Talk:Mughal emperors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / History (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Untitled[edit]

Neutral?

I'm just wondering how it's neutral to prefix the names of kings with titles reflecting the author's opinion of them?


It is not and neither is the content of the article accurate. The Mughal Empire should cover this idolatry of the kings. At the very least the stuff about the individual kings should be placed in the article Emperor of India. The part of the article that is appropriate to this title is the one about the society.I would like to see more about the arts, the literature and the architecture of the era. The Mughal Empire was effectively the Elizabethan and the Victorian Eras combined with respect to India. There definitely is enough material out there to justify a separate article. It's just not completely in here.Abhishekmathur (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed the honorific titles as well as some of the idolatry language used for the emperors. The article reads like a lament to the past rather than stating the facts. It looks like it's been copied for for word from a history book rather than an encyclopedic article. Recommend investigation of sources for copyright violation.

Humayun section illogical[edit]

This section is, as of 2009-Nov-22, not logically presented. It departs from Humayun's battle loss and then picks up with him in the last paragraph. Can someone knowledgable clean it up, or add some more details? Robpinion (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


illogical titles[edit]

here is an error in the titulary of Mughal rulers, they never were emperors, the article headline shows them as emperors {emperor-name-}, but in the description of his name and titles appear as,sultan and/or Padishah,, besides that neither the Sultan nor Padishah mean emperor {imperator} ,someone competent could change those mistakes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.104.42 (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hindu Mughal Descendants?[edit]

i found the (hilarious) uncited info on mughal descendants of Bahadur Shah, with the last name gupta living in bhopal. This is purely fictional, illogical and does not have any references. I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajshahi jela (talkcontribs) 07:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Extent of Mughal Empire[edit]

In 1710, Travancore paid tribute to the Mughal governor of Arcot. There was a Qiladar at Valikondapuram in central Tamil Nadu, who was under Bijapur initially and under the Mughals later. Therefore, at least after 1710, the Mughal Empire should be shown as covering entire peninsula. The present map is incorrect. It also eaves the areas of Mysore outside, which is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan evr (talkcontribs) 16:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Bahadur Shah II.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Bahadur Shah II.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bahadur Shah II.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The English word "mogul"[edit]

"The English word mogul (e.g. media mogul, business mogul) was coined by this dynasty, meaning influential or powerful, or a tycoon." Well, the English word may derive from the name of the dynasty, but it certainly wasn't coined by them. Sentence should be revised to read "The English word mogul (e.g. media mogul, business mogul), meaning influential or powerful, or a tycoon, was inspired by the name of this dynasty," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.54.229 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

YesY Done - M0rphzone (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction in the main article of Mughal empire--Shahjahan.[edit]

In the paragraph detailing about the rule of SHAHJAHAN, the last line contains an error. It says "squinting at the distant silhouette of his famous Taj Mahal on the banks of River Jamuna" The river on the banks of Taj Mahal is YAMUNA. It is mistaken to be JAMUNA, a tributary of Brahmaputra in Bangladesh. I request the authorities to verify this error and correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vssc12 (talkcontribs) 07:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Jamuna is another way of saying Yamuna and is quite common in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.142.68 (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Mughal empresses[edit]

The page Mughal empresses has popped up in New Articles. The article as it currently stands is a mess. Maybe this is something that could be properly formatted and merged into the current article, or improved on by editors here? Mabalu (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)