Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Afghanistan This article 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.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bangladesh High‑importance 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.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. The article falls into the work area of the History workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in May 2012. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Is Aurangzeb his birth name/first name? Muhammad can't be his birth name/first name, the same way his dad (called Salim) and grandfather (called Khurram) just added Muhammad as a title? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Muhi-ud-din. Aurangzeb, Bahadur and Alamgir I are his titles. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Alexis Ivanov ,Hagoromo's Susanoo is Right in his Answer all but muhiodden are honorifics (ol-din muhamad means the faith "/of/" muhammed) .Thought i may aswell some clarification, not really that i care to change but for talk-page . Alamgir is a adjective noun and the meaning is related to people,( like over all people) "Padeshah alamgir" means akin to "sole sovereing, universal ruler" .Aurang-zeb is one noun and one verbal noun, for it to mean " ornanament of the throne" it may have been part of his entrance formula (as in "the king ornates on the throne) or be wordplay poem/world with alamgir (اورنگزیب عالمگیر/ اورنگزیب عالمگیر) or just (اورنگزیب اورنگزیب) ا. Anyone who knows where aurangzeb orignatios from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennanak88 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aurangzeb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050829192151/http://web.nwe.ufl.edu:80/~esull/restoration/aurengzebe.htm to http://web.nwe.ufl.edu/~esull/restoration/aurengzebe.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here. I observed that in the article on Hinduism in Wikipedia, a sentence, "destroyed Hindu temples and persecuted non-Muslims", with a link to, "Persecution of Hindus" is mentioned. I want someone to add that same sentence (or better still, it could be, "persecuted Hindus", with the link to "Persecution of Hindus") to the article on Aurangzeb, using the same references 476, 478 and note 33 in the lead/introduction Dona-Hue (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary. The "abandonment of the legacy of pluralism" is already mentioned in the lead; more coverage of his religious policies would give that aspect undue weight. Huon (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Huon. At least, can you add references 476, 478 and note 33 from the article on Hinduism to the sentence, "abandonment of the legacy of pluralism" in the lead/introduction of this article. Thanks again.-Dona-Hue (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aurangzeb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930074005/http://www.history.ucla.edu/people/faculty?lid=393 to http://www.history.ucla.edu/people/faculty?lid=393
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.nwe.ufl.edu/~esull/restoration/aurengzebe.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

literature section is an advertisement for a biased fictional novel on Aurangzeb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:E302:91A2:C5C0:31CC:15:D8EB (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burjor Avari is a not a noted historian he was only a teacher of history and got the MBE in recognition of his work in multicultural education not for history. B.N.Pande is not a historian. Audrey Truschke is a did her PHD in 2012 and is only a Assistant Professor .Not an expert historian just wrote a controversial book. The claim that Various historians has questioned is false as none of the them a major historian Fails WP:WEIGHT we need a noted historian to make a such a significant claim to be put in lead as per WP:BURDEN. The claim various historians is false 2402:3A80:450:D5D3:1472:B31B:1152:B15B (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leads are generally not sourced because they are covered in more detail in the body. See MOS:LEAD.

All the sources you are questioning are de facto reliable sources for Wikipedia. The Audrey Truschke book is especially so because it is published by a University Press.

What claims are you questioning? I couldn't find any occurrence of "various historians" (your bold phrase) in the lead or anywhere else in the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new Year. Audrey Truschke book is controversial and makes WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims like Aurangzeb was a secular ruler contradicts over thousands of other reliable sources and scholarly sources the issue here is about WP:HISTRS the sources above do not meet it.We need a senior historian to make the cliam 2402:3A80:45A:E84E:29DB:9DE5:13F3:4DDC (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HISTRS nowhere requires a "senior historian". Please don't make up your own policies.

If anything in the article is contradicted by an equally good WP:HISTRS, please feel free to state it. We can't go by your assertion that some source is controversial or whatever.

Also, if your IP address keeps changing, you need to use a registered account, because each IP address counts as a separate account. (See WP:Sockpuppetry). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what has been said by Kautilya3, is it not a bit hypocritical to reject the aforementioned authors as historians when the writers you have cited, Anthony Read and David Fisher are primarily known for being television writers?

That is not to say that their worth as historians is any less because of their primary careers. But it certainly does not make them any more reliable than the authors you have removed for the reasons you have stated. Alivardi (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't notice that the other edits made using a different IP. I have reverted them now.

The other sources he added are even worse: Elliott & Dawson from another century, Stephen Knapp, the Hindu writer, and so on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo version seems to me superior, but I would have no objection to insert: ….and religious tolerance, citing his fanaticism, Alan Tritton (6 September 2013). When the Tiger Fought the Thistle: The Tragedy of Colonel William Baillie of the Madras Army. I.B.Tauris. pp. 14–. ISBN 978-0-85772-295-9. Retrieved 3 January 2019. his introduction of the Jizya tax...etc, (based upon this one source of his that I read). Havradim (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Miers Elliot The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period should be okay but anyway thanks will change it as per WP:BURDEN if I add it back will do it new sources and will double check the author.

• The claim various historians is wrong none of those mentioned is a notable to be mentioned as a historian or even a scholar.To claim that historians say Aurangzeb was tolerant note I never said that WP:HISTRS required a "senior historian" only the claim here is wrong
• Burjor Avari is only a teacher.
• B.N.Pande is a not a historian
• Audrey Truschke did her PHD in 2012 and is only a Assistant Professor and not a notable historian to make a such a claim.
• Jamal Malik is a professor of Islamic Studies not a historian and only briefly mentions Aurangzeb in the book (within the article)
• Ram Puniyani is professor of biomedical engineering and a social activist and a not a historian (within the article)
• There are sources like The Wire but they not reliable.2402:3A80:47D:1596:4548:84D6:4B:3F89 (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can give over hundred of more references as most historians see particularly the imposition of Jizya is seen as religious fanaticism .Note the references are right from a book published in 1877 to date and historians over 250 years.

• Mountstuart Elphinstone, Henry Miers Elliot, A.L. Srivastava is a was an Indian historian specialising in medieval, early modern and modern history of India.Hari Ram Gupta is also a historian.Published by Rutgers Law School,Raghbendra Jha Executive Director Australia South Asia Research Centre, Heather S. Gregg PHD from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Jaswent Lal Mehta is a expert in Medieval Indian history academic of Punjab University Chandigarh ,Prof Y.G. Bhave retired as the Head of the deptt. of Humanities from the Regional Engineering College and also can add Jadunath Sarkar^{[1][2][3][4] [5][6]}

^[7][8][9]2402:3A80:447:2795:D92:F488:32DD:7AD0 (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf are other historians who argue that Aurangzeb's destruction of temples is not clear-cut evidence of religious intolerance, that he also built temples, and paid for the maintenance of temples.

Generations of modern historians and politicians have blamed Shah Jahan's successor Aurangzeb for undoing the cultural pluralism and administrative efficiency of the empire ... Aurangzeb shifted but did not fundamentally alter the religious policy of the empire. However much the emperors fostered cultural pluralism, they all, like Aurangzeb, privileged the Islamic ... But his destruction of temples in Benares, Mathura, and Rajasthan had less to do with iconoclasm, since he continued to patronize other Hindu temples, than with the presumed disloyalty of nobles associated with these sites. The building and patronage of the temples of loyal nobles, like the erection of mosques that enjoyed state support, was regarded as an element in state policy. Temples, like other buildings constructed in the shared imperial architectural style, among them the Rajput-built Hindu temple in plate 1.5, were visible manifestations of Mughal power.^[10]

The article, and thus the lead, should present both what one might call the classical or conventional view of Aurangzeb as intolerant of other religions and other more nuanced views by modern historians. The essay WP:HISTRS does not require those historians to be noted, notable, expert, or even to have a degree in history. Its guidance is more complex and nuanced than that. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People like Ram Puniyani is an activist and and neither is B.N.Pande now anyone can write a write a book in history they cannot be attributed as historians in the lead ,they can used as sources one can be attributed as Authors . "Historians carry out original research, often using primary sources. Historians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field; other scholars and reliable sources will typically use the descriptive label historian to refer to an historian". They do not meet it. His imposition of Jizya is viewed as religious fanaticism which led to revolt including by Marathas and Sikhs which led to the fall of the Mughal Empire after 1807 his death and not the destruction of Temples in most WP:RS sources historians including modern historians .As the quote above states Generations of modern historians and politicians have blamed Shah Jahan's successor Aurangzeb is right 98 % all historians and WP:RS sources view him as as religious fanatic even I refered to historical works in 1877 and earlier to date. Would it not be WP:UNDUE to state a extreme minority view on par to with what Generations of distinguished modern historians state . 2402:3A80:45C:71A0:D1C3:C1CE:A446:F492 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, buddy, I have asked you to register an account if your IP address keeps changing. You haven't done so. I am not willing to waste my time on an IP hopper that wants to do guerrilla editing here and disappear. If you are serious about editing Wikipedia, you need to create an account.

All the sources you are bringing are out of date. Some are not even from the last century. Modern historians do not accept the assessments made under old colonial prejudices. Pretty much nothing published before 1950 stands the requirements of "modern historical scholarship" demanded by WP:HISTRS.

Also, knowledge progresses with time. New discoveries, new interpretations and new understanding, can change old assessments. We are not going to be stuck in the past for ever.

If the imposition of Jizya is supposed to be "religious fanticism" then the banning of cow slaughter by Hindu/Sikh rulers should also be regarded as "religious fanaticism". Are you willing to concede that? For my part, I don't concede either. Each of them is rooted in the dictats of the respective religions, and displays a certain amount of cultural insensitivity towards the other religions. Neither of them can be called "fanaticism". Jai Singh II was Aurangzeb's ablest general, and he continued to be so until the latter's death. But, after Aurangzeb died, he went and bought up all the land at Hindu religious places and established Jaisinghpuras. This shows that things were not black and white. Neither was Aurangzeb a "fanatic" nor was he particularly "tolerant". We have to take him as he was and stop branding him with modern labels.

I am perfectly happy with the present LEAD, and you haven't said anything that would change my mind. So long. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I have given you except one or right from 1964 to 2014 are after 1950 and are from noted historians including A.L. Srivastava Generations of modern historians and politicians view Aurangzeb polices as "religious fanaticism" not my personal view and this can be sourced with WP:RS other view as stated by Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf disagreeing with the view of Generations of modern historians and politicians is a minority view .This is not Not a forum and cow slaughter has nothing to do with this topic.Further I have edited only as a IP ,I do not have an account and have never registered one and have never edited this article before and this is allowed as per project guidelines and this is not socking as I do not have an account.Cannot see it even being held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.2402:3A80:46B:F117:2826:B1CB:FE9B:E3A7 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not allowed if you do not have a stable IP address. It is not allowed to use multiple accounts in the same wikipedia space. I have pointed you to WP:Meat puppetry. I will only respond after you register an account. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to try and clear up the disagreement me and @Crybaby747: have about Aurangzeb's name and title on the infobox.

1. The name on the infobox, "Muhi-ud-din Muhammad Aurangzeb Alamgir": This name does seem to be the one that's used historically, e.g the emperor's name was engraved on a Mughal cannon in 1672 as "Abul Muzaffar Mohiuddin Muhammad Aurangzeb, Alamgir Bahadur Badshah-Ghazi".^[1] Ignoring the supplementary titles which were common to most Mughal emperors, the name I stated above does seem like the correct one.

2. The Persian translation of his name and the title "Padshah of the Mughal Empire": I don't really see this as a huge issue either way. The only reason I'd advocate keeping the Persian translation is the fact that the wikipedia pages of the five other "Great" Mughal Emperors employ the same format. Similarly, "Padshah of the Mughal Empire" is used on most emperors' pages.

3. The title Alamgir I: It seems to me that the use of this name is important enough to keep it in the infobox. Though its less common than Aurangzeb, it is still a name that appears consistently in reference to him.^[2][3][4] Also note that a subsequent emperor is called Alamgir II. Alivardi (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is not about what seems correct to you or not. It's about what the reliable references state. Your references aren't all exactly good and reliable. His name, titles and sobriquet are clearly distinguished. I don't understand what's confusing you? How can "Alamgir" which is clearly stated to be his regnal title, be a part of his name? His name is just "Muhi-ud-din Muhammad" that's it. "Aurangzeb" is a sobriquet. Since the article itself is named "Aurangzeb" it's only appropriate that the box should have this name. It's very confusing to have one name as the article title, another as his "introduction name" then a third for the box. It'll baffle anyone reading the article. It baffled me as well.

2. Who said that format is correct? I don't agree with it at all. "Padshah of the Mughal Empire" is not the ONLY title Mughal emperors held. Please see the full title section on this page. If we were to incorporate all those titles in the box, God knows how ridiculous it will look. The infobox shouldn't be read like a novel. As an emperor his title is clearly mentioned in the space below the box. Also, what is the "full title" section for then? If everything has to be included in the infobox.

3. I think the "titles" space is for succession titles. "Alamgir" is important and has already been mentioned in the box under the head "Regnal name" and also in the introduction. I don't see the problem with this? Here's what Aurangzeb's Encyclopaedia Britannica page says:

Aurangzeb, also spelled Aurangzib, Arabic Awrangzīb, kingly title ʿĀlamgīr, original name Muḥī al-Dīn Muḥammad, (born November 3, 1618, Dhod, Malwa [India]—died March 3, 1707), emperor of India from 1658 to 1707, the last of the great Mughal emperors. Under him the Mughal Empire reached its greatest extent, although his policies helped lead to its dissolution.

All of his names and titles are clearly distinguished. I can give you further references for the same if you want. Crybaby747 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crybaby747: Thank you for replying and I'd appreciate your thoughts:

• 1. I may not have made myself clear enough. I was not saying this is correct because I believe it is. I am saying it's correct because Aurangzeb states it is. On his own seal, he had his name as Abu'l Zafar Muhi-ud-din Muhammad Aurangzib Bahadur ‘Alamgir.^[5] It may vary somewhat, but Aurangzeb combined his three names, regardless of any potential "bafflement" it may cause.

• 2. I was not saying this is Aurangzeb's title at all (it is, at the very least a very liberally translated one). My view is that this was written to be as a de facto position rather than a formal title. However, as I said previously, there is not a huge argument to keep these here and I am perfectly happy to drop this point.

• 3. In all honesty, I think it would be ideal if "Alamgir I" is the header of the infobox itself, as is the case with the page of every other monarch that I can think of who adopted a regnal name (see for instance Queen Victoria). However, I realise that this is unrealistic: Aurangzeb is in a somewhat unusual position where he is more commonly known by a sobriquet as opposed to his regnal name. My idea is that the arrangement we had showed the names "Aurangzeb" and "Alamgir I" in equal importance, whilst also acknowledging a regnal number, something which cannot be done under the Regnal Name header you mentioned. Alivardi (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alivardi, User:Dheerajmpai23, User:Yazdani shaikh, User:Fowler&fowler, the above section, which is repeatedly being added and removed, was added by User:Arslan-San, not by me. For me it look ok. Let's hear from him. --Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't accept responsibility of the content then stop engaging in pointy edit warring. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else is willing to sift through the article and fix this content issue, I'm fine with doing it myself. This edit-warring is getting ridiculous and has made it impossible to make any sort of constructive edit. The "Appreciation in Pakistan" section seems fine to me and if no one has any issues with it, I'm happy with leaving that part as it is. I don't have time to start until tomorrow. So until then, can we please lay off on the reversions? Alivardi (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Alivardi. Let's give him chance to edit since none will engage in such edit warring. We can start a discussion on what needs to be kept and removed. Also if you see, both of these users are removing EVERYTHING that was added by me and User:Arslan-San, without even looking at the contents which are well sourced.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think attempting to discuss each individual part will be beneficial. From what I've seen so far, I'm concerned it will be difficult to reach any sort of consensus and it's already clear there have been issues regarding communication. I suggest you allow me to make my changes for now and then do your own adjustments afterward if you think it's appropriate. I will attempt to not be too controversial with my edits. Alivardi (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Alivardi, go ahead, but if you want to remove anything that has been well sourced, please explain why, and we can discuss here anyways.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alivardi, excellent work!--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks buddy! Alivardi (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Arslan-San: I hope you stop using Audrey Truschke as a source, since it is well established that she was whitewashing Aurangzeb in this book.[1] You can't use this source for claims where we have no other source for verification. ML ⁹¹¹ 14:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with saying that her criticism is "well established." All I'm seeing (including in the article you linked) are strong opinions on both sides. I don't believe that her holding views which may be seen as controversial disqualify her from being used as a source, especially since she appears to be a pretty prominent academic who has already been cited in the article several times. I do agree however, that this particular paragraph could be reworded to sound a bit more neutral. Alivardi (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the problem with this whole section, we must minimize fan-cruft as much as it is possible, and avoid adding sources criticized for whitewashing the subject. ML ⁹¹¹ 16:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rule out Turschke either, but the edit was nonsensical. What is "Islam-ness" vs "Indian-ness"? Where is it in Truschke's book? All that we might say that both Indians and Pakistanis agree that Aurangzeb was divisive, while they might disagree on whether "divisive" was good or bad. If Truschke thinks he wasn't divisive, that would be interesting to know. Otherwise, it is all gobbledygook. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coloroscar quintero, you haven't told me why are you keep copy-pasting from other articles. And what? Buddhist monasteries? Lol there were not even many during the Mughal era since they were demolished during Qutb Uddin's time. The source you've provided is just based on the author's opinions and the articles are just critics of the detractors. Arakan? The kingdom of Arakan got developed because of Aurangzeb's conquest of Chittagong and the Buddhists faced no issues. The only being defeated was the immoral Sanda Thudhamma, who was not even a buddhist.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, I think that this edit shouldn't have been undone. It says the sixth and last major mughal emperor, which is shorter and understandable, and the second part which mentions widely considered to be..... was removed. Also, we should add that according to Islamic subjects he was the greatest Muslim ruler, the user was actually right. If not we should removed the entire sentence that keeps telling that he is the most controversial of all time.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tubslubeamorepersempre: The word "major" seemed to be a much more vague description of Aurangzeb's reign as opposed to the word "effective" which had been used previously. I also disagree with the wording the editor used when they described Aurangzeb as "righteous", which seems to have a moral and religious overtone that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The sentence also implied that the view of Aurangzeb being controversial is less common than the opinion that he was "righteous", which was not what was suggested by the source. The editor also included the description of him being an accomplished religious leader, a description which was similarly not mentioned in the respective source. All-in-all, this was a pretty problematic edit which I believe is better left reverted.
Alivardi (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alivardi: The emperor has been already described as major on the other article, Mughal Empire. But effective is also fine. How about then 6th and the last effective...? Remember that he is actually the last major Indian emperor (in terms of ruling such a large empire, i.e. Ranjit Singh's empire was too small, but that's a different argument). As for his righteousness, that was also found in Audrey's book, but yes the user tried to overexaggerate, but at the same time, Muslims of the Indian subcontinent and non Muslim historians have positive views of him. You suggest pls, what can be added or removed? Maybe something like Aurangzeb was an accomplished military leader and a venerable figure among Muslims.......described by some as the most controversial ruler in Indian history?--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tubslubeamorepersempre: I'll leave it up to you. Just please don't use the word "righteous". Remember, Truschke wasn't writing an encyclopedia. She didn't have to stick to the same language requirements.
Alivardi (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alivardi: lol you do whatever is necessary. Do me a favour, since unfortunately and funnily I am not able to edit the article because of his protection (i made less than 500 edits). But I am satisfied that such article has been protected, so it wont be vandalised. How about this:

'....was the sixth and last major (or effective as you wanted) Mughal emperor, who ruled over almost the entire South Asia for a period of 49 years.[5][6][7][8] Aurangzeb compiled the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, and was among the few monarchs to have fully established Sharia law and Islamic economics throughout the Indian subcontinent.[9][10] Aurangzeb was an accomplished military leader and a venerated figure among Muslims,[11] but has been often described by some as the most controversial ruler in Indian history.[12]'

You add or remove or make suitable changes. Jzk--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tubslubeamorepersempre: Ahh thats annoying. Dw I'll sort it out when I get the chance.
Alivardi (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Conqueror of the World" to "Conqueror of the Universe" "Conqueror of the World" is Jahangir, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahangir 178.250.121.253 (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done this is not a valid page name to create. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done appears to be a malformed duplicate of the next request. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

birth_place = Dahod, Mughal Empire (present-day Gujarat, India)

to

birth_place  = Daho, Mughal Empire (present-day Malwa, India) Borntorule143 (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word "jizya" (uncapitalised) appears four times in this article, and the word "Jizya" (capitalised) appears three. None of the latter appears at the beginning of a sentence. All seven should be the same, and because the jizya article consistently de-capitalises it, please change all appearances of "Jizya" to "jizya" in this article. Thank you. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done by Kautilya3 here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change Padishah to Badshah Yupsay (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: The word "Padishah" does not appear in the article's body, so I have changed the wording to something more neutral that is supported by the sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marathas were independent of mughals , why it is called rebellion ? further aurangzeb has been defeated by marathas in the 27 years war , so do not put a fasle picture please in the interest of scholarship , i leave it to u , u can write india was a part of islamic khilfat , no problem , aurangzeb was a very secular and sober , benevolent ruler more than Akbar or any other ruler of indian history . Mughals only taught Indians all art , warfare , isn's it?, regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.34 (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. First of all I am glad to see the article to be protected in this way. Prevention is better than cure, isn't it? There are certain changes nevertheless that needs to be made, since not everyone is currently reading and fixing the article. The changes that I suggest would be the following

1) The initial sentences contain too much description, and it is confusing so I suggest to remove "was the sixth Mughal emperor, who ruled over almost the entire Indian subcontinent for a period of 49 years.[5][6][7] Widely considered to be the last effective ruler of the Mughal Empire.." and simply replace with "was the last of the six great Mughal Emperors, who ruled over almost the entire Indian subcontinent for a period of 49 years.[5][6][7]" So we are just partially removing the next sentence which says "widely considered to be this and that...". Will look more encyclopedic

2) Do you see the "Relations with the English and the Child's War"? It should be renamed with Anglo-Mughal War and perhaps not under "foreign relations", (since it was a major war and pretty notable subject), but under a new section which could be labelled as "Anglo-Indian war" or something else.

3) This one is not as essential as others, but was thinking if we should add about the temporary ban of the Hindu Diwali and Holi festivals (subject of criticism, of yes as for sources it is already mentioned in Audreys books, if it is not sufficient then there are more available, we can just add them I.e. "Understanding History: Key Stage 3: Britain in the wider world, Roman times–present", "Islam and the mughal state" all of these mention about the ban of diwali and holy, which today are highly celebrated).

Thank you very much.83.137.6.245 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise any editors be cautious if they choose to peform this request. 20 minutes prior to making it, this IP appears to have vandalised the article Mughal emperors. I am therefore not sure whether this request was made in good faith.
Alivardi (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalised? How? If Shah Jahan was 3/4 the it is obvious that his son was 4/4. 83.137.6.245 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) "effective ruler" is sourced a Cambridge University Press history text.  Not done

(2) "Child's War" is amply sourced. No need to invent a new term.  Not done

(3) Not a proper edit request.  Not done

In future, please make one request at a time, and explain its basis in reliable sources. If no sources, please don't make it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, and the rejections were not fully explained. Keep the work effective then, but what about those redundant lengthy sentences? I can clearly see that such edits were even made by new users prior to the protection and none even reverted it.

2) Invent? That has been well sourced in the article itself. What about adding it as a new section? You didn't answer it. 3) Not proper? Really? And the others criticism are so? Ok leave it then. Just came with some helpful fixes. There is zero I can do to if such significant requests are ignored. Hope that someone else will have a look at the 2 requests, at least partially. Regards. 83.137.6.245 (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro, the last para discussing the religious policy seems to have too much detail. I have some doubts regarding this. Is it necessary to get into details like jizya and demolition of temples, executions, prohibition of certain activities? These details could be left to the body and in the intro can we just write, "he was criticised for the repression of certain communities"? Edithgoche (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edithgoche, agree. But the rest of the users decided not to answer you since your point make sense.79.75.56.34 (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to change the following sentence: "In 1675 the Sikh leader Guru Tegh Bahadur was arrested on orders by Aurangzeb, found guilty of blasphemy by a Qadi's court and executed."[1][2], to the new revised sentence: "In 1675, the Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur, was arrested on orders by Aurangzeb, summoned to Delhi and told to "abandon his faith, and convert to Islam". Upon Tegh Bahadaur's refusal, he was executed."[3][1][4].

Note: The numbers represent the sources, which are listed at the bottom.

Reasons are as follows:

- Contradiction of placing the title of "leader" before the actual title of "Guru", as seen in "Guru Tegh Bahadur" as well as defined in Sikh history. More importantly, "Leader" is a subjective term as even though the Sikh Gurus may have been viewed as by many people as a leader during that time period, they were formally recognized and recorded as Gurus and this title aligns with the history of the Sikhs and the Sikh Gurus.
- The latter part of the sentence can be commonly mistaken as a process of events, meaning, Tegh Bahadur was arrested, then tried in Qadi court, then found guilty of Blasphemy and then executed because of that guilty verdict. This, in addtion to the Oxford definition of Blasphemy, states that Tegh Bahadur's verdict was a result of him insulting, showing contempt or lack of reverence towards the Islam faith. Apart from shortening the entire event and prior events which led to Tegh Bahadur's execution to one sentence (Most likely to remain on topic of Aurangzeb which is understandable and upto the editors), accurate and verifiable words should be used with 100% certainty so it accurately and factually describes the event. If there is a lack of certainty with the information, especially among sources, this should be stated or not included and replaced. The word Blasphemy is a sensitive word and controversial topic to talk about and can invoke a variety of feelings in many readers or religious groups like the Sikhs, which deviates from a neutral view and and mistakenly paints Tegh Bahadur as someone he was not. Despite this one source (which the actual phrase where this word or claim may have orignianted cannot be verified, suggested by the lack of citations and paraphrasing of the whole event as well as the difficulty for a user/reader/editor to access the source since you will need to pay money to view/access it), there are abundant and multiple sources recounting Tegh Bahadur's life, principles and views towards other faiths that contradict this sentence as well as the sources and information already present on Tegh Bahadur's wikipedia page. (Due to the already existing page for Tegh Bahadur, there are may sources available that prove this point. However, if you would like me to list some sources, please let me know as I am more than happy to provide this). 
- The proposed amendment includes factual events that are verified already by some sources that I have listed. This provides full certainty to the event rather than some uncertainty regarding the current sentence. The current sentence may have been mistructured or an error may have been made in transcription that caused multiple interpretations of this sentence by viewers to occur. However, regardless of the reason, I believe it's best to remove it for now and include some of the factual events. I chose not to write more as not to deviate from the topic at hand which is about the life of Aurangzeb. I also chose not to overload the sentence with sources and provide enough to minimise clutter.

Sources: 1. Seiple, Chris (2012). The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Security. Taylor & Hudson. p. 96. ISBN 9780415667449. 2. Singh Gandhi, Surjit (2007). History of Sikh Gurus Retold: 1606-1708 C E. Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. pp. 653–691. ISBN 978-81-269-0858-5. 3. Singh, Pashaura; E. Fenech, Louis (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies. OUP Oxford. pp. 236–238. ISBN 9780191004117. 4. Grewal, J. S (1998). The Sikhs of the Punjab. Cambridge [England] ; New York : Cambridge University Press. p. 71. ISBN 0521637643.

Please let me know if there is anything needing clarification, thank you. JPanda1 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Although apparently reliably-sourced, this does not appear to improve the article significantly. First, the proposed "...the Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh..." is simply redundant. Anyone who wants to know the exact role of Guru Tegh Bahadur in Sikhism has the hyperlink right there and Sikh gurus is then hyperlinked from the first sentence right there. Secondly, the proposed expansion of the sequence is WP:UNDUE in relation to this article and, as stated, already available in Guru Tegh Bahadur's article. The difference between the two formulations is not significant for this article and the suggestion is more difficult to read. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article body has had this WP:UNDUE quote from Will Durant:

Aurangzeb displayed a particular animus towards Hindus and their temples. In the first volume of his Pulitzer Prize winning book series, historian Will Durant^[1] stated the following:

Aurangzeb cared nothing for art, destroyed its "heathen" monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the provincial governors, and to his other subordinates, 'to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year (1679–80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixtythree at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faiths, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of the temples which had represented or housed the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. Aurangzeb converted a handful of timid Hindus to Islam, but he wrecked his dynasty and his country. A few Moslems worshiped him as a saint, but the mute and terrorized millions of India looked upon him as a monster, fled from his tax-gatherers, and prayed for his death. During his reign the Mogul empire in India reached its height, extending into the Deccan; but it was a power that had no foundation in the affection of the people, and was doomed to fall at the first hostile and vigorous touch. The Emperor himself, in his last years, began to realize that by the very narrowness of his piety he had destroyed the heritage of his fathers.

It was inserted by an editor called Stochos, who did a series of such insertions on 28 January 2018, and then disappaered.

The page on Will Durant says that he won the Pulitzer Prize for the volume 10 of his series, that too for literature, not history.

This quote is from volume 1, published in 1935, which has not been validated by anybody, and it doesn't meet our requirements for WP:HISTRS. A lot of this content is contradicted by contemporary scholarship. So it cannot be retained in its present form. I invite suggestions on how to treat it or whether to treat it at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Will Durant is a noted historian and the source meets WP:RS and WP:HISTRS you can ask this at WP:RSN and this should be retained in its present form.2405:201:E012:501F:19CC:B222:6BA1:A9 (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do explain how he meets the requirements of WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the Legacy section seems a bit sloppy and out of order. The section's structure right now is Negative-Positive-Negative. I propose removing the sentence "This image of Aurangzeb as an Islamic radical isn't limited to Pakistan's official historiography." as redundant. The remaining two sentences should be moved to follow the first paragraph, which is already the negative part of his legacy.

There are also two Wikilinks for which the text needs expansion, as they denote subjects that are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. "BJP" should be replaced with "the Bharatiya Janata Party". "Nehru" should be replaced at least with his full name "Jawaharlal Nehru" or possibly with "Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India,".--Shmarrighan (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to change his name because his full name was Al'Sultan Al'Azam Wal Khagan Al Mukkaram Hazrat Abul Muzzafar Muhi-ud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb Bahadur Alamgir 122.169.55.255 (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please be more clear about the change you wish to make, and establish a consensus first including reliable sources WP:RS. Swil999 (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please see WP:HONORIFICS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change or remove "Islamic radical" in lower section of legacy, since it is not mentioned nor implied elsewhere in the wiki page Umer23459 (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Please remove the sentence "This image of Aurangzeb as an Islamic radical isn't limited to Pakistan's official historiography" and move the final two sentences to follow the first paragraph of the Legacy section. Shmarrighan (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Terasail^[✉] 16:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--JLavigne508 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Editing is turned off, so someone with access must address this. The value of roughly 39 million English Pounds in 1690 cited in the opening paragraph would be roughly 6.5 Billion US Dollars adjusted for inflation today (use any straightforward inflation calculator website such as "Measuring Worth:", etc. etc) not "$450 million dollars" as stated. I do not know the figures for the Mughal Royal Budget, but the Royal Treasury in France under Louis XIV was in the hundreds of millions in todays Dollars US, so the statement given for comparison is dramatically off and again this page is blocked so that mistaken information needs to be fixed or removed by someone with access here.[reply]

--JLavigne508 (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in today's dollars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's in 2006 $ or £, it's clearly insanely low, and clearly wrong. "39 million English Pounds in 1690", per the Bank of England's handy calculator, is £9,540,920,000 in 2019. I don't see why it needs to be in $, but that would be well over a trillion. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The recent "hiding" removed a definition for a reference that was in-use elsewhere in the article. I've repaired the errors that this change generated. The reference donesn't include a page numberdoesn't offer online access, so I can't figure out of the nubmers in this discussoin come from that reference, or if they're here in the aritlcle. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize hiding would disable the ref. The number should be sorted out anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in 2006 dollars either. The date is 1690. Why would you imagine something else? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That amount is not adjusted for inflation from thae given source and over three hundred years the values are extremely far apart and misleading in todays value (there weren't even US dollars in 1690?). That treasury would have been at least several billion dollars in todays money. --JLavigne508 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is written to summarise WP:RS. Find a source that uses some other basis for comparison, and we can discuss it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's "with an annual revenue of $450 million (more than ten times that of his contemporary Louis XIV of France) in 1690" comes from

• Harrison & Berger 2006, p. 158: "The annual revenues of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (1659—1701) are said to have amounted to $450 million, more than ten times those of his contemporary Louis XIV.", which references
• Kautsky 1982, p. 188: "The annual revenues of the Mogul emperor Aurangzeb (1658-1701) are said to have amounted to $450,000,000, more than ten times those of Louis XIV", which references
• Lybyer 1913, p. 295: "Careful calculations have resulted in ascribing ... to Aurangzeb as much as four hundred and fifty million dollars ... Louis XIV's [revenue would then have been] not the tenth part of Aurangzeb's." Lybyer lists 20 works, published between 1770 and 1911, that he consulted in preparing the appendix in which the passage appears.

Kautsky notes, "The dollars mentioned are presumably those of the pre-World War I period, when Lybyer wrote and when the purchasing power of the dollar was nearly ten times as great as in 1981." Wikipedia's {{inflation}} template says that a 1913 dollar is equivalent to $26 in 2019.

If we're comfortable with Kautsky's presumption about what Lybyer meant, then in line with MOS:CURRENCY we could write:

• "with an annual revenue equivalent to $450 million in 1913 (more than ten times that of his contemporary Louis XIV of France)." or
• "with an annual revenue equivalent to $12 billion in 2019 (more than ten times that of his contemporary Louis XIV of France)."

If we don't want to assume Lybyer was speaking of 1913 dollars, I think we'd have to omit the figure:

• "with an annual revenue more than ten times that of his contemporary Louis XIV of France."

I don't see the specific year 1690 in any of the sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that digging through the sources, Worldbruce. I think the best option is your second, including the inflation template: "with an annual revenue equivalent to $12 billion in 2019 (more than ten times that of his contemporary Louis XIV of France)."--Shmarrighan (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, this is all interesting! I'll just reiterate that saying $450 million is patently misleading/absurd & it should stay hidden until a coherent referenced statement is produced. Johnbod (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

$12 billion dollars equivalent today sounds very close. It is known in France in the Middle Ages the yearly revenue was roughly between $200-400 million in today's money (they all swung up and down because they were based on how well the harvests went that year), and crossed the billion mark during the reign of Louis XIV (reaching around $1.5 billion by the early 1700s, so 10x that would be about $12 billion. Given the populations of India, Europe, and China at the time that sounds very close and I would suggest it in my opinion.

--JLavigne508 (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If people are unable to relate to dollar-figures without converting to present day figures, then I suggest we omit them, and just keep the comparison with Louis XIV. In the body, there is a British source given which gives the then Rupee value as Rs. 300-400 million. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course "people are unable to relate to dollar-figures" if you don't even tell them what sort of dollars, or the date you are valuing them at (hint: neither the US$ nor any other sort of dollar except pieces of eight existed during Aurangzeb's lifetime), and if the statement is manifestly ridiculous at any date. And WTF does "gives the then Rupee value as Rs. 300-400 million" mean? I think Louis XIV should also go; these comparisons are mainly guesswork, as the figures just don't exist. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the sentence, "Under his reign, India surpassed Qing China to become the world's largest economy and biggest manufacturing power, worth nearly a quarter of global GDP and more than the entirety of Western Europe, and its largest and wealthiest subdivision, the Bengal Subah,[15] signaled the proto-industrialization.[16][17][18][page needed]." Angus Maddison's historical estimates are not reliable. See my post of long ago on Talk:Angus Maddison. Also, the bit about "proto-industrialization" which cites --- and Roy is really an article of David Washbrook, with the wrong page number. As a general principle, something should be in the lead of an article such as Aurengzeb if it can be cited to widely used undergraduate history text, not to research monographs, let alone journal articles. It is a question of WP:DUE. Specie money and bullion did flow into Mughal India, mainly from South America, but the question of nascent industrialization in India is a fraught one. Please see Mughal Empire which I revised with administrative oversight some time ago. The lead of this article should generally be in consonance with that of the empire of which it was a part. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I've also had big issues with Maddison's figures for earlier periods in the Islamic world, and "Dark Ages" Europe, which are essentially made up. Specialist historians in these periods never use them. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS I noticed that someone had stuffed "proto industrialization" with telltale half a dozen sources in the lead of Mughal Empire as well; I have removed it. I'm on vacation; this is all I have time for. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JUDDHO (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC) can i added the his title he have so many titles which was historicaly recorded give me the editing permission and[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 15:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--JUDDHO (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC) : ( 1 )In place of using Aurangzeb ' s name , Kazim uses high sounding titles for Aurangzeb , such as Shahanshah - i - Gaiti Panch ( who shelters the earth ) , Shahanshah - i - Danish Ain ( Knowledgeable King ) , Shahanshah - i - Afaq ( King of King )[reply]

1. Sources - هندوستان ميں فارسى تاريخ نگارى: ٧١ويں صدى كے آخرى نصف سے ٨١ويں صدى كے پهلے نصف تک فارسى تاريخ نگارى كا ارتقاء Indian Council of Historical ResearchKanishka Publishers, 2003 - India - 166 pages Contributed articles presented at the International Seminar on the Development of Persian Historiography in India from the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century to the First Half of the Eighteen Century held in Oct. 2000 in the Dept. of History, Jamia Millia Islamia.

( 2 ) Abul Fazl had defined the titles of Padshah in these words , “ Even the meaning of the word Padshah shows this , for Pad , signifies ... Mughal emperors , including Aurangzeb , never recognised the Caliph , as in the case of Sultans of Delhi .

2. Sources - Structure of Politics Under Aurangzeb, 1658-1707 by S. M. Azizuddin Husain anishka Publishers, Distributors, 2002 - Mogul Empire - 212 pages

( 3 ) Aurangzeb Crowned himself King of Delhi, https://books.google.com.bd/books id=oUUkDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT14&dq=Aurangzeb%20name&pg=PT30#v=onepage&q=Aurangzeb%20Title&f=false.

3. Sources - Aurnagzeb : The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial King by Audrey Truschke Stanford University Press, May 16, 2017 - History - 152 pages

( 4 ) According to J.N. Sarkar , the famous Indian historian , the exact date of Aurangzeb's birth was October 24 , A.D. 1618.2 He ... A resounding title was conferred on him ' Abdul Muzaffar - Muhiud - din Mohammed Aurangzeb Bahadur , Alamgir

4. Sources - Guru Tegh Bahadur: A Biography Surinder Singh Johar Abhinav Publications, 1975 - Sikh gurus - 262 pages

( 5 ) the emperor of time and space and moved its tongue in raillery at the alleged dignities of Jupiter and Saturn : 14 Out of pride at the pronouncement of the name and title of ' Abdul Muzaffar Mohiuddin Mohammed Aurangzeb Bahadur Ghazi '

5. Sources - Aurangzeb in Muntakhab-al Lubab by Anees Jahan Syed Somaiya Publications, 1977 - Mogul Empire - 427 pages

So you Can see Aurnagzeb Have 5 Titles The Original i am founding

1/ Padishah or, Badshah

2/ Shahenshah

3/ Bahadur

4/ Ghazi

5/ King of Delhi

Hi JUDDHO. There is a "Full Title" section of the Aurangzeb article, near the bottom, which includes all the titles mentioned by you except for "King of Delhi". However I think "King of Delhi" is a mistake, as the source you cite is not using it as a separate title. Instead it reads "Aurangzeb crowned himself king in Delhi's Shalimar Gardens". Delhi is just the place where he crowned himself king (of the Mughal Empire). --Shmarrighan (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JUDDHO : ok i am give up to added 4 titles + 1 more that was Great Amir-al-Mu'minin Because he cannot claim him-self the Caliph Title so he was the great muslim emperor all muslims give this title his other Hazrat Auarangzeb Radiallahu-tana-anhu in Islamic Views

But ok i am not give King of delhi now permited me Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDDHO (talk • contribs) 07:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mechanism to give individual editors permissions for protected pages. I suggest you edit other topics of interest and get experience with Wikipedia before coming to this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So to be clear you are looking to add the title Amir-al-Mu'minin, correct? Can you provide a source? I don't think "Hazrat Auarangzeb Radiallahu-tana-anhu" needs to be added since "Hazrat" already appears in the full title and from my understanding "Radiallahu-tana-anhu" is not really a title per se.Shmarrighan (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.TrangaBellam (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]