Talk:Babur/Archive 3

Statements
Statements made by fierce rivals or competetors do not nececeraly reflect upon the personality of an individual. Therefore i reject the accusing notion in this statement:

"Babur related that one of his uncles ''"was addicted to vice and debauchery. He kept a lot of catamites. In his realm, wherever there was a comely, beardless youth, he did everything he could to turn him into one. During his time this vice was so widespread, that to keep catamites was considered a virtue."

Accusations
Dear Wikipedia, Most of Babur's relatives including his UNCLE were his fiercest rivals and perused armed efforts against him in Samarqand, Bukhara and Ferghana Valley, many Central Asians entered his service and he became a popular figure during his lifetime...indeed such accusations regarding catamites were clearly made to defame Babur in front of the Central Asian youth of that time...Babur nor have any of his descendants ever admitted or acknowledged such accusations anywhere in the Mughal Archives...therefore it is very important that these accusations against Babur must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.119.93 (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Add Picture
Dear Wikipedia,

Afghanistan + Western Pakistan
Afghanistan and Western Pakistan are not part of the Indian Subcontinent so this statement "was a Muslim Emperor from Central Asia who founded the Mughal dynasty of India(Indian Subcontinent)" is not correct. 198.7.249.101 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Pakistan is considered part of the extended "Indian subcontinent". And since Mughal rule and identity is strictly linked to the Indian subcontinent, the current version of the text is correct. Besides that, Pakistan and Afghanistan did not exist at that time. Tājik 00:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Even though Afghanistan and Pakistan(Balochistan not part of subcontinent) did not exist at the time, the Mughals did rule over the land that is now called Afghanistan and Pakistan. How can a article on Babur, who is buried in Kabul, not mention that he ruled Afghanistan in the intro? 198.7.249.101 16:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Afghanistan was not ruled by the Mughals ... it was mostly ruled by the Safavids. When Humayun conquered Qandahar and Kabul with Persian help, he had to give these 2 cities to the Persian Shah as a "sign of friendship" ... See the map: [[Image:Map Safavid persia.png|thumb|left|Safavid Empire]] Tājik 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The map does not show Kabul part of the Safavid empire. Afghanistan was divided into different parts at the time, part of which was ruled by the Mughals. i removed Afghanistan and put back the Indian Subcontinent, it really doent make that much of a difference. By the way is their any reason why you keep putting back the Hindi script? I highly doubt Babur knew how to read that. 198.7.249.101 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Hindi script is just an additional information, just like his Latinzed name. Babur's mother-tongue was Chaghatay Turkic, and his knew Persian at a native level. But his Empire is strictly linked to the Indian subcontinent. Babur ruled India, and most of his subjects were Hindus. Tājik 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bisexuality?
Leaving aside for a moment the word "bisexual" didn't exist during his time, nothing in this article mentions his orientation. According to glbtq.com and &mdash; and probably more &mdash; he was bisexual. Could someone with more knowledge of the subject than I add a section? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will remove the categorization of Babur as a bi-sexual person from South Asia since clearly he was neither one.


 * 1) Babur was from Central Asia.
 * 2) Babur and many other historical figures -including the Greek God Zeus had relations with Catamite. This is not categorized as bisexuality but a common practice of the time.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your claims seem to be unfounded and erroneous. Firstly your assumption that Zeus is not labeled bisexual is simply false as per the list from Wikipedia on LGBT figures in mythology (see bottom, under "Z"). Secondly, your assumption that Babur and Baburi are not a pederastic couple is also false as per Wikipedia's article on Historical pederastic couples. The references to each of those wiki articles are in order. Even if we are, for the sake of extinguishing this dispute, to drop labels of "bisexual" or "pederast," there nontheless seems to be no good reason to omit Babur's relationship with Baburi in this article given the sources to support the aforementioned relationship. --Poolerboy0077 (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * he confessed love to a boy when he was 14 in one of his diary-poems. don't deny the facts. he was bisexual and all of the famous guys who had catamites WERE bisexuals. those who weren't didn't have them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.178.77 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is said that he confessed to have a "love to a boy" in teenage (btw what did he mean with his words in his language? what did he want to say? a strong friendly affection or a sexual attraction?). Even if it were true, how can it lead us to label him "bisexual". Is there such a concept of bisexualism identity which is not pseudoscientific and biased?

And why should it be so important a personal little fact of his life? There are a lot of strange facts about historical men and women, and maybe half of these are inveted stories, so what?--Fabbosko (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Teenage Love Affair
Please remove this, I checked out the sources, they are not in any way accurate. Can I say that in that time, emotion towards other men were nothing sexual. The translations are also wrong, in the sense that they are portrayed in a very sexual manner! So please remove this paragraph, this is extremely unnecessary.

Xtremownage

Babur's name
Recently an editor changed the first paragraph of the section "Babur's name" to read:
 * Zāhir ud-Dīn Mohammad is more commonly known by his nickname, Babur, a word for lion of Indo-European origins. Babur is technically a prefix designating the hairy male of an animal so a Sher is tiger and Babur-Sher is a lion, an Ookh is a camel and a Babur-Ookh is a Bactrian Camel. In common Farsi, Urdu and Pashto speech, Babur when left unqualified means lion.

All of this may be true, but it's WP:OR, first of all, and secondly it's not supported by the reference provided:

If the anon editor can provide a similar source that states that Babur's name means "Tiger" or "Lion", please provide the source either here or in the article. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some refereces where it is explained that Name Babur mean a Lion or Tiger.

The Encyclopedia Americana: A Library of Universal Knowledge - Page 7

The Encyclopedia Americana: A Library of Universal Knowledge - Page 4 1918

Bibliotheca Indica - Page 223 by Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Asiatic Society (Calcutta, India) - South Asian literature - 1907

Oxford Children's History of the World - Page 86 by Neil Grant - Juvenile Nonfiction - 2000 - 192 pages

Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province - Page 440 by H.A. Rose - 1990 - 2076 pages

Academic American Encyclopedia - Page 7 Encyclopedias and dictionaries - 1980

Great Lives - Page 40 by Kh. A. Haye - History - 1966 - 100 pages

Encyclopædia Britannica: A New Survey of Universal Knowledge - Page 837 by Walter Yust - Encyclopedias and dictionaries - 1951

Akbar the Great Mogul, 1542-1605 - Page 9 by Vincent Arthur Smith - Mogul Empire - 1919 - 504 pages

http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P053 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wibk43 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've added the Britannica reference in. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Britannica is wrong (again). The word Britannica is referring to is not Turkish but Persian. The word "babr" means leopard and is a modified version of the Sanskrit word "viaghra", "tiger" (that's where the drug-name viagra is taken from), via Middle Persian "vaghr": It was even adopted in Russian where the word has the same meaning.
 * It is related to Pashto babar which means "hairy". Thackston makes clear that the name cannot be derived from "babr":   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.150.222 (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There are different spellings in this article: Babur, Babar, Baber... I think, this name should be written in the unified style during this article --Rihoalla (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs more referencing
Is this article under construction? I did a vandalism rollback and when I was thorugh noticed that the second half of the article has virtually no refs, while the first half has many. It sure would be nice if every para had at least one ref. Jeffpw (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Babur nominally a Mongol? according to who
Babur himself wrote, with his own pen that he was a "Turk", if he was a Mongol he would have wrote that he was a Mongol. There is no case left for arguments over his ethnicity when he himself directly tells us what he is.

This is a primary historical source. He was a Turk, his mother-tongue was Turki, he openly states this yet somebody feels no shame in distorting his words and writting, Babur was nominally a Mongol...no he wasn't a Mongol, he didn't know Mongolian and didn't identify as a Mongol.

Torke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.0.143 (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In his own words
For the agility and bravery of the Turk are obvious. If you do not come soon and listen to reason What need is there for clarification of the obvious?'"--Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Babur did not consider himself a Moghul: In Baburnama he often refers to the Moghuls as "they". For example, he wrote: "The Moghul troops who had come as reinforcements had no endurance for battle. They left the battle and begun to unhorse and plunder our own men. It was not just here they did this: these wretched Moghuls always do this. If they win they take booty; if they lose they unhorse their own people and plunder them for booty."
 * 2) Babur was a Turk: He wrote "Since we had always had in mind to take Hindustan, we regarded as our own territory the several areas of Bhera, Khushab, Chenab, and Chiniot, which had long been in the hands of the Turk. We were determined to gain control ourselves -be it by force or peaceful means- and therefore it behooved us to treat the mountain people well. … We attached those who came who had come to Abdul-Rahim Shiqvul and sent them to Bhera to gain the trust of the Bhera people. ‘These districts have long belonged to the Turk’, we said. ‘Beware lest the men give them cause for fear to bring ruin upon them, for our regard is upon this district and its people. There will be no pillage or plunder.’ Baburnama, pp. 271-272," Before the siege of Bayana -‘one of the most famous fortresses in Hindustan’- Babur composed extemporaneously and sent along the following poem:"'Trifle not with the Turk, O Mir of Bayana

Babur indeed identified himself as a Turk, but he was not a Turk. The case is comparable to that of the Ottomans who were ethnic Turks, but did not consider themselves Turks and took the designation "Turk" as an insult. The Mughal society was divided in 2 large groups: Turanis (Central Asians) and Iranis (from Persia). These terms are not necessarily identical with "Turkic" and "Persian", because there were Iranian-speaking nomads among the Turanis (for example the Aimak) and Turkic-speaking, urbanized nobles among the "Iranis". Babur and the Timurid family as a whole considered themselves different. They were Chingizid, so-called "Khanzads". As one can read in Nava'is works, he considered Chingiz Khan and his son Chghatay "Turks", while he mentions the Seljuqs as "Iranis" and "Ajam" ("Persians"). The identity of these various nomads changed with their journey: Seljuqs and other Oghuz Turks became increasingly Persianized while original Mongol nomads, such as the Barlas tribe from which the Timurids descended, became increasingly Turkicized. Nevertheless, Babur was a Mongol in origin and took much pride in his Chingizid descent. The reason why he avoided the word "Mongol" is because at that point, the word had become insulting, comparable to the word "Turk" in Anatolia and in the Caucasus region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.150.222 (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Babur indeed identified himself as a Turk, but he was not a Turk". :). Really? It was left for you to determine his ethnicity disregarding an entire community of experts. Babur was a Turk from his paternal lineage, his mother was from Chingizid descent. The Seljuks' lineage is crytal clear an undisputed. What are you talking about? I am talking about the shepherds.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect assumption

 * I assume the above is in reference to the categories "LGBT royalty" and "LGBT people from South Asia". I'm willing to work with you to come up with the appropriate categories.
 * I think we both agree Babur was "royalty", the lede even says an Emperor that founded the Mughal dynasty. And he does seem to be from South Asia - as I said on your talk page, the definition in Wikipedia of South Asia includes everything south of the Himilayas.  The lede of this article even says he was *from* Central asia, though his dynasty ruled South Asia.
 * So you must be disagreeing with the LGBT designation. There is a full section of the Baburnama quoted in the article about his relationship with Baburi, a teenage camp boy.
 * Please explain to me your removal of the category? I'm confused at what I see as a fairly simple categorization that you seem to be troubled by.  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This was not in response to your LGBT categorization. As you can see I responded to you above and in my talk page. You first categorized Babur as LGBT from India. I took it indicating that he was not from India. You changed that to South Asia. He was NOT from South Asia either. And he was not bisexual either. So stop applying contemporary definitions to historical figures in order to enlist more into your camp.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned right here, the article itself says he was from South Asia - could you clarify why that's incorrect?
 * As to sexuality, did you read the Baburnama quote? He quite obviously had a significant relationship with the boy.  One could argue he was a pederast, though.  Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article clearly states that Babur was from Central Asia. He was born in what is today Uzbekistan. So categorizing him as someone from South Asia is out of question. Regarding his sexuality. He does express his affection for a boy. However, is there any evidence that he indeed had a pederastic relation with him? If not we can't categorize him as such. I do not know exactly who placed the quotation regarding his comments about the boy but it seems to me that there are many more important aspects of his life that require attention. Apparently some POV pushing is involved here. Many ancient peoples followed practices that were common at their times. People smoke cigarettes not because they are predisposed to smoking but because it is and was simply available. Let us not make up things. It is clear that Babur was not bisexual. Babur also indicates that he was into heavy drinking and consuming "majun" (opium).  Are we supposed to categorize him as an alchoholic and as an addict? So I suggest that you focus on other aspects of his life. This was indeed an extraordinary man.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I reject the comparison of his affection for a boy with the destructive attributes of alcoholism and opium addiction. And I resent the implication of "making things up" - all my assertions are clearly referenced in the article and were there long before I started editing it. All I'm trying to do is add the categorization so that people can find the article when looking at LGBT royalty.
 * Saying Babur had a relationship with a camp boy in no way lessens his importance as a ruler. You keep saying "it is clear that Babur was not bisexual", but we have documented references to his relationships with the camp boy (among others) and his wives.  That fits the modern definition of "bisexual", which says "romantic and/or sexual attraction of individuals to others of both genders". I recognize this is a modern view, but we're not writing this encyclopedia in 1500 - we're writing it now.  Thus the Category:LGBT royalty.
 * As for his location, I totally understand that Babur was from modern-day Uzbekistan, which is indeed "Central Asia". The lede paragraph, though, says he "founded the Mughal dynasty of South Asia," which is why I used that location when you took out the "India" category. Since we don't have ' Category:LGBT people from Uzbekistan who founded South Asian dynasties, I went with a slightly more general one that seemed to make sense.  He may not have been born in South Asia, but his dynasty lived on in that area. Would "LGBT people from Asia" work better? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I explained to you already. Babur can not be categorized as LGBT. Focus your attention on other aspects of his life if you care so much about this article.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can explain to me exactly why Babur cannot be categorized as LGBT? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. It is time for you to explain why he should be categorized as such. The burden of making the case is on those coming up with the positive proposition.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay - as I've stated many times, by Babur's own writing he had a relationship with a camp boy. That means he was either a pederast or he was bisexual. He may not have used those words, but those are the words English speakers use today. On what basis do you disagree? I've now asked you this several times and all you say is "Babur can not be categorized as LGBT".  Unless you can give me a little more to go on, we're just saying the same things back and forth. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By your own admission above you are drawing conclusions. Since this then that. Do you have a source that clearly states that Babur was bisexual? You are making things up. We are not going to make this article the place to discuss what constitutes bisexuality. Go make your research and synthesis elsewhere. Keeping catamites was a virtue at the time. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Babur never mentioned in his memoirs that he had a "relationship with a camp boy" as you claim. He mentioned that he felt love and affection towards that boy. Love and affection do not always mean sexual desire. I have friends of my own sex whom I love as friends, but it does not mean that I am gay does it? Besides, at the time Babur himself was in his early teens. Secondly, Babur actually condemned pederasty, and considered it to be a vice practice. Need proof? Let me quote his memoirs: "Shaikh Mazid Beg was another, my first guardian, excellent in rule and method. He must have served under Babur Mirza. There was no greater beg in Umar Shaikh Mirza’s presence. He was a vicious person and kept catamites." (QoziKalon (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

We are having repeated attempts to delete references to Babur's references in his Baburnama to his love for 'Baburi' - the camp boy. Why hide or censor the truth? What are we afraid of ?Cheyyene-410 (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Britannica
The Encyclopedia Britannica 1910 does not match the newer version of Britannica. I think unless there is any supporting evidence for the 1910/1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, it should be removed. In the Pahlavi(Middle Persian) dictionary of Mackenzie, tiger is also babr. []. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Year of Death
According to "THE BABURNAMA- Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor" by Wheeler M. Thackston, Babur died on 26 December 1530. Anyone has any comments on this? Docku (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. See my post below, which I wrote before I was aware of your issue. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dates of birth and death
I have some serious concerns about the mish-mash this seems to have become.
 * We’re showing OS and NS dates. My question - WHY??  The Gregorian calendar was not instituted until 1582, over 50 years after Babur died.  Dates prior to 15 October 1582 are shown in the only (Western) calendar then in existence, the Julian calendar.   What possible rationale could there be for back-adjusting Babur’s dates to a calendar that hadn’t even been invented during his lifetime and ipso facto didn’t apply anywhere in the world?


 * We show his birth date inconsistently:
 * in the lead: 14/23 February 1483
 * in the infobox: 23 February 1483
 * in the first sentence of “Background”: 14 February 1483.


 * If the Julian date was 14 February 1483, then that is the only date we should be showing.


 * Likewise for the death date - 26 December 1530, NOT 5 January 1531.

Any comments before I remove all reference to Gregorian dates from the article? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Docku (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Docku. I've made the changes.  --  JackofOz (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add something to his Death paragraph. While no particular disease is mentioned in the Baburnama, there is a statement that in 1525, 5 years before his death and upon his entering India/Punjab, he fell violently ill all of a suddent that seemed to cause sneezing and he coughed blood on numerous occasions. So it would be logical that a disease that wasted him in 5 years would be consumption or tuberculosis as it is a common disease in India and causes those symptoms of sneezing and coughing blood in the initial stage, after which it eats away at the body and causes death in a few months to years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.237.192 (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Content
Material that has not been cited, lacks footnotes, unverified quotes or is otherwise incomplete has been tagged. This article needs significant revision/support, because it is not up to par as of yet.--Jhelyam (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Newest edits
I have reorganized the article's structure. I have divided the article into 4 major blocks:
 * Intro
 * Overview (explaining his name and the surrounding socio-political environment during his early life)
 * Biography (complete biography section, further divided into: a) sources b) early life c) military career d) conquest of India e) last days and final battles)
 * Impact on architecture: I have separated this part from the "biography" section

Additionally, I have also corrected some spelling mistakes in the first 1/3 of the article. I have also removed "Djalal ud-Din" from his name, because the scholastic encyclopedias Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica both know him as "Zahir ud-Din Muhammad Babur".

Tājik (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The overall structure is better. There are several repetetive statements in the article, all these should be merged into the relevant sections. The unsourced statements also be reviewed and removed if fails verification. The architecture section seems to be irrelevant to the current context of the article. Maybe better to move it into a new "Babur's impact on Mughal Culture" section, and also add information on Mughal art and culture during the Babur's reign. On the other hand, the article mentions Turko-Persian symbiosis but fails to mention the indigenous Hindu traditions, European and Ottoman influence on Mughal art and culture at the time of Babur. There is much to do here, but better to rely upon primary sources, since the reliability of the sources depends on their authors. Regards. E104421 (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. I think that this article should concentrate on Babur, not on the Mughals. Foreign influences on the Mughals should be mentioned in the respective articles, Babur's own accomplishments, however, should be mentioned. The Ottomans and native Hindus had almost no influence on Babur. Babur was still a semi-nomad from Central Asia, identified himself with the Turko-Mongol hordes and saw himself as part of the persian-islamic cultural sphere. The Indian and European influences came later, when his grandson Akbar ascended to the throne. Tājik (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted an IP who had deleted a word from a direct quote. Tājik (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have once again reverted a large amount of unexplained deletions by a new user. Because of the large amount of sources information that was deleted, I classified it as vandalism. Tājik (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Excessive Use of Persian?
Is it necessary to overstate the Persian element of his character as much as it has in this article? The article appears to be primarily concerned about trying to show how Persian he was. It can easily be mistaken to assume someone has an inferiority complex and has something to prove. Almost every opportunity to use Persian, Persianate and adding Persian suffix is used, in fact Persian in some form appears over 30 times in this article. A tad ridiculous. Xaghan (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To further my point, compare this article to articles on Babur in Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/47524/Babur, Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572349/Babur.html, The Columbia Encyclopedia, World Encyclopedia and A Dictionary of World History http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Babur.aspx, to name a few easily accessible, to this one. Xaghan (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentences and Overview
The first few sentences should be a short overview of who Babur was and what he is recognised for. As is expected from an encyclopedia. The opening sentences and the first section, Overview seem confused. The last sentence at the beginning isn't relevant. While i wont disagree Babur was responsible for spreading "Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results", it certainly isn't the purpose of Babur's campaigns and is too in depth a topic to be included in the opening couple of sentences. Despite this being an article on Babur, the person, the overview section seems more concerned about overviewing the etymology of his name and so called Turko-Persian and Persianate societies. Any one who would need this article for reference would not be much wiser after reading the opening and the Overview section on who Babur was. As a start i propose changing the opening sentences from
 * Babur (February 23 [O.S. February 14] 1483- January 5 [O.S. December 26 1530] 1531) was a Muslim conqueror from Central Asia who, following a series of setbacks, finally succeeded in laying the basis for the Mughal dynasty of India. He was a direct descendant of Timur through his father, and a descendant also of Genghis Khan through his mother. Babur identified his lineage as Timurid and Chaghatay-Turkic, while his origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so he was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results.

to this
 * Babur (February 23 [O.S. February 14] 1483- January 5 [O.S. December 26 1530] 1531) was a [[Chagatai_language|Chagatai]] prince from the Ferghana valley in Central Asia and founder of the Mughal dynasty of India. A descendant of Timur through his father and Chinggis Khaan through his mother, Babur was a ruler, warrior, sportsman, diarist, poet, craftsman and a devoted student of nature.

I think this is more than satisfactory for the opening to the article and covers enough in a few sentences to know who and what Babur was. The overview section should be rewritten and include brief general details on his ancestry, early life, achievements and death before each section after expanding more in their relevant sections. Xaghan (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The current lead is totally acceptable. Most of all, it is fully d'accord with that of the Encyclopaedia Iranica (cited in the article). Deleting sourced material (especially sourced material from academic sources) is contra-productive and will lead to edit wars. The lead of the Iranica article is:
 * BĀBOR, ẒAHĪR-AL-DĪN MOḤAMMAD (6 Moḥarram 886-6 Jomādā I 937/14 February 1483-26 December 1530), Timurid prince, military genius, and literary craftsman who escaped the bloody political arena of his Central Asian birthplace to found the Mughal Empire in India. His origin, milieu, training, and education were steeped in Persian culture and so Bābor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results.  - source Tajik (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the effort to reply however i am disappointed you just reverted and identified my edit as vandalism. Encyclopedia Iranica is a work with a specific Iranian perspective and whereas it is an important source of reference copy and pasting directly from it can't be justified for inclusion into the introduction of an article in Wikipedia which has a neutral and international worldview.  Babur efforts may have allowed an opening for Persian culture to spread but it was neither his purpose or his reknown.  Also, by reverting my edit you also deleted two sources I included.  Bearing in mind your not the owner of the article we should use this discussion to improve the article.  The introduction as it is now is repetitive and becomes superfluous.  Xaghan (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Your claim that "Encyclopedia Iranica is a work with a specific Iranian perspective" is totally wrong. You seem to have a misunderstanding in this regard. Encyclopaedia Iranica is a work focused on Iranian studies, and it is totally neutral. Iranica is considered authoritative and it is fully justified to use it as a major source in the article. This Wikipedia article was written by User:Sikandarji, by the way, who is an academic at Oxford University. I am sorry that I deleted two of your sources, but first of all, it was you who deleted an authoritative academic source. Feel free to re-add them, but please do not delete any other sources. Whether Babur had any intentions to export Persian cultural influences to India is irrelevant - what is important is that he did do it and that his descendant established the Indo-Persian culture in India and played an important role in the development of Urdu which is an - essentially - Persianized Indo-Aryan language. Tajik (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

RV:
I reverted a good faith, but unhelpful edit by an IP. Tajik (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I also reverted unexplained deletions by 122.163.99.246. Tajik (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

nationalty
Babur is a Turk, mongal turk and arabs diffiernt things.

Mewatpatti section
Does anyone else find the section on Mewatpatti confusing? Is it meant to be a quotation from another source? Otherwise, why would it be introducing Babur as if it were for the first time? Raja Hasan Khan, MewatpattiIn A.D. 1526 a new power appeared in India. Babar [sic], who claimed to be the representative of Timur Lang ... took possession of Dehli [sic] and Agra .... Epikoros (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Cheyyene-410, 7 January 2011
1. References to Babur's Paedophile leanings, which he had himself admitted in his biography 'Baburnama', have been repeatedly edited & removed by 'Tajik' & other vandals.

2. References from Baburnama, as translated by Annette Susannah Beveridge in 1922 (pp. 120-121) had been earlier quoted in the Wikipedia article on Babur. The very point of Wikipedia is to document the facts as accurately as possible. Whereas Tajik & other vandals appear determined to 'white-wash' the truth.

3. The earlier paragraph on Babur's paedophile tendencies was as under:-

"However Babur admits being pedophile and wrote poems in love of a boy named Babri. The Babri Masjid is said to be in memoir of Babur's love interest. "

4. Request that in the interest of historical accuracy, this paragraph (part of the original article) may please be reverted.

Cheyyene-410 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't see anything in the reference that indicates that Baburi is a child. While the word "boy" is used, do we know for certain the age? In any event, we would never use a primary source like this--we need a reliable secondary source (like the analysis of a historian) in order to add the info. If you have/find such a reliable source, please make a new request with details. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Language
Why are Urdu and Hindi versions of Babur's name included in the article? Babur knew neither languages and he abhorred everything to do with the Indian subcontinent as evidenced from his own autobiography. Urdu language did not exist when Babur was alive and inclusion of his name in Hindi is wholly irrelevant and out-of-place in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.197.25 (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 12 October 2011
I want to edit this page

Arinjatt (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When your account has 10 total edits, and has existed for 4 days, you will be able to edit this article. I suggest you make 7 productive edits to other articles, and in a day you will be able to edit it. Alternatively you can request the confirmed permission at PERM. If an administrator grants your request, you will be able to edit this article immediately. Monty  845  16:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Using our own words
Far too much of this article is copy/pasted from sources such as Percy Powlett. While these sources are out of copyright, we should still try to use our own words and where we do copy/paste then we should ensure that the text is attributed as being such.

There is a list above of people who are maintaining this article. Given that there is a lot of work required, is that still a valid list? - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Dates
Dates in template:Persondata do not match dates in text. Which are correct? --Jarekt (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Babur's Ethnicity with Reputable Resources
All history books, authorities and resources, first of all, mention Babur's ethnicity, emphasizing that he was of Turkic origin. In most articles, we mention the ethnicity of a person, so I added the ethnicity of Babur in the first sentence like the other famous persons of the history.
 * And these reputable resources are enough to display him being of Turkic origin:
 * Patrick Karl O'Brien, Atlas of World History, Oxford University Press, 2002, p.144,  online edition: "Babur was of Turkic origin and traced his ancestry back to Timur-leng ..."
 * I think that's one of the most reputable resources (Patrick K. O'Brien from the Institute of Historical Research, University of London) which points out that he was of Turkic origin, but claimed to be the descendant of Timur-leng and Genghis Khan. And the other resources to be displayed:
 * Gérard Chaliand, The Art of War in World History: From Antiquity to the Nuclear Age, University of California Press, 1994, p.491, online edition, ""Zahir ud-Din Muhammad Babur was a Jagatai Turk who claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis Khan. Driven out of Fergana in Turkestan by the Uzbeks ...."
 * Robert Cowley, Geoffrey Parker, The Reader's Companion to Military History, 2001, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p.47, online edition "Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur, a Chaghadai Turk, founded the Mughal Empire in India."
 * Spencer C. Tucker, Battles That Changed History: An Encyclopedia of World Conflict, ABC-CLIO, 2010, p.164, online edition, "His father was Turkish and his mother a Mongol, and Babur claimed to be a direct descendeni of Timur the Lame, known in the West as Tamurlane."
 * Karl J. Schmidt, An Atlas and Survey of South Asian History, M.E. Sharpe, 1995, p.50, online edition: "A Chaghatai Turkish ruler, Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur (1526-30), founded the Mughal Empire in 1526...."
 * As far as you don't have any dissenting reputable resources related to his ethnicity, don't remove the resources I added. Be respectful and share your dissenting opinions just here on the Talk page. BozokluAdam (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not massively familiar with the sources for this interminable row regarding ethnicity. However, regardless of the academic credentials of the sources listed above, their titles give the appearance of being tertiary sources. "Atlas" and "Encyclopedia" in the titles are giveaways, and we really should be trying to do better than this. Furthermore, if the issue is contentious then it is best merely to state that in the lead (which is, after all, a summary of the article), and deal with the detail in the body. A good lead, for example, usually has not citations at all. Finally, if you know that it is likely to be contentious, as appears to be the case, then it is probably best to discuss first here. Instead, you have inserted the statements and justified it here. It gives the appearance of a fait accompli and might even be seen by some to be a bullying approach in what is intended to be a collegial environment. Just food for thought. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sitush. Secondly, the current intro already explains that Babur "identified his lineage as Timurid and Chaghatay-Turkic". I do not see the point in adding the word "Turkic" a second time into the intro and add a bunch of tertiary sources to it. --Lysozym (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All the resources I've added are reputable; in fact, I can find more resources, but I think five resource is enough for that. And you shouldn't change them as far as you don't provide any other reputable resources which disserts this fact. Do you have only one resource? And that's the opinion of an author. In the meantime, you are trying to Persianize this article unfortunately. This article needs objective editors. Anyway I'll watch this article, and make changes objectivelty with time. BozokluAdam (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigh, just because you provide sources, doesn't mean you can add content. If content is in question, you're supposed to discuss it and come to a resolution. Saying "my sources are acceptable, don't revert" isn't how Wikipedia works. It's not a race to see who can edit the article. It's an encylopedia. And now you're attacking me because I disagreed with what you did. I'm not trying to "Persianize" anything, at all. You can look at my contributions; I reverted one edit (yours) because it was in question. You clearly have strong feelings towards the article, you should probably be more careful with what you edit. Letting yourself get annoyed and accusing others of trying to Presianize things isn't a good way to use Wikipedia. Gorgak25 (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't have any resource. You just speak up by expressing your own opinions, which means you have a strong feeling against this article. I give you enough time to provide any resource which proves he was not of Turkic origin. You just talk and express your own ideas but don't provide any scientific resources. All authorities accept he was of Turkic origin. He wrote his Baburnama in Chagatai Turkish, which was his mother tongue and that's also a Turkic language. As you couldn't provide enough resources, the discussion is finished here. BozokluAdam (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are the facts: you knowingly reverted edits when there was question about the sources you used. You then, accused me of having some sort of bias because I reverted your questionable (as they are still being questioned) edits. However, after being accused of trying to Persianize the article, yet I have done no such thing. I never once made another edit to this article and again, you accuse me of something that is untrue; I don't have sources because I have no interest in the article. I do have an interest in how you are acting, which is unfair. Giving someone ten hours isn't enough. People sleep, people have jobs, people have lives outside of Wikipedia. Giving someone ten hours to come up with some sources and then (when the person hasn't made an edit since ten hours ago) deciding that "they can't find any sources" isn't working together. So why not just use the other editor's talk page(s) to contact them and see what they say instead of accusing me of trying to edit the article to persianize it?Gorgak25 (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Before losing more time I suggest admins to check is User:BozokluAdam sockpuppet of Tirgil34, (in)famous for changing user names oftenly and his "holy war" against everything which isn't compatible with his pan-Turkic views. From GoogleBooks I see he comes from Germany (like Tirgil34), and the same old stories about his "neutrality" and "unfair Persianization" of articles. --109.165.190.219 (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Admins can check my all IP records and everything. I don't know Tirgil34 who he is. In the meantime, I'm not of Turkic origin, but I'm a Turcologist who studies and research in Turkey. I know English, German, Arabic, Turkish and several other Turkic languages, so I can use Google Books in one of these languages. By calling me as a sockpuppet or Pan-Turkic, you insult me. Anyway I don't want to mention you become in the service of Pan-Iranism. I hope admins make a decision who is right or not.  We should be respectful and kind to each other. Leave insulting and attacking me. In the meantime, where is your dissenting resource? BozokluAdam (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cited from V:
 * What counts as a reliable source
 * The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.
 * In this concept of Wikipedia, I add reliable sources, which are of academic books, and the publishers of the works are such as Oxford University Press and University of California Press etc. In the meantime, my resources are all published on the Internet, so you can check them on the Google books. Please don't remove the resource, otherwise I see your behaviour like a kind of vandalism. BozokluAdam (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In this concept of Wikipedia, I add reliable sources, which are of academic books, and the publishers of the works are such as Oxford University Press and University of California Press etc. In the meantime, my resources are all published on the Internet, so you can check them on the Google books. Please don't remove the resource, otherwise I see your behaviour like a kind of vandalism. BozokluAdam (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Babur's paternal lineage is mentioned in the article on Timur. Hopefully, that article used suitable sources. If Timur is generation no. 0, Babur is generation no. 5. This is not a distant connection. A 5-generation gap, especially in case of famous families, is still fresh in public memory. Therefore, Babur's claim of descent from Timur could not have been fabricated. Why such an interminable debate? Wikipedia is an academic atmosphere which flourishes with cordiality and mutual cooperation. Please don't vitiate it with personal attacks. Hrishikes (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The English Wikipedia is being flooded with ethnocentric edits constantly. The article Timur is a big mess and is in a bad shape when compared to real academic articles, such as the one in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, or even to other Wikipedia versions, such as the German one which is much better than the English one. BozokluAdam claims to be a Turkologist, but his edits prove that he does not have much competence in this field. This claim (i. e. that Babur was an Uzbek) is enough to show that he does not have much knowledge and that his edits have the sole purpose to ethnicize this article (in fact, Babur was bitterly opposed to Uzbeks, was driven out of Ferghana by Uzbek hordes and constantly insults them in his memoires). Wikipedia articles should be strictly based on academic secondary sources. The Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Encyclopaedia Iranica are 2 very good academic sources. As for Babur's ancestry: he belonged to the Mongol Barlas tribe. The Barlas had been effectively Turkicized (and Persianized in some areas) in terms of language and habits. But they knew very well that they were of Mongol origin - that's why Babur's dynasty became known as the "Mughal dynasty" and not as the "Turk dynasty" of India. --Lysozym (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree about Encyclopedia Iranica because it's got several persianized articles, which means it's under the influence of Iran and its culture. In Wikipedia, I see that persian editors are trying to persianize some articles which are related to Turkic history. As a matter of course, turkic people can react this because several persic editors are trying to stake out a claim for the strong states and personalities of the past, who are generally of the Turkic or Mongolic origins. In my opinion, for the objectivity of the articles, editors and turkologs from western countries should focus on these turkic and mongolic articles, instead of persic editors.
 * Most of the resources call Babur "Turkic commander" and emphasize that his father was Turkic, and his mother was Mongolic. Babur calls himself as a Chaghatai Turk, who are the mixture of Turkic and Mongolic people. Modern Uzbek people are also the admixture of Turkic and Mogolic tribes in Uzbekistan. Today, Chaghatai Turkic is called "Old Uzbek". Anyway, we can call Babur as "Chaghatai Turk", "Turkic-Mongol" or shortly "Turkic" commander. Those are all available in both primary or secondary resources. --- 81.213.98.6 (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense from A to Z. The EIr is a project of the Columbia University and is partially funded by the US government. If you do not agree with, it's your problem, not that of Wikipedia. "Chaghatai Turk" is just a loose term as "Turk" and "Mongol" had a much different meaning back then than they have today, very similar to the words "Scythian", "Barbarian", "Indian" - a whole bunch of different peoples were coined by these words, but they were not necessarily related. Babur, although called "Turk" by some (and even by himself in some parts of his memoires, as he did not differentiate between "Turk" and "Mongol" and the words were synonyms at that time), was in fact a Mongol by origin, both on his paternal and maternal side. Of course, the family had extensively mixed with other peoples, especially with the local Turkic and Iranian peoples. Babur's physical appearance was distinguishable Mongol, while all sources agree that his mother - even though nominally a "Mongol" - had the looks of a "Tajik", i. e. Mediterranean. As for the Uzbek language: it has nothing to do with Babur. In fact, Babur was driven out of his kingdom by Uzbeks and considered them a "barbarian horde" and his worst enemies. Modern Uzbek is related to Chagatai, but it is NOT a direct descendant. And even though Uzbek is just like Chagatai the most Persianized Turkic language (even more than Azeri), it is not the same as Chaghatai. Babur did not have the religious intolerance of Ali Sher Nava'i who tried to establish a new Turkicized and Sunni national ethos in the Timurid realm, because Persia had become Shia and hence Persian was more and more identified with the Shia political apparatus of the Safavid realm. That's why his descendants, even though Sunni in faith and Mongol in origin, became fully Persianized. Persian became the first language, the official language of the Moghul family, so that Akbar and Jahangir did not even know Chaghatai to the extent they knew Persian. It was only Aurangzeb who reintroduced Chaghatai to the Moghul court (for the same reasons as Ali Sher Nava'i: he wanted to establish the orthodox Sunni faith by the means of De-Persianization). But he failed. A few generations later, Urdu had replaced Chaghatai in all aspects while Persian remained the lingua franca and language par excellence. --Lysozym (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So what percentage of Mongolian genes did he have, was his appearance recognisably Mongolian or did he look Turkish or Middle Eastern? 81.129.179.81 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some use of Mongolian language and\or references in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio in the lead
I have just noticed a problem in the lead section. It says "largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results" The statements have two citations but it appears that the section I quote is a direct copy of Lehmann. This is not acceptable in its current form because (a) it really needs inline attribution in quote form and (b) as per the above thread, it is not a great idea to have citations in the lead. Can this be amended? - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The intro should be much shorter anyway. --Lysozym (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it needs to be longer, not shorter. If you look at the leads for some featured articles (eg: James Tod, of which I am the major contributor) then you'll appreciate that this one is not a rounded effort. The problem is, I am not very good at writing the things and tend to farm it off to others and then tweak their efforts! - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Introduction should be shorter and simpler. And I removed the sentence which contains copyright infringement. Anyway you can rephrase this issue under a sub-section. Regards. BozokluAdam (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted you. I'll fix the issue myself but you really do need to read WP:LEAD. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted you because you didn't fix the problem of copyright violation. Think that it's forbidden. And I don't agree about the intro of the article. It should be shorter. And you should rephrase the influence of Persian culture under a sub-section of the article. It's not the main case about Babur. Even you can mention it under the article of Mughal Empire. Also you remove my reliable resources about the ethnicity of Babur. Read the section above for that as well. BozokluAdam (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, it is clear to me that you have much to learn here. That is just fine, but fighting me is almost certainly the wrong approach. You can work with me or you can work against me. The first approach would be conducive to a collegial environment and would involve others who have commented in the last 24 hours or so; the second approach will probably end up badly for you. Whereas I know what I am doing (most of the time!), you are already way over three reverts, you are ignoring the widely accepted convention of WP:BRD and you are ignoring an early consensus that had formed here. On top of all that, while it is true that copyright violations should be dealt with as soon as possible, it strikes me that your bludgeoned approach to it was mainly because the statement undermined your opinion rather than because it was a copyvio. Give me some time and I'll check out both the sources that are being used here and those that you propose etc, although any that are tertiary should really be replaced. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, it is clear to me that you have much to learn here. That is just fine, but fighting me is almost certainly the wrong approach. You can work with me or you can work against me. The first approach would be conducive to a collegial environment and would involve others who have commented in the last 24 hours or so; the second approach will probably end up badly for you. Whereas I know what I am doing (most of the time!), you are already way over three reverts, you are ignoring the widely accepted convention of WP:BRD and you are ignoring an early consensus that had formed here. On top of all that, while it is true that copyright violations should be dealt with as soon as possible, it strikes me that your bludgeoned approach to it was mainly because the statement undermined your opinion rather than because it was a copyvio. Give me some time and I'll check out both the sources that are being used here and those that you propose etc, although any that are tertiary should really be replaced. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's OK. You rephrased the sentence. Now it's shorter, but while doing this, you also removed some content and several sources. Please read the explanation above Talk:Babur.BozokluAdam (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already explained that lead sections should not usually need any citations, and I have pointed you to WP:LEAD. Furthermore, what I removed was disputed & poorly sourced content per the thread immediately above this. That you keep insisting on restoring that disputed content is merely a demonstration of your naivety regarding how we work here. To repeat myself, yet again, go read WP:TERTIARY, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. I am used to dealing with new contributors who are unfamiliar with policies etc but they only get so much rope: if you are not prepared to understand and/or accept those policies then you will eventually find that your time here becomes dis-satisfying. It was good that you found another source for your point (Britannica), but unfortunately it was no more worthy than those which you have previously used, presumably because you have not read (or refuse to accept) the policies etc that have been pointed out to you. You need to provide some secondary sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)