Talk:Aurangzeb/Archive 2

THIS IS A ONE SIDE HISTORY, REAL AURANGZEB IS HERE

Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.

Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years. Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions." During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?

Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) But this fact is somewhat less known.

Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu Temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur'an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (surah al-Baqarah 2:256). The surah al-Kafirun clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur'an.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant."

A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads: "During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138) Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb's imposition ofthe jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb's jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.

It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and ‘ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury.

While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record straight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown (talk • contribs) 2 October 2011

Regions of South Asia under Aurangzeb

No.	Province	Land Revenue (1697)	Notes
–	Total	£38,624,680
1	Bijapur	£5,000,000
2	Golconda	£5,000,000
3	Bengal	£4,000,000
4	Gujarat	£2,339,500
5	Lahore	£2,330,500
6	Agra	£2,220,355
7	Ajmere	£2,190,000
8	Ujjain	£2,000,000
9	Deccan	£1,620,475
10	Berar	£1,580,750
11	Delhi	£1,255,000
12	Behar	£1,215,000
13	Khandesh	£1,110,500
14	Rajmahal	£1,005,000
15	Malwa	£990,625
16	Allahabad	£773,800
17	Nandair	£720,000
18	Baglana	£688,500
19	Thatta	£600,200
20	Orissa	£570,750
21	Multan	£502,500
22	Kashmir	£350,500
23	Kabul	£320,725
24	Sukkur	£240,000

This chart should not be removed from the article on Aurangzeb... — Preceding unsigned comment added by FGBOTT (talk • contribs) 10:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

another adversary

Durgadas Rathore also defied aurangzebs rule after aurangzeb assasinated the Rathore king and tried to turn jodhpur into a muslim state. He later freed most of the parts of Rajasthan. and freed all of Rajasthan after aurangzebs death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.106.240 (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

The Sikh section of this article is limited and full of false information. Guru Hargobinds ji led successful military campaigns againts the mughal aggression of Shah Jahan in 4 battles and ultimated ended in a truce. Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji came to the defence of hindus at the request of kashmiri pundits led ny Kirpa Ram, who requested for Guru ji to defend their faith which was under attack from Aurangzeb. Guru ji gave himself up and the Pundits declared to the emperor that if he could convert Guru Tegh Bahadur to islam then they would too. Three disciples of Guru Ji who came with him to Delhi were brutally martyred for refusing to accept islam. Bhai Mati Das was sawn in two, Bhai Sati Das was wrapped in cotton and burned alive and Bhai Dayala was boiled alive in a couldron. Then Guru was martyred. Many people including muslims felt the empereor Aurangzeb had not done well. Guru Gobind Singh ji faught many successful battles against the Hindu Rajas of mountainos region who were allied with the mughals. In the First Battle of Anandpur Guru Gobind Singh Ji sucessfully faced a mughals and Hill Raja force of over 10000. The enemy failed to remove Guru ji from the Fort of Anandpur leading to the Second Battle of Anandpur. The Battle Of Chamkaur or also known as Battle Of Chamkaur Sahib was a battle fought between the Khalsa led by Guru Gobind Singh against the Mughal forces led by Wazir Khan. Guru Gobind Singh makes a reference to this battle in Zafarnamah. He tells how tens of thousands of Mughal troops attacked his men.The actual battle is said to have taken place outside a mudfort where the Guru was resting. Negotiations broke down and the Sikh soldiers chose to engage the overwhelming Mughal forces, thus allowing their Guru to escape. A "Gurmatta" or consensus had been agreed by the Sikhs that the Guru should escape. Due to the democratic nature of the Sikh polity, the Sikh Guru was compelled to obey the will of his people. By cover of night the Guru was able to escape.All of the Sikhs guarding the Guru were massacred but only after enflicting heavy losses to the vastly outnumbering forces. It is alleged that the Sikh warriors were able to engage the Mughal troops despite vast numbers due to training in the Sikh/Hindu,martial art of Shastarvidya.Zafarnama or "Epistle of Vistory" is a letter that is alleged to have been written by Guru Gobind Singh to the then Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. Zafarnama vividly describes what happened at Chamkaur, and also holds Aurangzeb responsible for what occurred and promises he broke: 13: Aurangzeb! I have no trust in your oaths anymore. (You have written that) God is one and that He is witness (between us). 14: I don't have trust equivalent to even a drop (of water) in your generals (who came to me with oaths on Koran that I will be given safe passage out of Anandgarh Fort). They were all telling lies. 15: If anyone trusts (you) on your oath on Koran, that person is bound to be doomed in the end. After finding out that the Guru had escaped, the Mughals started searching the woods and the area surrounding Chamkaur.

The Mughals hastily chased after the Guru once they realised he had escaped. Guru Gobind Singh made a last stand against the Mughals at Muktsar,[citation needed], however, by then Aurangzeb had started to sue for peace.[citation needed] The battle of Muktsar was the last battle fought by Guru Gobind Singh.

There he wrote Zafarnamah, ("the epistle of victory"), a letter to Aurangzeb in which he wrote

"...But still when the lamp of daylight (sun) set and the queen of night (moon) came up,then my protector (God) gave me passage and I escaped safely, not even a hair on my body was harmed".

The Guru emphasised how he was proud that his sons had died fighting in battle, and that he had 'thousands of sons - the Singhs'. He also said that he would never trust Aurengzeb again due to his broken promises and lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajSaberwal (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Some important facts

Note: Jadunath Sarkar suggested a chauvinistic perception that Aurangzeb intended nothing less than to establish an "Islamic state in India", though he was unable to marshal any evidence to substantiate this bigoted view.

The historian, Tara Chand deplored misdirected efforts regarding the legacy of Aurangzeb which, continues to cause irreparable damage to the edifice of the Mughal Empire.

In fact: The number of Hindus employed in positions of eminence under Aurangzeb's reign rose from 24.5% in the time of his father Shah Jahan to 33% in the fourth decade of his own rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.119.58 (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Separate Articles discussing the Rebellions during the reign of Aurangzeb

The Contents in the "Rebellions" sections in the article are fraught with distortions and edit conflicts perhaps they should be discussed in separate articles where these matters can be sorted out more properly according to quality and without controversy.

Hindu commanders

During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Swarup Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji.

One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne...?

This article consists of too much propaganda and lies

The whole Sikh section is one massive farce. It consists of Sikh nationalist propaganda. This is a one sided account of history. Why does this article negate the historical proofs of the Sikhs being bandits, killers and thieves? The Sikhs used to loot and steal from wealthy Muslim caravans and people. The Sikhs even insulted Muslims by tying their horses to sacred places like Mosques. They destroyed many Muslim places of worship.

The funny thing is they even refer to the Sikhs as lions, which proves a definite bias here. Statement like "took over many Muslim and Mughal lands" is wrong and a big lie. The Sikh nation was small and limited mostly to the Punjab area. The land they occupied was largely because the Mughals were faced with many internal conflicts, the conflicts with the Pashtuns, the conflicts with the Hindus, the conflicts with the Europeans, etc. This made the forces of the empire spread out too wide. The Sikhs were lucky, not victorious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.143.247 (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fact

The Marathas particularly their leaders Shivaji and Sambhaji are known to have massacred indigenous Muslim populations in the Deccan with utter impunity, including members of the Mughal Army.

Although, the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, was far more religious, he is accused of extorting vast resources in order to fund the Mughal Army, but he never intentionally harmed innocent civilian populations during any of his campaigns.

News alert

unconfirmed freely welcomed bias statement being allowed into this article

Importance

The role of this article is to provide information and not incite religious or ethnic hostilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Distortion

Authentic images of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, should not be deleted and ethnic, religious or political passages or paragraphs must not be allowed to distort the real facts. All information should be checked properly and protected from anyone who attempts rampant distortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Having multiple references for claims is one key way which wikipedia works to minimize distortion of facts. In your most recent edit, you removed several references without explanation and replaced them with a youtube video. This is not a productive way to combat what you believe is distortion. Nor is making general claims about an article without highlighting specific claims made in the article that you think are wrong. Dialectric (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is being distorted and vandalized — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs) 09:52, 4 November 2011

I agree that this sort of comment isn't helpful unless you are very specific about the problems. As for images, what images have been removed (other than those deleted for copyright reasons)? Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the above comment is refering to the removal of references as vandalism, because it distorts the article to one point of view.MilkStraw532 (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The references that Mughal Lohar has added and have been removed have mainly been links to copyright violating YouTube videos, other articles used as videos, and sources that don't meet our criteria for reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Distortion of facts

Facts are being distorted bias material is being added and this article is becoming unreadable...Wikipedia should take immediate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.75.168 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Being Tightass.

After reading this article I was *blown away* by the large number of grammatical errors in this piece. I started to fix them, but quickly gave up at the sheer size of the task ahead of me. Irrespective of the PoV arguments, someone with more gumption than me needs to take on grammatical errors on this page before some poor, innocent reader has their head spontanously explode. I give you the following paragraph as an example:

"it is a big allegation on him.he was a staunch muslim and scholar of holy quran while it is stated in quran,that no one can be a muslim without his free will.so,how could he converted a non-muslim into a muslim.many facts also support this; The present animosity between owes its origination to the policies adopted by Aurangzeb.But for him India would have seen the only peaceful co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims anywhere in the world."

That's pretty bad, but this next one is even worse. I don't know enough about Aurangzeb and his interaction with the Sikhs to even know how fix it:

"Things came to such a head that Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth guru (spiritual pontiff) of Sikhism, was executed by Aurangzeb for refusing to convert to Islam[citation needed]. Aurangzeb had demanded that all Kashmiri Brahmins convert to Islam. The Kashmiris then asked for assistance from the Sikh Guru. Guru Tegh Bahadur was proclaimed their Guru, and he advised Aurangzeb that if Tegh Bahadhur could be converted to Islam, then the Brahmins would convert to Islam. Tegh Bahadhur was then executed after his refusal to convert. This day, November 11 is still commemorated by the Sikh community."

Say what? What exactly is that trying to say? Are Bahadhur and Bahadur different people or the same person, but with 2 different ways to spell his name? Did Bahadur actually advice Aurangzeb to first try and convert, and then execute Bahadur himself? That would be... strange. If that is indeed the case then this very odd fact needs to be written on at length.

Seriously, someone who knows something about this subject needs to take a good long look at this article. It's making my head spin. Gopher65 (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the first one. To me it looks like an editorial comment rather than something intended as article content. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

On recent edits

Unless the section on the Sikh rebellion is sourced to reliable sources soon, I will make some major deletions there. Relata refero (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Scbose (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC) I agree - the relationship between the Sikhs and Mughals is far more complex than the often simplistic portrayal in this article. To mention only the most obvious points, the Sikhs had incurred the enemity of the Mughals long before Aurangzeb - it was Jehangir who first executed a Sikh guru. Moreover the relationship between Aurangzeb and the Sikhs was not simply one of enemity - Guru Teg Bahadur fought for Aurangzeb's army in Assam and so (if I am not mistaken) did Guru Govind at times. Finally, while Guru Govind's elegant Persian epistle "Zafarnama" certainly carries a devastating indictment of Aurangzeb, verses 89 to 94 also praise the old Emperor as a mighty warrior. The point I am making is that many of these conflicts involved political issues and are not directly reducible to any simplistic narrative regarding Aurangzeb's religious "fundamentalism".

I have edit parts relating to the Maratha empire geographicaly outgrowing the Mughals and some parts concerning later Mughal emperors which don't really belong on this page and are not sourced. Khokhar (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

When did Aurangzeb die?

Three dates shown in the article..

1. 3rd March
2. 20th February
3. and in August (infobox)

oct 19 which one is correct? --sunil (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

problem in the infobox has been corrected --sunil (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Britain and the British Empire (including India) adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752. Wednesday, 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday, 14 September 1752. Thus all dates prior to September 2, 1752 should be considered under Julian Calendar. Thus the date of death of Aurangzeb should be February 20 which is the same March 3 as per the Gregorian calendar.

--Myshare (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's helpful, the two most authoritative sources have, respectively, 20 February (Jadunath Sarkar) and 3 March (J F Richards) -- this is simply due to the fact that Sarkar was using the Julian calendar to calculate his dates (still used in Britain and its possessions until 1752), and Richards was using the Gregorian. Zainabadi (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Bmayuresh (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC) In that case wouldn't it help if it is exclusively mentioned as 3rd March (20th Feb - Julian Calendar) or simply use the Gregorian calendar as it is now used almost in the entire world. The difference in dates is quiet confusing.Bmayuresh (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tibet invasion

I read online that the aging Indian emperor Aurangzeb made extensive plans to invade Tibet in early 18th century and that his death and succession crisis lent a window of opportunity to Qing China which occupied Tibet by the end of the 18th century. Still trying to get those links. Anwar (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Attitudes towards Hindus and Sikhs

I've commented out this very nicely documented section. It doesn't really seem like it belongs in this wikipedia article. I'm open to include parts of it in summary, and maybe I'll do that myself.--nemonoman (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My commenting led to a formatting problem. Here's the section:

Attitudes towards Hindus and Sikhs

Aurangzeb has been widely characterized as being anti-Hindu, unlike other more liberal emperors who preceded him. According to some, this negative characterization came about largely due to his disparaging views of Hindus and his attempts to induce the conversion of Hindus to Islam . Some sources claim that the anti-Hindu measures of Aurangzeb were intended to help the orthodox Sunni faith gain prominence in India in an indirect manner. However, his various edicts against Hindus, such as banning the celebration of Diwali and imposition of Jizya on non-Muslims are also factors in determining his attitudes. Indian historian, Sir Jadunath Sarkar has traced the anti-Hindu policies of Aurangzeb from as early a year as 1644 AD.

Historian E. Taylor writes that his negative views on Hindus were the primary reason for his reversal of the liberal policies of the previous Mughal emperors and "resumption of the persecution of Hindus" in the Empire, and the many rebellions that arose against him in Rajasthan and among the Marathas..

Aurangzeb was also against all muslim sects beside the wahabis. He slaughtered hundreds of muslims who did not adhere to his view of islam. Ahmedabad and other cities of Gujarat are filled with Graves of Muslims who were slaughtered by Arungzeb. Specifically Dawoodi bohras Head of the society Sayedna qutbuddin shaheed was killed by him. Bohris also too many people through Lives and conversions due to Aurnagzeb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.213.16 (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab wasn't even born when Aurangzeb died, how could there be wahabism in India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.195.106.170 (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wahabism is mentioned as a school of thought where mosoliums, Matam are seen as bidat and Aurangzeb did slaughter muslim minorities. His thoughts were same as those of Saudi Arabia or ISIS today. It should be mentioned in article as it is important part of of his bloody history--Saifee (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources discussing him in connection with Wahabism? Without those we can't do this. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Image of Aurangzeb's grave at Khuldabad available

Image of Aurangzeb's image is available at http://pib.nic.in/feature/feyr2003/fmay2003/f060520031.html. The site explicitly allows copying of image and so it should be fine to integrate it with this article

--Kedar (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sikh rebellion section

This section requires more sources to back up some claims. Khokhar (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As do most of the other sections of this increasingly unsourced ultra-POV article.--nemonoman (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's due to the increasing pov in this and countless similar article that I was requesting a source to backup claims such as "Aurangzeb vowed that the Guru and his Sikhs would be allowed to leave Anandpur safely. But when the Sikhs abandoned the fort, the Mughals enagaged them in battle once again, at Chamkaur." it should be noted that most other claims of this nature are generally backed up, even in this article. I agree this is becoming an increasingly common problem but we have to deal with it how ever slow the process feelsKhokhar (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at the ancient history of this article and dust off the ancient archives to see my contributions -- Now in tatters. It seems to me that the is a hot button article to those who have a POV, sourced or not, and of no consequence at all to the sort of editor that cares about NPOV and Reliable sources. I've made my peace with letting the article go to hell, much as Pakistan signed a "peace treaty" with the Taliban in the tribal areas. If you can't control it, make peace with it: I guess that's the lesson. If you get excited about trying to improve this article, try a few edits and gauge the real workload involved. If you're ready to shoulder some of the burden, I'll join you. --nemonoman (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My research time is currently quite limited but I will try to contribute whenever possible.Khokhar (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This section still has no verifiable or non pov sources as the few present are from a 'nationalistic' Sikh website and hence do not meet the NPOV standard required for such delicate matters, highly contentious and unsoucred claims such as 'forced to choose between conversion or death' will be removed as such claims only lead to resentment; something we really don't need. Khokhar (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that this section is heavily biased and based on Sikh propaganda (sikhheritage.net). Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Hopefully someone will correct this in the future. --AmmariKhan (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement of Islamic law

Does anyone know who is this Babu Nagendranath Banerjee? It is surprising that Wikipedia let it get published without any reference ? User: Canadian Sikh Guy

Heavy Bias against Aurangzeb

I have edited this article removing unbacked, preposterous claims attributed to Aurangzeb, replacing them with backed citations. There seems to be much misinformation about Aurangzeb from many Indians, who have painted him as a villian, in part as a result of the era of the hostility prior to the partition of South Asia. We should not allow such things to be common here, and I ask that everyone please make sure to be honest and just with your edits. Thank you. --AmmariKhan (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Visit Gujrat and see how many people he has slaughtered, in different cities you will find hundreds of people slaughtered due to his school of thought. --Saifee (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What happened to Murad Baksh?

This article has Murad Baksh going to Burma and then simply disappearing. But the Murad Baksh article has Murad being imprisoned in Gwalior by Aurangzeb, and then being executed for murder in 1661. Which is correct? Pirate Dan (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the whole story is completely confused. Further research shows that it was Shuja, not Murad, who went to Arakan, where he was killed by the local king. I will change it shortly. Pirate Dan (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

big edits need to tale place here

(As i read over this I realized it sounds harsh, I don't mean to be condescending or overly critical of past work. I just think it can be a lot better. Please read it in that light)
As among historians in general this article suffers from a ton of historical fallacies and half truths. Almost the entire section on his "rise to power" is un-cited and, therefor unsurprisingly, inaccurate. The article seems to place blame on Aurangzeb for the demise of the Mughal Empire without facts to back it up, only statements like "he went to a lot of wars and spent a lot of money therefore the empire died out." At no point does the article address tax cuts which Aurangzeb enacted or the relative wartime economic success he experience. The other side of the argument doesn't note music specifically as a charge against him which is odd as that is usually the first thing people talk about after temple destructions.

The citations that are used seem to be primarily tertiary sources (this is my first edit so please correct me if i'm wrong on anything about the process) which I believe Wikipedia discourages. Beyond that however they are also rather old and outdated. Comically enough however "Mughal Rule in India" offers a more expansive view with better source material, but is only used for a single bullet point. There is not a whole lot of info out about Aurangzeb that hasn't been tainted by Hindu vs Muslim scholarship but it does exist and should be used to help this article make sense given current availability of contemporary works.

I have read the talk page history and understand the enormous debate here. There are over generalizations here on both sides which seem to overcompensate for one another in emotional rather than fact based narratives. This has rendered the readability level of this article in the dirt (Is this really a "B" level article?). Major sections need to be rewritten for comprehension but the mishmash of truths, half-truths, and "Huh?" statements leave me wondering at times what the intended comment was. I do not understand what's going on with the Jizya section. There is no secondary source analysis, it's dropped in an never referenced and it's formatted to look like any other paragraph. I think this illustrates the final point of my case and that is, beyond substantive reworking, the article also needs an organizational overhaul.

Because of the aforementioned points, over the next couple of days, I plan on making large changes to this piece. Let me state this clearly, I have no reason to favor one side or another. I am neither muslim nor hindu, not Indian or Turkish/Persian/Timurid/Arab. I believe this to be a dispute actual fact based articles and quality scholarship can create a consensus on. This will allow the discussion of what can actually be discerned from historical record, not conjecture or nasty/glorified words passed on from the 1600's. As I said before, this is my first edit so please tell me what i'm doing wrong if anything, but don't delete things you don't like to read unless i fail to back them up.

Cheers, and i look forward to nasty comments and deleted edits ;) Kormie (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

oops, forgot to say what i did there

edited the part about his actions regarding bans/temple desecration etc. tried to clean up some existing content while adding my own. I added citations where i had them. nothing i added should be inflammatory and attempts to maintain NPOV. in fact, i think the section is a lot more neutral than it was. the paragraph about christianity needs some citations and i'm too lazy to add them. i put the excerpt about Jizya in blockquote tags because i just think it looks better.Kormie (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor English

Amazing that this article has had complaints of poor english and grammar since 2007, and it still hasn't been corrected. The article is totally pathetic, and its not just about the grammar. The whole article is largely based on unverified information. MikeLynch (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edited misinformation about Jahanara burning to death

Someone put in wrong information about Jahanara burning to death in 1644. She was burned but she didn't die until 1681. I made this info coincide with the correct information as seen on her individual page. I also linked that reference to her to her page. Beautiful1749 (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahom Kingdom in Assam

The "Ahom Kingdom in Assam" section of the article looks like it was copied and pasted from somewhere else, most notably because of the inline citation "[#]" bits that aren't actually footnotes. howcheng {chat} 20:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Aurangzeb-history.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Aurangzeb-history.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:India AurangzebPainting.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:India AurangzebPainting.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Shivajiraje.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shivajiraje.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

• If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
• If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
• If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)|}

Authenticity

"Aurangzeb cherished the ambition of converting India into a land of Islam. For this, he encouraged forced religious conversions and destroyed thousands of Hindu temples during his reign."

(the following is an unconfirmed statement made in a particular news report by a particular reporter and expresses individual views and therefore not the views of any organization)

This statement is evidence enough to the bigotry, vandalism and unconfirmed bias among some individuals that edit this particular article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 November 2011

Are you saying that the BBC is not a reliable source? The article is now at [1] and says:

Aurangzeb was a very observant and religious Muslim who ended the policy of religious tolerance followed by earlier emperors.

He no longer allowed the Hindu community to live under their own laws and customs, but imposed Sharia law (Islamic law) over the whole empire.

Thousands of Hindu temples and shrines were torn down and a punitive tax on Hindu subjects was re-imposed.

You've removed sourced text without any explanation. Would it help if we used Klaus Klostermaier's "A Survey of India" where he says, commenting on what he calls " Aurangzeb's fanatical Islamic restoration." "Aurangzeh ordered Hindu temples to be razed—as well as those that his predecessors had allowed to be rebuilt—images to be destroyed, and Hindu schools to be closed. Muslim orthodoxy in all its fierceness established itself again—only to suffer its fatal defeat with the death of Aurangzeb in 1707"? Are you arguing that he didn't oppress the Hindus? Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody was denying that Aurangzeb had demolished Hindu temples.However, we should not just paint a broad brush and attribute these to his Islam fanaticism. Orissa Mr. B.N.Pandey have uncovered many Farmans of Aurangzeb from the great temples of Mahakaleshwara, Ujjain, balaji temple, chitrakut, Umanand temple, Gauhati and the Jain temple of Shatrunjai and other temples and gurudwaras scattered over Northern India which Aurangzeb recognized the sovereignty and protection of these temple. How come Aurangzeb act of demolishing temples was attributed to his Islamic devotion,whereas Shivaji's army's act of destroying and deliberate slaughtering of civillians was never link to his Hinduism roots?

The fact that most modern Indian historians rarely mentioned about India is that the act of demolishing temples and closing Hindu schools is a custom for every Indian kings when the ascend the throne.Historian R. M. Eaton has described this as a rule of the war. He writes, ‘Hindu rulers to effectively legitimize their rule over the conquered territory resorted to temple destruction of the vanquished raja. The temples were normally looted, the presiding deity of the dynasty as every Hindu rulers had his own presiding deity’.

This is the also the main reason there exist so many contradictory reports regarding Aurangzeb's religious tolerance. Aurangzeb, following the custom of every Indian rulers (dated way back before the Islamic conquest of India), destroyed and demolished temples that housed a ruling dynasty’s state deity(or a temple atrributed to a strong political opposition) or rashtra-devata. This was to strip the rajah (or any future political opponents) of the divine legitimacy. Temples that were not so identified were left untouched. This is why you have historical reports that on one hand, he demolished Hindu Temples while, on the other hand, he ordered a "Firman" or decree to protect many other Hindu temples.

The act of demolishing Hindu temples by Aurangzeb cannot be solely attributed to his "Muslim Orthodoxy" or Hindu Oppression. If that's the case, then the Hindu's have been oppressed for thousands of years mostly by Hindu rulers because every Hindu temples that was related to any divine authority was constantly demolished by a newly established dynasty. In short, the temples were the sites where royal authority was challenged even before the arrival of Muslims in India. This also generally happened with early Muslim rulers. But this practice declined after Muslims began to wrest territories and rule from the territories held by their preceding Muslim rulers. Some of the pre-Islamic practices of demolishing temples by Hindu kings includes:

• 642 AD: Pallava king Narasimhavarman I looted the image of Ganesha from the Chalukyan capital of Vatapi (present day Badami in Belgaum dist.)

• 692 AD: Chalukyas invaded North India and brought back to the Deccan what would appear to be images of Ganga and Yamuna looted from defeated powers.

• 8th century AD: Bengali troops sought revenge on King Lalithaditya’s kingdom in Kashmir by destroying what they thought was an image of Vaikunta the state deity of Kashmir kingdom.

• 9th century AD: Rashtrakuta king Govinda III invaded and occupied Kanchipuram which so intimidated the King of Sri Lanka that he sent Govinda (probably Buddhist) images representing the Sinhala state.

• Rashtrakuta king Indira III not only destroyed the temple of Kalapriya at Kalpa near the Jamuna river, patronized by their deadly enemies, the Pratiharas, but they took special delight in recording the fact.

• 9th century AD: Pandyan King Srimara Srivallabha also invaded Sri Lanka and took back to his capital golden Buddha image.

• Early 10th century, Pratihara King, Hermabapala, seized solid gold image of Vishnu Vaikunta when he defeated the Sahi kings of Kangra (Himachal Pradesh)

• Early 11th century: Chola King, Rajendra I furnished his capital with images he seized from several prominent neighbouring kings: Durga and Ganesha images from the Chalukyas, Bhairava, Bhairavi and Kali images from the Kalingas or Orissa as Nandi image from the Eastern Chalukyans.

(Ref: David Gilmartin and Bruce B. Lawrence (ed.), Beyond Hindu and Turk, University Press of Florida, 2000.)

Are you also going to argue that these Hindu kings didn't oppress Hindu's (and Buddhist)?

In addition,Mosques were also not spared

It was not merely temples but even mosques were not spared if the Muslim emperors suspected their edifices being used for purposes other than worship. Aurangzeb ordered the demolition of Jama Masjid of Golconda after sacking the Qutb Shahi kingdom in 1687 to get access to treasure that lay beneath the mosque floor.

It will be less than fair to attribute desecration or defiling of religious places to bigotry and hatred. It owed much to the customs of the age whereby vanquished kings had to be divested of the religious halo and authority. Rulers, Hindu or Muslims, followed the practice regardless of their own religious beliefs.210.195.201.165 (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Attitudes towards Hindus, balanc and Richards

We probably need a section in here on his attitudes towards Hindus, and this needs to be balanced. Can I recommend that people look at [http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Mughals/Aurang2.html where John F Richards makes some interesting points. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio

'Depredations' struck me as an unusual word, and my suspicion that it was taken from elsewhere was confirmed with this link: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part2_15.html. The phrase 'They carried their depredations to Dacca' is verbatim from the source, and not recognized as such. Not sure how much else is copied. Recent edits have been quite loose with sourcing, so possibly significantly more. Dialectric (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I was concerned about this and will see what I can do about it. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I see a fact tag was added with this edit [[2]] to another statement which is copyvio from the same source. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I found more, including "The first attempt by the English to wage" etc, so I've templated the page and one of us (Admins) will deal with it when we can - I can't today). So for the moment, the page is blanked. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I decided the safest thing to do was to revert back quite a way, before edits by Mughal Lohar. That might have removed some good stuff, but it can always be replaced gradually. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

more odd phrasing in the recent addition, like "The leaderless troops of Bijapur". Checked it on google books and it comes from the book Mughal rule in India By Stephen Meredyth Edwardes, Herbert Leonard Offley Garrett. Minor word changes to obfuscate copyvio, but its there. I would use that copyvio checker tool if I knew the link to it, but in any case, several sentences are nearly identical:link (a short section of this text was also added uncited to the Adil Shahi dynasty article) Dialectric (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Story of the World - By S. Wise Bauer, Sarah Park, James

This may not be reliable source, see [3] - it's a book written for children. Susan Wise Bauer may be a reliable source for many things, but history? Surely we can find actual academic historians (modern ones please) to use. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be wary of considering a professionally published book automatically unreliable because it's directed at children, but in this specific case it would be wise to find better sources. This individual is far too notable and far too controversial for a Boys' First Reader type of book to be adequate sourcin, especially given the wealth of academic sources available for his reign. Children's books also have a tendency to sugar-coat history to make it palatable to sensitive minds, and Aurangzeb was far too real an autocrat for any censored portrayal to be factually accurate. --NellieBly (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Google Books snippet view and verification

In Aurangzeb, this edit diff by Mughal Lohar introduces a bare URL of a Google Books snippet view for the very broad search phrase "aurangzeb" in the book. There are 91 results and no page number is given.

This is used to support the sentence: "Shah Jahan fell ill in 1657, Aurangzeb's elder sister Raushanara Begum appropriated his seal to ensure that he would not involve himself in any possible war of succession."

I could not find anything like this in the snippets. A narrower search for the word "seal" does not appear to yield something that will support the above sentence (unless say, the word seal occurs again, further down the same page).

Page 50 and page 153 come the closest:

p50: "Her younger sister Raushanara fell out of favour with their brother Aurangzeb because whilst he was ill she took over the Great Seal and signed decrees in his name."

p153: "During the crisis sparked by Shah Jahan's illness, Raushanara apparently appropriated Aurangzeb's seal to ensure that his seal was on all decrees, to establish him as his father's legitimate successor."

What Mughal Lohar writes could well be correct, but it is not at all easy to verify. It could be that he's initially searched for (say) "aurangzeb", then carried out a different search, but not adjusted the reference's URL accordingly? Or I could be getting this wrong. Regards, eric. Esowteric+Talk 12:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

27 November 2011: I can't for the life of me see how this snippet view (ref 17, edit diff) by Mughal Lohar supports any of the following text from the article:

"The three generals were of equal rank and hence Shah Jahan and Inayat Khan[17], ensured unity and co-operation amongst them ...."

The referenced text is about such things as nuts, dried fruit and prostitutes, at least on my PC monitor (?!?) Esowteric+Talk 19:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Link rot. Esowteric+Talk 19:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice on snippets from Jayen466: I asked an experience editor, Jayen466 about the use of snippets, and this is what he said on his talk page:

"It's often possible to find a text match in a Google Books search which is shown as bold text in the Google Books search listing. However, if you click on the search hit and the book has snippet view only, the snippet shown will only be the nearest one available to the relevant passage that Google Books found. Sometimes you're lucky that your search string is in a displayable snippet, sometimes not. Generally, it doesn't make sense to link to a snippet display if the snippet doesn't show the relevant text. The book may well contain a relevant passage on that same page though. However, there is another thing that has to be said: if you haven't got the physical book, and you don't have a Google preview spanning several full pages in context, it is quite risky to add anything to a Wikipedia article just based on having seen a snippet, either in the Google Books search listing or in snippet view. Context may be all-important (the book may quote a discredited theory, or you may fail to realise that the whole passage is intended as humour, etc.). So it's not a way of working that should ever be used, except in the most straightforward cases (like finding a birth date in a reputable dictionary of biography with snippet view). These days, Amazon (linked to from Google Books) has Look Inside enabled for many books. Using both Google Books and Amazon in tandem is often worthwhile. --JN466 20:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)" Esowteric+Talk 09:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Images from greatestbattles.iblogger.org

iblogger.org is on the blacklist[4] so images from it should not be used. See also the whitelist discussion|[5]

Graeme374 (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone fix stray section above talk page headers?

Hi, there's a stray section in the talk page above the talk page headers. It begins: "The Sikh section of this article ...".

I tried to move it beneath the talk page headers, but the mediawiki program threw an exception and wouldn't let me. Can anyone fix this, please? Or is there a tag/category to use to flag the talk page as needing a fix? Thanks in advance, Esowteric+Talk 10:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Editing citations and other c/e

Started citation style as Sfn, need to rename the sections with proper encyclopedia style. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for this citation style? - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well! no objection means others agreement. Please let us know if you have any concerns with SFN citations. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You have to propose a change. The policy for this is that things assume the style that existed originally and that if someone wishes to change that then they should propose such. You cannot change something unilaterally, although I sometimes wish that I could! See, for example, Talk:Tom_Johnson_(bareknuckle_boxer). - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm also concerned that things like "Gascoine 1971:228–229" will be less easily verified than a cite with a URL. Where is the entry that tells us exactly what "Gascoine 1971:228–229" is? Regards, Esowteric+Talk 11:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well if active editors have any issue then we can follow some other style, my purpose to start SFN is to maintain a uniform standard citation style. Currently the article does not follow any proper citation style, As well SFN suits well to a historical biographies, plese see: Suleiman the Magnificent, Alexander the Great, William Shakespeare etc.. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have an issue. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable edits and Please let us know what is your issue in regards to above discussion ?? and what citation style you propose. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had this discussion time and again. It is pointless in so far as A prefers method X, B prefers Y and C prefers Z ... and none will budge. The arguments are the same every time. However, what we have here is a clear case of people using the {{cite}} template or no template at all. Therefore, since I doubt anyone disagrees with the idea that some template is preferable to none, {{cite}} is what it should be. BTW, your present conversions to {{sfn}} are throwing errors (a perennial issue with that particular mechanism, which can be handled by experienced editors but fails abysmally with those who are less so ... which seems to be the vast majority of those who have contributed to this particular article). - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is your plan be specific? Very first you asked for CONCENSUS, now above you are against CONCENSUS as A, B or C will have different opinion, you should know that when a CONCENSUS is created defenately there will be multiple opinions. Specify clearly what exactly is stopping you to follw SFN style or to have a concensus from active editors. I beleive for Historical biographies SFN style is best. And you are removing primary sources, dont do that, a secondry/third party source can be applied along with it, and do not forget to apply date with CN template for further actions. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Two people object to sfn so far, regardless of your own preference which has no logic at all (why historical biographies but not, say Madurai?) Regarding your other points, I suggest that you check out my edit history before teaching me to suck eggs. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm dubious about sfn, and agree with Sitush that it only suits experienced editors. The article was prevuiously a mix of "tl" cite templates or no templates (my own preference) and should certainly not be converted to a third style without consensus for the change. The default is to stay where we are and try to choose between the two existing styles (where I would accept either). Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As you said one need to be an expert to apply SFN style, thus I want to initiate to learn and apply this style of citation, and I will look out to work under the guidance from administrator, it is always better to do the best of all. Any way the current style contain lot of similar to sfn style of citation. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

the only style guideline in this regard is the output of whatever style we use should be consistent throughout the article. And even that is a requirement for featured article. So, any style, used consistently, would be acceptable.

From my experience, any article that uses a limited number of books as the main source is most suitable for sfn method. Howev, there are articles which does not use a limited number of books as source and uses sfn. A major problem in converting from other styles to sfn is it takes considerable amount of time to do so.

I would like to ask Omer whether he has any specific plan for the article. Do you plan to improve the article to ga level? Do you wish eventually to go for FA ? If so, and you have enough time and interest to do so, it might be ok to give the effort to turn the reference style to sfn. The end product of using sfn looks very clean and aesthetically pleasing. However, if you do not have any such long term plan, why waste time and effort to convert to sfn? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this and some other articles are in pipe-line to make an FA. The reason I am looking for SFN is it looks polished and clean style, and this biographical article can be completed using books and journals, and more over I realized that it had been recommended by most of the administrators while PR to apply sfn style where only books are used as citation, spl in historical and geo articles. So rather than correcting it to SFN later from now itself I want to keep in practicing it. In this way we shall clean the doubtful and unreliable citations also. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement for sfn at GA or FA. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sitush is absolutely correct, there is no requirement of sfn (or, any other style) for FAC. Only requirement is consistency of the output, that is consistency of how the references/sources appear when one reads the article. If there is a group of editors who regularly watch and edit this article, Omer should definitely ask their opinion before converting the reference style. If Omer wants to dedicate his time and effort to convert appropriately and consistently to sfn, I do not see any problem. In this way, the citations ( that are not consistent as of now) will automatically become consistent. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, if you are not familiar with sfn method, you might introduce lots of errors in formatting. So, before plunging in to doing such congestion ( if you do that at all), please get familiarized with the method. --Dwaipayan (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm only an infrequent visitor, so don't count my vote for or against. The Kincaid citations seem to rely on "^ Kincaid, Dennis (1937). The Grand Rebel. London:Collins Press. pp. 50,51." being placed above "^ Kincaid 1937:72–78" in citations, rather than being listed in full in references below. Gasgoine is not mentioned in full either in citations or references. This is a bit like using ibid (not a good idea) and is very easily broken. Esowteric+Talk 09:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

After completing this article to FA I dedicatedly want to work for Aurangzeb article.

Regarding SFN, it is not that i am blindly applying those sources, but I practised it and successfully worked for first 5 sources of this article to convert it into SFN, if sometime I get paused some where i will ask for help from experienced administrators/editors, as I did it previously. I agree with Sitush completely that it is not mandatory for an article to have SFN style to get qualified for FA, but when we are dedicating that much of time and energy it is good to do the best. Hope this will satisfy editors to move ahead for SFN. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That is unlikely, given the objections above. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio 2

I am 99% sure that Aurangzeb#Ahom_campaign is a copyright violation, possibly of Lal's book. Alas, I can only see snippet view and since the section is in fact unsourced it is well-nigh impossible for me to fix the thing. I propose to remove it pending a rewrite. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I've done some digging and the unsourced changes to sourced info occurred in this edit by Sagarkashish (talk · contribs), who came and went very quickly on Wikipedia earlier this year. I am about to restore the section to the version immediately prior to their edit, since that was at least sourced and the phrasing is rather more typical of what we see in Indic articles. Obviously, at some point, this too will need checking for copyvios/plagiarism. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Old sources

There should be no need to use old sources such as Sarkar (and some are much older than that) in this article. I am aware of Sarkar's reputation but nonetheless Aurangzeb has been well-documented by more recent historians: the historiography has moved on. As and when I can, I propose to replace such sources, except where they exist to verify a clear statement of opinion rather than fact. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as source is reliable and provides useful information, I think it should not be opposed. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If the same facts are available in more modern reliable sources then we prefer them. This is standard practice at WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I now note that Sarkar's translation begins in the 1650s with the war of succession. There is no indication that this is a multi-volume work and when the source has been used in the article it always lacks cited page numbers. I've skimmed the thing and cannot find where it supports our numerous statements regarding Aurangzeb's early life etc. Am I missing something here or does it amount to a fake reference? - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sarkar is going to go. It amounts to an English translation of Aurangzeb's ghost-written autobiography. Without critical commentary etc, it is a very unreliable primary source. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It could be considered as a primary source but not an unreliable. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is unreliable. Why do you think otherwise? Was it not Oscar Wilde who said that his greatest work of fiction was his autobiography? - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Religious belief

I've just removed some content here. Hopefully, the edit summary suffices as my explanation. I'll try to sort it out but if anyone can actually make sense of and provide sources for that which I removed then it might save me some hunting. I can't make my mind up if it is WP:OR, WP:FRINGE or just something that cannot easily be verified using Google etc. Obviously, I am aware that his religious beliefs are rather central to the story. - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Alamgir

I highly doubt that Auranzeb is commonly known as Alamgir, I understand that he was given the title of Alamgir but I don't think he was reffered to as Alamgir as mentioned in the Lead, also one of the pictures use the name Alamgir while others use Aurangzeb. The description of another picture is By 1690, Aurangzeb was acknowledged as: "emperor of India from Cape Comorin to Kabul. Acknowledged by whom? --sarvajna (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I had spotted this issue and am attempting a big clean-up. I also think that it probably needs to be removed from his bolded name, unless it is a title with official meaning that has been conferred upon others of note. As it stands, it is confusing.

A lot of the problems with this article seem to relate to when Mughal Lohar (talk · contribs) was editing/socking. hopefully, over the next three or four weeks we can at least remove the chaff etc. Somewhere above Omer123hussain speaks of a desire to take this to FA. It isn't even Good Article yet and will need work over three or more months to achieve that, even at my rate of reading and editing. FA is a long, long way off. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

FA will take some time with all those CN and PN tags around, on a closer look the article might have some POV issues as well. Please carry on with your clean-up efforts. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Images

I have reverted a large number of recent changes to the images shown in this article. I have no idea why the changes were made but what I do know is that there are already a fair number in the article and there is a Commons category. I also know that the article needs further textual improvement (I have been working on this for some time) and that surely must be of greater concern. It is likely that the length and structure of the article will change considerably over the next couple of months and this will impact upon our selection and placement of images, so I suggest that we leave them alone for now. - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2013

I would like to add a contrast of the size of the Mughal Economy under Aurangazeb to the Size of the english economy at the same time.

Per the following text - "The Economic History of Britain Since 1700" By Roderick Floud and Donald McCloskey. the English revenue was about 6 Million Pounds a year. 24.148.69.136 (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. It might also be helpful if you'd explain why you think such a comparsion would be helpful to readers. Rivertorch (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

182.237.18.54 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Aurangzeb getting Humble before Jeen Mata

182.237.18.54 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb wanted to raze to the ground the Mandir of JeenMata(in Sikar). Being invoked by Her priests, the JeenMata let out its army of bhairons (a specie of fly family) which brought the Emperor and his soldiers to their knees. He sought pardon and the Kind hearted Mataji excused him from Her anger. Aurangzeb donated akhand (Ever-glow) oil lamp from his Delhi palace. This lamp is still glowing in the sacred sanctorium of the Mata.(Source: http://www.jeenmata.com/history.htm )

Sikh cleric admits that Guru Gobind Singh's fight with Aurangzeb was political

The Sikhs were organizing a large gathering, which became to behave as an army, thus causing Aurangzeb to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.27.0 (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you want here but please note that reliable sources are generally academic ones, not clerical ones. --regentspark (comment) 12:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

References

"Maharaj"

Sikhs still refer to "Guru Gobind Singh" as Maharaja, this caused dispute with Aurangzeb who refereed to himself as the Emperor of Hindustan (India). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.27.0 (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

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)

I want to add a sentence with the references from another wikipedia article

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

literature section is an ad

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)

Lead is not sourced

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

2402:3A80:447:2795:D92:F488:32DD:7AD0 (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

References

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)

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)

Aurangzeb's name and title

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". 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. Also note that a subsequent emperor is called Alamgir II. Alivardi (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

@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. 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)

Appreciation in Pakistan

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

• @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.[6] You can't use this source for claims where we have no other source for verification. ML ⁹¹¹ 14:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2019

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)

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

Edit the page

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

"Born in Dahod" to "Born in Daho,Malwa"

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2019

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)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2019

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)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2019

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

 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)

why marathas are under sub head rebellion

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Clarification on what his name is?

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)

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

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2020

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)

 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)

Religious policy in intro WP:DUE doubts

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)

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)

Proposed change in Legacy section

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)

Will Durant

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 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)

References

• 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)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

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)

 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)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

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)

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)

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

Monetary values are extremely off in Intro

--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.

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

$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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

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

 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)

--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 )

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sources

Many sources have been selectively quoted out-of-conext.

• ...Muhammad Iqbal, considered the spiritual founder of Pakistan, compared him favorably to the prophet Abraham for his warfare against Akbar's Din-i Ilahi and idolatry,[203] while Iqbal Singh Sevea, in his book on the political philosophy of the thinker, says that "Iqbal considered that the life and activities of Aurangzeb constituted the starting point of Muslim nationality in India."[204]...

• Let's see what the sources state::-
• [204: Sisir Kumar Das, History of Indian Literature: 1911-1956, struggle for freedom : triumph and tragedy, Sahitya Akademi (2005), p. 368]

...Iqbal rejects Akbar's Din-Ilahi and admires Aurangzeb, 'an Abraham in India's idol house'...

Political forces or persons who strengthened collective Muslim Khudi became heroes for him because they strengthened the Muslim's ability to survive in their 'ecological struggle'. Hence [we have failed to provide this crucial context] he rejects Akbar and appreciates Aurangzeb...

Although Aurangzeb was extolled for his simplicity, virtuous character, courage in war and efficiency in administration the authors mentioned his 'narrow vision, mistreatment of Rajputs and Sikhs and his suspicious nature' [this is important, as well]...

• [205: Iqbal Singh Sevea, The Political Philosophy of Muhammad Iqbal: Islam and Nationalism in Late Colonial India, Cambridge University Press (2012), p. 168]

...Apart from Akbar’s apparent dereliction of the sharia , Iqbal also felt that the emperor had tried to shape a new territorially demarcated and ‘emperor-centric’ national consciousness with his Din-i-Ilahi – a socioreligious system propounded by Akbar with himself at the centre – at the expense of the diverse national groupings. Akbar had thus been striving for the same aim as the proponents of nationalism: the negation of the diversity of national groupings within the territorial state. Through his re-establishment of the authority of the sharia and the place of Islam in the polity, Aurangzeb more correctly represented the Muslim character. In fact, Iqbal considered that the life and activities of Aurangzeb constituted the starting point of Muslim nationality in India.

His views on Aurangzeb should be situated in the context [we have done way with context despite author's explicit warning] of growing calls from modern Muslim intellectuals like Shibli for a re-evaluation of the historical role of the emperor. They argued that Aurangzeb had been misrepresented as a religious bigot by western scholars who had failed to understand the nature of social and political forces of the period. This vilification of the figure of Aurangzeb was also linked by some to the wider misrepresentation of Muslims as religious extremists and fanatics in western historiography...

• I do not ask for deletion of the passage (Aurangzeb's effects on Iqbal's thought-school is indeed vital) but the context needs to be added, in some manner.

TrangaBellam (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? The text as it is now doesn't seem like an inaccurate representation to me. For the first quote, I'm not sure there's a succinct way of adding in the element of Khudi without defining that term, which is both difficult and beyond the scope of this article. The criticisms of Aurangzeb in that quote are important, of course, but there's already similar criticisms of Aurangzeb in this Legacy section so it seems unnecessary when Iqbal's assessment was primarily positive. For the second quote, I think there's room for significant improvement of the section along these lines, but it would require some rearrangement and probably removing the "Pakistan" sub-heading. Maybe something along the lines of: "During British rule Aurangzeb was represented as a religious zealot. Muslim intellectuals in the early 20th century aimed to rehabilitate his image." And segue from there into Iqbal. Would that address your concerns?--Shmarrighan (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Alamgir

Alamgir was his regnal name, not a title. आज़ादी (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

who ruled over almost the nothern part of Indian subcontinent for a period of 49 years 106.193.251.84 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2021 (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. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 04:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2021

Birth date of Aurangzeb is written 4 November on the main template of biography but 3 November in the rest of the article. Strike938 (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a minor correction Strike938 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done , thank you for noticing the discrepancy.  A S U K I T E  21:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Why does all reference to his opium use get deleted?

https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1627&context=etd

Page 33 states clearly: "Humayun's half-sister Gulbadan wrote her memoir at the behest of her nephew Akbar, and does mention Humayun's opium use on three occasions, though says nothing about him in relation to alcohol."

We have SO many references to him using Opium fairly regularly. For every personality I see on here that is know to have used drugs like cocaine, heroin, opium, etc... they mention it on their wikipedia page. Since his Opium use is expected to have played a roll in his fall down the stairs that caused his death, I think it should be included for certain. Even if it didn't contribute to that, he was a regular user of it, and every other regular user is noted to have used it on their wikis. Even suspected users have it noted, so why not Mughal Emperors? We don't live in the Mughal Empire.

Why do you suspect Aurangzeb to be Humayun? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Mythology?

The lead had this passage:

Unlike his predecessors, including his father Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb considered the royal treasury to be held in trust for the citizens of his empire. He did not enjoy a luxurious life and his personal expenses and constructions of small mosques were covered by his own earnings, which included the sewing of caps and trade of his written copies of the Quran.

References

This mythology seems to have been generated in the 1936 source (or perhaps even earlier). Audrey Truschke says merely:

In his later years he sewed prayer caps and copied the Quran by hand, both pious pursuits.

The notion that the emperor of Hindustan earned a living by sewing caps is utterly ridiculous. I think we should revise it as per Truschke. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

23% of the world population is aurangzeb's subjects József Böröcz (2009-09-10). The European Union and Global Social Change. Routledge. p. 21. ISBN 9781135255800. Retrieved 17 May 2020. Talsh Empire (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Caps

Dasgupta:

Aurangzeb was a good letter writer.50 From his last will one finds that he used to transcribe copies of the Quran [Koran] and sell them for his personal expense.51

Not actually a support for the statement

He did not enjoy a luxurious life and his personal expenses and constructions of small mosques were covered by his own earnings, which included the sewing of caps and trade of his written copies of the Quran.[21][22]

Qadir is a Raj-era source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Truschke, is a questionable and controversial source

It seems that some think that "Truschke locuta est, causa finita est." Truschke has spoken the case is closed.

However, she is highly controversial and suspected by many for her revisionist history and white washing of Aurangazeb's atrocities.

See for example this recent (March 2021) critique in the Hindu (a leftist paper)

https://www.thehindu.com/society/history-and-culture/the-curious-case-of-controversial-historian-audrey-truschke/article34050315.ece

Wherein the author writes:

About Aurangzeb, Truschke’s main thesis can be boiled down to this passage from her book, an argument she repeats often: “It is not difficult to identify specific actions taken by Aurangzeb that fail to meet modern democratic, egalitarian, and human rights standards. Aurangzeb ruled in a pre-modern world of kingdoms and empires, and his ideas about violence, state authority, and everything else were conditioned by the time.

It is this very premise, however, that is flawed (or falsified) as Girish Shahane pointed out in a critique published in Scroll: “The problem with the actions specified above is not just that they seem abhorrent to modern individuals, but that they undercut the liberal policies of previous Mughal rulers, something Truschke herself admits. Bringing up modern morality is a red herring, because the namazi, as his eldest brother Dara Shikoh contemptuously called him, was a bigot not just by our standards but by those of his predecessors and peers.”

And if you look you will find a whole lot more like these.

https://en.dharmapedia.net/wiki/Audrey_Truschke

and

https://pjmedia.com/culture/robert-spencer/2021/03/11/rutgers-prof-whitewashes-genocide-of-hindus-rutgers-calls-it-academic-freedom-n1431768

and https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Truschke%2C+Audrey+criticism&t=newext&atb=v274-1&ia=web

So to place her as an arbiter on this topic is dubious and raises doubts about who is behind this article and their motives. Perhaps some think that because the "Right hate her" she must be good. If that is your criteria then what more can be said?24.139.24.163 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll tell you a little dirty secret: there's an international complot behind this, working to sow doubt on the beliefs of the Indian people. Ultimately, we intend to replace traditional Hinduism and Indian patriotism with a belief called "science," which throws every valuable faith into question by asking 'Did this really happen the way we believe this happened, and how can we know?' But don't tell it any further; people get easily when being questioned about their worldview. Meanwhile, Wikipedia asks for WP:RS, not opinion pieces by film producers and pages from Dharmapedia. Unfortunately, that's a nuance that often gets lost on people with solid convictions. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@24.139.24.163-I agree, very much agree. You have spoken my words. How can one even consider Audrey's work (and that too in wiki) as their main source. I mean the one who whitewashes Aurangzeb and not only that, she constantly gives her biased statements against Shivaji. Just look at her past 20-30 tweets. She claims Goddess Sita is said to have (“loosely translated”), called Lord Ram a “Misogynist Pig” which was debunked by the translator himself. It took me 0 minute to realize that she is a staunch anti-Hindu and anti-Indian and of course Hindu phobia propagator in the guise of Historian. N1234567 (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

You agree with whom? 24.139.24.163 or Joshua Jonathan or both?

Our article on Bhonsle does an excellent job at chronicling the origin and caste of Bhonsles with extensive footnotes: I suggest that you read it. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam I think you shall clearly understand by the comment, my friend😊. Cheers!!N1234567 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

In wikipedia, pings work without prefixing @. Your personal opinion of Truschke's scholarship and motivations is irrelevant; until you have equally reliable (and recent) sources that contradict her views, no content will be changed. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Equally reliable (and recent) sources of which topic?N1234567 (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That query does not make any sense to me. The linked page enlists types of sources which are appropriate for writing an article on a historical topic in an order of preference. If you wish to challenge content cited to Truschke, you need to bring appropriate sources in your support. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok I get it. Let me clear it. Don't think I'll change the, even if I know it's biased. But isn't she a biased writer? Well, I'm not talking about artificial contradictions..just the language of his choice that reflects her views. Anyway, I have not hand to hand sources of what you're saying to provide me of..May be I could get it after some time. I hope I could do this.N1234567 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not see her as biased (the reason I pointed you to our page on Bhonsle); even if I have, I am not a reliable source and my editorial opinions are immaterial.TrangaBellam (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I respect your opinion. However, I strongly disagree by your opinion in this regard as I stated some of the reasons like Saying Lord Ram a “Misogynist Pig”, tweeting so much disgusting about Hindu-nationalists etc.. No hard feeling. Just Peace out!! N1234567 (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2022

Hello, on the page it shows that 'jizya' is a military tax. ?? Anyone with a basic education knows that it is anything but a "military tax". Please edit this. Thank you Joelo244 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Joelo244 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joelo244: See Jizya#Rationale. It's properly sourced as several things, one of which is a military tax. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding info

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Meta_Religion/-x3fBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA152&printsec=frontcover This source here from the University of California states that "Aurangzeb encouraged high ranking Hindus to convert to Islam". Please add this to the page

 Not done. Please clarify exactly where this information should be placed on the page. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Under the rebellion section: "In 1679, the Rathore clan under the command of Durgadas Rathore rebelled when Aurangzeb didn't give permission to make the young Rathore prince the king and took direct command of Jodhpur. This incident caused great unrest among the Hindu Rajput rulers under Aurangzeb and led to many rebellions in Rajputana."

 Done Please add at the end of the para--- "leading to the loss of Mughal power in the region and religious bitterness over the destruction of temples" as per the UofC source above in pg 153 and the source already listed on the page-https://books.google.com/books?id=yoI8AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y from Cambridge University corroborates this and mentions that Aurangzeb imposed a contingency that the young orphan of the previous chieftain, Ajit Singh, were to convert to Islam in order to become ruler. In pg 247 of The Cambridge History of India, Volume 5 --"According to one contemporary account, the throne of Jodhpur was offered to Ajit on condition of his turning Muslim, and this we can believe from the authentic record of a similar offer made to the captive Shahu in 1703". In page 248 it states " The whole country was soon occupied by the imperialists (referring to Aurangzeb's army sent to annex the region of Mewar), anarchy and slaughter were let loose upon the doomed state; all great towns in the village were pillaged; the temples were thrown down".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumsshire (talk • contribs)

South Asia in World History, publisher Oxford University, author Marc Jason Gilbert, professor of history at University of Hawaii.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/South_Asia_in_World_History/1dhKDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT96&printsec=frontcover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumsshire (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

edit request

Under arts and culture: architecture, I would like to add information about the mosque built in Srinigrar, with the name and link to Jamia Masjid, built by the subject, and citations indicating it is indeed the largest mosque in Kashmir, ISBN 9781615302024, page 138 is one source,

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/kashmir-jamia-masjid-srinagar-modi-b1977169.html, is another source.

HoopsLoops (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Please specify EXACTLY, and word-for-word, what you want the article to say. Le Marteau (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Neither the book mentioned nor the Independent article has any mention of Aurangzeb. Not verified. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2022

Tushir 25 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Pls change the map photo.

 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. Cannolis (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

I have found a few mistakes in this article(dates, names, etc)and I would love to fix them I will be using my history book, his biography and a few trusted websites. I hope you allow me to make the changes, Thank you. 2400:ADC1:455:C100:6841:C2E6:B30E:467B (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You'll need to specify what needs changed and which sources support the changes. Once other editors verify the changes, then other editors will make the changes. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 23 March 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked for vandalism. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If anyone anywhere in the world gives a reference in a book to change any item in Wikipedia is it not incumbent upon Wikipedia to check its authenticity and verify the source through the bibliography as anyone can write any trash about any esp in the last few decades… it should also check the character of the person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.73.26.67 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

Add the article “a” in front of “period” in third paragraph, second sentence, to read, “His reign is characterized by a period of rapid military expansion…” Otatoptoh (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Recoil (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Aurangzeb

Explain 2402:3A80:118B:85:7B41:5E7A:D080:F1C3 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

So I can add more informative informations, specifically about the 'ahom campaign' section. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 10:22, 15 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. MadGuy7023 (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

please add painter and remove non latin script

1. please make 2 changes to the article in the lead painting change Aurangzeb holding a hawk in c. 1660 to Aurangzeb holding a hawk by Bichitr c. 1660 since we should include the artist.
2. As per WP:INDICSCRIPT non latin scripts are prohibited in the lead section or infobox of India-related articles. Persian is an example of a non latin script. so remove persian script and replace it with an IPA pronunciation. 2600:8806:403:5100:7118:137C:9B68:B3DA (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2022

In his Biography it is mentioned that he studied Hindi literature although Urdu literature was for the elite class (known as Zuban-e-Urdu-e-Mualla). Thus, it should be referred to as Urdu literature rather than Hindi literature for more further clarity and accuracy. Furthermore, it should be noted that Urdu was considered language of the ruling classes, and it was later given official status during the 1600s. This is a reference to the BBC website link that mentions so:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/mughalempire_1.shtml The Story of Marjaan (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Source has no relation to the article. Lemonaka (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2022

Anhad Singh Bawa (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The history and the image depicted of the Mugal Emperor is completely wrong, In this article Aurengzeb is regarded as a hero but it couldnt be further from the truth, Aurengzeb was a bloodthirsty Monster who wanted to convert everyone to muslim, As a sikh I would like this page to be taken down. U are very much welcome to crosscheck this.

 Not done: like him or not, the subject of this article is clearly notable and deserving of an article. Furthermore, as currently written it seems to do a good job following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and does mention opposition from several groups including Sikhs. Highway 89 (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite this article

Totally biased and wrong article about Aurangzeb. "Massir i alamgiri" is the only authentic book written by saqi mustad khan written during aurangzeb's regime on Aurangzeb biography but u didn't use this book.U have used books as reference by those who have written books with own thoughts and theories.You used book as reference of a hinduphobic so called fake historian "Audrey Truschke" who called Lord Rama a "misogynist pig".Only webpage you need to check to know truth about Aurangzeb is given below.It contains Aurangzeb's court chronicles.His own thoughts and deeds as recorded in front of him by his court writers were given as proof.Contents clearly say how Aurangzeb used to feel happy about destroying Hindu temples and Hindu idols.How he felt happy after killing kafirs (including civilians) that he is doing God's work.Without considering his own court writings, whatever you or Audrey T blabber, is of no use.

http://www.aurangzeb.info/?m=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanta Chakraborty (talk • contribs) 21:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read the article on reliable sources (also, perhaps, WP:PRIMARY).--RegentsPark (comment) 21:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite the article

http://www.aurangzeb.info/?m=1 Pls Read this court orders of aurangzeb and rewrite this article Prashanta Chakraborty (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Distorted history

Hello, don't try to whitewashing the actual history http://www.aurangzeb.info/?m=1 Pls Read this court orders of aurangzeb and rewrite this article Prashanta Chakraborty (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Siege of Fort St. George, India

Siege of Fort St. George, India, would not be possible without the acquisition of the strategic "Cape Comorin". 09:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.51 (talk)\09:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)09:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)~\

Annexed

Aurangzeb annexed several petty kingdoms his name unifying India, Pakistan and Bangladesh etc.

His reign indicates the joint strength of the Mogul Empire. 43.242.178.214 (talk)//////////13:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)13:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)13:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)~

Want to add a nickname of Aurangzeb

want to add a nickname becouse he is the only Mughal emperor who conqueror India's largest Indian territory.. the name was Malik-ul-Hind Aurangzeb Thanks ReallHistory (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Introductory passage would be better off after this concluding statement.

After the statement that his reign expanded the Mughal Empire to its greatest extent in the first passage, it would be more insightful to include the statement that his reign also ultimately weakened the empire and drained its wealth, causing the downfall that was to be seen in the next few decades. This would then aptly summarise his legacy on Mughal empire in brief introductory passage. Ignitor35 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Update to heading 'Governor of Gujarat'

I want to add the following to the Governor of Gujarat heading for this article:

In 1645, Shah Jahan appointed his third son Aurangzeb as subahdar (governor) of Gujarat. Prince Aurangzeb ordered to convert Chintamani-Parshvanath temple into a mosque which was given the name of Quwwat-ul-Islam or might of Islam. However, it was subsequently restored to the Jains under the orders of Emperor Shah Jahan. Shantidas succeeded in saving the principal image of God and he built another temple for it in the city. Shantidas Zaveri (1585-1659) was a famous jeweler and sarraf of Ahmedabad, who flourished during the reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan, he sold and designed jewelry to cater to the needs of the Mughal court and other rich people of the state. It is observed that he breathed the business environment of Ahmedabad.

Citations:

A Temple of Good Fortune: Chintamani, Sharma, Dr Monika, IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, Volume 21, Issue 2, Ver. VIII (Feb. 2016) PP 07-10

Mirat-i-Ahmdi, p. 194, A History of Gujarat, II, p. 141.

Ahmedabad District Gazetteer, p. 285. Pbeditwiki (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

why there is a link of subah behind the text aurangabad in the death place (in infobox) KuldeepBurjBhalaike ^(Talk|Cont) 12:05, 2 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. Lightoil (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kuldeepburjbhalaike and Lightoil!

I think the intended meaning is this: He died in Ahmednagar, which was at the time part of the Aurangabad subah (province). Nowadays, the city of Ahmednagar belongs to the district of the same name, and Aurangabad is it's own district [Aurangabad district, Maharashtra]. The area of the historical Aurangabad subah includes both today's Ahmednagar and Aurangabad's districts. So it would be inaccurate to say that he died in "Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar district", because at the time, the Ahmednagar district did not exist.

I'm not sure how to improve the article text to effectively communicate this nuance, though. I'm also just interpreting the existing text and assuming it's accurate, I don't know much at all about the Mughal Empire's provinces. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

i think it can be written as 'aurangabad subah (now aurangabad)'. KuldeepBurjBhalaike ^(Talk|Cont) 12:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

But Ahmednagar (the city) is no longer part of Aurangabad (the modern district), so it would be:

"Died: XYZ in Ahmednagar, Aurangabad subah (now Ahmednagar district)"

Alternatively, we could just write:

"Died: XYZ in Ahmednagar, Aurangabad subah" with an explanatory footnote that reads "Not to be confused with the modern Aurangabad District. The city of Ahmednagar is now in the modern Ahmednagar District."

I think using an Efn here really helps the readability for a general audience. Let me know what you think! Actualcpscm (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2023

Aurangzeb died due an injury by poison dagger when the Marathas the Mughal at night in his camp stabbed 103.232.239.235 (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Aurangzeb died an inglorious befitting his treacherous attitude towards Non-Islamists when the Marathas stabbed him with a poisonous dagger in his camp. He suffered immense pain and died on 3rd March 1707 103.232.239.235 (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2023

The indian movie Aurangzeb doesn't reflect the story of The Greatest Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb Aalamgir. Please verify it at your end and do the necessary. 212.70.117.110 (talk) 05:41, 14 June 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. No idea what you are requesting, though perhaps you meant to be requesting it at Talk:Aurangzeb (film) Cannolis (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Guru Tegh Bahadur

I think its important to mention the execution of Sikh guru, Guru Teg Bahadur, as Several Reliable sources mention that Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed on the orders of Aurangzeb as below

1. The Routledge handbook of religion and security
   — Seiple, Chris (2013). The Routledge handbook of religion and security. New York: Routledge. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-415-66744-9.

2. 
   — Pashaura Singh; Louis E. Fenech (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies. Oxford University Press. pp. 236–238. ISBN 978-0-19-969930-8. Archived from the original on 4 May 2019. Retrieved 12 June 2017.

3. 
   — Fenech, Louis E. (2001). "Martyrdom and the Execution of Guru Arjan in Early Sikh Sources". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 121 (1). American Oriental Society: 20–31. doi:10.2307/606726. JSTOR 606726.

4. 
   — Fenech, Louis E. (1997). "Martyrdom and the Sikh Tradition". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 117 (4). American Oriental Society: 623–642. doi:10.2307/606445. JSTOR 606445.

5. 
   — McLeod, Hew (1999). "Sikhs and Muslims in the Punjab". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 22 (sup001). Taylor & Francis: 155–165. doi:10.1080/00856408708723379. ISSN 0085-6401.

   RogerYg (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

I want to restore previous sourced edit & revert good faith edit for the better condition of this page Aryan330 (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done It is unclear what changes you wish to see in the article. Please be specific when making an edit request. RegentsPark (comment) 09:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark I want to revert a edit by a user who said "Aurangzeb is considered as one of the greatest rulers In Indian history" by removing the statement"he was considered as one of the greatest muslims kings"which had no base neither no evidence provided by editer..

The Statement "one of the greatest rulers In Indian history" requires praising of many renowned historians & he should have done great thing which were unmatchable in past!

Putting one of the greatest to anyone is simply distortion.

& I also want to correct some words which were removed like "brutality" which is common in historical figures & we simply can't remove it . that's it Aryan330 (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aryan330: I see that the text was added by a sock in this diff. Restoring the para that was changed by that sock. If you want to add anything else, you'll need to seek consensus. RegentsPark (comment) 13:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark see this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1163294910

The term "Brutally" was very common in medival history when the opponent was executed with extreme torture,this word I commonly used!

Almost all historian used this term for that incident that word should not be removed as done by a user recently. Aryan330 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It is also mentioned that he found guilty!

There was no record,none of the renowned historian mentioned about that he was found guilty & he had done murder or voilance.I think we should follow jadunath sarkar's work for this as he invested more about the reign of Aurangzeb & according to him only after when Sambhaji refused to surrender his kingdom he was executed brutality.there was no other reason to it. Aryan330 (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

We typically don't use words such as "Brutally" on Wikipedia as it violates WP:NPOV.

Also I believe you are referring to the statement

"In 1689, the second Maratha Chhatrapati (King) Sambhaji was executed by Aurangzeb. In a sham trial, he was found guilty of murder and violence, atrocities against the Muslims of Burhanpur and Bahadurpur in Berar by Marathas under his command."

I see nothing wrong with this statement. It states the exact reason why the Mughals executed Sambhaji. SKAG123 (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 I don't want your view for this as you said "I don't see anything wrong in this statement" I just want that what Histrorians said about this!

None of the,I repeat none of the renowned historian mentioned that this was the reason for his execution including Jadunath Sarkar whome we consider most authentic when it comes to history of Aurangzeb.

& Another how anyone found to be guilty as there was no court system in those days!

Read the history first,don't make fire in sky Aryan330 (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The Execution of Sambhaji has been debated by Historians as Mughal and Maratha accounts offer vastly different explanations. However this particular statements does NOT talk about the exact reason why Shambhaji was executed. talks about the reason or justification the Mughals gave as to why they did it (This may or may not be correct) . The Mughals saw Shambaji as guilty of "murder and violence, atrocities against the Muslims of Burhanpur and Bahadurpur." This does not necessarily mean it is true, However this is the reasoning given by Mughal Sources as per the multiple sources cited in the section.

Although, modern court systems did not exist back then, Individuals could still be found guilty by the King or other officials, epically war prisoners. SKAG123 (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 still you are not getting my point.

jadunath sarkar's work is entirely Based on persion sources for whome Mughal sources were primary.

I don't know to which source you are referring as "Mughal source"? As if anything is present in Mughal sources it's impossible that Jadunath Sarkar doesn't mentioned it!

& I am saying again "none of the renowned historian mentioned about this incidents"..even the source which marked on that statement only stated that Sambhaji's forces committed atrocities in Burhanpur which itself controversial as multiple historians have multiple views regarding this! But even that source doesn't mentioned that this was the reason thats why Sambhaji executed!you can see on that respective page.

Conclusion:- The Atrocities were committed or not at Burhanpur is debatable & controversial & with different views,

But the statement " he found guilty for that & that was the reason he was executed is not mentioned in any source let it be Mughal or Maratha!"

The reason was common from both sides:- "He was executed because he didn't Surrendered his Kingdom"

You can see this reason present in 1. Jadunath Sarkar(mughal point of view)

2. sardesai(mughal point of view)

3. Kamal gokhle(Maratha point of view)

& Many other sources also said same!

So if the reason is clear & supported by many renowned historians & had base of both Mughal & Maratha point of view then it should be placed on there!

It's better if you yourself edit this.

Thank you Aryan330 (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Please state the exact statement from Jadunath Sarkar's work or any other reliable source that directly contradicts the statement presented in the cited sources. SKAG123 (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 From Jadunath Sarkar's "House of Shivaji" which he taken from mughal court historian Khafi khan :- "That proud man,from his high spirit,gave up taking any food from that day onwards.his guard urgued him in vain,and he fasted for some days,at last that case was reported to Emperor,by his order shambha was taken taken to the place of execution.

(There is no mention of any Burhanpur Story)

Sardesai also said same

Both of them said that he was asked to surrender his forts.. Aryan330 (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Maratha Accounts are not mentioned in this article as it is about Aurangzeb not about the Maratha Empire or Sambhaji, therefore Maratha accounts are not necessary. SKAG123 (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 so In that way,we have to remove mughal sources from Sambhaji's & other Maratha rulers page.right? Aryan330 (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That does not mention a reasoning why the execution was held

It only talks about Sambhaji’s fasting

There are two cited sources that support the statement written in the article. You need a reliable source that DIRECTLY contradicts the them in order to make any changes

The execution was ordered by Aurangzeb therefore his reasoning for it is mentioned. Others are not necessary here. We have a page dedicated to Sambhaji that talks about it in detail. SKAG123 (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 I don't know how you are thinking?

I mean that the statement "he was found guilty for his atrocities at Burhanpur & that's why he was executed" is not present in any comtampory source,simple!

due to his fasting and because he refused to surrender his kingdom, Aurangzeb ordered to execute him..

That statement clearly saying that when he started fasting

& This was said by khafi khan,now if Khafi Khan is not considered as Mughal point of view & atleast his views are not recommended here then there is no point to discuss it.

Even after getting the point you are repeating those sentences which have no mean!

Which 2 sources said that?

The source which marked there itself doesn't clearly mentioned it by saying that was the exact reason.

I suppose you have a good faith & there is no point to discussion Aryan330 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Jadunath Sarkar mentions that Khafi Khan states Sambhaji's fasting. It does not state the specific reason behind his execution. You can not assume a reason for execution unless Sarkar directly states one as that would be original research, which is not allowed.

Both sources cited DIRECTLY mention a reason why the Mughals Executed Sambhaji.

The sources cited:

"These tasks accomplished, Aurangzeb sent an army to find and punish Shambuji for his depredations in Khandesh. The Maratha king was discovered and captured in 1688 and brought to Aurangzeb for punishment, which was to be hacked to death and fed to dogs. "

Source: A History of India by Burton Stein (2002)

"A panel of ulema sentenced him [Sambhaji] to death for having slain and captured good Muslims."

Source: The Mughal Empire, Part 1, Volume 5 by John F. Richards (1996)

As I have said, you need to provide reliable sources that contradict these statements and explain why in order to make any changes. SKAG123 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 Those both are one sided sources without any comtampory source,it can be fictional!

See first source which says Sambhaji was captured in 1688,I can show you more than 10 sources which says Sambhaji was captured in 1689.

John f Richards taken from where that ulema sentenced him death?

If he was must punished then why had Aurangzeb said that he will be released after surrender of his forts?

These nonsense information that he committed atrocities in Burhanpur that's why he was punished is pure masala which added later.

Because we can take khafi khans work as comtampory here because he was present at that time!

& Khafi Khan doesn't mentioned that why he was executed then why we are putting there a reason (false) instead leave it by only putting he was executed by emperor!

Simple Aryan330 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we use Reliable Secondary sources.

We usually do not use use primary sources alone as they are often misinterpreted

all primary sources must be interpreted by a reliable secondary source.

This means anything added into the article must be directly stated in the secondary source.

original research or interpreting the source yourself is not allowed on Wikipedia, as this often leads to users misinterpreting a source.

please read WP:RS specifically WP:PRIMARY and WP:HISTRS

also read WP:NOR and become more familiar with Wikipedia’s guidelines. SKAG123 (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 What are you saying?

I know what are called as primary sources & what are the secondary!

I didn't even said that we have to use direct work of khafi Khan(primary) I just said to use Jadunath Sarkar's & Sardesai's works(secondary)

You are simply diverting the subject Aryan330 (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You need to have Jadunath Sarkar's interpretation of the primary source SKAG123 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 I request you to see what I said about that above.

Sarkar provided just what mentioned in Khafi Khan & Persion sources & if there can't be written about that statement then we just have to try to avoid much controversy because neither Khafi Khan mentioned it, neither it was mentioned by Portugese letters, neither English letters nor Maratha source.infact that times traveller manucci also doesn't talked above Sambhaji's Burhanpur atrocities or that was the reason thats why he was executed.

Infact mughal sources also said that the campaign of Burhanpur was leaded by Hambirrao Mohite not Sambhaji!

So there would be much controversy because here you are saying that instead of Maratha Sources we have to use mughal sources & even that you are not accepting mughal sources as true.

What are you trying to say?

as I mentioned earlier,the source which marked at there itself doesn't mentioned that Sambhaji was executed because of that region on that page it's only written that he plundered Burhanpur.

The only source Remaining is john rechards(I haven't read this) but come to know that this book was written in 20th century & due to its pro mughal statements we can't consider it as comtampory source as we consider Jadunath Sarkar's work..

There arr more than 3 sources (by renowned historians including sarkar, Sardesai,Gordon stewards)

which not mentioned that Sambhaji was executed because of atrocities at Burhanpur while only one source john rechards can be mentioned about it(not sure as till now I didn't read that)

& All of these are mughal point of views sources.

Maratha sources says different than all of these.

So if there was controversy in Maratha sources & mughal sources can be tolerated but here the mughal sources itself creating controversy that why that statement should be removed.

& Should be putted as "Sambhaji was executed after torture on the orders of emperor".

Do this yourself otherwise I have to ask admin to be look on this. Aryan330 (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide exact quotes from a reliable secondary source that supports the change you want to make.

nothing can be changed until then.

we don’t use original research on Wikipedia SKAG123 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 "That proud man,from his high spirit,gave up taking any food from that day onwards.his guard urgued him in vain,and he fasted for some days,at last that case was reported to Emperor,by his order shambha was taken taken to the place of execution.

(There is no mention of any Burhanpur Story)Aryan330 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You clearly didn’t read WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR. Please read and understand these policies before making it proposing any more edits SKAG123 (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 as I already mentioned I know that what are primary sources as Khafi Khan's work is primary source but Jadunath Sarkar's work is secondary & we can use it here,see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?redirect=no&title=Wikipedia:SECONDARY Aryan330 (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the Policies on the page?

Specifically number 2 and 4.

You have only quoted Khafi Khan not Sarkar or any other secondary source interpreting the statement.

State Sarkar‘s (or any other secondary source) interpretation of the quote and explain how it supports the change you want to make

Stein and Richards both state the exact reason why the execution was preformed. Do NOT interpret it yourself. SKAG123 (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 Stain doesn't mentioned about it,you can check on that respective page.he just stated that he attacked Burhanpur & sacked it.

No,I didn't quoted from Khafi Khan's work.

you can check it on Jadunath Sarkar's work,it is there.

I am not interpreting myself,you are unable to find the reliable source. For now leave the reason why he was executed, atleast can you find that was sambhaji even present in Burhanpur that time? The statement 'Sambhaji attacked Burhanpur' is itself a controversial statement! As in almost all sources stated that it was Hambirrao Mohitewho led that campaign not Sambhaji & you are saying that he was also executed for that! this statement is completely funny and unconstructive which is not supported by realiable sources.so to making this important claim you should be very confident and have to gather multiple sources which support it. As for now,can you gather atleast more than 3 sources which says Sambhaji attacked Burhanpur and commited atrocities there & that's why he was executed? Go find it.Aryan330 (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Quotes

"These tasks accomplished, Aurangzeb sent an army to find and punish Shambuji for his depredations in Khandesh. The Maratha king was discovered and captured in 1688 and brought to Aurangzeb for punishment, which was to be hacked to death and fed to dogs. "

Source: A History of India by Burton Stein (2002)

"A panel of ulema sentenced him [Sambhaji] to death for having slain and captured good Muslims."

Source: The Mughal Empire, Part 1, Volume 5 by John F. Richards (1996)

both of these sources are from reliable award winning historians.

Also the sentence does not state that Sambhaji attacked Muslims civilians (I agree that is debated) It states the Mughals punished him for it. Many were falsely accused back then.

Your quote was just a direct translations of a primary source. You need a direct statement from Sarkar as to why the execution was done, in the format “Sambhaji was executed for ___ “ or similar manner. Then we can think about making changes SKAG123 (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 Religion is the term which was commonly used by then kings.

when Prince muazzam invaded Konkan he burned whole villeges which was then come under the Maratha territories,he killed many civilians then but that was completely not the reason why Sambhaji defeated him in "Mughal invasion of Konkan Those both of the statements which says Sambhaji was punished only because of the reason of his atrocities.the second source is also saying that he killed Good Muslims! Now you also known that the sacking, plundering is only occured in history due to money.Till the relegious sites were destroyed we can't say that it was against the religion.As we doesn't have any single source in which there is saying that Marathas destroyed relegious sites during their sack.Here what I am trying to say that these both are very early historians & we can't consider anyones view regarding very important aspect of history which could also damage image of that Monarch & that was not supported by Khafi khans work. Different Histrorians have different views,Dennis Kincaid said that Sambhaji Was executed because of his Refusal of Converting his Relegion to Islam Jadunath Sarkar doesn't mentioned about the reason because there was no reason to kept him alive as they already mentioned that Aurangzeb asked him to surrender his forts & treasure & he will spare his life but Sambhaji doesn't accepted this proposal and he doesn't eat for some day,As his eyes & toung was already cutted and he was bleeding very badly,at last he was executed by cutting his head.there was no reason to execution that's why khafi Khan doesn't mentioned it and sarkar also doesn't commented about it.if a man continuously been tortured for many days(1feb1689-10March 1689,40 days) then how he would be alive?as he was not accepted to surrender his kingdom even after torturing for many days then there is no option rather that executing him.

his works are based on khafi khans works which is damn comtampory because he was there when sambhaji was executed & if he wasn't mentioned about the reason then simply we just don't put the reason which is not supported by nor Mughals nor Maratha sources which were that time witnessed! here I am not saying that we should remove that entire statement,here I am saying that We shou put there only aas "Sambhaji was executed on the orders of Aurangzeb after the heavy torture" which is the only true & conclusive statement of this whole Incident. Aryan330 (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have quotes from Dennis Kincaid’s work that support your change please make another edit request stating your change and your source

the rest of your reply is original research (you clearly didn’t read WP:NOR)

if you want to make a change to an article you won’t be very successful using original research SKAG123 (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aryan330: You are flogging a dead horse. Continued outpouring of text in this thread will not convince anyone to make the change(s) you want. You may find it enlightening to study past edit requests in the Talk:Aurangzeb archives to see how successful and unsuccessful ones have been formulated. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Worldbruce Did you read the whole comments?

Atleast my last reply?

Everyone has a right to ask the answer.

The point here is there is a statement which given by the historians(only 2) of 20th century which is not present in any primary source(even the man who witnessed that event doesn't mentioned about it)

Another thing is "Not sure that Sambhaji was even present at the sack of Burhanpur" for the statement all this controversy happened.

I suggest you to read my last reply & you can crosscheck it Aryan330 (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

How important is that information to this article 2404:4408:1C3F:E300:FC6A:501E:441C:966D (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Succession

Why is it that Aurangzeb's reign type says 'Sovereignty' instead of 'Reign' like other monarchs? That1nedude (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Earlier versions of the infobox said reign. Does anyone object to the infobox label being changed from sovereignty to reign?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

Grammatical error in the following line:

Change "Under Aurangzeb's emperorship, the Mughals reached its greatest extent with their territory spanning nearly the entire Indian subcontinent."

To "Under Aurangzeb's emperorship, the Mughal Empire reached its greatest extent with its territory spanning nearly the entire Indian subcontinent." Fshaikh27 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done--RegentsPark (comment) 05:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Already done voorts (talk/contributions) 20:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2023

Change "But the Jats once again attempted began their rebellion" to "But the Jats once again attempted rebellion" Werner Zagrebbi (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done

SKAG123 (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)