Jump to content

Talk:Mughal Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.78.192.54 (talk) at 19:22, 9 October 2018 (→‎Poor Writing: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 There are written records that do not cite the fact that the funder of the empire destroyed non-muslim worshipping sites.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}[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2017

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2018

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

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mughal_Empire&oldid=863274211"