Talk:Babur/Archive 4#Copyright violations

The biography of the first Mughal Emperor Babur, is often cited by Hindu militants, fundamentalists and chauvinists as an example synonymous with the alleged history of "Muslim supremacy", but almost nothing in the historical record proves this highly distorted communal perception.http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Mughals/Babar.html

So shall we remove that he wrote a memoir? or just say he wrote it but the contents of said memoir were not written by him? or ignore said content as it is used right wing groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun53 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

:If you could find some reliable sources to attest this, you can add it here, otherwise it seems to be a little pointless over here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

::I see whats going on here. So take your leave, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.164.174 (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

I have restored the original intro. First of all, because the sources used were POV by non-experts. Wikipedia is about the quality of sources, not about quantity. Secondly, the claim that Babur was an Uzbek is ridiculous. I know that this kind of revisionist history is being promoted in Uzbekistan, but it is still wrong. In fact, the Uzbeks were considered enemies by Babur. The Uzbek attacks on the Timurid lands in Central Asia was the main reason why Babur left his home for India - he was hunted down by the Uzbeks. And while fleeing south, he wrote his Baburnama. Translations of the Baburnama are available in the internet, for example [http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/babur/babur1.html#mura here]. And in it, Babur clearly states: "For nearly 140 years Samarkand had been the capital of our dynasty. An alien foe of unknown origins, the Uzbeks, had taken possession of it! It had slipped from our hands; but God gave it back! Plundered and ravaged, our own was returned to us." -Lysozym (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

: First of all, you can't call encyclopedia entries "POV by non-experts." The claim that Babur was an ethnic Uzbek may be ridiculous, but Soviet and Uzbek sources support it and this view should be included in the article. Baburname was written in Turkic, not Persian. What you call "revisionist history" is not a new thing, SOVIET scholars believed Babur was Uzbek. Uzbeks as a whole were not considered enemies of Babur, only ONE Uzbek king was his enemy. As long as there are opposing views, you can't claim Babur was Persian, Turkic, Uzbek, Kyrgyz or, say, Martian. If there's enough evidence to support such claims, we should write about the existence of such opposing views. One last thing, on your talk page you say you used to have another account, namely, User:Tajik. This raises some questions about your "expert views." Nataev ^talk 06:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

:: What Soviet or Uzbek scholars believe or believed is irrelevant, because this article is citing not only primary sources (most of all the Baburnama), but also authoritative secondary academix sources (namely the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica). Modern national identities cannot be forced on historical personalities such as Babur. Babur was a Mongol by origin (that's why his descendants became known as "Mughals" which is just the Persian form of the ethnic name "Mongol"), but his tribe (see Barlas) had been progressively Turkicized (because a large part - maybe even the majority - of the later Mongol army was Turkic in origin) and Persianized. Babur was not really aware of his Mongol origins and instead called himself "Türk", a word that back then had more or less the same meaning as "Mongol". He (and Ali Shir Nava'i) also make a mistake by calling Hülagü a "Türk" - but back then, there was no difference between "Türk" and "Mongol". But modern scholarship is more detailed. Today we know that Babur and the Timurids were of Mongol origins, even thoughthey had heavily mixed with Turkic and Iranian peoples, to an extent that they had lost their original Mongolian language and had adopted Chagatai. What is certain is that he was not Uzbek - neither in origin, nor in language or identity. Chagatai is not Uzbek, the same way English is not German and French is not Latin! The Uzbeks were an invading force and they were considered enemies by Babur and all of his enemies. The "Uzbekization" of Central Asia took place in the following decades and centuries.

:: Keeping that aside: your non-expert and unecyclopedic edits in Wikipedia (not only in this article) are no improvements at all. You not onlky delete well-respected academic sources, but you push for a rejected and false POV version. --Lysozym (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow.

• "What Soviet or Uzbek scholars believe or believed is irrelevant" - not true. That's just your opinion;
• "authoritative secondary academix (sic) sources (namely the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica)" - these encyclopedias are not the only authoritative sources in the world. One could argue that both of them are biased;
• "Modern national identities cannot be forced on historical personalities such as Babur" - correct, that's why I included the phrase "Although all applications of modern Central Asian ethnonyms to people of Babur's time are anachronistic." (Copied the phrase from the article on Ali-Shir Nava'i);
• "Babur was not really aware of his Mongol origins and instead called himself "Türk", a word that back then had more or less the same meaning as "Mongol" - Whoa! You make me laugh. Who are you to say Babur didn't really know who he was?
• "He (and Ali Shir Nava'i) also make a mistake by calling Hülagü a "Türk" - but back then, there was no difference between "Türk" and "Mongol." - Haha, you're just amazing! Can you provide any evidence to support this claim?
• "Chagatai is not Uzbek" - it's not, it's OLD Uzbek. Say what, I speak Uzbek and when I read Nava'i's and Babur's works in the original, I understand them perfectly well.
• "The "Uzbekization" of Central Asia took place in the following decades and centuries." - Maybe it did. We should mention in the article that almost the entire population of Uzbekistan regards Ali Shir Nava'i and Babur as their great ancestors. Whether they're right or not, we should write about what they think.
• "your non-expert and unecyclopedic (sic) edits in Wikipedia (not only in this article) are no improvements at all" - let's wait until other editors voice their opinion. Nataev ^talk 04:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

::Despite the abundant use of tertiary sources, I see nothing much wrong with the content. Such coverage obviously indicates some mentions by secondary academic sources, which are currently not provided. Moreover, addition of "some claim...Soviet, Uzbez sources claim" later, I think, is a good compromise.

::I hope the third para of the lead depicts the differing and changing views okay. I have some proposals, why don't we shift the entire third para into the rest of the article and keep only the original view of him in the lead? What does everybody think of that?

::Per WP:LEAD and I don't see why so many citations are required, that too in the lead. The para is a bit WP:UNDUE and needs to be mentioned first in the rest of the article, only then can it have a short summarised statement in the intro. Sad to see the sections "Etymology" and "Biography" well cited but as we go on it decreases with "Formation of Mughal empire" and "First battle of Panipat" completely unsourced. Still, the lead is quite short and needs to be expanded for more coverage, while being a little cautious on writing about these unreferenced sections. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

:::Thanks for chipping in, Ugog Nizdast. I think we have enough secondary sources to support the claims. If you think we need more, I can find some. I also think that the compromise I made is good enough. I have moved the third paragraph into the body as you suggested. Nataev ^talk 12:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

::::Most welcome. As long there is no one who is against this with a proper reason, I think it's all fine. I might do some lead expansion soon. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::Great! "I might do some lead expansion soon." - that would be greatly appreciated! Nataev ^talk 10:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

: There are no "different opinions". Babur was NOT Uzbek. Neither did he consider himself an Uzbek (it was quite the contrary - he and also his sons, most of all Hindal Mirza, were fighting the Uzbeks. Nor was his language "Old Uzbek". Chagatai is NOT "Old Uzbek". Uzbek has the same origin as Chagatai, derives much of its vocabulary from Chagatai and has been influenced by neighboring Persian to an equal extent as Chagatai, but it is NOT a direct continuation of Chagatai - the same way English is not a direct continuation of Latin (see [http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/chaghatay-language-and-literature this] academic article about Chagatai). Claiming that Babur was "Uzbek" and that his language was "Old Uzbek" is pure nonsense. --Lysozym (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to weigh in on this conversation, the Mughals always kept alive the dreams and hopes of taking back Bukhara,Samarkand and Tashkent back from the Uxbeks.They even allied with the Shia Safavids for this purpose and Babur was initially successful early on and was welcomed as a liberator from Uzbek rule.I am presuming this would not fit well with the Uzbek historical narrative.The Uzbeks migrated south from what is now Kazakhstan as descendants of the Golden Horde branch of the Borjigin Mongols via Genghis Khan's son Jochi whose paternity was to be in doubt throughout his life.They took their name from Uzbek Khan, a prominent 14th Century Khan of the Golden Horde.Babur on the other hand was descended from the Barlas Mongols on his paternal side, a tribe who famously produced Amir Timur.The Barlas settled in the Chaghatai Khanate.Babur's maternal side was descended from the Borjigin Mongols through Genghis Khan's son Chaghatai Khan.Babur could stake a stronger claim to his Chingissid and Timurid inheritance.Azeem Ali (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Encarta of course can't be verified by the average reader as it no longer exists, and was never a WP:RS.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#Encarta_-_no_longer_availble_on_line.2C_so_how_do_we_verify_it.3F] The Microsoft Student DVD is even worse. If there aren't any better sources for this information it should be removed. If generalist encyclopedias such as the Britannica or World Book are used then we need the name of the author, which I see has been provided in at least most cases.

Using a large number of sources to prove a point is a very bad idea, and if most of those are as dubious as the ones about his birthday, stamps, an embassy, then that's a sure indicator that there is a problem - if anyone takes them to WP:RSN they will be told they don't meet our criteria. The Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland doesn't go around supporting theses -- that absolutely must be attributed to the author, we need volume number and issue number as well - and 'snippet' suggests that whoever added it doesn't know the context because they haven't read the article (as does the lack of any details that would allow us to verify this. And why are we using Percy William Powlett as a source? Does anyone actually realise that we are? Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

:{{ping|Dougweller}} What do you think about this...one side supports the inclusion of saying "Soviet and Uzbek sources claim he was an Uzbek" while another does not want a mention of this. Apart from the dubious sources you've mentioned...aren't there even a few acceptable ones here or is it fair to say that we shouldn't mention this at all? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

{{od}} Outdent to quote easily. Looking at clearly reliable sources, he does seem to be of Turkish ancestry but clearly born in Uzbekistan. And he fought the Uzbeks. However, it is true that he is a national hero in Uzbekistan and that Soviet and Uzbek sources claim him as their own. I don't think the Uzbek Soviet Encyclopedia is a reliable source for stating that he is Uzbek, but it is a reliable source for saying that Uzbek sources claim him to be Uzbek.

This is interesting:

"The Uzbeks become an 'ethnic group' only after the sixteenth century, in the sense that a population takes on the name independently of any tribal affiliation, rather as the term 'Frank' changes meaning between Clovis and Charlemagne.

However, things begin to change when a fifteenth-century tribal confederation under the leadership of the Shaybanid dynasty takes the name of Ozbek and takes over Transoxiania in 1500. In the strict sense, an Uzbek is a member of this confederation, where Qipchak dialects were spoken; the settled Turcophone populations that had long been established in Transoxiania - such as Babur, driven out of his native Ferghana by the new arrivals - saw the Uzbeks as a foreign and conquering population. But a part of the conquered settled populations ended up calling themselves Uzbeks in turn, although still keeping their language, Chaghatay, which by the nineteenth century was known undifferentiatedly as either 'Turki' or 'Uzbek'. All it took was for Soviet linguists to call it 'Old Uzbek' at the end of the 1930s, and the matter was settled: the Uzbeks of today have always been Uzbeks, and have always spoken Uzbek."[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KUE5wrnEBaAC&pg=PA16&dq=Babur+ethnic+uzbek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g2FhUra7Kemo0QXFkoG4Dg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Babur%20ethnic%20uzbek&f=false] From [http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Central-Asia-Creation/dp/0814775551]

Another source[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=beCoAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT1&dq=Babur+ethnic+uzbek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g2FhUra7Kemo0QXFkoG4Dg&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Babur%20ethnic%20uzbek&f=false] dates the ethnic Uzbek's earlier, to about 1380, but again makes it clear that Babur clashed with them.

P. 208 [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SAX5ohFkcVgC&pg=PA209&dq=Babur+ethnic+uzbek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g2FhUra7Kemo0QXFkoG4Dg&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Babur%20ethnic%20uzbek&f=false] of this academic book says he was a Chaghatay Turk and "carried Chittggisid blood, but he was not a Mongol. He proudly identified himself as a Timurid, and ethnically he uws a Chaghatay Turk, a group that had become more culturally "refined" and distinct from the nomadic Mongols, or "Moghuls," of Moghulistan."

So yes, we can say that Uzbek sources claim him (being cautious with the sources - one or two are sufficient) and he is celebrated there, but the preponderance of the evidence seems to show pretty clearly that he was not ethnic Uzbek. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

: I agree with Dougweller. However, that information should not be in the introduction. The intro should be a short and precise summary - as it is right now. It explains that Babur was a Central Asian conqueror of India, that he was of Chingizid and Timurid descent and that he was the one who carried the Persian cultural and linguistic ethos to India, giving birth to the much celebrated "Mughal" culture (which was without any doubt Persian and Persiante, not "Uzbek" or "Turkic"). --Lysozym (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Islam and EI are not the only reliable sources out there. We should mention the fact that an entire nation thinks he was Turkic/Uzbek, whether what they believe is true or not. Nataev ^talk 05:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

:This is what Encyclopedia Britannica [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/47524/Babur says]:

{{quotation|"Bābur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin, but isolated members of the tribe considered themselves Turks in language and customs through long residence in Turkish regions. Hence, Bābur, though called a Mughal, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was Turkish in character. His family had become members of the Chagatai clan, by which name they are known. He was fifth in male succession from Timur and 13th through the female line from Chinggis Khan."}}

:As you can see, EB does NOT say Babur was Persian or that he was greatly influenced by the Persians. In fact, it says that he was influenced by the Turks. Nataev ^talk 06:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

::Which is part of the problem with using generalist encyclopedias, something we should always avoid when we can get specialist sources. At the very least you will need to say that "According to Percival Spear", not just state it as fact. But my main dispute is using clearly unreliable sources (and it looks as though they are piled up just to look impressive) to state something that we can source with only a couple of sources, and the fact that the article doesn't make it clear that there is a dispute over whether he was Uzbek (looks like virtually all the reliable sources that discuss this make it clear that he wasn't, see above). Even your source says "Bābur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin". I'm happy with the Persian/Turkic bit of the lead, but "Soviet and Uzbek sources regard Babur as an ethnic Uzbek." in the lead violates WP:NPOV. We need more in the body of the article using the sources I've mentioned above, then represent the lead to show what is I believe the preponderance of opinion. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

::Why is Nataev editwarring to include information from Encarta that has been determined to not be a reliable source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've detailed the NPOV issues above, as has at least one other editor. Reliable sources do not call Babur an Uzbek. It's clear that the Soviet Union appropriated him as an Uzbek just as they did the Chagatai and other historical personages, but that doesn't make him an Uzbek and the article needs to be clear about this, while also making it clear that Uzbekistan considers him as Uzbek - without using all those trivial affiliated sources, why would we need more than one or the most two to make that clear? Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

: I agree. The current version is POV. Also, Britannica is vastly inferior to specialized academic encyclopedias such as EI and EIr or comparable works. --Lysozym (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

{{od}} "It's clear that the Soviet Union appropriated him as an Uzbek just as they did the Chagatai and other historical personages, but that doesn't make him an Uzbek and the article needs to be clear about this, while also making it clear that Uzbekistan considers him as Uzbek." – this is exactly what I mean, Dougweller.

I have made it clear that we should write about the fact that Soviet and Uzbek scholars regard Babur as an ethnic Uzbek. This doesn't mean he was Uzbek. That's why I've now written in the lead section "Soviet and Uzbek sources regard Babur as an ethnic Uzbek, but most scholars refute this view."

As for sources, Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopædia Iranica are not the only reliable sources, as I've said it many times before. Previously I cited the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the Uzbek Soviet Encyclopedia, the foreword in the Uzbekistani edition of Baburnama, an Uzbek online library, the website of the Women's Committee of Uzbekistan, the website of the Writers' Union of Uzbekistan, two Uzbek newspapers, [http://imgur.com/Rx2ojAK Encarta], and [http://imgur.com/1qWWk3J World Book Encyclopedia] to support my claims. I've just added two more books and Encyclopædia Britannica to support my claims. I'm 100 % sure that this is more than enough to support the claims that (1) many sources hold Babur was Turkic and that (2) Soviet and Uzbek sources regard Babur as an Uzbek. If you feel we don't need this many sources, feel free to delete some.

I really like the following passage from The Modern Uzbeks: From the Fourteenth Century to the Present: a Cultural Hisotry by Edward Allworth:

{{quotation|"Only Soviet political control gives today's Uzbeks the exclusive claim to the Timurid statesmen, general, artists, writers, and thinkers inside the USSR. The ideologists enforce that monopoly by denying other Soviet nationalities the possibility of considering public figures from the Timurid era as part of their heritage. The territorial definition of nationality enforces that exclusiveness. Whoever invented the idea of granting one ethnic subgroup exclusive access to a general predecessor or ancestor such Amir Temur or Babur Padishah (King) had great daring but not historical verity on his side. Among less-educated Uzbeks that allocation could not fail to be popular, but in reality they had no exclusive right to the Timurid civilization. Soviet politicians can prevent neither the Uyghurs of Eastern Turkistan not the Afghans of Herat, Kabul, and Mazar-i Sharif from claiming Mir Alisher Nawaiy, Zahiriddin Muhammad Babur, and Sultan Husayn Bayqara – all buried on Afghan Central Asian soil. The cultural basis for Central Asian – some would say Turkistanian – unity remained patent to most educated people in the great region." (Page 247.)}}

This is exactly why we are having this dispute here. We should make it clear that there is some disagreement about Babur's origins. We should objectively write about the existence of opposing views. The current lead section and the info in the body make it clear. I've written in the article what Soviet and Uzbek scholars believe, not my personal opinion. If you ask me, Babur was a great statesman and it does not matter much who his ancestors were. I'm just fascinated by how different people interpret history differently. Anyhow, I hope the current version is OK with all of you. Nataev ^talk 05:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

:This is not how to gain consensus. You have been reverted by 3 different editors and have simply editwarred to enforce your POV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

:: I disagree with you. I'm not enforcing my point of view. I support what Dougweller wrote above. Let's wait until s/he and/or other editors voice their opinion. Nataev ^talk 06:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

:::But you've ignored my comments on the sources. I've removed some, please don't put them back. Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

:::: Actually I haven't! If you read closely my previous comment I wrote "If you feel we don't need this many sources, feel free (to) delete some." So, I'm quite OK with what you have done. Nataev ^talk 10:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

:: The current version of the intro is Nataev's unencyclopedic and unscholarly POV. Not only has he removed the reference to the Encyclopaedia Iranica from the intro. He is also trying to mislead the readers by somehow "Turkicizing" Babur's expansion into India - in total contrast to what the overwhelming majority of experts state. Babur's tribe and he himself were heavily Turkicized Mongols, but the Timurid expansion into India was without any doubt a Persianate one. Babur's contribution to Turkic literature is not being doubted by anyone. But the Baburnama was not ment to be published. He wrote it for himself, facing death and destruction through the hands of Uzbeks. That's why he wrote it in his native language and not in Persian (unlike his daughter Gulbadan Begum). The current version is unsourced POV and either needs to be reverted to tagged properly. Nataev is nothing but a POV pusher. He has not the slightest idea of what Wikipedia is about and what reliable academic sources are. --Lysozym (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

{{od}} Wow, slow down, Tajik.

1. I've modified the intro according to other editors' suggestions. You're now engaging in vandalism by deleting a huge body of material.
2. I have restored the deleted EI citations. I didn't realize they were deleted. They got bogged down in the many edits that I've made. Sorry for that.
3. You have repeatedly said that Encyclopædia Iranica is a reliable source. What makes you think Encyclopædia Britannica is not a reliable source? Given your biased views it's no surprise that you think EI is the only reliable source out there. I've added half a dozen reliable sources other than EI to support what I wrote in the article.
4. I'm not "Turkicizing" Babur's expansion into India. Many reliable sources say that Babur's empire was Turkic in nature. You can't claim that it was only a Persian one. It seems only a few sources put a Persian hue on Babur's empire. And guess what? These sources are usually Persian sources. Dilip Hiro writes: "His (Humayun's) victory signalled a firm establishment of Babur as the founder of a ruling dynasty that lasted until 1858. On the issue of its most correct title—Mughal, Timuri or Turkish—Scholars and historians disagree." (Dilip Hiro (2006). Babur Nama: Journal of Emperor Babur. Mumbai: Penguin Books India. p. xxxiii. {{ISBN|978-0-14400-149-1}}). You see, nobody calls Babur's empire Persian. Except for Persians, of course.
5. "But the Baburnama was not ment to be published." - Now this is ridiculous. Any evidence to support this outrageous claim? To cite Dilip Hiro again: "He (Babur) is all along aware of the presence of the readers, and wants to reassure them." (Dilip Hiro (2006). Babur Nama: Journal of Emperor Babur. Mumbai: Penguin Books India. p. xxxii. {{ISBN|978-0-14400-149-1}}.)
6. "That's why he wrote it in his native language and not in Persian." - So you admit Babur's native language was Turkic?
7. "The current version is unsourced POV." - Not true. The current version has been refined and modified according to other editors' suggestions.
8. "Nataev is nothing but a POV pusher. He has not the slightest idea of what Wikipedia is about and what reliable academic sources are." Now you're engaging in personal attacks.

Lysozym, you'd better stop vandalizing the article and attacking me. Nataev ^talk 01:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Answers:

(1) You have not modified the intro according to other editors' suggestions. You have first changed it to your POV, and then modified it according to the suggestions of a reader who is neither involved nor has deeper knowledge of the subject. If you think otherwise, please prove it!

(2) What you do is cherry picking spources - the most fatal way of destroying the credibility of Wikipedia. Anyone who claims that Babur's invasion to India was some kind of "Turkic expansion" (as you claim) has no idea of history or sources. Turks were already present in India since the 13th century when Ghaznavid and Ghurid slave-soldiers, of whom the majority were Turks, setteled in India. In fact, the so-called Slave Dynatsy was mostly Turkic in origin. Babur's invasion of India did not have any nationalist or linguistic roots, it was the based on the ambitions of a Timurid prince who had lost his own home and was trying to establish a new one. Babur called himself Turk whenever he needed (for example when asking the ruling Afghans in India to give him the lands once "ruled by Turks") and he called himself Mongol whenever he needed (for example when he needed the support of his Chingizzid maternal uncle). He was simple an ambitious individual. Modern national identities (and most certainly Soviet-based national identities) did not have any meanings back then!

(3) The Baburnama was written by a young prince who had lost his home and who had witnessed the defeat of his family on all fronts. It is a very personal autobiography. And the very begining of it shows that it was never meant to be published. The writing style changes toward the end. But in the beginning, Babur was only writing for himself or perhaps for his children.

(4) Nobody ever claimed that Babur was a Persian. In fact, I have repeated many times that Babur was a Mongol. For your information: Mongols are not Persians! The problem in here is that you are trying to "Uzbekize" Babur - and that is most certainly wrong. Babur's autobiography, in which he curses the Uzbeks and calls them "dangerous enemies of unknown origin" is the best proof. And while we are at it: since you have cited the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source for your claim, that "others hold that his empire was Turkic in nature and that he mainly contributed to the expansion of the Turkic culture", could you please cite the relevenat paragraph?! And could you please point out which aspect of Babur's empire - the Mughal Empire - was "mostly Turkic"?! In fact, could you please explain to us what "Turkic culture" the Mughal Empire was known for?!

(5) see #1

(6) Next time you accuse me of "vandalizing the article", I will reprot you to admins because of slander. Read WP:Vandalism! --Lysozym (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

::I am not impressed by the Dilip Hiro source. Upon further investigation, Dilip Hiro has an MA from VPI and is a journalist, not a historian and has no specialization for this time period.[http://www.theguardian.com/profile/diliphiro][http://yalebooks.co.uk/author_display.asp?sf1=name_exact&st1=DILIPHIRO&DS=Dilip%20Hiro] Therefore, he can not be considered a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

::AND, I have to agree with Lysozym, concerning the assertion of "Turkic culture" when the Babur-nama was already translated into Persian by the end of the 16th century by Khan Khanin Abd al-Rahim Mirza! -- Babur, M. Fuad Koprulu, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. H.A.R. Gibb, J.H. Kramers, E. Levi-Provencal, J. Schacht, (Brill, 1986), 850. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

:::I've removed the description 'historian' from Hiro's article. It had one source which also incorrectly called him a professor. He isn't a historian, and as you say isn't a specialist in this period, so not a RS. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

:::: It seems like you all disagree with me. Then let's just keep the current version of the lead section. I'm happy that the paragraph about Babur's legacy has been left as it is. Maybe the fact that Soviets approached Babur as an Uzbek isn't important enough to be mentioned in the intro. Still, we do need to say something about it in the body of the article. I'm OK with the current version. Nataev ^talk 03:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::Sounds like you still don't get it. Dilip Hiro is not a reliable source. Any and all information sourced by him will be removed. Then the discussion concerning any changes, if any, will take place. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::: No, I get it. It's clear that you don't think Hiro is a reliable source. (I don't quite agree with this. I cited his translation of Babur's own words. Moreover, Hiro is a journalist and a writer. But, anyway.) But he is not the only person whom we can cite. I'll provide more sources later on. Nataev ^talk 05:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::::No, you don't. It is quite clear that you trying to depict Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources as my opinion. The fact is quite clear, Dilip is not a historian and does not have any reliability in this matter. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. The policy regarding reliable sources IS relevant. Any other sources are subject to the same conditions per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Odd, I notice this isn't the first time you have attempted to make a policy issue a personal one. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

::::::::You think Hiro is not an expert. He's written extensively on these topics and could well be regarded an authoritative source. But I don't want to argue. I'll simply look for more sources. Just to let you know, I'm not trying to make a police issue a personal one. I'm not accusing you of anything. Just saying that I don't agree with you. You seem to have overlooked the part of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources which says "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." Nataev ^talk 06:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thank you Dougweller and Kansas Bear for the research work on sources.

As for the current "Legacy" section: it is still not OK. It is not "a claim by some" that Babur's Empire was Persianate. While Babur did not invent the Persianate culture of India (it was already there, once introduced by the Ghaznavids and Ghurids), it was certainly Babur's Empire which took the Persianization of India to a whole new level. The very existence of Mughal literature and literary culture, almost exclusively Persian until the 19th century, is the living proof. Leaving that aside, there was no competition between "Turkic" or "Persian" influence. The "Turks", in this case Turkicized Mongols, were already Persianized and Islamized to a high degree. What differed was the language. While Babur himself was still very much "Turkic" and "Mongol" in terms of identity and language, the Turkic influence became almost non-existent after Humayun's 10 years of exile in Persia. When he returned to India, he brought with him many Persian artists, writers, historians, etc. The ballance between "Iranis" (Persians and Persianized Turks like Bayram Khan) and "Turanis" (Central Asian Turks and Mongols, and Central Asian Persians) shifted toward the Iranis. Nataev is trying to mislead the readers by claiming that there is some kind of academic dispute on this issue. To underline his claim, he cites to sources as "proof": the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the World Book Encyclopedia. In fact, none of these two actually support his claim. None of these two state that Babur "mostly contributed to the growth of the Turkic culture". I have asked Nataev to cite the relevant paragraph, so far, he is refusing to do so. Stating that Babur was Turkic or Mongol is no proof for Nataev's claim that "mostly contributed to the growth of the Turkic culture". Babur was a Turkicized Mongol, that's fact. But the Empire he founded was essentially Persian in terms of culture and language. The overwhelming Persian influence is still evident in northern India and Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan's national anthem, the Qaumi Taranah, is entirely in Persian. Only a single word - "ka" - makes its lyrics Urdu. Beside that word, all other words and the grammar are Persian. The Urdu language, which became the family language of the Mughals by the end of the 18th century, is another living proof for the essentially Persianate character of the Mughal Empire. --Lysozym (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

:Britannica says "Bābur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin, but isolated members of the tribe considered themselves Turks in language and customs through long residence in Turkish regions. Hence, Bābur, though called a Mughal, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was Turkish in character." I've changed the sentence in the legacy section to "However, other sources hold that Babur's empire was Turkic in nature." I'll provide more sources later on. Lyzosym, you're trying really hard to Persianize Babur and his empire. Now this is called POV editing. Nataev ^talk 03:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

::Britannica is a non-specialized tertiary source, do you have a secondary source that states his empire was Turkish?

::You, as usual, are quick to call someone else POV editing, yet all you have presented are extremely generalized tertiary sources and a journalist, compared to the secondary sources for Persianate culture:

:*Robert L. Canfield,(1991). Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, Cambridge University Press, p.20. "The Mughals-Persianized Turks who invaded from Central Asia and claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis – strengthened the Persianate culture of Muslim India"

::and the Mughal Empire article;

:*Metcalf, B.; Metcalf, T. R. (9 October 2006), A Concise History of Modern India (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, page 17.

:*"Indo-Persian Literature Conference: SOAS: North Indian Literary Culture (1450–1650)"

:*Frances Pritchett, The Establishment of the Mughal Empire. Columbia.edu

:*Annemarie Schimmel, The Empire of the Great Mughals: History, Art and Culture.

::So at least 5 secondary sources speaking of Persian culture within the Mughal empire from 4 historians and one sociocultural anthropologist. No, Lysozym is not POV pushing, editors that have to rely on non-specialized encyclopedias like Britannica and World Book and some journalist, that is the definition of POV pushing. Attempts to take such "sources" and force them into article, is the purest definition of POV pushing, taking what secondary sources state and writing them into an article is not. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources". --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

::: Here is another very good book: [http://books.google.de/books?id=2ScgM07WiaAC&pg=PA122&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false Muzaffar Alam, "The Languages of Political Islam: India, 1200-1800"]. --Lysozym (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

First off, Dilip Hiro is a journalist and a writer. This is what the [http://yalebooks.co.uk/author_display.asp?sf1=name_exact&st1=DILIPHIRO&DS=Dilip%20Hiro source] that was cited by Kansas Bear says. Engaging in contextomy is not good. Second, I cited Hiro's translation of Babur's own words. Third, I've cited [http://history.osu.edu/directory/dale1 Stephen F. Dale] who is "an Islamic historian who specializes in and teaches courses on the history of the eastern Islamic world, specifically India, Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia." He also supports what I wrote in the article. I'll cite more secondary sources later on. Unfortunately I'm rather busy these days. Nataev ^talk 05:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

:I do not see anything that states Hiro is a historian, so much for a "fallacy". As such he should not be used here. I will restore the unreliable tag. My tagging Hiro, who is NOT a historian, is a formality. Technically all the Hiro sources should be removed. Also, it wasn't just me, Dougweller[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Babur&diff=578993591&oldid=578986539] agreed that the evidence provided proves Hiro is not a historian and does not have any specialization in this area. As usual, you try to make the issue personal, again. If you have a reliable source that supports one of those sentences, then the Hiro "source" should be removed. Continue to edit war over the unreliable source tags and I will report it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

::The non-specialized tertiary sources(ie. Britannica & World Book) need to be removed along with the sentence they "reference". Even Stephen F. Dale states, "The empire that Bābur began, Humāyūn re-established and Akbar consolidated was one whose basic character was defined by Bābur's own political and cultural inheritance, and it was a sophisticated world apart from what is known of many and perhaps most Afghān of the period. The character of this state remained fundamentally unchanged, despite the distinct individual characteristics of Tīmūrid-Mughul rulers. It was a Turco-Mongol conquest state of observant Sunni Muslims steeped in Perso-Islamic culture whose rulers had one principal goal, to perpetuate and enrich the Tīmūrid-Chaghatay elite." -- The Garden of the Eight Paradises: Babur and the Culture of Empire in Central Asia, Afghanistan and India (1483-1530), 477-478.

::And, if there is any confusion as to what Perso-Islamic represents, "Francis Robinson, Perso-Islamic culture in India, in R.L. Canfield, Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge University Press, 1991:"In describing the second great culture of the Islamic world as Perso-Islamic we do not wish to play down the considerable contribution of the Turkish peoples to its military and political success, nor do we wish to suggest that it is particularly the achievement of the great cities of the Iranian plateau. We adopt this term because it seems best to describe that culture raised both by and under the influence of Muslims who used Persian as a major cultural vehicle." --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

::I mistakenly wrote that the source says Hiro was a historian. It actually says he is a writer. I've removed Hiro altogether and cited another article by Dale. So no need to cry foul and threaten to report me. And stop this "making-the-issue personal" crap, will you? Nataev ^talk 07:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

From Eraly 2007 Emperors Of The Peacock Throne: The Saga of the Great Moghuls, there are two things that I want to add but not sure about it's relevance here. His quote about his hatred for the Mongols at [http://books.google.co.in/books?id=h7kPQs8llvkC&lpg=PA1&dq=babur&pg=PT19#v=onepage&q&f=false this page], "Were the Mongols a race of angels..." and about his alleged bisexuality on [http://books.google.co.in/books?id=h7kPQs8llvkC&lpg=PA1&dq=babur&pg=PT27#v=onepage&q&f=false this page]—will be brief and explain it in a single statement, also mentioning that such relationships were normal in Central Asian nobles at that time. Any objections? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

:This is the first time I've heard about such allegations. If we want to write about his alleged bisexuality, we need to find more reliable sources. Nataev ^talk 08:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

::*[http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZvaGuaJIJgoC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA118#v=onepage&q&f=false Asher page 118, a bit detailed]

::*[http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ih4rqkrcp70C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA286#v=onepage&q&f=false Chamber page 286, passing mention]

::I honestly never heard of this too, only recently after reading it did I notice the two old posts above in this talk page. Doing a basic Google books search using the key words itself yields quite a bit of results; this shows notability that it may warrant inclusion. As to actually citing it, I don't see what's wrong with using just one source which is reliable enough. The main part here is Babur's mention of this incident in his memoirs itself and the other, about "Central Asian aristocrats...", I'll attribute it directly to Eraly if needed. So of course I'm not directly stating his alleged bisexuality...more like framing it like this: about this affair from his memoirs and then attributing the opinion (as short as possible). It's not exactly a widely discussed/debated issue here but judging by the number of results, I think it warrants such a mention. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

:::Oh, wow. It seems like Babur himself mentioned this in his memoirs. This surely warrants a mention. I'm really interested in finding out where exactly in the book Babur talks about this. Nataev ^talk 10:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Currently, the article has a missing gap when it comes to explaining about his alliance with the Shah of Persia and later the Ottoman ruler Selim. How was this possible when they were both clearly at war with each other? Needs to be explained here.

Also under the section, "Formation of the Mughal Empire in India", the second para: "Babur started for Lahore...He easily defeated and drove off Alam's army and Babur realized Lodi would not allow him to occupy the Punjab." is a bit confusing especially the last statement. According to Eraly, his alliance won and captured Punjab but Daulat Khan went against him so he had to retreat back instead of attacking Delhi, with now Punjab opposing him from the other side. Any suggestions on how to improve this? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have twice reverted an unexplained (and inappropriately formatted) insertion of "Mirza Babur Beg" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babur&diff=606000374&oldid=605860845] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babur&diff=606379098&oldid=606373448]. Kindly explain. 86.141.190.114 (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

:And Cluebot NG [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babur&diff=606605346&oldid=606605339 did the third revert]. Agree with you, this new user has only made 4 edits so far and I would like to hear an explanation. Some of Babur's siblings did have "Mirza" and "Begh" in their names but never heard anybody call him that. I've sent a personal invite to the user to participate here. -User:Ugog Nizdast{{#invoke:String|rep| |1}}(talk) 11:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Talk archive}}

{{Clear}}

The Babur is also know as the author of three famous books. Can anyone mention the names of these three book. His autobiography is mentioned in the article but with no name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.157.168 (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on Babur. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=712290274 my edit]. You may add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.the-week.com/23sep07/events1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on Babur. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=738885944 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150614180708/https://old.ut.uz/eng/kaleidoscope/the_countrys_history_on_postage_miniatures.mgr to http://old.ut.uz/eng/kaleidoscope/the_countrys_history_on_postage_miniatures.mgr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Babur. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=790377664 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130916175254/http://bse-soviet-encyclopedia.info/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%8D%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F/54583/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80 to http://bse-soviet-encyclopedia.info/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%8D%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F/54583/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{edit semi-protected|Babur|answered=yes}}

Please add 3rd wife of Babur as "Maham Begum" : Reference: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humayun" Wikicontributer255 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See WP:CITEWIKI - FlightTime (open channel) 16:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{edit semi-protected|Babur|answered=yes}}

:Category:Founding_monarchs Monkeyboi111 (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

:{{u|Monkeyboi111}}, please explain why I should add this category and reopen the edit request by changing answered=yes to answered=no. Thank you! -Ferien (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

::{{u|Monkeyboi111}} - reping as my last ping did not work --Ferien (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

::Hi Ferein, Babur is considered to be the founding father of one of India's most important historical empires. The Founding monarchs category was missing several key personalities from India. I thought Babur and Chandragupta Maurya would make the cut. Monkeyboi111 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

:::{{done}} Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

The article says
{{tq|Meanwhile, a rebellion back home, approximately 350 kilometres (220 mi) away, amongst nobles who favoured his brother, robbed him of Fergana.}}

The cited source is [https://archive.org/details/afghanistan00mart/page/26/mode/2up this] and these pages dont talk about Babur. It appears it talks about Ahmad Shah Abdali. In fact it doesn't appear this book talks about Babur at all.

Kindly look into this. >>> Extorc.talk 09:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{edit semi-protected|Babur|answered=yes}}

Typographic error, Babur married Aisha in 1499, not 1599. Bitter Almonds (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

: {{done}} RudolfRed (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I observe that the account of Babur's ancestry is not consistent with the image shown alongside it. Maproom (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the book Genghis Khan And The Making Of The Modern World by John Weatherford, Babur was the descendant of Genghis Khan rather than Timur Lane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avinder bindra (talk • contribs) 11:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

:He was a matrilineal descendent through his mother who was a daughter of the Chagatai Khan Yunus. But patrilineally he was a Timurid, his father was the son of Abu Said Mirza who ruled reunified some of Timur (Tamurlane)'s old empire before being killed in battle. Babur in his Baburnama lists both relationships, and Mirza Muhammad Haydar Dughlat corroborates it in his Tarikh-i Rashidi. 103.100.225.170 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Please can we have translated quotes from all of the Uzbek sources. I've got grave doubts about this article and about raising it to GA status - there is a reason why it has been around for so long and had so many problems. I am particularly concerned given that the nominator has made so few contributions to the thing themselves. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• And can {{u|Royroydeb}} or {{u|Calvin999}} please translate {{tq|After the battle Babur occupied Delhi and Agra, seated himself on the throne of Lodi and laid the foundation of the Mughal Rule in India, but it was yet to be established and Babur was yet to become the ruler of India, as new contenders for the throne like, Rana Sanga, who rose to challenge his rule.}} into English. It might as well be Uzbek for all the sense it makes. This GAN seems to have been rushed and I'm not happy. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• How about: After the battle, Babur occupied Delhi and Agra, took the throne of Lodi, and laid the foundation for the eventual rise of Mughal Rule in India; however, before he became India's ruler, he had to fend off challengers, such as Rana Sanga.? Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• As for {{tq|In 1495, at twelve years old, Babur became the ruler of Farghana, present-day Uzbekistan, after Umar Sheikh Mirza died "while tending pigeons in an ill-constructed dovecote that toppled into the ravine below the palace".}}, well, we seem to be quoting without in-text attribution, perhaps because the cited source appears to be itself unattributed. Worse, the source says Babur was 11, not 12. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

::... and the Eraly source that we cite immediately after the above says that he was 15 in 1496! Not that Eraly is a great source anyway - the good ones were not even cited and I've had to move them into the Further Reading section due to the potential confusion of labelling the things as sources when they are not. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• {{tq|Babur's relations with the Safavids began when Ali Mirza Safavi ventured to meet Babur at Samarqand in order to maintain good relations that would last even after the Ottoman's reached out to Babur.}} is near gibberish. Calvin999, if you are going to take part in the GA Cup then I'm probably have to keep an eye on it myself. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Babur began relations with the Safavids when he met Ali Mirza Safavi at Samarqand; their good relations lasted even after Babur was approached by the Ottomans.? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• {{tq|In 1505, because of the low revenue his new mountain kingdom generated, Babur undertook his first expedition to India and had written before in his memoirs, "My desire for Hindustan had been constant. It was in the month of Shaban, the Sun being in Aquarius, that we rode out of Kabul for Hindustan"}} makes no sense. I can't see the relevant pages of Eraly but what we are saying is that he previously wrote his desire had been constant, which in the context of the entire sentence appears to be the incorrect tense. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure what you mean by translating them into English when they are in English above? And I don't believe I rushed the GAN, thank you. I am satisfied that it reads well.  — Calvin999 20:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, your standards are pretty low or perhaps English is not your first language. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Hey {{u|Sitush}}, quit the personal attacks.  — Calvin999 09:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• When is the truth or a query an attack? - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• When there is no truth in it. You don't know me or what I do on here, so it's WP:BADFAITH of you to assume that I have "low standards" (not that I should have to tell you, but the three GANs I reviewed after Babur, I failed for not being good enough), and English is my native language.That's why it's a personal attack and uncivil.  — Calvin999 09:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• How about: In 1505, because of the low revenue generated by his new mountain kingdom, Babur began his first expedition to India; in his memoirs, he wrote, "My desire for Hindustan had been constant. It was in the month of Shaban, the Sun being in Aquarius, that we rode out of Kabul for Hindustan"? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• {{tq|Babur started for Lahore, Punjab, in 1524 but found that Daulat Khan Lodi had been driven out by forces sent by Ibrahim Lodi.[40] When Babur arrived at Lahore, the Lodi army marched out and was his army was routed.}} doesn't read well. When did he find out? Presumably after he got there, so when did he get there (as opposed to setting off for the place). For example, we could say something like: "Babur arrived at Lahore in 1524. He found that Daulat Khan Lodi had been driven from the city by the forces of Ibrahim Lodi, which then routed those of Babur." - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Or, When Babur arrived at Lahore in [1524?], he learned that....? Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Aristophanes68}} thanks for the various suggestions above. I think I am going to clock-off shortly but they look good based on my quick skim through them. - Sitush (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yay, thanks! It's not that much different from trying to decipher my students' rough drafts (and sometimes final drafts). Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Two paragraphs in I'm already convinced that it should be delisted. I'm sorry, but there are so many problems in the lede, which is after all the first thing the reader sees, that this can't stand. And apparently there are other problems (signaled in the two sections above)... Now, I'm interested in a proposed plan of action, or I will delist it myself. Mind you, {{U|Sitush}} pointed the article out to me, but he did so because I claim, rightly or wrongly, a certain expertise in English; I do not know who wrote, nominated, or passed this article and it's not an issue for me. Let's see if we can keep this at GA, which is the point of GAR. Copyedits first. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

:I've just conflicted with you, adding the GAR tag at the top of this page. Should I remove that to cancel the extremes of the process? - Sitush (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

:*I don't know, {{U|Sitush}}--I say go for the individual reassessment, since you know this stuff better than me (I just do sentences and the occasional word). If you wanna yank the GA star, you have my blessing. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

::*I can't even work out what to do with all the individual/community options + I'm not sure that the GA "star" can just be removed. Pinging {{u|MelanieN}}, who may know the system and may also not be about to go to bed, as I am. Sorting the article out is going to take rather more effort than I can manage alone: the genuinely academic sources need to be mined and the Eraly source (and probably some others) really needs to be replaced by them as much as possible. I'm going to remove the GAR tag pending a clearer head. - Sitush (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

:::*I don't think you can just unilaterally remove a GA rating; you can ask for a reassessment. Or can you simply reassess it yourself? And if so, does it need a formal review process rather than what amounts to a quickfail? Sorry, I'm guessing here; I'm no expert on GA. I'll ping {{u|Ritchie333}}, who is. Ritchie, here's the problem: This article was recently promoted to GA via what looked like a quick-and-sloppy review, and several people including Drmies and Sitush don't think it should be at GA. What are their options? --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

::::*Yes you can: it's the essence of "Individual reassessment". You have to allow some opportunity for response (there are no specific times set), but yeah, you can do it by yourself. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the opening paragraph and that "series of setbacks" leapt out me - what's that doing in a GA's lead? I'll tell you what I understand procedure to be. The GA reviewer, {{u|Calvin999}}, doesn't seem to be a bad sort and the review might be over-brief, but it's not an obvious drive-by that can warrant a quick undo and reset. If Calvin is okay with undoing the GA review and putting it back on the queue, then our problem is resolved. Otherwise somebody needs to fix the article ASAP or it needs a reassessment. I don't really have enough subject knowledge to be able to do it myself (if you don't know the subject, how do you know if a GA candidate is "broad in coverage" or "focused"?) so I'd support a reassessment. Sitush seems like an ideal candidate to kick it off. You want an individual reassessment, a community reassessment is only really done if delisting is likely to be controversial (eg: Nick Griffin to pick a random example) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

: Thank you, {{u|Ritchie333}}, but I am obviously not in favour of "undoing a review" (which can't be done, anyway, as it's already been completed). I reviewed the article, I highlighted the issues which stood out to me and thought needed addressing, and they were carried out by the nominator. I stand by my review. I've reviewed about a dozen short of 200 GANs whilst being an editor on Wikipedia, and I think it's very WP:BADFAITH to be wanting to have this article nominated for reassessment the day after it passes. What has been identified as "problems" above, I happen to not agree are problems. If you really feel that strongly, you'll have to nominate it for GAR and open a reassessment, and then an outcome will be decided as to whether or not to delist it, at which point it can then potentially be re-nominated again. Failing that, why don't any you be WP:BOLD and carry out minor fixes yourself instead of shouting about it and making a lot of noise!  — Calvin999 09:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

:: Have you seen how many errors have been fixed already? Eg: that Fergana is modern-day Uzbekistan? However, not all of them can be resolved quickly, an example of which would appear to be the guy's age given that we have sources saying he was 11, 12 and 14 in the same year. This isn't a bad faith thing, it's a dodgy review thing. It doesn't mean every review you have ever done is similar. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

::: Yes, I have fixed some errors that you have introduced since I passed the article, such as the tags.  — Calvin999 10:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

:::: No need to be snippy - the fixes are a work in progress. You are aware, I hope, that there are other people who are unhappy with this review, not just those who have said so on this page? If you are going to oppose a reassessment then it is likely to reflect poorly on you and will certainly prolong the affair. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

::::: I'm not being "snippy", and I said if you want to nominate for GAR, then go ahead. But you can't undo a GAN review when it's been passed, as another editor said above. If you feel that strongly, you'll have to open a re-assessment discussion and consensus will have to be reached amongst anyone to participates as to whether or not it is delisted. If it is delisted, then whoever works on it will have to nominate it for GAN again. I deemed the article to be of good quality, so I will not partake in any discussion you hold. My stance on it is already obvious by my action of passing it in the first place.  — Calvin999 16:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::: Well, if you still cannot recognise the problems here then I think perhaps you should stop reviewing GANs. They're blatantly obvious issues and given your attitude it is beginning to look like I or someone else should run an eye over a few other reviews. Sometimes things are subjective, sure, but the issues here do not generally fall into that category. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

::::::: I'm not going to keep coming here going back and forth with messages. Nobody has presented me with any problems. I deemed it to be passable. If you don't agree, take it to GAR. That's what it is there for. I've reviewed nearly 190 GANs, and as I told you earlier, the three GANs I reviewed after Babur, I failed because they were too problematic. So please keep personal remarks to yourself. I have nothing else to say here, and I don't wish to have any more involvement with this. Instead of kicking up a fuss, feel free to make any improvements you feel necessary to the article, as no article is perfect.  — Calvin999 16:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::::: Problems are listed all over this page and the GAR has begun! - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

i am very disappointed by the repeated disruptive edits by User:Sitush. The dispute here is about using Babur's autobiography as the primary reference for his sexual proclivities. Sitush instead prefers to use Abraham Eraly (who is depending in turn on Babur's autobiography) as the primary and only reference on this issue. What Sitush is suggesting is against all cannons of historical scholarship. Wherever a primary historical source like Babur's autobiography is available on a particular historical issue it should be used (particularly about something like his sexual proclivity)--this is what every student of history is taught. (Of course the primary source can be supplemented by secondary sources.) Sitush's insinuation that Babur's autobiography may have become "corrupted" is not supported by any mainstream historian.Soham321 (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• You're painting with a very broad brush here: you're talking about one single edit out of many (at least in the recent history), and you in turn reverted Sitush. Plus, I don't know what school you went to, but I was taught that we should use a five century old autobiography with some care. I don't have much of an opinion on this specific dispute, but there's not a lot of disruption that I see. But that can be discussed here--preferably without too many quick accusations. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

:: Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Soham321, a secondary source is preferable in this case. Citing the memoir directly is not a good idea because we're working with translations and the authenticity of the translations is best supported by a secondary source. Regardless of whether the text has or has not been corrupted over time. The correct way to deal with the memoir, if you want to highlight it, is to say something like "in his memoir Baburnama, ..." --regentspark (comment) 22:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

::The secondary source itself is using the primary source (Babur's autobiography) as its reference. Given this fact, what is the objection to using both the secondary and primary sources for this piece of information? You are also assuming that Eraly has read Babur's autobiography in the original. You would be mistaken in this assumption. I have personally met Eraly in Chennai; he has no knowledge of Chagatai ( a dialect of Turki) which is the language Babur used in writing his autobiography. In fact very few scholars in the world today are able to read Babur's autobiography in the original. See here: Chagatai language.Soham321 (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

::::I'm not assuming anything. An assertion from a reliable secondary source is acceptable however they may have arrived at that assertion. The original is unreliable because quotations can be taken out of context and, particularly when translation from an archaic language is also an issue, because the words may need to be interpreted. If we have a reliable secondary source then there is no reason to use the primary source as a citation (but you can use it as an inline link as I show above). --regentspark (comment) 23:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

:::Had, since he died recently. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

{{Talk:Babur/GA2}}

I've just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babur&type=revision&diff=666860249&oldid=666860064 reverted a bunch of edits] made over the last few hours. Some of them were indubitable copyright violations, some were taking us off at great tangents from the main thrust of this article, some were awkward phrasing, and old sources such as :Stanley Lane-Poole were being introduced when we have a host of top-notch sources that are still not cited. Basically, we were going backwards, further away from GA standard rather than closer to it. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I notice that two sections created by me, 'Goodwill towards Hindus' and 'Clash with Mewat', have been deleted by User:Sitush. The reason Sitush gives is 'copyright violation'. However, i have been careful to always summarize or paraphrase the material from the reference i have given and i have fully sourced the edits i made to the given reference. In my talk page, where Sitush has seen it fit to give me a warning, i have told him that i am challenging him to give a single edit of mine where i am giving material from the reference verbatim. Given this, i am a little surprised why the entire material should be deleted instead of Sitush spending some time making necessary modifications (perhaps further paraphrasing or summarizing). Soham321 (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

:Well, for example, the content removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babur&type=revision&diff=666859186&oldid=666858978 here] was lifted in large part from Satish Chandra's book, eg: around [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0Rm9MC4DDrcC&pg=PA44 pages 44-45]. Yes, I could spend time paraphrasing it all but I've already explained some other issues in the section above ... and I am wary of Chandra, who tends to have something of an obsession with everything being related to religious differences. - Sitush (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

::Hello, wikipedia is not a place for original research. Even you are lifting content from one source or another in your edits. I am challenging you to give any edit of mine where i have quoted from the source verbatim (without putting the material in quotation marks). Go ahead, since you are accusing me of copyright violation, you may as well show this to me. Paraphrasing and summarizing is what i have been doing, and this is what you also do in your edits. And about the source? Isn't this the same person whose books on medieval history are standard text books in Indian university courses? Soham321 (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

:::You are copying entire phrases and then changing the occasional word, which amounts to close paraphrasing. For example, you said {{tq|Thus, when Rani Padmavati, the widow of Rana Sanga, sought Babur's support for her son Vikramjit, who was in conflict with his brother, Babur received her envoy with honor.}} (using the wrong spelling of "honor", by the way); Chandra says "Thus, Rani Padmavati, the widow of Rana Sanga, sought Babur's support for her son Vikramjit, who was being harassed by his brother. ... Babur received the Rani's envoy with honour." - Sitush (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

::::This is the diff for the entire section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babur&diff=666853470&oldid=666850830 Even for close paraphrasing you would have to show that the pattern is being consistently maintained throughout the section. While paraphrasing it is inevitable that i would occasionally not do a good job on the first attempt. Also, i was using the american spelling of honor. Soham321 (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::I'm am not arguing with you, Soham, re: the violations. You are invariably wrong and I simply do not have the patience at the moment: I'm likely to say something that we will both regret. I'll let someone else explain.

Indian articles tend to follow British English spellings, if only because India's English derives from the colonial period. This article is a mess of inconsistencies and I have been trying to fix those: it is a slow job and it is not helped if people introduce new examples as fast as I clean up the old ones. - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

::::::Let me refresh your memory about the fact that a senior editor recently wrote in an edit summary that your attempts to make this article better are resulting in the article becoming worse. Your point about the usage of british english spelling is a gray area because americans have also written on Indian history, politics, art, etc.. As such, both 'honor' and 'honour' should be deemed acceptable spellings of the word. It is true that educated Indians tend to use British spellings, however they are well aware of the alternative American spelling of the word as well. (For instance, honor vs honour, color vs colour, and so on). Bottomline is that you are not prepared to collaborate, and are attempting to assume ownership of the article for reasons best known to you. You and I both know that at least some of the sections you have deleted (like the Battle of Chanderi) are going to be a part of the main article in future. Soham321 (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Oh, ffs. That editor (Calvin999) is a primary cause of the situation we find ourselves in. And go read MOS:TIES. You want to accuse me of ownership then take it to WP:ANI. - Sitush (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

::::::::I am sorry, but Babur did not have ties to any english speaking nation. As such it should be acceptable to use either honor or honour. Regarding WP:ANI, i wish to see what some of the other editors of this article think of your recent antics.Soham321 (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

::::::::: {{u|Sitush}} Stop adding to your increasing amount of personal attacks on me.  — Calvin999 11:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And now i notice Sitush has deleted all my edits. The Battle of Chanderi, for instance is a part of Babur's life. He took part in this battle. Sitush has seen it fit to delete this entire section, along with several other sections. May i respectfully suggest that what Sitush is trying to do is this: WP:Ownership_of_articles Soham321 (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Whether it is appropriate to allow someone who has an obviously poor opinion about Indians--with views that smack of racism-- to have the final word on Babur (or indeed on any India related article) is something to be pondered upon: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=666714511 Soham321 (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

:Like I said, take it to WP:ANI. Why you think accusations of ownership are relevant here is beyond me. FWIW, I have not edited :Battle of Chanderi. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

::This section is relevant for the benefit of future editors of this article. I have no desire for ownership, but others must know what is going on here.Soham321 (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

:::It is completely inappropriate here and some might consider it to be a personal attack, although I've had many worse. Either put your money where your mouth is or shut up. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

::::I disagree. It is completely appropriate. You are assuming ownership, and at least some of your edits are resulting in the article becoming worse. This is also what a senior editor opined in one of the edit summaries in the main article. I can take you to ANI, or i can leave a note here for future editors informing them of what is going on. I prefer the latter alternative. This also shows that i have no desire to assume ownership of this article. Soham321 (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The article's history is not on your side with regard to this accusations, Sitush. It doesn't look good.  — Calvin999 11:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

:Sour grapes or what? The issue is at ANI now anyway, as you well know. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

:: Another comment which isn't civil.  — Calvin999 11:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

:::If you want to see an uncivil comment from me regarding you then just ask. I've got loads of them in my head that I have refrained from using thus far. Mostly involving words beginning with "f" etc, the less rude ones including words beginning "i" and links to things like WP:CIR. Now can you please deal with this at ANI: the issue has moved from this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Babur considers Central Asia his homeland and had shown that he hates india.

[http://www.economist.com/node/17723207 "Hindustan is a country of few charms. There are no good-looking people, there is no social intercourse, no receiving or paying of visits, no genius or manners. In its handicrafts there is no form or symmetry, method or quality. There are no good horses, no good dogs, no grapes, musk-melons or first-rate fruits, no ice or cold water, no good bread or food cooked in the bazaars, no hot baths, no colleges, no candles, torches or candlesticks."]

This is not to cause some Indians anger Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it hate, more of a disdain. 72.53.146.173 (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I like to add this template to this page but not sure what the problem is. This page is part of a series on Islam in South Asia. Please help! Why it is not useful? 65.95.136.96 (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

: Replied on the template's talk page.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm addding the individual reigns for each of Babur's realms to the infobox. My idea was that it made it a bit easier to understand in comparison to what we had previously. But considering the sheer number of times that Babur gained and lost a kingdom... I guess what I added could look a bit excessive. Any thoughts anyone? Alivardi (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

:Yes, it's too long, and these "king of..." titles are OR & made up. The infobox now covers 2 screens. Thanks for asking anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

::No problem and thanks for replying. I guess I didn't really think about the titles themselves. Maybe I'll change them to "Ruler of...". Shows that they are de facto positions as opposed to formal titles. In regards to the length, I'm still thinking this sort of format is better than what we had previously. Maybe it might be better to get rid of the predecessor/successor stuff but keep the rest? Alivardi (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The infobox states that Babur was the ruler of Kabul between 1504-1526. Does this mean that he lost Kabul in 1526? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

:No (he was buried there) - changed. See the section above re issues with this box. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

::I was trying to convey that Kabul was absorbed into the Mughal Empire in 1526. Guess that wasn't made clear enough. My bad. Alivardi (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

:::Perhaps this can be added but with the successor named as Himself as Padishah of Mughal Empire? >>> Extorc.talk 06:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to get some thoughts on whether Babur's inclusion in the category is appropriate. I'm wondering if it gives undue weight to his sexuality, since the only basis is a single mention in his autobiography.[https://archive.org/details/baburnamainengli01babuuoft/page/120]
Alivardi (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

:I'd take it out, but there may be a battle! Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

::I think I'll take my chances. Thanks bud.
Alivardi (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

::: We don't apply modern categories to historical personages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Babur was an Islamic invader and there are huge evidences to prove this fact. Anyone who wish to challenge this theory can discuss the matter here. ArifSingh99999 (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

:See WP:NOR. Materialscientist (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this a fringe theory? Let's consider it's true, how did Babur's parent knew PIE words? Beshogur (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears that Chagatai Turkic was largely a literary language, rather than a spoken language. See [https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:NDd93p3kfZgJ:scholar.google.com/+turkic+in+india&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5] and [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qaSdffgD9t4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=language+policy+of+soviet+union&ots=uK2LA-XveQ&sig=KEpKQXzfPcox_qOebRBYBGkU7vI Language Policy in the Soviet Union] pages 143-144. Additionally, it is listed as the written register of Uzbek and Uyghur on Wikipedia's Literary language page.

This explains why Babur could understand and use the language, but probably means he didn't speak it. However, I realise that many sources say he did speak the language, which seems to be a miscategorisation of Turkic languages in general, exacerbated by the mutual intelligibility of many languages in the Turkic family. So I think this detail should be omitted from the Babur's wikipedia page until solid resources can paint a better picture. Gowhk8 (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Genuinely what's this? Why do we even use these spellings? Beshogur (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Under heading "religious policy", (after 54th citation)

"The violence of Babur in the 1520s was witnessed by Guru Nanak, who commented upon it in four hymns.[citation needed]"

we can find citation here:

https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Babar_Vani

which states

these hymns can be found in following pages (of the standard recension) of Guru Granth Sahib

360

417-418

722-723 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.83.64 (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Emperor_babur.jpg What is the source of the Portrait of Babur in the infobox?
It appears it might not be the right persons image.
[https://books.google.co.in/books?id=iWNHYID4WqAC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Sultans of the South: Arts of India's Deccan Courts, 1323–1687] pg 24.
It states that this portrait is of Mirza Muhammad Hakim.
If this is true then this image can be used as the next portrait. >>> Extorc.talk 15:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

:Yes, and the image is far inferior. I've reverted this undiscussed change. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

::Just a "Yes" wont suffice, kindly provided sources. >>> Extorc.talk 05:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

:::{{reply|Extorc}} The British Museum, which has the actual painting in its collection, [https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1921-1011-0-3 says] it's of Babur. Abecedare (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear {{ping|Beshogur}}. You've reverted my removal of a verse added by {{ping|Visioncurve}} with the helpful edit summary "part of his poetry". Assuming that Babur wrote a lot of poetry, and that each verse of all the poetry he wrote is a "part of his poetry", does it follow that we include the entire collected works of Babur in this article? Or is there something special about the verse that Visioncurve has included? Please note that the "something special" should be sourced to reliable sources and not based on what you or Visioncurve consider special. I await a reasonable explanation from the two of you. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

:There is nothing special in that verse. What do you mean with "something special"? Is something supposed to be special to include anything on wiki? It's sourced, and it's part of his poetry, so it can be included. I think you should say why you removed it? That's not a reason to remvoe. Beshogur (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

::You are mistaken. You need to explain why the verse should be included (see WP:V). I've already explained that random verses of your choice need not be included unless there is a reliable source that indicates its significance. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babur&diff=1096605791&oldid=1096589166 reverted the addition of the verse], because (a) it is WP:UNDUE,, and, more importantly, (b) it is provided with insufficient context. If you [https://books.google.com/books?id=7PS6PrH3rtkC& check the source], Balabanlilar discusses the verse in the context of Babur's possibly insincere, but definitely politically beneficial, adoption of religious piety. In particular, she prefaces the quote with "the verse has been described as

‘more like a ritualistic observance or an ex post facto religious legitimation than a cry of religious triumph.'" and notes that this garb of defender-of-faith is a small part of the collection that, having served its purpose, is soon dropped as Babur "again turned his thoughts to the conquest of territory, rather than the destruction of infidels and Hindus". Excluding this context and presenting the verse as if the language it was composed in, is the relevant issue is IMO (possibly, unintentionally) misleading and misrepresent the cited source. Abecedare (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

:: Re-added Babur's verse with sufficient context in line with WP:DUE, WP:RS, WP:MOS. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 16:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

::: {{reply|Visioncurve}} I am disappointed that an experienced editor such as yourself is edit-warring in article-space instead of discussing the issue here to arrive at a consensus. And your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babur&diff=1096614606&oldid=1096605791 new addition of the verse] prefaced by "A special importance given to Islam by Babur" misrepresent both the context provided by the [https://books.google.com/books?id=7PS6PrH3rtkC& earlier source] you cited (as I explained above) and the [https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Short_History_of_the_Mughal_Empire/ldOLDwAAQBAJ new one] you are citing now; please read the section on "Culture and communities in South Asia" (pages 37-42) along with the pages you cited 47-48, where the point being made is Baburs's time-varying and instrumental use of religion. Abecedare (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

::::If Babur wrote so much poetry, is there a way to make it into an article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

::::Visioncurve placed that to "Personal life and relationships" section. So I think it's pretty much relevant to show his view on religion and ghaza. Beshogur (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::The verse and adoption of 'ghazi' title is misplaced in the Personal life and relationships section since neither of the cited sources discuss them in context of his personal religious belief. Both talk about Babur's religion as a political tool and the sources and their points could be usefully added to the Religious policy section. I'll give Visioncurve some time to respond to the above concerns about WP:UNDUE and source misrepresentation, before making any edits though.

:::::{{mention|Kansas Bear}} I believe the verses are from Baburnama, which already has a wikipedia article. There are several sources on the subject (eg, [https://doi.org/10.2307/2646449]), which can be used to further develop that article (the two sources beinng discussed here are not about Babur's poetry per se). Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

::::::The verse in question was initially added as an example of Babur's poetry, to illustrate the use of his native Chagatai language in the paragraph where his poetry and knowledge of languages were discussed. I was reverted and asked why specifically that verse had been chosen. I had a counter question at the time - what verse should I have chosen? Why not this verse?

::::::Later, there was a second question regarding my edit which undermined publishing the verse in the original language alongside its English translation. I wanted to demonstrate eloquent rhyming present in the original language, and absent in English translation of the verse. In addition, there are a number of splendid articles in English Wikipedia where verses also appear in their original languages and scripts as well (I mentioned those pages earlier). However, I was told that few people would be interested in reading Babur's verse in Old Turkic. My logical response to that is - How do you know that? I did not publish it in Simple English Wikipedia. Moreover, what those "few, uninterested people" are doing in the page on Babur at all? I personally know several aspiring historians who regularly check in with Wikipedia, learning new things here.

::::::And finally, you, Abecedare, expressed your view that the verse had been provided with insufficient context. I agreed with you 51 percent and to this end, I published it after a sentence in the same section of the article where his adherence to Islam (and refusal to follow the Mongol torah) was stated. Remember, the verse was about Babur's celebration of his victory over infidels and calling himself a "ghazi". My sole purpose initially was to provide an example of his poetic skills so that those interested readers (Turcologists, linguists and etc) had an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the Old Turkic language deftly employed by Babur. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 11:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::::{{reply|Visioncurve}} Thanks for joining the talkpage discussion. A couple of notes and few questions:

:::::::* If you wanted to write about Babur's poetry find a reference that focuses on that topic (such as [https://doi.org/10.2307/2646449]]) and summarize it accurately in the relevant article/section, keeping in mind due weight. Don't pick up random sources that cite a verse in another context and use it "to demonstrate eloquent rhyming present in the original language" just because you believe that is what is worth including and is what the verse supposedly demonstrates.

:::::::* If instead you want to write about Babur's religious policy, the sources you cited are okay for that topic (although more specialized sources are certainly available), but you need to summarize what they actually say. After reading those sources, including the quotes I provided above, why did/do you think that

:::::::*# {{tq|A special importance given to Islam by Babur}} is an accurate summary of what [https://books.google.com/books?id=7PS6PrH3rtkC& Balabanlilar] and [https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Short_History_of_the_Mughal_Empire/ldOLDwAAQBAJ Michael Fisher] say? It's definitely not.

:::::::*# The verse (esp. the Chagatai version) is needed to illustrate the point?

:::::::*# It belongs in the Personal life and relationships section?

:::::::*# You needed to edit-war over the issue instead of participating in the already opened discussion on the talkpage?

::::::: Your approach of adding random bits that catch your eye to wikipedia article, and then edit warring and coming up with post hoc rationalizations to retain them, is not a good one. Abecedare (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::::: Abecedare, I believe I have already more or less answered the questions you posted above. In addition, I didn't edit war at all or even had an intention to do so, please refer to the history of the page. Also, I don't see the end for this endless discussion nor do I see any light at the end of a tunnel in reaching consensus with you. No one seems to be interested in this subject, barring us, anymore; so the result will keep being the same like that of a math equation. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 07:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• {{outdent}} {{ping|Visioncurve}} You haven't really answered Abecedare's questions and some of your answers are definitely WP:OR. For example, (I'm numbering the points you need to address to make this easier for you) you say "I wanted to demonstrate eloquent rhyming present in the original language, and absent in English translation of the verse" and "My sole purpose initially was to provide an example of his poetic skills so that those interested readers (Turcologists, linguists and etc) had an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the Old Turkic language deftly employed by Babur" instead you (1) should seek reliable sources that talk about how Babur's poetry demonstrates the "eloquent rhyming" present in the original language and also (2) that these verses are illustrative of the deft use of the old Turkic language by Babur (Fisher merely says "he composed the verses") and (3) that this "deft use" is an important characteristic of Babur, important enough to include here rather than in some other article. You also need to (4) explain why all this is necessary here rather than in an article about poetry in the Chagatai language. Expressions like "I want" and "My sole purpose" are usually a strong indicator of original research and I'm removing your additions for the time being and suggest you wait for clear consensus here before re-adding it. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

:{{reply|Visioncurve}} I don't believe you have even addressed how what you added reflects what the cited sources say but instead on repeating my or RegentsPark's questions, I'll leave it to you to propose any future additions about Babur's poetry (or, religious policy) and explain how they are compatible with the sources and wikipedia guidelines. Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

:{{reply|Abecedare}}, {{reply|RegentsPark}}, both of you forget one little detail that my addition was properly cited according to WP:RS, and placed in the section (after sentence) that discussed his poetry as per WP:MOS. No Wikipedia guideline states that we should provide a summary of the verses we add to Wikipedia or that there should be a sufficient context. Verse is a verse, it's not a statement, somebody's opinion or a minority view and etc. I wonder, why won't you two argue about removing the above-mentioned sentence, which is about lack of Babur's knowledge of Old Hindustani language. What is that sentence doing in the section about Babur's personal life and relationships in the first place? It it because it was added by someone else? I suspect you two do not adhere to Wikipedia principles of WP:OTHERUSERS, WP:NDR, and WP:WAWH. Nonetheless, I am working on the expanding the page by adding a whole new section on Babur's poetry, and will then watch over your next steps closely. --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 05:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

{{ping|Beshogur|Sutyarashi}} The source published by Infobase publishing is not reliable. I found this RSN discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_87#Infobase_Publishing. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@User:Aman.kumar.goel Anyways, replaced the reference. Have you got any question on it too? Sutyarashi (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

:I don't think Abraham Eraly is expert on this. You will need multiple academic sources since its a disputed information like another editor said. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you don't have enough information on the topic. To start with, just read the articles on Mughal empire, Barlas and Timur.Sutyarashi (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

:WP:ONUS is on you here to prove credibility of your information. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

::Well done. Beshogur (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica also points to his Barlas Mongol origin, which makes it credible enough for inclusion.

Sutyarashi (talk)

@User:Beshogur explain your stand on how Encyclopedia Britannica isn't reliable source. Make reference to any past RFC on this. Otherwise your edit will be considered a breach of WP:3RR and treated as such. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

:Britannica is not WP:RS, at the very best being a very low tier source (one of the countless times this has been adressed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ibn_al-Athir#Encyclopedia_britanicca_RS]). Beshogur hasn't violated WP:3RR. You are removing a source published by the Cambridge University Press, replacing it with horrible sources like A Brief History of Pakistan [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babur&diff=prev&oldid=1138790396] by a journalist or Britannica [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babur&diff=prev&oldid=1139882222]. You have also recently made other unconstructive edits in regards to the ethnicities of other figures, where I had to step in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Aufi&diff=next&oldid=1139538420] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mu%27in_al-Din_Chishti&diff=next&oldid=1139543441] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_al-Hujwiri&diff=next&oldid=1139473151]. This is concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh God, there is one week betweeb my 4th edit. And meantime, you got reveerted by another user as well. Beshogur (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed it. Also we need am alternative for Britannica in this case, it's used below again. Beshogur (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@User:HistoryofIran and User:Beshogur ok, come on, i maybe quite bad at citing but isn't this an established fact that Babur was fron Barlas tribe and it was one of the Mongol tribes which migrated to central Asia? He was also a descendant of Timur, a Turko-Mongol conqueror? Sutyarashi (talk)

@HistoryofIran please refer where i removed any already existing reference? Talking about my past edits, it was explicitly mentioned afterwards that they had Arab ancestry, and there was not really any reference about their being Persian.

Sutyarashi (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

: Well Babur's father might be Moghul from Moghulistan, however he himself wad Turkic speaking and he despised Moghuls as we can see from his writing. So it isn't logic to say "he was Mongol, definitely not Turkic!!" Beshogur (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

To be precise, he was neither a Turk nor a Mongol, but a Turko Mongol. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{tq|please refer where i removed any already existing reference?}}

:I did. Well, okay, you didn't actually remove the source this time, but you still removed the information it cited.

:{{tq|Talking about my past edits, it was explicitly mentioned afterwards that they had Arab ancestry, and there was not really any reference about their being Persian. }}

:These "past" edits were only af few days ago and similiar to the ones here. Yes, having Arab ancestry from hundreds of years ago (no one is pure, including us), and yes, there was actually very clear references per the diffs. I don't want to make this topic about something else, but you're trying to justify those non-constructive edits of yours.

:{{tq|ok, come on, i maybe quite bad at citing but isn't this an established fact that Babur was fron Barlas tribe and it was one of the Mongol tribes which migrated to central Asia?}}

:My main gripe is here that you are adding horrible sources whilst disregarding another good one. If that good source is WP:UNDUE then that's another story, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If this is such an established fact, then surely there are good sources about it? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

timur also claimed to be the descendant of Genghis Khan. I think, this should be added. XK2aXsmasherX (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph about the Babri Masjid in the Death and Legacy section is mostly full of Hindu nationalist sources and talking points. It's a contentious issue right now, but setting aside the biased narrative, it's mostly irrelevant to Babur's construction (especially the part about how the Supreme Court ruled it was okay to build the temple) and only shows the one POV. Yeep yorp (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

that image is not babur, theres no source for it being babur its actually an image of a turkic poet. JingJongPascal (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)