Talk:Akbar: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
::: Agree that article seems to be biased. I've checked some of the articles linked from this one, and they seem to have a consistent pattern of bias too. [[User:Krishnalokam|Krishnalokam]] ([[User talk:Krishnalokam|talk]]) 06:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
::: Agree that article seems to be biased. I've checked some of the articles linked from this one, and they seem to have a consistent pattern of bias too. [[User:Krishnalokam|Krishnalokam]] ([[User talk:Krishnalokam|talk]]) 06:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::Does not seem biased. Din-i-ilahi is mentioned as a personality cult and it is linked to the main article. It was not a religion. Everyone be precise in what is wrong and offer suggestions for improvement. General handwaving is not too productive. [[User:Aoki Li|Aoki Li]] ([[User talk:Aoki Li|talk]]) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
::::Does not seem biased. Din-i-ilahi is mentioned as a personality cult and it is linked to the main article. It was not a religion. Everyone be precise in what is wrong and offer suggestions for improvement. General handwaving is not too productive. [[User:Aoki Li|Aoki Li]] ([[User talk:Aoki Li|talk]]) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::: I agree that this article doesn't seem to adhere to a neutral point of view perspective. Yes, there are a fair amount of references, but the section about relations with Hindus is one sided. For example, sentences like: "Fazal gave a positive spin to Akbar's reign by glossing over uncomfortable facts of the emperor's reign related to his interaction with other communities of his empire, which has been repeated by numerous historians over the years." are a bit dubious. I don't think anyone has any problem with highlighting less than impressive aspects of Akbar, if they are backed up by solid references, but this particular section seems almost exclusively negative with weasel words as well. I think I have a book on Akbar somewhere, so I'll try and make some improvements when I find it [[Special:Contributions/94.193.48.97|94.193.48.97]] ([[User talk:94.193.48.97|talk]]) 18:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:17, 23 May 2009
Akbar was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 12, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Akbar. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Akbar at the Reference desk. |
|
||||
This article has clear bias. It has a clear anti-Akbar and possibl anti-Muslim bias, using many weasel words and circumlocutions to present Akbar in a bad light. The article should be edited thoroughly, preferably by someone with knowledge about the period, to eliminate all bias. Agger (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree completely. Seems very well refrenced. Books cited have been written by very well known, peer-reviewed historians. 59.92.153.219 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- No matter how well referenced, the "information" in this article is incredibly one-sided. Anything remotely positive such as Din-i-Ilahi seems to be given a cursory dismissal as being irrelevant or ineffective whereas anything that looks like persecution is expanded on in detail--NichS21 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree that article seems to be biased. I've checked some of the articles linked from this one, and they seem to have a consistent pattern of bias too. Krishnalokam (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Does not seem biased. Din-i-ilahi is mentioned as a personality cult and it is linked to the main article. It was not a religion. Everyone be precise in what is wrong and offer suggestions for improvement. General handwaving is not too productive. Aoki Li (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that this article doesn't seem to adhere to a neutral point of view perspective. Yes, there are a fair amount of references, but the section about relations with Hindus is one sided. For example, sentences like: "Fazal gave a positive spin to Akbar's reign by glossing over uncomfortable facts of the emperor's reign related to his interaction with other communities of his empire, which has been repeated by numerous historians over the years." are a bit dubious. I don't think anyone has any problem with highlighting less than impressive aspects of Akbar, if they are backed up by solid references, but this particular section seems almost exclusively negative with weasel words as well. I think I have a book on Akbar somewhere, so I'll try and make some improvements when I find it 94.193.48.97 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Does not seem biased. Din-i-ilahi is mentioned as a personality cult and it is linked to the main article. It was not a religion. Everyone be precise in what is wrong and offer suggestions for improvement. General handwaving is not too productive. Aoki Li (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree that article seems to be biased. I've checked some of the articles linked from this one, and they seem to have a consistent pattern of bias too. Krishnalokam (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- No matter how well referenced, the "information" in this article is incredibly one-sided. Anything remotely positive such as Din-i-Ilahi seems to be given a cursory dismissal as being irrelevant or ineffective whereas anything that looks like persecution is expanded on in detail--NichS21 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Categories:
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class Afghanistan articles
- Unknown-importance Afghanistan articles
- WikiProject Afghanistan articles
- B-Class Pakistan articles
- Unknown-importance Pakistan articles
- WikiProject Pakistan articles
- B-Class Bangladesh articles
- High-importance Bangladesh articles
- Help of History Workgroup of Bangladesh needed
- WikiProject Bangladesh articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- B-Class biography (core) articles
- Core biography articles
- Top-importance biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class India articles
- Top-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of Top-importance
- B-Class Indian history articles
- Unknown-importance Indian history articles
- B-Class Indian history articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject Indian history articles
- Past Indian collaborations of the month
- WikiProject India articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class Indian military history articles
- Indian military history task force articles
- B-Class South Asian military history articles
- South Asian military history task force articles