Talk:Akbar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Akbar was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Mahrana Pratap[edit]

There should be a different section on Maharana Pratap as he was the only one who defied Akbar even after losing his kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.106.240 (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Religion or Not?[edit]

Din-e-Illahi was not a religion, but instead a following of the Mughal Emperor Akbar and his views regarding the interpretation of mysticism, his faith and ideals...but never declared a separate religion.[1]

Unwelcome in the Hijaz?[edit]

The following source proves that Akbar never intended to join hands with the Portuguese against the Ottomans and that his pilgrims in Mecca were non discriminated.[2]

Arabic script missing?[edit]

Dear Wikipedia, Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Akbar, the name is written beside the hindi version but the original Aribic script of the name is missing in the introduction of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.19.199 (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Death[edit]

I read the article and information on his death seems to be omitted or buried somewhere in the text. How did he died? a disease? was he poisoned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.86.79 (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing the POV tag[edit]

The tag was removed per consensus below. -- SBC-YPR (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is at present a {{POV}} tag on the article page, which was placed there over a year ago during the series of disputes that plagued the article at that time. Most or all of the issues raised then, which primarily centred around the sources used and the undue focus given to certain aspects of the article, have been addressed now, and it is time to discuss whether the tag still merits retention or it should be removed. Please comment below. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Notified: All users involved in the previous discussions around the earlier series of disputes (User:Abecedare [inactive], User:Deepak D'Souza [inactive], User:More random musing [inactive], User:Nemonoman, User:Notedgrant, User:Redtigerxyz, User:SpacemanSpiff) -- SBC-YPR (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for including me in this discussion. The article still needs improvement, but I don't see now any evidence of point of view so excessive that it warrants a warning sign. Agree that it's time to get rid of that tag.--Nemonoman (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
If a tag has been there for a year, I'd say just remove it without discussion. A discussion is necessary only if someone reinstates the tag. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
If you think that the POV tag has been addressed just go ahead and remove it, if someone has a different viewpoint we can discuss. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'm too late but I think the tag should be removed (If it has not already been removed)--NotedGrant Talk 18:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the POV tag as there seems to be a consensus here that it should be removed. However, if I find any POV issues, I will point them out on the talk. I haven't been able to give the article a through read.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Akbar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

You have done a great work. There may be few issues which be improved. Then it will be really good article. Reviewer: Seyyed(t-c) 13:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
It looks good, but I am not a native speaker. Therefor I will ask anther reviewer to check this aspect whenever I finished my review.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. B. MoS compliance:
Some of the external links which have been used as source should be edited on the basis WP:CIT.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
For some of the sources "Harvard citation" method have bben used, while for some others not. Please use the same method for all of the book.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
I put tag at the places which need source.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Unreliable sources:
  1. C. No original research:
  1. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
I think there should be a section at the end of the article which describes his influence over India after his life and his legacy for India and for Mughal Empire. --Seyyed(t-c 13:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
There is subsection about Relations with the Ottoman Empire. I think there should be a subsection about Relations with the Safavids Empire as well. Akbar's reign coincided with Tahmasp I who was Humayun's ally, but later captured Qandahar. His last years also coincided with Abbas I. The problem of Qandahar never solved and always caused some tensions. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. B. Focused:
  2. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:Yes check.svg Done--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  3. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
Yes check.svg Done--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Yes, the article is stable.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Yes check.svg Done--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Yes check.svg Done--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:Fail--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been anything noted here in a month and the reviewer hasn't edited in two weeks; do we need a new one? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The article needs reliable sources in several cases. I wait for editor to solve the problems, but finally they have not been solved.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Illogical (Deliberate?)[edit]

In the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar#Relation_with_Hindus the article says: "Akbar in his early years was not only a practising Muslim but is also reported to have had an intolerant attitude towards Hindus.[11] It was during this period that he boasted of being a great conqueror of Islam to the ruler of Turan, Abdullah Khan, in a letter in 1579,[12] and was also looked upon by orthodox Muslim elements as a devout believer committed to defending the religion against infidels.[13] However, his attitude towards the Hindu religion and its practices no longer remained hostile after he began his marriage alliances with Rajput princesses."

One can observe the time line for obvious faults written above: Akbar's marriage to Hindu princess takes place in early 1560's.

Akbar writes the letter to ruler of Turan in late 1570's/early 1580's. How is this early part of his reign? How does marrying a Hindu princess in early 1560's has or has not any impact in writing the letter to Turanian king?

Why are facts being twisted?

More random musing (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Admiral Ackbar[edit]

In Return of the Jedi, a rebel admiral was named Admiral Ackbar and is famous for the quote, "It's a trap". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.140.192 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Abu'l Fath ....[edit]

Birth Date[edit]

There's a problem with the 23 November birth date. It doesn't match the Islamic calendar. I've changed to 14 October which matches the story about moon in Leo from the Columbia University source. We need better sources for this. Aero13792468 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Birth date[edit]

Considering the moon story, the name "Badrudeen" derived from the Full moon is contradictory as the relevant lunar phase for the 14th October 1542 is 6th of Rajab. Full moon will be on 14th or 15th in the lunar calendar (Islamic calendar). Hence the birth date must be Oct 23rd of 1542 (Full moon day) or it must me 12th Oct 1542 (4th Rajab 949, in Islamic clanedar as mentioned in the Columbia.edu).--Mdrasik (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

images from greatestbattles.iblogger.org[edit]

iblogger.org is on the blacklist[1] so images from it should not be used. See also the whitelist discussion|[2]

Graeme374 (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How much of there is Truth in the Movie 'Jodha Akbar'?[edit]

I want to know that in the Hindi movie 'Jodha Akbar' there is a love story between Akbar and "his Rajput Princess" Jodha which was born after the marriage. But as history reviles that Akbar had more than 36 Wifes , did Akbar had loved her. How much there is truth in the movie? King Akbar had a roving eye for beautiful girls, anywhere and everywhere. And as a result Jodha(Mariam-uz-Zamani) was one of its suffer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayan.Ravindra (talkcontribs) 19:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Adherence[edit]

When you convert to another religion, that automatically makes your previous religion a former religion. Pass a Method talk 08:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Great the Great?[edit]

Doesn't "Akbar" mean "Great"? (as in Allahu Akbar)? So wouldn't Akbar the Great be "Great the Great"? doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.87.110 (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Roger that! Akbar in Arabic means "Great," however, Akbar was commonly appended with the phrase "The Great" by early British Historians. Today, it has been commonly used by Academia and historians worldwide for recognizing the feat and Sociopolitical and economic reforms achieved by Akbar during his reign. Salman 11:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsujata (talkcontribs)

Why is there no explicit mention of massacre done by Akbar in Chittor?[edit]

Akbar ordered the massacre of 30,000 civilians in Chittor. How come Akbar is still considered to be a moderate ruler.

The massacre was a black mark and it must not be whitewashed as has been done in this article. Please add it as a separate subsection in this article. Lives of 30,000 people who were massacred deserve at least this much respect from us.

(Happyputter (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC))

I will create a new section under his conquests with the details of this massacre if I don't see any objections in the next 48 hours. Even with the objections, I will change the language to reflect what actually happened and how 30,000 people by massacred by Akbar. (Happyputter (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC))

Edit request on 17 May 2013[edit]

117.232.16.218 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Empty request. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Trimming down the infobox[edit]

From Help:Infobox, it says that an infobox should not contain its own information but mainly summarised facts from the article itself. Currently, there are many rows which contain their own information with even citations for it, shouldn't we move all that into the article (if not done already) or remove it, if it's just repeating unnecessary minor details about him? An infobox should contain clear information and what is already covered in the main article or else it will be misleading or too lengthy to read. Anybody else feels the same way? We then can make the necessary changes. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Birbal[edit]

Are Akbar Birbal stories real or just imaginary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun53 (talkcontribs) 14:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend you read the wp:talk page guidelines. We discuss improvements on the article on this page while casual conversations and questions are discouraged. In answer to your question, read the Birbal article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Majumdar[edit]

It's cited but not included in bibliography. I believe it's Majumdar, R. C. et al, An Advanced History of India. London, 1960.--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Reformation of the article on Akbar[edit]

First of all the importance of the Second Battle of Panipat must be noted, thereafter it is very clear that Akbar did not create a new creed or cult...it is clearly mentioned that "Although he never renounced his own religion Islam, he took an active interest in other religions"[3]. Further note that in 1577, wealthy Hindu Brahman thief who "cursed the Prophet Muhammad … and had shown his contempt for Muslims in various other ways", he was imprisoned and later executed but Akbar did not intervene (this event had implications for his relations with Hindu's)...furthermore regarding the Din-i-Ilahi..."The expressions used by both Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak and `Abd al-Qadir Bada'uni in this connection, however, are Iradat or Muridi (both meaning "discipleship") but later European historians including H. Blochmann (1873) mistranslated these expressions as "divine faith," thus converting a religious order (or even a bond of loyalty) into a new religion called the Din-e Ilahi." (this should be highlighted)...furthermore the Battle of Talikota and Akbar's relations with the Deccan sultanates is not mentioned in this article (Note: new information needs to be added)PJDF2367 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate you taking interest in improving this article. For the last time, Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak and `Abd al-Qadir Bada'uni are primary sources and your interpretation of them is not allowed, you cannot cite them directly. You have dramatically altered the meaning of many sourced statements without any reason, added dozens of pictures filling both sides of the page and some of your content was unsourced. It doesn't take someone to be knowledgeable about this topic to realise that your edits were not constructive.
You are relatively new here and please remember this: Next time when you want to introduce such changes please discuss it here before doing it so that such problems won't arise, otherwise we will revert you. We can go through your edits and help till you learn. See featured articles for ideas on how articles of high quality should look like and you can also edit short articles for practice. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014[edit]

59.91.149.30 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make an edit please state here and someone will do it for you. -- SMS Talk 16:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2014[edit]

Jodha

'Akbar The Great' he has many wifes but love between him and his wife Jodhabai was different.As Akbar was Muslim and Jodha was Hindu.


111.119.192.238 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 13:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


it'd be so much easier if he could just do it himself, whys this even protected? I can't see it being that big a target for vandalism to be necessary... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.65.242.28 (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

akbar[edit]

akbar means great in aribic right? so ackbar the great seems redundant and silly...did he make some decree that changed the word for great to his name? maybe is this like the french "reynard" bit? (if unfamiliar its like if americans started referring to rats as mickey until rat becomes archaic and out of use and mickey takes its place officially) Or is it just a name like Victor?

whats the connection there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.65.242.28 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014[edit]

the information should have been more comprehensive....

122.177.106.205 (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change, whilst, given the length and detail in this article, I assume you are just being sarcastic.
However, if you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY", "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ" or "Please delete VVV"
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or deleted from, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Death/ Desecration of Tomb[edit]

Request edit on why Akbars tomb was desecrated. Would like to add more information.

[4]

The violence was caused by the iconoclasm of emperor Aurangzeb. Throughout his reign, Aurangzeb attempted to suppress Sikhism, Hinduism and all non muslim worship. In 1691 Aurangzeb decreed the destruction of the Kesava Deo temple in the nearby city of Mathura. The Hindu Jats (Not to be confused with the Sikh Jats) openly rebelled and desecrated the tomb of Akbar.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2014[edit]

The name "Akbar the great" at the top of the page should be changed to "Akbar The Great" 71.245.115.182 (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  NQ  talk 09:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly incorrect justification for Akbar's purported tolerant religious outlook[edit]

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar#Religious_policy, the article states: "as well as the Timurid ethos of religious tolerance in the empire, persisted in the polity right from the times of Timur to Humayun, (the second emperor of the mughal empire), and influenced Akbar's policy of tolerance in matters of religion.[115]"

[115] is "Akbar and his India" by Irfan Habib. In it, on page 81, "Timur is reported to have respected all religions alike. This climate of religious tolerance appears to have by and large persisted in the Timurid polity down to the time Akbar came to the throne.[8]", where [8] is "For the continuing influence of Yasa-i Chingezi in the Timurid polity down to Humayun's reign, see The Political Biography of a Mughal Noble, Introduction, pp.IX-XIV."

"Timur is reported to have respected all religions alike." is an incorrect inference from Yasa-i Chingezi -- to consider all sects as one -- with evident reference to Islamic sects, not "all religions". This statement is also in direct opposition to Timur's legacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur#Legacy

I propose that the phrase at the top be removed as evidence in support of Akbar's tolerant religious outlook.

Ramanarun (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This article Is escaping the defect of Mugals by Pratap Singh Which is Known By Maharana Pratap[edit]

The Haldi ghati's battle unresulted. Because maharana is not Caughted by Mugals And After 10 years Pratap won All the forts which he lose except Chhitorgarh Mandalgarh.

  1. ^ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part2_12.html
  2. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=uB1uAAAAMAAJ&q=Jidda&source=gbs_word_cloud_r&cad=6
  3. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/11421/Akbar
  4. ^ Ward, Philip (september 1989). Northern India, Rajasthan, Agra, Delhi: A Travel Guide. Pelican Publishing. pp. 66 – 66. ISBN 0-88289-753-5. Retrieved 23 June 2014.