Wikipedia article for Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568)[1] to quote:

>> Rising pillars of smoke soon signalled the rite of jauhar as the Rajputs killed their families and prepared to die in a supreme sacrifice. In a day filled with hand-to-hand struggles until virtually all the defenders died. The Mughal troops slaughtered another 20-25,000 ordinary persons, inhabitants of the town and peasants from the surrounding area on the grounds that they had actively helped in the resistance.

— John F. Richards, The Mughal Empire[8]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Chittorgarh_(1567%E2%....

I have updated my comment to include the original sources. I included the tweets because I first I learned from them.

Did you look at the details in those tweets? They further refer to original source material.

> > Wikipedia isn't a reliable source anymore. They seems to have become a Islamist and left propaganda machine

> I do think that needs some stronger sourcing.

Academic study, showing leftist bias: https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britan...

> Greenstein and Zhu borrowed this taxonomy of partisan terms and counted their use in pairs of Wikipedia and Britannica articles on the same subject. They calculated bias as the absolute difference between the number of Democratic terms and the number of Republican ones. For example, if an article contained 10 terms associated with Democrats and only three associated with Republicans, its bias score would be seven.

> They found that Wikipedia is significantly more biased than Britannica by this measure, and a bit more left-leaning.

And a co-founder’s perspective: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

> Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.

> Academic study, showing leftist bias

says rightwing mouthpieces.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html