Talk:List of emperors of the Mughal Empire

India: History Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in February 2015.

Chronology of the Mughal Empire

I request my fellow editors to work on the Chronology of the Mughal Empire. ~~\\~

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. ~~\\~\

Emperor Of Hindustan

Why does the biasness exists that a page called 'Emperor of India' (title by the british empire) exists as the title, but this one is not called 'Emperor of Hindustan'. By this logic the 'Emperor of India' should be called 'list of british indian emperors' , both emperor of india and hindustan should exist, i request to move this page to 'emperor of hindustan'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk • contribs) 15:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello @DeCausa, I am not sure what you mean by "orientalists in English", but is there anything on Wikipedia policy that says not to use them? Anyways, the sources are twenty-first century ones, certainly not archaic, and clearly mention that it was the title that was used. What title do you think was used if not that? PadFoot (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008: None of your sources are 21st century. The first is a 2015 republication of a 1925 work by Percy Sykes, the second is a 2003 translation of an 18th century Persian work, and the third is from 1922 ("The Outline of History: Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind"). None meet our modern standards ffor WP:RS. It's ridiculous to claim that the mughals used the title. Please self revert. DeCausa (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa, have a look at this [1] by J.N. Nanda (2006), pg 100. PadFoot (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another usage [2] by M. S. Naravane (2006), pg 77. PadFoot (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another [3] by Dirk Collier (2016).

And another [4] by Hakim Sameer Hamdani (2022). PadFoot (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can add other sources and replace the existing ones if you want. PadFoot (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should self revert and bring sources here for discussion to see if there is a case for this. I assume you now realise that Sykes died in 1945? DeCausa (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have an additional objection to the information being added to the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the main text, but the main text knows nothing of this title. It does not discuss it, it does not source it. So you added three very old sources to a novel statement in the lead. It should not be there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanda: "Aurangzeb was only a despot trying to usurp the title of Emperor of Hindustan."

Naravane: "Lake was given high sounding titles ... To the modern mind these honours coming from a blind, old, monarch may seem farcical, but to Lake they were precious. Did they not come from the Emperor of Hindustan!" - a scornful account of Lord Lake's misunderstanding of titles.

Collier (no page number provided): Does not appear to make or quote any use of "Emperor of Hindustan" in his text, only cites a translation of the Baburnama which has that as a subtitle.

Hamdani (no page provided): one passing mention "emperor of Hindustan, in the court of Shähmiri sultans of Kashmir".

None of this thin gruel indicates that the emperors of the Mughal empire were normally or even often styled "emperor of Hindustan", let alone that this was the main way they were styled and should be represented as such in the opening of our article. NebY (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's this one by Sharma (2019): The first official khutba was read in the name of Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar. Three days later, on 14 February, at a hurriedly conducted ceremony on a hastily constructed platform at Kalanaur, Akbar was seated on a replica of a masnad or the royal throne and officially coronated as the emperor of Hindustan. He was just 13. PadFoot (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You found one! He's just a journalist though. Can you find a real historian? DeCausa (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here's one by Hooja (2006): He would live out the remaining years of his life as a prisoner of his son, Aurangzeb, who was soon to emerge victorious from the internecine war, to don the mantle of emperor of Hindustan.

And this by Eraly (2007) :On Thursday, 10th May, he ceremonially entered Agra, and rode into the citadel of Ibrahim Lodi to take up residence there as the Emperor of Hindustan.

This by Sinha (2021): Succeeding Babur as the emperor of Hindustan in 1530, Humayun was a person of diverse interests, ...

And here's this one by Kainikara (2018): On 10 May 1526, Babur entered Agra ceremoniously and took up residence in the palace as the 'Emperor of Hindustan'. PadFoot (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this indicates that this is the prime way that the Mughal rulers were styled and thus should be prominently and baldly described by Wikipedia as the way they were styled, nor even that it should be given any prominence at all. They are examples of writers occasionally using the term and in their sparsity indicate a comparative rareness of the usage and a certain narrative formulaism in using it to describe accession. In contrast, Victoria's title Empress of India is thoroughly documented as a title from creation to abolition. Scholars have likewise studied and documented titles such as King of Kings, Pharaoh, Caesar or Augustus. Our Emperor of China#Styles, names and forms of address merely scratches the surface of the titles of Chinese sovereigns. In contrast, our Mughal Empire#Name goes into some detail about the variety of names used for the domain, but provides no suggestion that the dynasts principally or customarily called themselves "Emperor of Hindustan" or were so styled, let alone the weight of WP:SCHOLARSHIP that we need for such a statement and which, were it the case, should be as easy to find as that for King of Kings. NebY (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for these historians to be ignored. What do you think the title of these monarchs was? Sultan of Turan? Caesar of Rome? Alright, perhaps not in the lead, and not in boldface, but it still should be mentioned in the article. Also, 'King of Kings', 'Pharao', etc., are titles, not monarchies as in case of 'Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia', 'German Emperor' or 'King of the Belgians'. Perhaps I am mistaken here? Is the issue regarding whether the title was 'Emperor'? PadFoot (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted the existing text, The emperors of the Mughal Empire, to be followed by styled the Emperors of Hindustan and you insisted in edit summaries That's the actual formal title and it is the formal title. Those are claims that should be supported, not by passing uses of the phrase in narrative but by direct scholarship, as we see for King of Kings and other titles. What phrase in what language was the formal title of the emperors of the Mughal Empire? It is unlikely to have included any cognate of "empire" or "emperor" - those would be translations at best, if not mere framings into late European conceptualisations as "Ruler of Territory" (King of France, Emperor of India) rather than, say, "King of Kings", "Emperor of the Great Qing Dynasty" or "Son of Heaven". Mughal Empire#Name indicates that "Hindustan" was one of several terms for their territory, but not that "Emperor of Hindustan" was the formal title of the rulers or among their official titles. You clearly have confidence that it was, so please do provide the scholarship that the Mughals had such a formal title and that "Emperor of Hindustan" translates it well. NebY (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NebY, the part where you said that "title of territory" is a later European invention. That is very incorrect. The founder of the Timurid line himself used the title "Sultan of Turan". PadFoot (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Emperor of Hindustan

Clear biasness here aswell as in the main mughal empire article,

Just like how Emperor of India, not not 'List of British Raj monarchs'

just like that Emperor of Hindustan should exist, and not 'list of mughal monarchs'.

WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a read of WP:RM, which will explain how to create a move discussion. The templates will be needed to ensure it is appropriately listed and interested editors can find the discussion. In answer to the above argument, however, I'll note:

Other Wikipedia pages do not create a necessary precedent for how this page should be titled.
As per the above discussion, there is no clear case that this styling was used.

So this probably won't get traction if you do format it as a move discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, WhatAGreatWikiTuber, the above discussion is about an WP:ALTNAME. To change the article to a new name there is a higher threshold - see WP:TITLE. The key part of that is WP:COMMONNAME i.e "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". You would need to produce evidence that "Emperor of Hindustan" was more prevalent in reliable English-language sources than variants of Mughal emperor etc That seems highly unlikely. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mughal Empire" section

What does a nine paragraph overview of the history of the empire itself have to do with a list of emperors? Such a section should be replaced with one on the organisation of the state and the powers the monarch held, modelling after the FL List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]