Talk:Babur

Names of his books

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)

Ancestry

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)

Uzbek sources

• 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 Royroydeb or Calvin999 please translate 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 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)

• 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)

• 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 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)

• 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)

@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)

WP:GAR

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, 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, 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 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 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, 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, 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)

Babur's sexual proclivity and disruptive edits by User:Sitush

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)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Babur/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

There has been discussion on the talk page here and here, as well as at other venues, eg: here, from which it is clear that several people are not satisfied that this article meets the standards expected of a GA. Some of the issues have been fixed already but others remain. These include:

• Poor phrasing, ambiguity etc
• Problems relating to application of WP:MOS
• Failure to use the "heavyweight" academic sources that were listed when the GAN occurred
• Factual problems that may be inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the sources (some that have been fixed were outright wrong)

Sorting this lot out may take some time as it will require a review of the major uncited sources, such as those listed in the further reading section. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A review of opinions expressed in the threads linked above suggests that a speedy delist might be appropriate. However, I'm reluctant to do that unless people indicate the same position here, since this is supposed to be the focus of any work and decision. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A copyright violation has now been found also (well, almost word-for-word, so technically close paraphrasing) - see this edit for the fix. I suppose there may be more. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comments This article should never have been promoted to GA, given the issues of sourcing, writing and MOS. It has been improved since the promotion thanks to the efforts of User:Sitush, User:Drmies et al, but it still does not meet the GA standard. Some particular issues:
  • When passed the lede had the sentences, At that time, north India was ruled by Ibrahim Lodi of the Lodi dynasty. In 1524, he got an invitation from his uncle Daulat Khan Lodi to overthrow Ibrahim and establish his rule. in which the referents for the pronouns were unclear. Since then the senetences have been rewritten In 1524, Daulat Khan Lodi invited his nephew, Babur, to overthrow Ibrahim and become ruler. Can someone verify that Daulat Khan Lodi was the uncle of Babur and not Ibrahim? It's possible, but wanted to be sure.
  • The Personal life and relationships was/is based mainly on primary autobiographical sources, which cannot be used for self-serving claims such as Unlike his father, he had ascetic tendencies and did not have any great interest in women....Babur treated them and his other women relatives well., especially without attributing them to the source. Also the section (like others) has numerous prose issues, eg
    • grammatical errors, (...who was was five years old);
    • redundant prose (He had one daughter by her, Fakhr-un-Nissa, who died as an infant within a year in 1500 AD.)
    • colloquial prose (In the period 1506-08, Babar married four women, being...)
  • Many of the cited references are missing publisher and year information (which would have made their relatively poor/dated quality clearer), and many of the refs need to be consolidated, eg 35-36, 39-42 in this version.

The above issues are relatively easy to deal with and could/should have been handled prior to the promotion. But the main issue is that the article does not cite some of the best available sources on the subject, which are currently listed in the Further reading section. Fixing this will take more time and effort. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm quite optimistic about the eventual result of this article even if it gets delisted. I have been a long watcher and even added few parts years ago (the sexuality part was added by me...haha). If we ignore the minor drama, I'm in the end glad that the cavalry arrived (Sitush and all) and it got its deserved attention. Anyway just trying to cheer everyone up here and sorry couldn't add or do any helpful, I'm held up and barely followed the old GA review. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing as delist

• Clear consensus to delist. Variety of issues remain weeks after they were raised relating to prose, sourcing, and MOS. Cowlibob (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

My revert

I've just 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)

Copyright violations

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 here was lifted in large part from Satish Chandra's book, eg: around 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 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)

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

Ownership of the article

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 hatred towards India

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

"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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Babur. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{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 {{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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Babur. Please take a moment to review 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Babur. Please take a moment to review 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Template:Islam in South Asia

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)

Adding individual reigns to infobox

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)

Ruler of Kabul

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)

Inclusion in LGBT category

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.[1]
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 - An Islamic Invader

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)

"Babr" PIE

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)

Chagatai Turkic

It appears that Chagatai Turkic was largely a literary language, rather than a spoken language. See [2] and 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)

Taimur and Changez Khan

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

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

 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)

RE: missing citation for Guru Nanak commenting on Babur in four hymns, under "Religious Policy" section

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

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

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)

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)

Is the portrait really Baburs?

The suggestion for the portrait

What is the source of the Portrait of Babur in the infobox?
It appears it might not be the right persons image.
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)

@Extorc: The British Museum, which has the actual painting in its collection, says it's of Babur. Abecedare (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Failed verification

The article says
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 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022

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)

Verse from Babur's poetry

Dear @Beshogur:. You've reverted my removal of a verse added by @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 reverted the addition of the verse, because (a) it is WP:UNDUE,, and, more importantly, (b) it is provided with insufficient context. If you 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)

@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 new addition of the verse prefaced by "A special importance given to Islam by Babur" misrepresent both the context provided by the earlier source you cited (as I explained above) and the 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.

@Kansas Bear: I believe the verses are from Baburnama, which already has a wikipedia article. There are several sources on the subject (eg, [3]), 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)

@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 [4]]) 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
  1. A special importance given to Islam by Babur is an accurate summary of what Balabanlilar and Michael Fisher say? It's definitely not.
  2. The verse (esp. the Chagatai version) is needed to illustrate the point?
  3. It belongs in the Personal life and relationships section?
  4. 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)

• @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)

@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)

@Abecedare:, @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)

tribe

@Beshogur and 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 [5]). 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 [6] by a journalist or Britannica [7]. You have also recently made other unconstructive edits in regards to the ethnicities of other figures, where I had to step in [8] [9] [10]. 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)

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.

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.

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)

I would like to add something about ancestors

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

NPOV Issues

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 IS NOT BABUR

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)