Talk:Akbar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

wives

Please check the list of akbar's wives. mariam zamani appears to be the same person as jodha bai. if so, they should not be listed separately as two distinct individuals. Sourav.sg 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Sourav.sg

Is it?

Encyclopaedia Iranica link

This link:

• Akbar the Great entry in Encyclopaedia Iranica

Was added by a Columbia University IP along with many other links to the site. I have moved it hear in keeping with our external links guidelines so unconnected editors can evaluate its appropriateness. Many of the websites entries are short and may not contain much more than the articles they have been added to. However, this might be a good source even if editors do not consider it an appropriate external link. -- SiobhanHansa 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica is produced by Columbia University and is a scholarly source. It should not be removed from the articles as they are pertinent sources of reference.--Zereshk 12:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why is he referred to as Muslim when he created and followed his own cult (Din-i-llahi)? Armyrifle 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it is considered an intelligent political move to keep harmony among the various factions under his rule & not a religious change on his part, because he continued to apply the Islamic Law in the courts. To counter any opposition from the scholars of Islam, he had himself declared to be an Islamic Caliph as stated in the Encyclopaedia Iranica link. As he had inherited the rule from his father under the name of Islam & as the Moghal State had been established as an Islamic state, continuation of the Islamic state as established under the previous rulers since 1206 as the first Islamic state as established by Qutb-ud-din Aybak, the first ruler of the Slave Dynasty, who established the Delhi Sultanate. As per the Islamic Law, an Islamic ruler would have to abdicate to his successor, if an 'open disbelief ' prevails under his rule. He would have been subject to proceedings of abdication as being an 'unfit ruler' under Islam. So the issue remains debatable. Unless convincing evidence otherwise, the move was a diplomatic move to garner support & minimise resistance for his grand vision to unite India under his rule rather than as a matter of his personal conviction. Did he follow the Shia Sect in his personal faith or in his rule? Referring to as claimed in the article of 'Humayun', the price he had to pay to get the Safawid help to get back his rule from the Sher Shah Suri, the intermittent Afghani ruler in India ILAKNA (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghazi

The main article says that Ghazi means "slayer of Hindus," whereas it refers to a warrior of the faith, without further qualification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.176.48 (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jalaluddin-e-Muhammad Akbar

is the correct rendition of the name. "Jalaluddin-e-Muhammad" (being the first name) meaning "The Majesty of the Religion of Muhammad" ('Mohammad' is more phonetically correct transliteration of the Prophet's name in the Arabic), with no family surname, while 'Akbar' meaning "The Great" being his given unique title as the emperor, by which he was known & singled out. Without '-e-' in the first name, representing the inclination or 'kasra' (in Arabic) of the genitive case, the meaning will become disorienting as "The Majesty of the Religion, Muhammad", so he will have two first names "The Majesty of the Religion" & "Muhammad", which is not true, because he did not have two first names & had only one first name.ILAKNA (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

His name was Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar. Muhamamd is common middle name and in this case has no connection in terms of meaning with his first name Jalaluddin. User:Maya Hanessey —Preceding comment was added at 07:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Akbar And Sikhs

Added the sikh history related to Akbar. Ohio Mailman (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Clear POV digression and spelling

I deleted the following line "The marriage between muslim man and a hindu women was highly encouraged to convert the non hindus to muslims. Akbar did the same and he had number of hindu wives. In total he had 33 wives and unknown number of mistresses in his haram. Which was common for mugul rulers." as it is personal POV with no reference coupled with spelling errors. Sagheero (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Akbar was a writer?

The article mentions in the introduction that Akbar was a "writer". However the same article mentions later that he never learned to read or write. There is a clear contradiction.
That Akbar was illiterate appears more probable.[1] Since there is a source mentioned for the claim that he was a writer, I just wanted to confirm whether the source material clearly states that he was a writer or it was just a wrong interpretation of some statement about his taste in literature. Philker (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted "writer" and "ruler" from Akbar's list of activities. The former is based on my post above. The latter is because he has already been described as an emperor. "Ruler" becomes redundant because of this.Philker (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

"This movie is termed flop in india but oversees collection reported to be good because of Indian emperor,colourful dresses and palaces shown in it which are loved by foreigners." Vague wording, not backed up with figures. The movie has grossed a substantial sum overall. Hence removed. Sagheero (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Akbar's neg. qualities

What about all his negative qualities? "Xavier, a Jesuit in Akbar's court, gives a typical instance of Akbar's perfidy in making people drink water in which his feet had been washed. Xavier writes, says Smith (p.189), Akbar posed " as a Prophet, wishing it to be understood that he works miracles through healing the sick by means of the water in which he washed the feet." Badauni says that this [the above] special type of humiliation was reserved by Akbar only for Hindus. Says Badayuni, "... if other than Hindus came, and wished to become disciples at any sacrifice, His Majesty reproved them." Where was his broadminded and tolerant nature then?" Smith, V., "Akbar, The Great Mogul," 2nd Edition, S.Chand and Co., Delhi, 1958.read this http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.htmlDomsta333 (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

Some of the information reported in this article contradicts that which is represented by the ASI. For instance, the part about the temples he destroyed. As far as I know, the ASI and the official NCERT/CBSE/ICSE board does not recognise such information. I would like to have the information verified once again. Cyberina 11 11:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

True. I have never heard of these things.Shekure (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Definate bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.55.84 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I was totally surprised when I read those things. They seem to be very biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.253.176 (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Death date

We say it was either 17 or 27 October 1605. Maybe the confusion between sources has to do with which calendar they're talking about. The gap between the Julian and Gregorian calendars was 10 days at that time. Maybe some sources use a Julian date and others use a Gregorian date. That theory doesn't prove this is the reason for the discrepancy, but it's not inconsistent with it. Anyone know anything about this? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nazis???

In the section "Impression of Hindus about Akbar" it is stated that "During Akbar's reign Hindus in Lahore were forced to wear patches of different colours on their shoulders or sleeves so that they could be identified.[35] Such practice was also employed by Nazis where they forced Jews to wear yellow patches for easy targeting.[36]"

What are the Nazis doing in an article about an emperor who lived a continent away and several centuries beforehand? Surely some silliness going on here... 70.217.75.62 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting a Hindu-nationalist anti-Muslim feel to this whole article. Specifically, a biased presentation of his oppression. They're presenting him as worse than Hitler, but at least the Hitler wikipedia doesn't make NPOV claims about him or not acknowledge his arguments/motivations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.71.128 (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is completely biased, claiming Akbar as worse than Hitler, comparing his policies to Nazis. the citation provided are for the most part not reliable, many sections needs to be re-worded to present in a non-biased way. --99.228.125.210 (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the Nazi original research twice now; hopefully it will not be reintroduced. I agree that there is a very selective approach taken to the scholarly literature on Akbar (largely from Indian Marxist historians), and perhaps even some more original research, in order to present an account of Akbar that is much more negative than more mainstream accounts. Some of the sources themselves seem a bit iffy (for example, BookRags). For now, if you come across a more positive remark from a reliable source, please do bring it here so that it can be incorporated. We should also, at some point, check many of the references to see if they truly follow and to measure the exact degree to which they selected to promote an unbalanced, negative view of the king. If I ever find time sufficient for such an endeavour, I'll take a swing at it. Chedorlaomer (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has changed a lot since the last time I read it. And a definete attempt to make Akbar seem like a relegious zealot is being made. Akbar is consider to be the most tolerant among the Muslim rulers of India. At least that is what we learnt in schools. This article makes himmlook much worse than Aurangazeb. --Deepak D'Souza

Looking through the history of the article, I can also see that positive remarks have been removed. One of the editors who introduced the Nazi remarks made such edits. Indeed, this article strays far from traditional academic narratives summarizing Akbar's reign. Chedorlaomer (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Abul Fazal was a spin doctor of Akbar so his claims of Akbar's tolerance were exaggerated and modern historians have dug up other contemporary records of Akbar's time which paint a far different picture of him.

Thank you More Random Musings for your wonderful opinions about me and my educational history. I will be deleting your personal attacks above. Please be civil in your discussions and comment about the article and not about the editors. Also understand that Wikipedia is strictly against sockpuppetry, so please log in and discuss. And oh yes: I would rather belevie the "junk" that is taught to millions of children in India, that is backed by eminent historians rahter than beleive in systesised, original research put together by one biased editor. Thank you. --Deepak D'Souza 06:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope you got the wrong guy. It was not a personal attack. Just an honest opinion that what you learnt in school may have been inaccurate. You seem to be biased here because you are reverting manuccis comment about AKbar's bones with rhyme or reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.159.2 (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Deepak. The general tone of this article is negative (starting from "Wives of Akbar"). I don't think it was this way before, as I have read the article in the past. We have all read about Akbar in textbooks, and I doubt the government would approve them for reading by kids had they contained so much mis-representation of a person's character. I admit that I've never done a scholarly research on Akbar, but the editors must understand that accepting one side of the story is wrong. Could the editors include positive references to Akbar as well? --HHandSM (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't about positive or negative references, it is about reliable references. What MRM has done is to take snippets from Google book previews and put his own spin on them . For instance the governor of Lahore ordered Hindus in the city to wear coloured patches to identify them(the GB preview is limited and doesnt hold the later text). He wrote it as "In Akbar's reign ..." implying that Akbar was responsible for the order. After that he has added a line stating that the Nazis did the same thing. Hence the reader( who comes to Wikiepdia with impicit trust in its accuracy) is left to draw the conclusion that Akbar was no different from Hitler. I would love to sit in a library and go through all the references and verify them. Pity I dont have the time. But if I did, I am sure it would prove that most (if not all) of MRM's edits are synthensied.

But some things are clearly out of place. If Akbar was a fanatic Muslim(as MRM has tired to present it) then why did Akbar found a new relegion? Wouldnt that be heresy? The either Akbar was a Islamic zealot or he wasnt . He couldnt be both at the same time.-Deepak D'Souza 10:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Manuccis book on Akbar's bones

http://books.google.com/books?id=gU4tAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR8&img=1&pgis=1&dq=akbar&sig=ACfU3U1v5oWG5jKr7pOGLaXFaqhL7c6Feg

Above link gives a snippet from Manucci's book and shows indeed Akbar's bones were burnt.

User Deepak has not read the book and still reverting. This is vandalism and someone should stop him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.159.2 (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No he is not.This article shows a complete biasness and does not reflect the true facts. We will reconfigure many parts of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.200.193 (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This article has clearly been modified by an anti-Muslim, pro-Hindu zealot. I have read this article about Akbar in the past, and have read several historical facts about Akbar. He was one of the most gifted and spontaneous of Mughal emperors. The fact that he could not read or write actually helped him in preserve a unique outlook towards life - his mind was not sullied by other heretical Islamic/non-Islamic writings and he acted mostly on his gut feelings which often were right, like Alexander, since Akbar was a true warrior. This was one guy who clearly tried to bridge the Hindu-Muslim divide and his attempt to start his own religion was a step in the right direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.0.171 (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for neutrality checking

The whole of the 'Relations with Hindus'/'Jihad against Hindu Kings'/'Hindu views of Akbar' appears to be biased and one-sided. Additionally the following paragraph at the bottom of the 'Jihad against Hindu Kings' section is unnecessarily glorified, in addition to being in bold text for no reason:
In later period these acts led the movement of Hindu uprising which was led by the great Maharaja Shivaji who successfully restored an incomparable and invincible Hindu Dynasty in Southern India and restored many lost temples and regained faith in the Hindu community. Shivaji Maharaj successfully led campaigns against the Muslim invasion and narrowed it only to some parts of Northern India. H1es- (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Would have to disagree. Whole section is well cited. 121.240.100.230 (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Jihaad against infidels is what akbar had written down in fatahnama (victory proclamation) so do not see why is it unnecessarily glorified. 59.94.170.21 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Cited or not, please see WP:NPOV. Chedorlaomer (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just that; it also needs a complete reference check. At least three so called "references" were neatly synthesised hoaxes. Can some history student with acccess to a good library please take up the task? --Deepak D'Souza 05:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dsouza which references are hoaxes? We should be able to delete those. 59.94.170.21 (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's very easy to use citations to present a one-sided narrative. I agree that this section looks very suspicious. john k (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have to concur that this section appears extremely suspicious. I do not have the sources at hand so cannot thoroughly check them -- though I'll note, if a bit prematurely, that taking sources out of context is just as problematic as not citing at all -- but there is a definite problem. The tone is unencyclopedic, for one, at least very much unlike standard wikipedia style from my impression; the examples of said Hindu opinions are also highly random, with no coherence and relying on isolated and suspiciously tangential incidents; and to top it all, the article is somewhat contradictory and unclear: is Akbar a devout Muslim, a self-proclaimed prophet, a tolerant ruler, or a paradoxical combination of these? I will not put it beyond consideration that the section *might* indeed be an accurate picture of Hindu opinion of Akbar, but I remember the general impression from other sources quite differently. Britannica for one appears to consider Akbar to be quite the tolerant ruler, if a bit opinionated religiously (he did create his own religion after all), and most certainly the most tolerant of all the Mughals. The poorly written section here on wikipedia puts quite a different spin on things.

I am going to put back up the NPOV tag. It does not necessarily mean that this article is definitely NPOV and false, but it might put individuals with resources and time at their hands, may be even real expertise, to investigate it more properly, and I see a sufficient reason to put it on suspicion. Moreover, just in case, to the wikipedian who removed this tag: there is no consensus "as per discussion page" as of yet. There is, rather, quite a few who have raised suspicions, and I will join that "list" for now. Perhaps when I finally get access to my Uni library I could do some reading on these sources used and see what they really say.68.104.55.208 (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Big original research

I've been looking over this section "Impression of Hindus about Akbar." The sources generally are not actually discussing the "Impression of Hindus about Akbar," but rather an editor (including More random musings) is very selectively stringing items from sources in hopes of supporting his own statements such as "Consequently Hindus did not hold Akbar or his Hindu generals in high regard."

Article clearly mentions that Hindus boycotted the temple built by Akbar's general Man Singh. This is crystal clear that Hindus did not like Akbar and by association even his hindu general. More random musing (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If anything, we see with this section more the impression of certain editors about Akbar than we see what Hindus thought about Akbar according to the sources.

No. See above.More random musing (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If the sources are not discussing "impressions of Hindus about Akbar," they will be removed as irrelevant items being used to forward original research. Chedorlaomer (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not original research. See above. More random musing (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You say, "This is crystal clear that Hindus did not like Akbar and by association even his hindu general." That's the original research, the source does not affirm this conclusion.

What do you gleam when the source says hindus bocycotted the temple built by man singh because man singh's family had marital relations with akbar? More random musing (talk) 11:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not here to "gleam." No original research, please. Chedorlaomer (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

We are supposed to understand english language sources. Source under discussion makes it clear that people of Hindu race boycotted the temple built by Man Singh as his family had marital relations with Akbar. This implies Hindus did not like Akbar and hence boycotted the temple. More random musing (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is your own conclusion. Like much else in this article, you rather selectively sift through a variety of sources, choose what you want, and attach your own creations. You should stop. Chedorlaomer (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That is just your view and is a gross misrepresentation. More random musing (talk) 11:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Jodhaaakbar poster.jpg

The image File:Jodhaaakbar poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)