Talk:Mughal Empire

Systematic Bias

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

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

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

Missing information in Early History

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

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

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

Some IP deleted it here in 25 January with no explanation. I have restored it --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Should the name of Dawar Bakhsh be inserted in the table of Emperors? However brief and tragic his "reign", he seems to have been part of the pattern. Incidentally, in the Wikipedia stub on Dawar, the alternative spelling 'Moghul' is used. Ombudswiki (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Lahore

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

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

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

Greatest Empire On Earth?

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

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

Unexplained edits by dynamic IP

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

Flag of Safavid Iran (Lion and Sun)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Error in metatext

The article reads

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

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

Latently anti-Muslim edits

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

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

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

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

Mughals were Turkics from Central Asia(present Uzbekistan) who conquered Afghanistan, Modern day Pakistan, most of modern day India and Bangladesh. They use to speak foreign languages like Chagatai Turkic and Persian, so saying that they were not Central Asian is more of asserting ur personal views. For example the Hasburgs that u have mentioned are described as a "dynasty from Switzerland" which ruled on many parts of Europe. HotWinters (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not by any chance, HotWinters, posing as the IP and asking yourself softball questions, in order that you can sound more erudite in order to pave the way for your edits?? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah...but for a moment I thought it was you. 05:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotWinters (talk • contribs)

Lame humor won't get you off. I could request a check. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So should I, the IP seems to be bidding for you. HotWinters (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"bidding for me?" Didn't realize I was up for sale. Or do you mean "doing my bidding?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not facebook professor, if u have something meaningful to write, then write, nobody is interested in what you think or feel. HotWinters (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrase

Dear HotWinters, Could you please explain to us how you have paraphrased, the sentences:

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

which you have apparently cited in your edits, as:

The Mughal Empire (Persian: شاهان مغول, [Shāhān-e Moġul] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help); self-designation: گوركانى, [Gūrkānī] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)), or Mogul (also Moghul) Empire in former English usage, was a central Asian imperial power from Farghana, in present-day Uzbekistan, that ruled a large portion of the Indian subcontinent?"

Since Babur was born in 1483, and driven out of Samarkand by 1501, according to your source, are you suggesting that he had become an imperial power, by the age of 18? If so, what constituted his empire, how large was it, and what is your source for that appelation, since your book of travel writings, which you seem to have cited, says nothing about "imperial power?" Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I should add that in the English language, you can't say that an empire is from a place, ( Farghana, in present-day Uzbekistan), just because its founder happened to have been born in that place. The Mughal Empire came to exist as a result of its dominion over India. It consequently began existence in 1526, once that dominion began, not in 1483, when its founder was born, or perhaps, even earlier when the founder was a twinkle in an eye. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I hate to keep pointing out errors in your English expressions, but it is not "woah," it is Whoa. No, I'm merely saying that you can add that Babur was born in the Fergana Valley to the Babur page, but the not the Mughal Empire, which is the page we are talking about. Here is the lead sentence in Britannica's page on the Mughal Empire:

Muslim dynasty that ruled most of northern India from the early 16th to the mid-18th century, after which it continued to exist as a considerably reduced and increasingly powerless entity until the mid-19th century.

That is close to what was originally in the page. I'm afraid if you don't provide better sources (than travel books) this dispute is going to continue. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said I am not ur facebook buddy. Babur was the founder of the Mughal empire and we are talking about the "early history" of the empire here, just coz its written in Britannica in a brief manner doesn't mean we are going to do the same. This is Wikipedia not Britannica, you see the difference? HotWinters (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. The The Mughal Era section in the History of India page seems to think that the Empire was established only in 1526, in India, when Babur was 40 years old, not in Fergana where he was from. Please correct that page as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Coz "The The Mughal Era section" on the page History of India is about history of INDIA only, and last time i checked Fergana and Afghanistan were not in India. HotWinters (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

PS We don't talk about the early history of an empire in the first sentence of the article. We give an overview. We write a sentence that best describes the empire overall. That sentence is usually not taken from the birth certificate of the founder. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The overview here says that they were from Central Asia and ruled on South Asia.HotWinters (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) I hate to point out that you've apparently not read the rest of the Mughal Empire page itself, busy as you've been with perfecting the lead sentence. Farther along the page it says,

"The Mughal dynasty was founded when Babur, hailing from Ferghana (Modern Uzbekistan), invaded parts of north-western and northern India and defeated Ibrahim Shah Lodhi, the ruler of Delhi, at the First Battle of Panipat in 1526."

That seems to indicate that the dynasty began in 1526, in India, not in Fergana, even though Babur hailed from there. Perhaps you should edit the rest of the article first before you edit the lead sentence. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How can the dynasty "began in India"...it conquered India in 1526...you mean to say that he never captured Afghanistan and flew over to capture India(Pak included)? HotWinters (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that Mughals were not Turkics from Uzbekistan, they did not conquer Afghanistan, modern day Pakistan but they suddenly appeared in Delhi and thats what should be written about them in an encyclopedia, which apparently is meant for information. HotWinters (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you are having some serious issues parsing the sentence. The sentence in the Mughal Empire page says, it says (again)

The Mughal dynasty was founded when Babur, ..., invaded parts of north-western and northern India and defeated Ibrahim Shah Lodhi, the ruler of Delhi, at the First Battle of Panipat in 1526."

I've taken out the non-restrictive relative clause, which doesn't alter the meaning of the sentence, just adds some incidental information to it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops again. I hate to keep nagging you like Peter Falk in Columbo, but the infobox in the Mughal Empire page gives 1526–1858 to be the dates for the empire. That means the empire began in 1526, after the first Battle of Panipat, not during one of the earlier skirmishes in the Fergana Valley. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Skirmishes", really? btw How does that make any difference, Does it mean that Babur was not Central Asian and didn't fight in Central Asia and Afghanistan and just popped up in Northwest and North India, is that what you want to write? HotWinters (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How can the Mughal dynasty begin in India? Dynasty means

"sequence of rulers considered members of the same family"

Mughal Dynasty began with Babur in Uzbekistan though in India there rule began in 1526 when babur invaded and captured it. HotWinters (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, then perhaps you should be correcting the infobox, which has the Empire being founded in 1526. It says nothing about "in India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That could be done, Its all about the facts. HotWinters (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, Babur's reign as emperor is listed in the infobox as: 1526–1530. I wonder if you should add: Emperor of Fergana Valley (1495–1501) and Emperor of Kabul Valley (1501–) to this list? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

He was not categorically "Emperor of Fergana Valley", "Emperor of Kabul Valley" or even "Emperor of delhi", he was MUGHAL EMPEROR and his rule was in many countries and areas. He was even declared Padshah of Kabul when he conquered it, should we add that too? HotWinters (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you should if you're going to claim that the Mughals were a Central Asian imperial power from Fergana Valley. You need to state when the empire began. A date is needed for the Central Asian empire. It can't be 1526, because Panipat is not in Central Asia. Or you can simply remove the fantasy about Central Asian imperial power from Fergana Valley and restore the Mughals to their true dominions in the plains of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What fantasy? last time i checked Fergana Valley was in Uzbekistan not India. HotWinters (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have the work cut out for you. You will also have to correct the Fergana page, which states,

"Fergana also played a central role in the history of the Mughal dynasty of South Asia in that Omar Sheikh Mirza, chieftain of Farghana, was the father of Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur (1483–1530), founder of the Mughal dynasty in India. At Mirza's death in 1498, Babur became chief, although he was still a minor.

The Fergana page editors are calling him only a minor (age) chieftain of Fergana, not Emperor. In the unkindest cut of all, they seem to be disowning his empire, which is of "South Asia," and have him founding the "Mughal Dynasty" in India. Please correct the Fergana page as well. You might have a lot of correction work ahead of you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor means "under age", what could i do if anybody is disowning him (assuming that Fargana page was written by a man from Fargana), it just means that the page needs correction. We are editing a page on encyclopedia not writing national propaganda here. And I have already explained about DYNASTY. HotWinters (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

What part are you contesting? "from Fargana"(Central Asian) or "imperial"? HotWinters (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am producing a quote from one of the world's experts on the Mughal Empire, Harbans Mukhia. It is from his book, Mughals of India published by Basil Blackwell in its series "Peoples of Asia." It explains why you cannot use the expression "Central Asian empire," because it was a different branch of Gengiz Khan's family.

There are besides other branches of the same family of Moghuls, descended from Chingiz Khan and/or Timur. One had stayed "home" in Central Asia. It was thus that a text relating to it, the Tarikh-i Rashidi written in the mid-sixteenth century by Mirza Haidar Dughlat, was rendered into English by Ney Elias and Denison Ross under the title History of the Moghuls of Central Asia. Another branch with similar claims of descent had migrated to Iran. Not quite welcome in the history of Iran, this branch was later replaced by the Safavids. Thus The Mughals of India also seeks to draw some distinguishing lines among the collateral branches."

The Mughal Empire page is about the Mughal family of India (or South Asia, in neutral parlance), not the branch of the family that ruled in Central Asia, which was different. Please remove the "Central Asian imperial power" from the lead; otherwise, I will fast lose my patience. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise you will lose your patience? And what is going to happen then, exactly? You'll throw a hissyfit and scream at your computer? Or perhaps you might actually do some work to improve the article yourself instead of just attempting to order others to do it for you? siafu (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Gee, who is throwing the hissy fit?? The article will be vastly improved by reverting all the nonsense that user:HotWinters has added to the page. All it takes is a revert. You can easily do it yourself. I tried, to no avail. The nonsense included pasting three or four paragraphs from the Babur page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OMG, what a pov pusher are you? I have added FACTS, ever heard of them? Real sequential history, not some movie script for one's own appeasement. Articles don't improve by reverting the sourced facts, they improve by working on them but then you want ur version of pseudo history here. HotWinters (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Making it "Turkic power from Fargana", now don't say they were not from Fargana and were not Turkic. HotWinters (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Mughal Empire (Persian: شاهان مغول, Shāhān-e Moġul; self-designation: گوركانى, Gūrkānī),[2][3] or Mogul (also Moghul) Empire in former English usage, was an imperial power that ruled a large portion of the South Asia." Sounds more neutral. So I say remove "Turkic" and "from Farghana, in present-day Uzbekistan". So there will be no such controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.232.141 (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

They were Turkic and they were from Fargana, these are FACTS , Facts is what we write here, there is no reason not to put them, there is no controversy either, just some users want to have their version of history i guess. HotWinters (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)