Talk:Aurangzeb

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)

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)

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)

"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)