Talk:Mughal Empire/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Persian influence

I have recently made a well-cited (in line with WP:RS), two-sentence contribution to the lead of the article (as per WP:Lead fixation, MOS:Lead) that outlined a formidable Persian influence on the Mughal empire. Fowler&fowler reverted me twice despite an adequate explanation of my edits in the edit summary, claiming that addition in question was not brief as I had stated (remember, a-two-sentence contribution?), should not be in the lead as info was not deemed important (scroll down to learn more about its "insignificance") and that it needed a consensus among the editors in the t/p.

According to the Manual of Style guidelines of Wikipedia, the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

There are several sourced sentences, paragraphs and sections within the article that inform how enormous was a Persian influence on almost every aspect of the Mughal state.

• 1. Infobox of the article indicates that the Persian language was an official and court language of the empire. (source provided).
• 2. The "Law" section of the article explains Persian influences on the Mughal legal system. (source provided).
• 3. The "Legal ideology" subsection notes that the empire also drew on Persianate notions of kingship. (source provided).
• 4. The "Culture" section outlines the amalgamation of Persian art and literature with Indian art. (source provided).
• 5. The "Architecture" subsection mentions the development of a unique Indo-Persian architecture during the Mughal era. (source provided).
• 6. The "Language" subsection provides an information about Persian's official status in the court and its profound impact on the development of the Urdu language. (source provided)

In addition, I decided to publish a few quotes from reputable sources where substantial importance was given by their respective authors to the aforementioned subject:

Under the Mughals, Persian influence became prominent, as Akbar recruited Persian administrators, judges, Sufis, artists, and others to expand, stabilize, and refine his empire.
— David Ludden (2013). India and South Asia: A Short History.

The Mughals were heirs to the political traditions of the Delhi Sultanate as well as to the Turkish and Persian influences.
— Krishnaji Nageshrao Chitnis (2003). Medieval Indian History, page 16.

Nonetheless, it was not Turkish but Persian which came to symbolize Mughal triumph in India. One may conjecture that, in matters of language, the Mughals had no other choice, and that they simply inherited a legacy and continued ...
— Muzaffar Alam (2004) The Languages of Political Islam: India, 1200-1800, page 123.

Unlike the pre-Mughal Islamic dynasties, the Mughals used – and mandated the use of – Persian alone in all documents of state.
— Prashant Keshavmurthy (2016). Persian Authorship and Canonicity in Late Mughal Delhi, page 8.

After the rise of the Mughals, Persian was once more brought to the fore in the second half of the sixteenth century as a language of power and culture.
— Muzaffar Alam, ‎Sanjay Subrahmanyam (2012) Writing the Mughal World: Studies on Culture and Politics, page 206.

They were even allowed to hand over their letters directly to the Mughal emperor. Persians drew the highest respect due to the hegemony Persian culture enjoyed.
— Debasish Das (2019). Red Fort: Remembering the Magnificent Mughals.

Obvious Persian influences in Mughal architecture are the extensive use of tilework, the iwan as a central feature in mosques, the use of domes, the charbagh, or garden, divided into four and the four-centrepoint arch.
— Andrew Petersen (2002). Dictionary of Islamic Architecture, page 200.

I have made my case known and now hope for a swift response from all interested parties who have contributed to this page. Qahramani44, BerkBerk68, Dayirmiter, RegentsPark, ScottishFinnishRadish, HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, Wario-Man, Beshogur, LouisAragon. --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 15:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

[Detailed reply incoming]. Broadly, I am in agreement with F&F. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

For reference, the added paragraph to the lead was this:

Although the Mughal empire was founded and subsequently ruled by the dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin, they adhered closely to classical Persian traditions of authority and aesthetics, and their linguistic, material and artistic cultural activities were heavily influenced by Persianate culture. The Mughal reign also enacted the revival and height of the Persian language in the Indian subcontinent, as the Mughals employed Persian as the vehicle of an overarching Indo-Persian political culture, to unite their diverse empire.

--Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 16:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Does this article reflect the entirety of the Mughal's culture? Perhaps Visioncurve's information should be placed in the Culture section of the article. Once that is done, maybe the article could be re-evaluated for what should be written in the Lead?--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Visioncurve, For heavens sake, please don't dump garbage at me and others. In 2011, I wrote the following in the history section of the FA India:

After the 10th century, Muslim Central Asian nomadic clans, using swift-horse cavalry and raising vast armies united by ethnicity and religion, repeatedly overran South Asia's north-western plains, leading eventually to the establishment of the Islamic Delhi Sultanate in 1206. The sultanate was to control much of North India and to make many forays into South India. Although at first disruptive for the Indian elites, the sultanate largely left its vast non-Muslim subject population to its own laws and customs. By repeatedly repulsing Mongol raiders in the 13th century, the sultanate saved India from the devastation visited on West and Central Asia, setting the scene for centuries of migration of fleeing soldiers, learned men, mystics, traders, artists, and artisans from that region into the subcontinent, thereby creating a syncretic Indo-Islamic culture in the north. The sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire. Embracing a strong Shaivite tradition and building upon the military technology of the sultanate, the empire came to control much of peninsular India, and was to influence South Indian society for long afterwards.In the early 16th century, northern India, then under mainly Muslim rulers, fell again to the superior mobility and firepower of a new generation of Central Asian warriors. The resulting Mughal Empire did not stamp out the local societies it came to rule. Instead, it balanced and pacified them through new administrative practices and diverse and inclusive ruling elites, leading to more systematic, centralised, and uniform rule. Eschewing tribal bonds and Islamic identity, especially under Akbar, the Mughals united their far-flung realms through loyalty, expressed through a Persianised culture, to an emperor who had near-divine status. The Mughal state's economic policies, deriving most revenues from agriculture and mandating that taxes be paid in the well-regulated silver currency, caused peasants and artisans to enter larger markets. The relative peace maintained by the empire during much of the 17th century was a factor in India's economic expansion, resulting in greater patronage of painting, literary forms, textiles, and architecture. Newly coherent social groups in northern and western India, such as the Marathas, the Rajputs, and the Sikhs, gained military and governing ambitions during Mughal rule, which, through collaboration or adversity, gave them both recognition and military experience. Expanding commerce during Mughal rule gave rise to new Indian commercial and political elites along the coasts of southern and eastern India. As the empire disintegrated, many among these elites were able to seek and control their own affairs.

Please read one decent book cover to cover, then read it again, not dump cherry picked, undigested, sources for the eye-glaze of all. It is the source of the widespread UNDUE on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In other words, the Persianization of India is complex, predating the Mughals by three centuries. The Hindustani language, the mother of both Urdu and Hindi, had been born in the form of Hindwai, etc, from the daily exchanges between the mixed group of Central Asian warriors employed by the Sultanate and the Khari boli dialect-speaking locals of northeast Delhi. It was long before the Mughals. Hear the great Nusrat cite it to late 13th-century and Amir Khusrow. Also he Persian of South Asia, was not quite the Persian of Persia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Thanks for your swift response. First of all, I didn't quite get the message of your "Don't dump garbage at me and others?. What was that supposed to mean? Didn't I simply reveal the events that brought me to the talk page in chronological order, seeking consensus just as you had advised me in the first place? I thought we were all educated and civil people here.

Also, I kindly request you to refrain from suggesting things you don't know for sure like: Please read one decent book cover to cover, then read it again, not dump cherry picked, undigested, sources for the eye-glaze of all. Rest assured that I have more or less read all of them, and if you did the same with the books you listed in your reference list, you would not have referenced to Muzaffar Alam's "The Languages of Political Islam" book at all, because there, Mr. Azam is more than ever dedicated to emphasizing Persian influences on the Mughal Empire (please, refer to pages 69-75 and 121-134 of that book).

Besides, your "In other words, the Persianization of India is complex, predating the Mughals by three centuries" is totally irrelevant as this article is not about India, it's about the Mughal empire, and we are making an effort to address Mughals' Persian character.

Furthermore, what did you exactly mean by "Also he (?) Persian of South Asia, was not quite the Persian of Persia."? Sounds like a personal opinion with no reference to any authoritative source.

I also wonder who was first to write the above text you published claiming it as yours from the India article, because it was simply copy-pasted from Mr. Salim Hamisu's "Research study on the Republic of India" (2015). Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 08:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Kansas Bear. Regarding your question and suggestion: "Does this article reflect the entirety of the Mughal's culture? Perhaps Visioncurve's information should be placed in the Culture section of the article. Once that is done, maybe the article could be re-evaluated for what should be written in the Lead?" It is already there, in the article. I have recently added appropriate links to those sections and subsections I mentioned in my first message. The problem is, some people don't want it in the Lead for the reasons yet unknown to me. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 12:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That piece is copied verbatim from the Wikipedia article, as the WP article was rewritten in the summer of 2011.

I would have added it to the long line of reliable sources that have copied from my articles

(see here for one example), but is just something on a website, not published. @RegentsPark: will bear witness that even the pictures are the same. Please stop shunting nonsense on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

As much as I know, Wikipedia content can be copied or redistributed if acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included. It was a research study, by one of the leading universities in India. And there was not a single word that they had "copy pasted" the whole text from Wikipedia or anything close to words of acknowledgement. Also, I would like to warn you for the last time to stop your "dump garbage", "shunting nonsense" and other similar stuff, otherwise I will have you reported for misconduct. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 01:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious that non-Indian origins of the Mughal Empire is being removed from the article, which should be represented according to WP:UNDUE. This behaviour is not only being done against Persian influence of Mughals, but the Chagatai Turkic origins of Babur is being deleted aswell by F&F [1], I believe that @Visioncurve agrees with the necessity of Chagatai representation as he mentioned on my talk page. About this section, I must express that Persian influence of the Mughal civilization is irrefutable and worth mentioning on the lead. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 15:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Obvious cherry picking. I accept claims of Fowler. If the Persian influence was so great that it was worth spreading it over article, we would feel it in today's India. And we also know that Mughals and the empire were heavily Indianized after Babur instead of being Indo-Persian. We should absolutely mention Persian impact but not in the whole of article as claimed in Visioncurve's claims. Recentcontributorsedits (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

It's not being observed on today's India doesn't mean that Mughals didn't have significant Persian influence. @Visioncurve's references seem to be reliable and his additions are constructive & significant. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 17:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

He is cherry picking like you. Mughal Empire was Turkic at very beginning but after Babur The Mughal Empire was an Indian/South Asian empire fully. No amount of finessing the Turkic roots of its founders or the culture it chose to emphasize(a bit), will change that fact. हाल ही का (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

Well, I am not cherrypicking. My Chagatai Turkic emphasis is based on Babur's origins with reliable sources, which should obviously be included according to the WP:DUE. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 22:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Recentcontributorsedits, what do you mean by your We should absolutely mention Persian impact but not in the whole of article as claimed in Visioncurve's claims. The Persian influence had already been mentioned in almost every section of this article even before I made my first edit there, so I don't have anything to do with that. Go to the edit history of the page and do your research first before suggesting this sort of things publicly. You don't even seem to understand what we are discussing here, as your above-mentioned sentence actually supports my stance here. My proposal was to mention Mughals' dual Indo-Persian character in the lead of the article on the grounds that it has been covered substantially across the whole article. My addition to the lead was entirely in line with WP:MOS, WP:LEADDD, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Regarding your statement about the fact that the Persian influence is long gone and is not observed in modern India, I am sorry to disappoint you, but the Mughal empire was not only India, it also included modern-day territories of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Besides, you forget about the Urdu language, spoken by some 51 million people in India and described as a Persianized register of the Hindustani language. Moreover, I would like you to cite your Mughal Empire was Turkic at very beginning but after Babur The Mughal Empire was an Indian/South Asian empire fully to a reliable source, because what you have outlined seems to be your own subjective opinion without much empirical evidence. Remember, no original research here! Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 03:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I hate myself for joining. What does sources say about the cultural aspects of the Mughals during their late era? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for joining, this amateur discussion has long been begging for an expertly opinion as it has stalled just like a trench warfare. Regarding your question about the cultural aspects of the Mughals during their late era, first we need to agree upon the time period that is conventionally seen as "the late Mughal period". According to Ph.D. Allyn Miner, whose research and publications relate to the social history of South Asia and is a faculty emerita in the Department of South Asia Studies at the University of Pennsylvania:

After Aurangzeb's death in 1707, the Mughal empire began a steady decline. The late Mughal period, which extended for the great length of one hundred and fifty years, was a scene of political degeneration.
— Allyn Miner (2004). Sitar and Sarod in the 18th and 19th Centuries, page 78. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Limited.

which is to say the late Mughal period encompasses the time period from 1707 to 1857, just as it is described in the "Decline (1707-1857)" subsection of the Mughal empire page in Wikipedia. Here's what several reliable secondary sources say with respect to the cultural aspects of the Mughals during that period:

The earliest introduction of Persian influence and culture to the Indian subcontinent was by Muslim rulers of Turkic and Afghan origin with Persianate societies and Persianised cultures. This socio-cultural synthesis arose steadily through the Delhi Sultanate from the 13th to 16th centuries, and the Mughal Empire from then onwards until the 19th century. Muzaffar Alam, a noted scholar of Mughal and Indo-Persian history, suggests that Persian became the official lingua franca of the Mughal Empire under Akbar for various political and social factors due to its non-sectarian and fluid nature. The Persianisation of the Indian subcontinent resulted in its incorporation into the cosmopolitan Persianate world of Ajam, known today academically as Greater Iran, which historically gave many inhabitants a secular, Persian identity. Moreover, the eastern part of the Mughal empire, Bengal, had had the Persian language as an official language for over 600 years (1204-1837), including during the provincial period of the Delhi Sultanate; the independent period of the Bengal Sultanate; the dominion period of the Bengal Subah in the Mughal Empire; and the quasi-independent Nawabi period. Bengal was the subcontinent's wealthiest region for centuries, where Persian people, as well as Persianate Turks, settled in the Ganges delta to work as teachers, lawyers, poets, administrators, soldiers and aristocrats. Persian as a language of governance and education was abolished in 1839 by the British East India Company. English replaced Persian as the official language , and in 1835 the government decided to spend its funds for education.

Further, C.E. Bosworth writes about the significance of Persian culture that developed a mark within Muslim sultans in this era:

The sultans were generous patrons of the Persian literary traditions of Khorasan, and latterly fulfilled a valuable role as transmitters of this heritage to the newly conquered lands of northern India, laying the foundations for the essentially Persian culture which was to prevail in Muslim India until the 19th century.
— http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ghurids Iranica: GHURIDS or Āl-e Šansab; a medieval Islamic dynasty of the eastern Iranian lands.

Given that the Mughals had historically symbolized Indo-Persian culture to one degree or another, the dethroning of Bahadur Shah Zafar and the institution of the direct control of the British Crown in 1858 may be considered as marking the end of the Indo-Persian era. However, even after the Indian Rebellion, Persian would still retain an audience and even produce commendable literature such as the philosophical poetry of Muhammad Iqbal. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 06:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Chagatai Turkic origins of Babur

I couldn't understand the deletion of emphasis of the fact that Babur was a Chagatai Turkic chieftain. It is a pretty important knowledge that would serve as informing readers about foundation era of Mughal Empire and origins of its civilization. BerkBerk68 (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I am bringing back the edit since nobody opposed it here. BerkBerk68 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE. Do you seriously think an average reader understands Chaghtai Turk more than Uzbekistan? And please don't revert to your version. This is the consensus version supervised by an Wikipedia administrator. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure someone who is interested in Mughals' history also knows about Chagatai civilization. Chagatais were a major nation and influenced literature of the region up to Ottomans. You can't estimate an "Average reader", also deleting a major sourced information with that reason does not makes sense. An "average reader" wouldn't know about "Baburnama" aswell, should we delete it? BerkBerk68^talk 18:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

DUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" BerkBerk⁶⁸ 12:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There are no negative reactions since my comment was published at 17 july, I am assuming consensus per WP:SILENT. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 14:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The content editors of Wikipedia are busy people. They don't watch changes with the eyes of hawks, looking for every movement in the landscape. So the fact that you managed to slip something in, or someone else did, is no proof that it was accepted as consensus or DUE. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't see a reason to oppose the addition, since Babur was Turkic and wrote his autobiography in Chagatai Turki. It was an important aspect of the early Mughal period (Babur/Humayun era), and the sources added seem to be reliable. --Qahramani44 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Right? It's a pretty much major information for the Mughal history, seems like it's being deleted with WP:JDL. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 12:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry folks. This is not what qualifies as consensus. I've reverted you BerkBerk and suggest you refrain from trying to add this stuff back in again. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark I mean, are we going to wait @Fowler&fowler's response forever? I thought it was a WP:SILENT as I mentioned above, also my edits related to language is well referred and not even related to the talk page section. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 10:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Indeed. Broadly, I agree with BerkBerk68. Fowler&fowler's claims such as "Do you seriously think an average reader understands Chagatai Turk more than Uzbekistan?" or that information about Babur's lineage is secondary in importance are totally irrelevant. According to a Wikipedia principle, what is insignificant to some may be extremely significant to others, and vice versa. However, that debate misses the point entirely. What is important is notability and verifiability, the bedrock principles that ground Wikipedia articles. BerkBerk68 had them both. Moreover, we have numerous articles in Wikipedia where the nationality or background of the founders of similar polities are mentioned in the lead. For instance, this excerpt is from the lead of the Timurid empire page: The empire was founded by Timur (also known as Tamerlane), a warlord of Turco-Mongol lineage, who established the empire between 1370 and his death in 1405. Also, this is the first line of the Qajar Iran article: Qajar Iran was an Iranian state ruled by the Qajar dynasty, which was of Turkic origin, specifically from the Qajar tribe, from 1789 to 1925. However, instead of describing Babur as a Chagatai chieftain in the lead of this article, personally I would have employed "a Timurid prince" phrase, just as several modern and reliable sources do. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 13:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Visioncurve for your valued opinions. I totally agree with you on the notability, we should include origins of Babur per WP:DUE. The reason I believe that the term Chagatai is suitable for Babur is that Mughals actually used that identity for themselves as well as the Chagatai language played an important role in the Mughal literature. Also as you mentioned, the Timurid identity had a significant role together with the "Chagatai Turk" one [2] (reference given also supports the Chagatai view by calling Babur a "Turkish warlord" referring to his Chagatai origins, later expressing the "Chagatai Turk" identity was adopted by Mughals).

We also see that there aren't any notable opposing reactions to the Persian influence, the last person to react negatively (@Recentcontributorsedits) didn't express his opinions with an objective and supporting language, he accused other editors with several missbehaviors instead. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 14:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@BerkBerk68: Babur might be a Chagatai Turk, but it doesn't change the fact that Persian influence is exaggerated. The topic of this section is about Babur being a Chagatai Turk that I agree with, but the Mughal civilization is an Indian-based civilization. Please write your thoughts on Persian influence in the relevant section here. [3], [4] हाल ही का (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

Even @Recentcontributorsedits didn't disrupt the consensus here. The only opposing user is not reacting since over a month, therefore there is at least WP:SILENT as I mentioned several times. Please @RegentsPark, I am still waiting for an explanation on your decision. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 23:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

BerkBerk68, in your edit summary, you say "check talk page" but here you say your edit is not related to the talk page section. Clearly, there is no consensus. Regardless, I don't see the point in adding something like "Chagtai Turk (only initially)" to an article about an entity that spanned 300 years. Perhaps Babur spoke the language, but he is one emperor out of nineteen, and therefore this is not something that defines the empire and is, at best, a minor footnote somewhere. The same applies to emphasizing Chagtai Turk in the article. Your reference above is very weak. You should look for peer reviewed sources in which the Chagatai Turkic origins of the Mughals is the main focus. Not just some throwaway lines here and there. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what? no, Chagatai emphasis is totally relevant to this talk page section. The linguistic edit is the one that is not discussed on the talk page.

4 users are agreeing with the Chagatai Turkic emphasis while one that disagrees is not responding since over a month as I already told above, and you still didn't explain how it's "clearly not a consensus".

References related to Babur's Chagatai Turkic origins are pretty much reliable (Book from Cambridge university press & an article from Cambridge core), arguments given by you are focusing on linguistic topics. Also about that, keep in mind that Baburnama was written in Chagatai language. Your edits seem to be WP:JDL. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 14:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, "Chagatai Turk (only initially)" part is not even added by me. Please be more cautious. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 14:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

As I clearly say above, your Cambridge source does not support inclusion of Chagatai Turks in the article. All it says is "The Mughals (Moghuls) called themselves Chagatai Turks or Timurids". If you want to include something in origins, you need to find peer reviewed sources that explicitly discuss the Chagatai Turkic origins of the Mughals. Historical matter is not added to Wikipedia based on a throwaway line here or there. If you need to add this to the lead or infobox, you will need to find multiple such peer reviewed sources. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It is just a single one of the references, I also explained the reference usage above. I am going to copy-paste what was written with some additions. reference provided supports the Chagatai view by calling Babur a "Turkish warlord", referring to his Chagatai Turkic origins, and later expressing the "Chagatai Turk" identity was adopted by Mughals, clearly indicating that Babur was a Chagatai Turk.

Again, other reference is obviously being ignored, which makes it look like the Chagatai Turkic deletion was WP:JDL.

Additionally, both references support the Turkicness of Babur, which is pretty much significant to include on the article per WP:DUE. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 17:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

May I ask the person who opened this thread: Chagatai Turks is a dab page with four links: It may refer to: Chagatai Khanate Chagatai Khan, Chagatai people and

Chughtai. Which of these are you proposing we link Babur (4 February 1483 – 26 December 1530) to? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Ofcourse, the "Chagatai Turks" page you mentioned is a redirect to the Chagatai Khanate. I have linked it on my edits. Chagatai language is also appropriate, since Baburnama was written in that. Sadly we don't have a specific article on the term "Chagatai Turks", so these both seem to be appropriate.

It's also great to see that we've passed a long way and started to talk about details. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 23:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an negative comment/proposal from opposing editors, I also still believe that we had a consensus (already explained how several times) and I don't think that I got a proper answer opposing that. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 18:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"Babur thought of himself as a Turk and preferred to write in Chaghatai"[5]. After this stage opposing the addition would just be WP:JDL. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 23:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Visioncurve's suggestion by mentioning that Babur was a Timurid prince. Babur and his Timurid predecessors were not just Chagatai Turks, simply calling them the latter would be far from the full picture. The Imperial Identity in the Mughal Empire: Memory and Dynastic Politics in Early Modern South and Central Asia seems to go into depth regarding this (even posted some citations from it here [6]), and there are probably many other sources about this topic, such as this one; "Historic and contemporary views of Babur aside, how did he imagine his own second life - as an individual and the founder of an empire in Hindustan. In the Vaqay' he emotionally, exhaustively, persuasively memorializes himself as his father's son, by implication and also by objective achievement, more perfect even then Umar Shaikh Mirza. He does so by offering himself to readers as a cultured Turco-Mongol, Perso-Islamic aristocrat,..." - p. 216, Babur, Cambridge University Press, Stephen Dale --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

References clearly indicate the importance of the Chagatai Turkic statement (especially the lastest reference added). I have already told that I also support this information since it would also be a notable addition, it is not contradicting with this section so if you believe that it is an important statement, you can open a new specific section for it. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 22:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Huh? Why would I open a new section? This is clearly the same topic. Instead of adressing my concerns (and sources), you avoid them, and attempt to add this Turkic mention once again through edit warring? [7]. If it's not clear enough, I am opposing this as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Then you are having a WP:JDL aswell, Just another reference on Babur being Turkic [8] and not just being Turkic, also adopting the Turkic identity (Adopted identity is not even the subject). Three different references were given (four now) and not even attempting to respond them, just opposing them? What kind of an answer are you waiting for? BerkBerk⁶⁸ 22:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

So, three veteran users (including an admin) just don't like it? Also, I'm not sure how passing mentions makes Babur's Chaghatai background any important to be in the lede. As RegentsPark already said; You should look for peer reviewed sources in which the Chagatai Turkic origins of the Mughals is the main focus. Not just some throwaway lines here and there." There are various sources which would say something else when referring to Babur, demonstrating he was not a merely a "Chaghatai";

"By the time the processes Babur set in motion came to an end, the Mughals had shed all but a few trappings of their former pastoral and semi-nomadic identity, and become a thoroughly agrarian state. A kingdom originally run by a mainly foreign governing class – ethnically Turko-Mongol, Persianate in literary and aesthetic traditions, Sunni Muslim by religion, Timurid in dynastic identity – would put down roots and, in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, become an essentially Indian polity / His own parentage epitomized the mixing of pastoral, Mongol-Timurid with sedentary Persianate culture. / Notwithstanding this mixed Mongol and Timurid/Persianate inheritance, it is telling that the Mughals understood themselves as Timurids - or, more precisely, Indo-Timurids" India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765 (can't see pages, just copy paste the words/sentences)

"Babur’s dynasty, which was originally Sunni Muslim and Central Asian (Turko-Mongol), became partly Indian through intermarriage with the local aristocracy. Once again, the varied but mostly Hindu population of northern India came under Muslim rule." / "The Timurids were a Turco-Mongol dynasty that ruled Central Asia and Khurasan from about 1370 to 1506 and became the other major branch of Mughal ancestry" p. 4, 16 - Mughal Occidentalism: Artistic Encounters Between Europe and Asia at the Courts of India, 1580-1630

"Historic and contemporary views of Babur aside, how did he imagine his own second life - as an individual and the founder of an empire in Hindustan. In the Vaqay' he emotionally, exhaustively, persuasively memorializes himself as his father's son, by implication and also by objeective achievement, more perfect even then Umar Shaikh Mirza. He does so by offering himself to readers as a cultured Turco-Mongol, Perso-Islamic aristocrat,..." - p. 216, Babur, Cambridge University Press, Stephen Dale

"In his addition to his territorial gains, Babur is moreover credited with bequeathing a Timurid/-Turco-Mongol cultural and political legacy that served as a means of legitimacy and pride for his descendants." - p. 38 - The Ghazi Sultans and the Frontiers of Islam: A comparative study of the late medieval and early modern periods

"BĀBOR, ẒAHĪR-AL-DĪN MOḤAMMAD (6 Moḥarram 886-6 Jomādā I 937/14 February 1483-26 December 1530), Timurid prince, military genius, and literary craftsman who escaped the bloody political arena of his Central Asian birthplace to found the Mughal Empire in India. His origin, milieu, training, and education were steeped in Persian culture and so Bābor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results." [9]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, why won't you proceed to the section below ;-)? Your arguments, especially your last paragraph would fit better there! Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 06:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, he is a bit confused about sections. Babur being a Chagatai Turkic is not contradicting with any of these informations, so they can't be used for rejecting the addition relevant to this section here, what he emphasized is related with the section below.

Also I don't know if HistoryofIran is aware of that Baburnama was written in Chagatai language due to Babur's Chagatai Turkic identity adoption which also concretize the importance of Chagatai emphasis, that is already mentioned in this section. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems you're the one being confused, as Visioncurve was simply inviting me to join the discussion below (which I will take a look at later this day), which is about the Persian aspect of the Mughals. I've never said that these sources are supposed to contradict the Chagatai bit, something which I haven't tried to reject; it seems you're being confused again - feel free to re-read my comments. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I don't think you should be here since you already told that you don't know about Mughals [10]. Please go away and disturb someone else, nobody has to see your and @BerkBerk68's conflict that has roots on other articles. It's obvious that your statements are related to your ethnic clashes and desire on creating controversy on anything related to BB68. हाल ही का (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

In that talk page I clearly stated "I will be watching, but I am sorry to that I will not comment as long as I don't feel confident/knowledgeable enough." I feel confident enough, so I rather stay, thanks. Fyi, I have been editing this article since 2013. Also, don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS and learn to assume WP:GF of your fellow editors. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not WP:ASPERSIONS, its literally just what you said. And no, [11] I am not the one who is behaving with my own personal opinions, it's actually you indeed. You know the fact that Babur was a Chagatai Turkic and you know that Babur adopted the Chagatai identity for himself, yet you still oppose the edit. Probably because of the Turco-Iranian ethnic conflict you had with BB68. हाल ही का (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

Do you have any proof or are you gonna keep on casting aspersions and going off topic till I report you? Another brand new user who is randomly incredibily hostile towards me and defends + agrees with BerkBerk, interesting huh? HistoryofIran (talk)

Chatatai Turkic origins of Babur may be of use in the Babur article. In an article on the Mughal Empire it is, at best, a minor footnote. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, origins of the founder and the dynasty may not be a notable knowledge to you, but it is a significant information for both empire and dynasty which is already explained above. Also you haven't explained how consensus hasn't been achieved so that you could revert the additions. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 08:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear BerkBerk68. The fact that this is being discussed here is more than enough explanation anyone needs for the lack of consensus. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ofcourse, but seems like you got me wrong, I am not talking about the current situation. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 18:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Regents Park. His origins are less relevant to a empire based in South Asia where he spent barely four years. And those origins in any case are impressionistically defined, including the ancestry of Timur and Chengiz Khan. We are not talking about hospital records, but legendary early histories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not just the origins of the founder, but it's also the adopted identity of the founder. I highly recommend you to read the references added above. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 08:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

going off topic till I report you, Don't care, I didn't say anything personal, didn't vandalise or didn't something disprutive. I commented knowing that all editors can have an equal say. I didn't expect accused by someone else with report threat for just doing that. You two carry the tension between you into this topic. I guess you don't like it when no one agrees with you and others can have a reasonable discussion. Mughal Empire had South Asian culture, languages, life-style etc. it was a Clear South Asian Empire. I will support that idea soon with sources. Mention of Persian influence is enough. हाल ही का (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

Mughal is Iranian word

Mughal is a Pashto and Persian word, not Arabic as the ethnology section states. Please change it. 199.119.233.167 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Babur

Hi I’m really confused at why it seems like it is trying to obscure the origins of the founder Babur? Saying warrior chieftain from the current location today seems to really hide the connection to the mongol empire. 2600:6C4A:107F:B820:5D8D:B084:1E48:5CF6 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2022

49.205.98.149 (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"this template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." What is it you want, if anything? Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpgjhpjm 14:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Where is the destruction and desecration section??

Why there is no destruction and desecration section like delhi sultane or Maratha empire, while it is well known fact that many temples including Kashi Viswanath temple was destroyed during mughal period?? 2409:4062:2207:E477:0:0:520:C0AD (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022 (The Great Muhgals Regarding)

Please Change the paragraph like x to y

x- The Mughal Empire was an Islamic early-modern empire that controlled much of South Asia between the 16th and 19th centuries. For some two hundred years, the empire stretched from the outer fringes of the Indus river basin in the west, northern Afghanistan in the northwest, and Kashmir in the north, to the highlands of present-day Assam and Bangladesh in the east, and the uplands of the Deccan Plateau in South India.

y- The Mughal Empire popularly known as The Great Mughals was an Islamic early-modern empire that controlled much of South Asia between the 16th and 19th centuries. For some two hundred years, the empire stretched from the outer fringes of the Indus river basin in the west, northern Afghanistan in the northwest, and Kashmir in the north, to the highlands of present-day Assam and Bangladesh in the east, and the uplands of the Deccan Plateau in South India.

According to NASREEN Farhat, Dirk Collier, Bamber Gascoigne, Rungeen Singh, Annemarie Schimmel etc. 103.249.239.58 (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: You need to provide a reliable source for your additions, not simply name individuals. —Sirdog (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 32 Julember 2047

• Please add a link from the word "itr" to the page "ittar.":
• I was not familiar with this unusual word and thought it was a typo until I searched it up separately.:

184.67.135.194 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: There is no instance of "itr" on the page at time of review. It's possible another editor already addressed this by changing it to be "ittar", but I would rather not dig through contribution history to verify that. —Sirdog (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, someone changed it to ittar. Thanks! 184.67.135.194 (talk) 15:27, 32 Julember 2047 (UTC)

Map in the Infobox

Is there something wrong with the 1907 map of India in 1700 showing Maratha territories under Mughal control? A recent map published by Princeton University has the Maratha Empire independent of the Mughals which seems to be correct as Aurangzeb did not win the Mughal-Maratha Wars to capture the Maratha state.

https://commons.princeton.edu/mg/the-mughal-empire/ Fayninja (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If you scroll to the bottom, it says: "Copyright © Times Books 2007

Reproduced from The Times Complete History of the World by permission of HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.

Licensing: All rights reserved; Source: The Times Complete History of the World (2007), p. 191."

Will explain the map in a few minutes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It shows the boundaries of the Mughal empire in different periods: Akbar's marked in red; Shah Jahan's in blue, and Aurengzeb's in green. The northern boundaries are the same; the southern are similar for Akbar and Shah Jahan, but extend much farther south for Aurengzeb. There are also boundaries in orange/yellow which show the Mughal provinces that had the Zabt taxation system (spelled Zobt, probably because it is closer to the Persian pronunciation).

Shahji, Shivaji's father, had been rewarded with a jagir, a piece of land on which he collected taxes, kept his cut, and passed the rest on to his distant bosses. What happened after Shahji's death, you can read here The Sultans of Bijapur were tributaries of the Mughals, and Shivaji inherited the jagir after a fight with his brother Venkoji. There was really no Maratha empire then, only jagirs of a chieftain in whose uncertain political independence (and symbolic crowning, and upward mobility to Kshatriya Rajput varna status) the beginning of a much later "empire" has been placed in nationalist histories, not to mention glorified in Hindu nationalist populism.

CC: @RegentsPark, Johnbod, and TrangaBellam: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Apparently it is spelled zabt in the map. My tired eyes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Really respect your time to answer my “probably dumb” questions to your highly educated/learnt eyes. However, I am not questioning any history before 1680 (Shivaji’s death) but specifically the year 1700 which the two maps display and the irregularities between them. Fayninja (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

No irregularities. One (the Time Inc map) highlights the Maratha jagirs in the map of the Mughal empire at the time of Shivaji's death in 1680. You can see the same jagirs in the Atlas of South Asian history, see Major Muslim States (for the Mughal rulers) and Major Hindu States (for Shahji's jagirs) The WP map is a British map ca 1907, which does not distinguish between jagirs or tributary states and the directly ruled regions of the empire. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

All the research below is sourced from the journal article "MARATHA POLICY TOWARDS THE ADIL SHAHI KINGDOM" by A. R. Kulkarni.

As you stated earlier, the jagirs of Shahaji, Shivaji's father were indeed "under the supremacy of the Adilshahi, as it fell within the jurisdiction of Bijapur king". However, Shivaji had later fought, taken over forts and removed Bijapur garrisons to legitimise his authority over those areas. To effectively counter the Mughal threat, Bijapur Sultan Ali Adil Shah made a treat which "liberated Shivaji from the vassalage of Adii Shahi kingdom, and gave him the equal status of an independent king." In 1665, the Treat of Purandar with the Mughals had only temporarily reduced his independence as in 1667, Shivaji broke one of its major terms and joined hands with the Adil Shahis once again. "The coronation in 1674 enhanced his status as sovereign ruler of the Maratha territory, who could enter into peace independently along with others."

I suppose The Times map is attempting to highlight the obscurity on the boundaries between the two states caused by the dearth of sources on the subject during the Mughal-Maratha War (1680-1707). (i.e. the fog of war)

The British map created in 1907 is not a primary source and does not give an accurate depiction of India in 1700, not to mention, it disrespects a particular community by falsely showing their lands under foreign sovereignty (i.e. Mughal control) whose imperial policies were guided by a narrow identity marked with hate and exclusivism. Fayninja (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Language section

Hey Mydust, opening a section on the talk page to avoid an edit war, and to be more articulate on criticisms. I reverted your changes for the following reasons:

1. Urdu definitely deserves a mention in any talk of the Mughal Empire's language - however, the language most closely identified with the empire was definitely Persian. I feel that by giving so many close details of Urdu's relationship with the Mughals, without adding to that of Persian, there will be undue weight on Urdu. Statements such as 'The Mughals were bilingual, using Persian writing for administration, while speaking Urdu as a first language' to me are misrepresentative - the Mughals did use Persian commonly in spoken contexts, especially in the court.

2. To add to the above: the Mughal emperors spoke Hindvi/proto-Urdu/Hindustani personally from the reign of Akbar. This should be in the section, so I appreciate that you added the touch that the emperors did speak this. However, calling this Urdu is, I think, a misnomer. That refers to a much more refined version of the language that developed in the court and beyond from the time of Shah Alam II.

3. The image that you used - I objected to this because, if we are making a summary-level section on Mughals and language, it doesn't make sense to me to replace an image of an actual dictionary commissioned by an emperor during the empire's heyday, with a later image of a bird is captioned with Urdu text, and has an unclear connection to the Mughal empire.

This is not to say that the section was perfect before; I just think that there are better avenues for improvement than shifting the emphasis of the section to Urdu (for example, adding that the Mughals spoke Hindvi in private, or elaborating on how Turkic was phased out). Gowhk8 (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

End of the Empire

It seems to me that, as the relevant section says, the Mughal Empire was actually formally ended in 1858, not 1857, as the top of the article says. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The East India Company was dissolved in 1858. The Mughal Empire ended in 1857, when Bahadur Shah Zafar the last emperor was banished to Burma and this sons were executed. I have written the lead but not read the rest of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, the exile did not begin until 1858 (there was some legal formality to be completed) and he did not die until 1862. But his capture and the murder of his male heirs by Hodson was the signal event. His grave is in Burma. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

Add the word "Islamic" or "Muslim" somewhere in the opening paragraph. It is very substantial to helping a reader understand the empire's administration, demographics, and culture, but is barely mentioned. 2603:800C:3D00:1ED2:B862:7FA6:8A13:467C (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You need to tell us where exactly to add the word. Lightoil (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable request - done. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Demographics

the sources here used for the demographics has been outdated and new data has been published by the Maddison himself. Plz remove the semi protected for the update of the population here. Also there are many problems in the GDP part as well 103.81.215.217 (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

They are quite old, but Angus Maddison (d. 2010) is a very questionable source, who covered the entire world in a rather cavalier fashion. Imo anyway. Better to use more recent and specialized sources. But there simply aren't hard figures, and all estimates are likely to be argued over. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed (with Jb), I have added the population estimate for 1595 CE (cited toTim Dyson) to what was there before.

Agree also about Angus Maddison. See for example Talk:Angus_Maddison#To_Fowler&fowler Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Conventional Long Name?

Why has "Mughal Empire" been provided in the conventional_long_name parameter? Shouldn't the official name of the entity be used like "Sultanate of the Country of Delhi" and "The Guarded Domains of Hindustan" "Bilād-i-Hind" ("Country of Hind") and "Wilāyat-i-Hindūstān " ("Guardianship/Dominion of Hindustan"), as provided in Mughal administrative records, be used? As to my knowledge (which could be incorrect), the name Mughal/Moghul Empire has been provided by Western observers, but not used in administrative records. It's been a long standing thing and so I thought opening a discussion would be a good idea.

Note: Guardianship is a religious term, here, probably meant to indicate that the Mughal Emperors considered themselves the "shadow of God" on Earth. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod No, I meant the conventional_long_name parameter in the infobox, not the article title. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I know you did. These exotic names are by no means "conventional" at least in English, but I'd imagine not in Hindi either. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The documentation page of the infobox country says that conventional_long_name parameter refers to the formal or offical long name of the country. I don't suppose that "Mughal Empire" was by any chance the official/formal name, let alone long name of the country ever in its lifetime. Mughal Empire has been used in lead, title and everywhere else it the article, however the long name has too be the official name of the entity not the modern day common name.PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

References please. Also Persian version, as you never see this in English. We don't have to use every field in the infobox, and in this case we probably shouln't. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Here you go [12].

And also, I apologise, it is actually the "Country of Hind" and "Domain of Hindustan", not whatever else I said based on Mughal Empire#Name. I'm going to change it from "Sultanate of the Country of Delhi" and "Guarded Domains of Hindustan" to "Country of Hind" and "Dominion of Hindustan" in that section according to the provided source. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

That's just a book front page. Is that all you have? You don't have consensus for any change. You need page numbers if you are going to cite a book. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for the incorrect link. I thought it would directly link to the page. It's page 69. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This got me curious enough to look for a official/formal name and several sources, [13], [14], or a cursory search, e.g.: [15], [16], suggest that simply Hindustan was the closest thing to an official domain name. As the sources provided suggest, this was consistent in both the Ain-i-Akbari and British surveys 200 years later. The -stan suffix is also consistent with Central Asian practice. This long-standing usage by Muslim polities in India appears to be broadly confirmed by the sources present on the Hindustan page, e.g.: [17], [18] Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I suspect this is right, but the name for the country was not specific to the Mughal period, & I don't think it helps in the infobox, though properly referenced it could be in the text (where I think it is already). Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's there in the naming section. However, since the sources say its the "closest thing" to an official, it rather implies that there wasn't technically a formal name, so yes, that rather excludes it as objective infobox material. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Padfoot2008's choices. If writers during that period used several different names to refer to "their habitat", then which one, if any, was official? Also, over the span of 350 years, did they consistently use a single name? I say we should stick to Mughal Empire because that's the clearest way to refer to that empire. If there is no single official name, don't use any. RegentsPark (comment) 14:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

All right. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent change

I reverted this, but I'm rather sympathetic to the basic thrust. The hubristic wars on the Deccan Sultanates deserve a mention in the lead, I think. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Empire or empire?

Idk if WP:MOSCAPS of Empire or empire has been already discussed. If this had been already discussed then I have no issues.

I am just curious if first 'e' in Empire in this article needs to be in capital letter at all? Bookku (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't know. There are 4 archives for you to look through. Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Making maps uniform

Dear @पाटलिपुत्र:

I am really sorry, but I have removed two maps-templates that you have added to the article. These are in sections:

• Mughal_Empire#Babur_and_Humayun_(1526–1556) and
• Mughal_Empire#Administration_and_state)

I have done so for a number of reasons:

• The first template is cited to Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas of South Asia. Schw.'s maps are complicated ones involving the physical, economic, and cultural geography of a historical period. They don't always lend themselves to being reduced to a map with cities and towns.
• Schw.'s map is more general showing the Sultanate during its last period which ended in 1525.
• The fonts being used for your maps are a bit ill-fitting, in color, size, and style, if you don't mind my saying so, a marked contrast to the maps from Joppen's Historical Atlas of India which are being used elsewhere in the article—in the info box and in one section (India in 1751).

I am therefore replaced the maps with two maps from Joppen that I have just uploaded from a personal copy:

• File:Joppen map-India in 1525 published 1907 by Longmans.jpg and
• File:Joppen map-India in 1605 published 1907 by Longmans.jpg, which shows India at the time of Akbar's death in 1605; in particular, this map shows all the subahs (provinces) of Mughal rule at the time.

Dear @Lubiesque:

I have just replaced one map (from Joppen) already in the article (viz. File:1751 map of India from "Historical Atlas of India", by Charles Joppen.jpg, which was uploaded by you, with a more hi-def version, File:Joppen map-India in 1751 published 1907 by Longmans.jpg, which has less color distortion.

I apologize to both editors.

Pinging @Abecedare: who had approved the info box map from Joppen many years ago, and @RegentsPark and Johnbod: both of whom have watched over the article for many years. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2023

add "मुग़ल साम्राज्य" under the English name Wikibaric (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wikibaric Which language is it? -Lemonaka‎ 01:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

its hindi Wikibaric (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:INDICSCRIPTSRegentsPark (comment) 04:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Recently Reverted Edit

@Fowler&fowler : You recently undid one of the edits I made, starting this section to discuss and close.

The edit in question says "Reduced subsequently to the region in and around Old Delhi by 1760 by Maratha Empire, the Mughal empire was formally dissolved by the British Raj after the Indian Rebellion of 1857."

The reason you gave was - "Marathas were not the only ones; the Afghans played a role. Nader Shah had already depleted Delhi in 1738".

After Aurangzeb's death, any number of actors raided Delhi, so the question is not who raided Delhi, but who weakened the power of Mughals. On this one, most consice account is give by Gordon Stewart in The Marathas (1600 - 1818) - Cambridge History of India Vol. 2 Part 4. To quote from pages 135, 138, and 139,

" The third "frontier" was considerably north from Maharashtra. Khandesh, for example, was in no sense a frontier at this period. The Peshwa and the Nizam had been jointly ruling the province for more than twenty years, and it was a prosperous, paying proposition. The Marathas, as we have just seen, gained complete control of the province in 1751 with a minimum of damaging warfare.7 In Gujarat, also, there had been little fighting since the Dabhade rebellion of 1731. Mughal authority was entirely gone, except for Ahmedabad and Surat, and the

revenue was divided principally between the Gaikwad family and Nana Saheb.8 In Malwa, also, Mughal authority disappeared after the Treaty of Bhopal (1738), and the Peshwa's administration - as we shall

shortly see - rapidly developed, along with the new polities of Shinde and Holkar.

...

In the 1750s, the "frontier" extended north to Delhi. In this period, the Mughal government directly controlled little territory further than fifty miles from the capital. Even this was fiercely fought over. Jats and Rohillas disputed for the territory; factions fought for the throne, and the Afghan king, Ahmad Shah Abdali, periodically descended on the capital.

...

For the Marathas, probably the two most significant events of the whole chaotic period in Delhi were a treaty in 1752, which made them protector of the Mughal throne (and gave them the right to collect chauth in the Punjab), and the civil war of 1753, by which the Maratha nominee ended up on the Mughal throne."

So it was really Marathas that restricted the Mughals to Delhi. Nader Shah may have raided Delhi from time to time, but it was because Mughals had been weakened by Marathas. It was Marathas who conquered and controlled the territories that Mughals lost in this period, not Afghans.

Nonentity683 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This page is not about the Marathas. It is unimportant who restricted the Mughals to Delhi. It is the fact of being restricted, that the lead emphasizes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Following that logic, British Raj should not be mentioned either. Nonentity683 (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

That phrasing was the result of an administrator-supervised consensus. If you want to change it, you will need to garner a new consensus, not make a data dump from this source or that. WP:ONUS is Wikipedia policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Gordon Stewart is not "this source or that". The work cited here is from Cambridge History Of India Series, which is about as authoritative a source as it can be. In any case, I don't see any refutation of facts here.

Following this logic, are we saying that every single change needs an RfC? Nonentity683 (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I know the book, Stewart Gordon's, The Marathas 1600–1818. It is sitting right here on my bookshelf. It is about the Marathas, and thus, more focused on them. This page is about the Mughals. The Marathas, like the Rajputs and the Sikhs, are a category of native elite, that received governing ambitions and military experience under the Mughals. They are not an important presence in a broad scale history of the Mughals, that the lead is. Note that the Marathas have undergone a grade inflation on Wikipedia in being characterized as an empire, as have the Sikhs. The Cambridge series grants the name "empire" only to the Mughals, witness: John Richard's The Mughal Empire.. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

In other words, there is more than one reason that the British considered only the Mughals to be their predecessors in India, and continued to mint coins under the name of the Mughal emperor in Delhi, well into the late 18th-century. Please view those coins in Company rule in India Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler : Slightly taken aback at the bias and factual errors.

As for "The Marathas, like the Rajputs and the Sikhs, are a category of native elite that received governing ambitions and military experience under the Mughals."

1. Marathas did not gain "governing ambitions and military experience" under Mughals. Marathas have historically served in armies of all 3 Deccan sultanates, as well as Mughals. This is true of neither Rajputs, nor Sikhs. Rajputs were almost always exclusively allied with Mughals, and Sikhs were allied with none.
2. Difference between Maratha Dominion and Sikh dominion is that Sikh dominion never spread beyond present day Punjab, Haryana, and (small) part of Kashmir. Contrast this with Maratha dominion, which spread over almost all of Northern and Central India at its peak.
3. Difference between Marathas and Rajputs is that Rajputs were never united under a single banner, and as such cannot be said to be one political entity. They are just that, an elite class. Also, Rajputs almost never controlled area beyond present day Rajasthan, and parts of Madhya Pradesh.

As such, Maratha Polity cannot be said to be in same class as either.

As for "coins",

1. The coins that you are referring to were minted by East India Company, which had no authority to mint coins in its own name. It is not as though British Monarchy minted coins in name of Mughal Emperors.
2. Reason why they minted coins in name of Mughal Emperors was that Marathas did not dethrone Mughals from Delhi, so Mughals were still "Emperors" of Delhi (although they were emperors of just that).

In any case, lets not consider British Raj accounts / views as a reliable source. They are responsible for much of pollution of Indian History. Copy-paste from First Chapter (INTRODUCTION: HISTORIOGRAPHY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY) of The Marathas 1600–1818 -

"Within a decade of the British conquest of Maharashtra (1818), two developments spurred the indigenous interest in Maratha history. The first was a series of reports by early British administrators of the conquered territories. These usually were based on both a search for documents of the previous Maratha government and questioning of clerks and others (mainly Brahmins) who had served the Marathas. Much of what became "Maratha" history was created out of the questions of the British, the answers of their informants, and misunderstandings on both sides.

...

Finally, there is no question but that Grant Duff was proud of the British conquest and celebrated the brave acts of the British military involved. He emphasized great failures, especially the character of crucial leaders of the Maratha polity, which allowed for British conquest.

...

It is now almost fifty years since independence and perhaps time to stop writing Maratha history as a gloss on Grant Duff, as only the failure of a resistance to colonial rule. It is time to stop combing the records for some historical figure to blame for the British conquest.

...

This volume will respectfully draw on this body of history, both older and modern, produced both inside and outside Maharashtra. The overall perspective is to allow the Maratha polity to stand on its own as a significant part of India's history.

"

This is not saying that Indian writers do not have fair share of blame for pollution in question.

There is considerable difference of opinion as to characterisation of Maratha polity, but few things can be said for certain -

1. Marathas were united under a single banner (if we ignore the complication around the competing and co-existing claims on Shivaji's throne by the Chhatrapatis of Satara and Kolhapur)
2. At its peak, Maratha Empire / Confederacy / Dominion held sway over almost entire Northern and Central India. This is also roughly the same area that previously fell under Mughal dominion. See File:India1760 1905.jpg.
3. It was Marathas who critically damaged the power of Mughals in Mughal-Maratha Wars, and then conquered almost all Territories previously held by Mughals.

Any number of sources can be cited for point 3 above.

Not sure how you are relying on Cambridge series to say that Mughals are the only Empire, but refuse to accept the facts from same series around northward Maratha expansion.

"They are not an important presence in a broad scale history of the Mughals, that the lead is. "

If Marathas crippled Mughal Power in Mughal-Maratha wars, and then subsequently conquered almost all territories earlier held by Mughals, where is this sentence coming from? Nonentity683 (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't respond to data dumps. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Not to facts either, by looks of it. Nonentity683 (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to have an RfC if you'd like, but this is the extent of my engagement with you here. Per WP:BRD the WP:ONUS is yours, and thus far you have not demonstrated in my reckoning that a mention of the Marathas in the lead is not gratuitous. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Is addition of locator map an improvement?

Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb rule

The empire at its greatest extent in c. 1700 under Aurangzeb

Nauman335 has tried to add the locator map on the left "for better understanding". How does it improve readers' understanding of the topic? There are already four maps in the article, including the one on the right. That one comes from a reliable source, whereas the locator map does not clearly say what source(s) it is based on (the commons map from which it is derived says "Partially based on Atlas of World History (2007) - The World 1600-1700, map"). What else is it based on, and why does its southern border look distinctly different from the map on the right? --Worldbruce (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Worldbruce makes excellent points. You need to answer here Nauman335, not edit war. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead

@Fowler&fowler was your concern about mention of Babur as a Timurid chieftain or that Uzbekistan was changed into Central Asia? Sutyarashi (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Both. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Flag

The several flags have been added into the infobot in the past. Several have been fictional.

This flag however contains a source (is based on this painting) therefore should be added into the infobox. SKAG123 (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't know what the flag represented (its presence in a painting doesn't mean much).

The lead line : Mughal Empire as well as Mughal kingdom

Its not factual to say that "Mughal Empire" lasted till 1857. Infact, for around 100 years, it worked as a protectorate of Afghans, Marathas and British. Thats why I feel that the intro line needs a fix. Its not that the term "Mughal kingdom" hasn't been used by historians. We have Decline of Mughal Kingdom in India by Henry George Keene. Also, the term "kingdom" isn't used only for its last 100 years. In Humayaun's period too era too, it got confined to a small kingdom, as noted in these sources:Its not factual to say that "Mughal Empire" lasted till 1857. Infact, for around 100 years, it worked as a protectorate of Afghans, Marathas and British. Thats why I feel that the intro line needs a fix. Its not that the term "Mughal kingdom" hasn't been used by historians. We have Decline of Mughal Kingdom in India by Henry George Keene. Also, the term "kingdom" isn't used only for its last 100 years. In Humayaun's period too era too, it got confined to a small kingdom, as noted in these sources: Dympies (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Keene who died in 1864, used "kingdom" for the entire period because in his view, there was only one empire, the British. The word "empire" is commonly applied to the entire period of the Mughals in the reliable and due literature, i.e. from 1525 to 1858 (despite all the caveats). Sources abound. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Marathas on the other hand are not unanimously considered an empire even during the height of their raiding days in the mid-18th-century. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The the references to the "Mughal Empire" with the years "1526 to 1857" in books published by University Presses. There are dozens. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

"Mughal Empire" is apparently the common name that (conventionally) covers the whole period of Mughal rule, as used by many sources. There are alternatively names though, such as "Mughal India". Regarding "Its not factual to say that 'Mughal Empire' lasted till 1857". This really depends on how you define the term "empire", but the state itself still existed (as an empire in some form or at least in name) in the period between 1761 and 1857. Instead, I think it is probably more correct to say that the so-called "Mughal Empire" did not exist at all between 1540 and 1555, when its whole territory was conquered by the Sur Empire. Considering such issues I do not doubt that the intro line may need a fix. --Wengier (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

No one ever calls it the so-called Mughal Empire. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I simply meant the "empire" did not exist between 1540 and 1555. But there is no doubt that "Mughal Empire" is an accepted name for the empire in the general period. --Wengier (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. I misunderstood. The Sher Shah Suri years, although major in some ways for Indian history, (e.g. his Grand Trunk Road was the one that the British modernized, not the near-mythological Mauryas') are usually not acknowledged by reducing the Mughal span. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2023

In the picture representing the Mughal Empire in 1700, it's more appropriate to use the term "Pakistan-India Subcontinent" rather than "India" to encompass the broader geographical region. 92.16.42.39 (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Lemonaka‎ 12:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding variant "Mughal Kingdom" to the lead and fixing period in infobox

I propose to make two changes to the article :

• Add the variant "Mughal Kingdom" in the lead line.
• Change the period in infobox from existing "1526-1857" to "1526-1761".

Its not correct to say that "Mughal Empire" lasted till 1857. Infact, for last of its 100 years, it functioned as a puppet in the hands of Afghans, Marathas and British. And 100 years isn't a small period, thats around one-third of the entire period of Mughal rule. The noteworthy point is that mainstream tertiary source like Britannica notes "1526-1761" as the period of Mughal Empire.

I feel that the intro line needs a fix. Its clear that it couldn't continue as an "empire" throughout its journey and it gradually became a kingdom towards its end. The term "Mughal kingdom" has been used by historians. We have Decline of Mughal Kingdom in India by Henry George Keene. Also, the term "kingdom" isn't used only for its last 100 years. In Humayun's period too, it got confined to a small kingdom, as noted by William Wilson Hunter here.

Some important quotations from other sources:

• Page 309 from A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-eighteenth Century by Salma Ahmed Farooqui, Pearson Education India (2011) :

The period of the great Mughals constitutes a glorious era in medieval Indian hisory; but the empire collapsed with dramatic suddenness, within a few decades of Aurangzebs death in 1707 CE.

• Another one from the same page :

The invasions of Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali further weakened the empire. The once glorious Mughal Empire was now reduced to a small area around Delhi.

• Page 751-752 from The Oxford World History of Empire: Volume Two: The History of Empires (2020) by Rajeev Kinra:

The nascent Pashtun-Durrani Empire on India's northwest frontier, the Maratha Confederacy emanating from the western coastal region of India's Deccan Plateau, the brief rise of a state of expatriate Afghans known as Rohillas in the eastern Gangetic Plain, peasant resistance among the Jats in northern and central India, a rise in Sikh militancy in the Punjab, and the practical-if not entirely official-secession of erstwhile Mughal provinces in Hyderabad, Awadh, and Bengal: all contributed, among other factors, to the devolution of Mughal power in the first half of the eighteenth century.

From the above noted points, its clear that the Mughal power became non-existent as an "empire" after 1761. Also, it has been referred as kingdom by authors, sometimes as a synonym of empire and sometimes due to its small size.

Pinging Fowler&fowler, Wengier, Kautilya3.

References

Dympies (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dympies: Please understand that making a proposal is not tantamount to achieving consensus for making a change in the text of an article, least of all in the lead the writing of which was supervised by a Wikipedia administrator. Besides, there is a vast and deep chasm, akin to the crevasses in Antarctica, between a statement in support of which a few sources exist and a statement of due weight.

In other words, you can't come breezing into an article and have your way with the finely-wrote prose of due weight and amend it with a text that is substandard. You are most welcome to leave your proposal here, as many IPs do, and wait for people to bite. A consensus for change, especially in the lead, cannot be done overnight. It takes several weeks

Please be aware that Henry George Keene's book does not constitute current scholarship. He wrote his book in 1876 and died in 1915. Were he alive, he'd be preparing for his bi-centennial.

Pinging @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, El C, Titodutta, and Abecedare: just in case Dympies's edit-warring continues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I am yet to get any sources from your side. This edit summary of yours is full of original research. Where are your sources? Where are those maps showcasing a Mughal Empire beyond 1761? If kingdom is not acceptable to you, you will have to explain the reason. Why do you want to glorify puppets? The sources I have discussed above are not contrary to what is universally accepted. Dympies (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS carefully. It is Wikipedia policy. It says, While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Making elementary errors of sourcing such as you have made with Keene does not help your case. Please also read WP:Lead fixation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have not formed an opinion on the naming issue, but I want to note that F&F is correct in saying that per WP:ONUS, Dympies is required to obtain consensus for the proposed addition, rather than F&F, for the continued exclusion. Also, demonstrating that "kingdom" was used as a descriptor for Mughal holdings at some point in time is not equivalent to demonstrating that "Mughal kingdom" is used interchangeably with "Mughal Empire". Vanamonde (Talk) 07:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, Apart from the above mentioned sources, there exist other scholarly sources using the term "Mughal Kingdom" and, yes, it is pretty much used interchangeably with "Mughal Empire".

References

Dympies (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I await your response, Vanamonde93. Dympies (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how these sources change anything. Refs 4 & 5 are from marginal sources at best, and I'm really not sure about 6. 1, 3, and 6 are clearly using "kingdom" to distinguish the early period of the Mughal polity, before its expansion under Akbar; but we already acknowledge that transition in the lead, and adding "Mughal kingdom" to the first sentence does nothing to aid understanding of that point. The remaining ref is to Truschke, who appears to have switched to using "Empire" for that very sentence in the final printed version of that work, and in all other pieces of her writing appears to use "Empire". More generally, if you're interested in communicating to the reader that the size, strength, and organization of the empire changed over time, our lead already does that. Your suggested wording only adds confusion. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Though the Mughal Empire was declining and falling all over the place from the mid-18th century onward, "Mughal Kingdom" is not a term that is much used and it probably should not be included. That would be akin to calling the last era of the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman Kingdom. About 1761 as the end date, I think we should defer to reliable secondary sources and not Britannica (statements like "The treatment of the aged Bahādur Shah, who was sent into exile, was a disgrace to a civilized country" would not pass muster on wikipedia!). In other words, we need to see whether sources predominantly end the empire at 1857 or at 1761. RegentsPark (comment) 14:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Secondary sources which go into detail about the subject say that the empire "collapsed" in the mid-eighteenth century. Some sources have been provided by me in the very first comment of this thread. The empire stayed as a British protectorate till 1857 but practically, it was over by 1761. Britannica has done the right thing by opting for the practical date. Now, it's upto us how much importance we give to puppet states. Dympies (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  I doubt if anyone is going to argue against the fact that the empire was one in name only in 1857. However, we merely report scholarly work rather than "doing the right thing". So, if secondary sources say it collapsed in the mid-18th century but persist in placing the end at 1857, then so should we. If, however, sources predominantly attach a 1761 date as the end, then, sure, so should we. --RegentsPark (comment) 04:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Dympies: You have now made the same mistake twice. You have dredged something from a Google search, in this instance a book written by S. M. Edwardes and H. L. O. Garret and published by Humphrey Milford at the Oxford University Press in 1930. A facsimile copy has been produced in 1995 by an back-alley-publisher in Old Delhi ("Atlantic"), most likely without permission from the original publisher. In other words, a book in which the font advertises itself plainly to be of a century ago, can't really be peddled as some contemporary.

Normally for a legitimate reprint of a book, or a later edition, the argument "orig-year" (in "citation" or "cite book") is helpful, and also the argument "oclc," which is the Worldcat catalog number (see here), but dubious facsimile reprints in which the original copyright information has been removed, are not worthy of that honor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)