Talk:Mughal Empire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Coat of arms dispute

Every sultan of the Ottoman Empire had his own monogram, called the tughra, which served as a royal symbol. A coat of arms in the European heraldic sense was created in the late 19th century.

The Mughal Empire never had a real "Coat of Arms", and therefore the Tughra of Bahadur Shah Zafar, is the best thing that comes close to an authentic "Coat of Arms". 468Shahi (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Mughals don't have Tughra, therefore you can't say it is Tughra. The one you are putting is a genealogical seal of Bahadur Shah. The Imperial Seal is the closest thing to a coat of arms, the sun has always been a symbol used in the Mughal Empire. RussianDewey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The seal that has been presented as of this post seems suspect. Especially in that it seems to resemble the seal of the imperial house of Japan. A more accurate state emblem would be of the mughal flag.Bodha2 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Image from what is now a redirect

Flag shown in a miniature, depicting the eid ceremonial process of a Mughal King

An image was present on the Alam of the Mughal Empire page, which is now a redirect. Posting it here, in case its inclusion within this article would be a good addition.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Mughal economy and culture

Whilst this article does do a fairly comprehensive job of giving a very general history of the mughals, it really has no information on mughal culture or the economy. If anyone could fill in this information it would really improve the article (I am comparing it to the page on the Ottoman empire).Bodha2 (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

When it is mentioned that Mughals didn't interfere with local culture this is not true, they were oppressive with respect to religion and introduced pressures (involving preferential treatment of muslims) or forcibly converted the Hindu population with threats of death. It's made out to sound a lot more harmonious than it actually was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.39.4 (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The Mughal Empire did not try to intervene in the local societies except during the rule of Aurangzeb I think. --Cartakes (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think there is an incredible bias against Aurangzeb who may have been cruel but as far as I remember, he was constantly in war in the Deccans and even died there. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Um, none of this addresses the point I raised. Please stay on topic and help me improve this article; turning it from a brief and sketchy outline to a comprehensive article.Bodha2 (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Maximum Extent Isn't Listed

Maximum extent is not listed, but rather the size of the empire in 1700 (vs. max extent in 1707) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.187.121 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Between 1690 and 1710 that was the largest extent of the Empire after 1690 it didn't increase, we say 1707 because it was the last year of Aurangzeb's rule. The numbers are incorrect between 1609 and 1710 the Empire was at it's highest extent, in 1710, it lost almost half of it's area, I try fixing it now. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2016

Please delete "usurper" from Sher Shah Suri. He was a ruler and thats it. He defeated Humayun. Many emperors defeated other emperors, this doesn't mean that we can attribute all of them with "usurper" adjective. Shitanshu.iitb (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

As far as I can tell, Humayun was usurped by Sher Shah Suri in the strictest sense, and thus it is not an inappropriate term. Other editors may wish to discuss this proposed change below. If consensus is reached that the term should be exchanged, please feel free to reopen the edit request. fredgandt 03:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Mughal Empire as a Pre-Modern State

Pre-Modern states like the Moghul empire had economies, systems of governments, divisions, languages, demographics, an army, subjects, vassals, segregation, taxation, wars.

Furthermore history of the Moghul Empire has to be properly systematized in this article. --WindWalk55555 (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock of Mughal Lohar/Jinnhoppan (see also; [1] - [2])

Flag...

Hey! Does anyone know if the Mughal empire has a verified flag, that can be put on this page? If so... please do. Hammad.511234 (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

They do have a flag but there are people in Wikipedia who will not allow it. Look at the Mughal flag Talk page. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov ahhhh.... okay. Thank you! I was just wondering. Hammad.511234 (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry I will bring it back next time Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to add further terms for Mughal Empire

Hi,

I was looking to edit the article on Mughals and add some more known terms in the top right corner of the article, especially in Devanagari script. Requesting for a go-ahead on this.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivendra90 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Highly biased article

The page seems highly biased. It paints an extremely rosy picture of the mughal empire and portrays as a golden period with nothing that was wrong. It completely ignores the hindu persecution by many of the mughal emperors as well as forceful conversion Hindus to islam as well as destruction of hindu temples/religious monuments and creating mosques there

Request to atleast tag the article as biased and open it up for everyone to revise and provide a more balanced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:83BE:D690:85:FC4A:9737:7ACA (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources to make any claims of this kind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please provide reliable scholarly sources and we will be more than happy to add the info.....`Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 04:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Kautilya3 and ARUNEEK. If you are referring to Aurangzeb, there are neutral references available. However, the acts of one ruler cannot be generalized to the whole empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridshah (talk • contribs) 23:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The referenced content within this Wikipedia page provides ample support. (2600:1001:B00B:925E:D433:EBC2:FC3B:5952 (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

Please change "being regarded as a less effective ruler than usurper, Sher Shah Suri." to "being regarded as a less effective ruler than Sher Shah Suri.", because there is no citation that recommends that the adjective "usurper" should be given to the emperor Sher Shah Suri. (He was a ruler and thats it. He defeated Humayun. Many emperors defeated other emperors, this doesn't mean that we can attribute all of them with "usurper" adjective.) Shitanshu.iitb (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done I mainly agree since "usurper" can probably be a word to watch. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017

Tajmahal (former name Tejomahal)was built by King Jai Singh. But still there is no proper evidence who built it shajahan or Jai Singh. Then how can you say Taj was constructed by Shajahan? Puppyisinmyheart (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please state the changes you propose in the Change XXX to YYY format, and provide reliable sources for any claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Urdu or Hindustani (spoke)

Isn't Hindustani language more appropriate for the spoken language? (2600:1001:B025:7C23:D00B:61FB:AEE9:F9DA (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC))

Hindustani was spoken by locals there was no term called URDU at that time. Panjikar (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Persian-only POV and several loaded statements are poorly referenced

This arcticle has few major problems:

• POV: Many statements (several without supporting references) are written like a personal reflection (POV) mainly with persian and islamic slant (only persian and muslim culture influenced indian culture during mughal rule and misrepresentatiosn like urdu is mainly Persian but fact remians theat the base of urdu is khari boli and mutually intelligible with hindi and not with arabic or persian, and urdu had mix of persian and some arabic and turkic to the hindi khari boli base but this is not at all reflected, these are just two exmaples but wjhole article is baiased and needs major clena up), there is little suggest the BALANCED content of bidirectional interaction and development of local culture. For example, the base of Urdu is still local Indian language Khadi boli that originated from Sanskrit, on top of that Kahdi boli base though Hindi has more sanskrit influence and urdu as "COMPARATIVELY ONLY" (to Hindi, but base still largely remains Sanskrit-origin Khari boli).
• embellished statements like "urdu was DOMINANT and official language of ELITES, heavily persianised with arabic blah blah" with no references, such things need to be removed and replce with simple FACTUAL NEUTRAL statement like "Urdu was Official language. It has Khari boli base with influence of sanskrit, persian, arabic, turkaic" etc.
• Poorly referenced: many of embellished and biased statements do not even have a reference.A lof of the content in this article is screaming to be reverted. hardly anything stated in the article is substantiated with verifiable reputed balanced references.

I want to see a BALANCED article, not the nationalistic biased leaning of people trying to impose certain slant on the culture. Please help me improve with more references and BALANCED BIDIRECTIONAL CULTURAL EXCHANGE views. You are welcome to discuss it here, please announce any conflict of interest i.e. if you are a muslim or pakistani/persian (trying to fit it to your biases). I am an atheist and I just want to see NEUTRAL and CLEAN FACTUAL article. Thanks. Being.human (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your urdu edit because details on the urdu language do not belong in this article. Re your comment on my talk page, please read WP:BRD. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 16:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, your additions to the opening paragraph are inappropriate per WP:LEADPARAGRAPH. The first paragraph should state only the most important features of the subject. A detailed discussion of cultural aspects is not warranted here. The lead section is too long as it is, and adding this level of detail to the opening paragraph exacerbates the problem. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Being.human I have fixed the language section. If you want to improve the article, the best thing to is to find good sources on Mughal Empire and summarise what they say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mughal Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564252/mughal_empire.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160130223426/http://www.webjournal.unior.it/ to http://www.webjournal.unior.it/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2017

Hello,

Since I'm of the humble opinion that the Mughal state requires more sections since the last known indigenous empire of south-east Asia was one of the leading powerhouses in Asia, I therefore request to leave an edit suggestion. There are several new sub-headings that in my opinion need to be added, and I would like to start with adding in 'Political events before the Battle of Panipat' or something like 'India before the Mughal advent'. The Mughal Empire was the contemporary of other great powers during that era; namely Ottomans and Safavids and was an anchor in shaping Indian society and culture. Kindly allow the authority to add new sub-headings that would only make the whole article even more informative and pleasant to read.

Sincerely, Shivendra Shiv90 (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 01:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You can create sample sections in your sandbox, and invite comments from other editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2017

Bhartijay1 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC) india should be written in capital (India)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. There are 224 occurrences of the word "India" or its variations on this page. Please be specific as to where the error lies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 10:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• I couldn't find an india with a lowercase i on the page. (Firefox has a case match search.)--regentspark (comment) 12:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Why edit has been disabled don't forget this is wiki!!

Hey this article is biased I have listed some points,

1. Language was Persian(Official) but local people of North India were speaking Hindustani(which after fall of empire divided into Hindi and Urdu).
2. Religious policy was not tolerant always,best example was Babar and Aurangzeb.Forced conversion and Jaziya did existed this should be mentioned as truth should not hide any point.
3. Hindi is termed as offspring of Urdu at the same time Urdu is termed as direct derivation of Arabic,persian and turkic.(Truth is before the fall of mughal empire they were just called as Hindustani and not used in any official purpose).

These things are not correct according to history I can edit with perfect citation but can i know why this wiki page has been made to portray unsourced false info?? Panjikar (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to suggest changes here along with your citations. If the changes are acceptable according to Wikipedia policies, somebody will implement the changes.

Alternatively, you can edit other unprotected pages until you gain sufficient experience and get auto-confirmed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I would request citation from Panjikar's claims. Its well known the Jaziya tax was prevalent at its peak only under Aurangzeb's rule. I wish to know on what basis has Babur been called as pro-muslim. There are written records that do not cite the fact that the funder of the empire destroyed non-muslim worshipping sites. Please consider listing down evidences and citations before making assertions or citations.Shiv90 (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Shiv90 {talk}

There is no proof of mughals married rajputs. It is a myth.There is no discussion of marriage of mughals with rajput princess in akbarnama or any mughal document at that time. Please remove that lines Vikrant singh rajput (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Then how do you explain Akbar's son Jahangir looking more like an indian than central asian? 223.64.97.201 (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's sourced. Do you have a source saying that particular marriage did not take place? Doug Weller talk 07:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Anything that is unsourced and contentious, you can copy paste those specific passages here on the talkpage and ask those to be removed. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree this biased article is written from the muslim POV. For example, mughal rule declined due to their bigotry, specially Aurangzeb. This fact has been somewhat captured in Aurangzeb's article, but whitewashed from this article i.e. severely diluted to the extent that it does not even emerge as if religious bigotry, systematic forced conversions through jizya inducement and destruction of temples, etc ever took place. They officially identified themselves as timurids foreigners (not kafir Indians). 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2018

add pakistan to suceeded by CleverHacker4 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pakistan is not a direct successor state to the Mughal Empire. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Typo in Introduction

Hello! "Moti Masjid" is misspelled in the introductory matter. Please correct, those with access to the locked article.

Thank you!

Done, thanks.T8612 20:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Poor Writing

Hello! Please correct the following sentence "Mughal agriculture was advanced compared to Europe at the time, such as the common use of the seed drill among Indian peasants before its adoption in European agriculture.[86]" to something clearer, like "Mughal agriculture was in some ways advanced compared to European agriculture at the time, exemplified by the common use of the seed drill among Indian peasants before its adoption in Europe.[86]" Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.78.192.54 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks. The whole article could/should be rewritten though.T8612 (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Mughal invasions of India, possibly worst mass genocides in human history....

1 The Moslem Conquest of India An Extract from‘The Story of Civilization’By Will & Ariel Durant[Volume 1, Chapter 16]

The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicatecomplex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

more cont'd

http://tarekfatah.com/the-muslim-conquest-of-india-from-will-durants-classic-11-volume-story-of-civilization-2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumipoet24 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Will Durant is too old to be a reliable source for history and Tarek Fatah doesn't even make a start of being a historian. I also see that you have massively misrepresented your sources by substituting "Mughal" for "Muslim". That kind of thing is a big NO NO in the WP:ARBIPA space. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's utter rot. Either a historian's work is good and valid and has stood the test of time, or it isn't. Durant was a generalist, and his summarizations in his series of books are based on primary and secondary sources. The secondary sources in that chapter of "Story of Civ" are pretty good references. However, one will find plenty of other Reliable Sources that still describe the initial invasions as catastrophic, with very high death tolls for Indians who were in-the-way of the two combatant armies.50.111.3.227 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Your point is absolutely valid. You have good point, but bad/poor sources. Just find the better sources and repost here. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

A source isn't inherently bad or wrong because it's old or from a biased source. Most of what we know about the Valentinian Gnostics, Melchizidek Khabbalists, Sethian Gnostics, and even the Aztec religion is from or was salavged by the detractors of those religions for the purpose of debating them. Every source (except the actual Aztec texts themselves, which the Spainards took copies of for the purpose of theological defeat of the Aztec religion) is from someone who explicitly says the religion is wrong/evil/stupid (etc.), but this bias doesn't change the fact that they have repeated the religious beliefs for the purpose of debunking them. Augustine and the Apostle Paul, in their writings, both accurately described the beliefs of their opponents and the Antinomians (respectively), and then presented counterpoints. --2602:306:39D6:CBA0:45D5:132E:2D84:A2A9 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Chronology of the Mughal Empire

I request my fellow editors to work on the Chronology of the Mughal Empire. ~~\\~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjgdh5 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

names

Please remove the names of Mughal era sailors from the article... ~~\\\~\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjgdh5 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Images

Please allow experienced editors to add images that can inspire editors to do more. --~~\~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjgdh5 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Tughra and Tamgha of the Mughal Empires

Please add the official Tights and the Tamgha of the Mughal Empire. ---\~\\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjgdh5 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Seal and Coat of Arms of the Mughal Empire

New discoveries have yet to be made about the official imperial seal and the "Coat of Arms" of the Mughal Empire. ~~\\~\

Coat of Arms of the Mughal Empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjgdh5 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The empire did not stretch to modern Arakhan in Myanmar in an administrative or even territorial capacity.

They did however capture Chittagong and what is now eastern Bangladesh from Arakhanese raiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadnisar1213 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Religion

Please allow a section dedicated to the religion of the inhabitants of the Mughal Empire, and the variations of their faith. Fjgdh5 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)\\~

Title

One of the very important title of the emperor was "Great Moghul"... I believe that title should find its place in this article... Fjgdh5 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)\\Fjgdh5 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)\

Map of the Mughal Empire

Recently, this map of the Mughal Empire was replaced by this orthographic projection likely representing the same data. Unfortunately both maps are pretty fanciful on-wiki creations, and do not reflect any source I've seen. For example, the first map is said to be "partially based on Atlas of World History, but does not reflect it accurately. Looking at the relevant Commons category I didn't find an obvious replacement either,

Does anyone know of a good, properly sourced, map that we can use? Pinging @Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark: since they may know of or have access to better sources. Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There is one, File:Joppen1907India1700a.jpg, that I had uploaded some ten years ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess we should prefer a map that shows the extent of the Mughal Empire that is drawn from a modern scholarly source. Failing the availability of that map, I'd go with Fowler's suggestion. (BTW, I got rid of all the flags in the infobox per MOS:FLAGICON) --regentspark (comment) 23:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I looked up J.F. Richards' The Mughal Empire and he reproduces maps from Atlas of the Islamic World since 1500 and from Habib's An Atlas of the Mughal Empire. The latter seems to be the go-to work on the topic but even if we make the efforts to lay our hands on it, I don't know how we rework the maps w/o running into copyright issues. By the way, on a casual survey, it seems that maps of the empire's extent circa 1700 differ in how they treat Mughal control over parts of Afghanistan and Orissa; another reason to go for maps that can be attributed to specific sources.

Fowler's map seems to be a reasonable choice. It roughly matches the map of the Mughal Empire in Davies' An Historical Atlas of the Indian Peninsula (see page 45 of the pdf).

Finally, here is a database of Mughal empire maps for later perusal. Not all are free of copyright but hopefully we will be able to find some that are and that show the empire at times other than the point of its largest extent, for inclusion in the body of the article. Abecedare (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2019

In culture section, 2nd bullet point. Change "The amalgamation of Persian art and literature with Indian art.s" to "The amalgamation of Persian art and literature with Indian arts." The period sign should come at the end of the sentence. WikiLoner (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done I removed the 's' entirely, "Indian art" sounds better to my ear than "arts". NiciVampireHeart 09:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Architecture section

Do we really need this long (and getting longer) list of buildings left by the Mughals and their various vassal states? @Fowler&fowler: for input. --regentspark (comment) 17:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, it looks like it would take up a much smaller (and perfectly reasonable amount of space) if instead of listing them like this -

India

Pakistan

Bangladesh

if they were put in parallel like this

India Pakistan Bangladesh

Perhaps there are other ways, but I think the core problem is simply the way the list is presented visually on the page wastes a lot of space and leads to a long but thin section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7DE1:E300:E544:4C6E:5177:BCD4 (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Elephants

The people of the Moghul Empire had harnessed the strength and the usefulness of "elephants", there are many copyright inventions and contraptions yet to be discovered that would connect the "Great Moghul" to the Elephants.

One such invention was the "Elephant carriage"; a contraption consisting of 2 elephants pulling a massive imperial carriage.

There are other contraptions yet to be discovered. 21:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)\\\~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjgdh5 (talk • contribs)

@Fjgdh5: there was no copyright law then, and your statement needs reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Indrajit Ray misinterpreted

This edit added the highlighted words to the article's summary of what Indrajit Ray wrote about the shipbuilding industry:

Economic historian Indrajit Ray estimates mercantile shipbuilding output of Bengal alone during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries at 223,250 tons annually, compared with 23,061 tons produced in nineteen colonies in North America from 1769 to 1771. Ray also estimates the total annual shipbuilding output of Bengal, including for defense, at around 2,232,500 tons. He also assesses ship repairing as very advanced in Bengal.

The highlighted additions misrepresent the source.

1. The 223,250 ton annual output figure is not mercantile alone, but mercantile and defence. Ray writes "The mercantile tonnage in Bengal was 207,500 tons ... and together with that for defence ... it stood at around 2,232,500 tons ... Again, if we consider that only 10 per cent of ships docking in Bengal's ports were replaced in this province, the Bengal tonnage output comes to 223,250 tons per annum." The mercantile-only figure would be ten percent of 207,500 tons, or 20,750 tons per annum.
2. The 2,232,500 ton figure is not the annual shipbuilding output, but the total tonnage in existence. Ships typically last many years, so in any given year, only a fraction of the fleet would be replaced.

Accordingly, the edit has been reverted. The word "alone" is factually correct, but redundant. I believe any thorough copyediting of the article would remove it, in line with User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, but I don't feel strongly about it. Anyone who disagrees should feel free to put that word back in. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Caste System

I see no mention of the caste system in this article, so I think it would be best to add that. --WVGman (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a fan of the map

The map that's currently in the infobox doesn't seem to capture the full extent of Mughal territory. The northwestern part of the territory seems to extend beyond the map itself. A more modern projection is preferred by me. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bokmanrocks01: A fair observation. The sticking point though is finding a better sourced mapped with a license compatible for use on wikipedia. See related discussion above, which includes links to some online resources where alternate maps may be found. Abecedare (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The infobox and lead

I have corrected the lead and the infobox for errors of fact and POV that had gradually crept in. Per WP:INDICSCRIPTS, no non-Latin scripts are allowed in articles whose primary focus is South Asia, unless they are not about India at all. I have accordingly removed these. The Mughal Empire was an Indian/South Asian empire. No amount of finessing the Central Asian roots of its founders, or the culture it chose to emphasize, will change that fact. Accordingly, these factors cannot be the focus or the emphasis, of the lead. I have already added John Richhards; I will soon some general South Asian history textbooks as citations. Per WP:DUE, these, having being vetted for due weight, are more reliable that journal articles, especially obscure ones, or specialized monographs. I have also removed tall claims about the empire's economic might from the lead. The historical estimates of authors such as Angus Maddison are not reliable. (See Talk:Angus Maddison). Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

PS The functional disintegration of the empire in 1720 is an important date, for the next 137 years it was a hollow skeleton of a kingdom, which by various forms of subterfuge was kept around. Richards book ends in 1720. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

OK--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's important to say its founders were of Mongol roots. The single sentence on Mughal architecture is a bit out of place, you should other cultural elements of the Empire to make it a real paragraph. T8612 (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@T8612: I was going to reorganize the lead, but Tubslube, who in the past has been stuffing grandiose economic assessments of the Mughals began to figuratively nip at the heels of my edits. The out of place bit is the result of my taking out some text that had been copied verbatim from the history section of the FA India. Obviously, we can't copy in such fashion. The missing bit will soon be fixed. As for the inheritance, I am not against mentioning it, with appropriate weight, but the previous version seems to have made a fetish of it. True they were called Timurids (a nod to Babur's claimed paternal descent from the 14th century marauder Tamerlane) and also Mughals (Mongols, a nod to his claimed maternal descent from the 13th century marauder Chingiz Khan). Babar lived in the 16th century. We are talking about claims of two- and three hundred years before, and not all imperial. He was a Chagathay Turk, that much is known with some certainty. But when in the 21st century, with all the data available in the the modern world most people can't go back more than 150 years, it is unlikely that his claims of maternal and paternal descent (laid out in Baburnama), are to be taken literally. Burton Stein has written: "Babur’s descendants called themselves Timurids as well as Mughals (i.e. Mongols) in recognition of both origins. The vaunting of such progenitors pointed up the central character of the Mughal regime as a warrior state: it was born in war and it was sustained by war until the eighteenth century, when warfare destroyed it." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent expansion.

User:T8612, nader shah, so what should be added and clarified? Many of those statementes, which are well sourced, can be already found in other articled. Also the image of Shah Jahan should stay here. Let's begin one by one, if no response is made I will go ahead.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Explain what you want to add here, so we don't have to go into the revision pages of the article. Bear in mind that the lede is already packed, so additions must be vital for the article. T8612 (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

T8612, Well, as you can see, I didn't add that much content. They were mostly sources. The changes that i made were the following:

1. The Mughal was one of the largest empires in india/south asia, others being mauryan and british rah 2. India surpassed China economically, and become the world's largest economy, and 12% of that came from Bengal, which is mentioned in many other articles, but if it really peacock can be adjusted 3. Adding sharia type of government in the infobox, since this occurred during Aurangzeb's time 4 An image of Shah Jahan sitting on the throne That's it.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Why are you calling me Nader Shah? Grow up; consider yourself lucky for not already being blocked for your constant disruptive editing and edit warring across multiple articles. HistoryofIran (talk)

Lots of days passed, yet no response.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

User:T8612, User:HistoryofIran, did you forget?--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran how have you dared to call it vandalism?--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

geographically-extensive power that controlled most of the Indian subcontinent

Note that even if the source says he Mughal empire was one of the largest centralized states known in pre-modern world history, that does not automatically imply either "geographically-extensive" or "most of the Indian subcontinent". There is the additional issue of the dates but that's a separate one. Please stick to the source without drawing your own conclusions (and don't edit war). --regentspark (comment) 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

regentspark, I've now added what the source says. Historyofiran is reverting all my edits.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahmadnisar1213 and User:Olden Creed, thanks for adding those, which were essential.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I've rearranged it a bit. The first sentence should always clearly state what it is and qualitative statements (largest, etc.) should be made separately. --regentspark (comment) 23:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tubslubeamorepersempre: I'm reverting your edits because they are disruptive and not NPOV. Also, what do you mean by not 'replying in the talk'? Want me to reply to this [3]? Yes it is vandalism indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Please don't do anything. I will soon be revising the lead. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

regentspark Thanks. user You're not smart so don't be cocky. Those who vandalize will obviously consider my useful contributions as vandalism. Why have you just replied only about that? as for this, a case was already made and there was no racial statement. In addition, you user profile is also offensive. Mr Saddam was good and you cannot despise ALL DICTATORS. Also Cyrus The Great's empire is not what many think (his empire was also Islamic), as history has been altered.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

regentspark will make a decision about the major edit.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It is very simple, Tubslube: saying "one of the largest centralized states in pre-modern world history" is meaningless this early in the lead. For the reader has no idea what the others might be or might have been. Later in the lead, or in the article, if others such as those in China and Iran are being mentioned, we can make such a comparison. In an encyclopedia article we introduce information in incremental, comprehensible, bits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Tubslube: I have no idea what you are up to. It is one thing to reinstate Doug Weller's edit. It's quite another to undo all the citation fixes I made. That is why it is requested that you not make edits when someone has an "inuse" tag in place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Think it's about high time this he gets reported, not only for his edit warring, but also his immature/trollish way of talking to other users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Now the lede is overlong again. Last year I shortened it to four paragraphs (the maximum number), but you have expanded it again too much (although its content is of better quality). I am also against adding so many citations in the lede; their place is normally in the text body. The term "centralised" seems anachronistic to me (and most of the 2nd paragraph looks irrelevant for the lede). I suggest: (1) paragraph on its geography (2) history (rise and fall) (3) economy/culture/architecture. T8612 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It is overlong, because paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 are still there. I will shortly be removing them, and replacing them with more focused text. As for the citations, normally in a lead, citations are not needed as the lead is a summary of the article body whose text is already cited. This, however, like many India-related articles, is being fixed backwards, As you will have seen a number of busybody edits have been afflicted with WP:Lead fixation, and have been attempting to get the nugget of their favorite myth about the Moghuls front and center billing. For that reason, the lead has to be fixed first, and it is hoped that the editors who will be working on the article will read the relevant texts cited in the lead and expand the article where needed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@T8612:, @Tubslubeamorepersempre:, @HistoryofIran:, @RegentsPark:, @DougWeller:: I have now reorganized it and whittled it down to four paragraphs. I've preferred to described the empire qualitatively and not get too bogged down in details. It could be expanded a little, but I'm not sure. I believe the third paragraph is important; otherwise, people resort to vacuous exaggerations. It is important to note the base of the economy. It was agricultural, not industrial or pre-industrial. It was 70% rural in India at the time of independence in 1947; it was likely much more so in the 16th and 17th centuries. I have left plenty references with quotations, which you can use to expand or smooth out the prose. I'm done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Very nicely done Fowler. Reads well and is a good snapshot of the empire for interested readers. Exactly the kind of writing we should be seeing more of on Wikipedia! --regentspark (comment) 20:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, RP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, good job. But the only thing that I miss is about its size, since it was the second-third largest in Indian history. But overall looks fine and is readable. Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

sustained by military campaigns and jihad.

User:Fowler&fowler Was the empire always fully sustained by military campaigns? Akbar for example adopted a policy of conciliating conquered rulers through marriage and diplomacy. Also, is it essential to add that Aurangzeb did jihad, especially in places like Bangladesh's Chittagong where he defeated the Hindu kings?--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Tubslube: Akbar and all the other Mughals spent the first half of their reigns in military campaigns. Indeed as the eldest son did not by convention become the new ruler, they had to wage war to even reach the throne. Please read the standard histories of India. Jihad? I don't think so. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

PS The young Akbar did wage jihad against the Rajputs, and slaughtered quite a few in Chitor. But that was before Din-i-Elahi. Mentioning it in the lead will become too complicated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler didn't know that about Akbar, and was shocked or indeed impressed that you haven't considered The Great Aurangzeb's military campaign as jihad.Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Military (section)

The section in this article which is the discourse regarding the "Military history of the Moghul Empire", should cover the "Battle of Plassey" and perhaps even the "Battle of Talikota". Brst57 (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)\21:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)~~\~

The article is very sympathetic towards Mughals and slightly discriminating towards natives who were here before the mughals came. Please highlight the wrongdoings of the empire and how people were forcibly converted, temples were left in ruins, thousands of people killed and women raped. Mughals did nothing for India except leaving it in turmoil for thousands of years to come.

Map

A new Map of "Mughal India" is needed that map must define Mughal territory and the sector's of India controlled by European Company. Re3st567 (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)\Re3st567 (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)\\\~

Military History (section)

The complete military history of the Mughal Empire has to be written beginning in 1526 and ending in 1857. Re3st567 (talk)\Re3st567 (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)\\\\\~

Attacks

Attack by the Hemu, Rajput, Maratha, Sikh and Kat must also be discussed in this article particularly in the military history section. Re3st567 (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)\\\11:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)\~

Urbanization typo

Since this is semi protected, I cannot correct this minor annoyance myself. Just a little 'than' is missing in the second paragraph of urbanization.

Urbanization

Under Akbar's reign in 1600, the Mughal Empire's urban population was up to 17 million people, 15% of the empire's total population. This was larger THAN the entire urban population in Europe at the time, and ...

194.204.50.9 (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed --Worldbruce (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Confusing language in last half of last paragraph of section "2.3 Decline..."

I made some minor linguistic changes in this section, but had to give up when I got to the last half of the last paragraph of section 2.3 Decline..., where the factual content is unclear. Since I know little about Indian history, I leave the changes to someone more competent.

Below is the text as it stands, with my comments bolded and in [square brackets]:

Thereafter, the British East India Company became the protectors of the Mughal dynasty in Delhi. The British East India Company took control of the former Mughal province of Bengal-Bihar in 1793 after it [it? who? The East India Company or the Bengal-Bihar province?] abolished local rule (Nizamat) that lasted until 1858 [what lasted until 1858? Local rule or its abolishment?], marking the beginning of [the] British colonial era over [on] the Indian Subcontinent. By 1857 [1857 is before the date of the "abolishment" in the previous sentence. Is that correct or a misprint?] a considerable part of former Mughal India was under the East India Company's control. After a crushing defeat in the war of 1857–1858 which he nominally led [this literally means that Shah Zafar led the war. But one cannot lead (both sides of) a war! What is the intended meaning?], the last Mughal, Bahadur Shah Zafar, was deposed by the British East India Company and exiled in 1858. Through [With] the Government of India Act [in? of?] 1858 the British Crown assumed direct control of East India Company-held territories [the Company-held territories] in India in the form of the new British Raj [with the establishment of the British Raj? "In the form of" is very clumsy, and "new" implies that there was a previous ("old") British Raj, which I'm pretty sure there wasn't].

Filursiax (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Having spent some time looking through the archived sections of the Talk section of this article, I have understood that the article is in a state of constant dissention and change. On this background, I assume that my attempts at copyediting above are perhaps premature. If so, please do not hesitate to ignore them. All the best!

Filursiax (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Zaban urdu mualla.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Mughal Empire.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Date and source.

It shoud be mentioned where was the (source) of mughul empire. which was kabul. Also the date which babur established himslef in kabul should be mentioned. "very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:3D37:6E78:6D04:3596 (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Rollback of edits: maps and intro

@Fowler&fowler: Amidst your rollback (which I largely understand and agree with) of recent edits, there were a couple of my own that I believe are worth keeping:

• Maps: I don't have any objections to the Joppen map now restored to the infobox, except perhaps that it may be anachronistic to include northwestern regions (Kandahar) that were lost to the Safavids by about 1650, before Aurangzeb's conquests in the Deccan shown in the map. (Correct me if I'm mistaken?) But mainly, the recent infobox edits had been cycling through certain other unsourced maps with significant problems, which is what prompted me to consult Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas and create these ones. They are faithfully reproduced from the source, and I don't believe that detailed, well-sourced depictions of the stages of expansion have been freely available thus far, so it would be beneficial and informative to incorporate these somewhere in the body:

• 
• 
• 

• I also think it is useful for the intro to briefly explain the interruption from 1540-1555, since new readers might wonder about this, and it also helps contextualize what is being talked about regarding the founding dates and the lack of firm consolidation in the early years, as I had tried to explain.

Any objections to either of these? -Avantiputra7 (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

I made some edits for the introductory paragraph of Mughal Empire but wiki editor reverted it but on what bases? I added each line with reliable resources and my additions are also matchable with article.... Then what's the problems.... DdBbCc22 (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

Hello 1) A contributor has stated that the economy part was removed because of some admin discussion which took place somewhere else. Could I see that discussion please? 2) Can anyone add about the Anglo-Mughal War, not necessarily in the lede, but in history section mainly.

3) Nothing about sharia and Islamic policies in mini lede (a short description at least).I.e. a mixture of Aurangzeb's ones and early Akbar (before din ilahi) and Babur's ones?

4) "to the highlands of present-day Assam and Bangladesh in the east", this is wrong as huge parts of Assam were already part of the Mughal India, that's why we had the subedars of Assam, it cam be changed to Arakan, whose some areas were annexed by Aurangzeb, and why should the south-east be even disregarded

5) Someone recently added about the "Gurkani". The term was partly recognised during the reign of Babur and Humayn only given that they were fully Timurids, so it should be mentioned that it was "briefly" known as Gurkani, and not always 6) Anythinf about the inheritance about the Timurid Renaissance, I.e. even Shah Jahan had such heritage.

Thank you. 83.137.6.245 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. All of what you describe is very vague and there is no clear indication of what you want to be changed. Please, also cite reliable sources which support your assertions. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

In UNESCO heritage sites of Mughal Empire Shalamar Bagh should also be added along with others Quratulain2001 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. I think it's just meant to be a small sample and not necessarily an exhaustive list. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Demonym

What are the demonym(s) for natives or inhabitants of the Mughal Empire? The article does not list any. Idell (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Kabul

I think Baburs establishment date in kabul and the time period it took to invade india (about 22 years), plus the army he rose from kabulistan and adjacent areas should be mentioned in the opening or in baburs section. That is "extremely" important. It almost defines how empire came into being. Thank you ,hope changes are made  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:396F:977B:DB57:3CD6 (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 

Flag

I was earlier on one of the editors who removed the flag, but that was because of a citation/sourcing issue, not because flags shouldn't be in infoboxes.
The MOS:FLAG policy states that flags can be used when the subject of the article represents a nationality or country, and it gives the example of sports teams. The section below it states that flag icons should generally not be used in infoboxes. A back-and-forth is currently ongoing on this article about whether or not a flag should be included in the infobox, with one editor arguing that it should, and editing it into the article, and another reverting it, citing the flag icon policy. It looks to me like a "flag icon" is a representation of a flag in miniature, often placed next to the name of a person or a region (see most articles about military conflicts), whereas the image being added to the infobox in Mughal Empire is not covered by this policy. I note that a flag is included in the infoboxes of the articles on the Safavid Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and countless articles on nation states. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a sufficient argument, but that, combined with the wording of the guideline, is the reason for my interpretation. Are there reliable sources that would support a certain design for the flag? This is not a rhetorical question, I haven't looked into the possible sources, but so far one has not been cited in the article. If we find an accurate file, I would argue that it should be included, though.--MattMauler (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request on 10 September 2020

Can someone edit the list of Mughal emperors to clarify (preferably using a note) that Emperor Alamgir (the emperor after Shah Jahan) is more commonly referred to as Emperor Aurangzeb? Most Indians and scholars use the name Aurangzeb when referring to him, and the article about that ruler is titled "Aurangzeb". 45.251.33.179 (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 Already done The list has a "birth name" column right next to the titular name column, both his names are listed. Idell (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Flag

@Kanto7: You seem to be invested in adding the flag to the article. Could you please provide reliable sources that show that this flag, or any other flag, was used as a representative flag for the Mughal empire? Please note that Wikipedia is a reliably sourced encyclopedia and material that is not reliably sourced should not be included. --RegentsPark (comment) 11:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Wars

Wars that the subjects of the Great Moghul fought against some unruly: Rajputs, Marathas and Sikhs should not be ignored.

The "Bengal War" also should not be ignored, also the initial hostilities between the Durrani Afghans and the Mughals of Delhi should find its place in this article.

The Regents of Mysore Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan should find their place under the shade of Shah Alam II (their suzerian).

I SumeetJi (talk) was not the author to type the above text, but today on 24/12/2020 at 6:56am GMT+10 I notices that all mentions of Sikh massacres, mass rapes, genocides and porgroms were either not present or removed, or deliberatly misled on major Indian government Wikipedia articles. I suspect this is Whitewashing by Wikipedia's authors and admins. I do agree with you above and no longer have trust in any biassed source here. SumeetJi (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Problems with economy section

Hello, I've read and checked all the sources in Economy section, and I have huge problems with it. Gdp of Mughal empire is reference to Maddison page 256, but the table here says nothing on gdp, it only gives population estimates. I don't doubt it was approximately those figures, but the reference does not back it up. The claim that "Mughal India was the world leader in manufacturing" referencing Parthasarathi p2, but it actually says: "The first was the competitive challenge of Indian cotton textiles, which in the eighteenth century were the most important manufactured good in world trade and were consumed from the Americas to Japan", nothing about Mughal empire being worlds leading manufacture.

Labour section is particularly problematic. The claim that: "Mughal India's workforce had a higher percentage in the non-primary sector than Europe's workforce did at the time" is referenced to Cipolla. But Cipolla says that "Because of lack of statistical data, no one will ever know with any degree of accuracy what percentage of European population was employed in the primary sector". Ciopolla says that even for mid 18 century the data is imprecise. Most importantly neither Cipolla nor Yazdani say that Mughals had higher percentage in the non primary sector then europe. This statement is simply original research, combining two sources to draw conclusion . In fact I've never saw any economic historian saying anything like this.

The claim that "Real wages and living standards in 18th-century Mughal Bengal and South India were higher than in Britain, which in turn had the highest living standards in Europe" is also wrong.Parthasarathi says that: "At the moment, the quantitative data are inconclusive, but the figures for India that have been obtained from primary sources are radically different from the scattered earnings data found in the secondary literature. This indicates that more research is needed on the basis of primary evidence for India". In fact the whole point of his wage analysis, as far as I can see, is that old estimates are probably wrong and more research is needed on India's wages. Neither he, nor Sivramkrishna who is referenced in his book says that indian wages and living standard where higher then British, this is simply original research. Moreover Parthasarathi analysis is mainly on post Mughal India.

I also can't verify the claim that according to Paul Bairoch India have higher gnp per capita the Europe until late 18 century. Similarly I can't varify that "According to Moosvi, Mughal India also had a per-capita income 1.24% higher in the late 16th century than British India did in the early 20th century", since I don't have access to her book. And claim "However, in a system where wealth was hoarded by elites, wages were depressed for manual labour, though no less than labour wages in Europe at the time", referencing Parthasarathi p 39-45.I've read the book and I can't find anything about European wages being depressed by elites.

There are lots of other problems there, like saying that Bengal Subah generated 50% of empire gdp(!!!), using some polemical and non reliable article in some newspaper. I feel this section would benefit from considerable rewriting/cleanup. DMKR2005 (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If, to clean the section up, you need the cited pages of Moosvi, you can get them via WP:RX (or email me for them). Economic history of India may need a similar overhaul. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do cleanup, once I have time. If you have access to Moosvi and send it to me, that would be great DMKR2005 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

And yes, Economic history of India would also require cleanup DMKR2005 (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I think I cleaned up economy section. There are still two problems: gdp estimates by Maddison, are correct, I think, but the refs don't back it up. Should I remove it? Also wages comparison with Europe- Parthasarathi comparison is for mid 18 and early 19 century, which is post-Mughal period, so I am not sure whether this information belong here DMKR2005 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Disgusting white washing of Sikh genocides by the Mughal Empire in line with other Wikipedia articles

Wikipedia authors and admins have shown an favourable bias to excluding information regarding any Sikh massacres or attempted genocides such as on the 1984 anti-Sikh riot and state of emergency Wikipedia pages which I just edited to show clear distinct whitewashing of source verified murder that was written as removed. This article presents the exact same scenario mentioning in the opening synopsis which I just removed the line saying as a summary the Mughal Empire was equal and just to it's natives. That is not true, the entire Sikh religion was invented by the 10th Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh Ji in defiance to the genocides and ongoing massacres which have been proven by Chinese, Greek, Hindu and Nepalese sources on the oppression of Sikhs and Hindus. The famous Sikh book Zafarnama's entire purpose is to advise a Mughal Emperor to be just and not oppress others as Mughal Emperors were known for mass rapes, murders and genocides.

How could it be possibly that a foreign ruling empire in 800 years NEVER committed oppression on large scale to subdue natives? How is this even remotely possible.

The 10th Guru developed the Khalsa panth, he codified the entire Sikh religion. One of the largest major religions on Earth because of Mughal Oppression. You cannot make this up, it's why the religion was invented to be a warrior faith. This is outrageous and demeaning and dehumanising to let authors continue to write anti-Sikh statements all throughout Wikipedia and on this page by whitewashing Mughal Empires crimes.

There are very few benevolent Empires on Earth that oppressed another nation for 800 years of a complete foreign religion, nationality, culture and identity and didn't impose at all any form of subjugation. I'm just talking on a Sikh point of view, If we talk about oppression of Zoroastrians, Jains, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists I would spend day's writing on the Mughal Empires genocidal dictator policies to suppress natives.

SumeetJi (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

My work was removed by a Wiki author, without referencing them due to not wanting to invoke a forum style chat on a article talk page as to avoid breaking that Wiki guideline rule, I will lay our one last judgement here regarding this topic then leave it at respective talk pages of users to continue.

What I removed was text that in summary states the Mughal Empire was an equality driven Empire. There is no evidence from the linked sources reference [19] that is in line with that statement, "it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and people it came to rule; rather, it equalized and placated them through new administrative practices,"

in fact reading the book itself lends the opposite viewpoint, that Mughals were indeed oppressive and not equality driven and that their administrative practices were based on removing Hindus from power. This also invalidated reference [18]. The original Authors viewpoints should be removed for misleading work.

From an simple logical viewpoint and then fact checking by reading the sources provided already, how does an foreign invading genociding empire part of an Islamic Caliphate, not back the statement that they did not "vigorously suppress the cultures" when Jizya an Islamic practice of forcing tax on non-Muslims which was implemented with verifiable sources on the Indian population during Muslim rule, even lend credibility to the statement.

Source book ISBN-10 : 1515072401 ISBN-13 : 978-1515072409 - SumeetJi (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see page 115 of the Asher source. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding user User:RegentsPark - your source of reference to refer to given "Please see page 115 of the Asher source." gives no indication to counter the statement I made that the Mughal Empire imposed their rule on others by force. The relevant page section reads in summary that no elimination of native culture nor merging of culture began during Mughal occupation. Furthermore, if you actually read your own source which I suspect you are deliberately not doing as it would've proved you wrong originally, the following text advises that a nobility class of Muslim rulers of which the Mughal were occupied India, and imposed their rule. Imposing rule is not the same as the original article authors txt "it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and people it came to rule;" because they in fact according to every single source given if your doing your job, did impose their Muslim rule to suppress cultures. Jizya is a major example.

You're doing this on purpose. I refuse to take your further word in point as your are not following Wikipedia's guidelines on following helpful trains of thought. Revert you're undo, or I will do so in an hour from now, and will accept my account deletion and all my works history being deleted as protest of your negligence to deliberate action in supporting religious bigotry. - SumeetJi (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

According to the book: "the many local societies it ruled were not eliminated or merged but kept together through the imposition of a set of administrative practices". That's pretty much what the content you've now removed says. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed the "vigorous suppression" part. Mughals did suppress by jail and forced violence non Muslims according to the sources all proivded. End of discussion, do whatever the fuck you want you win, your racism against Sikhs are showing. - SumeetJi (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Your several references to "800 years" above suggest you are confusing the whole period of Islamic rule in India with the Mughal Empire, which only entered India in 1526, and whose period of real power only lasted for the 200 years after that. The early Islamic rulers, especially the Delhi Sultanate, certainly oppressed and persecuted other religions, but the Mughals initially mostly avoided or at least relaxed this, until Aurangzeb, who blotted their record. Mughal relations with the Sikhs follow this pattern. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, even the claims regarding the Delhi Sultanate are being challenged at another page. But coming back to the topic, Fowler&fowler apparently changed "balanced and pacified" to "equalized and placated" ostensibly to avoid close paraphrasing. But I don't see what text this is supposed to be paraphrasing. So I will change it back. That will solve at least one problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Neither any of yourselves addressed my point. The 800 years was a misjudgement to say as the Mughal rule did only last a few centuries, I was referring to the entire Muslim rule on Sikhs over Wikipedia in general, none of the sources mention the Mughal murders of the 2 Sikh Guru's, the rest is still true. Your website promotes Anti-Sikh discourse and I no longer wish to communicate with racist authors. SumeetJi (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

WARNING IMPORTANT: Wikipedia admins are known to favour anti-Sikh content on this website.

There are several dozen instances of bias and misleading of facts by favoured Wikipedia authors and administrators on oppression actions against Sikhs on many Wikipedia pages.

For Instance the Mughal Empire page, the most violent and oppressive Islamic Empire rule over India which was responsible for some of the largest genocides during the time period doesn't mention any mention of being an Islamic oppressive Empire and the murders of the 3 Holy Sikh Gurus and massacres of Maratha's, Hindus, Jains or Buddhists. All mention of major Sikh genocides, murders, rapes and killings of Sikhs are not found in the major Sikh events in history on Wikipedia.

THERE IS NO MENTION OF ZAFARNAMA

Wikipedia contains anti Sikh discourse throughout this website. SumeetJi (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

While I disagree with the overall argument SumeetJi is making about widespread anti-Sikh bias, I think there is room for improvement when it comes to the phrase in question: "it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and people it came to rule; rather, it balanced and pacified them through new administrative practices". I don't think this sweeping characterization really stands up to scrutiny when compared to the sources cited for it. It cites Asher 115-, presumably meant to refer to the entire chapter on Akbar. (As a side note, why do most of the citations in the lead have this format of an opening page number but no closing page number? Is this meant to be like the abbreviation ff.?) The opening paragraph has the sentence being paraphrased: "This empire was a top-down enterprise: the many local societies it ruled were not eliminated or merged but rather kept together through the imposition of a set of administrative practices and a class of ruling nobles." Leaving aside the fact that the original text isn't saying anything about pacification or the absence of suppression, it more importantly is talking specifically about the Mughal state under Akbar. The tone of the text changes when it comes to Aurangzeb's reign, and particularly the post-Aurangzeb era, where you can find quotes like, "Although religious tension may have been a factor in the empire's antagonism, the main reason for its repeated attempts to suppress Sikh leaders was their growing secular power" (267, emphasis added). The second citation, of Robb 99-100, is even more suspect, primarily because those two pages are talking about the characteristics of civil society in this era, not the characteristics of Mughal administration. If you look at the previous two pages, they once again portray Akbar as mostly tolerant, his successors less so. Some excerpts: "Akbar's successor, Jahangir, pursued more mixed policies... He martyred the fifth Sikh guru, Arjun, and forced his son and successor to retreat to the hills... Shah Jahan took further steps towards Muslim orthodoxy... Aurangzib, whom many historians no longer depict as violently anti-Hindu, nonetheless extended earlier attempts to create a Muslim state... Aurangzib pulled down some Hindu temples... and reinstated the Hindu pilgrim tax and jiziya, implying rule by conquest. In 1675 he executed the proselytizing Sikh guru, Tegh Bahadur, and thus deepened the strong enmity between the Sikhs and Mughals" (97-98).

In conclusion, I think that phrase from the intro should be replaced with something longer recognizing that the tolerance of the Mughal state waxed and waned over time. Given that conflict between the empire and Sikh leaders shows up multiple times in both referenced sources, it seems like it also deserves some coverage in the article, though I'm less certain of where this would make the most sense, and I appreciate any thoughts here.--Shmarrighan (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, a month later I finally made some edits along these lines. It seems like SumeetJi's long gone at this point, but feel free to discuss here if you see any problems or ways to improve.--Shmarrighan (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

POV edits in the lead

POV edits in the lead are being made by an editor White Horserider (talk · contribs), who is moreover engaged in edit warring without attempting to achieve a new consensus for his edits on this talk page. Pinging admin @RegentsPark: under whose supervision the last consensus version of the lead was achieved. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Ahhh, how .. humorous that If someone add content from scholars and Indologists like D.H.A Kolf, Andre Wink, Majumdar that too from top publishers like Cambridge and Oxford but still got bashed for POV edits, can't bear it. 16:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Better reply to these than blindly opposing my edits on other articles without any concrete evidence. White Horserider (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The phrase whom Babur called greatest Indian king of that time belongs, at best, to the article on the battle and Rana Sanga. Not in this article, whatever be the form.

The paradigm of historiography has seen a sea-change since R. C. Majumdar's days. Majumdar was a serious (and respectable) historian but the central thesis of his works was a Hindu-Muslim Clash-of-Civilisations, which has been since relegated to the depths by Sunil Kumar, Richard Eaton, Philip Wagoner and others. Our article on Wink (very bloated) makes it clear that he is not an authority on Mughal Empire. His Al-Hind series met with significant criticism (and praise). I have never heard of Radheyshyam Chaurasia. Atlantic is some local publication house from India. There are no reviews of his work.

I have sympathies for your argument though I do not agree. (See Schroeder et al for a discussion.) But you need to show that a majority of specialist sources on Mughal India conforms to your proposed edits. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Text in lead on "pacification" vs. "suppression"

Hello all, but particularly Fowler&fowler: In January I made an edit to the lead changing the language from

"Although the Mughal empire was created and sustained by military warfare, it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and peoples it came to rule, but balanced them by establishing new administrative practices, and incorporating diverse ruling elites, leading to more efficient, centralised, and standarized rule."

to

"The Mughal empire was created and sustained by military warfare. Under Akbar it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and people it came to rule, instead incorporating conquered nobles into the empire's administrative structure and practicing religious tolerance, leading to more efficient, centralised, and standardized rule. Later emperors gradually moved away from these policies in attempts to create a more orthodox Muslim state."

I attempted to discuss the revision here on the Talk page beforehand - see my comments above in the "Disgusting white washing of Sikh genocides..." section - but no one responded to me, so I went ahead and made the edits. Fowler&fowler reverted them a few days ago with the comment "There is a consensus version of the lead supervised by admin RegentsPark; we cannot keep nickel and diming it without a new consensus."

I would like to make that new consensus, so I would appreciate a discussion here. I still think my edits are an improvement to the article, for the same reasons I originally posted. I do not consider the changes "nickel and diming" as they lead to a significant revision of the historical perspective of this aspect of the Mughal Empire. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, the tolerance (or not) of the Mughal state is an emotionally/politically charged issue in the present day, so I think it's important and worthwhile to get it right.

For anyone who doesn't want to scroll up to my previous post, here is my argument: I think there is room for improvement when it comes to the phrase in question: "it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and people it came to rule; rather, it balanced and pacified them through new administrative practices". I don't think this sweeping characterization really stands up to scrutiny when compared to the sources cited for it. It cites Asher 115-, presumably meant to refer to the entire chapter on Akbar. (As a side note, why do most of the citations in the lead have this format of an opening page number but no closing page number? Is this meant to be like the abbreviation ff.?) The opening paragraph has the sentence being paraphrased: "This empire was a top-down enterprise: the many local societies it ruled were not eliminated or merged but rather kept together through the imposition of a set of administrative practices and a class of ruling nobles." Leaving aside the fact that the original text isn't saying anything about pacification or the absence of suppression, it more importantly is talking specifically about the Mughal state under Akbar. The tone of the text changes when it comes to Aurangzeb's reign, and particularly the post-Aurangzeb era, where you can find quotes like, "Although religious tension may have been a factor in the empire's antagonism, the main reason for its repeated attempts to suppress Sikh leaders was their growing secular power" (267, emphasis added). The second citation, of Robb 99-100, is even more suspect, primarily because those two pages are talking about the characteristics of civil society in this era, not the characteristics of Mughal administration. If you look at the previous two pages, they once again portray Akbar as mostly tolerant, his successors less so. Some excerpts: "Akbar's successor, Jahangir, pursued more mixed policies... He martyred the fifth Sikh guru, Arjun, and forced his son and successor to retreat to the hills... Shah Jahan took further steps towards Muslim orthodoxy... Aurangzib, whom many historians no longer depict as violently anti-Hindu, nonetheless extended earlier attempts to create a Muslim state... Aurangzib pulled down some Hindu temples... and reinstated the Hindu pilgrim tax and jiziya, implying rule by conquest. In 1675 he executed the proselytizing Sikh guru, Tegh Bahadur, and thus deepened the strong enmity between the Sikhs and Mughals" (97-98).

In conclusion, I think that phrase from the intro should be replaced with something longer recognizing that the tolerance of the Mughal state waxed and waned over time.--Shmarrighan (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

   Hi Shmarrighan , I removed the part saying the Mughals were pacifists, it's like saying a prostitute is a virgin, or a meat eater a vegan. Impossible. source 14, 15, 16 when read constantly say that rebellions were put down by Mughals. By putting down, Mughals would rape, genocide and massacre millions of people throughout their oppressive genocidal regime. SumeetJi (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt SumeetJi but it looks like editing that text, or even having a discussion on this Talk page about it, is going to be impossible. Fowler&fowler appears to habitually wipe any changes to the intro, tell editors to take it to the talk page, but then decline to engage in any discussions about the edits on the Talk page. Oh well.

As a side note, I don't think the evidence shows that the Mughals were an "oppressive genocidal regime", but we can agree that they certainly weren't pacifists.--Shmarrighan (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Hi Shmarrighan I undid revision of user Fowler&fowler with note if they want to keep their revision which is contrary to the previous 3 sources. Then they will have to remove the previous line and 3 sources. You cannot be a prostitute and a virgin. You cannot eat meat and be a vegetarian. Either Mughals are peaceful and balancing force, or sustained through military conquest. If he wasn't his revision the military aggression 3 contrary references have to go. The user is deliberately not reading sources and going against Wikipedia's rules. SumeetJi (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

User Fowler&fowler is not following rules

As per my findings (along with user Shmarrighan findings)

Either the Mughal Empire were violent and oppressive to cultures as stated in sentence in Article (and sources to back up statement) "Although the Mughal empire was created and sustained by military warfare,[23][24][25]"

Or they are not violent and oppressive as per the user Fowler&fowler advised sources that come after which say (and backed up by sources "t did not vigorously suppress the cultures and peoples it came to rule, but balanced them by establishing new administrative practices,[26][27]"

My consensus was fair, either Mughals were oppressive or not. Both sources contradict each other.

My reply was you cannot be a virgin and a prostitute engaging in sexual work such as penis vagina insertion, and you cannot be a meat eater that considers themselves a vegetarian.

I accept both sets of sources could be biassed, as they contradict one set has to go.

You cannot exist through sustained military warefare and balance cultures, it's an oxymoron. Either a rapist or a virgin, either a left hander or a right hander. It's a simple understanding that you refuse to read.

• 23.  Stein, Burton (2010), A History of India, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 159–, ISBN 978-1-4443-2351-1 Quote: "The vaunting of such progenitors pointed up the central character of the Mughal regime as a warrior state: it was born in war and it was sustained by war until the eighteenth century, when warfare destroyed it."
• 24.  Robb, Peter (2011), A History of India, Macmillan, pp. 108–, ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2 Quote: "The Mughal state was geared for war, and succeeded while it won its battles. It controlled territory partly through its network of strongholds, from its fortified capitals in Agra, Delhi or Lahore, which defined its heartlands, to the converted and expanded forts of Rajasthan and the Deccan. The emperors' will was frequently enforced in battle. Hundreds of army scouts were an important source of information. But the empire's administrative structure too was defined by and directed at war. Local military checkpoints or thanas kept order. Directly appointed imperial military and civil commanders (faujdars) controlled the cavalry and infantry, or the administration, in each region. The peasantry in turn were often armed, able to provide supporters for regional powers, and liable to rebellion on their own account: continual pacification was required of the rulers."
• 25. Gilbert, Marc Jason (2017), South Asia in World History, Oxford University Press, pp. 75–, ISBN 978-0-19-066137-3 Quote: "With Safavid and Ottoman aid, the Mughals would soon join these two powers in a triumvirate of warrior-driven, expansionist, and both militarily and bureaucratically efficient early modern states, now often called "gunpowder empires" due to their common proficiency is using such weapons to conquer lands they sought to control."
• 26. Asher, Catherine B.; Talbot, Cynthia (2006), India Before Europe, Cambridge University Press, pp. 115–, ISBN 978-0-521-80904-7
• 27. Robb, Peter (2011), A History of India, Macmillan, pp. 99–100, ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SumeetJi (talk • contribs) 13:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

SumeetJi (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@SumeetJi: I've read your post above and I don't see any evidence there that contradicts the statement "it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and peoples". Your sources state that the empire was a "warrior empire" that aimed to conquer land through battle. It does not follow that they suppressed local cultures and people after the conquest. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you please ask them to to drop nonsensical misogyny like Either a rapist or a virgin? This is not the first time. TIA. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely @SumeetJi:, could you stick to addressing the content using sources and not by drawing odd analogies, misogynistic ones at that too. Also, I notice your choice of section heading is a violation of WP:AGF and all this leads me to wonder whether you're a serious editor of are just trolling us. If you're not trolling, please try to stick to the res in your comments. Thanks. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: I argue that the statement "it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and peoples" is partially contradicted by the quote from Robb: "The peasantry... were often armed... and liable to rebellion on their own account: continual pacification was required of the rulers." More importantly, the "did not vigorously suppress" text is not supported by the sources cited after it, as I have laid out in my earlier posts on this talk page. Thank you. --Shmarrighan (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shmarrighan: Thanks for explaining your position. While armed rebellion is not in and of itself a symptom of culture suppression, if the "did not vigorously suppress" text is not supported by the cited sources, then I agree it should go. @Fowler&fowler: for comment. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Asher and Talbot, p 115, say, "The empire was a top-down enterprise: the many local societies it ruled were not eliminated or merged but rather kept together through the imposition of a set of administrative practices and a class of ruling nobles." This was paraphrased as, "... it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and peoples it came to rule, but balanced them by establishing new administrative practices, and incorporating diverse ruling elites, ..." If you are concerned that "vigorously suppress" is too weak, you may replace it with "stamp out." Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I have two issues with the use of that Asher quote to support the article text. 1) The paraphrased text comes off as a statement primarily about cultural tolerance, but the quote is primarily about governmental administration, as evidenced by the beginning phrase, "The empire was a top-down enterprise". 2) In context it is clear that this quote is talking about the Mughal empire at a specific point in time, during Akbar's reign. A more thorough reading of Asher's book shows that while Akbar showed a great degree of tolerance, his successors did not. One example from the 1700's: "Although religious tension may have been a factor in the empire's antagonism, the main reason for its repeated attempts to suppress Sikh leaders was their growing secular power" (267, emphasis added). I think the "vigorously suppress" text should be replaced with something longer recognizing that the tolerance of the Mughal state waxed and waned over time. Thank you. --Shmarrighan (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shmarrighan: As for Aurengzeb, Muzaffar Alam in the article on the Mughals in Encyclopedia Britannica suggests that by his time the early Mughal style of governance had reached everywhere and very much survived him. Says Alam,

The individual abilities and achievements of the early Mughals—Bābur, Humāyūn, and later Akbar—largely charted this course. Bābur and Humāyūn struggled against heavy odds to create the Mughal domain, whereas Akbar, besides consolidating and expanding its frontiers, provided the theoretical framework for a truly Indian state. Picking up the thread of experimentation from the intervening Sūr dynasty (1540–56), Akbar attacked narrow-mindedness and bigotry, absorbed Hindus in the high ranks of the nobility, and encouraged the tradition of ruling through the local Hindu landed elites. This tradition continued until the very end of the Mughal Empire, despite the fact that some of Akbar’s successors, notably Aurangzeb (1658–1707), had to concede to contrary forces.

In other words, setting up Aurengzeb to be the straw man, the exact counterpoise to Akbar, equal in power and influence to Akbar, and the Mughals thereby to have split Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde peaks of love and hate is a POV that is without adequate representation in the reliable sources. After mulling over your response again, I believe the original wording, "did not vigorously suppress" is accurate, and there is no reason to change it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Fowler. Technically, the empire ran from 1469 to 1857 and, presumably, its interactions with local cultures waxed and waned and the height of "local supression" was mostly around Aurangzeb's time, a fairly brief period in its 400 year history. In the main, it appears to have not actively suppressed local cultures so the wording is correct. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Having quietly followed this conversation and searching for any mention concerning the Mughal Empire's "suppression" of local cultures, I would have to agree with Fowler. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I think you are misrepresenting my argument. I'm not claiming that Akbar was particularly tolerant and Aurangzeb was particularly intolerant, but rather that Akbar was particularly tolerant and the rest of the Mughals were less so, in particular with regards to the Sikhs. Mughal-Hindu relations get the most attention, and in that case the record is mixed enough to say that Hindus were not vigorously suppressed. But the Mughals clearly attempted to suppress the Sikh community.

Nevertheless, I'll accept the consensus on the text. The last thing I want to point out is that none of the three of you addressed my first point, that the quote from Asher is not actually about cultural tolerance, but is about administrative practice. The other citation, from Robb, is even less about cultural tolerance. So assuming the text stays as it was, I think it at least needs stronger sources. The quote from Britannica works better, but my understanding is that Britannica is not considered an RS. Do you have an RS that says the same thing? --Shmarrighan (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what the current WP guidelines are, but signed articles in Britannica (in this instance by Muzaffar Alam) used to be considered RS. I will look for some other sources. I'm not sure if Asher and Talbot are talking only of administrative practice. Here is the full quote:

This empire was a top-down enterprise: the many local societies it ruled were not eliminated or merged but rather kept together through the imposition of a set of administrative practices and a class of ruling nobles. Over time, however, imperial ideology and institutions were disseminated throughout its many constituent units and served as a catalyst for the growth of a new kind of elite Indian culture and society, one that was both composite and widespread. This chapter examines the stages leading to the revival of empire in north India and the main architect of the Mughal state, Emperor Akbar. We consider how Akbar’s concept of state evolved over time and its impact on politics and policies regarding India’s multi-cultural, multi-ethnic population. In addition, we analyze how state policies affected cultural production, both on an imperial as well as subimperial level, arguing that the use of specific languages and the production of architecture and even manuscripts were all part of a carefully planned political campaign.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally have a problem with Britannica, except that someone recently reverted an edit on this article while posting this. See also this discussion.

On the Asher quote: The words "cultural suppression" carry serious connotations, and are also very touchy in modern-day India, as I'm sure you know. Because of that, if we're going to say they didn't "suppress" other "cultures and peoples" in the lead of the article, I think we need a strong source behind them. By contrast, this Asher quote speaks very weakly, if at all, about the absence of cultural suppression. You could paraphrase the key points as: "The Mughal empire's general population and elite was multicultural. When the Mughals conquered new areas, they outsourced governance to existing structures and ruled loosely from afar, instead of creating new states/districts." All that might be consistent with cultural tolerance, but it's not an explicit description of it. If cultural tolerance was such a defining trait of the Mughals that it deserves to be mentioned in the article introduction, it should be easy to find a straightforward description of it, versus teasing it out of a quote that's primarily talking about something else.--Shmarrighan (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Economy

Can you please provide the exact line which stats 22% of the world Economy The economic source doesn't really mention anything about welfare It only States that it was the second largest But it never mentions it as being rich Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be this chart. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Tolerance and motivations

Kinra, Rajeev (2020). "Revisiting the History and Historiography of Mughal Pluralism". ReOrient. 5 (2): 137–182. doi:10.13169/reorient.5.2.0137. ISSN 2055-5601. is worth a read. Maybe something can be added to the article. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Full map

I find it strange that the map atthe top of the article doesn't show its object in full. What do you think about these maps: trespassers william (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021

Most of the introduction uses a serial comma, but it's missing in a couple of places. Please put a comma after "Mogul" in the first sentence and after "Lahore Fort" in the last sentence. 120.159.92.196 (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

spelling

"Mogul Empire" is the correct terminology. ~~\\10:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)~~\ 137.59.221.36 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2021 (

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2018 and 19 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarahismail827.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Mughal empire

How the early modern islamic Mughals in south 223.187.106.103 (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

<change mariam name the wife of jahangir to rani jodha bai as she hadn't change her name even after her marriage. > 103.255.72.183 (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Muslim state-building in the Indian subcontinent

@user:पाटलिपुत्र: Would you please explain in what way you consider it "interpretation" to say that the Mughal Empire was a "product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent"? In what other way do you imagine that the Mughal Empire became the Mughal Empire? Thanks for your attention. Dayirmiter (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

A (tangential) heads up that the wording that पाटलिपुत्र removed was too close to the quote in the citation. If re-inserted, it will need to be paraphrased differently. FYI. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary: "POV sentence and quote unfit for a general introduction. If you must, please use it in the body of the article among other academic interpretations" [4]. It is a verbatim analysis by an academic, ie an opinion among other opinions. We rarely do that: an introduction has to be a neutral general summary, not an opportunity for quote-dropping. In addition, I am afraid the Mughals were quite unrelated to the earlier phases of Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, made by Arabs, Turks or Afghans, although they roughly shared the same faith and all invaded India, so it is rather farfetched to present them as "a product" of these previous events. As I said, it's one interesting academic perpective, worthy of mention in the body of the article, but cannot be the primary statement of an introduction. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Got it, User:पाटलिपुत्र. Thank you. The idea of not using quotes in the introduction makes sense and I'll remember it. Also thanks for your perspective on the Mughals. I know little about the topic and was just going with the cited source. Dayirmiter (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Mughal

Mo-gul? Mur-gul? Mur-gal? Mew-gal??? I've heard all four.2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:E18D:6532:3617:8E87 (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Decline

"Reduced subsequently [to Aurengzeb], especially during the East India Company rule in India, to the region in and around Old Delhi..." this is literally true, but misleading as it implies the EIC were the cause of the decline, which in fact they had very little to do with it compared to civil wars of succession, invasions from Persia and Afghanistan (taking all the money), agressive rival powers in India, desertion by rulers of large parts of the empire, and very poor leadership at the top. "Reduced...to the region in and around Old Delhi" had essentially happened by what, 1760?, very early on in any EIC rule. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That was an error. It was supposed to be: "Reduced subsequently to the region in and around Old Delhi, especially during the East India Company rule in India, the empire was formally dissolved by the British Raj after the Indian Rebellion of 1857." As you say, the Mughals imploded in a matter of a few decades. It was felt that to explain their dramatic cave-in to external forces, fiscal and geographical overreach, and pageant or degenerate rulers, etc. would become too involved for the lead. It would give too much credit to the Marathas or the Afghans (or the Rajputs and the Jats for that matter) who the Mughals gave governing ambitions by giving them governing experience as subordinates. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the point there was that for its last 100 years, 1757 to 1857 the empire existed from Delhi to Palam (in the old Persian couplet about Shah Alam, which I've forgetting this minute). Palam was 15 miles away, if that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Sultanat-e-Shah Alam, Az Dilli ta Palam, The sultanate of Shah Alam From Delhi to Palam. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

While I am griping, the "e" is the izafat, the possessive, (or the reverse possessive, A-e-B = B's A) of literary Persian and Urdu, which because of the hyper Hindi-ization of post colonial Republic of India is now lost there in speech and writing, even in Urdu poetry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

One could change it to, "In the next few decades the Mughal empire collapsed dramatically both in military power and geographical extent. Reduced to the region in and around Old Delhi, especially during the century of East India Company rule, the empire was formally dissolved by the British Raj after the Indian Rebellion of 1857." I would not want to go into the causes of the Mughal collapse in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, I've been reminded that I am supposed to be on a Wikibreak and that my current job is to make sandwiches from the leftover baby back ribs of yesterday afternoon. Please resolve this

@Johnbod, Visioncurve, Kansas Bear, RegentsPark, and TrangaBellam: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The quote is as F&F says (I just added "[to Aurengzeb]" for clarity). Since we seem to agree on what happened, I don't see why we need to follow knee-jerk nationalist habit, and blame everything on the British, especially when the dates don't really work and, for once, it wasn't actually their doing. Why not "In the next few decades the Mughal empire collapsed dramatically both in military power and geographical extent. Reduced to the region in and around Old Delhi by 1760 [or some other date if preferred], the empire was formally dissolved by the British Raj after the Indian Rebellion of 1857." Johnbod (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Your proposal is fine.

What was there earlier, barring the grammatical, wasn't blaming the British, though I agree that it could be viewed to be that. The point I wanted to get across on this page which I did not do very well—mind you, this was all happening during deafening POV wars, the bombs bursting in the air and whatnot, when quick editing was of the essence—was that from 1757 onward, and especially 1764 when the Mughal suba, or province, of Bengal (Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa) fell properly to the British, and 1760 onward in the south when the Mughal province of Sira first fell to Hyder Ali, and then after Tipu's defeat and the signing of the Treaty of Seringapatam in 1792 to the British, the Company was formally still only ruling its Indian dominions in the name of the Mughal Emperor. So important were the Mughals deemed in the history of India by the British. They were the only empire, the rest, the Marathas, the Durranis, the Sikhs, only confederacies of the moment.

From the 1780s the Company coins, one of my proudest possessions, were issued in the name of the Mughal emperor, and continued to be so until William IV issued the first Company silver rupees, etc., in 1835, and Victoria followed in 1840. And in 1805ish when Wellesley was proceeeding to whup the Maratha behinds in the Battle of Patparganj (What no WP page?!) across the Jumna river, Shah Alam was watching anxiously from the Red Fort, and you can be sure whom he was rooting for. It wasn't the Marathas. It is not an exaggeration to say that the British propped up the Mughal empire during the last 50 years of its existence. Without them, it would have gone much earlier. But it was that declining Mughal empire propped up by the British that created some beauty as well; it made possible the Urdu ghazals of Mir and Ghalib and the nazms of Nazeer Akbarabadi, the gold standard for the medium, and also buildings, both British, e.g. File:St. James Church ( Night ).jpg, established 1836, and Indian, and e.g. File:Anglo Arabic School's Hostel earlier known as Ghaziuddin Khan Madrasa.jpg, the oldest secular school of Delhi, reorganized by the Company in 1828.

Perhaps @RegentsPark: may want to chip in here. One of my proudest virtual possessions is the collaboration with them that led to List of British residents or political agents in Delhi, 1803–57 and eventually to Ludlow Castle, Delhi.

The mention of the Company was a nod to all that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I can see that, but I think it was too compressed to be read that way in the lead, by most anyway. I think all the powers in India formally recognised the Mughal ruler as "Emperor of India", if only to prevent anyone else asserting a right to the title, and perhaps recognising the benefits of apparent stability in what was actually a very unstable period, especially in the first part. I hope we say this lower down in the article, or will at some point. Enjoy your holidays. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The Mughal empire was in decline and the EIC stepped into the resulting vacuum, sometimes by design and often through hubris so Johnbod's reformulation is the more appropriate. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll do that then. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2022

Remove Dhaka as a 'commercial capital' from the capital section in the profile box in the top right corner. 2601:C6:CC80:D380:7083:F5B1:15F2:5CD8 (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

History

The Mughal dynasty of the Turkic Mongol origin was an early modern empire that controlled most of South Asia between the sixteenth and the mid nineteenth century. It has ruled most of Northern India from the early times. Which region in India Mughals always failed to capture and how many times they tried to conquer it? 2409:4066:19C:D4AD:0:0:1B87:58A1 (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

"conventionally"

I don't think there is any contrary information to the knowledge that Babur founded the Mughal Empire. Why it's not being represented as a definite knowledge, am I missing something? BerkBerk⁶⁸ 20:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's more about the timing - arguably the Battle of Bayana in 1527, the year after Panipat I, was the crucial event. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it seems like the controversial part is a calendrical information, I don't think Babur's founder status is disputed. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 16:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)