Talk:Akbar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Profile

Akbar stands tall among the kings who ruled India. He was the greatest of the Moguls, the Muslim dynasty that dominated India between the early 16th and 18th centuries.

Akbar was exposed to the battles and powers of rule from a young age. Akbar inherited the throne, after the sudden death of his father king Humayun, at the age of 13, in 1556. In 1579 he abolished the Jizya, a tax imposed on all but the poorest non-Muslims. This was the most notable in a series of measures to recruit the Hindu majority and others to the cause of unifying and expanding his empire. He defeated an impregnable Hindu fortress in Rajasthan and went on to marry the Rajput princess Padmini, who was permitted to conduct Hindu rites in the harem.

Akbar's religious tolerance strengthened his empire and earns him his special place in history. He is credited with innovations in textiles and artillery alike. Himself an illiterate man, perhaps because of dyslexia, he loved learning and disputation. His administrative and fiscal innovations underpinned it for a century after his death. He patronized such scholars as Birbal, Abul Fazl and Tansen. He was subject to bouts of melancholy and what were probably epileptic fits early in life. He saw these as spiritual experiences; and perhaps they gave his curiosity a religious twist.

As his reign progressed Akbar moved ever further from Islamic orthodoxy. He built a capital, Fatehpur Sikri, around the tomb of a Sufi (Islamic mystic) saint who had prophesied the birth of his heir. Later he took to inviting clerics from various religions, including Portuguese Jesuits from Goa, to debate their faiths.

Eventually, Akbar came up with his own ``religion of God, more a fraternal order, headed by himself, than a religion, based on a creed of harmony among peoples and a practice that involved making disciples of his leading nobles. Unsurprisingly, Muslim clerics saw this as blasphemy. Eventually, it became official policy to discourage, if not to prohibit, Islamic forms of prayer. Akbar paid the price in an abortive rebellion by his son, claiming to be a defender of the faith. Akbar softened towards Islam thereafter, and is thought to have died, in 1605, a Muslim, not an apostate.

His descendants, most notably, the deeply bigoted great-grandson Aurangzeb overturned the religious tolerance Akbar had established for the Mogul Government. Aurangjeb tore down Hindu temples and revived the Jijya--and a Hindu consciousness that after his death was to help pull the Mogul empire apart, weaken India, and let in the British.

References

Rizvi S.A.., The Wonder That was India -II, Rupa , 1993

National Geographic, When the Moguls Ruled, Vol 167, No 4, 1985

Schulberd L, and Editors of TIME-LIFE, Historic India, Time-Life, 1968

J.T. Wheeler, Wheeler's India, Peter Fenelon Collier, 1858 Babur Nama, The memoirs of Babur, Portfolio of 16th century miniatures, Archeological Survey of India Economist, 12/31/99, Vol. 353 Issue 8151, Millennium issue p63, 2p, 1c.

When did he defeat Hemu?

November 5 of what year did Akbar defeat Hemu??

Who says Hemu was low-caste warrior? He was a high caste Bainiya- Jain.Johnhardcastle 05:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a rehash of the 1911 Britannica entry?

Khalid B. 13:49, 2004 Jan 27 (UTC) The article at present is a rewording from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. http://5.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AK/AKBAR.htm. That article says: "In religion he was at first a Mussulman, but the intolerant exclusiveness of that creed was quite foreign to his character" and "Scepticism as to the divine origin of the Koran led him to seek the true religion in an eclectic system". This wording is biased, and is typical of writings at the time when dealing with "foreign" religions or cultures.

A more realistic view is that Akbar tried to make religions live in harmony in his multi-ethnic, multi-religious realm. He established the Ibadat Khana and and held disputations between various religions (see Din-e-Ilahi), but was appalled by the animosity between the officials of each religion. The Portuguese Jesuits tried to convert him, and were not interest in a debate. The Muslim clerics were too traditional. Perhaps he was too tolerant for his time, but he was Muslim and died a Muslim never the less.

Should the article be revised? I like someone who is more familiar with Indian history to verify the above.

akbar's elephant judge/executioner

I seem to recall in an earlier version of Wiki [Crushing by elephant] [1] a reference to Akbar the Great's practice of using his favored elephant as judge for criminal trials. The defendant would place his head on a pedastal, the elephant would place it's foot on his head, some ceremony of statements, then the elephant would decide whether or not to crush the head of the prisoner. If he chose not to, the prisoner was set free. Perhaps this was removed do to historical unprovableness, but I think it is an interesting factoid. Also it would be interesting to know the name of the elephant.

viz [2] quote [...is Akbar's "Elephant Judge" story from Ein-e-Akbari or from British accounts? --Das]

Name of elephant: probably 'Kal-yug ka Hathi!' (joking). Interesting life for an elephant, probably remembered every guys face it smashed to pudding :)

hydkat 09:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Life in Hell

Is the reference to a comic strip (Life in Hell) about gay rabbits appropriate in the See also section for a historical figure? It seems very strange. Ornil 04:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Assuming honest intentions, it was probably intended as a sort of disambiguation link to the Matt Groening comic strip character named Akbar. But there's probably a better way to disambiguate these two figures... Pinkville 16:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nine Famous Courtiers Of Akbar

Let's not get revisionist, shall we? The Persian and Urdu and, I dare say, Hindustani phrase is nau-rathan. "nava rathna" is a poor transliteration from a reverse-Sanskritization. In South Asian literature and poetry, they are referred to as "nau-rathan".—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

eating

I have read that Akbar ate one meal a day, at no fixed time, but expected a hundred dishes ready within the hour when he was ready to eat. Also, I have read that his hunting camp was larger than the London of his day. Also, why in the hell is there a See Also link to a comic strip? Is this a way to mock the greatest Mogul Emperor, who surely surpassed any king of Europe within a thousand years?

mountain crimpets?

Suzy gave him AIDS? Mountain Crimpets? Lives for a thousand years? Seems like "His Life" and "Religion" have been edited for fun I would love to help but all I have is a text book and some lecture notes.

Crimpet Religion

um...i did a little bit of fixing on the religion section... its as close to the original as i could remember, going off some notes i took in class from the _original_ article, not this messed up new one...

Last Name?

What's Akbar's last name? Here it is: Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbár

Accent Marks

I don't know who added all of the obnoxious little accent marks, but it was a pain to get rid of them. First of all, a MACRON is used to signify the long a in Persian and Urdu, not an accent égu. Secondly, I'm not sure if I should've bothered ot replace them, as neither is explicitly necessary for non-phonetic orthography. Should I just change thme to regular letters?

Dlayiga 22:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the style guidelines suggest no accent marks (for example, Indian Cities, no accent marks, etc.) Please remove them, if you have the time! Thanks. --Nemonoman 22:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No Problem.!Dlayiga 22:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. When I read the article they were there in some places and not others. I won't do it again! Gwaka Lumpa 12:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Personality of Akbar

Hello,

This part of the article just eulogises the man, it repeats praises heaped on him by old and contemporary authors. Could someone give something more substantial with citations?

I could paste my 9'th class history textbook section on akbar.. but then you won't be able to tell the difference- its written the same way. It does have a additional bit that says his favorite hobbies were hunting with cheetas and flying pigeons... I'm serious!

hydkat 19:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope i have added something --IndianCow 08:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph, which is very POV and which cites sources of doubtful objectivity.--Nemonoman 02:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is also believed that even though he did not practice sodomy, he had allowed it to be practiced by his servants, courtiers. Accounts of the same has been also mentioned by Abdul Fazal in Ain-e-Akbari. Akbar's harem was well known for his occupants. Most of them were daughters of Hindu rulers for the northern areas of Rajasthan, mainly Rajputs. He inducted the queens and daughters of abducted or killed Hindu kings and warriors into his harem. Virgins were given and entry and others were considered disqualified and were supposed work as slaves.

eww! what kind of a sick twisted person would put that up in a history encyclopedia article??

hydkat 07:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference and Notes

Please use the following style for your references...with this you have type it only once and need not have to set up the link at the bottom. Where ever you want to place the reference just copy paste format and instead of --Type the Reference Text and Link -- please type your reference text and provide external link, if available online.

<ref>--Type the Reference Text and Link --</ref>

The best example is article Khalistan--IndianCow 08:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy (and Relevance) of Quote??

From the article:

Even Abul Fazl has highlighted his majesty's love for wine and women. Historians have different opinion on the text mentioned in Ain-i-Akbari. Many refer it as the mention of Emperor's care and affection to protect women, especially virgins. His administrative excellence to manage the affaris even though he had permitted wine and prostituion near the palace. However his critics does not subscribe to these views, many consider him otherwise.

".. His majesty has established a wine shop near the palace ... The prostitues of the realm collected at the shop could scarcely be counter, so large was their number .. The dancing girls used to be taken home by the courtiers. If any well known courtier wanted to have a virgin they should first have His Majesty's [Akbar's] permission. In the same way, boys prostituted themselves, and drunkeness and ignorance soon lead to bloodshed ... His Majesty [Akbar] himself called some of the prostitutes and asked them who had deprived them of their virginity?" translation of selected text from Ain-i-Akbari written by Abdul Fazal in Persian. Translated by H. Blochmann [2]

affaris == affairs?

prosituion == prostitution?

However his critics does not subscribe to these views== His critics do not subscribe to these views?

prostitues == prostitutes?

counter == counted?

soon lead to bloodshed == soon led to bloodshed?

asked them who had deprived them of their virginity? == asked them who had deprived them of their virginity. (period, not question mark?)

Can someone who has the source material verify these apparent misspellings, and either correct them, or put (sic) after them, thus indicating that the misspellings are thus in the source. Like:

The prostitues (sic) of the realm...

I apologize it was my mistake. Typo ;). Well, While typing all that stuff in a hurry.. I messed it up. Hope it looks better now. I thank Nemonoman (talk · contribs) for bringing out these errors. IndianCow 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Indian cow --Nemonoman 14:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambig notice...

Was the Star Wars character only included because he might have been named after Akbar? I have never seen his name even misspelt this way... elvenscout742 17:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Family

Was one of his son called Daniel Doctor Bruno 17:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it is spelled and pronounced "Daniyal." Please put comments at the bottom of the talk-page (not the top). ImpuMozhi 19:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Just learning the rules of the game. Sorry for the trouble. Doctor Bruno 13:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

removing Category:Polygamists

I believe adding this category is a bias. He was a Mughal Emperor, and like most ruler s in his category had a harem. Polygamy in its real sense wasn't a choice he made, it was simply the way things were. --hydkat 16:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Akbar

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

Hi. Forgive me for not knowing what I'm doing, but I want to alert more capable editors that there's been vandalism here. A subtitle should say something like "early conquests," and on the editing page it does, but on the reading page it says "suck it leah." I don't know how to fix that.

- well, maybe I've fixed it, to my surprise!

Wyote, November 58.233.70.208 17:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Fail

I am failing this due to lack of references. The lead contains more then the body

• still stands[2], external jump
• Several one sentence paragraphs
• Akbar in media - is basically a trivia section convert it from a list to a paragraph or two
• Three citation needed tags

Try get a reference for every paragraph. M3tal H3ad 02:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dis Bullshit

I be real Akbar. Akbar Abdul Mohammad Mohammad. Why dis Akbar get article and no me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.52.148.49 (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Infobox

I think we can have an infobox about the Mughal Empire/Emperors. It might help bring things into perspective.--Madhu 17:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Akbar's religion

It is mentioned that he founded a new religion, Dheen Ihahi. Why this article is categorized as Muslims ? --59.93.35.82 05:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First Sentence

I changed the first sentence because it conveyed an implication inconsistent with the article (and common sense). The dependent clause “Though only 13 when he ascended to the throne” suggests that Akbar’s impressive reputation is surprising, given that he was made king so young. Why should this be the case? According to the previous sentence, he ruled for over 50 years. Indeed, a conjunction of “greatness” and “early ascension” would only be surprising if he had died or been deposed in adolescence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The blackbird is involved (talk • contribs) 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Quick-failed

This article doesn't have enough references and there's unreferenced tag. So it should be failed on the basis of Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#How to review an article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Akbar -> Akbar the Great

Why do you keep moving the article? It's completely pointless. number29^(Talk) 06:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Akbar/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

has unreferenced sections plange 04:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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.[3] 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)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Bias

Sweta fails at life. This article has clear bias as is the article you are currently reading. 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)

Please do develop consensus here on the talk page with other editors before making large scale changes. This blurb from the article "Historian Dasharatha Sharma says that we are prone to idealise Akbar's reign with court histories like Akbarnama and give Akbar more then his due" . 59.92.150.104 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan national and mughal flag

Does anyone know if the pakistan flag was inspired by the mughal flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.193.24 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

not at all,Abu Fazl in Plate 19 of H Blochmann's edition of Volume I Ain-i-Akbari actually shows the Mughal flag with a sun insignia and in yet another source in Page 10 of Francis Robinson's The Mughal Emperors and the Islamic Dynasties of India,Iran and Central Asia,where Dara Shikoh's wedding procession is shown the Shir o Korshid is clearly shown with the lion sitting in front of the sun in typical Irani fashion,here is the image that I am referring to:

[4]

a close up of the flag from Francis Robinson's book on the Mughal emperors:

[5]

I hope that someone changes the flag soon to reflect these historical sources and not nationalism (which I suspect is the source of the current flag on Wikipedia)

If a 2D artist can be contacted on wikipedia then this historically inaccuracy of the Mughal flag in Wikipedia can be corrected.

deuterium_1 29th June 2009 02:47 (UTC) Azeem Ali (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Severe bias in this article

The revisionist history manifest in the article is deplorable. It completely contradicts Wikipedia's ideal of a free, unbiased, and accurate source of information for everyone. I use Wikipedia with my students, and I am shocked to see Hindu fundamentalist propaganda being displayed here in one of its ugliest forms. William Dalrymple's The Last Mughal and White Mughals provides ample documentation of the hybrid and highly accepting nature of Akbar's rule. Interested readers can find modern interpretations of Akbar's secularism and democratic principles in Amartya Sen's The Argumentative Indian.

Whoever wrote the piece, especially the part about the purported "Jihad against Hindus", should be banned from Wikipedia. The writing in this section is thinly-veiled racism and Islamophobia that fuels inter-ethnic and inter-religious tensions in India and elsewhere. To promote it is irresponsible at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.251.130 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When I read this article, I get the feeling that whoever edited this article is trying to portray Akbar as rather communal minded while at the same time declaring that he had left Islam.So it does contradict itself and is biased at the same time.I can try to take up the task of correcting the historical errors of the article.

deuterium_1 29th June 2009 02:49 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuterium 1 (talk • contribs)

this has got to be one of the worst ever wikipedia articles on any historical figure. it is full of inaccuracies and even outright lies and slanders. in many instances it slanders emperor akbar giving references to important books documenting his reign (for instance the book of Father Monserrate) so as to feign historical accuracy; but the slanderous facts given (for instance the claim that he was hostile to hindus and destroyed many hindu temples; or that he had temporarily reinstated the jaziya) are complete lies and not to be found in the references. The mind boggles at the extent to which the some people will go to demonize Emperor Akbar. This article is an insult to the notion of wikipedia; it is a propaganda vehicle for certain political interests; it is certainly not history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashmun (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you reading the same article that I am?

1. Akbar does jihad against hindu kings says his own fathanama i chittor and letters he writes to other muslim kings. 2. Converts hindu princesses he marries to Islam (Dont believe popular movies like Jodha Bai). 3. Kills unarmed innocent civillians. 4. Forcibly converts Hindus to Islam. 5. Descecrate hindu temples by having cows slaughtered in them and break temples of Hindus and converts them into mosques. 6. Changes names of Hindu holy places to Islamic one (Prayag is changed to Allah-abad) etc........

What am i missing? 59.96.60.57 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

well he is portrayed as being anti-Christian,anti Shiah even.This article reads like it was written by a Hindu nationalist.Benares is holier than Allahabad and it is still known as Varanasi as well,or am I missing something? since you negated the anti-Christian and anti-Shiah references in this article.You also seemed to gloss over the section right at the end which says "Left Islam" which says that Akbar left Islam so thus I repeat this again how can an article possibly make sense if Akbar had left Islam yet he was persecuting Hindus in the name of Islam? or am I missing something?.This article seems to have had the last section added by a Conservative Muslim.So overall it is full of contradictions and simply is not cohesive and does not do justice to Akbar, one would have to be a follower of Modi or Advani to love this article.

--Azeem Ali (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you if people of Hindu race were to takeover Mecca and Medina and name Mecca as "Vishnupur" and leave Medina as is would you think that as a mark of tolerance? Shias were to be persecuted says akbar's firman. Article leaves me doubtful King Akbar left Islam.

Ted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.193.59 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)