Jump to content

Talk:Akbar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.193.48.97 (talk) at 18:17, 23 May 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP1.0

Template:Bounty notice

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]