Mughal Empire is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Mehta is not reliable because his writing always sides with Hindus when mentioning Hindu/Mughal conflict. If you have any other source please provide it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not convinced by your statement. Do you have a 3rd party source to compare and contrast Mehta's work? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It is common knowledge that he was deposed by Ghazi- al Din. Now I am not sure if the Marhattas had anything to do with this or not, there was lots of political wrangling back then, maybe they helped him in some way or perhaps he may have joined them later but we can't just say that he did not depose Shah Jahan. He was the one who did the deed. As for aid and help is concerned I am quite sure he had help from some other parties but we can't take his name out then say that say that the said parties deposed Shah Jahan.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
"Common knowledge" can not be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. You have presented one source that states something different than Mehta. That author's focus is Islamic studies, should I presume he is "pro-Muslim"?
Presenting one source does not prove Mehta's point of view as biased. Even the chronology in "The Cambridge History of India" makes no mention of Ghazi al Din or anyone else. So far, considering what has been presented, both sources should be used to present both possibilities. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Marathas conquered Delhi militarily in 1760 coming 1000km away from their home. Did Ghazi- al Din defeat them that they would listen to him? On the contrary, the administration in Delhi was thoroughly defeated. And, a defeated person was dictating term to the Victors(marathas)? Marathas conquered delhi in 1760 and installed their man to the throne. It does not take a superman brain to understand. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't get access to the relevant page, but the index to the Cambridge History does seem to indicate Sadashive Rao dethroned Shah Alam Jahan III  (By the way, Ghatus, it is not "vandalism" to edit contrary to your view, even if you were to be right. To claim that is a personal attack for which you could be blocked). I suggest you change the heading of this thread to something more neutra DeCausa (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
This source corroborates what the earlier source said and gives short biography of the killer/murderer whichever way you want it. This explains the events of the time that how Abdali took over Delhi for some time and because of him Shah Jahan III was killed. If you scroll down you will see that Shah Jahan III has been mentioned as Shah Jahan II by mistake, which are common during digitization of these books. I hope at least now the damn title of this section can be toned down. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Sources that Support my claim- 1) The Cambridge History of India , 2)Jaswant Lal Mehta's Book  ,3)S.R. Sharma (p.765-Point 5) 4) A light source
And finally, the authenticity of The Cambridge History of India is unquestionable. It clearly says that Sadashive Rao dethroned Shah Jahan III. Sadashive Rao was the Maratha General. What is the debate on now? Ghatus (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Searching Google books for "Ghazi al-Din"+"Shah Jahan" I can only see one source  suggesting it was him that deposed Shah Jahan. On the other hand, it is a little dubious saying that it is "unquestionable" Sadashive Rao did it based on the Cambridge History index without reading the actual page. But that plus the Mehta reference is probably sufficient to say something like he "was deposed by Sadashive Rao, although according to historian M. Reza Pirbhai he was overthrown by Ghazi al-Din". Pirbhai, according to this looks like he's a reputable - and modern - source. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I am going to say meh now, I will be visiting a library the day after tomorrow. I hope the encyclopedia britannica or some other encyclopedia will have this. I will post that here and apologize if I am wrong , or change the page if I was right. I have done all the research that could be done online. I don't think there is anything conclusive here. Although I have been reading history for a long time and it is kinda common knowledge that he was deposed by a wazir ghazi, but anyway, I will post on saturday whatever I find. I was just reading a book quoted in the comments before me and it has mentioned Ghazi ul din as "Ghaziu din". Same pronunciation but different spellings. Perhpas this is one of the reasons you cannot find his mention DeCausaFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Didn't find anything with that spelling. The index to the Cambridge History seems to indicate that "Ghazi ud-Din" put Shah Jahan III on the throne.. Is there some sort of confusion over his part in the reign I wonder? DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Good job, DeCausa! I am finding a lot more information using Sadashive Rao in the search. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Whilst this article dose 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 126.96.36.199 (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)
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)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
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(TALKCONT) 20:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)