Talk:List of Mughal emperors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Mughal emperors article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] Badshah

Never heard "badshah" translated to "vice-shah". Thought it is from "pad shah"--"pad" meaning "throne" and making, for example "Akbar Badshah" mean the same as "Elizabeth II Regina" or "George II Rex", which is taken to mean "Elizabeth the second, Ruling Queen". (See signature graphic at Emperor of India.) —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:47, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

See Padishah.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:31, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
I'll defer here. I can't remember now where I read the "vice-Shah" bit and what sources I do find doing a quick Google seem to support your etymology. Acsenray 14:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- Hey wats Up??

[edit] List versus Article

Why is this in the form of an article when its name is "List of..."? Initially, I had set up a redirect, but now that there's substantial material on this page besides the list, shouldn't there be a separate article titled "House of Taimur" or something?

--iFaqeer 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turco-Mongol vs. Turco-Persian

The user Mardavich put a reference, from google books i think, cause if someone checks there the name babur page 28 comes the first. On page 28, it is written that the great personalities of Turco-Persian history, but this sentence does not mean that Babur is Turco-Persian. The Mughal empire is of course related with Turco-Persian history but the Babur was Turco-Mongol not Persian. Regards. E104421 14:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A) Babur was a Turco-Mongol and a Turco-Persian, there is no contradiction there, both adjectives are accurate. Listing Babur, a historical personality, under a section named "the great personalities of Turco-Persian history" means Babur was considered a Turco-Persian personality. It does not and can not mean anything else!
B) Here is a direct quote from Page 81 of Henry Walter Bellew's book: "Babur Badshah, who had twelve years previously conquered Afghanistan, took Delhi, and established the Mughal or Turko-Persian dynasty in Hindustan." --Mardavich 15:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe because of the language barrier, you're misunderstanding the statements. The Mughal Empire is an important part in the Turco-Persian history, but Babur, himself, is not Persian. He was Turco-Mongol. These is nothing about Babur's origin in your references, you're misunderstanding and misleading people. That's it. E104421 15:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not misunderstanding anything, my English is much better than you. Turco-Persian doesn't mean Persian. Turco-Persian means he was Turco-Persian by culture, which is an accurate statement. I've provided primary sources, and certainly, there is currently no justification to start an edit war, you seem to be looking for one. --Mardavich 15:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Your sources does not reflect the origin of Babur. The article is about the Mughal Emperors. The Mughal culture is already mentioned in the Mughal Empire article. You're choosing the words from books but using them in a totally disputed way. Babur does not have any Persian origin (ethnically), he was Turco-Mongol. Live with this! E104421 15:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
First, look up the definition of the word ‘Turco-Persian’. Second, no one here has said that Babur was of Persian origin! You don't seem to differentiate between Persian and Turco-Persian. Turco-Persian is someone who is Turkic by race, and Persian by culture. Babur fits the definition. Babur even, to some extent, acted discriminatory towards Turkish culture; in the words of professor Morna Livingston in The Ancient Stepwells of India - Page 111: "Babur considered his Persian Timurid culture to be vastly superior to that of the Turkish Muslims in India. " --Mardavich 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it's your definition to dispute everything in favor of your pov-fork. E104421 18:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think what E104421 does not understand is that the Turco-Mongols were an integrated part of the Turco-Persian society. Thus, Babur was a Turco-Mongol AND a Turco-Persian. Thanks to Mardavich for his quote. I'd also like to show another quote, this time from Prof. Lehmann (in Encyclopaedia Iranica):
  • ... His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural infleunce in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results ...
Tājik 20:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Here we're not discussing the culture, but the origin. You're the one misunderstanding. Regards. E104421 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that a person who believs that Attila the Hun, Akbar (Emperor of India), and Shah Ismail Safawi (Emperor of Persia), were citizens of Turkey[1] is the right person to tell me that I am misunderstanding the issue in here. Tājik 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, do not mix the topics. You're trying to mislead people. You should prove your accusations, if i stated anything as you said. I told you thousand times to be civil, but i think you'll never be. E104421 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
ROFL ... now you even want me to prove that the Emperor of India was NOT a citizen of Turkey ... You are really a waste of time, and one of the biggest threats to the credibility of Wikipedia! Tājik 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
See Straw man! E104421 23:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)