Talk:Mughal dynasty

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/w/index.php?redirect=no&title=MOS:ETHNICITY

Secondly that’s a little bit of a ref bomb(4 references) but nonetheless this shouldn’t remain in the lead and if you want to add it to the body, I would recommend gaining consensus. We don’t describe nationalistic terms like “indian” to dynasties/empires like the Mughals. On the main page(Mughal empire) it has never been described as Indian. And yes, I’m sure anyone can easily find references for their claims because there’s always going to be some author that has a different perspective. But the issue is, this isn’t really a mainstream view, the Mughals are typically seen as foreign. This was a point also mentioned in the talk page of the Mughal empire. You’re essentially presenting an alternative view and this is what regent park had to write about that.

“I think you're going to need consensus for that as well. Generally, if only some sources use a term, you need to get consensus for how to present that term (why only some sources use it, what are the alternative terms, etc)”

(like I previously mentioned, many of the points made there, apply to this conversation, even if these are two different terms).

So if you’re going to make this change, you’re gonna need consensus. Otherwise per Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus, the previous content must be kept.

Removing it from the lead would be a first start per MOS:ETHNICITY. If you want to add it to the body, you’re going to need consensus. Otherwise this change shouldn’t be made.

Perhaps we should also wait on others. Maybe later I will ping the editors from the previous conversation for their opinion on the matter. But those are just my concerns for now. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to ping you @PadFoot2008 Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored, please note that MOS:ETHNICITY only applies to biographies of people, not dynasties. It is necessary to be mentioned as it's widely used in sources and is important (and helpful) for readers to know, and is additionally a much better lead. It is a standard observed in many dynastic articles including House of Hohenzollern, House of Bonaparte, or even Bhonsle dynasty. Should also mention that the entire discussion on the lead was mainly regarding the made-up construct "Indo-Muslim", which editors opposed the inclusion of + no sources were provided explicitly using that construct. PadFoot (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

(Very) extended discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. @RegentsPark @Abecedare @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? 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. 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. PadFoot (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 [1] by Padfoot after the mini edit war between you two is much worse than the initial change [2] 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 — "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. 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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC) @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. PadFoot (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC) @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. PadFoot (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC) @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. 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. 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. RegentsPark (comment) 03:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC) @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? PadFoot (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. RegentsPark (comment) 06:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC) @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. PadFoot (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. RegentsPark (comment) 03:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 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. 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. PadFoot (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. 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. PadFoot (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. 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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC) @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. PadFoot (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. 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). Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC) @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. PadFoot (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Inviting @Flemmish Nietzsche to reconsider his opinion based on the arguments presented above. If acceptable, "Indianised dynasty" would do too. PadFoot (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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC) @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. @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. 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. 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 :) Someguywhosbored (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC) @Flemmish Nietzsche, alright, I agree to your suggestion of "Indianized Turco-Mongol dynasty", instead of my "Indian(ized) dynasty" suggestion. PadFoot (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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. PadFoot (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). 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. PadFoot (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. 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. 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". RegentsPark (comment) 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC) @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. PadFoot (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”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC) @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 @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. PadFoot (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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC) @Someguywhosbored, I would suggest you to read what Malik al-Hind said again, he said "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. PadFoot (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC) I still stand by RegentParks proposal though. I think it’s the most sound. 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. 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. @RegentsPark @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). Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC) I wouldn’t mind an RFC either 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. RegentsPark (comment) 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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC) @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. 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. RegentsPark (comment) 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. 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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC) @Flemmish Nietzsche thank you for the fix Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Agree with @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. 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). 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. 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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Hello @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"? PadFoot (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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @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. PadFoot (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: 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 in the hearts of our Ghazis, 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. 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. 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 @PadFoot2008 and @Flemmish Nietzsche also @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. The Muslim citizens were referred as "Hindustanis" while the non muslims as "Hindus" 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" 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @Someguywhosbored and @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). PadFoot (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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC) I agree; @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, @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. 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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @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. PadFoot (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @PadFoot2008Just 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. Someguywhosbored (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @Someguywhosbored, The second option includes "Indo-Persian". @Flemmish Nietzsche, I don't think it should be removed as it includes a mention of "Persian" which seems to be one of @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. PadFoot (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @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. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @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. PadFoot (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @PadFoot2008 We don't need any "alternate construct" option as that just confuses discussion. Keep the options simple; read my above comment as well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @Flemmish Nietzsche, Alright then, I am removing it. PadFoot (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Also @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? PadFoot (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @PadFoot2008 Interesting proposal, it seems fine to me and you're free to add it to the RfC option. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @Flemmish Nietzsche, I've added it as a sub-part of the first option. PadFoot (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @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. 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 Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @Curious man123@RegentsPark just to let you two know, an RFC has started. Feel free to share your opinion on this topic if you’d like Someguywhosbored (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Continuation of 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! 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.[3] 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. [4] 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? 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:

  "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

  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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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, 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 too 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, 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 is 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, then it must be mentioned And extending this process will just make it very hard and time consuming for the viewers to read all this. This is why I have replied in such a way that it gets neutralized, Anyways cheers and happy editing! :) Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Someguywhosbored and @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. PadFoot (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. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

References

RfC: Mughal dynasty lead

Per discussions above, these suggestions have made for a new Mughal dynasty lead:

1. "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized Turco-Mongol dynasty that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
   • Or: "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
2. No changes.

Kindly, state the preferred options below. PadFoot (talk) 12:08, 13 July 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

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. PadFoot (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: As the original proposer of that option, but restating my argument: The Mughals were originally a Turco-Mongol dynasty, who gradually Indianised through adopting of Indian traditions, culture, and identity. Yes the Mughals were a multicultural state and dynasty, but the question here is what they became, not what cultures influenced them or they originated from; being influenced by Persian culture is much different than adopting an Indian identity (of course not referring to the country here as that didn't exist until 1947 but the historical term), which they certainly did. Ethnicity and culture is a nuanced topic but "Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin" sums it up pretty well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: As the above sources cited and per the reasons given by flemmish and padfoot, This is an undisputed fact that Mughals gradually were Indianized and became Indians despite being of Turco-mongol origin. This is supported by almost every historian including historian Richard John 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. Their home was india and they died in India. They had the similar identity as of Afsharids in iran (Even afsharids weren't of iranian origin but shared a persian identity), Anyways, The lead summarises Mughals perfectly and tells a lot to readers about them. Unlike the option 2 which tells absolutely nothing about them. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: As per the sources I've read (Cambridge history of the Mughal Empire) I found them to be reliable enough, and I do think the Mughals were thoroughly Indianized as you can see through their clothing, etc. Sure they were originally Turco-Mongols but their interests and dominion laid in India (historical India not present day Post 1947's India), which they needed to prioritize. Many reputed historians have testified and admitted the fact that Mughals indeed became Indians and were Indianized, one being John F Richards, the same guy who's book I mentioned. Akshunwar (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 : I would go for status quo because even if i agree for a fact that later mughals are consider culturally indian by several historians, saying it in generic terms for a whole dynasty isnt helpful for the article and for readers as well because it is more complex thing to generalise for a whole dyansty as there are many ethnic mixes in mughals. And as RegentsPark suggested i still believes that suggested edits be more suitable as of now. Curious man123 (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

References