It seems that a citation you added to ANI messed the board; I was trying to fix but you are adding material repetitively, and whole thing mixes up. Logos (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: edit
Hi and thank you for the message. I am not a scholar on the subject, but I have read quite a lot about it. Do not worry about the other user. Your criticism of his edits is correct. Stating that the Barlas - as a whole - were "Persianized", is wrong. The Barlas were an originally Mongol nomadic confederation and they were well aware of their Mongol origins and identity. Like many other Mongols, they were progressively Turkicized. Most of all, because back then, there was not much difference between Turks and Mongols (hence "Turko-Mongol"): they had the same appearance, had the same habits and even their languages were similar. It was only the ruling elite that was culturally Persianized in later episodes, such as the Timurids and Mughals. But they never lost their Turko-Mongol identity. It was not until the Mughal ruler Akbar that this clan fully gave up its Turko-Mongol identity and became Persianized. That was mostly due to Humayun's long exile in Persia as well as the great influence of Persian aristrocrats and scholars at the Mughal court. It was also due to Akbar himself who had no interest in Turkic or Mongol culture and was known as a great patron of Persian art and language. In later years, the Mughals became almost entirely Indicized. The last Mughal emprer, Bahadur Shah, was known as a poet of Urdu. Urdu had become the first language of the Mughals while Persian remained the language of court. Turkic and Mongolian had no importance and none of the Mughals was able to speak Chagatay Turkic. Regards. --Lysozym (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)