View source for Talk:Mughal dynasty

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject India|importance=High|history=y|history-importance=top}}
}}
== Recent edits  ==

I couldn’t edit below concerns possibly because I’m on a mobile phone currently but anyway let me get to the crux of the issue. 

Firstly per MOS:Ethncity, mentions of ethnicity should not be in the lead. Notice how most wiki pages regarding empires/dynasties these days no longer have ethnicity in the lead? It’s because of this rule. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 07:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:Forgot to ping you @[[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot2008]] [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 07:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Someguywhosbored|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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''PadFoot'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 08:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
{{hat|(Very) extended discussion}}
::I wasn’t aware about the fact that MOS:ETHNICITY only applies to people until now. Perhaps I can concede on that point. But that doesn’t really address my other concerns. You still need consensus for a change like this. Again we already brought up the fact that there’s always going to be sources that defend a certain viewpoint in the last discussion. But you still need to discuss your change with other ediors and get consensus. Already showed you a quote from Regentspark. 
::@[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] @[[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]]
::@[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]]
::Pinging other editors who were involved in the Mughal empires talk page for their opinion on this. Apologies if that may not be appropriate or if this is bothersome. But I thought getting some other users input would be helpful in settling this disagreement. If you’d prefer not getting pinged let me know. But what do you all think of referring to the dynasty as “Indian” in the lead and article? [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 08:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Also btw, there were sources that did use the term indo muslim but it was still rejected in the consensus for largely the same reasons I reject leaving “indian” in the lead for this page. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 08:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I would also welcome the opinions of other editors regarding this. Once again, most other prominent dynastic articles state German, European, Indian, etc. in their lead, making it a common practice and informative to the reader as well. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 08:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Saying it is an "Indian" dynasty in the lead by itself is just blatantly incorrect, so of course we shouldn't say that; the wording on this diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mughal_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1233090845] by Padfoot after the mini edit war between you two is much worse than the initial change [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mughal_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1231997562] as the former doesn't even mention the non-Indian origins of the dynasty; while the wording in the initial reverted edit is still false, as they were not always an Indian dynasty, I don't think Padfoot was trying to say they were; the Mughal dynasty was certainly Indianized to the point of being an Indian dynasty by their collapse, but again saying they are "Indian" outright is always going to be incorrect. A wording of "...was an Indianized Turko-Mongol dynasty" I think would be more appropriate and correct here, though we would of course need sources using the exact wording of "Indianized". Another option would be to leave ethnicity out of the first paragraph altogether, which seems to work fine on the article for the [[Habsburgs]] as they of course were not all German despite their German origin (replying to Padfoots comment above, yes those dynasties state the ethnicity but with many such as these and the Habsburgs it is not as simple {{emdash}} "European" is also not an ethnicity last I checked). If there is consensus we need to have ethnicity in the first sentence, the wording I mentioned I think would be the best but right not there is not consensus to do so and thus I think it would be best for the nuance of the situation to leave it out altogether. [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] ([[User talk:Flemmish Nietzsche|talk]]) 18:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Most importantly he would still need consensus for a change because there’s a disagreement. If padfoot can’t get consensus than per [[Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS]], the previous content must kept. 
::::Anyway I think flemmish mentioned an important point on how this topic is too nuanced to leave a term like “indianized” or “indian” in the lead. This point was actually stated already in the talk page of the Mughal empire. I think otherwise you could just as easily lead with the fact that the empire was “Persianized”, which I think would be more accurate anyway, but still wouldn’t support leaving it there in the lead unless there’s good reason. But due to the fact that the empire had a lot of different cultural influences, it’s hard to really pin point one culture and say “Mughals were a part of that” when they were influenced by multiple societies. But that’s just my opinion. Based on that, I don’t think “indianized” should be in the lead either. Either way I think we still need a consensus. And I mostly agree with flemmish here. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 21:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]], I am not necessarily saying here that they were Indian in ethnicity. I meant it to convey more that they were (apart from Babur) born in India and ruled India, as all readers might not be aware of what the Mughal empire was. They did not have much to do with either Turks or Mongols later on and stating that in the beginning is kind of pointless. Origin is stated in detail in the next para. See [[Afsharid dynasty]] and [[Qajar dynasty]] for example. They both say that they were Iranian dynasties in the lead but of Turk origin in the next line. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 02:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]], only the founder [[Babur]] and his son, [[Humayun]] were [[Turco-Mongol]], and spoke [[Chagatai Turkic]] (though Humayun was half Persian, and he married a Persian princess as well). Thus Akbar had a mostly Persian ancestry, and spoke the Persian language. [[Jahangir]] onwards, all 16 emperors had a largely Indian ancestry (except [[Aurangzeb]] who was half-Persian) and spoke the [[Hindustani language]] (except Jahangir and Shah Jahan who spoke Persian). Thus, the dynasty was an Indian dynasty for much of its existence, with sources predominantly using "Indian" not "Indianized", as the latter often indicates a change in culture only. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 12:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot2008]] Hello! I just noticed that you made another edit removing a source to avoid a ref bomb, which would normally be fine but the issue is you still haven’t gained consensus for this change so you should probably revert it back to the original content prior to your edit. Because this shouldn’t be there per No consensus. In interest to avoid edit warring, I’m asking you here.
:::::This may change if you gain consensus.
[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 00:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:(This was rewritten) 
:And just to clarify, all the changes you made to the lead should be reverted in the mean time. The original edit should stand. (Before all your recent revisions which mention “Indian”). I wrote this to avoid confusion and specify which edit I was writing about. Again, if you do gain consensus, you can change it back to your preferred edit. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 00:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::I reverted the recent edits. I'm not sure I'd use Turco-Mongol either. By the time of its demise, there was little left of the original rulers. 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.  [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 03:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]], "India" is still widely used to refer to the historical region (when used in a historical context). South Asia seems anachronistic in this case. I doubt you'd find any sources calling it a "South Asian dynasty" or the "Mughals of South Asia". That's like referring to the Rai dynasty of Sindh as a "Pakistani dynasty", which would be extremely anachronistic and absurd. I think that Indian should be used. And your edit summary was a bit strange, why can't there be imperial and royal dynasties? Also the current lead says the "the Mughal dynasty was an empire". Do you really prefer that lead? [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 05:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::There is no real need to use Indian or South Asian but, if we have to, we should prefer South Asia unless there is a reason not to. In this case, something simple like "The Mughal dynasty was the dynasty that ruled the [[Mughal Empire]] from 1526 to 1857" is likely more than sufficient. I agree that South Asian dynasty may not be well supported but "in South Asia", as for example: "a dynasty that ruled the Mughal Empire in South Asia" is perfectly fine. [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 06:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]], "Indian" and "Mughals of India" are very well attested in sources. I don't see a reason not to use Indian. Even "in South Asia" is not used, and instead "in India" is used predominantly by sources. "South Asia" should be used when talking about the post-partition (1947) era. In the pre-partition era, sources and historians overwhelmingly use "in India" because there isn't a reason to not use it. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 08:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
*I'm not disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that, ceteris paribus, we should prefer South Asia over India. If there is a strong case for India or Indian, that's fine too. [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 03:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree with @[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] on this, mentioning ethnicity when this would be attributed to present day India cannot be helpful to the article. And also, @[[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot2008]] said south asian would be a vague word to mention. So in my opinion, this lede seems fine as mentioning ethnicity is not a necessity. [[User:Curious man123|Curious man123]] ([[User talk:Curious man123|talk]]) 13:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
*::I never said Indian is an ethnicity. And also, RegentsPark never disagreed on using "Indian" if there's a strong case for it. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 15:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Well either way you would need consensus for that change. 
*:::Personally I don’t see why we need Indian in the lead. From an ethnic standpoint, they were originally foreign. There was some mixing later but that doesn’t exactly change where they came from. Especially considering in Islamic societies, ethnicity is based on the paternal side. And they didn’t just mix with Indians either(many of them were related to Persians). 
*:::So if not for ethnic reasons, then what else is there? Culture? If so I’d argue that Mughals were probably more influenced by the Persians. Persian culture pretty much trumped everything else within the Mughal empire. 
*:::Again, there may have been Indian characteristics attached to the empire, but you could say the same thing for many other ethnic groups. It’s difficult to claim that they were culturally in uniformity, when they have been influenced by so many different identities. The empire/dynasty is far too nuanced for that kind of categorization. You see the issue now? The lead currently is fine. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 17:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::Ethnicity is inherited from both sides, not just the paternal side. Please note that "ethnicity" is different from "surname". Ethnicity is based on language, ancestry and culture. Except the first two emperors, Akbar onwards their language was Persian and then Aurangzeb onwards it was Hindustani. Jahangir onwards all emperors had mostly Indian ancestry (except Aurangzeb who was half Persian). This makes the dynasty undoubtedly Indian. Only the first two emperors were Turco-Mongol, not the entire dynasty. And above all, Wikipedia is based on sources, and there are plenty of sources calling them Indian. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 08:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I’m referring to Islamic cultures in general. I’m not sure if your aware of this, but typically in Islam, ethnicity is based on your fathers side. Do you really think ottoman sultans whom were usually birthed to foreign mothers would identify with the ethnicity of their maternal side? Or would they simply identify themselves as ottoman? Same situation applies here, the Mughals would identify themselves as part of a lineage(on the paternal side). Having Indian ancestry doesn’t change the origin of the actual empire. 
*:::::I think the point is that sometimes you can find many a lot sources that defends your argument. But that’s a given in a really nuanced topic like the Mughals. There’s always going to be different viewpoints amongst scholars. For example, what about the scholars who don’t describe Indian ethnicity to the Mughals? Of which I’m sure if you asked, I could find plenty(I already read plenty that don’t include the term Indian), some are already listed in the Mughal empire page, where they mention ethnicity but don’t say anything about the Mughals being Indian. Remember what regentspark stated? If the topic is too nuanced and there’s going to be various different viewpoints on it, then it’s going to take a bit more work than sending a few sources. Let me cite what he said one more time just to be clear. 
*:::::“ 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)”
*:::::does that make it more clear? i know I repeated myself but maybe you can start a poll to gain consensus for this topic? Unless you want more time convincing the people in the talk page prior to a consensus which is fair. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 20:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Also just to clarify, are you saying that Hindustani culture trumped Persian in the Mughal dynasty? If so I would vehemently disagree with you. Persian influenced the Mughals more so than any other culture. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 20:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]], I don't think you still understand what ethnicity is. It is not inherited from fathers. It is not inherited at all. It is a complex thing based on your ancestry and language, and often but not always, culture. Even your example is flawed. Do understand that Ottomans didn't see themselves as Turks as mentioned at all (See Name section of the Ottoman Empire article). Turk referred to the peasant populations of Anatolia while the urban populations called themselves Romans. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 02:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I’m obviously not talking about ethnicity in general, just from the Islamic perspective. Yes it’s a complicated topic that requires more nuance. Honestly the Islamic perspective of ethnicity is kind of irrelevant, so let me just focus on one thing. Do you really think the ottomans sultans didn’t view themselves as ottoman(don’t think I even used the term “Turk” here to describe the ottomans which seemed to be the biggest criticism in your comment)? They mixed to the same extent of that the Mughals did, if not more. Their wives and concubines were typically most of the time foreign. But I doubt that changes their identity especially considering they otherwise wouldn’t be referred to as ottomans(and yes they did refer to themselves as ottoman) so why wouldn’t they just identify with their mothers lineage instead? Obviously because they still identify themselves ottoman). Why would they continue referring themselves as the house of Osman? An identity that was brought down from their great great grandfathers, not their mothers. 
*:::::::Also it seems you just admitted that ethnicity is a more complicated issue beyond blood ties. If that’s the case, you would need more than just examples of emperors with Indian blood. It requires a much more complicated analysis of the Mughals as a whole, which is subject to a lot of debate and differing viewpoints. And I don’t think most people are well equipped do to that anyway. 
*:::::::Anyway this argument seems to be pointless because it doesn’t seem like this is the biggest reason people have been issues with the term “indian” in the lead. Those are just my thoughts, but I don’t think this changes consensus. The Important point is that nobody sees a reason to leave Indian in the lead, partially because the topic is too nuanced for that kind of assertion. And you should probably try to answer this older question from regentspark which relates to this. 
*:::::::“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)”
*:::::::Obviously not every historian that has written about them, has claimed that the Mughals were Indian. Typically their original ethnic extraction (Turco Mongols)is the most well known fact about their origins. Claiming that they are Indian seems to be an alternative viewpoint(much like the indo muslim claim). 
*:::::::Anyway South Asia is a better term if you really want to associate the dynasty with the subcontinent as regentspark mentioned. Try getting consensus(you can do a poll or find another solution) if you want to use the word “indian” otherwise. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 03:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::And just to clarify one more time, I’m not saying that I personally believe ethnicity is based on the fathers side. I’m just talking about Islamic societies. And to be honest it’s a minor point anyway because the major issue is that the ottomans identified themselves as ottoman which came from their paternal side anyway. So whether Islamic societies value paternity or not is irrelevant. The ottomans obviously did not ditch that term for something else, which is why they are still called ottomans, and not whatever identity their mother came from originally. Situation applies to the Mughals. They chose to identify with a lineage created by babur. So forget the whole mom and dad thing and just focus on their identity. Mughals still viewed themselves as the house of timur(Timurids). [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 04:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]], Now you are conflating dynasty with ethnicity. The Ottomans continuing to view themselves as Ottomans is irrelevant here as Ottoman is the dynasty, not ethnicity. The Mughals continued to view themselves as the same dynasty as well. Ethnicity is a parameter unaffected by what dynasty you are part of. As I said before dynasty doesn't affect ethnicity. The dynasty was initially Turco-Mongol for the founder and partially for the second emperor. Following Akbar, the dynasty was Indian. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 08:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Inviting @[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] to reconsider his opinion based on the arguments presented above. If acceptable, "Indianised dynasty" would do too. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 08:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Just to give my two cents on the change to “indianized” proposal. You could just as easily say that they were Persianized considering they were heavily influenced by them. In fact I would still argue that Persian definitely influenced the Mughals in ways that no other culture could come close. Either way these are two external cultures that influenced them heavily so you could make arguments for both. Again, that’s why assigning these terms to the lead is too nuanced for a dynasty like the Mughals. There was so many different components and characteristics from many different cultures that they inherited. In this situation, it’s difficult to point at one and say, “that’s them” because that’s not very clear at the moment. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 09:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] I don't think "Persianized" is the correct term here, as the Mughal dynasty did not become "more Persian" after Babur and arguably became less so as they Indianized; it's the Timurid dynasty which was Persianized (Persianized Turco-Mongol), but the Mughals, which where already a Persianized Turco-Mongol dynasty from their inception, were instead, and I believe this is the correct long-term, "Indianized Persianate Turco-Mongol dynasty". We of course don't have to say this in the lead, but I'm just refuting your argument that they were more Persianized than Indianized.
*:::::::::::@[[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot2008]] My original argument still holds here in that, as Someguywhosbored has continued to say, "Indian" is not the correct term here, even if you can find a couple sources which say it, as you can't change the fact that they were Turco-Mongol from the beginning and saw themselves as such even if the later monarchs were more Indian than the first two; that's what the "Indianized" term is here for, and I additionally wouldn't accept just that term alone as it does not specify from what they were Indianized; I still think "was an Indianized Turco-Mongol dynasty" is the correct wording. [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] ([[User talk:Flemmish Nietzsche|talk]]) 22:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::I personally respectfully disagree with you on a few points, but overall think we are on the same page. 
*::::::::::::For the indianized aargument, I actually showed many emperors which had Persian blood in my previous reply to padfoot. “Indianized” seems to be looking at this through the lens of a cultural perspective. When it comes to culture, the Mughals were influenced by various different people. But I would still argue Persian probably had the most impact on them. It was for majority of their history, the preferred language and court language. Even Urdu/Hindustani only became a court language during 
*::::::::::::Muhammad Shahs reign during the empires great decline. Either way, it’s difficult to argue that they were “indianized” when you could just as easily say they are “Persianized” which is a description used for many Turkic dynasties like the ghaznavids for similar reasons. I think that due to the fact that Mughals were influenced by various different cultures, we shouldn’t point at one and say they were uniformly a part of it, when that kind of ignores contributions from other ethnic groups to the Mughal court culture. 
*::::::::::::but that’s just my opinion once again. Either way I think we are in the same page. I definitely wouldn’t accept Indian being in the lead much like you. I just think “indianized” might be a bit too restrictive. 
*::::::::::::Also regentpark suggested not listing Turco Mongol in the lead so is there really much of a point in adding indianized when we aren’t even going to be mentioning their ethnic origins? 
*::::::::::::Either way if we are going to make a change, it needs consensus. I personally agree with regentparks proposal, that we either leave the lead as it is or add that the dynasty was in “South Asia” if we really need to identity it with the subcontinent. If we don’t get achieve consensus, then the lead simply remains per [[Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus]]. 
*::::::::::::Nonetheless I do agree with your point on not leaving “Indian” in the lead. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 22:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::But as you said we don’t have to add indianized in the lead. I know you were just stating your opinion(no hard feelings obviously). So whether I’m right or your right seems kind of irrelevant, especially considering this is kind of subjective. If there is consensus, I’m okay with the wording changing to indianized(although would vote against it in a poll)but I think it’s best to just leave it as it is for now. Maybe “in South Asia” might be a good comprise if we must associate it with the subcontinent in some way per regentpark. Otherwise until there’s a poll, I’m okay with this current lead. 
*:::::::::::::Those were my thoughts :) [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::@[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]], alright, I agree to your suggestion of "Indianized Turco-Mongol dynasty", instead of my "Indian(ized) dynasty" suggestion. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 03:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Still would need consensus for a change like that, but it’s good that you acknowledge we shouldn’t be leaving Indian in the lead. We can come to an agreement on that at least for now. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 04:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Do we not have consensus for this? You do know that any discussion is itself building (or attempting to achieve) consensus, as outlined on [[WP:CONSENSUS]], right? Consensus is not only achieved through Requests for Comment and "formal" discussions. [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] ([[User talk:Flemmish Nietzsche|talk]]) 04:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::Why would there currently be a consensus? You two maybe agree with each other but I don’t believe RegentPark and I  ever agreed with that. RegentPark suggested leaving the lead as it is, or as a compromise, add “South Asia” to the lead. I personally agree with his proposal. Also pretty sure consensus is more than just a numbers game. You would still need to build a strong case for making the change to indianized. Personally, I don’t see how you can argue that it’s indianized while ignoring the fact that it was arguably more influenced by Persians culturally. But I digress, we can always do a request for comment if we can’t come to an agreement. I think more opinions on this topic would be better anyway. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 05:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::I see. I agree that more opinions would always be better here. We do have consensus for not having Indian in the lead, so we're at status quo from prior to Padfoot's initial edit, we just don't have consensus on what to add in place of "Indian", which is right now nothing. [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] ([[User talk:Flemmish Nietzsche|talk]]) 05:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::Yeah that pretty much sums it up perfectly. We are currently at no consensus. But that could change. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 05:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::Although personally I think the lead is okay, but there’s always a compromise if that’s needed. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 05:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::That’s not the point. The argument is they would identify with a common lineage, and in both cases in origin they coincidentally happen to be Turkic(Turco mongol to be more specific for the Mughals). I’m not saying dynasty is the same thing as ethnicity, but a dynasty still has its origins. The Mughals didn’t start identifying themselves as “Rajput” or any other Indian ethnicity. They didn’t take after titles from their mothers side. More importantly they never identified with any other noble house/lineage. They always identified as the house of Timur, which was originally turco mongol in origin, and that never changed. 
*:::::::::As for the fact that some of the Indian emperors were mixed, I’ll go over that. 
*:::::::::Auarangzeb had a Persian mother. So did shah jahan(albeit he ruled briefly). Here’s a few more: 
*:::::::::- Azam Shah
*:::::::::- Rafi ud darajat(born to [[Nur-un-Nissa Begum who was from khurasan) 
*:::::::::- Muhammad ibrahim (same mother) 
*:::::::::- Rafi ud daulah 
*:::::::::I’ll grant that other than Aurangzeb they ruled briefly although to be fair so did many of the other Mughal emperors. Also Its hard for me to confirm that all Mughal emperors after Akbar were born to Indian mothers because there was many I couldn’t find information about. Can’t go through all but I’ll show a few. 
*:::::::::[[Shah Jahan III]]
*:::::::::[[Shah Jahan IV]]
*:::::::::I counted like 5 who had Persian blood, and two emperors I couldn’t find any information on. That’s 9 out of 21 emperors without Indian blood so far including the first emperors. The other two, I have no idea where their mothers came from. There may be more that I missed. 
*:::::::::I mean just by looking at it, it’s clear they were influenced by multiple different cultures. The Mughals were mixed. Which is why I don’t think it makes any since to just refer to them as Indian and call that a day. That basically removes any nuance and seems kind of dishonest to the readers. And it ignores their origin. You could just as easily make an argument that they were Persian based on how much they influenced the dynasty culturally and even genetically to some extent(for the royal family I mean). [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 09:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::A vast majority still were Indian nonetheless. 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. They ruled India and spoke the Hindustani language. Thus, they are still Indian. And finally, Wikipedia articles are made using sources, and tell what sources say. And there are numerous sources clearly stating the dynasty was Indian. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 11:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::That’s 9 just from the emperors I’ve confirmed ethnicities for. There was like several where I couldn’t confirm their maternal ethnicity. And there was also 1-2 who were only 50/50 Turco indian(Turco Persian emperors were like 50% persian, with the rest being Indic and Turkic in the mix, which means their maternal Persian dna for some emperors would be higher). So actually it’s difficult for me to confirm that majority of the emperors were mostly Indic. I just want to point out that the vast majority of those Indian emperors were in power while the empire fell in decline. (also is this a numbers game to you)?
*:::::::::::“They ruled India and spoke Hindustani” you do realize they also spoke Persian right? In fact Persian was their official language for far longer and had a much bigger impact on their culture. It was the langua franca and preferred language of the Mughals for most of their history except maybe during the last 100 years when it was in decline(which I haven’t even confirmed). Culturally Persian had a bigger importance to the Mughals for most of their history.  Hell Persian already influences those languages. To my knowledge Urdu/Hindustani was first adopted by the Mughals as a court language way late during Muhammad shahs reign. Prior to that Persian had been preferred and even after its adoption, they were both highly important to the Mughals. It’s important to note that they only adopted Urdu/Hindustani as a court language in the 1700s long after Aurangzeb, when the empire was in rabid decline. For a good portion of its existence from 1526-1857, they were an empire in name only during their final years. But anyway kind of irrelevant, let’s focus back now.
*:::::::::::This is my point, virtually every argument you’ve put forward, you could easily say the same for another ethnic group that influenced them, most notably the Persians. You haven’t really been giving me any good reasons for writing “Indian” in the lead.
*:::::::::::Your final point just seems to be a rehash of something I’ve already responded to. How many times am I going to repeat what RegentPark stated in another talk page?
*:::::::::::“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)”
*:::::::::::Your argument is very similar to another user who was trying to push “indo Muslim”, and regent gave him the same answer despite the fact that he cited sources. We have plenty of sources which also don’t describe the Mughals as Indian. So you need to explain why this is an alternative position, what the alternative terms are, gain consensus on how to present that term, ETC. Either way you need get everyone to agree and there also requires a lot more explanation from your part. And I don’t just mean by responding to me, but also building consensus and actually listening to regent parks advice.

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). 
[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:"Undiluted"? Are we talking about chemicals here? And the Turkic ancestry would be negligible. The Mughal emperors with Persian mothers had Indian fathers (mostly Indian ancestry and negligible Turkic ancestry) and Persian mothers. And Y-DNA haplogroup doesn't matter in the slightest here. Haplogroup is different from, and doesn't determine ancestry. Your haplogroup could be the complete opposite of your actual ancestry composition. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 11:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
::You know what it means in that context. The point is their fathers side would still be mixed, while their mothers side would be full blood Persians. Even if they had mostly Indian dna on their fathers side(but still their paternal lineage/haplogroup comes back from the Turks). 
::And yes I know what a haplogroup is thank you. I’m just saying that their lineage can still be traced back to their great great Turkic grandfathers. Your argument seems to be that they were 50/50 Persian Indian when that’s not the case. Either way if we played your logic, their kids would be Persian. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 17:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:I agree with padfoot here, I don't understand your main point here? We don't see nationality only by ethnicity. Mughals ruled from India, (Delhi/Lahore), Followed Indo-Islamic culture, All the emperors of the dynasty except for babur were born in india and died in India. They are known for their immense contribution in Indian history, This is in contrast with the Afsharid dynasty of Persia which wasn't iranian in origin. I have seen such edits of yours in other talk pages as well. 

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. [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 10:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*I've reverted the addition made by Padfoot. Someone needs to explain why we need to include the "ethnicity" in the article. Clearly, the ethnicity is mixed and arguing about how much was this ethnicity or that is a pointless exercise (Bahadur Shah Zafar, for example, is probably best described as Rajput since his mother was Rajput and his father had plenty of Rajput ancestors). A lot of the discussion above is well into [[WP:OR]] territory and I suggest sticking with "The Mughal Dynasty was a dynasty that ruled the Mughal Empire between xx and yy". [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]], Because it is helpful and provides information to readers as well as providing a better lead. The sources provided certainly show that it is not OR (atleast the "Indianised" part, I'll add sources for "Turco-Mongol" too). The lead suggested by you is not very helpful to readers at all. You realise how absurd the lead sounds, when you say "ABC dynasty was a dynasty that ruled the ABC empire". The lead becomes pointless then. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 16:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::Me and Flemmish have already reminded others that consensus was never reached. 
*::you need to stop trying to make these changes until you’ve actually built consensus. We just mentioned that the lead shouldn’t have been changed per no consensus. And regentpark already has a solution to your complaint at the end. You can just say the dynasty was in South Asia if you really want to associate it with the subcontinent. Otherwise, you can improve the lead in other ways that doesn’t just include using the term “indian” or “indianized”. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 17:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]], there is, in fact, now, consensus to include Indianised/Indian in the lead as there are three supports as of now as Malik al-Hind put in his support as well. Additionally RegentsPark doesn't appear to be in opposition to addition of Indian(ized) to the lead as he mentioned above. He has said that he doesn't oppose me and is fine with the addition if there's a strong case for India. 
*::Also @[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]], I think that "Indian/Indianized branch of the [[Turco-Mongol]] [[Timurid dynasty]]" might be better as it seems very few sources directly call the Mughal dynasty "Turco-Mongol" (though there are of course a few that do). Plenty of sources call the parent Timurid dynasty "Turco-Mongol" so it would a better sourced lead IMO. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 17:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Um…actually as a matter of fact you are FAR from building a consensus. 
*:::“ Additionally RegentsPark doesn't appear to be in opposition to addition of Indian(ized) to the lead as he mentioned above. He has said that he doesn't oppose me and is fine with the addition if there's a strong case for India”
*:::he literally just reverted you for making that change. So clearly RegentPark does disagree. Curious man also suggested not leaving Indian in the lead. Malik didn’t even say anything about the term “indianized”. He just asked to use the term “indian” again even though we have already been through the fact that we won’t use that term per consensus.
*:::And again, consensus is more than just voting and a numbers game. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 17:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]], I would suggest you to read what Malik al-Hind said again, he said "{{TQ|So my suggestion remains the same as that of flemmish, But instead of "Indianized" turco mongol state, I prefer to add "Indian Turco Mongol}}", he clearly says that he agrees with the addition of "Indianised" to the lead but he would prefer "Indian". And curiousman opposed "Indian" not "Indianised". And RegentsPark due to lack of sources and concern about OR as he mentions in his edit summary as well as his comment. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 18:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:I still stand by RegentParks proposal though. I think it’s the most sound. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 17:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::*:No, Please don't miss-quote me, I was always ok with both "Indian" and "Indianized". "Indian" was just a mere suggestion. Flemmish agrees with this too. There are  3 people (me, Padfoot and flemmish) with this suggestion, Curious man himself doesn't seem to disagree with "Indianized", he only has problem with the term "Indian". We can consider having an RFC here. [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 18:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::*::I think you two need to understand that consensus is more than just voting. You still need to present a strong case which I haven’t seen from either of you. 
*::*::Anyway, curious man didn’t say anything about indianized because he wasn’t there for that part of the discussion. And as I’ve stated before we should consider an RFC or get more opinions from other editors on this. 
*::*::@[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]]
*::*::@[[User:Curious man123|Curious man123]]
*::*:: I know regent disagrees because he reverted padfoot but to be sure, what do you two think of using “indianized” in the lead? Much like regent park I think it would be better to either leave the lead as it is, or just state that it was from South Asia. 
*::*::Also curious man already voiced his opinion on this. While he didn’t mentioned the phrase “indianized” Turco mongol. He still believes that ethnicity should not be mentioned in the lead. Let me quote what he stated. 
*::*::“ I agree with @RegentsPark on this, mentioning ethnicity when this would be attributed to present day India cannot be helpful to the article. And also, @PadFoot2008 said south asian would be a vague word to mention. So in my opinion, this lede seems fine as mentioning ethnicity is not a necessity”
*::*::Even using “indianized would contradict this users viewpoint. Because he clearly states that ethnicity should not be attributed to modern day India, probably because as RegentPark had previously mentioned, our modern day conception of India is different from the historical viewpoint.
*::*::maybe I should ping other users later for this discussion to have more traction. So far it looks 3:3 but this could easily change(and again, it’s not all about numbers). [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 18:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::*:::I wouldn’t mind an RFC either [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 18:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*If we can't even agree on what sort of ethnicity the Mughals were, we probably shouldn't be adding it to the article. If you think we need some kind of geographical identifier, then how about "The Mughal dynasty was a dynasty that ruled the Mughal Empire in South Asia from xx to yy". I'm reluctant to use India or Indian because the Mughal empire, for almost its entire duration, spanned modern Pakistan and modern North-Western India. We don't want to give the reader the (incorrect) impression that it was based only in Modern India. [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 20:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:100% agree. I presume this also goes for the term “indianized”(also denotes ethnicity) correct? I personally think it unfairly ignores other cultures that the Mughals inherited from including the Persians. Much like how they were mixed from an ethnic standpoint, the Mughals were multicultural. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 20:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]]
*::I wanted to reach out to Flemmish and see if I can maybe change your mind on this because we still haven’t reached consensus. I understand your point of view. I just think much like RegentPark had written, that the empire was ethnically mixed and multicultural. It’s difficult to call the empire “indianized” when one could just as easily call it “Persianized”. RegentPark seems to have other concerns as well. 
*::of course your free to disagree. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 21:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Ethnicity is inherently messy and, unfortunately, often comes with some sort of ethnic narcissism. Unless there is compelling reason to include it, and assuming it can be distilled into a single ethnicity, it is best avoided. In this article, I neither see a compelling reason to include it here and nor, clearly, is it easy to distill it down to a well defined ethnicity. Geographical boundaries are less loaded and convey the information equally well. I prefer South Asia over India because the pre and post 1947 Indias are different entities. Note, also, that our Mughal Empire article also uses South Asia rather than India so this would be consistent in usage. [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 22:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Hello. I'm not disagreeing with you that the Mughals were multicultural, or that they were heavily influenced by Persian culture, there's no doubt about that; in my view the "-ize" suffix here would imply that the Mughals ''became'' Persian (if we used "Persianized"), which they did not; as I said before, the Timurid dynasty was equally as Persianate (which is the correct term) as the Mughals throughout most of their history, and thus the Mughals were not a Persianized dynasty, they were Persiante, just like the Ottomans and other states; we could mention that the dynasty heavily promoted [[Indo-Persian culture]] in the lead, but it is different than ethnicity. Indian is obviously not an ethnicity but there's no doubt the Mughals became more of an "Indian" dynasty (Indianized) through cultural and ethnic change.
*:::Though ignoring this, I'm not against leaving out ethnicity altogether if you think it is so controversial as I agree it is a nuanced topic, but as I and Padfoot have said it is very helpful to the reader to include, while just saying it was the "dyasty which ruled x state" is not as helpful. I'm also open to an RfC if you think it is necessary, and "South Asian" would be fine as well as it is clear that is not trying to refer to ethnicity, and rather what they ruled, though again I think my proposal is the most correct. [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] ([[User talk:Flemmish Nietzsche|talk]]) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::Well I’m not sure what the difference between persianate and persianized is. To me that sounds like the exact same thing. 
*::::Edit: Oh I see, so the “ized” just means became Persian? Not adopting Persian culture? Okay but I don’t think that changes view. 
*::::In this case you’re definitely mentioning ethnicity which as we stated, shouldn’t be there per user objection. Same criticism’s apply because well, the Mughals were heavily mixed between three different ethnicities as I’ve stated. But the point I was trying to make is that it makes no real sense to put one identity over another(in this case indianized over persianized/persianate), when they were heavily influenced by both. And I went over how they were plenty of mughals with Persian blood/mostly non Indian blood as well in one of my previous replies to padfoot I believe. So if your claim is that the Mughals became indianized through ethnic and cultural change, the problem is the same can be said for the Persians. That’s why I personally don’t think we should mention any ethnicity or allude to one in the lead. 
*::::RegentPark just gave an excellent reply. After asking about use of the term 
*::::“Indianized”, he suggested that it be best avoided. Ethnicity is really messy, and discussion about a dynasty that’s heavily mixed and multicultural like the Mughals is especially so. 
*::::And this is an especially important point that both me and RegentPark have mentioned but may have been missed by some talk page participants. But there’s a huge difference between post and pre 1947 India. These are completely two separate entities. 
*::::quote RegentPark: “I prefer South Asia over India because the pre and post 1947 Indias are different entities”
*::::I respect your standpoint though. I personally think the lead should stay the same, or just state the geographical location. If there needs to be a compromise, perhaps one of you can add “South Asia” as RegentPark suggests. 
*::::Edit: I have no idea why part of my comment is boxed. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 22:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] thank you for the fix [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 23:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Agree with @[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] suggestions, mentioning India or Indian gives readers an image of present day India which is not the case. Though i dont disagree with the fact that later mughals are consider indian by several historians, including in lede wont be helpful as no one can attributes to one's dynasty as its more a messy one to figure out about any dynasty because its more a mix of several ethnicity. So in my opinion RegentsPark opinion sounds promising, we can use South Asia or Indian Subcontinent as those are Co-Terminus with each other. [[User:Curious man123|Curious man123]] ([[User talk:Curious man123|talk]]) 06:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I agree. Either leave the lead as it is, or add “South Asia/subcontinent”(think South Asia would be better because they expanded outside of the subcontinent as well). [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 06:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I still don't understand the actual argument about whether why the term Indian or Indianized shouldn't be included when it is literally well sourced in so many academias. The term "Indian" is not an ethnicity either. Unless you provide an alternative source which specifically says Mughal dynasty never became indian, Which you cant.

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. [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

:It’s similar to the criticism we had on the Mughal empire talk page, just with a slightly different term. 
:And your arguments seem to be the exact same thing padfoot stated verbatim. And I’ve already responded to this point. The Mughals were multicultural and mixed. You can look for a more detailed response on that looking further up. 
:“even considered themselves indian.” Do you have a source which specifically states that the Mughals considered themselves to be Indian? I don’t mean a historian that calls them Indian, Im talking about their identity. This is especially strange because pre and post 1947 India are two different entities. To my knowledge they always identified as the house of Timur which never changed. 
:Also “Indian” can be both an ethnicity and nationality. Although in this case, it kind undermines your argument if you only consider it to be a nationality ironically. This is because “Indian” as a nationality was formed in 1947 and onwards. So back to my previous point, post and pre i947 India are two separate entities. Why would a post 1947 identity be left as a placeholder for an empire that began centuries ago? 
:Anyway as RegentPark stated, there’s no good reason to add this in the lead. If you want to start a RFC go ahead. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 09:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::Hello @[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]], what do you think about "an [[Indo-Persian]] [[dynasty]]", since they had both Indian and Persian ancestry and their culture was a mix of both? It seems to address a lot of your concerns. And it is a good middle ground perhaps? Or maybe in length, "an [[Indo-Persian]] [[dynasty]] that is a branch of the [[Turco-Mongol]] [[Timurid dynasty]]"? [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 10:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Well that’s probably more acceptable than Indian or “indianized” but I still don’t think we need to mention ethnicity in the lead so I would still support RegentParks proposal. I haven’t heard of a good reason to mention it regardless. Of course there would also have to be sources using the term, and you would still need consensus. That’s my opinion, but how about you ask regent park and see what he has to say? He probably has more incite. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 11:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]], because it adds to the lead and gives more information to the readers. South Asia is a vague and modern term that has not much use of being applied here. It isn't ethnicity, it mentions the dynasty's culture, language and ancestry which are all important for the lead of an article. Most, probably all good dynastic articles are built on similar lines. Look at articles like [[Safavid dynasty]], [[Afsharid dynasty]], [[Suri dynasty]], [[House of Romanov]], [[House of Hohenzollern]], etc. The current article is lead is pretty absurd and not useful. It simply says "The ABC dynasty was the dynasty that ruled the ABC empire". How is that of any use to the reader? We can perhaps state "an [[Indo-Persian]] [[dynasty]] that was a branch of the [[Turco-Mongol]] [[Timurid dynasty]]" in the second line instead of the first line itself. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 11:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::
:This doesn't seem to answer my question at all. When most of the historians agree that the dynasty became indian backed up with [[WP:RS]] sources then I see absolutely no reason to remove it from the lead. And the term "Indian" is not a nationality. When we are referring to India, we are undoubtedly referring to historical india, Same with the term "Indian" 
:And Mughals kind of considered themselves Hindustanis.

After Zafar's defeat, he said:<ref name=":1">{{Cite book
  | last =Savarkar
  | first =Vinayak Damodar
  | title =The Indian War of Independence&nbsp;– 1857
  | date = 10 May 1909
  | url=http://www.savarkar.org/content/pdfs/en/the_indian_war_of_independence_1857_with_publishers_note.v001.pdf
 }}</ref>
<blockquote><poem>
{{lang|ur|{{nq|غازیوں میں بُو رہے گی جب تلک ایمان کی}}}}
''Ghāzīyoñ meñ bū rahe gī jab talak īmān kī''
As long as there remains the scent of [[Iman (Islam)|Iman]] in the hearts of our [[Ghazi warriors|Ghazis]],
{{lang|ur|{{nq|تخت لندن تک چلے گی تیغ ہندوستان کی}}}}
''Takht-i-Landan tak chale gī tegh Hindostān kī.''
So long shall the sword of Hindustan (India) flash before the throne of London.

</poem></blockquote>





[[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 11:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

:I’m sorry but how do you know that most historians agree that the dynasty was indian? We do have sources which claim that the Mughals were indian, but that doesn’t mean most historians support that view. This was a point I mentioned to padfooot but let me cite something that RegentPark wrote to you in the previous discussion. 
:“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.). But, that's beyond my current time availability and I'll let you all get on with it!”
:This is something I’ve cited many times but never got an answer to. If only some sources mention a term while many others don’t, than you need consensus on how to present that term, explain why only a few terms use it, look for alternatives, ETC. 
:Also RegentPark already answered a point on the Mughal empire talk page that I’m going to present  Nobody is contesting the fact that some sources state that the Mughals are Indian. The issue is the term is way too restrictive for an empire that was multicultural and mixed like the Mughals. 
:“I don't think anyone is contesting the existence of sources that call it Indo-muslim. The issue (as Afv12e below also points out) is that the term is too restrictive for the lead. The nuances of the demographic diversity of both the management of the empire as well as the population are better addressed in the article body. The lead is not the place for nuanced terms”
:This is about the term “indo muslim”. The reason why we rejected having it in the lead there is the same as here.
:Also the quote you used did not say anything about Indians. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 11:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::The quote I mentioned very well talks about Hindustan/India but Okay, Leave all that, I have one more suggestion and this is the least we can compromise with. Pinging @[[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot2008]] and @[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] also @[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] if they are ok with this. Because if the term "Indian" is the problem here, Can we add "Hindustani" then? I have many sources referring to Mughal empire as a "Hindustani" empire. Since "Hindustan" was a historical entity, we can use this term i think. Moreover I even found out that the term "Hindustan" was used for the empire as whole, As the empire expanded, So did Hindustan. <ref name="Vanina">{{Cite book |last=Vanina |first=Eugenia |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yriGbWNAF5EC&pg=PA47 |title=Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man |publisher=Primus Books |year=2012 |isbn=978-93-80607-19-1 |page=47 |author-link=Eugenia Vanina |access-date=19 October 2015 |archive-date=22 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230922033421/https://books.google.com/books?id=yriGbWNAF5EC&pg=PA47 |url-status=live }}</ref>
::::The Muslim citizens were referred as "Hindustanis" while the non muslims as "Hindus"<ref>{{cite book  |title=Parties And Politics At The Mughal Court |author=Chandra, Satish |date= 1959 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lt2tqOpVRKgC&dq=tughluq+hind+and+sind&pg=PA86 |title=The Delhi Sultanate:A Political and Military History |author= Peter Jackson |date=2003 |publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9780521543293 }}</ref> and the term "Mughal" itself was never used. 
::::So my proposal is, We can add:
::::"Mughal dynasty was a Hindustani Imperial dynasty which ruled in  present day Indian subcontinent/South asia"  [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 11:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The point is it no where does it say that the Mughals considered themselves Indian or Hindustani. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 11:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Bahadur Shah Zafar clearly said how the sword of Hindustan (talking about his empire since Hindustan was the term used for Mughal empire) will flash before the throne of London. I even provided sources on how Mughal empire is referred as 'Hindustan/Hindustani" in several sources.
::::And "hindustani" term is a historical identity used by several dynasties of India. [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 11:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::And where does it say there that the Mughals considered themselves to be Hindustani or Indian? Queen Elizabeth also called herself the empress of Hindustan/India, it doesn’t make her Indian. They always considered themselves to be from the house of Timur. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 11:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Citizens of the empire is not the same thing as the nobility. Also there’s the fact that we are talking about two separate entities post and pre 1947 India is not the same thing. 
:::anyway go ask regent if you want to add Hindustani. I wouldn’t support it but arguing with me seems pointless when you need consensus with other users anyway, not just me. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 11:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay, Britishers are a totally different case, Elizabeth ruled from England, not india, England was her home, Not India, Mughals considered india their home, this is a fact also This is why I suggested "Hindustani". Because look, The term is historical used for the people of the empire and it's nobles (the cited sources quite literally say that). As the empire expanded, So did "Hindustan". (Clearly referring to the empire as it)
::::"Hindustani" shouldn't at all be a problem since it is backed up by reliable sources and the term is purely historical used in the Delhi sultanate/Mughal periods. [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 11:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Let us all just stop and have an RFC here. This will solve the issue, There is no point in endlessly arguing.
::::2 sides
::::1)-Lets add the term Indianized/Hindustani before the word "dynasty"
::::2)-Leave it as it is currently. [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 11:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just to let you know that consensus is more than just voting but sure. 
:::::I support option 2/or add South Asia as a compromise but I’m not sure if this is how you set up an official RFC. Could be wrong. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 11:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] and @[[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] This is not how an RFC works. I'll set one up. Also do have a look at my most recent reply (before this one). [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 11:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Also I think the question is kind of flawed. We would still need to add turco mongol if we are going to be mentioning “indianized”. So add that in the rfc. Plus I think padfoots indo persian suggestion was better although I wouldn’t support it. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 12:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I agree; @[[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot2008]]: if you're going to make the RfC, the three options should be, based off what has been most dicussed: A: "Indianized Turco-Mongol"; B: "South Asian"; C: Nothing. And no, @[[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]], "Hindustani" is in no way better than "Indian" and is actually worse as the average reader would have no idea what that means. [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] ([[User talk:Flemmish Nietzsche|talk]]) 12:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think there should just be two options so votes don’t get split. The South Asia suggestion was more of a way to find a compromise. Instead we should just give two options. Add indianized, or don’t. Anybody else can make the change to South Asia after the rfc is over if they want to because that’s clearly not the controversial issue here. Two options seem more fair. 
:::::::::But yeah I agree with you. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 12:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]], I don't think that "South Asian dynasty" was ever suggested. "in South Asia" was suggested and I never opposed that as that it is not main concern. I changed the options slightly so that the second option is a sub-part of the first option. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot2008]]Just seen your reply. There’s a lot of questions left unanswered. 
:::::::First of all I’ve asked you guys to heed regents suggestion but never got an answer. Which is this. 
:::::::“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.). But, that's beyond my current time availability and I'll let you all get on with it!”
:::::::This was never done
:::::::Plus the Mughals were more multi cultural and ethnically mixed than some of the examples you used. You did mention that we could write indo Persian instead which would be better but in my opinion still flawed considering that’s not even an option for us to vote for anymore. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 12:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]], The second option includes "[[Indo-Persian]]". 
::::::::@[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]], I don't think it should be removed as it includes a mention of "Persian" which seems to be one of @[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]]'s chief concerns. A third option about South Asia could be added, though it hardly addresses the main concerns regarding this RfC which is regarding "Indian/Indo-/Indianized" not "South Asia" which is hardly a concern at all. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 12:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] has already said he's opposed to the Persian option as well, so I don't see a point in having it "for him" if he's not going to vote for it. The main dispute here is over whether to include any "Ind-" word, and as we're already on the same page on using "Indianized Turco-Mongol" rather than Indian I think just having that or nothing is fine. [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] ([[User talk:Flemmish Nietzsche|talk]]) 12:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]], I think there is no harm in having that as a sub-part of (1) for other editors, instead of a different option altogether. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 12:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot2008]] We don't need any "alternate construct" option as that just confuses discussion. Keep the options simple; read my above comment as well. [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] ([[User talk:Flemmish Nietzsche|talk]]) 12:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]], Alright then, I am removing it. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 12:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Also @[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]], what do you think about "an Indian/Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin" This makes it clear that it was Turco-Mongol only in origin and was more or less Indian later on? [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 12:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::@[[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot2008]] Interesting proposal, it seems fine to me and you're free to add it to the RfC option. [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] ([[User talk:Flemmish Nietzsche|talk]]) 12:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]], I've added it as a sub-part of the first option. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 12:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::@[[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot2008]] Option 2 is way too similar to the first; either remove a second option altogether as someguywhobored suggested or change it to "South Asian", which was the other main proposal. [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] ([[User talk:Flemmish Nietzsche|talk]]) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::i know I know, I was merely talking about the topics which will be held in RFC [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 12:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Curious man123|Curious man123]]@[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] just to let you two know, an RFC has started. Feel free to share your opinion on this topic if you’d like [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 12:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
=== Continuation of Discussion ===
{{hat|See full discussion}}
*:Respect your opinion, but I have one concern. How do you know they adopted Indian identity? I’ve seen sources which call them Indian(which appears to be an alternative view), but non described the Mughals as viewing themselves as Indian. They saw themselves as Timurids which is why the identified as the house of Timur. 
*:I just don’t see how you can call them indianized when you can easily claim them as persianized for the same reasons. They ethnically mixed with the Mughals and in terms of culture, probably contributed the most to the Mughals no? Remember Urdu/Hindustani wasn’t even adopted as a court language until the empires decline during Muhammad shahs reign(for most of their history, hindi was not a court language unlike Persian). Persian held more importance than any other culture/language. Your argument seems to be that the they identified as Indian, which I would like to see a source for. 
*:it’s hard to argue that they “became” indian, when they were so mixed. 
*:don’t mean to blundgeom the process just thought I never really got an answer for why we should choose “indianized over “persianized”. This topic is way too nuanced to be forcing modern nationalistic terms onto a dynasty that was multiethnic and multicultural. Cheers! [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 13:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
*::I don't know if we are allowed to interrupt in a voting session like this, But I see a lot of [[WP:OR]], we go with what the academic sources and well researched historians say on the Mughals, Who clearly accept the fact that they became Indian, Unless you provide historians who clearly say Mughals didn't become Indians, Which you cant.
*::Moreover, Hindustani language was adopted as the court language by the reign of Shah jahan himself, Not Muhammad shah.[https://books.google.co.in/books?id=w1OZEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&dq=official+language+of+Mughal+Hindustani+language&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUj-HA9tWGAxWwk1YBHXJKAlU4MhDoAXoECAsQAw#v=onepage&q=official%20language%20of%20Mughal%20Hindustani%20language&f=false] [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 13:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Hmm. The wiki page of Muhammad shah states that Urdu was adopted during his reign. And I found one source which states that Persian was never even replaced and remained the official language of the Mughals until the British. [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=w1OZEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&dq=official+language+of+Mughal+Hindustani+language&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUj-HA9tWGAxWwk1YBHXJKAlU4MhDoAXoECAsQAw#v=onepage&q=official%20language%20of%20Mughal%20Hindustani%20language&f=false] I’m not sure which is correct, so I may look more into this later. But I don’t think my point really changes based on which emperor adopted Urdu. The point I was trying to make is that this empire was multicultural. So saying that it was “indianized” ignores its other cultural and ethnic influences. “Indo Persian” is a little bit better but I dont think there’s a source here which uses that term to describe the Mughal empire(other than maybe patronizing Indo Persian culture which isn’t the same thing) 
*:::Also, I don’t think anybody here claimed that they had a source which contradicts the claims of the citations you cited. That wasn’t even the main reason most people voted against adding “indo muslim” in the last consensus which is very similar to this. In this discussion, Im just stating that calling them “indianized” is removing a lot of nuance because they were mixed and multicultural. 
*:::The point we made is that there is a LOT of sources  that don’t add term “indianized”, or refer to the Mughals as Indian. I know you’ll ask even though this is kind of obvious considering this is somewhat of an alternative viewpoint you’re proposing so I’ll share some to not be accused of original research. 
*:::https://ia601200.us.archive.org/13/items/mughal_202401/mughal.pdf
*:::Here’s a very authoritative source by Annemarie Schimmel which only refers to the Mughals as house of the Timurids. There is mention of central Asian and Mongol roots in this page but no where does it say that the dynasty was Indian. And you guys claimed that the Mughals identified as Indian even though they only referred to themselves as the house of Timur.
*:::“The Mughals called themselves The House of Timur, after the conqueror of Central Asia. who died in 1405”
*:::“The Mughals ('The House of Timur) maintained their Strong Connections with Central Asia. To the end of his life Jahangir used to question visitors from Samarkand ahout the condition of the Gur Amir, Timur's mausoleum, and sent gold to pay for its upkeep” pg 23
*:::The mughals never stopped seeing themselves as the house of timur. Which also contradicts the claim that they identified as Indians. 
*:::This author was an expert on oriental studies alongside many other earned qualification. Actually if you knew her, you would know she’s possibly one of the best historians on this topic. In fact let me cite one quote in the prologue. 
*:::“No Scholar was better equipped to evoke the cultural achievement of the Mughals than Anne marie Schimmel, who died in January 2005. For her fellow scholars she was, as the Mughals might have declared, 'the wonder of the age” pg 7
*:::[[Persians in the Mughal Empire#cite note-Canfield-1]]
*:::here’s a source which refers to them as persianized Turks. See how there is clearly different views on this? This is what I meant by the fact that one can easily refer to the dynasty as “Persianized”? They were influenced by multiple cultures which is why there are different viewpoints on which contributed the most.  
*:::Does that mean we should start referring to them as persianized in the lead because there is a source which states that? No because obviously the same criticism applies, this is a mixed multicultural empire. 
*:::I can cite even more sources which don’t use the term “indianized” to refer to the Mughals. Nobody is complaining about the amount of sources. We just don’t think it should be in the lead for the various reasons we’ve been over. 
*:::Also in your previous comment, you claimed that majority of sources refer to the Mughals as indianized. How exactly do you know that? Do you have a source? [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Please don't buldengeon the voting process here. We have already addressed this issue of yours several times. But let me address to some of your other points.
*:::"Hmm. The wiki page of Muhammad shah states that Urdu was adopted during his reign. And I found one source which states that Persian was never even replaced and remained the official language of the Mughals until the British."
*:::Yes, How does it contradict my point? I never said Persian was totally replaced. I just said Urdu became official language of the empire since the reign of Emperor Shah Jahan himself, Not Muhammad shah.
*:::Besides for that, All your other sources say is, Mughals were turco-Mongols. Which I don't really doubt. They were undoubtedly turco-Mongols and had ties with uzbeks. Richard John has already explained this, Let me quote him again:
*:::{{tq|"'''Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia.''' Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent."}}
*:::No one argues that they weren't Turks or didn't have relations with uzbeks while staying in india, Or didn't consider themselves to be from the house of Timur, They did, This is what Richard John says. But ur ignoring how they became "Indians" and were "Indianized" and their concerns laid in the future of India (per most reliable historians), And ur other sources talking about Mughals being Turks nowhere contradicts our point. They were indeed Turks who became Indians, This is what Richard John says too again.
Just like nadir shah considered himself a turkmen but was an iranian/Persian nevertheless. 
*:::And there is absolutely no source which contradicts this
*:::So again, It is [[WP:OR]] since You are showing a source which says X thing (that they were Turks) and you are interpreting Y thing with that (that they didn't become Indians).
*:::They indeed were Turks who became indians, which is our point. And as long as you don't share a source which contradicts this viewpoint specifically saying "they didn't become Indians", The issue will still remain the same.

*:::Most of the sources say Mughals were indianized or became Indians, for example these<ref>{{cite book|quote=The Mughals were an Indian Islamic dynasty which ruled most of northern India (including the area of present-day Pakistan) from the beginning of the six- teenth to the mid-eighteenth century.|first=Andrew|last=Petersen|url=https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Dictionary_of_Islamic_Architecture/9A-EAgAAQBAJ?hl=en|title=Dictionary of Islamic Architecture|page=198}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|quote=From the time of Akbar, who resurrected the Mughal polity, to the last formidable Mughal ruler Aurangzeb (1658-1707), Mughal preoccupation with the Deccan was the single most important sign of the fact that these Timurids had become an Indian dynasty.|url=https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Limits_of_Universal_Rule/eyoNEAAAQBAJ?hl=en|title=The Limits of Universal Rule
Eurasian Empires Compared|page=276}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|quote=Babur, the founder of the Indian Mughal dynasty, was born in the Ferghana Valley.|first=Djoomart |last=Otorbaev|url=https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Central_Asia_s_Economic_Rebirth_in_the_S/TEuhEAAAQBAJ?hl=en|title=Central Asia's Economic Rebirth in the Shadow of the New Great Game|page=}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|quote=As the 17th century unfolded, the Safavid rulers not only had the Ottomans to contend with, but also the new Russian Mus- covy that had deposed of the Golden Horde and expanded to Safavid borders, as well as the Indian Mughal Dynasty that had expanded through Afghanistan and into Iranian territory.|first=John |last=Lorentz|url=https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_A_to_Z_of_Iran/oV9WwxXbCB8C?hl=en|title=The A to Z of Iran|page=283}}</ref> <ref name="Richards1995-2">{{Citation |last=Richards |first=John F. |title=The Mughal Empire |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HHyVh29gy4QC&pg=PA2 |page=2 |year=1995 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-56603-2 |access-date=9 August 2017 |archive-date=22 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230922031915/https://books.google.com/books?id=HHyVh29gy4QC&pg=PA2 |url-status=live}} 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."</ref>
*:::Note: I can still cite many many many sources, But I would not really like to reference bomb. 

Now I request you, it is NOT appropriate to argue and buldengeon the voting process session, take this issue to the other category. 

[[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 15:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

:Um, all due respect, but writing a big response before calling me out for bludgeoning the process, seems like a contradiction. I made like 2 comments previously in total outside of the vote. Same as you. How did I bludgeon the process? To clarify, I don’t plan on responding to any other users except you in this case because you replied to me, so hopefully depending on you, this will be my last comment as long as we agree to stop. 
:But there are some points I want to address as quickly as possible because you just made them. 
:“I never said Persian was totally replaced. I just said Urdu became official language of the empire since the reign of Emperor Shah Jahan himself, Not Muhammad shah” 
:Yes but your source clearly states that Hindustani/Urdu replaced Persian as an official language so these are indeed contradicting claims from two sources. 
:“Persian continued as the official language till the time of emperor shah Jahan in the 17th century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language.” That’s a quote on the same page you showed. 
:moving on: ” No one argues that they weren't Turks or didn't have relations with uzbeks while staying in india, They did, But ur ignoring how they became "Indians" and were "Indianized" and their concerns laid in the future of India (per most reliable historians), And ur other sources talking about Mughals being Turks nowhere contradicts our point.” 
:I don’t think you understood that point very clearly. I stated that there is no need for a source which directly states that the Mughals weren’t Indian. In our last discussion, most people weren't even voting against the use of the term “indo muslim” because a source contradicted it(except me). They just objected on the grounds that the Mughal empire was too nuanced of an empire to be assigning them terms like “indo muslim”, and the fact that pre 1947 India is not the same concept as post 1947. In other words these are two separate entities. There was just no real reason to add it. 
:Also why do you even think I added those sources? It wasn’t to prove that the Mughals were turks. It was just to show that they are plenty of sources which don’t use the term “indianized”. Your entire argument seems to be based on a misunderstanding as to why I cited those sources. 
:“Most of the sources say Mughals were indianized or became Indians, for example these which comprised the members of the imperial House of Babur” 
:I’m sorry, '''but how does this prove most sources claim the Mughals are indianized'''?
:Sending me a refbomb of the same claim does not in any way confirm most sources state that the Mughals were “indianized”. That’s not how it works. I mean I know you said you had more sources, but your telling me a handful(currently 5 but I’m guessing you have a few more) of people making this claim proves that majority of historians have written about the Mughals being indianized? There’s literally probably no way you could confirm what majority of historians think in this case. There is no statistic here. You’re just showing me a bunch of people who agree with you. That’s why I asked, and this answer simply doesn’t cut it. I know you obviously can’t get a statistic so your claim is impossible to prove. 
: I felt I needed to respond because it seemed like you didn’t really understand my argument at all and kind of misrepresented it(assume good faith, it was probably an accident), so I wanted to give you a better read on it. 
:Anyway I’m happy to just end it here (unless you still have concerns you wanted to hash out), and let the vote go on. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 16:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::I think you accidentally replied to another thread, No problem. I will make a quick short response to clear our Miss understanding here so we don't buldengeon the process.
:: First of all My source doesn't say Urdu "replaced" persian. It says Urdu took the place of official language of the empire. 2 languages can indeed take place as the official language of the empire, can't they? It also clearly says Persian continued to be used in administration. 
::{{Tq|During the Mogul rule, Persian replaced the position of Sanskrit as the offi- cial language in administration especially in conducting the court proceedings, etc. Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language in the Mughal courts, yet Sanskrit continued to be used as the intellectual language in teaching classical sciences, philosophy, religion, etc. '''That synergy of Persian, Urdu (Hindustani) and Sanskrit had continued as the administrative and intellec- tual languages during the Mughal period'''}}
::Besides for that. I didn't find any other important thing in your essay worth replying to or mentioning to, But I assume we have 2 different beliefs and ideas here, for you, Mentioning "Indian" isn't necessary just because many sources say it is, And has no real reason to stay on the lead, For me, That isn't the case, The Lead is incomplete for now and the term "Indian" or "Indianized" clearly should be included because many reputed scholars and researchers on Mughal history say this. Fair enough till here? (If i miss-represented your viewpoint then forgive me).
::Now let us wait for others to vote and know their opinions and not buldengeon the process. Please take this to other category , thank you. [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 17:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I didn’t, he moved it.
:::that sounds good. I’m mostly fine with that, and am ready to stop commenting after this. 
:::anyway I’m fine with moving forward now. You asked a question about the source which I’ll answer for you. I just want to to say that the source you used very clearly states that Urdu replaced Persian as a court language. I made a lot of other really important points to my argument that you didn’t go over but that’s okay because anybody reading this conversation can read it. In fact this is a minor point but yeah, your source is pretty clear on that. 
:::“Persian continued as the official language till the time of emperor shah Jahan in the 17th century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language.”
:::says it continued to be the official language until the reign of shah Jahan when Urdu took the position of official language. “Official language '''till '''the time of emperor shah Jahan. 
:::Also many sources don’t mention “indianized” as I’ve shown. And nobody really answered the question as to “why do a great deal of sources not mention the term indianized”?(a similar question was asked by regent park last conversation) Yes obviously plenty do, but that still was a question meant to be answered and it never was. And just to let you know, sources even refer to the empire as persianized while not using the term indianized(as I’ve shown above) but for some reason we don’t have an rfc for that. I wouldn’t support either because it muddies up the waters, this dynasty was mixed. 
:::Anyway the Urdu part is a minor point. 
:::I think we did go over all the misunderstandings and we can stop here. Anybody can read our arguments from now on. There was a bit more clarification needed but I think we are on the same page. Let’s wait this RFC out now. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 18:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Cool, I think I already responded to your relevant points but okay, discussing here is actually better. Just to let you know that my source doesn't say Persian was stopped using as an official language. Let me quote it again.
:::{{Tq|During the Mogul rule, Persian replaced the position of Sanskrit as the offi- cial language in administration '''especially in conducting the court proceedings,''' etc. Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official '''language in the Mughal courts''', yet Sanskrit continued to be used as the intellectual language in teaching classical sciences, philosophy, religion, etc. '''That synergy of Persian, Urdu (Hindustani) and Sanskrit had continued as the administrative and intellec- tual languages during the Mughal period'''}}
:::My source clearly states that Persian replaced Sanskrit in everything possible including court proceedings, But after hindustani came, it started being used in the court. That '''till''' here obviously refers to the court language, Persian was used in the court '''till''' the reign of Shah jahan, But my source also says later that the Persian remained the language which was used in administrative purposes. It only states that in the court, Hindustani started being spoken by the emperors by the reign of shah jahan. (I can cite few more sources which says this). 
:::However this doesn't mean Persian wasn't an "official language" though, Because it was still used in the administrative purposes, Like in the official farmaans/Letters, or Imperial announcements etc as per the same source. Persian was totally erased off only by the reign of Britishers. 
:::Coming to your other points, "why do plenty of sources dont mention the term Indianized or indian".
:::This isn't a good question to be asked, Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absence, Same can be asked as in why no source in the world specifically states "Mughal empire wasn't indianized or indian", The actual question should be, Why there are plenty of sources which do mention that the empire became indian? Including Satish Chandra (who calls it hindustani as I cited above), and Richards John F. I didn't count but i am sure I have atleast ten more sources which calls it Indian, and that also from legitimate scholarly institutions.
:::As for "persianize" none of us disagree the fact that Persian language indeed influenced the Mughals (till Shah jahan), But that is different from Mughals becoming indian and dying here in India, Which they did. It is very similar to [[Bengal Sultanate]] and [[Bengal Subah]], the emperors there weren't native in origin and were influenced by Persian heavily yet are regarded as "Bengalis" 
:::Anyways, I won't extend the topic, But when I was reading your reply i found something funny. 
:::"'''my argument that you didn’t go over but that’s okay because anybody reading this conversation can read it.'''"
:::Do you really think that anyone will care to read about the conversation which we had here? It's so messy and long, we have extended and buldengeon it so much, I remember I had to scroll more than eight times to reply to you when I was on the phone. 

Now I suggest you to stop here, It is going to be an endless loop since we have totally different ideas, views and beliefs (as I have mentioned in my reply above), I believe when most reputed historians and sources call it Indian/Indianized, then it must be mentioned And extending this process will just make it very hard and time consuming for the viewers to read all this. This is why I have replied in such a way that it gets neutralized, Anyways cheers and happy editing! :) [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
*@[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] and @[[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]], please continue your discussion here, not in the RfC below. I've moved both of yours discussion here in a seperate sub-section. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 17:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
*:No, I think we have already cleared out our Miss understandings. Besides for that it is just the same loop, So I wouldn't like to continue and will rather wait for the opinion of other editors. [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

:That’s fine but you just don’t quite get it. Many times I make an argument, you simply don't understand what’s being stated and misinterpret the argument made. 
:I’ve already wrote that nobody is arguing against the fact that some sources use the term “indianized”. RegentPark mentioned this too in our last discussion. But the issue which you don’t seem to get, is that not all sources use the term “indianized” or “indian” to describe the Mughals. If there are sources which claim that the Mughals were Persianized and don’t use the Indian to describe them, then by your logic we might as well add Persianized in the lead. There are plenty of sources which I’ve already cited that don’t use the term “indianized” and you keep talking about how the sources don’t contradict each other but I keep reiterating how that is not the point. The point is there are alternative viewpoints. If one says persianized and the other says indianized, then what do we use? This is a point you’ve actively ignored, but why should we put indianized over Persianized in the lead if there are sources which use the latter term? Your counter argument seems to be that the empire being Persianized doesn’t contradict the empire being indianized. Even if this is true(which it’s not), you still haven’t answered why we should put “indianized” in the lead over ”Persianized” when we have sources that support both claims? Thats why I think the empire is too nuanced for this kind of identification. They were mixed, simple as that. There’s multiple different viewpoints amongst historians so both of us can easily share sources which support our viewpoint. There’s simply no need to mention ethnicity in the lead. But this point gets pretty much ignored every time. 
:“(I can cite few more sources which says this).
:However this doesn't mean Persian wasn't an "official language" though, Because it was still used in the administrative purposes, Like in the official farmaans/Letters, or Imperial announcements etc as per the same source. Persian was totally erased off only by the reign of Britishers.”
:…? I’m sorry but your source literally says the exact opposite. 
: 
:“ Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language in the Mughal courts”. You’re trying your best to come up with your own interpretation. But at this point im not even sure what you’re trying to argue anymore. I’ve noticed in many other discussions you tend to misinterpret what the sources have written a lot. But I’m sorry, what do you not exactly get here? It literally says it was an official language UNTIL/TILL the reign of shah Jahan. Afterwards Urdu took its place. Obviously Persian wouldn’t disappear completely from the public arena but how does that mean it remained an official language according to your citation? Remaining in the administration doesn’t change the fact that it was no longer an official language which your source makes pretty clear. And This contradicts the book I sent. 
:“ As for "persianize" none of us disagree the fact that Persian language indeed influenced the Mughals (till Shah jahan), But that is different from Mughals becoming indian and dying here in India, Which they did. It is very similar to Bengal Sultanate and Bengal Subah, the emperors there weren't native in origin and were influenced by Persian heavily yet are regarded as "Bengalis"
:Anyways, I won't extend the topic”
:This doesn’t answer my question in the slightest. If there are sources which both use the term “Persianized” and “Indianized”, what’s the point favoring adding one viewpoint in the lead while ignoring the other? Why wouldn’t we add persianized in the lead by your logic? The other suggestion is to call it “indianized indo Persian” but then it brings the question as to why we even need to add the term “indianized”, especially considering “Persianized” is not being added? It just makes no sense and it ignores the cultural contributions from other ethnic groups. 
:Also you know your free to disengage from the topic yourself if you don’t want to continue this? I’m not sure how asking me to disengage after writing a large response is supposed to get me to stop replying to your misinterpretation of the arguments made? Again I have no real plan on continuing this but you keep responding so obviously I’m going to reply back. 
:Just remember that before I wrote a comment for Nietzsche, you literally were the one who responded to me. Asking me to stop when you were the one who started this makes zero sense especially if your still writing large responses in hopes of getting the last word 
:I mean this respectfully of course. Your free to stop yourself if you’d like. This is my last piece if we agree to end it here. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 06:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::*Again, since you have missed represented my points, I will correct it. First of all we have to agree on this that one of the most [[WP:RS]] sources use the term "Indianized" or "Indian" for the Mughals (even britanica)  Even regent park has no problem with using the term "Indian/South Asian Mughal dynasty) (his own words) And we don't reject that Mughals were persianized, I don't know how many times will you make me repeat on that. Mughals were indeed deeply influenced by Persian language atleast until the reign of Shah jahan. But that "Persianization" is different from them becoming Indians, John F Richards says literally the same and I have quoted him over hundred times previously. He clearly states although the Mughals initially were culturally different from the Indians and they were recent immigrants, they indeed became "Indian" later. Either you just dont read my replies and skip most of them, Or you are just miss representing them (Although no disrespect here.) 
*::All of the sources I have quoted says Mughals became "Indians". Give me a single source which says Mughals became "Persians" and then I will have no problem with adding "persianized" in the lead. Also as for ethnicity, The term "Indian" is not an ethnicity, I repeat again, So your argument about not adding ethnicity in the lead makes no sense at all. 
*::1)-Reputed historians from legitimate scholarly institutions clearly say Mughals became Indians despite of the cultural differences initially 
*::2)- The term "Indian" is not an ethnicity. 
*::Simple as that.
"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)

{{Tq|During the Mogul rule, Persian replaced the position of Sanskrit as the offi- cial language in administration '''especially in conducting the court proceedings,''' etc. Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official '''language in the Mughal courts''', yet Sanskrit continued to be used as the intellectual language in teaching classical sciences, philosophy, religion, etc. '''That synergy of Persian, Urdu (Hindustani) and Sanskrit had continued as the administrative and intellec- tual languages during the Mughal period'''}}

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? 


So again Mughals indeed were "persianized" initially, Even John Richard doesn't disagree with this, but they became " Indians ", Their concerns laid in the future of India and that was their home, The empire emerged from the Indian historical experience (John Richards in page 1-2). So it does answer your question. No one argues Mughals weren't "persianized" or influenced by "Persian culture" they ofcourse indeed were. But they became "Indians" Moreover I only replied your comment on flemmish merely because it isn't appropriate to debate in a voting session, There is a seperate channel for that already. And I am only replying you because you keep miss representing my points. Your questions were answered a long time ago yet you keep repeating it. 


1)-"Indian" isn't an ethnicity, so it can be added to the lead

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).


 
[[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 09:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

:I read your comment and would like to share some of my thoughts. @[[User:Sutyarashi|Sutyarashi]]
:You mentioned a point that nobody in the opposition is really answering. Which is the fact that the empire was as you described, syncretic/multicultural. I also shared the same thoughts in my previous comments. The dynasty was highly influenced by Persianate culture, so calling it “indianized” makes no more sense than calling it “Persianized” in the lead. 
:“The Mughal dynasty was a culturally Indo-Persian, Sunni Muslim dynasty of Turko-Mongol origin which ruled the Mughal Empire from c. 1526 to 1857”
:I don’t mind this per se, but I think maybe for now we should just go for a consensus to not use the term “indianized”/Indian” and than discuss changing the lead to one of your suggestions afterwards. 
:Or alternatively you could add it on the body instead of the lead per RegentParks suggestion. If I had to modify it, I would write it like this. 
:“The Mughals were patrons of Indo-Persian culture and Turco-Mongol in origin” 
:Or maybe some variation of this, don’t really mind what we use. Honestly that’s if we really need to add all this including indo-Persian culture but, again I don’t mind. 
:Anyway if I was going with RegentParks suggestion instead, maybe I would go with. 
:“The Mughal dynasty was of Turco-Mongol descent, ruling in South Asia. 
:or if we don’t want to add ethnicity, 
:“The Mughals were a dynasty in South Asia”. 
:Kind of like the main article on the Mughal empire which we already had a similar consensus on. 
:and again we can add this in the body instead. 
:Regent park wrote “south asian/indian” but I assume he actually just means South Asian as he previously mentioned that the preferred term would be South Asia instead of Indian anyway in the previous discussion, so he may have wrote “Indian” by mistake”(correct me if this is not a stance you stand by) @[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]]
:And I think we both came to the conclusion that Indian shouldn’t be used anyway because they were mixed, and originally not Indian anyway. And generally as RegentPark has previously stated, the preferred term on Wikipedia is “South Asia”
:For now, I think you should vote option 2 so we can get this sorted out first before we start changing anything up. After the RFC, we can have a separate discussion on changing the article.
:But that’s just my suggestion Sutyarashi, do whatever you feel is best. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 03:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

*{{U|RegentsPark}} Can you please elaborate what you think ''the correct description'' would be? [[User:Sutyarashi|Sutyarashi]] ([[User talk:Sutyarashi|talk]]) 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*:I think the current version is the correct description. The ethnicity of the Mughals does not fit neatly into any category and is best discussed in the body of the article.--[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 14:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

*:Quick question. I asked Nietzsche this but never got an answer. 
*:“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)”. So outside of the fact that these “indias” are two different entities which he acknowledged but for some reason still forced a modern concept onto a historical world (no disrespect). 
*:The biggest question however is, “when did they start identifying themselves as Indian”? Nietzsche makes this point but never proves it. In fact nobody has really answered this. What is the point of adding “Indianized” in the lead or body when one could just easily say it was “Persianized”, as plenty of sources already do? 
*:@[[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]]
*:do you have evidence that they adopted an Indian identity? To be knowledge they never stopped identifying as the house of timur. But that seems to be your main response to the Persian point. So I think this would actually be a very important source to share if you have it. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 21:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

:Hmm. I wasn’t sure if this was a separate comment I never replied to or something. But I’ll promptly respond again.
:Okay all due respect, I seriously think you have trouble understanding the English language. Your source literally states that it was the official language “till the reign of shah Jahan”. What does till/until mean? It means that was the case, up until that point. Also did you not literally cite word for word where the source clearly states that the language remained the official one up until a certain point? I don’t get how you could deny this but then quote the exact same thing that supports my point. 
:The citation has only stated that it remained in the administration. Not that it was the official language. You’re just trying to come up with your own explanation/interpretation, ignoring what the author has clearly written. 
:“They soon even adopted Urdu over Persian as a court language (yet Persian was official and used in administration though).”
:Your source uses the word “official”, stop acting like it hasn’t. Also we clearly have another source which contradicts this point anyway(the one where I cited how Persian remained an official language until 1857). 
:“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.”
:I don’t know how many times am I gonna repeat myself. Let’s  focus one point you keep repeating and I keep answering. 
:“None of them disagree with the fact that Mughals indeed were persianized.”
: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. 
:“Their concerns didn't lay in persia nor Persia was their home”
:Does not change ethnic and cultural identity, especially if they are still heavily influenced by said cultures. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 06:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*::They indeed were influenced by Persian culture and were persianized like the [[Bengal sultanate]], yet it is considered bengali. Is it not?
*::Mughal dynasty indeed had many Persian elements yet it ruled from india, it's home laid in india and their concerns in future laid in india, It emerged from an "Indian historical experience"
*::"do you have evidence that they adopted an Indian identity? To be knowledge they never stopped identifying as the house of timur. But that seems to be your main response to the Persian point. So I think this would actually be a very important source to share if you have it."
*::They indeed never stopped identifying themselves as Timurids as [[Afsharid Iran|afsharids]] never stopped identifying themselves as turkmens and [[Mamluk sultanate|Mamluks]] of egypt never stopped identifying themselves as Turks, but in the end, both, Afsharids and mamluks gradually adopted the identity of the place they ruled over. Afsharids became persian and mamluks became Egyptian. This is what Richard John says!
*::"'''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."
*::So indeed they were timurids and identified themselves as one, which we never rejected but they became Indians per Most reliable sources, While considering themselves from the house of timur.
*::Like I said, India is a land of numerous ethnicities , You don't necessarily have to be an [[Indo aryan]] or [[Dravidian]] to be called as one. Britanica sums it 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'''"<ref name="Britanica>{{Citation |last=Britanica |first=Encyclopaedia |title=Mughal dynasty|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mughal-dynasty|page=2 |year=2024 |publisher=Encyclopaedia of britanica |isbn=978-0-521-56603-2 |access-date=9 August 2017 |archive-date=22 September 2023 |archive-url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mughal-dynasty|url-status=bot: unknown }} Quote: "Mughal dynasty, 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"</ref>

[[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 01:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

:Okay, firstly regent park has already stated that he prefers the term South Asia over Indian and previously voiced his concerns over the term “Indian” as well. His last comment mentioned Indian, but he still voted for option 2 and had already previously stated that he preferred the term “South Asia/South Asian”.
:Your entire response seems to be you repeating yourself, and citing more sources(refbomb) to prove your point when we already went over the fact that nobody is denying that some sources use the term “indianized”, the same way some sources use the term “Persianized”. 
:There was so many unanswered questions. For example, why should we add indianized in the lead if there are also sources which refer to them as persianized? Why do you exactly have preference for one term over another? They were multicultural so leaving either classification would be undue weight. 
: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. 
:“h, Afsharids and mamluks gradually adopted the identity of the place they ruled over. Afsharids became persian and mamluks became Egyptian. This is what Richard John says!
:"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”
: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. 
:You just keep citing sources without really answering any of my questions. Why are we ignoring the term “Persianized”. Your only explanation is that this term doesn’t contradict the empire being “indianized” but this doesn’t make any sense. Even if it didn’t contradict that term, why exactly do you prefer the term “indianized” in the lead, over “Persianized” if they are sources which also use the latter term? You and everyone else have failed to answer this question.
:So stop repeating yourself and answer me. Why the term “indianized” over “Persianized”? What’s the point of showing preference for one over the other? I’m just going to keep asking until you answer. 
: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. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 20:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Sutyarashi|Sutyarashi]]
::Hey Sutyarashi. I wanted to discuss your vote. I’m not necessarily against adding “indo-Persian” to the article currently, I just think that you should vote for option 2 in the mean time to maintain the status quo. After this, perhaps we can have a separate discussion on adding “Indo-Persian” to the lead or body. I just want to finish up this RFC first so we can move on. Option 3 isn’t really a choice currently. But we can talk about adding that after we are done here. 
::But that’s just my suggestion. Feel free to take whatever course of action you feel is best. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 19:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::Hello. I wasn't notified about this comment. Hence replying again. So Again I would like you to quote the the book you sent previously again which says Persian was used as the official language till 1857. The source of mine clearly says (quoting again)

{{Tq|'''During the Mogul rule, Persian replaced the position of Sanskrit as the official language in administration especially in conducting the court proceedings,''' etc. Persian continued as the official language till the time of Emperor Shajahan in the seventeen century, when '''Hindustani (Urdu) took the position of the official language in the Mughal courts''', yet Sanskrit continued to be used as the intellectual language in teaching classical sciences, philosophy, religion, etc. '''That synergy of Persian, Urdu (Hindustani) and Sanskrit had continued as the administrative and intellectual languages''' during the Mughal period}}

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 [[Afsharid Iran|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. 
 [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 09:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::Hello. [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 09:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Okay I have no idea what your goal is here, especially for the first point you made. Your source literally says word for word that Persian remained the official language until the reign of shah Jahan. It literally can’t get any more clear than that. I’m not sure if this is just a language barrier, but what do you think the author means by “till the reign of shah Jahan”? You keep ignoring that important piece of information. All you’re saying now is that the language remained in administration which nobody disagreed with. But that’s not the same as the official language. Your source literally uses the words “official language” to describe how Urdu had replaced Persian. But again, this contradicts another source I sent earlier. Again, remaining in the administration does not contradict the fact that your source claims the language was replaced as an official language. What exactly are you confused of here? And remember to answer the other previous question because you seem to be ignoring crucial information from the quotes you showed. 
:::You keep repeating the same sources over and over again, while not really responding to the points being made. You also seem to misinterpret them in a WP:OR matter. I’m not sure how quoting Britannica and Richard is supposed to help you here considering you’ve already done that multiple times. 
:::“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.”
:::So basically you admit they didn’t identify as Indian because you wrote that cultural identity doesn’t change the fact that they ruled in India(which doesn’t really matter). They identified as the house of timur. 
:::I’ve already shown sources that use the term “Persianized”. We clearly have sources that use both terms, so we shouldn’t have preference for one over the other. Quote 
:::“Robert L. Canfield, Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge University Press, 1991. pg 20: "The Mughals – Persianized Turks who invaded from Central Asia and claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis – strengthened the Persianate culture of Muslim India” 
:::now here’s your quote “The reason why we prefer "Indianized" over "persianized" is answered by Britanica:” 
:::That is not an answer, you just cited another source which stated that the Mughals were an Indian state. Essentially the same thing you’ve been doing since the beginning of this conversation. But that doesn’t explain anything to me. Some sources like Eaton support the Indian assertion, while others like Canfield support the Persian claim. So the question is why do you prefer the term indianized over Persianized? 
:::“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.”. Yeah but in this case, the influence is very clearly foreign. It originates from Persia, not India. That is the main cultural heritage the Mughals adopted. 
:::Also there is plenty of kingdoms of the past that settled in territories far from home, that doesn’t mean they were always considered to have fully integrated into the cultures and peoples they conquered. (Check out the Seleucid’s for example. They may have integrated some cultural elements from outsiders into their kingdom but they were still considered a Greek power). 
:::“Again I am still wondering why would you purposely ignore the examples of [[Afsharid Iran|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.” 
:::This argument falls flat. The Afsharids were a Turkic people heavily influenced by Persian culture thus are considered Persianized. The difference is, Persian was their sole/main culture outside of their Turkic origins which are already mentioned in those articles. The Mughals however, were influenced by multiple different cultures. In this case, Turco/mongol, Persians and, Indians. Or more specifically the ladder two. So this comparison makes no sense. In fact I would argue that the Mughals were more influenced by the Persians than any other society. But even if they weren’t, that’s a separate matter because the point is, you have two cultures here that the Mughals could arguably be a part of(outside of Turco-Mongols), it’s not so cut and dry. So why a preference for one over the other? [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 10:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:I don't see regents park anywhere saying he prefers south asian over indian. He is fine with both of these terms. Your entire paragraph again seems to be the same repeated arguments which we have answered over a Million times maybe. 
:We prefer "Indianized" more over "Persianized" 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?


So again Mughals indeed were "persianized" initially, Even John Richard doesn't disagree with this, but they became " Indians ", Their concerns laid in the future of India and that was their home, The empire emerged from the Indian historical experience (John Richards in page 1-2). So it does answer your question. No one argues Mughals weren't "persianized" or influenced by "Persian culture" they ofcourse indeed were. But they became "Indians" Moreover I only replied your comment on flemmish merely because it isn't appropriate to debate in a voting session, There is a seperate channel for that already. And I am only replying you because you keep miss representing my points. Your questions were answered a long time ago yet you keep repeating it.

"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. 


[[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk:Malik-Al-Hind|talk]]) 08:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

:“I don't see regents park anywhere saying he prefers south asian over indian. He is fine with both of these terms.”
:Check the extended discussion
:“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”
:He clearly prefers the term “South Asian/South Asia over Indian”. Now let’s move onto the rest of these arguments. 
:I just responded to the Persian point in another comment after yours which seems to be repeated here, so I’ll focus on the rest of the claims made here. 
:“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 is literally the same problem as the Persian point. I’m sure you can find sources which refer to the Bengali sultanate as being Bengali the same way other sources can consider it to be a foreign empire. It’s more accurate to say that they were influenced by many different people, not just bengalis. Majority of the emperors weren’t even Bengali, they were foreigners. 
:“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”
:The only person doing original research here is you and I can point where you’ve done it for you if you’d like. I’ve already showed you a source  which word for word states that the Mughals identified as the house of Timur/Timurids. What original research has been done here? It’s ironic that you are saying we rely on what the scholars say here, but than claim that the Mughals identified as Indians even though you don’t have a source which states that, which is actually originally research. Sources that refer to them as Indian, and the Mughals actual identity are two different things. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 10:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
*Consensus doesn’t need to be reached. Per “no consensus”, previous content is retained. And again, RFC’s are not based on voting. 
:Anyway, I think instead of worrying about votes, you should probably actually respond to the arguments made in the rfc. First and foremost, what is the point of leaving “indianized” in the lead if other sources also use the term “Persianized”? Why exactly do you have preference for one term over another? I really don’t think we need to restart this RFC. We already got plenty of opinions. Now we need someone to determine which argument is more sound. Again, it’s not about votes, so restarting this seems kind of pointless. You can look take this to dispute resolution or find another way of building consensus but at this point, I’d just recommend letting an administrator judge based on the arguments made. Otherwise it may simply be best to close this discussion as “no consensus”.  [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] 
:“When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit”. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 10:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
*:If there is no consensus, you can opt to extend the RFC. Read [[WP:RFC]]. Besides, no Wikiprojects were notified either during the entire period. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 12:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:::As of now, per no consensus, neither the addition nor the removal is favoured. What you are trying to do here is trying to push your own stance, i.e., opposing the addition here, when in fact neither is supported by consensus. 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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 12:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
===Continuation of Discussion Part II ===
@[[User:Someguywhosbored|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 [https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-xiaomi-rev1&sca_esv=c4a08539f66edc1e&sca_upv=1&q=%22indian+mughals%22&tbm=bks&source=lnms&fbs=AEQNm0DPvcmG_nCbmwtBO9j6YBzM68ZanC7g01Skprhw5JoufUv28nkH7BlZuPSVPZEeFf4zEsryEwMB77hXASo0GX6kc7f0ImceuC_sjza6Vb-covmbyhpamE8nFdDBXPVPzJTQU7MBXAFnfR130LMIBhqrIsoOl8ieFfXS3GWSgLtJxTcf267Wv5rKKgyx7fFUGn8sBvvl1n7GOk6qRIkbzjH9GOGG3A&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigxbWbkoGIAxVYd2wGHe7bBuMQ0pQJegQILBAB&biw=1128&bih=2092&dpr=2.75 "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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.” [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 13:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|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:
::{{quote|The '''Mughal dynasty''' was a [[Persianate]] [[History of India|Indian]] dynasty of [[Turco-Mongol]] origin that ruled over the [[Mughal Empire]] from 1526 to 1857.}} [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 14:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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 @[[User:Ratnahastin|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 21:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]], whatever happened to assuming [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|WP:GOODFAITH]] and [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|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. [[User:MohReddy|MohReddy]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MohReddy|MohReddy]] ([[User talk: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).  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MohReddy|MohReddy]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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 @[[User:MohReddy|MohReddy]] decide that himself. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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 @[[User:Someguywhosbored|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 [[WP:AGF|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 [[WP:PA|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, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/MohReddy&target=MohReddy&offset=&limit=500] 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. [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 08:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::Anyway that kind of sidetracked the conversation. 
*:::::::::::::::@[[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot2008]] please provide a source.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.   [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 09:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::Hi @[[User:PadFoot2008|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. [[User:MohReddy|MohReddy]] ([[User talk:MohReddy|talk]]) 09:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od|*::::::::::::::::::}}@[[User:MohReddy|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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 09:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]], thank you and I accept the apology. Much appreciated. [[User:MohReddy|MohReddy]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 09:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 09:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::@[[User:PadFoot2008|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 @[[User:MohReddy|MohReddy]] just to be safe, why not you change your vote?  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 09:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::::@[[User:MohReddy|MohReddy]], you're free to make your own suggestion for the lead as well, using quotes perhaps. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 09:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::::But yeah, I appreciate the fact that you were willing to listen and even change your mind @[[User:MohReddy|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 09:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::::::@[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]], I do appreciate the apology. Thank you again.  [[User:MohReddy|MohReddy]] ([[User talk:MohReddy|talk]]) 09:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::::@[[User:PadFoot2008|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. [[User:MohReddy|MohReddy]] ([[User talk:MohReddy|talk]]) 09:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::::::Alright, but do reconsider your decision. Thank you for your time @[[User:MohReddy|MohReddy]]. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 09:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::::::@[[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot2008]], thank you for your time as well, and of course, your support. It was truly appreciated [[User:MohReddy|MohReddy]] ([[User talk:MohReddy|talk]]) 09:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
{{collapsed top|Show references}}
{{reftalk}}
{{collapsed bottom}}

== RfC: Mughal dynasty lead == 
Per discussions above, these suggestions have made for a new Mughal dynasty lead:
# "The '''Mughal dynasty''' was an [[History of India|Indianized]] [[Turco-Mongol]] [[dynasty]] that ruled over the [[Mughal Empire]] from 1526 to 1857."
#* Or: "The '''Mughal dynasty''' was an [[History of India|Indianized]] [[dynasty]] of [[Turco-Mongol]] origin that ruled over the [[Mughal Empire]] from 1526 to 1857."
# No changes.

Kindly, state the preferred options below. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
*Well, tell us what the current version is! Here:
The '''Mughal dynasty''' ({{langx|fa|{{Nastaliq|دودمان مغل}}}}; {{transliteration|fa|Dudmân-e Mughal}}) was a dynasty which comprised the members of the imperial '''House of Babur'''
({{langx|fa|{{Nastaliq|خاندانِ آلِ بابُر}}}}; {{transliteration|fa|Khāndān-e-Āl-e-Bābur}}), also known as the '''Gurkanis''' ({{langx|fa|{{Nastaliq|گورکانیان}}}}; {{transliteration|fa|Gūrkāniyān}}),<ref name="Thackston2">{{cite book|title= The Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor|publisher= Modern Library|isbn= 978-0-375-76137-9|author= Zahir ud-Din Mohammad|author-link= Babur|editor= Thackston, Wheeler M.|editor-link= Wheeler Thackston|location= New York|page= [https://archive.org/details/babarinizam00babu/page/ xlvi]|date= 10 September 2002|quote= In India the dynasty always called itself ''Gurkani'', after Temür's title ''Gurkân'', the Persianized form of the Mongolian {{lang|mn-Latn| kürägän}}, 'son-in-law,' a title Temür assumed after his marriage to a Genghisid princess.|title-link= Baburnama}}</ref> who ruled the [[Mughal Empire]] from {{circa |1526}} to 1857.
[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk: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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persians_in_the_Mughal_Empire#cite_note-Canfield-1 

:[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 12:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.<ref>{{cite book|quote=By the mid-17th century, the descendants of Genghis Khan and Timur had gradually been Indianized|first=H.K.|last=Chang|url=https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Civilizations_of_the_Silk_Road/fem9EAAAQBAJ?hl=en|title=Civilizations of the Silk Road|page=}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|quote=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.|first=Yashaswini|last=Chandra|url=https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Tale_of_the_Horse_A_History_of_India/VawSEAAAQBAJ?hl=en|title=The Tale of the Horse: A History of India on Horseback}}</ref> 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. [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] ([[User talk: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<ref name="Richards1995-2">{{Citation |last=Richards |first=John F. |title=The Mughal Empire |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HHyVh29gy4QC&pg=PA2 |page=2 |year=1995 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-56603-2 |access-date=9 August 2017 |archive-date=22 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230922031915/https://books.google.com/books?id=HHyVh29gy4QC&pg=PA2 |url-status=live}} 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."</ref> 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.<ref name="gilmartin">{{cite web |title=About John F. Richards |first=David |last=Gilmartin |others=Guha, Sumit; Bhagavan, Manu |publisher=Society for Advancing the History of South Asia |url=http://sahsa.uchicago.edu/node/19 |access-date=2015-05-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090541/http://sahsa.uchicago.edu/node/19 |archive-date=March 4, 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Their home was india and they died in India. They had the similar identity as of [[Afsharid Iran|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. [[User:Malik-Al-Hind|Malik-Al-Hind]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Akshunwar|Akshunwar]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Curious man123|Curious man123]] ([[User talk: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 [[Mughal cuisine|cuisine]] and [[Mughal architecture|architecture]] followed [[Persianate|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 [[Syncretism|syncretic]] Islamic dynasties like [[Timurid dynasty]], [[Seljukids]], [[Ghaznavids]] and others:
:{{Talk quote|The '''Mughal dynasty''' was a culturally [[Indo-Persian culture|Indo-Persian]], [[Sunni]] [[Muslim]] dynasty of [[Turco–Mongol tradition|Turko-Mongol]] origin which ruled the [[Mughal Empire]] from {{circa|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. [[User:Sutyarashi|Sutyarashi]] ([[User talk:Sutyarashi|talk]]) 18:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''' as per the reason showed by {{no ping|Curious man123}}. [[User:Mehedi Abedin|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 [[WP:SYNTHESIS|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). [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 14:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 1''' Based on the arguments provided by [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]]. [[User:NXcrypto|<span style="color:#004400;">'''Nxcrypto'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User talk:NXcrypto|Message]]</small></small> 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. [[User:TheRollBoss001|TheRollBoss001]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Chauthcollector|Chauthcollector]] ([[User talk:Chauthcollector|talk]]) 07:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

* '''Option 2''' Per {{ping|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. [[User:Noorullah21|Noorullah]] ([[User talk:Noorullah21|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 [[User:Deccanichad|Deccanichad]] ([[User talk:Deccanichad|talk]]) 17:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
::This account is…pretty new. Anyway RFC is over btw. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 09:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Note''': This RfC was extended at this date due to lack of consensus. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.  [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 15:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Johnbod|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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 23:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
**::But I think the biggest problem is figuring out how to build consensus for this discussion. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 00:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
*Comment by Fowler&fowler: <s>'''No change needed''' "was an early modern empire in south Asia" is just fine.  Supplementation with a genealogy is not required. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 17:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)</s> Scratched; see below. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 17:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Um, @[[User:Fowler&fowler|Fowler&fowler]] you seem to be a bit mistaken here, this is the [[Mughal dynasty]] page, not the [[Mughal Empire]] page. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 17:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
::*:Thanks, no worries. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 17:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:AirshipJungleman29|AirshipJungleman29]], @[[User:Remsense|Remsense]], I would appreciate your opinion on this matter. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 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 [[MOS:LEAD|a summary of the article's most important contents]]—something the current lead fails to do and which the suggested change makes even worse. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 15:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:AirshipJungleman29|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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">'''''P''a''dF''oo''t'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 17:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

=== Discussion ===
Please discuss in the [[#Continuation of Discussion|section above]].
{{reftalk}}

== Consensus? ==

Why 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. @[[User:PadFoot2008|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 [[Talk:Mughal Empire#RfC: Usage of "Indo-Muslim" in lead|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 00:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:PadFoot2008|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 03:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:PadFoot2008|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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. 
::::::@[[User:Sutyarashi|Sutyarashi]]
::::::@[[User:Noorullah21|Noorullah21]] 
::::::@[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]]
::::::@[[User:AirshipJungleman29|AirshipJungleman29]] [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 03:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Whose [[WP:CANVASSING]] now? Besides I've reverted only three times not four. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 04:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Perhaps read [[WP:CANVASSING]] again before asking other editors to do so. {{tq|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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 09:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} 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]]. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 12:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:Hello @[[User:AirshipJungleman29|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? [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 13:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, see [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Alright. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 13:32, 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. --[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 14:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:PadFoot2008|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. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 18:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Seriously? You have problem with redirects? That's some next level POV pushing. @[[User:RegentsPark|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 @[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]], do you think redirects are a problem here? [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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 [[Wikipedia:Five Pillars|Five Pillars]]—Wikipedia's goals. [[Consensus decision making|Consensus]] on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|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?   [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 08:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::You can go on and on. I'll wait for RegentsPark. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 09:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Fine by me.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 09:58, 15 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]]. [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 15:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Thank you, @[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]]. As for the redirects in question, they are [[Indo-Timurids]], [[Indo-Timurid]] and [[Indo-Timurid dynasty]]. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 16:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:RegentsPark|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. [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. @[[User:RegentsPark|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. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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 @[[User:RegentsPark|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). @[[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]], would you please mind waiting and not replying yet until RegentsPark expresses his view, you've already expressed your view above. [[User:PadFoot2008|<span style="color:#338bff">PadFoot</span>]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|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.” [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Someguywhosbored|Someguywhosbored]] ([[User talk:Someguywhosbored|talk]]) 18:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)