Talk:Mughal Empire

Pronunciation of Mughal

Mo-gul? Mur-gul? Mur-gal? Mew-gal??? I've heard all four.2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:E18D:6532:3617:8E87 (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Chagatai Turkic origins of Babur

I couldn't understand the deletion of emphasis of the fact that Babur was a Chagatai Turkic chieftain. It is a pretty important knowledge that would serve as informing readers about foundation era of Mughal Empire and origins of its civilization. BerkBerk68 (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I am bringing back the edit since nobody opposed it here. BerkBerk68 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE. Do you seriously think an average reader understands Chaghtai Turk more than Uzbekistan? And please don't revert to your version. This is the consensus version supervised by an Wikipedia administrator. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure someone who is interested in Mughals' history also knows about Chagatai civilization. Chagatais were a major nation and influenced literature of the region up to Ottomans. You can't estimate an "Average reader", also deleting a major sourced information with that reason does not makes sense. An "average reader" wouldn't know about "Baburnama" aswell, should we delete it? BerkBerk68^talk 18:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

DUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" BerkBerk⁶⁸ 12:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There are no negative reactions since my comment was published at 17 july, I am assuming consensus per WP:SILENT. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 14:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The content editors of Wikipedia are busy people. They don't watch changes with the eyes of hawks, looking for every movement in the landscape. So the fact that you managed to slip something in, or someone else did, is no proof that it was accepted as consensus or DUE. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't see a reason to oppose the addition, since Babur was Turkic and wrote his autobiography in Chagatai Turki. It was an important aspect of the early Mughal period (Babur/Humayun era), and the sources added seem to be reliable. --Qahramani44 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Right? It's a pretty much major information for the Mughal history, seems like it's being deleted with WP:JDL. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 12:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry folks. This is not what qualifies as consensus. I've reverted you BerkBerk and suggest you refrain from trying to add this stuff back in again. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark I mean, are we going to wait @Fowler&fowler's response forever? I thought it was a WP:SILENT as I mentioned above, also my edits related to language is well referred and not even related to the talk page section. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 10:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Indeed. Broadly, I agree with BerkBerk68. Fowler&fowler's claims such as "Do you seriously think an average reader understands Chagatai Turk more than Uzbekistan?" or that information about Babur's lineage is secondary in importance are totally irrelevant. According to a Wikipedia principle, what is insignificant to some may be extremely significant to others, and vice versa. However, that debate misses the point entirely. What is important is notability and verifiability, the bedrock principles that ground Wikipedia articles. BerkBerk68 had them both. Moreover, we have numerous articles in Wikipedia where the nationality or background of the founders of similar polities are mentioned in the lead. For instance, this excerpt is from the lead of the Timurid empire page: The empire was founded by Timur (also known as Tamerlane), a warlord of Turco-Mongol lineage, who established the empire between 1370 and his death in 1405. Also, this is the first line of the Qajar Iran article: Qajar Iran was an Iranian state ruled by the Qajar dynasty, which was of Turkic origin, specifically from the Qajar tribe, from 1789 to 1925. However, instead of describing Babur as a Chagatai chieftain in the lead of this article, personally I would have employed "a Timurid prince" phrase, just as several modern and reliable sources do. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 13:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Visioncurve for your valued opinions. I totally agree with you on the notability, we should include origins of Babur per WP:DUE. The reason I believe that the term Chagatai is suitable for Babur is that Mughals actually used that identity for themselves as well as the Chagatai language played an important role in the Mughal literature. Also as you mentioned, the Timurid identity had a significant role together with the "Chagatai Turk" one [1] (reference given also supports the Chagatai view by calling Babur a "Turkish warlord" referring to his Chagatai origins, later expressing the "Chagatai Turk" identity was adopted by Mughals).

We also see that there aren't any notable opposing reactions to the Persian influence, the last person to react negatively (@Recentcontributorsedits) didn't express his opinions with an objective and supporting language, he accused other editors with several missbehaviors instead. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 14:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@BerkBerk68: Babur might be a Chagatai Turk, but it doesn't change the fact that Persian influence is exaggerated. The topic of this section is about Babur being a Chagatai Turk that I agree with, but the Mughal civilization is an Indian-based civilization. Please write your thoughts on Persian influence in the relevant section here. [2], [3] हाल ही का (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Even @Recentcontributorsedits didn't disrupt the consensus here. The only opposing user is not reacting since over a month, therefore there is at least WP:SILENT as I mentioned several times. Please @RegentsPark, I am still waiting for an explanation on your decision. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 23:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

BerkBerk68, in your edit summary, you say "check talk page" but here you say your edit is not related to the talk page section. Clearly, there is no consensus. Regardless, I don't see the point in adding something like "Chagtai Turk (only initially)" to an article about an entity that spanned 300 years. Perhaps Babur spoke the language, but he is one emperor out of nineteen, and therefore this is not something that defines the empire and is, at best, a minor footnote somewhere. The same applies to emphasizing Chagtai Turk in the article. Your reference above is very weak. You should look for peer reviewed sources in which the Chagatai Turkic origins of the Mughals is the main focus. Not just some throwaway lines here and there. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what? no, Chagatai emphasis is totally relevant to this talk page section. The linguistic edit is the one that is not discussed on the talk page.

4 users are agreeing with the Chagatai Turkic emphasis while one that disagrees is not responding since over a month as I already told above, and you still didn't explain how it's "clearly not a consensus".

References related to Babur's Chagatai Turkic origins are pretty much reliable (Book from Cambridge university press & an article from Cambridge core), arguments given by you are focusing on linguistic topics. Also about that, keep in mind that Baburnama was written in Chagatai language. Your edits seem to be WP:JDL. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 14:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, "Chagatai Turk (only initially)" part is not even added by me. Please be more cautious. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 14:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

As I clearly say above, your Cambridge source does not support inclusion of Chagatai Turks in the article. All it says is "The Mughals (Moghuls) called themselves Chagatai Turks or Timurids". If you want to include something in origins, you need to find peer reviewed sources that explicitly discuss the Chagatai Turkic origins of the Mughals. Historical matter is not added to Wikipedia based on a throwaway line here or there. If you need to add this to the lead or infobox, you will need to find multiple such peer reviewed sources. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It is just a single one of the references, I also explained the reference usage above. I am going to copy-paste what was written with some additions. reference provided supports the Chagatai view by calling Babur a "Turkish warlord", referring to his Chagatai Turkic origins, and later expressing the "Chagatai Turk" identity was adopted by Mughals, clearly indicating that Babur was a Chagatai Turk.

Again, other reference is obviously being ignored, which makes it look like the Chagatai Turkic deletion was WP:JDL.

Additionally, both references support the Turkicness of Babur, which is pretty much significant to include on the article per WP:DUE. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 17:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

May I ask the person who opened this thread: Chagatai Turks is a dab page with four links: It may refer to: Chagatai Khanate Chagatai Khan, Chagatai people and

Chughtai. Which of these are you proposing we link Babur (4 February 1483 – 26 December 1530) to? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Ofcourse, the "Chagatai Turks" page you mentioned is a redirect to the Chagatai Khanate. I have linked it on my edits. Chagatai language is also appropriate, since Baburnama was written in that. Sadly we don't have a specific article on the term "Chagatai Turks", so these both seem to be appropriate.

It's also great to see that we've passed a long way and started to talk about details. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 23:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an negative comment/proposal from opposing editors, I also still believe that we had a consensus (already explained how several times) and I don't think that I got a proper answer opposing that. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 18:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"Babur thought of himself as a Turk and preferred to write in Chaghatai"[4]. After this stage opposing the addition would just be WP:JDL. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 23:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Visioncurve's suggestion by mentioning that Babur was a Timurid prince. Babur and his Timurid predecessors were not just Chagatai Turks, simply calling them the latter would be far from the full picture. The Imperial Identity in the Mughal Empire: Memory and Dynastic Politics in Early Modern South and Central Asia seems to go into depth regarding this (even posted some citations from it here [5]), and there are probably many other sources about this topic, such as this one; "Historic and contemporary views of Babur aside, how did he imagine his own second life - as an individual and the founder of an empire in Hindustan. In the Vaqay' he emotionally, exhaustively, persuasively memorializes himself as his father's son, by implication and also by objective achievement, more perfect even then Umar Shaikh Mirza. He does so by offering himself to readers as a cultured Turco-Mongol, Perso-Islamic aristocrat,..." - p. 216, Babur, Cambridge University Press, Stephen Dale --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

References clearly indicate the importance of the Chagatai Turkic statement (especially the lastest reference added). I have already told that I also support this information since it would also be a notable addition, it is not contradicting with this section so if you believe that it is an important statement, you can open a new specific section for it. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 22:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Huh? Why would I open a new section? This is clearly the same topic. Instead of adressing my concerns (and sources), you avoid them, and attempt to add this Turkic mention once again through edit warring? [6]. If it's not clear enough, I am opposing this as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Then you are having a WP:JDL aswell, Just another reference on Babur being Turkic [7] and not just being Turkic, also adopting the Turkic identity (Adopted identity is not even the subject). Three different references were given (four now) and not even attempting to respond them, just opposing them? What kind of an answer are you waiting for? BerkBerk⁶⁸ 22:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

So, three veteran users (including an admin) just don't like it? Also, I'm not sure how passing mentions makes Babur's Chaghatai background any important to be in the lede. As RegentsPark already said; You should look for peer reviewed sources in which the Chagatai Turkic origins of the Mughals is the main focus. Not just some throwaway lines here and there." There are various sources which would say something else when referring to Babur, demonstrating he was not a merely a "Chaghatai";

"By the time the processes Babur set in motion came to an end, the Mughals had shed all but a few trappings of their former pastoral and semi-nomadic identity, and become a thoroughly agrarian state. A kingdom originally run by a mainly foreign governing class – ethnically Turko-Mongol, Persianate in literary and aesthetic traditions, Sunni Muslim by religion, Timurid in dynastic identity – would put down roots and, in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, become an essentially Indian polity / His own parentage epitomized the mixing of pastoral, Mongol-Timurid with sedentary Persianate culture. / Notwithstanding this mixed Mongol and Timurid/Persianate inheritance, it is telling that the Mughals understood themselves as Timurids - or, more precisely, Indo-Timurids" India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765 (can't see pages, just copy paste the words/sentences)

"Babur’s dynasty, which was originally Sunni Muslim and Central Asian (Turko-Mongol), became partly Indian through intermarriage with the local aristocracy. Once again, the varied but mostly Hindu population of northern India came under Muslim rule." / "The Timurids were a Turco-Mongol dynasty that ruled Central Asia and Khurasan from about 1370 to 1506 and became the other major branch of Mughal ancestry" p. 4, 16 - Mughal Occidentalism: Artistic Encounters Between Europe and Asia at the Courts of India, 1580-1630

"Historic and contemporary views of Babur aside, how did he imagine his own second life - as an individual and the founder of an empire in Hindustan. In the Vaqay' he emotionally, exhaustively, persuasively memorializes himself as his father's son, by implication and also by objeective achievement, more perfect even then Umar Shaikh Mirza. He does so by offering himself to readers as a cultured Turco-Mongol, Perso-Islamic aristocrat,..." - p. 216, Babur, Cambridge University Press, Stephen Dale

"In his addition to his territorial gains, Babur is moreover credited with bequeathing a Timurid/-Turco-Mongol cultural and political legacy that served as a means of legitimacy and pride for his descendants." - p. 38 - The Ghazi Sultans and the Frontiers of Islam: A comparative study of the late medieval and early modern periods

"BĀBOR, ẒAHĪR-AL-DĪN MOḤAMMAD (6 Moḥarram 886-6 Jomādā I 937/14 February 1483-26 December 1530), Timurid prince, military genius, and literary craftsman who escaped the bloody political arena of his Central Asian birthplace to found the Mughal Empire in India. His origin, milieu, training, and education were steeped in Persian culture and so Bābor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results." [8]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, why won't you proceed to the section below ;-)? Your arguments, especially your last paragraph would fit better there! Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 06:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, he is a bit confused about sections. Babur being a Chagatai Turkic is not contradicting with any of these informations, so they can't be used for rejecting the addition relevant to this section here, what he emphasized is related with the section below.

Also I don't know if HistoryofIran is aware of that Baburnama was written in Chagatai language due to Babur's Chagatai Turkic identity adoption which also concretize the importance of Chagatai emphasis, that is already mentioned in this section. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems you're the one being confused, as Visioncurve was simply inviting me to join the discussion below (which I will take a look at later this day), which is about the Persian aspect of the Mughals. I've never said that these sources are supposed to contradict the Chagatai bit, something which I haven't tried to reject; it seems you're being confused again - feel free to re-read my comments. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I don't think you should be here since you already told that you don't know about Mughals [9]. Please go away and disturb someone else, nobody has to see your and @BerkBerk68's conflict that has roots on other articles. It's obvious that your statements are related to your ethnic clashes and desire on creating controversy on anything related to BB68. हाल ही का (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

In that talk page I clearly stated "I will be watching, but I am sorry to that I will not comment as long as I don't feel confident/knowledgeable enough." I feel confident enough, so I rather stay, thanks. Fyi, I have been editing this article since 2013. Also, don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS and learn to assume WP:GF of your fellow editors. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not WP:ASPERSIONS, its literally just what you said. And no, [10] I am not the one who is behaving with my own personal opinions, it's actually you indeed. You know the fact that Babur was a Chagatai Turkic and you know that Babur adopted the Chagatai identity for himself, yet you still oppose the edit. Probably because of the Turco-Iranian ethnic conflict you had with BB68. हाल ही का (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any proof or are you gonna keep on casting aspersions and going off topic till I report you? Another brand new user who is randomly incredibily hostile towards me and defends + agrees with BerkBerk, interesting huh? HistoryofIran (talk)

Persian influence

I have recently made a well-cited (in line with WP:RS), two-sentence contribution to the lead of the article (as per WP:Lead fixation, MOS:Lead) that outlined a formidable Persian influence on the Mughal empire. Fowler&fowler reverted me twice despite an adequate explanation of my edits in the edit summary, claiming that addition in question was not brief as I had stated (remember, a-two-sentence contribution?), should not be in the lead as info was not deemed important (scroll down to learn more about its "insignificance") and that it needed a consensus among the editors in the t/p.

According to the Manual of Style guidelines of Wikipedia, the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

There are several sourced sentences, paragraphs and sections within the article that inform how enormous was a Persian influence on almost every aspect of the Mughal state.

• 1. Infobox of the article indicates that the Persian language was an official and court language of the empire. (source provided).
• 2. The "Law" section of the article explains Persian influences on the Mughal legal system. (source provided).
• 3. The "Legal ideology" subsection notes that the empire also drew on Persianate notions of kingship. (source provided).
• 4. The "Culture" section outlines the amalgamation of Persian art and literature with Indian art. (source provided).
• 5. The "Architecture" subsection mentions the development of a unique Indo-Persian architecture during the Mughal era. (source provided).
• 6. The "Language" subsection provides an information about Persian's official status in the court and its profound impact on the development of the Urdu language. (source provided)

In addition, I decided to publish a few quotes from reputable sources where substantial importance was given by their respective authors to the aforementioned subject:

Under the Mughals, Persian influence became prominent, as Akbar recruited Persian administrators, judges, Sufis, artists, and others to expand, stabilize, and refine his empire.
— David Ludden (2013). India and South Asia: A Short History.

The Mughals were heirs to the political traditions of the Delhi Sultanate as well as to the Turkish and Persian influences.
— Krishnaji Nageshrao Chitnis (2003). Medieval Indian History, page 16.

Nonetheless, it was not Turkish but Persian which came to symbolize Mughal triumph in India. One may conjecture that, in matters of language, the Mughals had no other choice, and that they simply inherited a legacy and continued ...
— Muzaffar Alam (2004) The Languages of Political Islam: India, 1200-1800, page 123.

Unlike the pre-Mughal Islamic dynasties, the Mughals used – and mandated the use of – Persian alone in all documents of state.
— Prashant Keshavmurthy (2016). Persian Authorship and Canonicity in Late Mughal Delhi, page 8.

After the rise of the Mughals, Persian was once more brought to the fore in the second half of the sixteenth century as a language of power and culture.
— Muzaffar Alam, ‎Sanjay Subrahmanyam (2012) Writing the Mughal World: Studies on Culture and Politics, page 206.

They were even allowed to hand over their letters directly to the Mughal emperor. Persians drew the highest respect due to the hegemony Persian culture enjoyed.
— Debasish Das (2019). Red Fort: Remembering the Magnificent Mughals.

Obvious Persian influences in Mughal architecture are the extensive use of tilework, the iwan as a central feature in mosques, the use of domes, the charbagh, or garden, divided into four and the four-centrepoint arch.
— Andrew Petersen (2002). Dictionary of Islamic Architecture, page 200.

I have made my case known and now hope for a swift response from all interested parties who have contributed to this page. Qahramani44, BerkBerk68, Dayirmiter, RegentsPark, ScottishFinnishRadish, HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, Wario-Man, Beshogur, LouisAragon. --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 15:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

[Detailed reply incoming]. Broadly, I am in agreement with F&F. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

For reference, the added paragraph to the lead was this:

Although the Mughal empire was founded and subsequently ruled by the dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin, they adhered closely to classical Persian traditions of authority and aesthetics, and their linguistic, material and artistic cultural activities were heavily influenced by Persianate culture. The Mughal reign also enacted the revival and height of the Persian language in the Indian subcontinent, as the Mughals employed Persian as the vehicle of an overarching Indo-Persian political culture, to unite their diverse empire.

--Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 16:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Does this article reflect the entirety of the Mughal's culture? Perhaps Visioncurve's information should be placed in the Culture section of the article. Once that is done, maybe the article could be re-evaluated for what should be written in the Lead?--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Visioncurve, For heavens sake, please don't dump garbage at me and others. In 2011, I wrote the following in the history section of the FA India:

After the 10th century, Muslim Central Asian nomadic clans, using swift-horse cavalry and raising vast armies united by ethnicity and religion, repeatedly overran South Asia's north-western plains, leading eventually to the establishment of the Islamic Delhi Sultanate in 1206. The sultanate was to control much of North India and to make many forays into South India. Although at first disruptive for the Indian elites, the sultanate largely left its vast non-Muslim subject population to its own laws and customs. By repeatedly repulsing Mongol raiders in the 13th century, the sultanate saved India from the devastation visited on West and Central Asia, setting the scene for centuries of migration of fleeing soldiers, learned men, mystics, traders, artists, and artisans from that region into the subcontinent, thereby creating a syncretic Indo-Islamic culture in the north. The sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire. Embracing a strong Shaivite tradition and building upon the military technology of the sultanate, the empire came to control much of peninsular India, and was to influence South Indian society for long afterwards.In the early 16th century, northern India, then under mainly Muslim rulers, fell again to the superior mobility and firepower of a new generation of Central Asian warriors. The resulting Mughal Empire did not stamp out the local societies it came to rule. Instead, it balanced and pacified them through new administrative practices and diverse and inclusive ruling elites, leading to more systematic, centralised, and uniform rule. Eschewing tribal bonds and Islamic identity, especially under Akbar, the Mughals united their far-flung realms through loyalty, expressed through a Persianised culture, to an emperor who had near-divine status. The Mughal state's economic policies, deriving most revenues from agriculture and mandating that taxes be paid in the well-regulated silver currency, caused peasants and artisans to enter larger markets. The relative peace maintained by the empire during much of the 17th century was a factor in India's economic expansion, resulting in greater patronage of painting, literary forms, textiles, and architecture. Newly coherent social groups in northern and western India, such as the Marathas, the Rajputs, and the Sikhs, gained military and governing ambitions during Mughal rule, which, through collaboration or adversity, gave them both recognition and military experience. Expanding commerce during Mughal rule gave rise to new Indian commercial and political elites along the coasts of southern and eastern India. As the empire disintegrated, many among these elites were able to seek and control their own affairs.

Please read one decent book cover to cover, then read it again, not dump cherry picked, undigested, sources for the eye-glaze of all. It is the source of the widespread UNDUE on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In other words, the Persianization of India is complex, predating the Mughals by three centuries. The Hindustani language, the mother of both Urdu and Hindi, had been born in the form of Hindwai, etc, from the daily exchanges between the mixed group of Central Asian warriors employed by the Sultanate and the Khari boli dialect-speaking locals of northeast Delhi. It was long before the Mughals. Hear the great Nusrat cite it to late 13th-century and Amir Khusrow. Also he Persian of South Asia, was not quite the Persian of Persia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Thanks for your swift response. First of all, I didn't quite get the message of your "Don't dump garbage at me and others?. What was that supposed to mean? Didn't I simply reveal the events that brought me to the talk page in chronological order, seeking consensus just as you had advised me in the first place? I thought we were all educated and civil people here.

Also, I kindly request you to refrain from suggesting things you don't know for sure like: Please read one decent book cover to cover, then read it again, not dump cherry picked, undigested, sources for the eye-glaze of all. Rest assured that I have more or less read all of them, and if you did the same with the books you listed in your reference list, you would not have referenced to Muzaffar Alam's "The Languages of Political Islam" book at all, because there, Mr. Azam is more than ever dedicated to emphasizing Persian influences on the Mughal Empire (please, refer to pages 69-75 and 121-134 of that book).

Besides, your "In other words, the Persianization of India is complex, predating the Mughals by three centuries" is totally irrelevant as this article is not about India, it's about the Mughal empire, and we are making an effort to address Mughals' Persian character.

Furthermore, what did you exactly mean by "Also he (?) Persian of South Asia, was not quite the Persian of Persia."? Sounds like a personal opinion with no reference to any authoritative source.

I also wonder who was first to write the above text you published claiming it as yours from the India article, because it was simply copy-pasted from Mr. Salim Hamisu's "Research study on the Republic of India" (2015). Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 08:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Kansas Bear. Regarding your question and suggestion: "Does this article reflect the entirety of the Mughal's culture? Perhaps Visioncurve's information should be placed in the Culture section of the article. Once that is done, maybe the article could be re-evaluated for what should be written in the Lead?" It is already there, in the article. I have recently added appropriate links to those sections and subsections I mentioned in my first message. The problem is, some people don't want it in the Lead for the reasons yet unknown to me. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 12:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That piece is copied verbatim from the Wikipedia article, as the WP article was rewritten in the summer of 2011.

I would have added it to the long line of reliable sources that have copied from my articles

(see here for one example), but is just something on a website, not published. @RegentsPark: will bear witness that even the pictures are the same. Please stop shunting nonsense on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

As much as I know, Wikipedia content can be copied or redistributed if acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included. It was a research study, by one of the leading universities in India. And there was not a single word that they had "copy pasted" the whole text from Wikipedia or anything close to words of acknowledgement. Also, I would like to warn you for the last time to stop your "dump garbage", "shunting nonsense" and other similar stuff, otherwise I will have you reported for misconduct. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 01:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious that non-Indian origins of the Mughal Empire is being removed from the article, which should be represented according to WP:UNDUE. This behaviour is not only being done against Persian influence of Mughals, but the Chagatai Turkic origins of Babur is being deleted aswell by F&F [11], I believe that @Visioncurve agrees with the necessity of Chagatai representation as he mentioned on my talk page. About this section, I must express that Persian influence of the Mughal civilization is irrefutable and worth mentioning on the lead. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 15:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Obvious cherry picking. I accept claims of Fowler. If the Persian influence was so great that it was worth spreading it over article, we would feel it in today's India. And we also know that Mughals and the empire were heavily Indianized after Babur instead of being Indo-Persian. We should absolutely mention Persian impact but not in the whole of article as claimed in Visioncurve's claims. Recentcontributorsedits (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not being observed on today's India doesn't mean that Mughals didn't have significant Persian influence. @Visioncurve's references seem to be reliable and his additions are constructive & significant. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 17:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

He is cherry picking like you. Mughal Empire was Turkic at very beginning but after Babur The Mughal Empire was an Indian/South Asian empire fully. No amount of finessing the Turkic roots of its founders or the culture it chose to emphasize(a bit), will change that fact. हाल ही का (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I am not cherrypicking. My Chagatai Turkic emphasis is based on Babur's origins with reliable sources, which should obviously be included according to the WP:DUE. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 22:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Recentcontributorsedits, what do you mean by your We should absolutely mention Persian impact but not in the whole of article as claimed in Visioncurve's claims. The Persian influence had already been mentioned in almost every section of this article even before I made my first edit there, so I don't have anything to do with that. Go to the edit history of the page and do your research first before suggesting this sort of things publicly. You don't even seem to understand what we are discussing here, as your above-mentioned sentence actually supports my stance here. My proposal was to mention Mughals' dual Indo-Persian character in the lead of the article on the grounds that it has been covered substantially across the whole article. My addition to the lead was entirely in line with WP:MOS, WP:LEADDD, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Regarding your statement about the fact that the Persian influence is long gone and is not observed in modern India, I am sorry to disappoint you, but the Mughal empire was not only India, it also included modern-day territories of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Besides, you forget about the Urdu language, spoken by some 51 million people in India and described as a Persianized register of the Hindustani language. Moreover, I would like you to cite your Mughal Empire was Turkic at very beginning but after Babur The Mughal Empire was an Indian/South Asian empire fully to a reliable source, because what you have outlined seems to be your own subjective opinion without much empirical evidence. Remember, no original research here! Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 03:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I hate myself for joining. What does sources say about the cultural aspects of the Mughals during their late era? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for joining, this amateur discussion has long been begging for an expertly opinion as it has stalled just like a trench warfare. Regarding your question about the cultural aspects of the Mughals during their late era, first we need to agree upon the time period that is conventionally seen as "the late Mughal period". According to Ph.D. Allyn Miner, whose research and publications relate to the social history of South Asia and is a faculty emerita in the Department of South Asia Studies at the University of Pennsylvania:

After Aurangzeb's death in 1707, the Mughal empire began a steady decline. The late Mughal period, which extended for the great length of one hundred and fifty years, was a scene of political degeneration.
— Allyn Miner (2004). Sitar and Sarod in the 18th and 19th Centuries, page 78. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Limited.

which is to say the late Mughal period encompasses the time period from 1707 to 1857, just as it is described in the "Decline (1707-1857)" subsection of the Mughal empire page in Wikipedia. Here's what several reliable secondary sources say with respect to the cultural aspects of the Mughals during that period:

The earliest introduction of Persian influence and culture to the Indian subcontinent was by Muslim rulers of Turkic and Afghan origin with Persianate societies and Persianised cultures. This socio-cultural synthesis arose steadily through the Delhi Sultanate from the 13th to 16th centuries, and the Mughal Empire from then onwards until the 19th century. Muzaffar Alam, a noted scholar of Mughal and Indo-Persian history, suggests that Persian became the official lingua franca of the Mughal Empire under Akbar for various political and social factors due to its non-sectarian and fluid nature. The Persianisation of the Indian subcontinent resulted in its incorporation into the cosmopolitan Persianate world of Ajam, known today academically as Greater Iran, which historically gave many inhabitants a secular, Persian identity. Moreover, the eastern part of the Mughal empire, Bengal, had had the Persian language as an official language for over 600 years (1204-1837), including during the provincial period of the Delhi Sultanate; the independent period of the Bengal Sultanate; the dominion period of the Bengal Subah in the Mughal Empire; and the quasi-independent Nawabi period. Bengal was the subcontinent's wealthiest region for centuries, where Persian people, as well as Persianate Turks, settled in the Ganges delta to work as teachers, lawyers, poets, administrators, soldiers and aristocrats. Persian as a language of governance and education was abolished in 1839 by the British East India Company. English replaced Persian as the official language , and in 1835 the government decided to spend its funds for education.

Further, C.E. Bosworth writes about the significance of Persian culture that developed a mark within Muslim sultans in this era:

The sultans were generous patrons of the Persian literary traditions of Khorasan, and latterly fulfilled a valuable role as transmitters of this heritage to the newly conquered lands of northern India, laying the foundations for the essentially Persian culture which was to prevail in Muslim India until the 19th century.
— http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ghurids Iranica: GHURIDS or Āl-e Šansab; a medieval Islamic dynasty of the eastern Iranian lands.

Given that the Mughals had historically symbolized Indo-Persian culture to one degree or another, the dethroning of Bahadur Shah Zafar and the institution of the direct control of the British Crown in 1858 may be considered as marking the end of the Indo-Persian era. However, even after the Indian Rebellion, Persian would still retain an audience and even produce commendable literature such as the philosophical poetry of Muhammad Iqbal. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 06:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Decline

"Reduced subsequently [to Aurengzeb], especially during the East India Company rule in India, to the region in and around Old Delhi..." this is literally true, but misleading as it implies the EIC were the cause of the decline, which in fact they had very little to do with it compared to civil wars of succession, invasions from Persia and Afghanistan (taking all the money), agressive rival powers in India, desertion by rulers of large parts of the empire, and very poor leadership at the top. "Reduced...to the region in and around Old Delhi" had essentially happened by what, 1760?, very early on in any EIC rule. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That was an error. It was supposed to be: "Reduced subsequently to the region in and around Old Delhi, especially during the East India Company rule in India, the empire was formally dissolved by the British Raj after the Indian Rebellion of 1857." As you say, the Mughals imploded in a matter of a few decades. It was felt that to explain their dramatic cave-in to external forces, fiscal and geographical overreach, and pageant or degenerate rulers, etc. would become too involved for the lead. It would give too much credit to the Marathas or the Afghans (or the Rajputs and the Jats for that matter) who the Mughals gave governing ambitions by giving them governing experience as subordinates. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the point there was that for its last 100 years, 1757 to 1857 the empire existed from Delhi to Palam (in the old Persian couplet about Shah Alam, which I've forgetting this minute). Palam was 15 miles away, if that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Sultanat-e-Shah Alam, Az Dilli ta Palam, The sultanate of Shah Alam From Delhi to Palam. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

While I am griping, the "e" is the izafat, the possessive, (or the reverse possessive, A-e-B = B's A) of literary Persian and Urdu, which because of the hyper Hindi-ization of post colonial Republic of India is now lost there in speech and writing, even in Urdu poetry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

One could change it to, "In the next few decades the Mughal empire collapsed dramatically both in military power and geographical extent. Reduced to the region in and around Old Delhi, especially during the century of East India Company rule, the empire was formally dissolved by the British Raj after the Indian Rebellion of 1857." I would not want to go into the causes of the Mughal collapse in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, I've been reminded that I am supposed to be on a Wikibreak and that my current job is to make sandwiches from the leftover baby back ribs of yesterday afternoon. Please resolve this

@Johnbod, Visioncurve, Kansas Bear, RegentsPark, and TrangaBellam: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The quote is as F&F says (I just added "[to Aurengzeb]" for clarity). Since we seem to agree on what happened, I don't see why we need to follow knee-jerk nationalist habit, and blame everything on the British, especially when the dates don't really work and, for once, it wasn't actually their doing. Why not "In the next few decades the Mughal empire collapsed dramatically both in military power and geographical extent. Reduced to the region in and around Old Delhi by 1760 [or some other date if preferred], the empire was formally dissolved by the British Raj after the Indian Rebellion of 1857." Johnbod (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Your proposal is fine.

What was there earlier, barring the grammatical, wasn't blaming the British, though I agree that it could be viewed to be that. The point I wanted to get across on this page which I did not do very well—mind you, this was all happening during deafening POV wars, the bombs bursting in the air and whatnot, when quick editing was of the essence—was that from 1757 onward, and especially 1764 when the Mughal suba, or province, of Bengal (Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa) fell properly to the British, and 1760 onward in the south when the Mughal province of Sira first fell to Hyder Ali, and then after Tipu's defeat and the signing of the Treaty of Seringapatam in 1792 to the British, the Company was formally still only ruling its Indian dominions in the name of the Mughal Emperor. So important were the Mughals deemed in the history of India by the British. They were the only empire, the rest, the Marathas, the Durranis, the Sikhs, only confederacies of the moment.

From the 1780s the Company coins, one of my proudest possessions, were issued in the name of the Mughal emperor, and continued to be so until William IV issued the first Company silver rupees, etc., in 1835, and Victoria followed in 1840. And in 1805ish when Wellesley was proceeeding to whup the Maratha behinds in the Battle of Patparganj (What no WP page?!) across the Jumna river, Shah Alam was watching anxiously from the Red Fort, and you can be sure whom he was rooting for. It wasn't the Marathas. It is not an exaggeration to say that the British propped up the Mughal empire during the last 50 years of its existence. Without them, it would have gone much earlier. But it was that declining Mughal empire propped up by the British that created some beauty as well; it made possible the Urdu ghazals of Mir and Ghalib and the nazms of Nazeer Akbarabadi, the gold standard for the medium, and also buildings, both British, e.g. File:St. James Church ( Night ).jpg, established 1836, and Indian, and e.g. File:Anglo Arabic School's Hostel earlier known as Ghaziuddin Khan Madrasa.jpg, the oldest secular school of Delhi, reorganized by the Company in 1828.

Perhaps @RegentsPark: may want to chip in here. One of my proudest virtual possessions is the collaboration with them that led to List of British residents or political agents in Delhi, 1803–57 and eventually to Ludlow Castle, Delhi.

The mention of the Company was a nod to all that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I can see that, but I think it was too compressed to be read that way in the lead, by most anyway. I think all the powers in India formally recognised the Mughal ruler as "Emperor of India", if only to prevent anyone else asserting a right to the title, and perhaps recognising the benefits of apparent stability in what was actually a very unstable period, especially in the first part. I hope we say this lower down in the article, or will at some point. Enjoy your holidays. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The Mughal empire was in decline and the EIC stepped into the resulting vacuum, sometimes by design and often through hubris so Johnbod's reformulation is the more appropriate. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll do that then. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2022

Remove Dhaka as a 'commercial capital' from the capital section in the profile box in the top right corner. 2601:C6:CC80:D380:7083:F5B1:15F2:5CD8 (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

History

The Mughal dynasty of the Turkic Mongol origin was an early modern empire that controlled most of South Asia between the sixteenth and the mid nineteenth century. It has ruled most of Northern India from the early times. Which region in India Mughals always failed to capture and how many times they tried to conquer it? 2409:4066:19C:D4AD:0:0:1B87:58A1 (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

"conventionally"

I don't think there is any contrary information to the knowledge that Babur founded the Mughal Empire. Why it's not being represented as a definite knowledge, am I missing something? BerkBerk⁶⁸ 20:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's more about the timing - arguably the Battle of Bayana in 1527, the year after Panipat I, was the crucial event. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it seems like the controversial part is a calendrical information, I don't think Babur's founder status is disputed. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 16:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)