Talk:Babur

message: 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)
thread_title:  Names of his books 

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

message: *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)
replies: text: ... 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)
thread_title:  Uzbek sources 

message: 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,  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *I don't know, --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)
replies: text: *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 , 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)
replies: text: *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 , 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: Thank you, , but I am obviously not in favour of "undoing a review" (which can't be done, anyway, as it's already been completed). I reviewed the article, I highlighted the issues which stood out to me and thought needed addressing, and they were carried out by the nominator. I stand by my review. I've reviewed about a dozen short of 200 GANs whilst being an editor on Wikipedia, and I think it's very WP:BADFAITH to be wanting to have this article nominated for reassessment the day after it passes. What has been identified as "problems" above, I happen to not agree are problems. If you really feel that strongly, you'll have to nominate it for GAR and open a reassessment, and then an outcome will be decided as to whether or not to delist it, at which point it can then potentially be re-nominated again. Failing that, why don't any you be WP:BOLD and carry out minor fixes yourself instead of shouting about it and making a lot of noise!  — Calvin999  09:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you seen how many errors have been fixed already? Eg: that Fergana is modern-day Uzbekistan? However, not all of them can be resolved quickly, an example of which would appear to be the guy's age given that we have sources saying he was 11, 12 and 14 in the same year. This isn't a bad faith thing, it's a dodgy review thing. It doesn't mean every review you have ever done is similar. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I have fixed some errors that you have introduced since I passed the article, such as the tags.  — Calvin999  10:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need to be snippy - the fixes are a work in progress. You are aware, I hope, that there are other people who are unhappy with this review, not just those who have said so on this page? If you are going to oppose a reassessment then it is likely to reflect poorly on you and will certainly prolong the affair. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not being "snippy", and I said if you want to nominate for GAR, then go ahead. But you can't undo a GAN review when it's been passed, as another editor said above. If you feel that strongly, you'll have to open a re-assessment discussion and consensus will have to be reached amongst anyone to participates as to whether or not it is delisted. If it is delisted, then whoever works on it will have to nominate it for GAN again. I deemed the article to be of good quality, so I will not partake in any discussion you hold. My stance on it is already obvious by my action of passing it in the first place.  — Calvin999  16:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if you still cannot recognise the problems here then I think perhaps you should stop reviewing GANs. They're blatantly obvious issues and given your attitude it is beginning to look like I or someone else should run an eye over a few other reviews. Sometimes things are subjective, sure, but the issues here do not generally fall into that category. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not going to keep coming here going back and forth with messages. Nobody has presented me with any problems. I deemed it to be passable. If you don't agree, take it to GAR. That's what it is there for. I've reviewed nearly 190 GANs, and as I told you earlier, the three GANs I reviewed after Babur, I failed because they were too problematic. So please keep personal remarks to yourself. I have nothing else to say here, and I don't wish to have any more involvement with this. Instead of kicking up a fuss, feel free to make any improvements you feel necessary to the article, as no article is perfect.  — Calvin999  16:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Problems are listed all over this page and the GAR has begun! - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GAR]]

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

text: Had, since he died recently. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babur's sexual proclivity and disruptive edits by User:Sitush 

message: I've just reverted a bunch of edits made over the last few hours. Some of them were indubitable copyright violations, some were taking us off at great tangents from the main thrust of this article, some were awkward phrasing, and old sources such as :Stanley Lane-Poole were being introduced when we have a host of top-notch sources that are still not cited. Basically, we were going backwards, further away from GA standard rather than closer to it. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  My revert 

message: I notice that two sections created by me, 'Goodwill towards Hindus' and 'Clash with Mewat', have been deleted by User:Sitush. The reason Sitush gives is 'copyright violation'. However, i have been careful to always summarize or paraphrase the material from the reference i have given and i have fully sourced the edits i made to the given reference. In my talk page, where Sitush has seen it fit to give me a warning, i have told him that i am challenging him to give a single edit of mine where i am giving material from the reference verbatim. Given this, i am a little surprised why the entire material should be deleted instead of Sitush spending some time making necessary modifications (perhaps further paraphrasing or summarizing). Soham321 (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for example, the content removed here was lifted in large part from Satish Chandra's book, eg: around pages 44-45. Yes, I could spend time paraphrasing it all but I've already explained some other issues in the section above ... and I am wary of Chandra, who tends to have something of an obsession with everything being related to religious differences. - Sitush (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, wikipedia is not a place for original research. Even you are lifting content from one source or another in your edits. I am challenging you to give any edit of mine where i have quoted from the source verbatim (without putting the material in quotation marks). Go ahead, since you are accusing me of copyright violation, you may as well show this to me. Paraphrasing and summarizing is what i have been doing, and this is what you also do in your edits. And about the source? Isn't this the same person whose books on medieval history are standard text books in Indian university courses? Soham321 (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are copying entire phrases and then changing the occasional word, which amounts to close paraphrasing. For example, you said  (using the wrong spelling of "honor", by the way); Chandra says "Thus,  Rani Padmavati, the widow of Rana Sanga, sought Babur's support for her son Vikramjit, who was being harassed by his brother. ...  Babur received the Rani's envoy with honour." - Sitush (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the diff for the entire section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babur&diff=666853470&oldid=666850830 Even for close paraphrasing you would have to show that the pattern is being consistently maintained throughout the section. While paraphrasing it is inevitable that i would occasionally not do a good job on the first attempt. Also, i was using the american spelling of honor. Soham321 (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm am not arguing with you, Soham, re: the violations. You are invariably wrong and I simply do not have the patience at the moment: I'm likely to say something that we will both regret. I'll let someone else explain.Indian articles tend to follow British English spellings, if only because India's English derives from the colonial period. This article is a mess of inconsistencies and I have been trying to fix those: it is a slow job and it is not helped if people introduce new examples as fast as I clean up the old ones. - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me refresh your memory about the fact that a senior editor recently wrote in an edit summary that your attempts to make this article better are resulting in the article becoming worse. Your point about the usage of british english spelling is a gray area because americans have also written on Indian history, politics, art, etc.. As such, both 'honor' and 'honour' should be deemed acceptable spellings of the word. It is true that educated Indians tend to use British spellings, however they are well aware of the alternative American spelling of the word as well. (For instance, honor vs honour, color vs colour, and so on). Bottomline is that you are not prepared to collaborate, and are attempting to assume ownership of the article for reasons best known to you. You and I both know that at least some of the sections you have deleted (like the Battle of Chanderi) are going to be a part of the main article in future. Soham321 (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ffs. That editor (Calvin999) is a primary cause of the situation we find ourselves in. And go read MOS:TIES. You want to accuse me of ownership then take it to WP:ANI. - Sitush (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but Babur did not have ties to any english speaking nation. As such it should be acceptable to use either honor or honour. Regarding WP:ANI, i wish to see what some of the other editors of this article think of your recent antics.Soham321 (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   Stop adding to your increasing amount of personal attacks on me.  — Calvin999  11:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violations  

message: And now i notice Sitush has deleted all my edits. The Battle of Chanderi, for instance is a part of Babur's life. He took part in this battle. Sitush has seen it fit to delete this entire section, along with several other sections. May i respectfully suggest that what Sitush is trying to do is this: WP:Ownership_of_articles Soham321 (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, take it to WP:ANI. Why you think accusations of ownership are relevant here is beyond me. FWIW, I have not edited :Battle of Chanderi. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is relevant for the benefit of future editors of this article. I have no desire for ownership, but others must know what is going on here.Soham321 (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is completely inappropriate here and some might consider it to be a personal attack, although I've had many worse. Either put your money where your mouth is or shut up. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It is completely appropriate. You are assuming ownership, and at least some of your edits are resulting in the article becoming worse. This is also what a senior editor opined in one of the edit summaries in the main article. I can take you to ANI, or i can leave a note here for future editors informing them of what is going on. I prefer the latter alternative. This also shows that i have no desire to assume ownership of this article. Soham321 (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Sour grapes or what? The issue is at ANI now anyway, as you well know. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another comment which isn't civil.  — Calvin999  11:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to see an uncivil comment from me regarding you then just ask. I've got loads of them in my head that I have refrained from using thus far. Mostly involving words beginning with "f" etc, the less rude ones including words beginning "i" and links to things like WP:CIR. Now can you please deal with this at ANI: the issue has moved from this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership of the article 

message: Babur considers Central Asia his homeland and had shown that he hates india.
"Hindustan is a country of few charms. There are no good-looking people, there is no social intercourse, no receiving or paying of visits, no genius or manners. In its handicrafts there is no form or symmetry, method or quality. There are no good horses, no good dogs, no grapes, musk-melons or first-rate fruits, no ice or cold water, no good bread or food cooked in the bazaars, no hot baths, no colleges, no candles, torches or candlesticks."
This is not to cause some Indians anger Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babur hatred towards India 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Babur. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.the-week.com/23sep07/events1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Babur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150614180708/https://old.ut.uz/eng/kaleidoscope/the_countrys_history_on_postage_miniatures.mgr to http://old.ut.uz/eng/kaleidoscope/the_countrys_history_on_postage_miniatures.mgr
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Babur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130916175254/http://bse-soviet-encyclopedia.info/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%8D%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F/54583/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80 to http://bse-soviet-encyclopedia.info/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%8D%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F/54583/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I like to add this template to this page but not sure what the problem is. This page is part of a series on Islam in South Asia. Please help! Why it is not useful? 65.95.136.96 (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on the template's talk page.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Islam in South Asia 

message: I'm addding the individual reigns for each of Babur's realms to the infobox. My idea was that it made it a bit easier to understand in comparison to what we had previously. But considering the sheer number of times that Babur gained and lost a kingdom... I guess what I added could look a bit excessive. Any thoughts anyone? Alivardi (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's too long, and these "king of..." titles are OR & made up. The infobox now covers 2 screens. Thanks for asking anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem and thanks for replying. I guess I didn't really think about the titles themselves. Maybe I'll change them to "Ruler of...". Shows that they are de facto positions as opposed to formal titles. In regards to the length, I'm still thinking this sort of format is better than what we had previously. Maybe it might be better to get rid of the predecessor/successor stuff but keep the rest? Alivardi (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding individual reigns to infobox 

message: The infobox states that Babur was the ruler of Kabul between 1504-1526. Does this mean that he lost Kabul in 1526? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No (he was buried there) - changed. See the section above re issues with this box. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to convey that Kabul was absorbed into the Mughal Empire in 1526. Guess that wasn't made clear enough. My bad. Alivardi (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this can be added but with the successor named as Himself as Padishah of Mughal Empire? >>> Extorc.talk 06:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruler of Kabul 

message: Just wanted to get some thoughts on whether Babur's inclusion in the category is appropriate. I'm wondering if it gives undue weight to his sexuality, since the only basis is a single mention in his autobiography.Alivardi (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd take it out, but there may be a battle! Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll take my chances. Thanks bud.Alivardi (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't apply modern categories to historical personages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion in LGBT category 

message: Babur was an Islamic invader and there are huge evidences to prove this fact. Anyone who wish to challenge this theory can discuss  the matter here. ArifSingh99999 (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOR. Materialscientist (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babur - An Islamic Invader 

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

message: It appears that Chagatai Turkic was largely a literary language, rather than a spoken language. See  and Language Policy in the Soviet Union pages 143-144. Additionally, it is listed as the written register of Uzbek and Uyghur on Wikipedia's Literary language page. 
This explains why Babur could understand and use the language, but probably means he didn't speak it. However, I realise that many sources say he did speak the language, which seems to be a miscategorisation of Turkic languages in general, exacerbated by the mutual intelligibility of many languages in the Turkic family. So I think this detail should be omitted from the Babur's wikipedia page until solid resources can paint a better picture. Gowhk8 (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chagatai Turkic 

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

message: Please add 3rd wife of Babur as "Maham Begum" : Reference: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humayun" Wikicontributer255 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See WP:CITEWIKI - FlightTime (open channel) 16:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021 

message: Under heading "religious policy", (after 54th citation)
"The violence of Babur in the 1520s was witnessed by Guru Nanak, who commented upon it in four hymns.[citation needed]"
we can find citation here:
https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Babar_Vani
which states
these hymns can be found in following pages (of the standard recension) of Guru Granth Sahib 
360 
417-418 
722-723  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.83.64 (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: missing citation for Guru Nanak commenting on Babur in four hymns, under "Religious Policy" section 

message: :Category:Founding_monarchs Monkeyboi111 (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , please explain why I should add this category and reopen the edit request by changing answered=yes to answered=no. Thank you! -Ferien (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  - reping as my last ping did not work --Ferien (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Hi Ferein, Babur is considered to be the founding father of one of India's most important historical empires. The Founding monarchs category was missing several key personalities from India. I thought Babur and Chandragupta Maurya would make the cut. Monkeyboi111 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022 

message: What is the source of the Portrait of Babur in the infobox?It appears it might not be the right persons image. Sultans of the South: Arts of India's Deccan Courts, 1323–1687 pg 24.It states that this portrait is of Mirza Muhammad Hakim. If this is true then this image can be used as the next portrait. >>> Extorc.talk 15:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the image is far inferior. I've reverted this undiscussed change. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a "Yes" wont suffice, kindly provided sources. >>> Extorc.talk 05:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The British Museum, which has the actual painting in its collection, says it's of Babur. Abecedare (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the portrait really Baburs? 

message: The article says 
The cited source is this and these pages dont talk about Babur. It appears it talks about Ahmad Shah Abdali. In fact it doesn't appear this book talks about Babur at all.
Kindly look into this. >>> Extorc.talk 09:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed verification 

message: Typographic error, Babur married Aisha in 1499, not 1599. Bitter Almonds (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: RudolfRed (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022 

message: timur also claimed to be the descendant of Genghis Khan. I think, this should be added. XK2aXsmasherX (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would like to add something about ancestors 

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