Talk:Mughal Empire

Pov edit?

@Cyber.Eyes.2005 How are my edits POVish? The sources I cited are definitely neutral. Moreover, we can use a different term if "Indianized" sounds complex Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Which type of source ? च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ वार्तालाप करें 02:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources such as Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Malik-Al-Hind John F. Richard is an esteemed historian renowned for his expertise in Mughal history, making his work WP:RS. च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ वार्तालाप करें 06:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. This is why I don't understand how my edits are not neutral and are POVish despite of the reliable sources I used. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

POV has nothing to do with sources cited here. Using the term 'India' for an empire that expanded outside of the modern-day country of India is confusing. Simple English Wikipedia is not English Wikipedia; we try to keep things here easy for non-native English speakers to understand. 'Mauryan Empire was an empire in South Asia' is easier to understand. Calling the empire an 'Indian' state is WP:POV. Also, instead of using words like 'Indianized,' it's simpler to just explain those terms like 'they adapted local culture' or 'adapted South Asian culture.' Additionally, when building consensus, you shouldn't revert edits before reaching a consensus. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 06:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, Isnt it obvious by "India" we aren't referring to Republic of India? We are obviously not. And I don't think so calling the empire an "Indian state" is WP:POV

Because I clearly cited a WP:RS source like from britanica for it.

And i think using the term "South asia" for their settlement isn't valid, Rather we can use the term "Indian subcontinent" if you are ok with that? Because Mughals ruled from present day Lahore and Delhi. The only lands they had in Afghanistan during their peak was Kabul and Kandahar, Even Kandahar wouldn't be the part of their empire for long.

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The Indian subcontinent is defined as the land stretching from the Indus River to the Greater Bengal region. The Mughal Empire held control of the areas west of the Indus, which is not considered part of the Indo-Pak subcontinent. Therefore, the term 'South Asia' is more valid than 'Indian subcontinent.' – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 10:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You didn't even reply me in the talk page here but reverted my edits. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a new proposal , If "Indianize", term is complex. Then we can use the statement "Though they later settled in South Asia and became Indians by adapted to the local culture" because this is what the cited source says. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No, The term "Indian subcontinent" includes the countries of Modern day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Bhutan and Maldives. Therefore the term "Indian Subcontinent" is more valid because that is where the Mughals ruled from after settling to i.e Lahore and Delhi. which is the part of "Indian subcontinent" and not Iranian plateau of South asia.

Moreoever I still don't understand why did you remove the "Indian state" thing. When the cited source clearly says it here.

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

And if you find the term "Indianized" complex, we can add "Though they later settled in South Asia and became Indians by adapting to the local culture" Because that is literally what the Reliable cited sources says. And you shouldn't change such sentences which are backed up with WP:RS Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Cyber.Eyes.2005@Malik-Al-Hind, I've been closely monitoring the discussion, and it's disheartening to note that a consensus has yet to be reached.

@Malik-Al-Hind, Perhaps it would be more appropriate to utilize the citation quote verbatim, without any alterations, in order to maintain neutrality and adhere to reliable sourcing guidelines.

, च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Chatting 03:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. This is why I proposed to remove "Indianize" (if it's complex) and add "Indian". Because Reliable sources such as clearly call it "Indian". And since Mughals indeed became "Indians" after settling in the Indian subcontinent. I propose to add

"Though they settled in South Asia, They became Indians by adapting to the local culture"

Because the terms "Mughal Indian empire" or "Mughal Indian dynasty" aren't uncommon. Below are the list of references for it:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Malik-Al-Hind, You marked this :

• John F. Richards,The Mughal Empire, Cambridge University Press, page. 2 : 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. Would you prefer to use the full quote as it is or just a single line from it?

च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Chatting 04:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with using the full quote either. But as we know, We don't have to copy paste the entire paragraph as it is on the lead, Rather summarise it.

This is why I proposed to add the following sentence:

"Though Mughal emperors were turco-Mongol in origin, they later settled in the Indian subcontinent/south asia and became Indians, Their concerns laid in the future of India and not in the lands they came from, Mughal empire emerged from the Indian historical experience and was the end of Muslim conquest and state building in the Indian subcontinent" Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Cyber.Eyes.2005, I personally find it preferable. What is your stance on it? Or which specific line would you like to adjust, change or discuss further, considering @Malik-Al-Hind earlier suggestion : Though Mughal emperors were turco-Mongol in origin, they later settled in the Indian subcontinent/south asia and became Indians, Their concerns laid in the future of India and not in the lands they came from, Mughal empire emerged from the Indian historical experience and was the end of Muslim conquest and state building in the Indian subcontinent. च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Chatting 04:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I've been clear from the beginning that we need to use simple language here. Do you think this passage is in simple English: 'Their concerns laid in the future of India and not in the lands they came from. Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience and was the end of Muslim conquest and state-building in the Indian subcontinent'? Can a non-native understand it? Now, if you're asking for a simpler version, it would be: 'The Mughal emperors were originally from Central Asia, but they moved to South Asia and became part of the subcontinent. They focused on South Asia, not on their original lands. The Mughal Empire grew out of South Asian history and was the last Muslim empire to conquer and build a state in the region.' I suggest using 'South Asia' for the Mughal Empire as it covered a larger geographical area than just the subcontinent. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 09:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cyber.Eyes.2005 Your simplified version is far changed in sense.

Possibly it would be like :

• Main Source:Though Mughal emperors were turco-Mongol in origin, they later settled in the Indian subcontinent/south asia and became Indians, Their concerns laid in the future of India and not in the lands they came from, Mughal empire emerged from the Indian historical experience and was the end of Muslim conquest and state building in the Indian subcontinent
• Simplified Version: Even though Mughal emperors originally came from Turkic and Mongol backgrounds, they made their home in the Indian subcontinent. They started to establish themselves as Indians and cared more about the future of India than the lands they came from. The Mughal empire grew from India's history and marked the final chapter of Muslim conquest and building states in the region.

Hello, @MathXplore, What is your opinion on this? Which version do you prefer? च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Chatting 09:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with this subject and have no opinion about this. MathXplore (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @MathXplore Okay, thanks for your quick response.

Hello @Cyber.Eyes.2005 , I am agree with your opinion that we should have to use Indian Subcontinent for Mughals. So in place of future of India, using future of Indian Subcontinent. Updating my Simplified version :

• Even though Mughal emperors originally came from Turkic and Mongol backgrounds, they made their home in the Indian subcontinent. They started to establish themselves as Indians and cared more about the future of Indian Subcontinent than the lands they came from. The Mughal empire grew from India's history and marked the final chapter of Muslim conquest and building states in the region.

I am proposing this version to @Cyber.Eyes.2005 and @Malik-Al-Hind as the issue raised between you two. If you both agree, we can conclude the discussion; otherwise, we may need to involve more esteemed simple-wiki editors by pinging for further discussion. च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Chatting 09:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see sources saying 'Mughals started calling themselves Indian.' And I don't think this proposed version is any simpler. Again, the terms 'established themselves as', 'grew from India's history', and 'marked the final chapter of Muslim conquest and building states in the region' are definitely not simple. I think it would be better to involve a few more editors in this discussion. You can post a message on Wikipedia:Simple talk linking to this discussion; hopefully, a few editors might join. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 10:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. But just saying instead of "established themselves as indian", used the simplified form of "Became Indians". Other than that it's perfect and totally fine. One thing I don't understand is, why Cyber eyes is inserting the word "south asian" even though the cited source clearly talks about how Mughals became "Indians" and settled in "Indian subcontinent". Mughals ruled their empire from Lahore and Delhi (and these cities are clearly in Indian subcontinent and not in the iranian plateau), which is where they settled to and ruled from. This is why saying they "settled in Indian subcontinent and became Indians" is a much better term than using the term "south asian" Afterall the cited reliable sources says the same.

So i agree with your proposed simplified version. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cyber.Eyes.2005 Hello, Just messaging again to remind you that the discussion is not over. If you continue ignoring the message for days then we may have to revert your edits in the page. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion that using South Asia for empires is much better than Indian subcontinent. The Mughals ruled a geographical area outside the subcontinent as well. English Wikipedia has used 'South Asia' for the Mughal Empire and not the subcontinent. Additionally, 'South Asia' is much more suitable for Simple Wikipedia. I'll ask you again to please look at WP:SYNTH and WP:POV. You have also been accused of pushing an Indian POV and being part of a Discord POV-pushing group on English Wikipedia, specifically on the topic of the Mughal Empire. I've suggested above to involve a few more editors, so it is better to just wait. I'm not always active here on Wikipedia, so my replies may not be timely. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 10:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cyber.Eyes.2005 Please refrain from engaging in WP:ATTACK. If you don't know I wanted to remind you that the WP:CON reached on the English Wikipedia not necessarily apply to other language editions of Wikipedia. Similarly, consensus established within the Simple does not extend to other Wikimedia projects. If you are attempting to import practices or standards from the English Wikipedia to another language edition, it appears that the reception may be unfavorable for you. It is better to assume WP:NPOV rather than WP:FAITH. Adhere to the subject matter and please avoid going Offtopic, we all are volunteers here. च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Chatting 11:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I would need a bit more clarification of your assumption that this is WP:ATTACK.This consensus has not been concluded, and I'm pretty sure my suggestion was to involve more editors rather than 'attempting to import practices or standards from the English Wikipedia to another language edition'. What exactly do you mean by 'It is better to assume WP:NPOV rather than WP:FAITH'? This is not off-topic; POV-pushing on the same topic we are discussing right now is totally within the scope of our discussion. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 11:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Cyber.Eyes.2005 yeah, POV-Push, also. However, editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing.

• Pinging for further discussion:

Hello

@Dannys712t

@Operator873

@Macdonald-ross

@Vermont

@Peterdownunder

What's your stance on it ? च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Chatting 08:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes but we are talking about settlement here, they indeed ruled over south asia but we are talking about where Mughals "settled to" and where they "ruled the empire" from. The cited sources quite specifically says they settled in "Indian subcontinent" and not "South asia".

They indeed ruled over iranian plateau, but from the "Indian subcontinent"", Which is where they settled to. They became "Indians" after settling to the "Indian subcontinent " and then ruled over parts of "South asia". And you can't use En wiki as a proof over something. You are quite literally contradicting the reliable source cited here and you are purposely extending the discussion.

Moreoever the ANI report against me over for being A Pov pusher from discord has been declined from the administrators as well. I request you to not prolong this discussion about the topic which is being backed up with several sources. You are inserting your own "Word" here. Which is 'South asian".

In conclusion, Mughal empire did existed in "South asia" but the emperors settled in the "Indian subcontinent " and became "Indians" while ruling south asia.Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the leads talk about the location of the empire and not where they ruled from. And you're agreeing that the Mughals ruled South Asia; that is what needs to be in the lead. Other details, such as where their capital was and where they ruled from, are not needed in the lead. I think it is becoming difficult for us to reach a consensus here. My suggestion is to involve more editors; consider posting a message on Wikipedia:Simple talk. Additionally, I don't see any note from an administrator declining the accusation of you being part of an Indian POV-pushing Discord group. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 11:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"And you're agreeing that the Mughals ruled South Asia; that is what needs to be in the lead. "

I never disagreed that they ruled South asia. But we are clearly talking about where they "settled to" or 'Ruled from" as per the cited source. They ruled South Asia from the Indian subcontinent which is where they settled to. Your logic here is "They ruled South asia so settling in south asia is a better term"

But they ruled South asia by settling to "Indian subcontinent" by becoming "Indians" as per the cited source itself. I see absolutely no reason for you to remove that

1) The cited source Is reliable

2)- It specifically mentions Mughals "settled in Indian subcontinent" and "Became Indians". Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss it in the talk page before reverting my edit. You are the only one with this viewpoint. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not talking about the top lead here. Rather other section of the lead. The sources I cited talks about where Mughals "settled to" and what they "became". They did rule south asia which I never rejected. But they ruled it from "Indian subcontinent" as "Indians" as per the cited sources itself. Which is why this is a better term:

Even though Mughal emperors originally came from Turkic and Mongol backgrounds, they made their home in the Indian subcontinent. They started to establish themselves as Indians and cared more about the future of Indian Subcontinent than the lands they came from. The Mughal empire grew from India's history and marked the final chapter of Muslim conquest and building state"

Moreover the ANI discussion has actually been closed. It was against me by A user named Imperial aficianado I think?, The ANI has been closed and archived some days ago. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)