Talk:Babur

Template:WPCD-People

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 Wikipedia:V#Reliable_resources:

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)

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)

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#Babur.27s_Ethnicity_with_Reputable_Resources.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)

Antagonist Perceptions

The biography of the first Mughal Emperor Babur, is often cited by Hindu militants, fundamentalists and chauvinists as an example synonymous with the alleged history of "Muslim supremacy", but almost nothing in the historical record proves this highly distorted communal perception.

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

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

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

References

Intro

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

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

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

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

Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

Encarta of course can't be verified by the average reader as it no longer exists, and was never a WP:RS.[1] The Microsoft Student DVD is even worse. If there aren't any better sources for this information it should be removed. If generalist encyclopedias such as the Britannica or World Book are used then we need the name of the author, which I see has been provided in at least most cases. Using a large number of sources to prove a point is a very bad idea, and if most of those are as dubious as the ones about his birthday, stamps, an embassy, then that's a sure indicator that there is a problem - if anyone takes them to WP:RSN they will be told they don't meet our criteria. The Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland doesn't go around supporting theses -- that absolutely must be attributed to the author, we need volume number and issue number as well - and 'snippet' suggests that whoever added it doesn't know the context because they haven't read the article (as does the lack of any details that would allow us to verify this. And why are we using Percy William Powlett as a source? Does anyone actually realise that we are? Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

This is interesting: "The Uzbeks become an 'ethnic group' only after the sixteenth century, in the sense that a population takes on the name independently of any tribal affiliation, rather as the term 'Frank' changes meaning between Clovis and Charlemagne. However, things begin to change when a fifteenth-century tribal confederation under the leadership of the Shaybanid dynasty takes the name of Ozbek and takes over Transoxiania in 1500. In the strict sense, an Uzbek is a member of this confederation, where Qipchak dialects were spoken; the settled Turcophone populations that had long been established in Transoxiania - such as Babur, driven out of his native Ferghana by the new arrivals - saw the Uzbeks as a foreign and conquering population. But a part of the conquered settled populations ended up calling themselves Uzbeks in turn, although still keeping their language, Chaghatay, which by the nineteenth century was known undifferentiatedly as either 'Turki' or 'Uzbek'. All it took was for Soviet linguists to call it 'Old Uzbek' at the end of the 1930s, and the matter was settled: the Uzbeks of today have always been Uzbeks, and have always spoken Uzbek."[2] From [3]

Another source[4] dates the ethnic Uzbek's earlier, to about 1380, but again makes it clear that Babur clashed with them.

P. 208 [5] of this academic book says he was a Chaghatay Turk and "carried Chittggisid blood, but he was not a Mongol. He proudly identified himself as a Timurid, and ethnically he uws a Chaghatay Turk, a group that had become more culturally "refined" and distinct from the nomadic Mongols, or "Moghuls," of Moghulistan."

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

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

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

This is what Encyclopedia Britannica says:

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

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

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

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

NPOV and affiliated sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, slow down, Tajik.

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

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

Answers: (1) You have not modified the intro according to other editors' suggestions. You have first changed it to your POV, and then modified it according to the suggestions of a reader who is neither involved nor has deeper knowledge of the subject. If you think otherwise, please prove it! (2) What you do is cherry picking spources - the most fatal way of destroying the credibility of Wikipedia. Anyone who claims that Babur's invasion to India was some kind of "Turkic expansion" (as you claim) has no idea of history or sources. Turks were already present in India since the 13th century when Ghaznavid and Ghurid slave-soldiers, of whom the majority were Turks, setteled in India. In fact, the so-called Slave Dynatsy was mostly Turkic in origin. Babur's invasion of India did not have any nationalist or linguistic roots, it was the based on the ambitions of a Timurid prince who had lost his own home and was trying to establish a new one. Babur called himself Turk whenever he needed (for example when asking the ruling Afghans in India to give him the lands once "ruled by Turks") and he called himself Mongol whenever he needed (for example when he needed the support of his Chingizzid maternal uncle). He was simple an ambitious individual. Modern national identities (and most certainly Soviet-based national identities) did not have any meanings back then! (3) The Baburnama was written by a young prince who had lost his home and who had witnessed the defeat of his family on all fronts. It is a very personal autobiography. And the very begining of it shows that it was never meant to be published. The writing style changes toward the end. But in the beginning, Babur was only writing for himself or perhaps for his children. (4) Nobody ever claimed that Babur was a Persian. In fact, I have repeated many times that Babur was a Mongol. For your information: Mongols are not Persians! The problem in here is that you are trying to "Uzbekize" Babur - and that is most certainly wrong. Babur's autobiography, in which he curses the Uzbeks and calls them "dangerous enemies of unknown origin" is the best proof. And while we are at it: since you have cited the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source for your claim, that "others hold that his empire was Turkic in nature and that he mainly contributed to the expansion of the Turkic culture", could you please cite the relevenat paragraph?! And could you please point out which aspect of Babur's empire - the Mughal Empire - was "mostly Turkic"?! In fact, could you please explain to us what "Turkic culture" the Mughal Empire was known for?! (5) see #1 (6) Next time you accuse me of "vandalizing the article", I will reprot you to admins because of slander. Read WP:Vandalism! --Lysozym (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not impressed by the Dilip Hiro source. Upon further investigation, Dilip Hiro has an MA from VPI and is a journalist, not a historian and has no specialization for this time period.[6][7] Therefore, he can not be considered a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and the Mughal Empire article;

• Metcalf, B.; Metcalf, T. R. (9 October 2006), A Concise History of Modern India (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, page 17.
• "Indo-Persian Literature Conference: SOAS: North Indian Literary Culture (1450–1650)"
• Frances Pritchett, The Establishment of the Mughal Empire. Columbia.edu
• Annemarie Schimmel, The Empire of the Great Mughals: History, Art and Culture.

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

Here is another very good book: Muzaffar Alam, "The Languages of Political Islam: India, 1200-1800". --Lysozym (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

First off, Dilip Hiro is a journalist and a writer. This is what the source that was cited by Kansas Bear says. Engaging in contextomy is not good. Second, I cited Hiro's translation of Babur's own words. Third, I've cited Stephen F. Dale who is "an Islamic historian who specializes in and teaches courses on the history of the eastern Islamic world, specifically India, Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia." He also supports what I wrote in the article. I'll cite more secondary sources later on. Unfortunately I'm rather busy these days. Nataev ^talk 05:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not see anything that states Hiro is a historian, so much for a "fallacy". As such he should not be used here. I will restore the unreliable tag. My tagging Hiro, who is NOT a historian, is a formality. Technically all the Hiro sources should be removed. Also, it wasn't just me, Dougweller[8] agreed that the evidence provided proves Hiro is not a historian and does not have any specialization in this area. As usual, you try to make the issue personal, again. If you have a reliable source that supports one of those sentences, then the Hiro "source" should be removed. Continue to edit war over the unreliable source tags and I will report it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Any objections to this content

From Eraly 2007 Emperors Of The Peacock Throne: The Saga of the Great Moghuls, there are two things that I want to add but not sure about it's relevance here. His quote about his hatred for the Mongols at this page, "Were the Mongols a race of angels..." and about his alleged bisexuality on this page—will be brief and explain it in a single statement, also mentioning that such relationships were normal in Central Asian nobles at that time. Any objections? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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

• Asher page 118, a bit detailed
• Chamber page 286, passing mention

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

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

Few discrepancies

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

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

Unexplained alternative name?

I have twice reverted an unexplained (and inappropriately formatted) insertion of "Mirza Babur Beg" [9] [10]. Kindly explain. 86.141.190.114 (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

And Cluebot NG did the third revert. Agree with you, this new user has only made 4 edits so far and I would like to hear an explanation. Some of Babur's siblings did have "Mirza" and "Begh" in their names but never heard anybody call him that. I've sent a personal invite to the user to participate here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

• • • • 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 to 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 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)