Talk:Mughal dynasty
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Someguywhosbored in topic Consensus?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mughal dynasty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Recent edits
editI 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.
http://en.m.wiki.x.io/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
edit| See full discussion |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Just like nadir shah considered himself a turkmen but was an iranian/Persian nevertheless.
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)
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)
"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." Quote the book you sent previously again. The source of mine clearly says (quoting again)
Notice the word "Court proceedings " It clearly says "Until Urdu took its place in the official court" which was my point. Urdu merely replaced it in the "court" by the reign of Shah jahan, But the same source later clearly says Persian continued to be used in the administration, Proving it wasn't declared unofficial. That synergy of Persian, Urdu (Hindustani) and Sanskrit had continued as the administrative and intellec- tual languages during the Mughal period I am not even interpreting anything here, it is clear what the source is saying by literally reading it. Urdu merely replaced it in the court. That is why the word "until" is used here. But persian still was used in administration as per the same source few lines later. Proving it wasn't declared unofficial, It continued to be used as an administrative language. "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." Because almost none of the source says Mughals became "Persians" while so many reputed sources clearly say how Mughals were from a different ethnic backround and cultural background but became "Indian". I am ready to quote Richard John F again here: "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" Quoting Britanica: "The empire itself, however, was a purely Indian historical experience. Mughal culture blended Perso-Islamic and regional Indian elements into a distinctive but variegated whole. Although by the early 18th century the regions had begun to reassert their independent positions, Mughal manners and ideals outlasted imperial central authority. The imperial center, in fact, came to be controlled by the regions. The trajectory of the Mughal Empire over roughly its first two centuries (1526–1748) thus provides a fascinating illustration of premodern state building in the Indian subcontinent." "The individual abilities and achievements of the early Mughals—Bābur, Humāyūn, and later Akbar—largely charted this course. Bābur and Humāyūn struggled against heavy odds to create the Mughal domain, whereas Akbar, besides consolidating and expanding its frontiers, provided the theoretical framework for a truly Indian state." Even britanica agrees with the Persianization of Mughals initially but says the same on how they built an Indian state based on Indian historical experience Notice the same argument was used by John Richard to call it Indian?
2)-Mughals were indeed from a different cultural background (persian backround) but they became "indian", all of the 5 sources i cited, None of them disagree with the fact that Mughals indeed were persianized. But they became "Indians" because of xyz reasons we have mentioned over a million times already. Their concerns didn't lay in persia nor Persia was their home. They soon even adopted Urdu over Persian as a court language (yet Persian was official and used in administration though). Now I will stop here, You can keep continuing. But I may respond if you again miss-represent me in case (with all respect ofcourse).
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
"A Muslim dynasty of Turkic-Mongol origin that ruled most of northern India from the early 16th to the mid-18th century. After that time it continued to exist as a considerably reduced and increasingly powerless entity until the mid-19th century. The Mughal dynasty was notable for its more than two centuries of effective rule over much of India; for the ability of its rulers, who through seven generations maintained a record of unusual talent; and for its administrative organization. A further distinction was the attempt of the Mughals, who were Muslims, to integrate Hindus and Muslims into a united Indian state"[10] Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The source literally says Persian was the official language in the administration specially in the court proceedings. And it literally says Urdu took place of Persian in the court proceedings. Which is where it replaced persian from. But the same source, again i repeat the same source 4 lines later says Persian continued to be used as an administrative language. And what are administrative languages? The languages used in the official administration. All the laws, announcements etc are written in an administrative language which is indeed an official language. With all respect, either you have a problem in reading...Or you aren't even reading. The source literally says "Persian was used in administration and court proceedings, Until the reign of shah jahan when Urdu replaced persian as the official language in the court. You are ignoring the words "in the court". Urdu replaced persian only in the court. And 4 lines later it clearly says Persian continued to be used in the administration. Proving it was still official in the administration, which it was. You are trying your best to turn it around the way you think it is, But this can't happen. "You keep repeating this but you have failed to answer my question multiple times. If there are sources which also use the word “Persianized”, why is there preference for the term “indianized” instead? One could just easily add that it was Persianized based on the argument you’re making. And despite not needing that term in the lead, I still think that latter term would be more accurate anyway" I have answered this over a thousand times. Anyone reading our discussion will agree on this. We prefer "Indianized" or "Indian" over Persianized because their concerns laid in the future of India and they considered india to be their home, Their concerns didn't lay in persia. They even slowly left Persian and started speaking hindustani. The reason why we prefer "Indianized" over "persianized" is answered by Britanica: Quoting Britanica: "The empire itself, however, was a purely Indian historical experience. Mughal culture blended Perso-Islamic and regional Indian elements into a distinctive but variegated whole. Although by the early 18th century the regions had begun to reassert their independent positions, Mughal manners and ideals outlasted imperial central authority. The imperial center, in fact, came to be controlled by the regions. The trajectory of the Mughal Empire over roughly its first two centuries (1526–1748) thus provides a fascinating illustration of premodern state building in the Indian subcontinent." Britanica agrees Mughal empire emerged from an Indian historical experience. The same reason given by Richard John to call it 'Indian': Quoting John Richards; "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" Quoting britannica again: ""The individual abilities and achievements of the early Mughals—Bābur, Humāyūn, and later Akbar—largely charted this course. Bābur and Humāyūn struggled against heavy odds to create the Mughal domain, whereas Akbar, besides consolidating and expanding its frontiers, provided the theoretical framework for a truly Indian state." Even britanica agrees with the Persianization of Mughals initially but says the same on how they built an Indian state based on Indian historical experience despite of the cultures they were influenced by. (Although even that is debatable and I would argue Mughals became more indianized than they were persianized but that's a different topic anyway) "Does not change ethnic and cultural identity, especially if they are still heavily influenced by said cultures." Already shared tonns of sources of their identity. They became Indians, Were indian emperors of Timurid origin. So their identity indeed was Indian. As for cultural identity, This won't change the fact that the place they considered their home, the place they ruled from and for, The place where their concerns laid, The language they started speaking from the reign of shah jahan were all Indian. Persian influence in them won't make them Non-Indian. Like i said, India is a diverse subcontinent. You don't necessarily have to be an Indo aryan or Dravidian to be called as one. I would again like to quote britanica because it sums this pretty well: "A Muslim dynasty of Turkic-Mongol origin that ruled most of northern India from the early 16th to the mid-18th century. After that time it continued to exist as a considerably reduced and increasingly powerless entity until the mid-19th century. The Mughal dynasty was notable for its more than two centuries of effective rule over much of India; for the ability of its rulers, who through seven generations maintained a record of unusual talent; and for its administrative organization. A further distinction was the attempt of the Mughals, who were Muslims, to integrate Hindus and Muslims into a united Indian state" Despite of their influences from Persian and their Turko mongol origin. Mughal empire indeed was a United Indian state. It was indeed indian. Again I am still wondering why would you purposely ignore the examples of Afsharids, and other dynasties which were clearly not the same ethnicity as the people they ruled over, But they still were considered as a part of them. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
"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" Quoting Britanica: "The empire itself, however, was a purely Indian historical experience. Mughal culture blended Perso-Islamic and regional Indian elements into a distinctive but variegated whole. Although by the early 18th century the regions had begun to reassert their independent positions, Mughal manners and ideals outlasted imperial central authority. The imperial center, in fact, came to be controlled by the regions. The trajectory of the Mughal Empire over roughly its first two centuries (1526–1748) thus provides a fascinating illustration of premodern state building in the Indian subcontinent." "The individual abilities and achievements of the early Mughals—Bābur, Humāyūn, and later Akbar—largely charted this course. Bābur and Humāyūn struggled against heavy odds to create the Mughal domain, whereas Akbar, besides consolidating and expanding its frontiers, provided the theoretical framework for a truly Indian state." Even britanica agrees with the Persianization of Mughals initially but says the same on how they built an Indian state based on Indian historical experience Notice the same argument was used by John Richard to call it Indian?
"What do you mean by “the bengal sultanate is Bengali?” There were some Bengali emperors but the vast majority were foreigners, including its founder. It would be more accurate to say it’s syncretic. It is considered bengali and I can cite you numerous sources which calls it a "Bengali Sultanate." "This does not say anything about identity. This is just an opinion put forward by Richard. You need an actual source that word for word states that the Mughals “considered themselves to be Indian” otherwise this is original research. The only sources which refer to their identity, talked about the house of Timur. " Again, the opinion of historians matter way more. What you are doing is original research here. Your question was about their Timurid identity. I answered it how they became Indians despite of being Timurids? I can cite several more sources which says the same. We go by what scholars and experts say. "And this was a question for Nietzsche anyway. I presume you keep interrupting because you don’t want his mind to be changed but this is a pretty serious question that virtually everyone in the opposition has failed to answer. " The assumption is wild but almost everyone has answered this question of yours over a thousand times before, you just keep repeating your questions despite of the answers you get backed up with sources. If you are asking a question, You will get an answer.
|
Continuation of Discussion Part II
edit@Someguywhosbored, I noticed that you made the argument below that only "few sources" use the word Indian. This is however not true. I've decided to use sources to make a point here. If you'd see the books results for "Indian Mughals", you'll see that it is used by than 4,120 authors. This clearly shows that the term "Indian" is used by a huge number of authors for the dynasty. I am still hoping to reach a consensus with you here, so I am open to all suggestions you shall like to make here. I do not inherently oppose the use of the term "Persianate" in the lead either. PadFoot (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody says you don’t have the ability to extend it. It just isn’t a good way of reaching consensus anymore because it’s already been 30 days and we have plenty of comments and opinions already. Instead someone should look at the arguments and make a decision. My question is, what is the goal of extending this RFC? At this point, are you just looking for more votes? (which again isn’t the way consensus is formed) Because haven’t we already been through all the arguments which you still haven’t responded to? In particular, the fact that categorizing the Mughals as “indianized”, ignores the complex multicultural nature of the dynasty? One can just as easily call them “Persianized”.
- “The RfC should probably be extended for say one more month, and then after waiting for one week after the last !vote comes in, we see which option has a greater support, and that would be the consensus”
- As I’ve already suspected, it seems you’re trying to fish for more votes even though that’s not how consensus is formed which I have repeated many times. It’s not about which option has the most votes or numerical support. It’s about which argument is more sound.
- Wikipedia:Consensus
- “Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.”
- So no, consensus is not based on voting or which option has the most support. You seem to have greatly misunderstood that. In Flemmishs talk page, you got excited seeing as how option 1 was in the lead by ONE vote(that quickly changed), as if one more vote somehow determines the outcome of this RFC. Again, that’s not how it works. And this just goes to show that you’re not interested in the argument itself, but the votes.
- “As of now, per no consensus, neither the addition nor the status quo is favoured. What you are trying to do here is trying to push your own stance, i.e., status quo here, by arguing that no consensus has been reached.”
- Um…that is indeed what has transpired here. Consensus was not reached, which means it’s no consensus. The first sentence literally mentions that fact. It’s funny that I’m being called out for trying to push my own stance considering everything all that’s been said here. I mean you literally restarted the RFC because you knew no consensus means you won’t be able to push your preferred edit. Simply put, I question the necessity of doing this all over again. It may just be one of those situations where consensus can’t be reached without some outside intervention.
- Moving on, I don’t I ever disagreed with the fact that there are sources which use the term “Indian”. But there are plenty of sources which refer to the empire as persanized, and others don’t mention the term “indian” to describe the Mughals at all. I’m sure you can find a lot of sources which support your viewpoint, but that’s not the issue here and that’s never been the issue.
- (Btw what exactly are you showing me here? You just looked up the words “Indian” and “Mughal”. It could literally mean anything depending on the context these words were used in the book).
- Also didn’t Flemmish have his own grievances with the term “Indian”? He preferred the term “indianized”, which is what this RFC is about yes?
- “ I am still hoping to reach a consensus with you here, so I am open to all suggestions you shall like to make here. I do not inherently oppose the use of the term "Persianate" in the lead either”
- Well I’m glad to hear that maybe we can cooperate, but I just can’t see leaving the terms “indianized” or “Indian” in the article to describe the Mughals. Maybe instead you can write about how the Mughals were culturally influenced by various different cultures in the body, including Persian and Indian. But to outright refer to them as “indianized” or “indian”? I think that removes a lot nuance.
- Either way, I think an uninvolved admin should take a look at this and see which argument is most sound. I’m not sure how that process would work but generally speaking, that’s how RFCs end.
- I think the biggest takeaway for you is understanding how consensus is achieved.
- “Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote.” Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored I did not just pair two words together, I used quotes, which means that the search showed that there were 4,000 authors who used the exact term Indian Mughals, and 8,000 authors that used the term Indian Moghuls, which is a massive number ("Indian Mughals" obviously indicates the dynasty here, it is in quotes which means that Google will return authors using the exact term and also, Mughals here obviously refers to the dynasty, see the results itself). I'm not claiming here that they were ethnic anything. I understand all your concerns and value your opinion, as well all other opinions, regarding it. We can perhaps have a lead structured like this:
PadFoot (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)The Mughal dynasty was a Persianate Indian dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857.
- refer back to my previous comment for the first point. Nobody contests the use of sources which use the word “Indian”. Some do, some don’t.
- “The Mughal dynasty was a Persianate Indian dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857.”
- Eh, this is still very problematic. Firstly we already agreed on not using the term “Indian” in the previous discussion. Two, RegentPark already mentioned how “indianized” seems to be Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material. In fact, “Persianate Indian” seems to be WP:SYNTH as well.
- Honestly no matter how you cut it, I don’t see any good reason for referring to the empire as “indian” or “Indianized”. I appreciate that you tried to understand concerns, but this still seems problematic. Honestly I’d rather just let an uninvolved admin look at the arguments and let them make a decision or something. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Another one of these recently made accounts? This is starting to get a little worrying.
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WhiteReaperPM
- looks like groovyginster or Deccanichad is under investigation. So is chauthcollecter, who had SPIs filled out by Flemmish Nietzsche and @Ratnahastin. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Koitot
- unfortunately a check user never investigated this further, but noorullah wrote out a recent SPI case for groovyginster. These accounts seem to be vote stacking, and I’d be suspicious of all new accounts who have participated in this RFC, including MohReddy. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored, whatever happened to assuming WP:GOODFAITH and WP:DONTBITE. As an Indian with broad interests, why can I not participate in this discussion ? I am not vote stacking, I am contributing to this discussion with informed thoughts. I have also clearly stated on my user page my editing style, interests and aims, which I have been consistent in since I became an editor. MohReddy (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your account was created last month, on the same day that User:GroovyGrinster registered his account. But that’s not all, your editing history suggests that you have previous experience with Wikipedia. I know you stated that you’re a long time reader but unfortunately the IPA area is a contentious topic plagued by sockpuppets and pov pushers. What’s more likely is that you’re a sock.
- your a new account, and yet you already have a pretty solid understanding of wikis policies and guidelines, citing references, and the editing process. Your explanation for this on your user page is that you’re a longtime reader on wiki which is why you’re very familiar with all this. But I think that’s just a way to lower suspicion upon yourself as your editing suggests knowledge beyond that of a longtime wiki reader/lurker with supposedly no previous experience editing. If/when I have time, I’ll eventually file my own SPI report detailing the evidence I’ve compiled as this comment won’t be able to do it justice, plus it’s getting long as it is. When I do file the report, I’ll share the links of the edits so everyone can see what I mean, but any user can see your edit history and see that you appear to have more experience for a newcomer than usual.
- I don’t bite newcomers, but like I said, this topic area has been the target of one too many meat/sock puppets. Furthermore, I suspect that you’re not a newcomer.
- “I am not vote stacking, I am contributing to this discussion with informed thoughts”
- You just wrote that the sentence sums up the origins and development of the dynasty without really explaining why. How is that sharing informed thoughts? It’s fair to see how one would assume your vote stacking, especially considering we already have two other extremely likely cases of sockpuppets voting in this RFC.
- Another thing that you possibly may not understand is that consensus is not voting. It’s based on the validity on the arguments made, which is what I showed to another user above, per WP:CONSENSUS.
- But yeah, your case is extremely suspicious, excuse me for saying. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your suspicions, I do. We all know what Wikipedia can be like. But you are wrong about me. I have been nothing but transparent and direct. As for my knowledge and familiarity with Wikipedia, well, I was something of an academic or perhaps more fittingly, a scholar. In that line of work, I have explored and critically analysed Wikipedia in the past when I was looking into research methods, hence my familiarity.
- Would you like me to get into an explanation for why I believe it's an Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin ? I am happy to do it. Very very simply:
- Point 1: Obviously, we all know that Babur's origins are Turco-Mongol. By Jahangir's reign and post his reign, the dynasty and the emperors had Indian blood through marriages with Rajputs, and so, from a bloodline perspective, the dynasty was becoming Indianized to an extent
- Point 2: From a cultural perspective the dynasty also became broadly Indianized, but, of course, remained syncretic with Persian culture. Syncretic cultural perspective includes, but not limited to, architecture, art, language, local customs, and even military administration to an extent.
- Point 3: The emperors also adopted a much more Indian system of sovereign patronage. This also includes with royals, nobles and even zamindars.
- This is of course a laughably brief explanation for what I meant by Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin.
- Obviously the consensus is what matters. I know "Indianized" is not being accepted by many, and if the consensus is that "Indianized" should not be used to refer to the dynasty, then terrific, we have reached a consensus on a contentious topic and improved Wikipedia for the community and the readers.
- I hope we all come to a consensus through healthy debate. MohReddy (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- “ As for my knowledge and familiarity with Wikipedia, well, I was something of an academic or perhaps more fittingly, a scholar. In that line of work, I have explored and critically analysed Wikipedia in the past when I was looking into research methods, hence my familiarity.”
- Yes I’m aware that you’ve already given an explanation for your familiarity with Wikipedia but I find it insufficient considering the current evidence. Don’t you think it’s all too coincidental that you created an account on the same day that a user who’s most likely a sockpuppet registered his own? You two edit in the same contentious topic era, and both voted on here. And you’re clearly more familiar with Wikipedia than you should be. I’m sorry but your explanation just doesn’t seem likely.
- As for your points on the supposed “indianization” of the dynasty, I should let you know that I’ve actually already addressed the two biggest points you’ve brought up in the discussion above. One of the other users were making the same claims.
- They also heavily had intermarried with Persian princesses, so what’s special about them mixing with Indians? It would be more accurate to say they are mixed rather than referring to them as indianized. Furthermore, Paternal ancestry is the only thing that’s relevant to not only the nobility of the past, but Islamic societies in general. They identify with their fathers and great great great grandfathers, which is why they always referred to themselves as the house of Timur.
- You say the culture was indianized but in the same paragraph agreed that the dynasty was syncretic. If it’s syncretic, then it wouldn’t be accurate to describe the dynasty as indianized because the Mughals were heavily influenced by Persian culture. And this is a fact. So “syncretic” is the more accurate term describing the Mughals, not “indianized”.
- I’m not sure what you mean by this. You should be more specific but also, this goes back to point 2. They were influenced by both Indian and Persian cultures, so describing them as Indian/indianized soley due to some cultural exchange would be inaccurate to say the least.
- I just don’t see a good reason for leaving Indian/indianized in the lead or anywhere else. If there is no consensus as it is currently and likely will continue to be, then as I mentioned, previous content is retained(IE no changes or adding “indianized” to the article). Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Again, considering some of the suspicious activities on wikipedia, I can see where you're coming from. It is purely coincidental that my account was created on the same day as a user who may potentially be a sockpuppet. Again, I have already explained why I am familiar with Wikipedia, and I stand by that
- As for my contributions here, this was one of my first history related contributions. I do not typically contribute or intend to contribute to many history related topics, except for the very important ones. This topic is an important and large topic in Indian history. I do agree though, a topic such as this will have many editors contributing, some of whom may not be acting honestly.
- You're right, if there is no consensus, then of course no changes should be made. I have no issues if Indian/Indianized is not used. After going through this discussion, I am now leaning more towards a syncretic view. I have given my points for this discussion and moved on. If they help in reaching a consensus later, then great. If a consensus is not reached, that is also okay. I am a productive user, not a disruptive one. MohReddy (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well if you agree with me now, then perhaps you should remove your vote.
- As for sockpuppetry, maybe we should discuss this somewhere else like in your talk page. When I have more time, I’ll add a topic there and discuss this with you. Possible wiki violations aside, I appreciate that you were willing to listen and even change your mind. But this other issue still must be addressed in due time. I’m willing to hear you out and see if my initial suspicions were wrong. Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- You do not need to remove your vote. Every editor's opinion is important. The Mughals were more or less Indian/Indianized. Apart from Babur and Humayun who were Turks, all the following Mughals, both in blood and in culture, became more Indianized; some Persian elements remained, which was more visible in the earlier emperors, but arguably, the influence became lesser. As a side note, I do not wish to argue with Someguywhosbored here, as we both have discussed this more than necessary, further discussion should be held in the section above. PadFoot (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- He literally just stated that he’s leaning towards a syncretic view instead of his initial position that the dynasty was “indianized”. Which means yes he should remove his vote if he no longer holds that position.
- “ The Mughals were more or less Indian/Indianized. Apart from Babur and Humayun who were Turks, all the following Mughals, both in blood and in culture, became more Indianized; some Persian elements remained, which was more visible in the earlier emperors, but arguably, the influence became lesser. As a side note, I do not wish to argue with Someguywhosbored here, as we both have discussed this more than necessary, further discussion should be held in the section above”
- You keep making this claim but never have made a rebuttal to the point that the dynasty was very heavily influenced by Persian cultural elements which you are clearly downplaying. This was pointed out by me and Sutyarashi. And they heavily mixed with the Persians as well. Your free to not argue but the fact is, this was never addressed by you.
- I still think this discussion should be here as my last edit summary suggests. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sigh, yes they were 'heavily influenced' by Persian culture in the earlier stage. This is because they were descendents of the Timurids, and the early Timurids were Persianized Turks. However, they did not get more Persianized than they already were in the start, but they did get more Indianized as compared to Babur was. There culture was much more Indian than Persian. Hopefully, this addresses that enough. Also, MohReddy said that the wording need not be included if there is no consensus, not that he preferred it that way, but I'll let @MohReddy decide that himself. PadFoot (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- how does that make a difference? Your just saying that overtime they acquired Indian cultural elements. That doesn’t change the fact that they still carried along their Persian influences with them. So syncretic would indeed be a more accurate description describing the Mughals. Why a preference for indianized over persianized when they were influenced by both and arguably more so by Persians? Saying they were more influenced by Indian culture than Persian culture is completely nonsensical and this point needs its own in depth explanation from you.
- Read Reddys comment again. “ After going through this discussion, I am now leaning more towards a syncretic view.” Clearly implies that his position has changed. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, let him decide that himself. You can't decide for him. Anyways you were pretty incivil with him when he first commented. Also, you are forgetting that the Mughals ruled India not Persia. The 'Mughals of India' they are called, you forget. They had nothing to do with Persia, and ruled India, and adopted the Indian culture and language. They were much more Indian, which was the dominant influence, than Persian. Almost all late medieval and early modern states in India including the Mughals were influenced by Persian culture, but this influence in the Mughals got lesser with time. PadFoot (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn’t call it uncivil and there is still the sockpuppet issue which I said I will bring up in his talk page soon. I haven’t decided for him, I just made a suggestion.
- it doesn’t matter where they rule. Plenty of dynasties have existed in foreign lands, even in India such as the Delhi sultanate.
- “ They had nothing to do with Persia, and ruled India, and adopted the Indian culture and language. They were much more Indian, which was the dominant influence, than Persian. Almost all late medieval and early modern states in India including the Mughals were influenced by Persian culture, but this influence in the Mughals got lesser with time”
- Could you provide a citation for this claim? I’ll just redirect you to what Sutyarashi had already shown. Look at articles such as Mughal cuisine, Mughal architecture, Mughal art and Mughal clothing. They were always influenced by the Persians to the very end. Your claim seems to be OR. You need a source to back this up. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to further comment on the topic of the RfC, as it's already been bludgeoned to death, and nothing more productive is going to come out of these prolonged discussions, but @Someguywhosbored, you should really drop the whole "MohReddy is a sock" suspicion unless you have concrete evidence. He has explained to you extensively why he (according to him) is not a sock, and you have no reason not to believe him unless you have evidence beyond "the account was created recently and commented something that I disagree with"; asking once is fine (although the initial comment could have been much more civil), but he explained his reasoning, so at that point you should have stopped with the public accusations, which veer on personal attacks if not substantiated. You had good reason to have initially believe sockpuppetry due to the previous occurrences in this discussion from newly-created accounts, but if you had glanced at his contributions, [5] you would see his editing is not exclusive to this topic area, which is 99% of the time not the case with confirmed socks. So no, don't "take it to his talk page" as he already explained himself, and thus the onus is on you to provide concrete evidence, by filing an SPI, or drop the accusations. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, it wasn’t just because the account was created recently. It was because it was created on the same day of groovygrinster who is another suspected sock.
- “you would see his editing is not exclusive to this topic area, which is 99% of the time not the case with confirmed socks
- Do you mean the IPA area in general? And how sure of that are you? I’m sure I could find examples of socks editing occasionally outside of their main area of disruption, if only to look more genuine.
- Now there is one thing your right on. I probably should have either filed an SPI report or just done nothing prior to bringing this up in mohs talk page. I wanted to hear him out. But indeed it should have been written in SPI first for all the evidence to be compiled and to avoid seeming like I’m throwing personal attacks.
- I think what sort of made me suspicious is that he seems to have a lot of knowledge about Wikipedia. I know he’s given an explanation, but I thought that could have easily been a lie considering he edits in the IPA area, and made an account on the same day as groovy. But looking back, while that’s still a possibility, I should probably have assumed good faith.
- Like I said, it’s still indeed possible, but that should be mentioned in an SPI report, not his talk page. And I haven’t really decided on whether I’ll go through with that or not. So I won’t bring up sockpuppet allegations here. I’ll make my final decision on that after I’ve taken some time to ponder. Anyway, MohReddy, if your not a sock than I genuinely truly apologize for making the accusation. Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway that kind of sidetracked the conversation.
- @PadFoot2008 please provide a source. Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Look below or above. More than enough sources are provided. Anyways I am tired of going in circles. I have nothing further to say. PadFoot (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- When was there ever a source cited which specifically stated that Persian was less influential within the Mughal dynasty than Indian culture? Because I can tell you now, no such source was ever posted here.
- See now this was my issue since the beginning of this conversation. Anytime we engaged in this topic, it seems like nobody could really give an answer to the Persian question. Anytime it’s asked, it’s never adequately addressed. Its always simply avoided like right now.
- Anyway, I still think chauthcollecter and groovygrinsters vote should eventually be removed as those two are highly likely to be sockpuppets with a lot of evidence compiled against them. I can wait until a checkuser gets involved before doing so though. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @PadFoot2008, I am okay with changing my vote. If my views have changed after a long and informed discussion, I suppose it is fair enough to ask that. MohReddy (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Look below or above. More than enough sources are provided. Anyways I am tired of going in circles. I have nothing further to say. PadFoot (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to further comment on the topic of the RfC, as it's already been bludgeoned to death, and nothing more productive is going to come out of these prolonged discussions, but @Someguywhosbored, you should really drop the whole "MohReddy is a sock" suspicion unless you have concrete evidence. He has explained to you extensively why he (according to him) is not a sock, and you have no reason not to believe him unless you have evidence beyond "the account was created recently and commented something that I disagree with"; asking once is fine (although the initial comment could have been much more civil), but he explained his reasoning, so at that point you should have stopped with the public accusations, which veer on personal attacks if not substantiated. You had good reason to have initially believe sockpuppetry due to the previous occurrences in this discussion from newly-created accounts, but if you had glanced at his contributions, [5] you would see his editing is not exclusive to this topic area, which is 99% of the time not the case with confirmed socks. So no, don't "take it to his talk page" as he already explained himself, and thus the onus is on you to provide concrete evidence, by filing an SPI, or drop the accusations. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, let him decide that himself. You can't decide for him. Anyways you were pretty incivil with him when he first commented. Also, you are forgetting that the Mughals ruled India not Persia. The 'Mughals of India' they are called, you forget. They had nothing to do with Persia, and ruled India, and adopted the Indian culture and language. They were much more Indian, which was the dominant influence, than Persian. Almost all late medieval and early modern states in India including the Mughals were influenced by Persian culture, but this influence in the Mughals got lesser with time. PadFoot (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sigh, yes they were 'heavily influenced' by Persian culture in the earlier stage. This is because they were descendents of the Timurids, and the early Timurids were Persianized Turks. However, they did not get more Persianized than they already were in the start, but they did get more Indianized as compared to Babur was. There culture was much more Indian than Persian. Hopefully, this addresses that enough. Also, MohReddy said that the wording need not be included if there is no consensus, not that he preferred it that way, but I'll let @MohReddy decide that himself. PadFoot (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored, whatever happened to assuming WP:GOODFAITH and WP:DONTBITE. As an Indian with broad interests, why can I not participate in this discussion ? I am not vote stacking, I am contributing to this discussion with informed thoughts. I have also clearly stated on my user page my editing style, interests and aims, which I have been consistent in since I became an editor. MohReddy (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
@MohReddy, its alright, I was only advising you as your own initial arguments supporting option 1 appeared very strong to me. The dynasty wasn't really syncretic, it was primarily Indian, but did have other influences. Perhaps better would be saying that it "was an Indianized dyansty of Persianate Turco-Mongol origin". You can make your own suggestion in your vote as well. Thank you. PadFoot (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored, thank you and I accept the apology. Much appreciated. MohReddy (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- sounds good! I’ll remove the previous vote. You can feel free to make a new comment changing it to option 2 if you wish later. And once again apologies for the accusation. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored, you can't remove someone else's vote. That's not allowed at all. Only he can remove it himself if he wants. He didn't ask you to remove it for him. PadFoot (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008 You basically just made the same argument you’ve been repeating. And you still haven’t sent me that source I asked. Why is the dynasty not syncretic?
- I mean I’m not sure if I can change his vote or not but @MohReddy just to be safe, why not you change your vote? Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @MohReddy, you're free to make your own suggestion for the lead as well, using quotes perhaps. PadFoot (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- But yeah, I appreciate the fact that you were willing to listen and even change your mind @MohReddy. I know I’ve already apologized twice, but I’ll do so one more time. This discussion seemed to have a good result at least. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored, I do appreciate the apology. Thank you again. MohReddy (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008, thank you very much for the support. For now, I am going to remove my vote. I may come back to this discussion if I feel I can add something productive. For the time being, I just want to ponder over things. MohReddy (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, but do reconsider your decision. Thank you for your time @MohReddy. PadFoot (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008, thank you for your time as well, and of course, your support. It was truly appreciated MohReddy (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, but do reconsider your decision. Thank you for your time @MohReddy. PadFoot (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- But yeah, I appreciate the fact that you were willing to listen and even change your mind @MohReddy. I know I’ve already apologized twice, but I’ll do so one more time. This discussion seemed to have a good result at least. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @MohReddy, you're free to make your own suggestion for the lead as well, using quotes perhaps. PadFoot (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored, you can't remove someone else's vote. That's not allowed at all. Only he can remove it himself if he wants. He didn't ask you to remove it for him. PadFoot (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- sounds good! I’ll remove the previous vote. You can feel free to make a new comment changing it to option 2 if you wish later. And once again apologies for the accusation. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored, thank you and I accept the apology. Much appreciated. MohReddy (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Show references
|
|---|
|
References
|
RfC: Mughal dynasty lead
editPer 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)
- Well, tell us what the current version is! Here:
The Mughal dynasty (Persian: دودمان مغل; Dudmân-e Mughal) was a dynasty which comprised the members of the imperial House of Babur (Persian: خاندانِ آلِ بابُر; Khāndān-e-Āl-e-Bābur), also known as the Gurkanis (Persian: گورکانیان; Gūrkāniyān),[1] who ruled the Mughal Empire from c. 1526 to 1857. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 19 August 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. http://en.m.wiki.x.io/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.[2][3] 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[4] 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.[5] 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)
- Option 2: Mughals were essentially a syncretic dynasty; they can't be characterized as simply Indian, Turkish or Persian. Lede, as it is now, is okay-ish. 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. If not the present lede, it can 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)
- Option 2 No need to go in unnecessary details on lead which are ignored by most of the sources. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1 based on the explanation given by earlier editors, The empire emerged from an Indian historical experience and it collapsed in india, It can be anything but Non-Indian Chauthcollector (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 Per @Sutyarashi:'s arguments. -- However, the idea of adding "Indianized" seems almost purely synthesized, and the sources provided by Flemmish Nietzsche are not from actual historians/scholarly sources, I see almost no reason for such a change at all. Noorullah (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1
- Per the arguments given by Padfoot, The empire emerged from Indian experience and submerged in India, It is backed by many WP:RS sources, This alone is a very big reason for adding "Indian" or "Indianized " in the lead despite other cultural influences they had Deccanichad (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- This account is…pretty new. Anyway RFC is over btw. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- A consensus hasn't been reached yet, so we should probably wait for more votes, and re-open. PadFoot (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- This account is…pretty new. Anyway RFC is over btw. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This RfC was extended at this date due to lack of consensus. PadFoot (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- None of these Instead: "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to about 1715, with a further period of nominal control until 1857." - A link to History of India is useless and distracting in the first sentence, and the REAL dates of Mughal control of the "empire" need to be given right at the start, as a high proportion of readers think that the Mughals actually ruled India for much longer than they actually did. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to reply here. We probably need some outside input
- I wanted to ask, is this the lead you think should be in place or do you mean the first option of this RFC should be replaced with your suggestion?
- I think RegentsPark mentioned that “indianized” seems to be WP:SYNTH. Quote
- “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.”
- Personally I wouldn’t support leaving indianized or Indian in the lead. But what’s the best way to move forward now if we’re having trouble building consensus? Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod, To be truthful, that does seem like a good idea. The Mughal Empire after 1715 comprised numerous polities (the Marathas, the EIC, the various Nawabs, Rajas, Nizam, etc.) who only paid nominal allegiance to the emperor. Perhaps we exclude the dates from the first sentence, and mention the nuanced dates with further information in the second sentence of the same lede. Something like this perhaps: "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin that ruled over the Mughal Empire. The effective dynastic control over the empire lasted from 1526 to 1715, after which the empire disintegrated into a collection of vassal states who acknowledged the nominal suzerainty of the dynasty until 1857." Or we could go with the smaller version given by you as well. PadFoot (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be fine. I can't get worked up about whether it's "Indian" or "Indianized" in the first sentence (both are valid I think, bearing in mind that later emperors had predominantly Rajput recent ancestors), & I don't think a "Persia" word is necessary - an "India" one is. Not giving misleading dates is more important. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I personally wouldn’t support having either term. I think if one must really associate the dynasty with the subcontinent, then one can just say that the dynasty was in “South Asia” like the Mughal empire page. I agree with RegentPark when he stated that South Asia would be preferable to indian, or a loaded synthetic term like Indianized. By referring to them as indianized, it ignores the multi cultural aspect of the empire. One can just as easily say the dynasty was persianized for the same reason as plenty of emperor's had Persian blood and there were more heavily influenced by Persian culture. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- But I think the biggest problem is figuring out how to build consensus for this discussion. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I personally wouldn’t support having either term. I think if one must really associate the dynasty with the subcontinent, then one can just say that the dynasty was in “South Asia” like the Mughal empire page. I agree with RegentPark when he stated that South Asia would be preferable to indian, or a loaded synthetic term like Indianized. By referring to them as indianized, it ignores the multi cultural aspect of the empire. One can just as easily say the dynasty was persianized for the same reason as plenty of emperor's had Persian blood and there were more heavily influenced by Persian culture. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment by Fowler&fowler:
No change needed "was an early modern empire in south Asia" is just fine. Supplementation with a genealogy is not required. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Scratched; see below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)- Um, @Fowler&fowler you seem to be a bit mistaken here, this is the Mughal dynasty page, not the Mughal Empire page. PadFoot (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh. :) This is what happens when you click on something and don't bother with reading anything. I don't really have any interest in this page. I've scratched my comment. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, no worries. PadFoot (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh. :) This is what happens when you click on something and don't bother with reading anything. I don't really have any interest in this page. I've scratched my comment. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29, @Remsense, I would appreciate your opinion on this matter. PadFoot (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've been unwell for a bit and neglecting certain discussions on here, I'll reply in the next couple days. Remsense ‥ 论 04:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 the proposed change would put far too much emphasis on questions of ethnicity, which the next paragraph of the lead is already entirely devoted to; per MOS:LEADREL, emphasis given to topics in the lead should reflect that given to topics in the body, and the current large lead paragraph on ethnicity/origin is already far more emphasis than the body gives the matter. Instead of this fairly tendentious discussion, editors should consider rewriting the lead so that it actually provides a summary of the article's most important contents—something the current lead fails to do and which the suggested change makes even worse. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29, you know what, I somewhat agree with you. The rest of the lead (the next para) does provide substantial information regarding the topic. Thank you for your opinion. PadFoot (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
editPlease discuss in the section above.
References
- ^ Zahir ud-Din Mohammad (10 September 2002). Thackston, Wheeler M. (ed.). The Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor. New York: Modern Library. p. xlvi. ISBN 978-0-375-76137-9.
In India the dynasty always called itself Gurkani, after Temür's title Gurkân, the Persianized form of the Mongolian kürägän, 'son-in-law,' a title Temür assumed after his marriage to a Genghisid princess.
- ^ 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.
Consensus?
editWhy are you telling me to gain consensus on this matter? ONUS is on YOU because you’re the one who wants to add content prior to gaining consensus. @PadFoot2008 WP:CONSENSUS and ONUS has already been explained to you so many times I’ve lost count. At this point, you should already know how it works so I’d argue that this is becoming very distributive, because despite repeated reminders, you keep adding disputed content. “The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
My argument is that “I don’t like it”? Plenty of people have voiced their opinions on the RFC which apply here. (Also why not you explain to me what Indo-Timurids means in your own words?) Curious man didn’t think a term like indianized was very helpful. RegentPark believes South Asia is preferable. Flemmish despite agreeing with option 1, did not believe that we should put leave “Indian” in the lead.
He also mentioned something interesting in his talk page. Which I brought up in my edit summary but it seems like you ignored. When you proposed using the term “indo-Persian”, he wrote this.
“ but with this proposal we seem to be veering into the territory of "Indo-Muslim" which was opposed in the Mughal Empire RfC; any short dashed labels such as these I feel don't deserve a mention “
Short dashed labels like “indo-Timurids” and “indo-Muslim” have no business being here. This was already opposed in another RFC.
More importantly however, you need to gain consensus if you want to add this information. I’ve already showed you wikis policy on this so you know that you’re not supposed to revert my edit until AFTER you gained consensus because ONUS is on you! You were also probably the one who should have went to the talk page first before making another revert. Anyway previous content should be retained unless you gain consensus which is why I’ll revert it back. If you do gain consensus, then you can add this line no problem. But you’re not supposed to be reverting until you do. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008 you’re still adding your preferred edit without using the talk page. The ONUS for achieving consensus is on you! And previous content is removed per no consensus. This is simply what happens when someone raises an objection to your recent edit. So instead of POV pushing and edit warring, you need to use the talk page and gain consensus. Someguywhosbored (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUS clearly mentions that consensus is made by strong arguments, while your deals with the descriptive term, and not the synonym of the dynasty (like Moghul or House of Babur). PadFoot (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's good that you are discussing here instead of editwarring. Perhaps we can discuss here and without canvassing. The RfC was about the ethnicity or descriptive terms like Indo-Persian, Turco-Mongol, etc. No such descriptive terms have been added. See the Britannica article on Mughal dynasty. It mentions that the dynasty was also called "Indo-Timurids, Moghul dynasty or Mughūl dynasty". The term is not a descriptive or ethnic term, it is another name for the dynasty and is also already mentioned in the Mughal Empire article in the name section for the dynasty. PadFoot (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was the one who came to the talk page first(even though you were supposed to do so before me because you didn’t gain consensus) so obviously I wasn’t edit warring.
- Firstly you still haven’t defined what “indo-Timurids” means.
- “ The term is not a descriptive or ethnic term, it is another name for the dynasty and is also already mentioned in the Mughal Empire article in the name section for the dynasty”
- This was the same issue brought up in the RFC of the Mughal empire page. And something that Flemmish mentioned, Short synthetic dashed labels like this don’t belong here.
- Read some of the comments in the previous Mughal empire RFC.
- “short synthetic labels are always fraught and "Indo-Muslim" is especially so. What is the "Indo" part supposed to denote: the geographic location of the empire (for which, as RegentParks indicates, South Asian is preferable) or the "character" or non-colonial nature of the empires as in the Richards quote (in which case, one needs to spell it out as Richards does)?”
- written by abecadare.
- Or read what RegentPark mentioned
- ” our formulation ("in South Asia") captures this perfectly. Indo, or Indian, in the context of the Mughal empire which also spanned modern Pakistan and Bangladesh, just doesn't fit.”
- These previous discussions clearly detailed the problems with short synthetic dashed labels. RegentPark mentioned that words like “indo” or “Indian” should not be used, as South Asia is preferable. So I’d argue that we already have consensus on this matter. But even if we didn’t, the ONUS for achieving consensus is on you!
- “ WP:CONSENSUS clearly mentions that consensus is made by strong arguments, while your deals with the descriptive term, and not the synonym of the dynasty (like Moghul or House of Babur”
- That has nothing to do with what I wrote. The point I was trying to make is that per WP:NOCONSENSUS, previous content is retained if there is a dispute. Which means you shouldn’t be adding your preferred edit at all until you’ve gained consensus. This simply isn’t going to go anywhere if there’s no consensus. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008 okay at this point your clearly POV pushing. I explained that previous content is retained until consensus is reached which means no matter what, you’re not supposed to be adding it without consensus. And because you’re the one still adding your preferred content after this was already explained to you MULTIPLE times.
- Normally I would wait until another editor reverts this to avoid edit warring, but now I can see that you’re clearly committing vandalism, despite the fact that consensus was already explained to you many times. It’s not edit warring as I’m reverting a vandalism case. If not vandalism, then at the very least this is heavily disruptive. Even in your previous edit summary, you’ve been ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and ONUS and just told me to take this to the talk page, even though I’m already here. So I may revert this edit myself, or wait until someone else does.
- You should understand how WP:CONSENSUS works. Including ONUS. Despite the fact that this was explained to you multiple times, you still are adding your preferred edit without consensus. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- You are clearly the one POV pushing, making selective content removals from a range of various articles, clearly visible from your editing history. It is not really that difficult for even a novice to understand that you have a POV-pusher. POV-ish edits are not good and you should not do it, I must advise you that. PadFoot (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion(s) you are pointing to was about adding descriptive terms to the lead. This is not a descriptive term at all, it is another name for the dynasty. Those two have nothing to do with each other. PadFoot (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Before we even say anything, we need to focus on WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS which you are clearly ignoring. I have explained this to you multiple times. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this to you again. I don’t know why you keep ignoring this, but even if you disagree with me, YOUR NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ADDING CONTENT ONCE ITS DISPUTED! You need consensus. You got to understand this.
- “ The discussion(s) you are pointing to was about adding descriptive terms to the lead. This is not a descriptive term at all, it is another name for the dynasty”
- a name for the dynasty? What does this even mean? The official name for the dynasty was the Timurids or house of timur. These seems to be exactly what you just mentioned, a descriptive term. Even if it was another name for the dynasty, have you not read abecadare and regentparks concerns? They clearly are saying that the term “indo” or “Indian” should not be used. I literally showed this to you, so I don’t know how much more clear this can get. And we literally already achieved consensus on this months ago in that rfc.
- im not pov pushing at all. I’m not even adding disputed content. I’m just reverting your content that you added clearly without gaining consensus. You noticeably keep ignoring this point. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Stop shouting. Shouting is not going to help you. Read 3RR. You've made 4 reverts in a row in 24 hours. You should self revert, you're broken 3RR. PadFoot (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- You do realize that you’ve already reverted 4 times on this page right?
- im not shouting. I’ve explained to you how ONUS and consensus worked multiple times and instead of addressing it, your trying to get me blocked for edit warring to push your preferred edit, even though this is a case of vandalism and thus not edit warring. You literally were the one edit warring and your trying to turn this around on me which is what I’ll mention in your report.
- I don’t know how many times this will be explained to you. I normally don’t like doing this but im going to ping some of the other previous participants on this matter. Because this is just getting ridiculous.
- I don’t mind reverting my comment because I’m sure someone else will already see the issue here and revert it back. But for now, I think you’re being really dishonest with this edit warring report.
- @Sutyarashi
- @Noorullah21
- @RegentsPark
- @AirshipJungleman29 Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Whose WP:CANVASSING now? Besides I've reverted only three times not four. PadFoot (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I never got other users to revert edits for me, which is what you were trying to do when you went to Malik’s talk page. I never said a peep when you pinged experienced editors on this talk page. We are discussing an issue which needs to be solved here.
- you made 3 reverts within 24 hours(your first revert was 10 hours ago). Which means per 3RR, you are edit warring. And this wasn’t your first case. I’d recommend you withdraw your case, as we are clearly in the talk page now discussing this. And you’ve already edit warred on not just one, but multiple pages.
- why do you keep ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and ONUS? I noticed that you’ve basically refused to mention it at all. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps read WP:CANVASSING again before asking other editors to do so.
Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.
You notified (pinged) these editors based on their opinion. PadFoot (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)- Okay are you just going to cherry-pick which points you’re going to respond to and which points you’re not?
- I pinged 4 including one you pinged because they had experience in this topic. Again, I never made a fuss when you pinged users here. If I made a mistake here regardless then I’m willing to own it up to it. So if I was canvassing then thats on me. And perhaps I was based on what you’re telling me(I’m not sure if you’re not allowed to ping people in the talk page but I guess it depends on context). But that doesn’t excuse the fact that what you had done was far worse! Not only had you pinged users here, but you actively tried to get Malik to revert edits for you on his talk page.
- The most important argument is the fact that you’re completely ignoring WP:ONUS and WPNOCONSENSUS. You keep ignoring this fact every time I mention it to you. The perfect way to describe this is WP:ICANTHEARYOU. You’re not responding to majority of what I wrote. You were never supposed to add this content in the first place once this was in dispute and you know it.
- I don’t really care too much because sooner or later someone’s going to revert this when they realize consensus hasn’t been reached and your forcefully pushing your preferred edit despite the fact that you need consensus for it. And besides, you ironically reported me for edit warring despite the fact that you yourself were edit warring while ignoring everything I was writing in the edit summary. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in mind, you still haven’t self reverted despite the fact that you were edit warring. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have not broken WP:3RR, nor do I intend to break it. Please read it yourself once. PadFoot (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have replied to every argument you've put forward. You kept on repeating your arguments (I'm unsure why), but I've already replied to each one of your arguments. PadFoot (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I’m not surprised that your continuing to ignore the arguments made. I told you that once someone disputes content you add without consensus, than you need to first gain consensus before adding it back. You’ve ignored that.
- And yes you broke 3RR. “ An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. “. You made those reverts within a 24 hour period. They were a few hours separate from each other. And this isn’t the first time you’ve done this. I’m considering bringing my concerns to the administrative noticeboard because your clearly displaying ICANTHEARYOU by ignoring the vast majority of what I’ve wrote. You should have self reverted a long time ago. I’m sure your edit will eventually get reverted, but this behavior has persisted on multiple pages which I brought up in the report you withdrew. You have ignored WP:ONUS not just here but also on the list of Mughal emperors page and khanate of Kalat. If I ever do a full report, I’ll compile all the evidence. I don’t want it to seem like I’m revenge reporting though which is a problem.
- in the mean time I’ll wait until this issue eventually resolves itself and wait for other users opinions as your clearly not willing to move forward anymore. Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page. Looks at the italics, I performed exactly three reverts, not more than 3 reverts, and I have no intention of performing more than 3 reverts. PadFoot (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- so instead of responding to the fact that WP:ONUS is on you, you focus only on the points that you can engage with freely? Why do you keep ignoring this fact?
- Just to let you know you already reverted me months ago on this page which is indeed reverting more than 4 times beyond a 24 hour period. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh well if you won’t revert yourself despite violating WP:ONUS and NOCONSENSUS, someone else will anyway. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page. Looks at the italics, I performed exactly three reverts, not more than 3 reverts, and I have no intention of performing more than 3 reverts. PadFoot (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in mind, you still haven’t self reverted despite the fact that you were edit warring. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps read WP:CANVASSING again before asking other editors to do so.
- Whose WP:CANVASSING now? Besides I've reverted only three times not four. PadFoot (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Stop shouting. Shouting is not going to help you. Read 3RR. You've made 4 reverts in a row in 24 hours. You should self revert, you're broken 3RR. PadFoot (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I think I was pinged somewhere in the above. As far as I can see, PadFoot2008 did not break 3RR, but I've reverted their addition because citations to reliable secondary sources are preferred to the En. Brit. (see WP:BRITANNICA). Was there really a need for 15kb of heated discussion in seven hours? See WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps you were right. I was just a little annoyed that he was ignoring WP:ONUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS. Kept bringing it up but it didn’t seem like it was getting through to him. At that point I should have been silent, instead of continuously hounding him to answer when it was clear that he never would. I could have been a lot more patient than I was. Someguywhosbored (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @AirshipJungleman29, apologies, I wasn't aware of WP:BRITANNICA. If I were to add reliable secondary sources and not Britannica, would it be seen as a revert to your revert? PadFoot (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think even after that you’d have to establish consensus per ONUS. I’ve already quoted RegentsPark and Abecadare from a previous rfc on the Mughal empire page and short dashed labels that start with “indo” don’t really have any place here. “Indo-Timurids” is venturing very close to that territory. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would not argue any further, but that is a totally different thing which has 0 correlation to this, but if you still don't understand, it's completely fine, and we can bury hatchet here once and for all. I am willing to let go of this issue. PadFoot (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, see WP:3RR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright. PadFoot (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think even after that you’d have to establish consensus per ONUS. I’ve already quoted RegentsPark and Abecadare from a previous rfc on the Mughal empire page and short dashed labels that start with “indo” don’t really have any place here. “Indo-Timurids” is venturing very close to that territory. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment (pinged, though I was kibitzing on this all along). Only alternative common names should be used in the lead and this doesn't seem to be one. Any other names can be discussed elsewhere. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008 what was the point of creating 3 redirects using this term when we already discussed removing it? We shouldn’t be using short dashed labels like this. All due respect, but it seems that every time you fail to gain consensus, you either try to use a different term or find another way to add it into Wikipedia somehow. At this point, you should just understand that consensus seems pretty straight forward on this. We already agreed to remove short dashed labels in the Mughal empire RFC. We also recognized that the term “Indo-Timurid” has no reason to be here and it doesn’t seem like that redirect benefits the articles much. Just wanted to give you a heads up and a chance to remove that so we can move on from this discussion. But feel free to voice your concerns here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously? You have problem with redirects? That's some next level POV pushing. @RegentsPark mentioned that it shouldn't be in the lead because it is not an alternative common name. But it is certainly an alternative name. Besides the name has been there on the Mughal Empire article for a very long time. Pinging @RegentsPark, do you think redirects are a problem here? PadFoot (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was asking what the point of a redirect was? You haven’t explained how this is a beneficial addition to three different articles.
- Also the fact that I’m being called out for POV pushing is kind of ironic. Let’s just consider everything that’s transpired so far. You couldn’t gain consensus for the term “indian” so you changed it to “indianized”. When you couldn’t gain consensus for that either, you tried using another term that uses the term “indo” even though short dashed synthetic labels like that aren’t really helpful per consensus on the Mughal empire talk page(indo muslim discussion). When you couldn’t add “Indo-Timurid” to the lead, you made 3 redirects. It seems to me that the only one POV pushing is you. I never added disputed content. You even went as far as to repeatedly ignore me when I had kept bringing up the fact that ONUS is on you. And per NOCONSENSUS, previous content is retained. Clearly, you didn’t want to discuss that issue because you knew that you were never supposed to revert me again after the content got disputed, but continued to do so anyway. Which is why I waited until someone inevitably reverted you. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's quite the novel you've written. You did mention something about consensus in all caps, so I would mention here that I did get consensus to add "Indian/Indianized" in the above RfC but I withdrew it myself as AirshipJungleman (whom I had pinged as he was gave good 3O's) convinced me that it was not required, as it was detailed in the second para. PadFoot (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- As for waiting on someone to revert me, you pinged people to revert me, but I did not. You lectured me on WP:CANVASSING but apparently that doesn't apply to you. However, I would mention here that I agree with RegentsPark's argument that it is not an alternative common name, and so should not be in the lead. PadFoot (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t ping people to revert you, although I assumed that would be inevitable even if I hadn’t. I pinged people to gain consensus on this new matter. And it was on this talk page too where they already participated. You pinged them as well here which I had no issue with. On the other hand, going into another users talk page(Malik al Hind) specifically to get him to revert certain issues for you is definitely where I’d draw a line.
- You repeatedly reverted me when you weren’t supposed to per ONUS. No matter how many times I reminded you, you ignored it. Clear display of WP:ICANTHEARYOU by not acknowledging that fact at all. This obviously needed intervention by other editors because you were being disruptive. If you didn’t ignore what was written, and self reverted when you were supposed to per ONUS, then I never would have asked for other users to intervene when it was necessary. Like I already mentioned, it’s quite ironic that I’m the one being called out for POV pushing, when I never persistently added disputed content to this article in the first place. All I ever asked for you was to gain consensus prior to adding these terms.
- “ That's quite the novel you've written. You did mention something about consensus in all caps, so I would mention here that I did get consensus to add "Indian/Indianized" in the above RfC but I withdrew it myself as AirshipJungleman (whom I had pinged as he was gave good 3O's) convinced me that it was not required, as it was detailed in the second para.“
- This is just outright untrue and I’ve already responded to this claim of yours in the past. You never gained consensus. Firstly, as I’ve already clarified in several instances, consensus is not voting. You seem to have this notion that the only way to achieve this is through a popularity contest which is not the case. Wikipedia:Consensus
- “It is accepted as the best method to achieve the Five Pillars—Wikipedia's goals. Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote”
- Instead it’s based on the strength of the arguments actually made.
- “ Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy”
- You can hardly say that this was the majority vote. Prior to Airshipjungleman, it was equal or perhaps one more vote for option 1 if you considered Johnbods comment to be a vote(I remember you claimed that one would actually have to write in their vote in Flemmish’s talk page but that doesn’t matter much). This is only if we ignore the fact that 2 of the voters are very likely to be sockpuppets (chauthcollecter and Groovygrinster). Look into whitereapers SPI report. Recently today another user revealed more evidence. Now we have 4 users who have provided proof of their sock puppetry. They are just waiting on a checkuser. So again, discounting sockpuppets, option 2 had bested option 1 by one more vote prior to Airshipjungleman comment(so now two more votes), not to say that voting even matters in this scenario. Even if you do count them, again, we wouldn’t have achieved consensus regardless, because it’s not based on voting. The RFC didn’t even end with Johns comment so how would we have landed on a conclusion? Consensus was never declared by anybody. What made you think that you had attained it? Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can go on and on. I'll wait for RegentsPark. PadFoot (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fine by me. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can go on and on. I'll wait for RegentsPark. PadFoot (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously? You have problem with redirects? That's some next level POV pushing. @RegentsPark mentioned that it shouldn't be in the lead because it is not an alternative common name. But it is certainly an alternative name. Besides the name has been there on the Mughal Empire article for a very long time. Pinging @RegentsPark, do you think redirects are a problem here? PadFoot (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008 what was the point of creating 3 redirects using this term when we already discussed removing it? We shouldn’t be using short dashed labels like this. All due respect, but it seems that every time you fail to gain consensus, you either try to use a different term or find another way to add it into Wikipedia somehow. At this point, you should just understand that consensus seems pretty straight forward on this. We already agreed to remove short dashed labels in the Mughal empire RFC. We also recognized that the term “Indo-Timurid” has no reason to be here and it doesn’t seem like that redirect benefits the articles much. Just wanted to give you a heads up and a chance to remove that so we can move on from this discussion. But feel free to voice your concerns here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what the specific redirects are but any term that could be plausibly searched for is generally considered valid (see WP:CSD). If you think a term is not plausible, you can put a speedy deletion tag on it. Otherwise, you'll need to take it to WP:RFD. RegentsPark (comment) 15:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, @RegentsPark. As for the redirects in question, they are Indo-Timurids, Indo-Timurid and Indo-Timurid dynasty. PadFoot (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark I don’t have a problem with that as long as every other issue is covered. Redirects are not a big deal, just wasn’t sure if it was needed or not. Thank you for clarifying.
- Anyway it seems like this discussion should be over now. Looks like we ultimately decided on not adding terms like “Indian” or “Indo-Timurids” to the article besides redirects for the latter. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, we decided on not adding to the lead specifically, there is a unilateral consensus (I agree as well) to not add it to the first para of the lead. @RegentsPark mentioned that only alternative commonly used names should be added to the first para of the lead. Less common usage should not be in the opening paragraph of the lead (but can be elsewhere). But anyways, the issue can be considered closed. PadFoot (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well regardless, if you wanted to add a term like “Indo-Timurid” or “indian” to the body instead of the lead, you would still need consensus. Also RegentsPark had already stated in the past that South Asia is preferable to terms like that anyway. You’d have to have a good reason to add these terms into the body. And don’t forget ONUS. We have also talked about the use of short dashed labels in previous RFCs in the Mughal empire talk page, where we agreed that it shouldn’t have been used in the article at all(there was an option that would have allowed the term “indo-Muslim” to remain in the article outside of the lead, but consensus landed on removing it entirely).
- Anyway, the discussion is indeed over, and we can move on from this. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please note that India(n subcontinent) and South Asia are different regions. Also, I don't know why you can't rest without bringing it up again and again but sources use "Indo-Timurid dynasty" as a synonym of the Mughal dynasty, as that is the name of the culture and ethnicity, there was nor is any culture called South Asian, there's no ethnic term called South Asian. South Asia is a region. Indo-Muslim (I would object to that, no need to bring it up again and again, it's a stupid word) was proposed by someone else as a descriptive term, not as an alternate name of the dynasty. Even if you object to "Indo-Timurid dynasty" for whatever reasons (again a name, not a descriptive term like Indo-Persian), if there it was more commonly used than it would have to be added to lead per convention. I don't think Someguywhosbored gets it, but maybe @RegentsPark you get it. It would be great if you could please explain it, (as in a hypothetical scenario where it was much more commonly used, I'm not asking to add it to lead). @Someguywhosbored, would you please mind waiting and not replying yet until RegentsPark expresses his view, you've already expressed your view above. PadFoot (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I mean this discussion is sort of pointless but I don’t mind RegentPark giving his opinion on this matter.
- Regardless I’m well aware that South Asia and the Indian subcontinent are not the same thing. The point is that South Asia is the preferable term which you discussed with Joshua Jonathan in the past, and Regentspark.
- “ Indo-Timurid dynasty" as a synonym of the Mughal dynasty, as that is the name of the culture and ethnicity, there was nor is any culture called South Asian, there's no ethnic term called South Asian. South Asia is a region. Indo-Muslim (I would object to that, no need to bring it up again and again, it's a stupid word) was proposed by someone else as a descriptive term, not as an alternate name of the dynasty. Even if you object to "Indo-Timurid dynasty" for whatever reasons (again a name, not a descriptive term like Indo-Persian), if there it was more commonly used than it would have to be added to lead per convention.”
- See now this is very confusing because in your previous edit summaries, you stated that “indo-Timurid” is not an ethnic or cultural term but now you are saying the opposite. So why not you explain to me in your own words what “Indo-Timurid” means exactly?
- Also if that’s all there was to it, then RegentsPark would have never reverted you in the first place. He’s already mentioned above here that South Asia is a preferable term to “Indian” which is indeed a cultural and ethnic term. If you have to associate the Mughals with the subcontinent in some way, then South Asia is preferable always.
- “Also, if you do need to associate it with the subcontinent, the preference should be for South Asian rather than Indian. Because the modern entity India is different from the historical one, we need to be clear what entity we are referring to.” Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- If a name is well sourced, I don't see why it can't be added to the body (actually, it should be mentioned in the article). I would caution against adding any name, other than commonly used ones, anywhere in the lead because they don't add value to the lead. If there is a name section (as in this article), that's where alternative names should go. If there isn't a name section, then something like Indo-Timurid can be integrated into the history section. But, adding alternative names that are not commonly used in the lead is just unnecessary clutter. RegentsPark (comment) 18:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t disagree necessarily. But I’d feel like padfoot should still gain consensus when adding disputed content like that in the body(especially considering the fact that we voted to not use the term “Indo-Muslim” anywhere in the article including the body in the first RFC). I personally wouldn’t necessarily be entirely against it, but I’d rather heed the opinions of other editors first if possible.
- Anyway this discussion hardly matters because it’s over now. It’s not like we are discussing what to add anymore. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree that it shouldn’t be added anywhere in the lead though. I would avoid adding it in the second para or beyond there. Anyway let’s close this issue. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please note that India(n subcontinent) and South Asia are different regions. Also, I don't know why you can't rest without bringing it up again and again but sources use "Indo-Timurid dynasty" as a synonym of the Mughal dynasty, as that is the name of the culture and ethnicity, there was nor is any culture called South Asian, there's no ethnic term called South Asian. South Asia is a region. Indo-Muslim (I would object to that, no need to bring it up again and again, it's a stupid word) was proposed by someone else as a descriptive term, not as an alternate name of the dynasty. Even if you object to "Indo-Timurid dynasty" for whatever reasons (again a name, not a descriptive term like Indo-Persian), if there it was more commonly used than it would have to be added to lead per convention. I don't think Someguywhosbored gets it, but maybe @RegentsPark you get it. It would be great if you could please explain it, (as in a hypothetical scenario where it was much more commonly used, I'm not asking to add it to lead). @Someguywhosbored, would you please mind waiting and not replying yet until RegentsPark expresses his view, you've already expressed your view above. PadFoot (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, we decided on not adding to the lead specifically, there is a unilateral consensus (I agree as well) to not add it to the first para of the lead. @RegentsPark mentioned that only alternative commonly used names should be added to the first para of the lead. Less common usage should not be in the opening paragraph of the lead (but can be elsewhere). But anyways, the issue can be considered closed. PadFoot (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, @RegentsPark. As for the redirects in question, they are Indo-Timurids, Indo-Timurid and Indo-Timurid dynasty. PadFoot (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)