl, accented on the final syllable.) I have always seen it spelled Mogul or Moghul, and I think we should move this article to "Moghul Empire". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing information in Early History
The Early History section reads like it is missing a few paragraphs at the start: The first sentence is:

Babur's son Humayun succeeded him in 1530 but suffered major reversals at the hands of the Pashtun Sher Shah Suri and effectively lost most of the fledgling empire before it could grow beyond a minor regional state.

There is nothing about who Babur (the founder of the Mughal empire) is--a strange omission from a section that is called "Early History". The sentence indicates that it probably originally followed a discourse on Babur. My guess is that somehow this information was deleted from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.56.167 (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some IP deleted it here in 25 January with no explanation. I have restored it --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Should the name of Dawar Bakhsh be inserted in the table of Emperors? However brief and tragic his "reign", he seems to have been part of the pattern. Incidentally, in the Wikipedia stub on Dawar, the alternative spelling 'Moghul' is used. Ombudswiki (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather, the whole article is required to be re-written. Some changes are made. It will be improved. --Sumir 13:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs)

Lahore
Maybe I have a poor understanding of a capital. But how is Lahore a capital of the Mughals? In the Mughal studies class I took Lahore was never mentioned as a capital. Read the book The Rise and Fall of the Mughals one of the most read books of the Mughals never metioned Lahore as a capital. It clearly made ref to Agra and Delhi. (Dewan 16:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

This is true, Delhi and Agra served as the Mughal capitals.Lahore was a capital for a very brief period compared to Agra which was the capital from the time of Babur to Shah Jahan and Delhi which Shah Jahan made his capital and would remain as the Mughal capital until the end of the Mughal Empire in 1857.

--Azeem Ali (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Greatest Empire On Earth?
This article stated that "by the mid (17th) century, it is perhaps the greatest empire on earth." No perhaps about it. Take a look at the map and you will see that, throughout most of history, the greatest empire on earth was China. By the mid 17th century, the Manchu Qing Dynasty had conquered the Han Chinese's Ming Dynasty. Aurengzeb's Mughal empire at its zennith controlled no more than 1/2 of what's under the Qing Dynasty's control at the same time. By the mid 18th century, under QianLong, Qing reached its zennith and established the modern day China's territorial claims plus Mongolia and Tibet. Alas, when the Europeans finally reached Asia, both India and China were under foreign control. The Europeans have been confused ever since. --VimalaNowlis (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides the map is grossly inflated.The empire was actually based in the Ganga-Jamuna basin in Northern India.It never effectively controlled areas south of the Vindhyas.It was successfully resisted by the deccan sultanates,the central Indian Rajput states and most importantly the Marathas.True that the forces of the empire had reached a long way into the Indian peninsula but they had to retreat.Such temporary advancement can never be the ground for including any area within the domain of any political entity.They did not have effective rule over the following parts-1.Large parts of Madhya Pradesh 2.Chattisgarh 3.Large parts of Orissa. 4.Jharkhand 5.Large parts of Maharashtra.6.Karnataka 7.Large parts of Andhra Pradesh[except of course the Telengana region] 8.Tamil Nadu 9.Kerala.10.Parts of Gujarat. The support for the above contentions is available in the works of noted historians like J.N. Sirkar,R.C. Majumdar etc.This inflated map has been a recurrent theme in the politically motivated histriography of certain colonial historians and later on certain Marxism oriented historians.It is unfortunate to see the same tradition being followed in a dynamic medium like the Wikipedia. 04:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Skylark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2008 (talk • contribs)

Unexplained edits by dynamic IP
Would the person adding all the text about Babur please explain their edits here? Abductive (reasoning) 23:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Safavid Iran (Lion and Sun)
Who replaced Mughal flag (Yellow Crescent on Green) with Flag of Safavid Iran???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.8.76 (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. Good observation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.44.182 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The flag has been replaced and unfortunately this flag has no relevance to the Mughal Empire. Please return it to former flag (yellow crescent on green). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.93.16 (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The previous flag original flag of the Mughal Empire has been replaced with the "Flag of Safavid Iran", please check and assure the credibility of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.159.208.220 (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Mughals did use a lion and sun flag, this can be seen in the Padshahnama in a painting of Dara Shukoh's wedding.The Mughal fish standard should be also be displayed in this page.

--Azeem Ali (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Error in metatext
The article reads

The first six emperors, who enjoyed power both de jure and de facto, are usually referred to by just one name, a title adopted upon his accession by each emperor. The relevant title is bolded in the list below.

although in fact those names are italicized, not bolded. 99.14.216.43 (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Latently anti-Muslim edits
has been making edits that fit the profile of "latently anti-Muslim." Sadly, editors with such pet peeves, who, for example, are subtly trying to imply that the Mughals were foreigners and, therefore, occupiers, periodically make drive-by edits in such articles. I have reverted the edits, but I wanted to alert long-time watchers of this page. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What is ANTI MUSLIM in these edits? Stop pushing ur POV here. Discuss before deleting any sourced material. HotWinters (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mughal Empires are not Central Asian. Most of them are born in India, ruled India, and took titles calling themselves Indian. Yes they have central Asian origin just like Spanish Empire was created by Habsburg. So does that mean Spanish empire should be changed to German or Austrian empire? Or Napoleon who was Italian origin so should we change the French empire to Italian empire.

Please change the Central Asian imperial power to Indian or South Asian imperial power.

Mughals were Turkics from Central Asia(present Uzbekistan) who conquered Afghanistan, Modern day Pakistan, most of modern day India and Bangladesh. They use to speak foreign languages like Chagatai Turkic and Persian, so saying that they were not Central Asian is more of asserting ur personal views. For example the Hasburgs that u have mentioned are described as a "dynasty from Switzerland" which ruled on many parts of Europe. HotWinters (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not by any chance, HotWinters, posing as the IP and asking yourself softball questions, in order that you can sound more erudite in order to pave the way for your edits?? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah...but for a moment I thought it was you. 05:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotWinters (talk • contribs)
 * Lame humor won't get you off. I could request a check.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So should I, the IP seems to be bidding for you. HotWinters (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "bidding for me?" Didn't realize I was up for sale.  Or do you mean "doing my bidding?"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not facebook professor, if u have something meaningful to write, then write, nobody is interested in what you think or feel. HotWinters (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Systematic Bias
Opening section. The following is completely untrue: "The "classic period" of the Empire...ended with the...defeat of Emperor Aurangzeb in 1707 by the rising Hindu Maratha Empire." Rather, Aurangzeb subdued (but did not wholly conquer) the Marathas and died technically undefeated by any of his many enemies but horribly overstretched. For authoritative scholarly reference, see John F Richards' 1995 CUP monograph "The Mughal Empire". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainabadi (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the reference does not say that Aurangzeb was defeated. I've removed the words 'and defeat' but will reinstate it if a reliable source can back it up. I can't believe we're using a bbc website as a source so could someone please find better sources?--rgpk (comment) 14:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The new wording is awkward and is still incorrect. Aurangzeb was neither defeated nor killed by the Marathas -- the phrase about the Marathas is entirely redundant. Rather, he died of ill-health and old age in his own tent in Ahmadnagar aged 91. If you want a reference, how about Jadunath Sarkar, Anecdotes of Aurangzib (Calcutta: M C Sarkar & Sons, 1917) p. 25: "His last illness overtook him at Ahmadnagar, early in February 1707; then he rallied for 5 or 6 days, sent away his two sons from his camp to their provincial governments, and went through business and daily prayers regularly. But that worn out frame of 91 years had been taxed too much. A severe fever set in, and in the morning of Friday, 20th February, 1707, he gradually sank down exhausted into the arms of death, with the Muslim confession of faith on his lips and his fingers on his rosary. The corpse was despatched to Khuldabad, six miles from Daulatabad, and there buried in the courtyard of the tomb of the saint Shaikh Zain-ud-din, in a red sand­stone sepulchre built by Aurangzib in his own lifetime." (Sorry -- haven't worked out how to format.)Zainabadi (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph, since when did Mughals ruled subcontinent with the help of some Indian Maharaja? The link posted has no credible information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.96.222 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The previous flag of the Mughal Empire has been replaced with the "Flag of Safavid Iran", please check the credibility of the present flag. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.159.208.220 (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Mughals did use the "shir o korshid" (lion and sun) as their flag however, this can be see in the Padshahnama. --Azeem Ali (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Paraphrase
Dear HotWinters, Could you please explain to us how you have paraphrased, the sentences: "The Babur-Nama tells the tale of Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur's struggle first to assert and defend his claim to the throne of Samarkand and the region of the Fergana Valley. After being driven out of Samarkand in 1501 by the Uzbek Shaibanids, he ultimately sought greener pastures, first in Kabul and then in northern India, where his descendants were the Moghul (Mughal) dynasty who ruled in Delhi until 1858.'"

which you have apparently cited in your edits, as: "The Mughal Empire (, Shāhān-e Moġul; self-designation: گوركانى, Gūrkānī), or Mogul (also Moghul) Empire in former English usage, was a central Asian imperial power from Farghana, in present-day Uzbekistan, that ruled a large portion of the Indian subcontinent?'"

Since Babur was born in 1483, and driven out of Samarkand by 1501, according to your source, are you suggesting that he had become an imperial power, by the age of 18? If so, what constituted his empire, how large was it, and what is your source for that appelation, since your book of travel writings, which you seem to have cited, says nothing about "imperial power?" Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I should add that in the English language, you can't say that an empire is from a place, ( Farghana, in present-day Uzbekistan), just because its founder happened to have been born in that place. The Mughal Empire came to exist as a result of its dominion over India.  It consequently began existence in 1526, once that dominion began, not in 1483, when its founder was born, or perhaps, even earlier when the founder was a twinkle in an eye.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * woah!! I am not "suggesting" or "implying" anything here...I am writing the facts here. Thats what WP is meant for not presenting ur POVs. Are u saying that as per your version of history he was not from Central Asia and didn't conquer Afghanistan and India(Pak, Bangla included)? HotWinters (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Mughal Empire came to exist as a result of its dominion over India", no, Mughals started their conquests i.e started creating their empire from Uzbekistan itself moving on to Af-Pak and then India and Bangladesh. HotWinters (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I hate to keep pointing out errors in your English expressions, but it is not "woah," it is Whoa. No, I'm merely saying that you can add that Babur was born in the Fergana Valley to the Babur page, but the not the Mughal Empire, which is the page we are talking about.  Here is the lead sentence in Britannica's page on the Mughal Empire: "Muslim dynasty that ruled most of northern India from the early 16th to the mid-18th century, after which it continued to exist as a considerably reduced and increasingly powerless entity until the mid-19th century."  That is close to what was originally in the page.  I'm afraid if you don't provide better sources (than travel books) this dispute is going to continue.   Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said I am not ur facebook buddy. Babur was the founder of the Mughal empire and we are talking about the "early history" of the empire here, just coz its written in Britannica in a brief manner doesn't mean we are going to do the same. This is Wikipedia not Britannica, you see the difference? HotWinters (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops. The The Mughal Era section in the History of India page seems to think that the Empire was established only in 1526, in India, when Babur was 40 years old, not in Fergana where he was from. Please correct that page as well.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Coz "The The Mughal Era section" on the page History of India is about history of INDIA only, and last time i checked Fergana and Afghanistan were not in India. HotWinters (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS We don't talk about the early history of an empire in the first sentence of the article. We give an overview.  We write a sentence that best describes the empire overall.  That sentence is usually not taken from the birth certificate of the founder.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The overview here says that they were from Central Asia and ruled on South Asia.HotWinters (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) I hate to point out that you've apparently not read the rest of the Mughal Empire page itself, busy as you've been with perfecting the lead sentence. Farther along the page it says, "'The Mughal dynasty was founded when Babur, hailing from Ferghana (Modern Uzbekistan), invaded parts of north-western and northern India and defeated Ibrahim Shah Lodhi, the ruler of Delhi, at the First Battle of Panipat in 1526.'" That seems to indicate that the dynasty began in 1526, in India, not in Fergana, even though Babur hailed from there. Perhaps you should edit the rest of the article first before you edit the lead sentence. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How can the dynasty "began in India"...it conquered India in 1526...you mean to say that he never captured Afghanistan and flew over to capture India(Pak included)? HotWinters (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Mughals were not Turkics from Uzbekistan, they did not conquer Afghanistan, modern day Pakistan but they suddenly appeared in Delhi and thats what should be written about them in an encyclopedia, which apparently is meant for information. HotWinters (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are having some serious issues parsing the sentence. The sentence in the Mughal Empire page says, it says (again)"The Mughal dynasty was founded when Babur, ..., invaded parts of north-western and northern India and defeated Ibrahim Shah Lodhi, the ruler of Delhi, at the First Battle of Panipat in 1526.'"  I've taken out the non-restrictive relative clause, which doesn't alter the meaning of the sentence, just adds some incidental information to it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops again. I hate to keep nagging you like Peter Falk in Columbo, but the infobox in the Mughal Empire page gives 1526–1858 to be the dates for the empire.  That means the empire began in 1526, after the first Battle of Panipat, not during one of the earlier skirmishes in the Fergana Valley.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Skirmishes", really? btw How does that make any difference, Does it mean that Babur was not Central Asian and didn't fight in Central Asia and Afghanistan and just popped up in Northwest and North India, is that what you want to write? HotWinters (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How can the Mughal dynasty begin in India? Dynasty means "'sequence of rulers considered members of the same family'" Mughal Dynasty began with Babur in Uzbekistan though in India there rule began in 1526 when babur invaded and captured it. HotWinters (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then perhaps you should be correcting the infobox, which has the Empire being founded in 1526. It says nothing about "in India." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That could be done, Its all about the facts. HotWinters (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, Babur's reign as emperor is listed in the infobox as: 1526–1530. I wonder if you should add: Emperor of Fergana Valley (1495–1501) and Emperor of Kabul Valley (1501–) to this list? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  08:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He was not categorically "Emperor of Fergana Valley", "Emperor of Kabul Valley" or even "Emperor of delhi", he was MUGHAL EMPEROR and his rule was in many countries and areas. He was even declared Padshah of Kabul when he conquered it, should we add that too? HotWinters (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, you should if you're going to claim that the Mughals were a Central Asian imperial power from Fergana Valley. You need to state when the empire began.  A date is needed for the Central Asian empire.  It can't be 1526, because Panipat is not in Central Asia.  Or you can simply remove the fantasy about Central Asian imperial power from Fergana Valley and restore the Mughals to their true dominions in the plains of India.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What fantasy? last time i checked Fergana Valley was in Uzbekistan not India. HotWinters (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you have the work cut out for you. You will also have to correct the Fergana page, which states, "'Fergana also played a central role in the history of the Mughal dynasty of South Asia in that Omar Sheikh Mirza, chieftain of Farghana, was the father of Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur (1483–1530), founder of the Mughal dynasty in India. At Mirza's death in 1498, Babur became chief, although he was still a minor."  The Fergana page editors are calling him only a minor (age) chieftain of Fergana, not Emperor.  In the unkindest cut of all, they seem to be disowning his empire, which is of "South Asia," and have him founding the "Mughal Dynasty" in India.  Please correct the Fergana page as well.  You might have a lot of correction work ahead of you.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Minor means "under age", what could i do if anybody is disowning him (assuming that Fargana page was written by a man from Fargana), it just means that the page needs correction. We are editing a page on encyclopedia not writing national propaganda here. And I have already explained about DYNASTY. HotWinters (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Off the topic, Do you have anything against Central Asians or anything for India? If you do then keep it to yourself don't assert it here, anybody can make out that u want to delete the facts coz you have some biasness. HotWinters (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What part are you contesting? "from Fargana"(Central Asian) or "imperial"? HotWinters (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am producing a quote from one of the world's experts on the Mughal Empire, Harbans Mukhia. It is from his book, Mughals of India published by Basil Blackwell in its series "Peoples of Asia."  It explains why you cannot use the expression "Central Asian empire," because it was a different branch of Gengiz Khan's family.  "There are besides other branches of the same family of Moghuls, descended from Chingiz Khan and/or Timur. One had stayed 'home' in Central Asia.  It was thus that a text relating to it, the Tarikh-i Rashidi written in the mid-sixteenth century by Mirza Haidar Dughlat, was rendered into English by Ney Elias and Denison Ross under the title History of the Moghuls of Central Asia.  Another branch with similar claims of descent had migrated to Iran.  Not quite welcome in the history of Iran, this branch was later replaced by the Safavids.  Thus The Mughals of India also seeks to draw some distinguishing lines among the collateral branches.'"  The Mughal Empire page is about the Mughal family of India (or South Asia, in neutral parlance), not the branch of the family that ruled in Central Asia, which was different.   Please remove the "Central Asian imperial power" from the lead; otherwise, I will fast lose my patience.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Otherwise you will lose your patience? And what is going to happen then, exactly?  You'll throw a hissyfit and scream at your computer?  Or perhaps you might actually do some work to improve the article yourself instead of just attempting to order others to do it for you? siafu (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gee, who is throwing the hissy fit?? The article will be vastly improved by reverting all the nonsense that user:HotWinters has added to the page.  All it takes is a revert.  You can easily do it yourself.  I tried, to no avail.  The nonsense included pasting three or four paragraphs from the Babur page.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OMG, what a pov pusher are you? I have added FACTS, ever heard of them? Real sequential history, not some movie script for one's own appeasement. Articles don't improve by reverting the sourced facts, they improve by working on them but then you want ur version of pseudo history here. HotWinters (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"lose my patience"??? that will be taken into consideration by others, a clear example of what your intentions are on WP, ever heard of WP:AGF, you are certainly going against it. HotWinters (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Was Babur from Uzbekistan? yes he was. Did he start his conquests from Uzbekistan, then Afghanistan and then Indian subcontinent? yes he did. Which part of that you do not understand? HotWinters (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Making it "Turkic power from Fargana", now don't say they were not from Fargana and were not Turkic. HotWinters (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise. All the best.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Mughal Empire (Persian: شاهان مغول, Shāhān-e Moġul; self-designation: گوركانى, Gūrkānī),[2][3] or Mogul (also Moghul) Empire in former English usage, was an imperial power that ruled a large portion of the South Asia." Sounds more neutral. So I say remove "Turkic" and "from Farghana, in present-day Uzbekistan". So there will be no such controversy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.232.141 (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They were Turkic and they were from Fargana, these are FACTS, Facts is what we write here, there is no reason not to put them, there is no controversy either, just some users want to have their version of history i guess. HotWinters (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a case of WP:SYNTH here, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your conclusions. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No reasearch only wrote sourced facts. HotWinters (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Babur was only around 18 years old when he arrived to Kabul, Afghanistan, and he lived over 20 years in Kabul, where he built a multi-ethnic or multi-racial army and married local South Asian women of different race. His children were born in what is now Afghanistan-Pakistan. He along with his local Afghan army invaded the Lodi Afghan Empire of Delhi, India, in 1526 and after that the Mughal Empire was established. Mughals were Central Asian by about 5% but South Asian by 95%. The land south of the Hindu Kush is considered South Asian.She has a bird brain (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Protected
I've temporarily protected the article and suggest that all editors involved in the dispute attempt to seek consensus on the talk page. There is no hurry on wikipedia. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 13:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been fully protected for very long period. But there may be contents, other than the dispute that caused lock, which needs to be corrected. A very long (8 month) protection seems very obstructive. Can you reconsider the time period? »  nafSadh did say 05:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unprotected. --rgpk (comment) 13:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection
This article needs protection. Can anyone please make this article protected? Thank you (69.115.82.63 (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC))

Edit war by IPs
Instead of repeated reverts, it would be better to discuss the differences here and reach a resolution. Shaad lko (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I did not understand the rules about about "Violation of the Edit warring policy." I have no intention of doing so. However I don't understand how factual that the dynasty is considered Turkic. They were multi-cultural and multi-racial empire. The dynasty had mixed Persian and rajput heritage. So it is neutral to say they are an imperial from the Indian Subcontinent.
 * What is in the beginning paragraph that is not neutral of the revision that I was protecting:
 * The Mughal Empire (Persian: شاهان مغول, Shāhān-e Moġul; Urdu: مغلیہ سلطنت; self-designation: گوركانى, Gūrkānī),[2][3] or Mogul (also Moghul) Empire in former English usage, was an imperial power from the Indian Subcontinent.[4] The Mughal emperors were descendants of the Timurids. It began in 1526, at the height of their power in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, they controlled most of the Indian Subcontinent—extending from Bengal in the east to Balochistan in the west, Kashmir in the north to the Kaveri basin in the south.[5] Its population at that time has been estimated as between 110 and 150 million, over a territory of more than 3.2 million square kilometres (1.2 million square miles).[1]


 * The "classic period" of the empire started in 1556 with the accession of Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar, better known as Akbar the Great. Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony. The Mughals also forged a strategic alliance with several Hindu Rajputs kingdoms. However, some Rajput kings, such as Maha Rana Pratap, continued to pose significant threat to Mughal dominance of northwestern India. Additionally, regional states in southern and northeastern India, such as the Ahom Kingdom of Assam, successfully resisted Mughal subjugation. The reign of Shah Jahan, the fifth emperor, was the golden age of Mughal architecture. He erected many splendid monuments, the most famous of which is the legendary Taj Mahal at Agra as well as Pearl Mosque, the Red Fort, Jama Masjid (Mosque) and Lahore Fort. The reign of Aurangzeb saw the enforcement of strict Muslim fundamentalism which caused rebellions among the Sikhs and Hindus.


 * By early 1700s, the Sikh Misl and the Hindu Maratha Empire had emerged as formidable foes of the Mughals. Following the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the empire started its gradual decline,[6] although the dynasty continued for another 150 years. During the classic period, the empire was marked by a highly centralized administration connecting the different regions. All the significant monuments of the Mughals, their most visible legacy, with brilliant literary, artistic, and architectural results.


 * Following 1725, the empire began to disintegrate, weakened by wars of succession, agrarian crises fueling local revolts, the growth of religious intolerance, the rise of the Maratha, Durrani, as well as Sikh empires and finally British colonialism. The last Emperor, Bahadur Shah II, whose rule was restricted to the city of Delhi, was imprisoned and exiled by the British after the Indian Rebellion of 1857.


 * The name Mughal is derived from the original homelands of the Timurids, the Central Asian steppes once conquered by Genghis Khan and hence known as Moghulistan, "Land of Mongols". Although early Mughals spoke the Chagatai language and maintained some Turko-Mongol practices, they became essentially Persianized[7] and transferred the Persian literary and high culture[7] to India, thus forming the base for the Indo-Persian culture.[7]

(69.115.82.63 (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC))


 * Also mentioned by the user above:

(Mughal is an imperial power from the Indian Subcontinent, not an Uzbek Turkic empire.)
 * Babur was only around 18 years old when he arrived to Kabul, Afghanistan, and he lived over 20 years in Kabul, where he built a multi-ethnic or multi-racial army and married local South Asian women of different races. His children were born in what is now Afghanistan-Pakistan. He along with his local army invaded the Lodi Empire of Delhi, India, in 1526 and after that the Mughal Empire was established. Mughals were Central Asian by about 5% but South Asian by 95%. The land south of the Hindu Kush is considered the boundaries of the Indian subcontinent.

(This point out the fact that the dynasty is an imperial power from the Indian Subcontinent, where both of the cultures is part of the DNA in the region.)
 * The empire was actually a confederacy between a centralized Muslim dynasty and lots of smaller Hindu dynasties. In political power and status the various Hindu dynasties were exactly equal to the Muslim dynasty. So by character, the state was a joint Hindu-Muslim entity, both politically as well as culturally. Moreover at least two of the prominent emperors were half Hindus.

(Again shows that the dynasty is native of the Indian Subcontinent.) (69.115.82.63 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Mughals were influenced by Shia Islam, and Akbar launched his own religion called Din-i-Ilahi. Dara Shikoh was influenced by, or influenced Bhakti Cult/Sufism.

Mughal Empire was Sunni Islam not Hindu
Mughal Empire was Sunni Islam not Hindu. Someone please correct this in the infobox.She has a bird brain (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe 'hinduism' is included because many of the empire's subjects were Hindu. In which case its inclusion is correct. --rgpk (comment) 14:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats right.Also,the empire was actually a confederacy between a centralized Muslim dynasty and lots of Hindu dynasties.In political power and status the various Hindu dynasties were exactly equal to the Muslim dynasty.So by character the state was a joint Hindu-Muslim entity,both politically as well as culturally.Moreover at least two of the prominent emperors were half Hindus.Skylark2008 (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Skylark


 * Mughals were influenced by Shia Islam, and Akbar launched his own religion called Din-i-Ilahi. DaraShikoh was influenced by, or influenced Bhakti Cult / Sufism. I suggest that we remove the Religion reference, as there are too many contenders. Or we can include all of them. Syncretism is too broad a term - there should be some credible references to what was the state religion (Shariah was not imposed unilaterally if it was a confederacy as you suggest). British Empire article does not have any religion reference, it is just a South Asian obsession with religion. Otherwise, empires (and large ones at that) hardly can be termed as representing a monolith faith. Shaad lko (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think, Mughal empire did not have any religious face. It allowed all religion and made friends with sovereigns from all religion. Religion field of infobox shall best be removed. »  nafSadh did say 15:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No responses from anyone else? I'm removing the Religion field, due to the concerns outlined above. Firstly we need to evolve NPOV criterion - on which base do we identify an Empire's religion (if at all) - is it all significant faiths espoused by inhabitants, or the state religion? Some of the empires could well and truly have been multi-faith or secular  Shaad lko (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Better! »  nafSadh did say 18:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A well-considered step.An article on a multicultural political entity need not have that section.Skylark2008 (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Skylark2008

The map is not accurate
I seek everyone's opinions on the supplied map in the opening section.It shows a highly inflated territorial extent of the empire.It was primarily based in the Ganga -Yamuna basin and projected power through Malwa[in today's Madhya Pradesh.in Central India] to the Western coast via Gujarat.It controlled Bihar-Bengal area also.In brief the Mughals were a North Indian power with extensive hold on Western and Eastern India.They had little to no control in South India,Central India,parts of Western India,North-Eastern India as well as Himalayan India.This however does not diminish their importance as they still were the most prominent power in South Asia at that time.The supplied map tends to portray mere military advances in course of the Mughal-Maratha wars,the Central Indian wars,the South Indian wars,the Mughal-Rajput wars and the various other military actions as consolidated gains.Two points here-1.Those advances were soon pushed back.No state apparatus of the Mughals could take root there.2.The advances themselves can not be clubbed together in a single map,as that would be anachronistic as they all took place at different times in the Mughal history.[so the contention"at its largest extent",does not stand here].I believe the map of the Mughal emperor Akbar's domains,as available,is a far more accurate representation of the empire.That places it in the context of the other important South Asian powers of the time.Having said all that ,I state again that the Mughals were the most important state in South Asia at that time.I seek everyone's opinion on keeping the map or substituting it with another map though.Skylark2008 (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Skylark2008


 * You are quite right - the ideal map should be one with timelines illustrating the changing territorial extent of the empire. I will soon upload one under the fair-use rationale. Shaad lko (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Shaad Iko.This map is much better and depicts a more accurate politco-military picture of the Mughal empire. Skylark2008 (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Skylark2008

Crescent Evidence
Dear Wikipedia, note the usage of the Crescent banners by Mughal forces in a parade recorded by François Bernier:

(Evidence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.112.165 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

However in several pages of the Padshahnama, the Mughal army is shown marching under the lion and sun flag and variations of the lion and sun flag can be seen at wedding processions,at court and at battles.The crescent only appeared on that page that you gave and only on a shield not on any of the banners.Considering that in the Enyclopedia Iranica, the Timurids are shown to have used the lion and sun flag, I would say the current flag is historically accurate since it is shown in much of the Padshahnama and Shah Jahan was very keen to link himself to Amir Timur.For this reason in the early pages of the Padshahnama he is depicted with Amir Timur.

--Azeem Ali (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Jharkhand
during mughal period, the state " Jharkhand was'nt there",

Jharkhand was made in the year 2000 Jharkhand

Location of Jharkhand in India

Map of Jharkhand Coordinates (Ranchi): 23°21′N 85°20′E﻿ / ﻿23.35°N 85.33°E﻿ / 23.35; 85.33Coordinates: 23°21′N 85°20′E﻿ / ﻿23.35°N 85.33°E﻿ / 23.35; 85.33 Country India Established 15 November 2000 Capital Ranchi Largest city Jamshedpur Government - Governor M.O. Hasan Farook Maricar - Chief Minister Arjun Munda - Legislature Unicameral (81 seats) - Parliamentary constituency 14 - High Court Jharkhand High Court Area - Total 79,714 km2 (30,777.7 sq mi) Area rank 15th Population (2011) - Total 32,966,238 - Rank 13th - Density 413.6/km2 (1,071.1/sq mi) Time zone IST (UTC+05:30) ISO 3166 code IN-JH HDI 0.513 (medium) HDI rank 24th (2005) Literacy 67.63% (27th) Official languages Hindi Website [3]

Jharkhand (Hindi: झारखण्ड, pronounced [ˈdʒʱaːrkʰəɳɖ] ( listen)) is a state in eastern India. It was carved out of the southern part of Bihar on 15 November 2000. Jharkhand shares its border with the states of Bihar to the north, Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh to the west, Orissa to the south, and West Bengal to the east. It has an area of 28,833 sq mi (74,677 km²). The industrial city of Ranchi is its capital and Dumka is sub capital while Jamshedpur is the largest city of the state. Some of the other major cities and industrial centres are Dhanbad, Bokaro and Hazaribagh.

The name "Jharkhand" means "The Land of Forests". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.88.241.94 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Lahore was the official capital of the Mughal Emperor from 1585-1598, please see the Akbarnama dealing with that portion of Akbar's reign, Lahore is clearly stated to be the capital of the empire and seat of sovereignty. From 1564-1571 Agra was the capital of the Empire, 1571-85 Fatehpur Sikri, 15-85-1598 Lahore, 1598-1648 Agra, 1648-1858 Shahjahanabad (Delhi). Please see the official chronicles of the reigns of the emperors: Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, Bahadur Shah I, Farrukhsiyar, Muhammad Shah. Ahassan05 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)ahassan05

Grammer Correction
In the second paragraph of the introduction, Please Change - who may have been the most richest and powerful man alive... To - who may have been the richest and most powerful man alive... Orisimo (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for catching it. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Time period of Mughal Empire
In the article Mughal Empire, it is given that the empire stayed till 1858, which is untrue. Some members may argue that it remained till 1858 in nominal terms, but even Maratha Empire remained nominal powers in India till 1857. But in the article Maratha Empire, the end time is given 1820, as Marathas were no more actual powers after 1820. Similarly Mughal Empire declined considerably in the 18th century and in 1737, they were left with nothing as there capital, Delhi was captured in the First Battle of Delhi. Infact all their territory had been captured by Marathas and later on Durrani Empire.

So the time period should be 1526-1737, not 1526-1858. Hence I am editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajshree.jk (talk • contribs) 08:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Instead of reverting my revert, you should have discussed it first here. Anyway, we are not talking of the extent of the empire here, but timelines. The Durranis reinstated the Mughals in nominal terms, and it was Bahadur Shah who was dethroned as the official monarch after the war/mutiny of 1857 - the belligerents on that page clearly mention the Mughal Empire. By that token, the Maratha Empire did not really become an "Empire" in 1674. Shaad lko (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Shaad lko

I agree that Maratha Empire was not that big in 1674. But it covered much of central and South India. (See Shivaji). At least Marathas had a sizable territory in 1674, but Mughal Empire was non-existent after 1737. After third battle of Panipat (1761), Marathas lost Delhi, but Mughals didn't have real power even at that time. They remained nominal heads under Durrani Empire. After 10 years, Delhi came again under Maratha Empire.

When is Maratha Empire considered to be ended : 1820 (as per wikipidea article). However they still remained nominal heads. For example: Rani Lakshmibai remained nominal head of Jhansi till 1857.

'''We shouldn't consider nominal heads here as we don't consider them in case of Maratha Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajshree.jk (talk • contribs) 08:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC) '''


 * Wikipedia is based on what sources, not on what other wikipedia articles say. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, and they are many times inaccurate. If you have sources saying that the Muratha Empire lasted after 1820, then please go to Muratha Empire and change the article, citing the sources.


 * Looking at some sources, I think that the Mughal Emperor's title lasted until 1857(for example pages 40-43), Mughal lost their capital Delhi in 1739, but the empire continued existing. The empire ended more on less on the Battle of Buxar, 22 October 1764, against the British (according to . In 1765 the British placed the Mughal Emperor officially under their control.


 * So, the Mughal Dynasty ended in 1857, but the Mughal Empire ended sooner, but not in 1737, it was later. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * that is actually a fair point, I would support changing the date to 1765 based on SN Sen's book. Shaad lko (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to make somce changes. Tell me what you think. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * looks much in order now ! Shaad lko (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Waterworks


The first Mughal Emperor Babur is known to have patronized the construction of water channels used in gardens and orchards, ablution pools for his servicemen. This tradition was continued by his grandson Akbar who built monumental waterworks in his capitol at Fatehpur Sikri where he ordered the construction of a Dam with 13 gates, this Dam created a shallow artificial lake during the Monsoon season every year. Water was then lifted into Fatehpur Sikri through large mechanical devices known as the Persian waterwheel and Sakias. Akbar's engineers brought water from the lake constantly into the city in different stages. Gravity than brought flowing water down through a complex system of channels, pools and reservoirs. However due to the shortfall of water and a brief drought Fatehpur Sikri was abandoned and Akbar had to relocate his capitol to Lahore.

It was due to the success of Mughal irrigations systems during the reign of the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, patronized the digging of wells and build river embankments for irrigation. Shah Jahan ordered the construction of two notable canals: Nahr-i-Faiz and Shah Nahr, which drew water from the Yamuna to various irrigated fertile lands. During his reign Agra also became known as the Waterfront garden city, which provided wealth for its 700,000 inhabitants.

Mughal Emperors were famed for their endowments to the construction irrigation systems in order to increase the amount of cultivated irrigated lands, that produced higher crop yields and increased the net revenue base of the empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.2.160 (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Gourkani Empire
mughal Empire is a wrong TERM .this title mostly was invented by British in last century. the correct term is Gourkani Empire.in all written history in Persian or Urdu they were called them Gourkani or Baberi or Jahangir(Jahangher) or shah e bouzourg. mughal is a name for Mongolian while founder of this Empire were from current Uzbekistan and they were raised in a Persian environment in Uzbekistan and current Afghanistan they were Persian speaking people their language was a mix of Persian and Turkish now is called Urdu THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF PAKISTAN. Zahir ud-Din Mohammad (September 10, 2002). Thackston, Wheeler M.. ed. The Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor. New York: Modern Library. p. xlvi. ISBN 978-0375761379. "In India the dynasty always called itself Gurkani, after Temür's title Gurkân,also in all persian written books they refere to them as Gourkani Pad E, Shah  in turkish : Gourkani Pa shah.Maahmaah (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Better and correcter image for article
The map is totally inaccurate and pov pushing.The Mughal empire was based in North West ,North and parts of Eastern India.It did ATTEMPT expansion into other parts but failed to have any lasting gains.The map pushes wartime temporary advances as actual gains.This is suspicious and gives the impression of manipulation of the page by fundamentalists of a certain community.To get an actual event based map of the entity ,please check out the website of UCLA,especially the article by V.Lal.Please correct this map as it paints a totally inaccurate picture of contemporary Indian polity by ignoring other equally important political powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2008 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ambigous wording
The Mughal emperors were Muslims and direct descendants of Genghis Khan through Chagatai Khan and Timur. I thought that this implies that Timur is the descendant of Genghis Khan which, according to the article about him, he isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.174.114.61 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Cultural Influence
First ^^ of all there is no proper citation. Secondly I agree with the Persianized architecture but the thing is that the architecture that influenced the majority of the muslim world was from India only during the Sultanate period, during the reign of Mahmud Ghazni. Thus can be said the same for fine arts and other designer arts. I would like to discuss the topic before editing the aforementioned section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelssj99 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Turkish?
This needs to be discussed here. There should be enough scholarly English language sources that we can use for this article, not websites. See for instance: "THE TURCO-MONGOL EMPIRES The Ottoman. Salawid. Uzbek. and Mughal states represented an unparalleled triumph of Turkic military and political influence. Ruling families in all four Male* spoke iclatcd Turkic languages as their native tongues, and relied upon Turkic or Tuico-Mongol tribes or military units to gain power. In cultural terms, though, the Turkic triumph was muted. The baroque court dialect. Ottoman Turkish, evolved into the imperial administrative, historical, and literary language of the Ottoman elite, as did Chaghatay Turkish, or old Uzbek, in Uzbek Turktstan." (it then points out that Arabic was the main language. and  are more sources. If there is a dispute, our article should show that. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Crescent used in the Mughal Empire
The Crescent and star symbol was used in the Mughal Empire, (note: the upward Crescent inlaid into the shield of the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan).


 * The crescent and star on the shield is a piece of decoration with no particular symbolism for the empire as a whole. If you can find examples of Mughal documents where the crescent and the star are used to symbolize the authority of the emperor that would be stronger support. The crescent and the moon only came to symbolize Islam and Muslims at large in the 19th century when the Ottoman Empire was the last major independent Muslim state. The crescent and star took on the connotations of Islamic solidarity only in the 19th century. In fact the greatest proponents of the use of the crescent and moon as a symbol of Islam where westerners who wanted Islam to have a symbol like Christianity had the cross and Judaism (which was also knewly assigned the star of David as a "symbol" in the 19th century. In art the Mughals and other Muslims dynasties often used the sun, moon and stars symbolically, just as did Early Modern states in Europe, East Asia and Southeast Asia.


 * The very idea that the symbols on shield woud have some sort of vexillogical symbolism in the Mughal Empire is in itself incredibly anachronistic. Western heraldry did not exist in the Mughal Empire.


 * The Mughal Empire did not have a flag, it did not have an anthem, it was not symbolized by the crescent and the moon. That doesn't detract from the Empire in anyway, its just reality, to pretend the Empire had a "flag" is completely anachronistic. The Mughal Empire is a fascinating topic in itself, there is so much to learn about it in the sources that we have, we should not feel the need to create artificial symbols for it so that it allides with our modern understanding of what a state/empire should or should not have. Ahassan05 (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)ahassan05

You are completely right.The so called flag is a a sort of historical revisionism being attempted by citizens of a specific country with fundamentalist agenda.It is unfortunate how a wikipedia page has become a battleground for such ideological pov pushing.Thanks for pointing that out. Skylark2008 (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Skylark 2008.

Inaccurate map.
The map is totally inaccurate and pov pushing.The Mughal empire was based in North West ,North and parts of Eastern India.It did ATTEMPT expansion into other parts but failed to have any lasting gains.The map pushes wartime temporary advances as actual gains.This is suspicious and gives the impression of manipulation of the page by fundamentalists of a certain community.To get an actual event based map of the entity ,please check out the website of UCLA,especially the article by V.Lal.Please correct this map as it paints a totally inaccurate picture of contemporary Indian polity by ignoring other equally important political powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2008 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The map notes that it represents the Empire under Aurangzeb in 1700. Indeed in 1700 the areas depicted on the map were integrated/being integrated into the Mughal Empire. Within a few decades areas under direct control of the Empire had severely decreased, but it is nonetheless an accurate depiction in 1700. It is the norm in these sorts of historical articles to use maps that show Empires when they are at their largest, so the standard map of the British Empire reflects its greatest extent post-World War I, the same goes for France, The German Empire is usually depicted right before World War I to show the maximum border for Cameroon and New Guinea. So by using a map of the Empire at its maximum reach this article is following the general pattern. We could add maps to show the Empire under Babur and Akbar to show the shifts in the maps if you would like. As for maps "depicting reality", most maps of European Empires are based on claims of power that do not necessarily reflect actual authority on the ground. For instance the Dutch East Indies map did not accurately reflect actual control on the ground on all islands until the mid-1920s, and then was lost in 1939, and yet from the 19th century through 1939 the Dutch East Indies is colored uniformly despite the existence of dozens of actually autonomous self-ruling entities. So there you have it. So we really need to change the way we depict all empires, states. Ahassan05 (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)ahassan05

Thank you Ahassan-I appreciate your response and there is an element of truth there- but allow me to state-the map is inaccurate even if we take the ongoing expansion in 1700 into account.If anything the empire had failed to make any dent in extensive parts of Central India,Western India and Southern India.It had also lost to its former allies-the Rajputs of North India.If anything Aurangzeb's closing years were those of defeat and dismantling of the empire.He himself ,on his deathbed,in Ahmednagar,in the midst of an ONGOING campaign to occupy the area,mentioned his admission of defeat to the Marathas.I repeat that I understand your view and respect it.But the map is a gross eyesore.Please try to incorporate that other map you mentioned-at least that would be a bit better.Someone had a similar map up-but it was vandalized-I guess citizens from a neighboring country is at it-some kind of religious jingoism is at play here.However I trust your judgement and request you to put that other map in place.Also once that is put in,please lock the page as a LOT of vandalism goes on in the map section.I don't know how to lock it-please put that map in and arrange for it to be locked.Thank you. Skylark2008 (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Skylark2008

Maratha conquest
The Marathas had conquered most of the Mughal Empire and were finally defeated by the British and I believe that one line of that 'history' is important here (the 3rd battle of Panipat was only a minor setback).-Sabi fanai (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

And the map is GROSSLY inaccurate.Please help to change the opening map.It is a huge overestimation of the empire at the cost of all other contemporary political structures in South Asia.Thank you. Skylark2008 (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Skylark2008.

Crescent and star is ancient Turkic symbols
Well before the islam, Turks of Central Asia used it on their coins: Turkic coin (c. 600s)

Rulers of Mughal Empire was Turkic dynasty, founder by Babur who was great-grandson of Timur A Turkic ruler or Central Asia. Urdu, is a Turkic word 'ordu' means 'army', meaning language of ruling army. English word 'hurd' or 'horde' comes from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismet11 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Iran in the Mughal Empire Map?
An editor is trying to remove Iran from the info-box, with inappropriate reasoning as he did here, instead of discussion. So should Iran be included there? This Article is part of Wiki Project Iran, and during the reign of Aurangzeb, the Mughal empire even had parts of Iran, and was geographically extended to Iran. Here are some maps which support Iran's inclusion:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3

-Those maps don't actually have Iran in them- they don't appear detailed. I don't think Iran should be included in one of the nations conquered by the Mughals, because even if Aurangzeb had extended his rule, it only went further into Afghanistan and South Asia- not Iran. These maps aren't truly correct. By adding Iran in that list of countries, it practically is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonstone1889 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose #1 doesn't support the claim at all; #'s 2 & 3 appear to show the Mughal Empire extending into Iran, but don't, on their own, constitute reliable sources. Is there better evidence for this claim? siafu (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support They constitute reliable sources and present day Iran's geographic boundaries are evident from the maps provided.  Faizan   -  Let's talk!   07:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. A map published in a reliable source which shows both the borders of the Mughal Empire and the modern states would have been convincing, but the maps provided so far are not detailed at all. One has to first trace the borders of the modern states and then make a decision on whether or not Iran's modern borders and the Mughal Empire's borders overlap. Regardless of how obvious a conclusion may seem to some, that's original research, pure and simple (and that it is being contested makes its inclusion even less justified). On the other hand, if someone finds a reliable source which explicitly states that a part of modern Iran falls within the borders of the ancient Mughal Empire, I'll be happy to switch to support. (I did a cursory search and found nothing, but that of course doesn't mean that there is nothing to be found).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 26, 2013; 15:10 (UTC)

Oppose- I agree-there should not be a map that includes Iran as also vast areas of South Asia-such as West,Central,Eastern and North-Eastern India as also Nepal and Bhutan within the map.The map at the opening section is GROSSLY wrong and needs to be fixed ASAP to conform to wikipedia standards.It seems that certain interest groups from Pakistan have started to use this page to push POV agendas based on their fantasy. Skylark2008 (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Skylark2008.

Edits by User:Srkris
His edits like 1 and 2 were without a summary! Please read WP:ES. Constantly added Non-Neutral content there without reliable sources. Please refrain from such edits. Faizan  -  Let's talk!   10:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I find your reverts such as &  are bad faith reverts, failing to add an edit summary is not a good enough reason to revert additions made by me wholesale. You have to adopt a more constructive edit approach Srkris (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, were your changes supported by references? Where you saw the term "Mughal Sultanate"? Why you removed religions from the infobox? Why you removed the "Kingdom of Mysore" from infobox? Why you removed referenced info about "Nawabs"? Why you altered most of the text, unexplained?  Faizan   -  Let's talk!   11:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Religions were not removed, the dates were removed, the Mughal empire did not follow Islam or Deen-i-Ilahi, the emperors and a few others did, so the dates are misleading. Mughal Sultanate is the name of the empire in their state language persian, known as mughal empire in English as mentioned. Kingdom of Mysore under Hyder Ali separated not from Mughals but from Nizam of Hyderabad, so mentioning Mysore as successor of Mughals is incorrect. References have been added and still are being added. All the changes can't be mentioned in a short summary.Srkris (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You reverted again? You did not still explain other text alterations! You could had described your changes, at least a few in the summary! Now you are violating 3RR policies, and may be reported.  Faizan   -  Let's talk!   12:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made good faith edits with many references, I am working on this article to make it more encyclopediac, adding significant information. Too bad if you are showing bad faith. I would very much prefer to be reported so that someone neutral can go over these changes and rule if they are not fit for wikipedia. Srkris (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize the article by repeatedly removing significant amounts of content without providing justification here. It appears to me that certain users are ganging up and asking me to provide a justification for adding content while not justifying their own content removal reverts. I have clearly stated I am working on this article by adding referenced content. Srkris (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect information
User:Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi made some edits to the article. I am mentioning here the mistakes in his edits.


 * He changed "imperial dynasty" to "imperial empire". Imperial empire is a meaningless tautology. The mughals were a dynasty that had an empire.
 * Aurangazeb's armies fought the Marathas in the War of 27 years, and by the time of Aurangazeb's death the Nawabs had by this time declared their independence from the Mughals, and the Marathas replaced the Mughals as the dominant power. By 1757, there were other claimants to the lands, such as the Sikh Empire and the English East India Company
 * The Cauvery basin was not controlled by the Mughals at any point of time.

I agree-the Marathas were NEVER controlled by the Mughals...only a few years of temporary truce do not make anyone dependent.The Cauvery basin was under the joint control of Mysore Hindu Wodeyar family,Hindu Polygar kings and the Nizam. The Nizam ,after successive defeats by Marathas,accepted their suzerainity. So ,yes,the Cauvery basin was not under Mughal control. Mughal empire was in Punjab,Ganga -Jamuna basin and parts of eastern India.Everything else as controlled by paramount powers who were either allied to [not subjugated to] the Mughals or outright enemies.This page has been taken over by Pakisanis who are pushing their communal POV.An unfortunate incident by wiki standards. Skylark2008 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Skylark2008 The only good map of the Mughal state is the Germa one in the "Akbar " article-all else is POV pushing Pakistani propaganda. Skylark2008 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Skylark2008

-Srkris (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Srkris! Here are my replies.


 * Mughals were an dynasty, but mughal emipe was an empire, not a dynasty.
 * They were independent even before Aurangzeb. They ruled independently from the Mughals, though they identified the Mughals as the emperors.
 * The Kaveri Basin came under the Nizam, who acknowledged the authority of the Mughals.

—S yɛd  Шαм iq  Aнм ɛd  Hαsнм i  (тα l к) 13:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Then it's an "empire" (or "emipe" if you prefer!), but "imperial empire" is redundant. Kortoso (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Map??
So is the Mughal page not going to show a map of the extent of the empire??Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilmn2002 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2013
In the opening summary, third paragraph, I suggest two grammatical changes to this sentence: -first, to change "His" after the semi-colon to "his"; -second, to delete ", in fact," because it is pointless.

Thus, change: Akbar was a successful warrior; His reign also brought Persian cultural influence to its zenith in India, and the resulting Indo-Persian synthesis, in fact, outlived the Mughals. to Akbar was a successful warrior; his reign also brought Persian cultural influence to its zenith in India, and the resulting Indo-Persian synthesis outlived the Mughals.

Thank you!

Wolterstorff (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks for pointing these out! BryanG (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Article protected
This article has been protected from editing for one day to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The extent of the Mughal Empire need everyone to help.
My question is, Was Nepal ever part of the Mughal Empire are there any sources that can provide anything about Nepal and the empire? I have found few maps that show Southern part of Nepal under Mughal rule during Akbar but have not found anything that mentions Nepal in written form. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just found some maps, that include even China, Myanmar, but it's not correct anyway. OwnDealers (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Get a life. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whining?, kindly refrain from it. OwnDealers (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from trolling. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How? I am not asserting false maps as facts. OwnDealers (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You know what do whatever you want this is Wikipedia after all Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This question was resolved over a year ago and it is unfortunate that someone removed this information. Parts of what are today the Terai in Nepal were part of the Mughal Empire and several sources were cited to this effect. The Nepalese state did not expend into the Terai until the Mughal Empire weakened in the 1770s. Please see reference 24. The topic is obscure and exact boundaries changed frequently. --Akhipill (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 September 2013
the line " He also forged martial alliances with several Hindu Rajput kingdoms" to be changes as " He also forged marital alliances with several Hindu Rajput kingdoms"

Vijayashankar70 (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done:. Thank you for pointing this out. The lead section should summarise the content of the article, not add new facts. The main article just says "alliances", without saying what kind, and the source (the book by Ahmad Bashir, currently footnote 22) is no-preview, so I could not check it. I'm sure you are right, but to be on the safe side, I've just deleted the word "martial". Sorry this took so long. --Stfg (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible improvements
Section:Decline Chhatrapati Shivaji declared "Hindavi Swarajya"(Indian self rule), not "Hindu Swarajya" (Independence for Hindus). It would be appropriate to call it just "Maratha Empire" instead of "Hindu Maratha Empire". Please provide more clear sources.

The description of "The Third battle of Panipat 13 January 1761.jpg" states that "Ahmad Shah Durrani and his coalition decisively defeat the Maratha Confederacy, during the Third Battle of Panipat and restore the Mughal Empire to Shah Alam II.". However Maratha were Mughal ally when Third Battle of Panipat happened. It was understanding between Mughals and Marathas that Marathas would protect Delhi from intruders. According to that they fought to protect Delhi. After their defeat, Mughal crown was susequently defeated by Ahmad Shah Durrani. Mughal crown was dethroned and Durrani restored it by crowning his trusted Mughal Prince Shah Alam II. Durrani did not restored Mughal Empire, he just handed over the powers to his trusted Mughal prince against hefty amount as ransom.. Please provide trusted sources for the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarkar2000 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent large-scale edits: early October 2013

 * Will you explain here first what you are attempting to do in your edits? Please read WP:BRD.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead of an article is a summary (read WP:Summary style) or précis of the article. Since people are unilaterally editing the lead, especially the lead paragraph, without regard to integration with the rest of the article, I have added as place holder the relevant section of the FA India, which is both reliably sourced and balanced.  Please do not remove it until the outstanding issues are resolved.  Please read WP:Lead fixation, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disturbing changes/removal of references
I would like to know how Encyclopedia Iranica is not considered a reliable source. The removal of two references; "www.iranicaonline.org/articles/akbar-i-mughal-india", "www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babor-zahir-al-din", stating not WP:RS. Whether the Mughal empire was a Persianate, which seems to be the underlying issue here, is clearly explained by another source, #27 at the moment; Robert L. Canfield, Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge University Press, 1991. pg 20: "The Mughals – Persianized Turks who invaded from Central Asia and claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis – strengthened the Persianate culture of Muslim India"--Kansas Bear (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Persianate" is not used by historians of India. Well, it is used by a handful to be sure, but not by most (a near unanimous "most"); further, it is yet unrecognized by both OED and Webster's Unabridged.  Consequently, it is WP:UNDUE in the lead.  The prevalence of a Persianized culture among the elite is mentioned in the lead as it stands.  As for Encyclopedia Iranica, it has an Iran-centered perspective.  The two cited references for "Persianate" were articles on "Akbar I" and "BĀBOR, ẒAHĪR-AL-DĪN MOḤAMMAD" written by F. Lehmann, who work is unknown in Indian historiography and who in any case never mentions the word "Persianate" in either article.  The Mughal Empire was pre-eminently an empire of India, not a gunpowder Islamic empire (whose founder had all of two cannons), a Persianate empire (whose founder wrote his memoirs in Chaghtai Turkic), or an Islamic empire (whose most famous dynast was sympathetic to the sufis) or any other spin historians with primary interest West- or Central Asia or Islam might put on it.  Its primary description will therefore remain the preserve of historian of India. That is also why the Wikipedia pages are called Babur, not Babor.  Humayun, not Homayun, Akbar, not Akbor I, etc etc.  Iranica is a substandard encyclopedia for Indian history.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * None of which makes Encyclopedia Iranica, non-RS. I noticed you avoided the fact that Canfield supports the term "Persianate", undoubtedly not of the, "preserve of historian of India"? Your statement about "spin historians" makes it sound like you are the deciding factor of which historians will be used in this article. Also, "the mughal empire was preeminently and empire of India, not Iran", tells me enough. Persianate has to do with culture, not ethnicity(Persians) or countries(Iran). Sort of like the term "Indo-Persianate", used by a William Pinch, or Persianate civility along with the vernacularizing of Persian according to Seema Alavi or even W.M. Thackston's discussion of non-Persianate themes within "Indian style" Persian poetry. Odd, I'm not seeing anything of "Iran" in any of these comments on Persianate culture. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know how the word has been used and what it means and you are wasting your time (and mine) producing examples I already know about. The sentence in the current lead which says, "Eschewing tribal bonds and Islamic identity, especially under Akbar, the Mughals united their far-flung realms through loyalty, expressed through a Persianised culture, to an emperor who had near-divine status." says everything the term "Persianate" implies.  As I said earlier, "Persianate" is a new term, defined variously by Hodgson (who created it), Canfield (who includes "hierarchy" and "deference" in it), etc., in other words, a neologism, whose meaning is still not agreed upon, which is not a word in the English language besides.  It can't be used to define a major empire in a lead paragraph.   That is all there is to it.  Wikipedia is not a repository of internal links whether in lists or strung together in a lead sentence.  Please read WP:NOTLINK (2)  Besides, per WP:Lead, the lead should be written in a "clear accessible style."  That, any sentence which uses the word "Persianate" does not possess, unless the term is already defined earlier.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

mughal empire was small
122.177.110.101 (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. --Stfg (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Reformation of the article on the Mughal Empire
The Mughal Empire (also Great Moghul, Great Mughal Empire, Gūrkāniyān;, Muġliyah Salṭanat, ) ruling from 1526 to 1857, was a Muslim dynasty of Turkic-Mongol origin   that consolidated the Spread of Islam , availed the Persian language , utilized gunpowder  and extended over large parts of South Asia.

The Mughal Empire maintained more than three centuries of rule, held supreme political authority over a population of 150 millions (nearly 1/4th of the world's population), and controlled lands covering 3.2 million square kilometers (1.2 million square miles) and had a GDP of $90 billion during its zenith. Its Mughal Emperor's ruled for seven generations and maintained achievements in art, architecture and the vibrant records of their effective administration. The Mughal Empire is known as as an example of tolerance for its multicultural subjects of various linguistic and religious backgrounds. In fact the Mughal Empire exceeded in size and resources its two contemporary early modern rival Islamic empires - Safavid Empire and the Ottoman Empire and was tantamount only to the Ming dynasty.

The advent of the Mughal Empire is conventionally introduced with the first Mughal Emperor Babur's victory over over Ibrahim Lodi in the First Battle of Panipat in the year 1526. By the year 1540 the Mughal Empire had ceased to exist and was eclipsed by the Suri Dynasty because Sher Shah Suri ousted the second Mughal Emperor Humayun until it was restored by the third Mughal Emperor Akbar and his regent Bairam Khan, together they defeated defeated Hemu during the Second Battle of Panipat and reestablished the Mughal Empire and created a multicultural basis for its subjects. The empire experienced architectural excellence during the reign of the fifth Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan. By the year 1690, the realms of the Mughal Empire spanned from Kabul in the west to Chittagong in the east from Leh in the north to Cape Comorin in the south being at its peak during the reign of its sixth Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.

During the reign of the fourteenth Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah internal militancy reached new heights when the Maratha Confederacy overran various provinces and raided the Mughal imperial capitol at the Battle of Delhi (1737). In the year 1739, Nadir Shah inflicted a feral defeat to the Mughal Empire during the Battle of Karnal. When the sixteenth Mughal Emperor Alamgir II ascended to the throne due to the favor of Grand Vizier Imad-ul-Mulk, he tried to re-centralize the Mughal Empire by allying himself with Ahmad Shah Durrani in the year 1756 and then expelled Grand Vizier Imad-ul-Mulk and blockaded himself within the capitol with the help of Najib ad-Dawlah in Delhi. This action initiated the Battle of Delhi (1757) and its aftermath which, led to the peak of the expansion of the Maratha Confederacy. Once again the Mughal Empire had diminished until it was revived by Ahmad Shah Durrani and his coalition that decisively defeated the Maratha Confederacy led by Sadashivrao Bhau, during the Third Battle of Panipat and restored the Mughal Empire to its eighteenth Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II.

The last emperor, Bahadur Shah II issued a Firman supporting the Indian Rebellion of 1857 and was therefore tried by the British for treason, imprisoned, exiled and the last remnants of the Mughal Empire were taken over by the British Raj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJDF2367 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 October 2013‎
 * I don't see any argument here (involving claims and warrants). You have merely reproduced your last edited version of the lead. Again, please tell us what you are attempting to remove, add or change in the article and why.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have explained below, the lead sentence of an important article cannot be a selective list of Wikilinks to other articles. Your lead sentence does not conform to WP:NPOV; it is not the consensus view of historians.  In any case, gunpowder, by which you mean cannons, was first used in India by the Portuguese, not the Mughals.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I find that PJDF2367's text centers too much in glorifying the achievements of Islam, and it omits anything that smells as non-Muslim.


 * This reminds me a bit of an editor who kept exaggerating Islam's role in history, including the flawed claims about early knowledge of gunpowder by Arabic chemists. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I aagree-this article has become an Islamist pov pusher group's territory.Many times a request wasput forth to issue time-based maps and SUCH MAPS WERE POSTED. A certain group [ religious fundamentalist probably ] keeps removing that map and posting a laughab;e cartoon in a wikipedia article.You are right .It has become an Islamist article. Skylark2008 (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Skylark The map is totally wrong.the effective mughal rule was limited to north india and parts of central india. leave alone maharashtra,karnataka,tamil nadu,kerala,andhra pradesh-they had no control over chattisgarh,large parts of orissa,jharkhand and even eastern maharashtra.the only effective incursion in the deccan was into the territory of the golkonda kingdom-later turned into the nizami kingdom of hyderabad.i completely agree with the former writer that the area shown has been a depiction of the campaign areas.thanks

Strangest map-with religious POV bias.
The map is totally wrong.the effective mughal rule was limited to north india and parts of central india. leave alone maharashtra,karnataka,tamil nadu,kerala,andhra pradesh-they had no control over chattisgarh,large parts of orissa,jharkhand and even eastern maharashtra.the only effective incursion in the deccan was into the territory of the golkonda kingdom-later turned into the nizami kingdom of hyderabad.i completely agree with the former writer that the area shown has been a depiction of the campaign areas.thanks

good historical maps are posted time and again but get removed by certain fundamentalist interest groups.Wikipedia has become a haven for POV pushing on historical articles.If this continues,internet traffic will look to other sites for at least historical information. Skylark2008 (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Skylark

Improper article
This article is pro-Maratha pro-Sikh pro-dissent against Mughal Emperors. It ignores the political and social achievements of the Mughal Empire and the three phases of the history of the Mughal Empire which are the three Battles of Panipat. Furthermore this articles mentions nothing about the different periods that the Mughal Empire went through from how it arose as a world power during its times and how it gradually declined. This article should be edited properly by an expert who understands the Mughal perspective of how South Asia was governed.

There should be no place in this article for opponents of the Mughal Empire, who are trying to white wash history such as Akbar's subjugation of the Rajputs and particularly the victories of Aurangzeb against the Maratha Confederacy, the atrocities committed by Maratha leaders such as Shivaji, Sambhaji, and even Sikh leaders like Banda Singh and their forces, the Deccan Wars are ignored, the Maratha resurgence during the reign of Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah is ignored, Nadir Shah's invasion is ignored, The defeat of Ahmad Shah Duranni by prince Ahmmad Shah Bahadur is ignored. The assassination of Alamgir II is ignored. And the causes of the Third Battle of Panipat and the events that led towards that conflict. The reign of Shah Alam II is also being ignored in this article and so is the reign of Bahadur Shah Zafar.09:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.43.195 (talk)

Bichitr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrzovski (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2014
No part of current Nepal was a part of Mughal empire

110.34.0.245 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

'''This or some other user seems to have deleted the reference and information showing that parts of southern Nepal (Terai) were part of the Mughal Empire. Please restore the links.'''

SHAH ALAM II
Some Historical Facts:

a)	Shah Alam II took part in the Battle of Buxar along with the Nawab of Oudh and titular Nawab of Bengal against the British in 1764.

b)	they hate people like you

c)	In 1771, the Marathas re-took Delhi and in 1772, Maratha General Mahadaji Shinde escorted Shah Alam II to Delhi and reinserted him on the throne under the protection of the Marathas. Shah Alam II was a puppet at the hands of the Marathas and his authority was only confined to the city of Delhi. He agreed to all the terms and conditions of the Marathas.

d)	In 1788, a Pathan feudal lord named Ghulam Kadir took over Delhi suddenly and blinded him. However, Marathas again intervened, defeated Ghulam Kadir’s army and acted as the protectors of the throne.

e)	Since then, Marathas protected him fully till his death. But, he was not at all a ruler with authority. He could not even protect himself from enemies and was living at the mercy of the Marathas. None outside the city of Delhi paid tax to him. He is a perfect example of a de jure ruler, not an effective one.

I am just giving a source with link. One can pick up any book on this period and check the authenticity of the facts given. Thank you.

Ghatus (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

News Alert
unconfirmed freely welcomed bias statement being allowed into this article: "The reign of Aurangzeb saw the enforcement of strict Muslim fundamentalism which caused rebellions among the Sikhs and Hindus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs) 11:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2014
Under "List of Mughal Emperors" the first listed is Babar, and Babar is described as "Was a direct descendant of Genghis Khan through Timur and was the founder of the Mughal Empire" -- this is incorrect, as Timur was not a descendant of Genghis Khan. Babar was related to Genghis Khan through his mother. Suggest this be changed to "Babar was related to Timur through his father, and Genghis Khan through his mother..." -- see the Wiki page on Babar for reference of Babar's lineage.

Mudcathi (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done thanks for the eye Cannolis (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Horde
Urdu, Orda, Horde (camp in Mongolian and Turkic) 468SM (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Explaining edits on the Mughal Empire
Regarding the history of the Mughal Empire i have made sure to present the different phases of the empire and the complexties associated with those phases, the Taj Mahal is an important monument created by the mughal empire and deserves attention so is the Urdu language. There are names of various royals who claimed to be monarchs or whose names were later omitted from the Mughal records and are not recognized as emperors even by historians such as H.G Keeene. Furthermore i have added respective pictures of the daily lives of the people who lived in the mughal empire in the gallery section of the article.--468SM (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * None of that has anything to do with your unsourced changes to the second paragraph to the lead where you cut out well sourced information and added in POV and unencyclopedic language with poor English eg "The Mughal Empire became known for it's (sic) brutality towards the peasants under its rule." "Social groups in northern and western India, such as the Marathas, the Rajputs, and the Sikhs, were persecuted, and often violence estewed (Sic) from this." DeCausa (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The size of Mughal Empire vs Maurya Empire
From the map of the Mughal Empire (File:Mughal_Historical_Map.png) and the map of the Maurya Empire (File:Maurya_Empire,_c.250_BCE_2.png) in the infobox, it seems that the Mughal Empire was larger than the Maurya Empire at their maximum extent, since their northern borders as shown in the maps are very similar, and the Mughal Empire also reached further south than the Maurya Empire in their southern borders. But how come the Maurya Empire article states the Maurya Empire was "the largest ever in the Indian subcontinent", and the area listed in its infobox is also significant larger than the area listed in this article? I believe there is something wrong either in at least one of the maps, or in at least one of the areas listed for the empires. --Evecurid (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015
The sentence "End of Mughal Dynsasty" at the end of the list of Mughal emperors does not make any grammatical sense. Please change it to "This is the end of the Mughal Dynasty" or something similar.

Chaomaster5522 (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Pishcal  — ♣ 18:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Flag inaccuracy


Discussion at Talk:Flag of the Mughal Empire over the flag. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Persianate
Per Rarevogel's latest attempt to remove references and referenced information, without the use of discussion or consensus, stated this in his edit summary, "Persian culture is not what defined the empire". I believe these sources tell a different story. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Culture and Circulation: Literature in Motion in Early Modern India", by Thomas De Bruijn and Allison Busch, page 104, "And yet underlying this cosmopolitanism was a sense of hierarchy that held Persianate culture as the most preeminent in the eyes of the majority of the Mughal elite . The superiority attached to the Persianate episteme is an aspect that must not be overlooked..."
 * "The Oxford History of Islam", ed. John Esposito, page 422,"Unlike the Delhi Sultanate or the Mughal empire, which shaped the Turko-Persianate tradition of the Indian subcontinent ...."
 * "Universal Empire: A Comparative Approach to Imperial Culture and Representation in Eurasian History", ed. Peter Fibiger Bang, Dariusz Kolodziejczyk, page 208, "Shah Jahan recreated the multi-pillared halls of Persepolis in his audience halls, where Nauruz, the Persian New Year, was merged with Julus, his accession day, and celebrated as one of the great Mughal court festivals. Hardly anywhere else in the Persianate world was it celebrated with such splendour." Adoption of Persian culture.
 * "Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective", ed. Robert L. Canfield, page 20, "The Mughals - Persianized Turks who had invaded from Central Asia and claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis - strengthened the Persianate culture of Muslim India. They cultivated the arts (literary works, book production, artistic illustration, architecture) in the Persianate style, enticing to their courts Persian artists and architects from Bukhara, Tabriz, Shiraz, and other cities of the Iranian plateau; the Taj Mahal, commissioned by the Mughal emperor, Shah Jahan, was indebted to the Persian style. "
 * "Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective", ed. Robert L. Canfield, page 87, "The suffocation felt as a result of excessive religious observances led many writers and poets to seek shelter and more freedom outside Iran... At the same time, many Iranian poets fled to the Mughal courts of Babur, Akbar, and Humayun, where a new style of Persian poetry, the so-called sabk-i Hindi, was developed. "
 * "Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia", ed. Sheldon I. Pollock, page 158, "Yet later, under the Mughals, India was to witness it most productive--perhaps even incomparable--efflorescence of Persian literary culture. Indeed, Mughal literary culture has been celebrated primarily, if not exclusively, for it extraordinary excellence in Persian poetry and prose. "
 * "Literacy in the Persianate World: Writing and the Social Order", ed. Brian Spooner, William L. Hanaway, page 330, "Under the influence and patronage of the imperial Mughals, Persian language and Indo-Persian culture rose further in prominence and extent across northern and central India.[...] Indeed many Persians were specifically recruited by Mughal imperial envoys bearing lucrative offers of patronage."

name of Mughal
please someone tell me if the primary medieval sources & chronicles has noted the 'Mughal sultans addressing themselves and their empire formally as 'Mughal'. is it realy they officially named themselves as Mughals? or its just the general consensus or rule of thumbs from modern historians to say that this empire as 'Mughal'?

for as far as i know the real 'Mughal' is derived from 'Mongol' and the first sultan Babur was distancing himself from 'Mongol' identity. they even leave behind the identity and instead fully embrace the authority of Sultanate, according to Sultanate Emirate authority. unlike Timur who is clearly still embracing the mongol custom and authority Ahendra (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the book "The Empire of the Great Mughals: History, Art and Culture" (page 15), the Mughals called themselves The House of Timur. However, even during the first half of the 19th century, when the Mughal Empire still existed, the empire was already called "Mogul" by (at least some) English speakers. See for instance the book "Debate at the East-India House" (page 130) published in 1845. --Evecurid (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for giving comprehensive answer regarding this matter. im just thinking probably the official naming regarding this empire should be highlighted somewhere =Ahendra (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Should there be an inclusion of Mongolian language and references to this article? even Mughal in classical Mongolian script? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Mughals were Persianate Turko-Mongol people based in India. The inclusion of some form of Mongolian language (not necessarily the classical Mongolian script though) may be fine, although I am not quite sure. --Evecurid (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Assessment for B class
(Criteria per WP:BCLASS)

The main issue for this to fail B class is the article structure, particularly the lead section. The entire article needs to be rearranged more uniformly into consistent paras, subsections and main sections. The lead should better summarise the rest of the article, currently it's just too long and inline citations are usually not necessary. Once that is addressed, we can check it against the rest of the criteria. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done.Ghatus (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Shah Jahan III
,, & , do see the wrong info pushing of. Links, page no. and books are given. Do check his IP also. Source: Jaswant Lal Mehta (2005), Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813, Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, p.140. Jaswant Lal Mehta retired as Reader in History, Punjab University, Chandigarh; see. Mehta is a historian, thus a reliable source. Even the source given by FreeatlastChitchat proves the point in p.765-Point 5 (S.R. Sharma) A light source :-) Ghatus (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mehta is not reliable because his writing always sides with Hindus when mentioning Hindu/Mughal conflict. If you have any other source please provide it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced by your statement. Do you have a 3rd party source to compare and contrast Mehta's work? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is common knowledge that he was deposed by Ghazi- al Din. Now I am not sure if the Marhattas had anything to do with this or not, there was lots of political wrangling back then, maybe they helped him in some way or perhaps he may have joined them later but we can't just say that he did not depose Shah Jahan. He was the one who did the deed. As for aid and help is concerned I am quite sure he had help from some other parties but we can't take his name out then say that say that the said parties deposed Shah Jahan.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Common knowledge" can not be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. You have presented one source that states something different than Mehta. That author's focus is Islamic studies, should I presume he is "pro-Muslim"?
 * Presenting one source does not prove Mehta's point of view as biased. Even the chronology in "The Cambridge History of India" makes no mention of Ghazi al Din or anyone else. So far, considering what has been presented, both sources should be used to present both possibilities. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Marathas conquered Delhi militarily in 1760 coming 1000km away from their home. Did Ghazi- al Din defeat them that they would listen to him? On the contrary, the administration in Delhi was thoroughly defeated. And, a defeated person was dictating term to the Victors(marathas)? Marathas conquered delhi in 1760 and installed their man to the throne. It does not take a superman brain to understand. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't get access to the relevant page, but the index to the Cambridge History does seem to indicate Sadashive Rao dethroned Shah Alam Jahan III (By the way, Ghatus, it is not "vandalism" to edit contrary to your view, even if you were to be right. To claim that is a personal attack for which you could be blocked). I suggest you change the heading of this thread to something more neutra DeCausa (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This source corroborates what the earlier source said and gives short biography of the killer/murderer whichever way you want it. This explains the events of the time that how Abdali took over Delhi for some time and because of him Shah Jahan III was killed. If you scroll down you will see that Shah Jahan III has been mentioned as Shah Jahan II by mistake, which are common during digitization of these books. I hope at least now the damn title of this section can be toned down. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources that Support my claim- 1) The Cambridge History of India , 2)Jaswant Lal Mehta's Book  ,3)S.R. Sharma (p.765-Point 5) 4) A light source


 * And finally, the authenticity of The Cambridge History of India is unquestionable. It clearly says that Sadashive Rao dethroned Shah Jahan III. Sadashive Rao was the Maratha General. What is the debate on now? Ghatus (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Searching Google books for "Ghazi al-Din"+"Shah Jahan" I can only see one source suggesting it was him that deposed Shah Jahan. On the other hand, it is a little dubious saying that it is "unquestionable" Sadashive Rao did it based on the Cambridge History index without reading the actual page. But that plus the Mehta reference is probably sufficient to say something like he "was deposed by Sadashive Rao, although according to historian M. Reza Pirbhai  he was overthrown by Ghazi al-Din". Pirbhai, according to this looks like he's a reputable - and modern - source. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I am going to say meh now, I will be visiting a library the day after tomorrow. I hope the encyclopedia britannica or some other encyclopedia will have this. I will post that here and apologize if I am wrong, or change the page if I was right. I have done all the research that could be done online. I don't think there is anything conclusive here. Although I have been reading history for a long time and it is kinda common knowledge that he was deposed by a wazir ghazi, but anyway, I will post on saturday whatever I find. I was just reading a book quoted in the comments before me and it has mentioned Ghazi ul din as "Ghaziu din". Same pronunciation but different spellings. Perhpas this is one of the reasons you cannot find his mention DeCausa FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't find anything with that spelling. The index to the Cambridge History seems to indicate that "Ghazi ud-Din" put Shah Jahan III on the throne.. Is there some sort of confusion over his part in the reign I wonder? DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good job, DeCausa! I am finding a lot more information using Sadashive Rao in the search. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015
27.125.200.246 (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.