Talk:Mughal Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pov edit?[change source]

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

Which type of source ? च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ वार्तालाप करें 02:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources such as[1] Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Malik-Al-Hind John F. Richard is an esteemed historian renowned for his expertise in Mughal history, making his work WP:RS. च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ वार्तालाप करें 06:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is why I don't understand how my edits are not neutral and are POVish despite of the reliable sources I used. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
POV has nothing to do with sources cited here. Using the term 'India' for an empire that expanded outside of the modern-day country of India is confusing. Simple English Wikipedia is not English Wikipedia; we try to keep things here easy for non-native English speakers to understand. 'Mauryan Empire was an empire in South Asia' is easier to understand. Calling the empire an 'Indian' state is WP:POV. Also, instead of using words like 'Indianized,' it's simpler to just explain those terms like 'they adapted local culture' or 'adapted South Asian culture.' Additionally, when building consensus, you shouldn't revert edits before reaching a consensus. – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 06:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Isnt it obvious by "India" we aren't referring to Republic of India? We are obviously not. And I don't think so calling the empire an "Indian state" is WP:POV
Because I clearly cited a WP:RS source like[2] from britanica for it.

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

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian subcontinent is defined as the land stretching from the Indus River to the Greater Bengal region. The Mughal Empire held control of the areas west of the Indus, which is not considered part of the Indo-Pak subcontinent. Therefore, the term 'South Asia' is more valid than 'Indian subcontinent.' – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 10:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't even reply me in the talk page here but reverted my edits. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a new proposal , If "Indianize", term is complex. Then we can use the statement "Though they later settled in South Asia and became Indians by adapted to the local culture" because this is what the cited source says. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, The term "Indian subcontinent" includes the countries of Modern day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Bhutan and Maldives.[3][4][5][6] Therefore the term "Indian Subcontinent" is more valid because that is where the Mughals ruled from after settling to i.e Lahore and Delhi.[7] which is the part of "Indian subcontinent" and not Iranian plateau of South asia.
Moreoever I still don't understand why did you remove the "Indian state" thing. When the cited source clearly says it here.[2]

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

And if you find the term "Indianized" complex, we can add "Though they later settled in South Asia and became Indians by adapting to the local culture" Because that is literally what the Reliable cited sources says.[1] And you shouldn't change such sentences which are backed up with WP:RS Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Cyber.Eyes.2005@Malik-Al-Hind, I've been closely monitoring the discussion, and it's disheartening to note that a consensus has yet to be reached.
@Malik-Al-Hind, Perhaps it would be more appropriate to utilize the citation quote verbatim, without any alterations, in order to maintain neutrality and adhere to reliable sourcing guidelines.
, च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Chatting 03:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. This is why I proposed to remove "Indianize" (if it's complex) and add "Indian". Because Reliable sources such as [1] clearly call it "Indian". And since Mughals indeed became "Indians" after settling in the Indian subcontinent. I propose to add
"Though they settled in South Asia, They became Indians by adapting to the local culture"

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


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

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

@Malik-Al-Hind, You marked this :
  • John F. Richards,The Mughal Empire, Cambridge University Press, page. 2 : Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia. Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent. Would you prefer to use the full quote as it is or just a single line from it?
च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Chatting 04:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with using the full quote either. But as we know, We don't have to copy paste the entire paragraph as it is on the lead, Rather summarise it.
This is why I proposed to add the following sentence:
"Though Mughal emperors were turco-Mongol in origin, they later settled in the Indian subcontinent/south asia and became Indians, Their concerns laid in the future of India and not in the lands they came from, Mughal empire emerged from the Indian historical experience and was the end of Muslim conquest and state building in the Indian subcontinent" Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Cyber.Eyes.2005, I personally find it preferable. What is your stance on it? Or which specific line would you like to adjust, change or discuss further, considering @Malik-Al-Hind earlier suggestion : Though Mughal emperors were turco-Mongol in origin, they later settled in the Indian subcontinent/south asia and became Indians, Their concerns laid in the future of India and not in the lands they came from, Mughal empire emerged from the Indian historical experience and was the end of Muslim conquest and state building in the Indian subcontinent. च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Chatting 04:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that I've been clear from the beginning that we need to use simple language here. Do you think this passage is in simple English: 'Their concerns laid in the future of India and not in the lands they came from. Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience and was the end of Muslim conquest and state-building in the Indian subcontinent'? Can a non-native understand it? Now, if you're asking for a simpler version, it would be: 'The Mughal emperors were originally from Central Asia, but they moved to South Asia and became part of the subcontinent. They focused on South Asia, not on their original lands. The Mughal Empire grew out of South Asian history and was the last Muslim empire to conquer and build a state in the region.' I suggest using 'South Asia' for the Mughal Empire as it covered a larger geographical area than just the subcontinent. – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 09:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyber.Eyes.2005 Your simplified version is far changed in sense.
Possibly it would be like :
  • Main Source:Though Mughal emperors were turco-Mongol in origin, they later settled in the Indian subcontinent/south asia and became Indians, Their concerns laid in the future of India and not in the lands they came from, Mughal empire emerged from the Indian historical experience and was the end of Muslim conquest and state building in the Indian subcontinent
  • Simplified Version: Even though Mughal emperors originally came from Turkic and Mongol backgrounds, they made their home in the Indian subcontinent. They started to establish themselves as Indians and cared more about the future of India than the lands they came from. The Mughal empire grew from India's history and marked the final chapter of Muslim conquest and building states in the region.
Hello, @MathXplore, What is your opinion on this? Which version do you prefer? च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Chatting 09:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with this subject and have no opinion about this. MathXplore (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @MathXplore Okay, thanks for your quick response.
Hello @Cyber.Eyes.2005 , I am agree with your opinion that we should have to use Indian Subcontinent for Mughals. So in place of future of India, using future of Indian Subcontinent. Updating my Simplified version :
  • Even though Mughal emperors originally came from Turkic and Mongol backgrounds, they made their home in the Indian subcontinent. They started to establish themselves as Indians and cared more about the future of Indian Subcontinent than the lands they came from. The Mughal empire grew from India's history and marked the final chapter of Muslim conquest and building states in the region.
I am proposing this version to @Cyber.Eyes.2005 and @Malik-Al-Hind as the issue raised between you two. If you both agree, we can conclude the discussion; otherwise, we may need to involve more esteemed simple-wiki editors by pinging for further discussion. च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Chatting 09:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Richards, John F. (1995), The Mughal Empire, Cambridge University Press, p. 2, ISBN 978-0-521-56603-2, archived from the original on 22 September 2023, retrieved 9 August 2017 Quote: "Although the first two Timurid emperors and many of their noblemen were recent migrants to the subcontinent, the dynasty and the empire itself became indisputably Indian. The interests and futures of all concerned were in India, not in ancestral homelands in the Middle East or Central Asia. Furthermore, the Mughal Empire emerged from the Indian historical experience. It was the end product of a millennium of Muslim conquest, colonization, and state-building in the Indian subcontinent."
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Britanica, Encyclopaedia (2024), The Mughal dynasty, Britanica, p. 6, ISBN 978-0-521-56603-2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Britanica" defined multiple times with different content
  3. ↑ Qureshi, Ishtiaq Husain 1903-1981 (1962). The Muslim community of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent: (610 - 1947); a brief historical analysis. Publications in Near and Middle East studies / A. Mouton.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  4. ↑ ""Traces of Humanity" in Indo-Pak History"" (PDF). Manchester University. Retrieved 18 Jan 2023.
  5. ↑ Diehl, Katharine Smith (1967). "Books and Common Education in the Indo-Pak Subcontinent, 1959-1962". The Journal of Library History (1966-1972). 2 (3): 201–210. ISSN 0022-2259. JSTOR 25540053.
  6. ↑ "The only Greek city in the whole of Indo-Pak subcontinent! - Review of Sirkap, Taxila, Pakistan". Tripadvisor. Retrieved 2023-01-18.
  7. ↑ Sinopoli (September 1994). "Monumentality and Mobility in the Mughal capitals". International Studies Quarterly. 41 (3): 475–504. doi:10.1111/0020-8833.00053. JSTOR 2600793. Retrieved 6 July 2019. {{cite journal}}: Check |archive-url= value (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mughal_Empire&oldid=9570057"