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 Notedgrant (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 12 November 2010 (→‎Removing the POV tag: ++). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Bounty notice



Improving the article

While most of the tags on the article have been removed, there are substantive portions of it that still contain unsourced statements and also misplaced information - for instance, information about the foundation of Fatehpur Sikri has been spread out over two sections and information regarding military conquests has been mentioned in the Relations with Hindus section. I will be working over the next few weeks to try and get the article organised into more structured prose, with a better narrative thread, while trying to address the neutrality issues along the way. If there are suggestions regarding the improvement of the article, please post them here or be bold and make them yourself. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing the article by adding factally incorrect information and by adding things in sections which they don't belong to. Please refrain from doing so until you develop a consensus here. Just to cite couple of examples:
  • No logic in removing Maharana Pratap's reaction to marriages of rajput women from the Rajput wives of Akbar section.
  • 30,000 rajputs were not present in the fortress of chittor, instead they were unarmed peasants.
I am reverting it to my last save. Please add your suggestions here so other editors can mull over them.
More random musing (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your reverts. It seems like a case of WP:OWNERSHIP to me. Please wait and dont be in a hurry to revert any edits that dont fit your version. AN underconstruction tag has been placed(which you had removed) which will tell readers that the article is a work-in-progress.
About the removal of Maharana Pratap's reaction: it is undue to give such a long paragraph to one man's reaction. The article is about Akbar, not about Maharana Pratap. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about the reaction rather the mentioning of marriages in the expansion section. This makes little sense when a section dealing with this topic already exists. This upsets the flow of the article. More random musing (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see any ownership issue here. MRM is correct in asking for a consensus. SBC-YPR is making large scale edits to the article which had been stable for a year so onus is on him to not unilaterally change large swathes of the article. Hope this helps. Aoki Li (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't see what either of you (Aoki or MRM) are doing, or have been doing, over the past year, to improve the article or contribute towards removing the {{npov}} tag that remains at the top of the page. Having a stable article of poor quality is hardly an achievement by any reasonable standards. I repeat, there is no restriction on making large scale changes if the sorry state of the article reflects the same. What puzzles me the most is that despite all my edits being substantiated by references to reliable sources, they have been characterised as being factually incorrect. Considerations of due weight also have to be met - which I'm afraid the article in its present state still has soe way to go before achieving. Finally, I do not see the logic in repeatedy removing the {{underconstruction}} tag from the top of the article, when the conditions for its removal have not been met. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I have restored all referenced edits that were reverted, as also the {{underconstruction}} tag. However, in order to avoid edit-warring, I will make no further contributions to the article until this dispute is resolved. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SBC it would be a great help if you could outline the changes you intend to make and then we discuss them, develop a consensus, and then add them. Edit warring is not a good thing. I am not sure if a dispute is taking place here. I am just requesting you to develop consensus which is the spirit of wikipedia. Please propose changes section by section so that we can discuss them. Thanks. More random musing (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my suggestions about what changes should be made to the article (loosely based on WP:GACR and WP:MoS):
  1. The prose should be clear. At present, it is interspersed with long and perhaps unnecessary quotations, which could be paraphrased in order to lend continuity to the narrative thread.
  2. Paragraphs and headings should be modified in line with (1.) above.
  3. Due weight should be given to various aspects of Akbar's reign, and for this to happen, the structure of the article needs to change. A few days ago, the article had negligible information on the administrative system, which I have since tried to expand. The sections on religious policy seem to be overemphasised at present, and could be consolidated into ones section and presented in a concise manner. Expansion could be carried out in a sub-article. Also, the section on military achievements is incomplete and should be expanded to include information about his conquests post-1565 in a concise form. Further, I think the sub-section on Akbar's marriage alliances with the Rajputs is significant enough to place it in a separate section of its own, delinking it from the Relations with Hindus - there were several political implications of these relations apart from the religious ones.
  4. More references need to be provided as large parts of the article are still unsourced. I had been trying to add information from reliable sources until the present controversy broke out.
  5. The neutrality issue needs to be addressed. I am of the opinion that this should sort itself out once concerns in (3.) above are addressed. However, there does not seem to have been any significant discussion on this in the recent past - discussions on this page have largely restricted to a few generic comments by anons. I am open to participating in a discussion on this ascpect, since it is a crucial part of the article's improvement.
  6. The article needs a thorough copyedit - there are several instances of overlinking and other MoS errors prevalent at several places.
  7. The section on portrayal in popular culture should be presented as a paragraph, and if possible a section on the legacy of Akbar or his significance in Indian history (as viewed by present-day historians) could be added.
Finally, in keeping with my declaration above, I shall not make any further changes or reversions to the article (apart from reverting obvious vandalism) till we sort out this dispute. However, I would appreciate it if you at least refrained from reverting those edits of mine which I have supplemented with references. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W.r.t long and un-necessary quotations: I have to disagree with you. For an article which is about history, quoting primary texts or peer-reviewed historians, is a very appropriate thing to do because it adds authenticity to the article. If we read Primary sources: In contexts such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."[5]

First quote is from Vincent Smith who was a noted historian. "Injudicious flatterers ...."

Second quote is from Jadunath Sarkar another noted historian and his quote is based on primary sources from the erstwhile Indian kingdom of Amber. "Rajput ladies who entered the Delhi royal harem...." (Primary source)

Third quote is from James Tod who was a reagent of British Empire and lived and compiled his historical volume in 18th century, a period close to the period this article is about. "With such examples as Marwar and ......"

Fourth quote is from the works of Badayuni who was a contemporary of Akbars'. "On the 1st Rajab 990 AD 1582 Akbar's ...." (Primary source)

Fifth and sixth quote is from Akbar's own court. "..the Omnipotent one who ..." and "This is of the grace of my Lord...." (Primary source).

Seventh quote is an excerpt from Akbar's letter. " Places and lands ...."(Primary source)

Eighth quote is a quoted from a primary source.

Ninth quote is a from Dashratha Sharma a noted albeit not a very renowned scholar nevertheless very reputed in India who is quote a primary source called Dalpat Vilas. "When Akbar began his ... " (Primary Source)

Tenth quote is from Vincent Smith.

So out of 10 quotes seven are from primary sources.

More random musing (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could not reply to all your points yesterday.
W.r.t point 2) if we read WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS it makes it clear:
a) <beginquote> Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. <endquote>
the primary sources we have used have been reliably published and the ones that are being used from the works of Jadunath Sarkar and Dashratha Sharma fall in the category of :
Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.<endquote>
Point 3. I agree with some of the work you are doing but what is the motivation to put marriages with rajput princesses in expansion section and why should it be delinked from "relation with hindus" section?
Point 4. Agree we should add more references. But your reference that 30,000 rajputs were massacred is not corroborated by other sources. So we have to be careful on what we add.
Point 5. Please point out what is not neutral.
Point 6. I agree it can do with less linking.
Point 7. Yes but then we have to add verncaular historians also.
Please develop a consensus before we make edits.
More random musing (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Regarding this bizzare summary of what constitutes a "primary source"
Second quote is from Jadunath Sarkar another noted historian and his quote is based on primary sources from the erstwhile Indian kingdom of Amber. "Rajput ladies who entered the Delhi royal harem...." (Primary source)
Though this historian may quote primary sources in his work, this quote is NOT a primary source. It's the historian's conclusion
No it is not the historians conclusion. He has reproduced what he saw in the primary source. You might want to consult the reference given. More random musing (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third quote is from James Tod who was a reagent of British Empire and lived and compiled his historical volume in 18th century, a period close to the period this article is about. "With such examples as Marwar and ......"
Since Akbar died at about the end of the 17th century, and Tod was a "reagent"[sic] who was appointed in 1818 (the NINETEENTH) century -- we're looking a gap of a century or two...or maybe you think that is "close" to the period??
It is closer to the period then today was the point I was trying to make. Since James Tod lived in the state of rajasthan he was able to collect material on what the extant history of that epoch was. More random musing (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ninth quote is a from Dashratha Sharma a noted albeit not a very renowned scholar nevertheless very reputed in India who is quote a primary source called Dalpat Vilas. "When Akbar began his ... "
Perhaps you didn't notice that since he lived (1903-1976) he is NOT a primary source? (unsigned)
No. You might want to acquaint yourself with Dalpat Vilas. More random musing (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maharana Pratap quote

IMO, an WP:UNDUE, I suggest removal. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. For a balanced view both sides have to be represented. It cannot be just the mughal point of view alone. More random musing (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No viewpoint has been eliminated altogether. The stand taken by Rana Pratap has been clearly explained in the section on military achievements. The quotation did not add anything substantive, and was presumably deleted for that reason. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is absurd to put the marriages in military achievements section when a "rajput wives" section already exists. It is a very important sociological development that Pratap stopped the marriage etiquette and the fact that James Tod had the autographed letters of the two princes, from Marwar and Amber, which talk about there being admitted into rajput fold again. More random musing (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Din-i-Ilahi

"It is alleged (editorilizing word) that Akbar created a new sect [90], religious movement known as Din-i-Ilahi, a claim which has been refuted by modern scholars who have cogently argued that Akbar aimed at initiating no religion and certainly did not coin and did not use the word Din-i-Ilahi"

This statement is a POV and does not present the both arguments in equal measure. It rubbishes the fact that "Akbar created (or propagated) a new sect [90], religious movement known as Din-i-Ilahi", which is a majority view attested by numerous references [1], a minority view is forwarded as a broad view. "Misconceptions about Akbar propounding a new religion arose because Blochman, translator of Ain-i-Akbari into English in 1873, erroneously rendered A'in-i Iradat Gazinan which literally means Regulations for those privileged to be his disciple as Ordinances of the Divine Faith." is the POV of the scholar and not a world view. This should be explicitly worded in the text. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the POV of a scholar but many scholars who are considered authority on mughal period of Indian history. The book links you have given cannot be considered in the same league as the works of "pratiyogita darpan". More random musing (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Britannia is a RS, then why treat its view as alleged and others as pure undisputed fact. "a claim which has been refuted by modern scholar" is also a disputed conclusion and it be reworded to express the view.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream, peer reviewed historians have consensus on this issue. Akbar did not start a new religion. Will dig up some more references on it. More random musing (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relation with Hindus

Lead section
  • "Akbar's reign was chronicled extensivel..." Absurd position of the paragraph, needs to be moved
Do you know who Abul Fazal was? More random musing (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chronicles and other sources should have a separate section. The current section portrays that they only discuss "Relation with Hindus". --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other contemporary sources of Akbar's reign like the works of Badayuni, Shaikhzada Rashidi and Shaikh Ahmed Sirhindi were written outside of court influence and hence contain more authentic information and less flattery for Akbar" POV, Who says so?
Have you had a chance to read Abul Fazal, and Badayuni? Please do read them. More random musing (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Authentic" is a POV of a scholar (may be reflect universal view) and it should be should so. Add name of the scholar in the text. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rajput Wives
Reference is given. R Nath is a noted historian. More random musing (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Remove all unreferenced statements --NotedGrant Talk 11:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Taxation on Hindus
Reference is given in the article. Noted historian Iqtidar Alam Khan says this. Please DO READ the references. More random musing (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not explicitly stated in the text. POV of scholar (may be reflect universal view). Add name of the scholar in the text.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added names of the scholars. More random musing (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blockquote

Why is this blockquote thing placed throughout the article I think it needs to be removed --NotedGrant Talk 11:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Excessive reliance of quotes in the article is possibly WP:UNDUE and has a tendency toward WP:OR. Akbar is a much studied person and the article needs to focus on accepted facts, interpretations, and theories and does not need to be bolstered by quotes. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I'll try removing those which violate wp:undue --NotedGrant Talk 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage alliances

I have moved this to an entirely new section as it is quite a significant policy having political as well as religious importance. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the motivation to move it away from relations with hindus? More random musing (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no motivation per se - as I pointed out above, it has political significance as well as religious significance. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sociolgical significance is also quite significant and that is why MRP's quote is non-sequitir in millitary section. More random musing (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the sociologiocal significance? If there is any, please mention it with a reference. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you're also mixing up two unrelated issues - if there is any sociological significance, that is all the more reason to move it out of the section dealing with religion alone. MRP's quote (which is the subject of another thread above) is unrelated to creating a separate section for matrimonial alliances. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting tiremsome because your POV is not letting you understand what the citation is saying. The quote from Tod is clear on the sociolgical aspect. What is that you are not following? Cant seem to understand that the stopping of marriage etiquette and the schism in society of Hindus is not important enough to be mentioned in this article. More random musing (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article lead

  • "Akbar was an artisan, warrior, artist, armourer, blacksmith, carpenter, emperor, general, inventor, animal trainer (reputedly keeping thousands of hunting cheetahs during his reign and training many himself), lacemaker, technologist and theologian.": It is an absurd sequence: emperor which is most important identity is 7th in a list and his other attributes portray as though he was a artisan, blacksmith, carpenter, these arts are not his primary profession, they need not be stated in the lead.
  • Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya: His common name Hemu is enough.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the first two {{fact}} tags from the lede as the information contained in those sections is substantiated in the section on military achievements. I have also restored the {{underconstruction}} tag to the top of the article and made some minor changes to the wording of the lead. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar -- the Great?

Does the title of this article strike anyone else as Odd? Who exactly calls Akbar Akbar the Great? I have studied Mughal history of decades and have never heard him referred to this way except as an amusing or ironic nickname. Shouldn't this article be moved to Akbar? --Nemonoman (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So says PBS!--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right -- exactly: it's the kind of thing you put in a movie title or a book title, or use as the handle for a professional wrestler. But in a biography? It's a bizarre idea to have this epithet be title of this encyclopedia article. Q: What's Akbar the Great's middle name? A: The. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar T. Great. Nice name! However, the question is what is he better known as Akbar, or Akbar the Great? (I have no idea but it is probably worth checking a few histories to figure this out.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Britannica Akbar (Mughal Emperor)
  • Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin Akbar the Great [2]
  • Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava Akbar the Great [3]
  • Vincent Smith Akbar, the Great Mogul (qualified greatness)
  • British Musuem Quarterly Emperor Akbar [4]
  • Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin Emperor Akbar [5] (Same author as above but different preference)
  • Forget it. Just plain old Akbar or Akbar, the Mogul Emperor wins hands down on JSTOR. Akbar has 7550 matches (includes other Akbars but a quick scan shows that it is mostly the mogul) while "Akbar the great" nets a mere 9. I say move it to Akbar or Akbar (Mughal Emperor). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other single-named Akbars of note, and no Akbar disambiguation page, so Akbar should do it.--Nemonoman (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let a few other people weigh in. If it's not contentious, then we can move it without a formal RM. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what about WP precedent on Ashoka the Great and Alexander the Great? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is independent of Ashoka and Alex. The question that we need to answer is whether Akbar is commonly known as Akbar the Great, Emperor Akbar, or just Akbar. Using scholarly sources (jstor and titles of biographies) it appears that 'the Great' is not commonly attached to Akbar. I'm not going to comment on Alexander (one look at the talk page tells me that any comment will be contentious!) but I'm not sure if Ashoka is commonly referred to as the Great. But, that's a different story and should be handled separately. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I too am surprised by the "the Great" attached to the titles of Ashoka and Akbar. These are not supported by the vast majority of secondary sources that I have seen. Neither are the honorifics needed for disambigiution purposes, since Akbar and Ashoka redirect to the Akbar the Great and Ashoka the Great respectively. (The case of Alexander is not as straightforward, with respect to both the secondary sources and disambiguation arguments). FWIW, Britannica uses the titles Akbar (Mughal Emperor), Ashoka (emperor of India) and Alexander the Great for its three articles. Abecedare (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indian textbooks use Akbar the great. I searched for akbar and akbar the greatAkbar (Mughal Emperor) 'akbar the great' gave results related to the mughal emperor Akbar while 'akbar' gives some unrelated results .I think the articles should not be moved--NotedGrant Talk 15:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Search google scholar for 'Akbar' in the title (rather than a general search). The results are almost exclusively about the emperor. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was noted above that "Akbar the Great" is used in some book titles, etc. If "the Great" was added to the name to disambiguate from some other Akbar (as the Catholic saint "Alfred the Great" is distinguished from "Alfred the Lesser" or "Ethelred the Unready" is named so to distinguish him from numerous Ethelreds who WERE ready, then I could see using "the Great" as the title of the article. As it is Akbar redirects here, and it makes it seem that "Akbar" is a secondary usage, and the proper name of the man is Akbar the Great. IMO, it should be the other way round. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar in Urdu means "Great". It is his name so do not see why the english synonym for the urdu word should be in the title of the article. More random musing (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't translate names into English but use the most common English language term that is used to identify the person. If, in normal English language usage, the person is normally referred to as Akbar, then Akbar it is. If he is referred to as 'Akbar the Great', then we may use Akbar the Great. The evidence seems to prefer Akbar over Akbar the Great.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. Though Akbar the Great came into vogue when historians of British East India company started translating persian/Urdu texts. More random musing (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it then a tautology? ie "Great the great". Like saying "ATM machine" or "Mount Fujyama"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.111 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I am troubled by many of the sources used in this article, which are often primary sources such as (near) contemporaneous accounts of Akbar's reign, or histories written in the 19th-early 20th century, which though groundbreaking for their time, are now not held in such high regard. For example, I think the following sources should be used with care, and only as a supplement to more modern academic histories:

  • Fazl, Abul. Akbarnama
  • Commentary of Father Monserrate, S.J: On his journey to the court of Akbar
  • Badauni, Abd al-Qadir. Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh
  • James Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han or the Central and Western Rajpoot States of India
  • Ottoman court chroniclers (1588). Muhimme Defterleri, Vol. 62 f 205 firman 457, Avail Rabiulavval 996.
  • MacLagan, Edward ; (1932). The Jesuits and the Great Mogul. Burns, Oates & Washbourne. p. 60.
  • Vincent Arthur Smith's histories
  • Koka,Aziz (1594). King's College Collection, MS 194.
  • Conder, Josiah (1828). The Modern Traveller: a popular description.
  • Humayun nama

(not an exhaustive list). Note that though many of these sources cite relatively recent publication dates, but the sources are actually 100-300+ years old. Abecedare (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are pertinent. Please point out exactly what is the issue with each citation. More random musing (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:PSTS, as well as comments below. If you need to learn more about the appropriate use of primary sources on wikipedia a query at WP:RSN may help. Abecedare (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the section below on Primary and secondary sources. All primary sources in this article have been picked from secondary sources. I am in the process of adding them in. More random musing (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Abecedare that these sources should be used with caution. From the list, the primary sources (Fazl, Badauni, et al) should not be used at all in the article. Later histories, such as by Vincent Smith, should be used with care. Modern historians rely on both these types of sources in their works so there is little need to refer back to a hundred year old text. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may also add, given the multiplicity of editions of older texts, it is very hard to verify material in this article. For example, I have access to a 1958 edition of the Smith text but not the 2002 edition referenced in the article and the cited page numbers are meaningless. One concern that I have with the article in its current state is that cited statements may not be placed in their proper context. For example, I noticed that pieces of text from the Habib 1997 reference are often reproduced, almost verbatim, in the article, without the context surrounding them in the Habib text. I fear that this may often be the case and we need to do some rigorous source checking. That task is rendered almost impossible because of the reliance on older texts. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There was a massive amount of synthesis prevalent in the article as plenty of the older sources had been cited out of context, but I think that has been substantially addressed over the past couple of days. The problem now lies with primary sources - do any of you have access to them? I can access Akbarnama but the rest are beyond my reach. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem (and neither does WP:PRIMARY with the careful use of primary sources, provided that they are used to illustrate or illumine a point, and not used to suggest or draw conclusions. The Jahangir quote, for example, would be OK as primary source under this guideline (that said -- it isn't a very illuminating quote and I look for its removal for THAT reason). --Nemonoman (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is okay to add quotes from primary sources (in moderation), if a modern secondary source uses that quote to make a relevant point. What this article often does, and what is not acceptable on wikipedia, is picking quotes from primary sources or old histories without concern of relevance or due weight, and often to push a POV. This is simple quote-mining and wikipedia editors should not be in the business of reading 200-300 year old sources to assess what is illuminating and likely to be true - that is what secondary sources are for. Akbar has been subject of considerable modern scholarship, so there is no real excuse for using primary sources or outdated histories. Abecedare (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How reliable is the Dalpat Vilas? Besides being a primary source, only fragments of it have been recovered, so the manuscript as it exists now would probably not portray a complete picture of the time. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is up with "Relations with the Ottoman Empire"

What a MESS.

  • It's about a lot of topics -- Ottoman Empire, Akbar's elevation to Caliph, A's loss of religious faith, his relations with the Portuguese. Yikes.
  • About 80% of the "facts" are dubious at best. For example, in the text, the editor states that events in 1580 inspired Akbar to become designated Caliph, and this got done in 1579. So I guess Akbar was a Time Traveler as well as a lace maker.

I've been doing copyediting and cleanup here and there, but this section is a rat's nest that needs a scholar's efforts. Please help?--Nemonoman (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you feel "80% of the facts are dubious at best". Your edits have been reverted. More random musing (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV OR

To add to the sourcing issues mentioned above, the article also suffers from considerable POV OR that extends what the sources say. Some examples:

  • "He founded a religious cult, the Din-i-Ilahi (Divine Faith), but it amounted only to a form of personality cult for Akbar, and quickly dissolved after his death." This is sourced Fazl, Abul. Akbarnama. I haven't seen the source yet (since no edition, page number etc is specified; but I highly doubt Fazl used the descriptor "personality cult".
  • The subsection "The name Akbar" is based on this footnote 91 of The commentary of Father Monserrate, S.J. on his journey to the court of Akbar, which in turn is based on kbar the Great Mogul, 1542-1605 By Vincent Arthur Smith (page 18-19), but is not a really accurate representation of the sources.
  • "Akbar spread Islam in India by waging a holy war (Jihad) against Hindu kings. Carthaginian on gaining ... mysterious number." This whole paragraph is a close copy of text from Tod's Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, page 71-72, which is ~200 years old, and the first sentence on Jihad has been attached without any sourcing.

These are just a few examples; the whole article needs to be scrubbed to improve sourcing and reduce such POV pushing. Abecedare (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the situation illustrated in your third point above a violation of WP:COPYVIO? Also, please clarify where the line between citing sources and plagiarising them is drawn. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a look, and it's not a copyvio in my estimate. The question is moot because the item is question is out of copyright -- but even if it were, the source has been rewritten and the quantity of similar material is reasonably short. It's reasonable to have had a minor rewrite, since the source material is archaic, and the rewrite means the source can't be quoted with quote marks. Also the source is cited, and there is no attempt to palm off another's work as original. For WP guidelines look here.--Nemonoman (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are copyvios either. The main problem with the article is that these 'almost verbatim' quotes are used out of context, often to illustrate a point that is contrary to what the author intended. Almost every source needs to be cross-checked. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No its not copyvio. But copying distinctive phrasing, such as "eternise the memory" and "is invoked on him who violates a letter under the safeguard of this mysterious number", is plagiarism. However, as RP mentioned, copyvio/plagiarism is besides the point. This whole paragraph is poorly sourced, and presented without context and at undue length. If we had a reliable source for the events, the incident could be summarized something as, "Akbar marked his success at Chittor by collecting the sacred thread from the necks of the defeated Rajputs; the spoils weighed up to "74.5 man" (40 kg)". Abecedare (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was addressing was copyvio ONLY -- I agree that the sourcing of this article is unconscionable and must be fixed. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From your lips to God's ear. I fear that this article is ragout of history, legend, and agenda-pushing. If someone can help straighten out the facts, I think we can push back into reasonably good shape. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and add more reliably sourced facts over the next few days - particularly in the sections dealing with Akbar's religious policy. Simultaneously, we must weed out all the spurious references. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matrimonial Alliances Section

Speaking of POV, take a look at the Matrimonial Alliances section and help me out. As is probably apparent from my previous work, I am a typical insensitive middle-aged American male. I've learned the hard way that some articles are surrogate battlefields for long-standing disputes. I've learned to identify the aroma of these sorts of disputes, even when I have no clue what the dispute is about. The Matrimonial Alliances section has got the aroma. Is this section masking some sort of back-story about the Rajputs and Mughals or the Hindus and the Muslims or something? Is that why it's so wordy and confusing? Is that why there are so many seemingly unnecessary details? Is this section a minefield, or just a poorly written mess? Insensitive middle-aged American Males want to know!! --Nemonoman (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. This section shows the view of the hindus on the issue of matrimonial alliance with the mughals. More random musing (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relations with Hindus

Good lord...What a disaster. Even if the sources presented offered more than angry recitation of hearsay masquerading as fact, the sheer volume of these dubious assertions is WP:UNDUE weight and then some. Holy cow. I'm going to be editing that section with a machete, not a scalpel. I'd be glad if any of the historians editing this article could provide some relevant and verifiable citations. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove sourced material. If you feel it is WP:UNDUE please justify your POV, develop a consensus with other editors and then make the edits. More random musing (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All editors

Please work on a section at a time. Develop consensus with others and then incorporate all the changes. It is very difficult to have conversations over many sections simultaneously. Thanks. More random musing (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the names of historians to the Taxation section. More random musing (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Stop trying to own this article

You are being bold in reverting large amounts of work done by me and other editors. It is very unlikely that each of my edits was worthy of reverting, yet you have done so without discussion. See the history section: I described my reasons for each change in the edit summaries for the change. I discussed changes before I made them, and I built on comments and consensus in the discussion page...which consensus is contrary to your personal views. In my opinion you have done wrong with your "deep revert"; you have reverted to a disastrous version from a much better version of the article. You appear to have no understanding of what constitutes a reliable source or what undue weight means.
I will not be editing this article any more unless my edits have been restored. If you have problems with them, fix them individually, not with a deep revert. You have taken WP:OWNERship of this article and not to Wikipedia's benefit.
Sayonara. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you have a POV that your edits were better then mine. I don't have a problem with that. Every one of us is free to feel they are better then others. But that is not the point. Since you have removed sourced matter that I had added to the article you should discuss the rationale on why you are deleting matter. Take the example of what you call WP:UNDUE. It is fine for you to feel something is WP:UNDUE but please justify it develop a consensus and then add the changes. More random musing (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too find User:More random musing (MRM) practice of blind and deep reverts unacceptable especially since the user has been warned about such disruption before. The edits that Nemonoman made are consistent with the discussion above by multiple editors about the poor sourcing and POV issues with this article; a discussion that MRM did not participate in. It is understandable if MRM disagree with some of Nemonoman's edits and discusses or even reverts them piecemeal with an explanatory talk-page comment, but blind reverts are unhelpful and disruptive. I will revert his recent undoing of substantial improvements to the article, and suggest he discuss his edits, which are in large part incompatible with wikipedia policies (RS, UNDUE, NPOV) and current talk page consensus. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC) PS: User:Deepak D'Souza beat me to the edit. Abecedare (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn .. I have heard this rant before from you. You have no issues in other editors removing matter without any justification but you will single me out for your censure. Fine I can live with that. Though it would be helpful if you could answer the question I asked you about your comments on Prumary sources mentioned in this article. More random musing (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you remember our previous discussion on the topic. :-)
I have added a short answer to your question on primary sources above. PS: It is most useful if you place your comments at the end of a thread, else they are likley to be overlooked. See WP:TPG for useful guidelines. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your response and I had already responded to your line of enquiry. You can read about it if you scroll above. Just to repeat all primary references that I have added have been quoted from secondary sources. It would be very easy for me to add the secondary source from which the primary sources have been gleamed. I hope this would rest your objection. More random musing (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whats even more curious is his hypocrisy. He insists on "consensus" whenever other editors add content, but feels no need to get consensus for his edits. Anything that doesn't have his stamp of approval doesn't constitute consensus --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I insist on consensus when other editors delete material that I have added without engaging in any discussion whatsoever. For example Nemonoman deleted contents from Relation with Hindus section and left a comment [6]. I merely asked him to justify what he thought was WP:UNDUE. Similarly I can cite more instances where editors are just too trigger happy and delete sourced matter without giving other people a chance to respond.
And as far as your editing behavior in the past you had called some references fake even without reading them. Take a look here: [7] and your edits were reverted [8] and you never came back with which references were fake. You could have a POV or an agenda to call other people's work/edits fake but till such time you stand behind your allegations you cannot be taken seriously. More random musing (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very glad if MRM would take the trouble to review my edits to the Relations with Hindus section. I made them one by one, not in block, specifically to state the reasons for each edit.

Many of the edits removed primary source material. WP doesn't accept primary sources in most instances. The portions I removed should demonstrate the intelligence of this policy.

I also removed numerous passages that were off-topic. The section is called "Relations with Hindus", but a lot of the section discussed the back and forth of Akbar and the Rajputs. I understand that the Rajputs were mostly Hindus, but Akbars actions and attitudes toward the Rajputs might certainly have been motivated by factors other than their religion, and vice versa. In a struggle between political and military powers religion may have played a part on both sides, but the sources did not clarify Akbar's religious relations vs his political and military relations with these groups.

I removed mention of incidents involving one of Akbar's generals. I removed mention of the desecration of Akbar's tomb about a century after he died. I removed ambiguous and incedniary primary source quotes.

Also I cleaned up a ton of bad writing.

And at each point I explained what I had done in my edit summaries.

Earlier, I had read and been involved in discussions of primary vs secondary sources, where consensus was reached to use secondary sources and avoid primary sources. I read and joined in discussions about POV and Undue Weight. So I understood the territory and the consensus being built for improvement strategies. Before I began, I noted on this page the problems I found with the section, and what I intended to do about it. I'll note that MRM stood alone in these discussions in an stubborn refusal to accept the consensus opinions. So I'm not surprised that he now claims no consensus was reached. Indeed it had been and other opinions than his had prevailed.

What I sense here is a clear case of WP:OWNERship. Deep reverting is NOT an acceptable response. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a review of one of your earliest edits to the relations section.
    1. [9] Here you have deleted matter sourced from a primary source which appeared in a secondary source (both cited in the matter you deleted) with a comment " the section is "relation with hindus" not mistreatment of Rajputs. Sheesh.".
The problem with your edit is that rajputs who were mistreated belonged to the Hindu race and you missed that connection.
So your comment really is based on bad assumption that perhaps rajputs were not Hindus so it does not hold.
I have also clarified that the sourced material you deleted was from a secondary source which was quoting a primary source which is what wikipedia policy is. More random musing (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus are you talking about? If you read the section below on primary and secondary sources it should be clear to you that Nemonoman's edits were incorrect and he has admitted so. Please do not engage in reverting.More random musing (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above editor in question has reverted once more, but I'm not reverting back, I'll let someone else do it. He does not seem to understand the concept of consensus nor does he understand other guidelines that other editors have explained to him. At this point, I'd say that this pattern of tendentious editing is very disruptive, and I'd encourage considering some alternative measures including a topic ban or 1RR restriction. -SpacemanSpiff 17:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MRM writes above Nemonoman's edits were incorrect and he has admitted so. It's just astonishing to me how MRM seems unable to interpret direct simple English. My edits were entirely correct and in keeping with WP guidelines and talk page consensus. I suggested that MRM might wish to defend his view that some of my changes should not have been made. So I guess that means I've admitted taht my edits were incorrect? Puh-lease. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out the glaring mistake in your very first edit to the relations section. Need I say more? More random musing (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary vs Secondary Source Confusion

Let me clarify: except in rare instances Don't quote primary sources. That the primary source was included or referenced in a secondary source doesn't change or alter this official WP guideline. So:

Example: I'm writing an article on Casey Stengel, and using the reference "Casey Stengel: Threat or Menace" by Joe Blow.

Good use of Joe Blow as a secondary source:

As Joe Blow points out in his book, Joe Dimaggio hated Stengel.

Bad use of Joe Blow as a secondary source.

Joe Dimaggio had contempt for Stengel:

"Stengel is a dick." -- Joe Dimaggio (from a contemporary news article quoted in Joe Blow's book).

The Dimaggio quote is a PRIMARY SOURCE, not to be used except in rare instances. You couldn't use the quote if it had appeared in a news article only. That is appears in Joe BLow's book doesn't change its nature. It's still a primary source.

As Casey Stengel used to say

You could look it up.

--Nemonoman (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point. If we read WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS it makes it clear:

Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

In the discussion at hand Dr. Dasharatha Sharma's interpretation (secondary source) of Dalpat Vilas (primary source) falls within the purview of wikipedia guideline.More random musing (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be reasonable to discuss specific instances where a primary source may be used with care. And it may be that I have removed some primary source or other that could be defended and reinstated in the article. I got accused of running roughshod because I removed many of these primary sources, however. Re-reading the guidelines and the long discussions on this page, I believe I worked in accordance with WP principles and discussion consensus. I think it is up to you to defend inclusion now, however, rather than up to me to defend the exclusion of so many primary sources. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that many editors deleted lot of referenced material without engaging in a meaningful discussion on the talk page. So onus is on those who have deleted material to defend the deletions. So I am restoring the article to my last save.More random musing (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incident report

I have filed an incident report here. I hope we can bring some adminship into the conflicting views of how editing should proceed; i.e. MRM's and everybody else's. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

hi

I also find considerable issue with the supposed "flag of the Mughals" and the additional text which says it inspired the Pakistani flag.There is no evidence that the Mughal ensigns in Akbar's period resembled anything close to that (I doubt this was the case later either since the fish standard would later become the main symbol of the Mughals from the 17th Century until the end of the Mughal empire in 1858) ,I suspect yet more historical revisionism which is already commonplace in this page. --Azeem Ali (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "inspired the Pakistan flag" bit as it is is a very silly inference. Both derive from the Crescent of Islam rather than Pakistan flag being inspired from the Mughal flag(if this flag is correct). Im not an expert in Mughal history or flags so I will leave the rest. you may consider adding a {{fact}} tag to the statement to ask for a citation for the statement. If no one comes up with a ref for say 2-4 weeks you can go ahead and remove the image from this article. IMO, it is not revisionism as much as over-eagerness to add flags to every historical article.--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a separate article on the Flag of the Mughal Empire (which, incidentally, does not use the image in question). IMHO, discussion on the flag should be centralised at that article's talk page and accordingly the image can be retained or replaced on all the (numerous) pages where it is currently in use. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objective History

I suppose no one can be objective in their writing of history but should at least possess some knowledge about the history that they happen to be writing. It seems that whoever wrote this article has no knowledge of Mughal history. Some of the most obvious mistakes that I can point out just off the top of my head would be the fact the Akbar was in fact a very tolerant Muslim who was raised in a Ratput household, he was also the first Mughal emperor who could speak fluent Hindi, his "personal cult" was a theoretical merger of the religions of the Indian subcontinent. Presumptuously speaking it could also be said the Akbar was an atheist seeing as his proposed religious doctrine (Dīn-i Ilāhī) recognized no god or prophet. As far as most well known historians are concerned no one called "Shaikh Ali Akbar" existed. The exact nature of the Mughal flag has never been confirmed and Akbar did not just "admit" Rajput princesses into his harem but made several political and personal marriages and all royal Muslim women lived in a "harem" at the time.

The list of errors in this article could go on for several pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitadhami (talk • contribs) 13:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Din ilahi vs islam

This article looks pretty stupid and confusing right now because on one hand it says Akbar was muslim. On the other hand it says he created a new syncretic religion called dinillahi.

The two are not synonymous and somone needs to edit this. 78.146.102.41 (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death

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)[reply]

Removing the POV tag

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Akbar&oldid=396363479"