Talk:Mughal dynasty
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Recent edits
I couldn’t edit below concerns possibly because I’m on a mobile phone currently but anyway let me get to the crux of the issue.
Firstly per MOS:Ethncity, mentions of ethnicity should not be in the lead. Notice how most wiki pages regarding empires/dynasties these days no longer have ethnicity in the lead? It’s because of this rule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?redirect=no&title=MOS:ETHNICITY
Secondly that’s a little bit of a ref bomb(4 references) but nonetheless this shouldn’t remain in the lead and if you want to add it to the body, I would recommend gaining consensus. We don’t describe nationalistic terms like “indian” to dynasties/empires like the Mughals. On the main page(Mughal empire) it has never been described as Indian. And yes, I’m sure anyone can easily find references for their claims because there’s always going to be some author that has a different perspective. But the issue is, this isn’t really a mainstream view, the Mughals are typically seen as foreign. This was a point also mentioned in the talk page of the Mughal empire. You’re essentially presenting an alternative view and this is what regent park had to write about that.
“I think you're going to need consensus for that as well. Generally, if only some sources use a term, you need to get consensus for how to present that term (why only some sources use it, what are the alternative terms, etc)”
(like I previously mentioned, many of the points made there, apply to this conversation, even if these are two different terms).
So if you’re going to make this change, you’re gonna need consensus. Otherwise per Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus, the previous content must be kept.
Removing it from the lead would be a first start per MOS:ETHNICITY. If you want to add it to the body, you’re going to need consensus. Otherwise this change shouldn’t be made.
Perhaps we should also wait on others. Maybe later I will ping the editors from the previous conversation for their opinion on the matter. But those are just my concerns for now. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Forgot to ping you @PadFoot2008 Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored, please note that MOS:ETHNICITY only applies to biographies of people, not dynasties. It is necessary to be mentioned as it's widely used in sources and is important (and helpful) for readers to know, and is additionally a much better lead. It is a standard observed in many dynastic articles including House of Hohenzollern, House of Bonaparte, or even Bhonsle dynasty. Should also mention that the entire discussion on the lead was mainly regarding the made-up construct "Indo-Muslim", which editors opposed the inclusion of + no sources were provided explicitly using that construct. PadFoot (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
(Very) extended discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Edit: more to add. Minor note: “ Also the emperors with Persian mothers (apart from Akbar) were also half-Indian from their father's side (their fathers had mostly Indian ancestry). So they were both Persian and Indian, and hence certainly had Indian blood” This is a little dishonest. They aren’t “half Indian”. To be more specific they are Indics mixed with Turks, and I’ve already mentioned this but this means Persian dna would be higher in those emperors who are mixed than Indian and Turkic. Mixing doesn’t all the sudden get rid of all the Turkic blood that was there. Sure some of the fathers had mostly Indic dna(but their paternal lineage/haplogroup would still remain Turkic, blood wise they would be mixed with mostly Indian dna sure, but the paternal haplogroup doesn’t really change, and they are still mixed. So take a Turco Indian and mix it with a Persian, their kids would be more Persian than Turco Indian because the blood of the mothers are undiluted). Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Also there are so many sources which agree that they became Indians. Literally every historian who calls them foreign agrees they became indian later. So my suggestion remains the same as that of flemmish, But instead of "Indianized" turco mongol state, I prefer to add "Indian Turco Mongol state" which is way better. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Because it is a generally known and accepted fact that Mughal dynasty indeed was indianized, Infact let us talk abt Bahadur Shah Zafar, The last Mughal emperor who died fighting Britishers, He fully considered himself indian, The Mughals fully became Indian and even considered themselves indian. It can be seen in their poems and literatures (which I can show), India was their home. The current lead is very incomplete and absurd, Lead in a page is used for summarising about a person, an empire or something. The current lead doesn't even give the exact idea about what Mughals were. Let's just have an RFC done here because it is unnecessarily extending the talk page making future viewers very hard to read and understand the topic. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
After Zafar's defeat, he said:[1]
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Continuation of Discussion
- Respect your opinion, but I have one concern. How do you know they adopted Indian identity? I’ve seen sources which call them Indian(which appears to be an alternative view), but non described the Mughals as viewing themselves as Indian. They saw themselves as Timurids which is why the identified as the house of Timur.
- I just don’t see how you can call them indianized when you can easily claim them as persianized for the same reasons. They ethnically mixed with the Mughals and in terms of culture, probably contributed the most to the Mughals no? Remember Urdu/Hindustani wasn’t even adopted as a court language until the empires decline during Muhammad shahs reign(for most of their history, hindi was not a court language unlike Persian). Persian held more importance than any other culture/language. Your argument seems to be that the they identified as Indian, which I would like to see a source for.
- it’s hard to argue that they “became” indian, when they were so mixed.
- don’t mean to blundgeom the process just thought I never really got an answer for why we should choose “indianized over “persianized”. This topic is way too nuanced to be forcing modern nationalistic terms onto a dynasty that was multiethnic and multicultural. Cheers! Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if we are allowed to interrupt in a voting session like this, But I see a lot of WP:OR, we go with what the academic sources and well researched historians say on the Mughals, Who clearly accept the fact that they became Indian, Unless you provide historians who clearly say Mughals didn't become Indians, Which you cant.
- Moreover, Hindustani language was adopted as the court language by the reign of Shah jahan himself, Not Muhammad shah.[3] Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. The wiki page of Muhammad shah states that Urdu was adopted during his reign. And I found one source which states that Persian was never even replaced and remained the official language of the Mughals until the British. [4] I’m not sure which is correct, so I may look more into this later. But I don’t think my point really changes based on which emperor adopted Urdu. The point I was trying to make is that this empire was multicultural. So saying that it was “indianized” ignores its other cultural and ethnic influences. “Indo Persian” is a little bit better but I dont think there’s a source here which uses that term to describe the Mughal empire(other than maybe patronizing Indo Persian culture which isn’t the same thing)
- Also, I don’t think anybody here claimed that they had a source which contradicts the claims of the citations you cited. That wasn’t even the main reason most people voted against adding “indo muslim” in the last consensus which is very similar to this. In this discussion, Im just stating that calling them “indianized” is removing a lot of nuance because they were mixed and multicultural.
- The point we made is that there is a LOT of sources that don’t add term “indianized”, or refer to the Mughals as Indian. I know you’ll ask even though this is kind of obvious considering this is somewhat of an alternative viewpoint you’re proposing so I’ll share some to not be accused of original research.
- https://ia601200.us.archive.org/13/items/mughal_202401/mughal.pdf
- Here’s a very authoritative source by Annemarie Schimmel which only refers to the Mughals as house of the Timurids. There is mention of central Asian and Mongol roots in this page but no where does it say that the dynasty was Indian. And you guys claimed that the Mughals identified as Indian even though they only referred to themselves as the house of Timur.
- “The Mughals called themselves The House of Timur, after the conqueror of Central Asia. who died in 1405”
- “The Mughals ('The House of Timur) maintained their Strong Connections with Central Asia. To the end of his life Jahangir used to question visitors from Samarkand ahout the condition of the Gur Amir, Timur's mausoleum, and sent gold to pay for its upkeep” pg 23
- The mughals never stopped seeing themselves as the house of timur. Which also contradicts the claim that they identified as Indians.
- This author was an expert on oriental studies alongside many other earned qualification. Actually if you knew her, you would know she’s possibly one of the best historians on this topic. In fact let me cite one quote in the prologue.
- “No Scholar was better equipped to evoke the cultural achievement of the Mughals than Anne marie Schimmel, who died in January 2005. For her fellow scholars she was, as the Mughals might have declared, 'the wonder of the age” pg 7
- Persians in the Mughal Empire#cite note-Canfield-1
- here’s a source which refers to them as persianized Turks. See how there is clearly different views on this? This is what I meant by the fact that one can easily refer to the dynasty as “Persianized”? They were influenced by multiple cultures which is why there are different viewpoints on which contributed the most.
- Does that mean we should start referring to them as persianized in the lead because there is a source which states that? No because obviously the same criticism applies, this is a mixed multicultural empire.
- I can cite even more sources which don’t use the term “indianized” to refer to the Mughals. Nobody is complaining about the amount of sources. We just don’t think it should be in the lead for the various reasons we’ve been over.
- Also in your previous comment, you claimed that majority of sources refer to the Mughals as indianized. How exactly do you know that? Do you have a source? Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't buldengeon the voting process here. We have already addressed this issue of yours several times. But let me address to some of your other points.
- "Hmm. The wiki page of Muhammad shah states that Urdu was adopted during his reign. And I found one source which states that Persian was never even replaced and remained the official language of the Mughals until the British."
- Yes, How does it contradict my point? I never said Persian was totally replaced. I just said Urdu became official language of the empire since the reign of Emperor Shah Jahan himself, Not Muhammad shah.
- Besides for that, All your other sources say is, Mughals were turco-Mongols. Which I don't really doubt. They were undoubtedly turco-Mongols and had ties with uzbeks. Richard John has already explained this, Let me quote him again:
"Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia. Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent."
- No one argues that they weren't Turks or didn't have relations with uzbeks while staying in india, Or didn't consider themselves to be from the house of Timur, They did, This is what Richard John says. But ur ignoring how they became "Indians" and were "Indianized" and their concerns laid in the future of India (per most reliable historians), And ur other sources talking about Mughals being Turks nowhere contradicts our point. They were indeed Turks who became Indians, This is what Richard John says too again.
Just like nadir shah considered himself a turkmen but was an iranian/Persian nevertheless.
- And there is absolutely no source which contradicts this
- So again, It is WP:OR since You are showing a source which says X thing (that they were Turks) and you are interpreting Y thing with that (that they didn't become Indians).
- They indeed were Turks who became indians, which is our point. And as long as you don't share a source which contradicts this viewpoint specifically saying "they didn't become Indians", The issue will still remain the same.
Now I request you, it is NOT appropriate to argue and buldengeon the voting process session, take this issue to the other category.
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Um, all due respect, but writing a big response before calling me out for bludgeoning the process, seems like a contradiction. I made like 2 comments previously in total outside of the vote. Same as you. How did I bludgeon the process? To clarify, I don’t plan on responding to any other users except you in this case because you replied to me, so hopefully depending on you, this will be my last comment as long as we agree to stop.
- But there are some points I want to address as quickly as possible because you just made them.
- “I never said Persian was totally replaced. I just said Urdu became official language of the empire since the reign of Emperor Shah Jahan himself, Not Muhammad shah”
- Yes but your source clearly states that Hindustani/Urdu replaced Persian as an official language so these are indeed contradicting claims from two sources.
- “Persian continued as the official language till the time of emperor shah Jahan in the 17th century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language.” That’s a quote on the same page you showed.
- moving on: ” No one argues that they weren't Turks or didn't have relations with uzbeks while staying in india, They did, But ur ignoring how they became "Indians" and were "Indianized" and their concerns laid in the future of India (per most reliable historians), And ur other sources talking about Mughals being Turks nowhere contradicts our point.”
- I don’t think you understood that point very clearly. I stated that there is no need for a source which directly states that the Mughals weren’t Indian. In our last discussion, most people weren't even voting against the use of the term “indo muslim” because a source contradicted it(except me). They just objected on the grounds that the Mughal empire was too nuanced of an empire to be assigning them terms like “indo muslim”, and the fact that pre 1947 India is not the same concept as post 1947. In other words these are two separate entities. There was just no real reason to add it.
- Also why do you even think I added those sources? It wasn’t to prove that the Mughals were turks. It was just to show that they are plenty of sources which don’t use the term “indianized”. Your entire argument seems to be based on a misunderstanding as to why I cited those sources.
- “Most of the sources say Mughals were indianized or became Indians, for example these which comprised the members of the imperial House of Babur”
- I’m sorry, but how does this prove most sources claim the Mughals are indianized?
- Sending me a refbomb of the same claim does not in any way confirm most sources state that the Mughals were “indianized”. That’s not how it works. I mean I know you said you had more sources, but your telling me a handful(currently 5 but I’m guessing you have a few more) of people making this claim proves that majority of historians have written about the Mughals being indianized? There’s literally probably no way you could confirm what majority of historians think in this case. There is no statistic here. You’re just showing me a bunch of people who agree with you. That’s why I asked, and this answer simply doesn’t cut it. I know you obviously can’t get a statistic so your claim is impossible to prove.
- I felt I needed to respond because it seemed like you didn’t really understand my argument at all and kind of misrepresented it(assume good faith, it was probably an accident), so I wanted to give you a better read on it.
- Anyway I’m happy to just end it here (unless you still have concerns you wanted to hash out), and let the vote go on. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think you accidentally replied to another thread, No problem. I will make a quick short response to clear our Miss understanding here so we don't buldengeon the process.
- First of all My source doesn't say Urdu "replaced" persian. It says Urdu took the place of official language of the empire. 2 languages can indeed take place as the official language of the empire, can't they? It also clearly says Persian continued to be used in administration.
During the Mogul rule, Persian replaced the position of Sanskrit as the offi- cial language in administration especially in conducting the court proceedings, etc. Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language in the Mughal courts, yet Sanskrit continued to be used as the intellectual language in teaching classical sciences, philosophy, religion, etc. That synergy of Persian, Urdu (Hindustani) and Sanskrit had continued as the administrative and intellec- tual languages during the Mughal period
- Besides for that. I didn't find any other important thing in your essay worth replying to or mentioning to, But I assume we have 2 different beliefs and ideas here, for you, Mentioning "Indian" isn't necessary just because many sources say it is, And has no real reason to stay on the lead, For me, That isn't the case, The Lead is incomplete for now and the term "Indian" or "Indianized" clearly should be included because many reputed scholars and researchers on Mughal history say this. Fair enough till here? (If i miss-represented your viewpoint then forgive me).
- Now let us wait for others to vote and know their opinions and not buldengeon the process. Please take this to other category , thank you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t, he moved it.
- that sounds good. I’m mostly fine with that, and am ready to stop commenting after this.
- anyway I’m fine with moving forward now. You asked a question about the source which I’ll answer for you. I just want to to say that the source you used very clearly states that Urdu replaced Persian as a court language. I made a lot of other really important points to my argument that you didn’t go over but that’s okay because anybody reading this conversation can read it. In fact this is a minor point but yeah, your source is pretty clear on that.
- “Persian continued as the official language till the time of emperor shah Jahan in the 17th century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language.”
- says it continued to be the official language until the reign of shah Jahan when Urdu took the position of official language. “Official language till the time of emperor shah Jahan.
- Also many sources don’t mention “indianized” as I’ve shown. And nobody really answered the question as to “why do a great deal of sources not mention the term indianized”?(a similar question was asked by regent park last conversation) Yes obviously plenty do, but that still was a question meant to be answered and it never was. And just to let you know, sources even refer to the empire as persianized while not using the term indianized(as I’ve shown above) but for some reason we don’t have an rfc for that. I wouldn’t support either because it muddies up the waters, this dynasty was mixed.
- Anyway the Urdu part is a minor point.
- I think we did go over all the misunderstandings and we can stop here. Anybody can read our arguments from now on. There was a bit more clarification needed but I think we are on the same page. Let’s wait this RFC out now. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Cool, I think I already responded to your relevant points but okay, discussing here is actually better. Just to let you know that my source doesn't say Persian was stopped using as an official language. Let me quote it again.
During the Mogul rule, Persian replaced the position of Sanskrit as the offi- cial language in administration especially in conducting the court proceedings, etc. Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language in the Mughal courts, yet Sanskrit continued to be used as the intellectual language in teaching classical sciences, philosophy, religion, etc. That synergy of Persian, Urdu (Hindustani) and Sanskrit had continued as the administrative and intellec- tual languages during the Mughal period
- My source clearly states that Persian replaced Sanskrit in everything possible including court proceedings, But after hindustani came, it started being used in the court. That till here obviously refers to the court language, Persian was used in the court till the reign of Shah jahan, But my source also says later that the Persian remained the language which was used in administrative purposes. It only states that in the court, Hindustani started being spoken by the emperors by the reign of shah jahan. (I can cite few more sources which says this).
- However this doesn't mean Persian wasn't an "official language" though, Because it was still used in the administrative purposes, Like in the official farmaans/Letters, or Imperial announcements etc as per the same source. Persian was totally erased off only by the reign of Britishers.
- Coming to your other points, "why do plenty of sources dont mention the term Indianized or indian".
- This isn't a good question to be asked, Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absence, Same can be asked as in why no source in the world specifically states "Mughal empire wasn't indianized or indian", The actual question should be, Why there are plenty of sources which do mention that the empire became indian? Including Satish Chandra (who calls it hindustani as I cited above), and Richards John F. I didn't count but i am sure I have atleast ten more sources which calls it Indian, and that also from legitimate scholarly institutions.
- As for "persianize" none of us disagree the fact that Persian language indeed influenced the Mughals (till Shah jahan), But that is different from Mughals becoming indian and dying here in India, Which they did. It is very similar to Bengal Sultanate and Bengal Subah, the emperors there weren't native in origin and were influenced by Persian heavily yet are regarded as "Bengalis"
- Anyways, I won't extend the topic, But when I was reading your reply i found something funny.
- "my argument that you didn’t go over but that’s okay because anybody reading this conversation can read it."
- Do you really think that anyone will care to read about the conversation which we had here? It's so messy and long, we have extended and buldengeon it so much, I remember I had to scroll more than eight times to reply to you when I was on the phone.
Now I suggest you to stop here, It is going to be an endless loop since we have totally different ideas, views and beliefs (as I have mentioned in my reply above), I believe when most reputed historians and sources call it Indian/Indianized, then it must be mentioned And extending this process will just make it very hard and time consuming for the viewers to read all this. This is why I have replied in such a way that it gets neutralized, Anyways cheers and happy editing! :) Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored and @Malik-Al-Hind, please continue your discussion here, not in the RfC below. I've moved both of yours discussion here in a seperate sub-section. PadFoot (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, I think we have already cleared out our Miss understandings. Besides for that it is just the same loop, So I wouldn't like to continue and will rather wait for the opinion of other editors. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- That’s fine but you just don’t quite get it. Many times I make an argument, you simply don't understand what’s being stated and misinterpret the argument made.
- I’ve already wrote that nobody is arguing against the fact that some sources use the term “indianized”. RegentPark mentioned this too in our last discussion. But the issue which you don’t seem to get, is that not all sources use the term “indianized” or “indian” to describe the Mughals. If there are sources which claim that the Mughals were Persianized and don’t use the Indian to describe them, then by your logic we might as well add Persianized in the lead. There are plenty of sources which I’ve already cited that don’t use the term “indianized” and you keep talking about how the sources don’t contradict each other but I keep reiterating how that is not the point. The point is there are alternative viewpoints. If one says persianized and the other says indianized, then what do we use? This is a point you’ve actively ignored, but why should we put indianized over Persianized in the lead if there are sources which use the latter term? Your counter argument seems to be that the empire being Persianized doesn’t contradict the empire being indianized. Even if this is true(which it’s not), you still haven’t answered why we should put “indianized” in the lead over ”Persianized” when we have sources that support both claims? Thats why I think the empire is too nuanced for this kind of identification. They were mixed, simple as that. There’s multiple different viewpoints amongst historians so both of us can easily share sources which support our viewpoint. There’s simply no need to mention ethnicity in the lead. But this point gets pretty much ignored every time.
- “(I can cite few more sources which says this).
- However this doesn't mean Persian wasn't an "official language" though, Because it was still used in the administrative purposes, Like in the official farmaans/Letters, or Imperial announcements etc as per the same source. Persian was totally erased off only by the reign of Britishers.”
- …? I’m sorry but your source literally says the exact opposite.
- “ Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language in the Mughal courts”. You’re trying your best to come up with your own interpretation. But at this point im not even sure what you’re trying to argue anymore. I’ve noticed in many other discussions you tend to misinterpret what the sources have written a lot. But I’m sorry, what do you not exactly get here? It literally says it was an official language UNTIL/TILL the reign of shah Jahan. Afterwards Urdu took its place. Obviously Persian wouldn’t disappear completely from the public arena but how does that mean it remained an official language according to your citation? Remaining in the administration doesn’t change the fact that it was no longer an official language which your source makes pretty clear. And This contradicts the book I sent.
- “ As for "persianize" none of us disagree the fact that Persian language indeed influenced the Mughals (till Shah jahan), But that is different from Mughals becoming indian and dying here in India, Which they did. It is very similar to Bengal Sultanate and Bengal Subah, the emperors there weren't native in origin and were influenced by Persian heavily yet are regarded as "Bengalis"
- Anyways, I won't extend the topic”
- This doesn’t answer my question in the slightest. If there are sources which both use the term “Persianized” and “Indianized”, what’s the point favoring adding one viewpoint in the lead while ignoring the other? Why wouldn’t we add persianized in the lead by your logic? The other suggestion is to call it “indianized indo Persian” but then it brings the question as to why we even need to add the term “indianized”, especially considering “Persianized” is not being added? It just makes no sense and it ignores the cultural contributions from other ethnic groups.
- Also you know your free to disengage from the topic yourself if you don’t want to continue this? I’m not sure how asking me to disengage after writing a large response is supposed to get me to stop replying to your misinterpretation of the arguments made? Again I have no real plan on continuing this but you keep responding so obviously I’m going to reply back.
- Just remember that before I wrote a comment for Nietzsche, you literally were the one who responded to me. Asking me to stop when you were the one who started this makes zero sense especially if your still writing large responses in hopes of getting the last word
- I mean this respectfully of course. Your free to stop yourself if you’d like. This is my last piece if we agree to end it here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I read your comment and would like to share some of my thoughts. @Sutyarashi
- You mentioned a point that nobody in the opposition is really answering. Which is the fact that the empire was as you described, syncretic/multicultural. I also shared the same thoughts in my previous comments. The dynasty was highly influenced by Persianate culture, so calling it “indianized” makes no more sense than calling it “Persianized” in the lead.
- “The Mughal dynasty was a culturally Indo-Persian, Sunni Muslim dynasty of Turko-Mongol origin which ruled the Mughal Empire from c. 1526 to 1857”
- I don’t mind this per se, but I think maybe for now we should just go for a consensus to not use the term “indianized”/Indian” and than discuss changing the lead to one of your suggestions afterwards.
- Or alternatively you could add it on the body instead of the lead per RegentParks suggestion. If I had to modify it, I would write it like this.
- “The Mughals were patrons of Indo-Persian culture and Turco-Mongol in origin”
- Or maybe some variation of this, don’t really mind what we use. Honestly that’s if we really need to add all this including indo-Persian culture but, again I don’t mind.
- Anyway if I was going with RegentParks suggestion instead, maybe I would go with.
- “The Mughal dynasty was of Turco-Mongol descent, ruling in South Asia.
- or if we don’t want to add ethnicity,
- “The Mughals were a dynasty in South Asia”.
- Kind of like the main article on the Mughal empire which we already had a similar consensus on.
- and again we can add this in the body instead.
- Regent park wrote “south asian/indian” but I assume he actually just means South Asian as he previously mentioned that the preferred term would be South Asia instead of Indian anyway in the previous discussion, so he may have wrote “Indian” by mistake”(correct me if this is not a stance you stand by) @RegentsPark
- And I think we both came to the conclusion that Indian shouldn’t be used anyway because they were mixed, and originally not Indian anyway. And generally as RegentPark has previously stated, the preferred term on Wikipedia is “South Asia”
- For now, I think you should vote option 2 so we can get this sorted out first before we start changing anything up. After the RFC, we can have a separate discussion on changing the article.
- But that’s just my suggestion Sutyarashi, do whatever you feel is best. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- RegentsPark Can you please elaborate what you think the correct description would be? Sutyarashi (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the current version is the correct description. The ethnicity of the Mughals does not fit neatly into any category and is best discussed in the body of the article.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar (10 May 1909). The Indian War of Independence – 1857 (PDF).
- ^ Vanina, Eugenia (2012). Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man. Primus Books. p. 47. ISBN 978-93-80607-19-1. Archived from the original on 22 September 2023. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- ^ Chandra, Satish (1959). Parties And Politics At The Mughal Court.
- ^ Peter Jackson (2003). The Delhi Sultanate:A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521543293.
- ^ Petersen, Andrew. Dictionary of Islamic Architecture. p. 198.
The Mughals were an Indian Islamic dynasty which ruled most of northern India (including the area of present-day Pakistan) from the beginning of the six- teenth to the mid-eighteenth century.
- ^ The Limits of Universal Rule Eurasian Empires Compared. p. 276.
From the time of Akbar, who resurrected the Mughal polity, to the last formidable Mughal ruler Aurangzeb (1658-1707), Mughal preoccupation with the Deccan was the single most important sign of the fact that these Timurids had become an Indian dynasty.
{{cite book}}
: line feed character in|title=
at position 29 (help) - ^ Otorbaev, Djoomart. Central Asia's Economic Rebirth in the Shadow of the New Great Game.
Babur, the founder of the Indian Mughal dynasty, was born in the Ferghana Valley.
- ^ Lorentz, John. The A to Z of Iran. p. 283.
As the 17th century unfolded, the Safavid rulers not only had the Ottomans to contend with, but also the new Russian Mus- covy that had deposed of the Golden Horde and expanded to Safavid borders, as well as the Indian Mughal Dynasty that had expanded through Afghanistan and into Iranian territory.
- ^ Richards, John F. (1995), The Mughal Empire, Cambridge University Press, p. 2, ISBN 978-0-521-56603-2, archived from the original on 22 September 2023, retrieved 9 August 2017 Quote: "Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia. Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent."
RfC: Mughal dynasty lead
|
Per discussions above, these suggestions have made for a new Mughal dynasty lead:
- "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized Turco-Mongol dynasty that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
- Or: "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
- No changes.
Kindly, state the preferred options below. PadFoot (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2
- I’ve already given my reasons for why but I’ll give a short summary. I’ve heard of all the arguments, and I’m still left with a lot of unanswered questions and issues.
- let’s start. There are a minority of sources which use the word “indian”(although I’m not sure about “indianized” and “indo Persian” to describe the mughals, and this appears to be an alternative view), but many others don’t. In this case, RegentPark had a wonderful answer which was promptly ignored.
- “Generally, if only some sources use a term, you need to get consensus for how to present that term (why only some sources use it, what are the alternative terms, etc)”
- While we went over alternative terms in minor detail, there was never an explanation for why many sources don’t include the Indian claim.
- Moving on, the mughals were mixed and multicultural, so why do we need to emphasize that they were “indianized” which is debatable? A common argument I heard is that the later Mughals became Indian but this ignores the fact that a lot of them were actually birthed to Persian mothers, which I went over in my previous comment. In origin they were Turco mongol, later they mixed with other ethnicities including Persians and Indians. Calling them “indianized” is way too restrictive because it ignores the various people that influenced them and lacks nuance. The term “indo Persian” is a little better in this case because it implies Persian characteristics,
- but I don’t think I’ve seen a source which directly calls the Mughals an “indo Persian” empire. Maybe they patronized indo persian culture but that’s not the same thing. We would still need a source.
- Also pre and post 1947 India’s are two separate entities. It makes no real sense to force modern day concepts onto a historical world which differed greatly from today.
- As RegentPark had previously stated, these terms are way too restrictive for the lead. And unfortunately topics like are a source of a lot of ethnic bias.
- There may be more revisions to this edit if there’s anything I forgot to add. But I stand with my choice.
- Edit: Indeed there are sources which refer to the empire as Persianized. So we definitely have contradicting sources. But this also proves my point. The empire was multicultural and mixed, which is why some sources refer to the empire as Indianized, while others typically don’t. Based on the fact that there is a source which states the empire was Persianized, does that mean we should add Persianized to the article now instead(obviously not)? This is why I prefer not adding ethnicity to the lead. The topic is so nuanced due to how mixed the mughals were. It would be better to just leave things as it is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persians_in_the_Mughal_Empire#cite_note-Canfield-1
- Option 1: A vast multitude of sources refer to the dynasty as an "Indian dynasty", the "Indian Mughal dynasty" or the "Mughals of India". Most historians refer to the dynasty as having a Turco-Mongol origin that was subsequently Indianized in all aspects including culture, language and ancestry. All the Mughals after Akbar had a mostly Indian ancestry, apart from a few who were half-Indian and half-Persian. All emperors that came after Shah Jahan, spoke the Hindustani language, and their culture was undoubtedly Indianized with some Persian elements. PadFoot (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1: As the original proposer of that option, but restating my argument: The Mughals were originally a Turco-Mongol dynasty, who gradually Indianised through adopting of Indian traditions, culture, and identity.[1][2] Yes the Mughals were a multicultural state and dynasty, but the question here is what they became, not what cultures influenced them or they originated from; being influenced by Persian culture is much different than adopting an Indian identity (of course not referring to the country here as that didn't exist until 1947 but the historical term), which they certainly did. Ethnicity and culture is a nuanced topic but "Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin" sums it up pretty well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1: As the above sources cited and per the reasons given by flemmish and padfoot, This is an undisputed fact that Mughals gradually were Indianized and became Indians despite being of Turco-mongol origin. This is supported by almost every historian including historian Richard John[3] who is known for his expertise and research in Mughal history and is One of the leading historians regarding Mughal history in the United States.[4] Their home was india and they died in India. They had the similar identity as of Afsharids in iran (Even afsharids weren't of iranian origin but shared a persian identity), Anyways, The lead summarises Mughals perfectly and tells a lot to readers about them. Unlike the option 2 which tells absolutely nothing about them. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1: As per the sources I've read (Cambridge history of the Mughal Empire) I found them to be reliable enough, and I do think the Mughals were thoroughly Indianized as you can see through their clothing, etc. Sure they were originally Turco-Mongols but their interests and dominion laid in India (historical India not present day Post 1947's India), which they needed to prioritize. Many reputed historians have testified and admitted the fact that Mughals indeed became Indians and were Indianized, one being John F Richards, the same guy who's book I mentioned. Akshunwar (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 : I would go for status quo because even if i agree for a fact that later mughals are consider culturally indian by several historians, saying it in generic terms for a whole dynasty isnt helpful for the article and for readers as well because it is more complex thing to generalise for a whole dyansty as there are many ethnic mixes in mughals. And as RegentsPark suggested i still believes that suggested edits be more suitable as of now. Curious man123 (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest another option 3. Mughals were, by and large, followers of Persian culture, and from their administration to cuisine and architecture followed Persian model, even if the dynasty had Indian cultural aspects. Ethnically, of coarse, they were not Indian. Hence in my opinion labelling the whole dynasty as Indianized does not make more sense than saying that it was a Persianized dynasty. I would suggest the lede to be modified as per the other syncretic Islamic dynasties like Timurid dynasty, Seljukids, Ghaznavids and others:
The Mughal dynasty was a culturally Indo-Persian, Sunni Muslim dynasty of Turko-Mongol origin which ruled the Mughal Empire from c. 1526 to 1857.
- In this way, all cultural and ethnical aspects of the Mughals would be properly emphasized. I would appreciate your thoughts over this. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 as per the reason showed by Curious man123. Mehedi Abedin 19:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 The correct description of this dynasty is "was a South Asian/Indian dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin". Calling it Turco-Mongol is incorrect because though its origins were Turco-Mongo, the dynasty itself was hardly that. Using the term "Indianized" appears to be a rough attempt at synthesizing the various sources that describe the changing nature of the dynasty and we should not be doing synthesis. Rather than attempting to force fit an ethnicity into the lead sentence, those nuances are best left to the body of the article. (Though, I'm open to some version of what I call "the correct description" above and I wish PadFoot had done a more thorough listing of options in this RfC). RegentsPark (comment) 14:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1 Based on the arguments provided by Flemmish Nietzsche. Nxcrypto Message 17:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
Please discuss in the section above.
References
- ^ Chang, H.K. Civilizations of the Silk Road.
By the mid-17th century, the descendants of Genghis Khan and Timur had gradually been Indianized
- ^ Chandra, Yashaswini. The Tale of the Horse: A History of India on Horseback.
Since Babur was eyeing Hindustan from across the Khyber and Akbar had laid down strong roots, the Mughal dynasty had become a thoroughly Indianized one.
- ^ Richards, John F. (1995), The Mughal Empire, Cambridge University Press, p. 2, ISBN 978-0-521-56603-2, archived from the original on 22 September 2023, retrieved 9 August 2017 Quote: "Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia. Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent."
- ^ Gilmartin, David. "About John F. Richards". Guha, Sumit; Bhagavan, Manu. Society for Advancing the History of South Asia. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved 2015-05-02.
- C-Class India articles
- High-importance India articles
- C-Class India articles of High-importance
- C-Class Indian history articles
- Top-importance Indian history articles
- C-Class Indian history articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject Indian history articles
- WikiProject India articles
- Wikipedia requests for comment