Talk:Akbar/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Maharana Pratap quote

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• "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)

"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)

Rajput Wives

• Mariam-uz-Zamani: The mother of Jahangir, the crown prince and successor of Akbar was an outcaste.!!! Her son became the emperor, fact hidden. Needs more references. POV??--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference is given. R Nath is a noted historian. More random musing (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Taxation on Hindus

• POV: needs "According to whom" "Akbar's apparent measures of tolerance such as abolition of pilgrimage tax and jizya on Hindus were episodic and had no real benefit for Hindus"--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Done. Added names of the scholars. More random musing (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yep I'll try removing those which violate wp:undue --NotedGrant Talk 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

What is the motivation to move it away from relations with hindus? More random musing (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

But what about WP precedent on Ashoka the Great and Alexander the Great? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I've been following the TP for a while but have not participated. I've now reverted More random musing's reversion as it goes against the talk page consensus, once more. This clearly fits in with the WP:OWNERship problems highlighted above. -SpacemanSpiff 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

Removing the POV tag

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

---

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

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

Thanks for including me in this discussion. The article still needs improvement, but I don't see now any evidence of point of view so excessive that it warrants a warning sign. Agree that it's time to get rid of that tag.--Nemonoman (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If a tag has been there for a year, I'd say just remove it without discussion. A discussion is necessary only if someone reinstates the tag. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think that the POV tag has been addressed just go ahead and remove it, if someone has a different viewpoint we can discuss. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm too late but I think the tag should be removed (If it has not already been removed)--NotedGrant Talk 18:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag as there seems to be a consensus here that it should be removed. However, if I find any POV issues, I will point them out on the talk. I haven't been able to give the article a through read.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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

GA Review

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

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

It looks good, but I am not a native speaker. Therefor I will ask anther reviewer to check this aspect whenever I finished my review.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance:

Some of the external links which have been used as source should be edited on the basis WP:CIT.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

For some of the sources "Harvard citation" method have bben used, while for some others not. Please use the same method for all of the book.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

I put tag at the places which need source.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources:

• "Timurid Dynasty". New World Encyclopedia. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Timurid_Dynasty. Retrieved 18 July 2009.
• "Extant of Empire". Richard as the writer of the article is unknown. Apparently, this is the main source.
• Humayunnama, Akbarnama and Ain-e-Akbari are primary sources. Can you add secondary source which endorses the claims?

1. C. No original research:

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

I think there should be a section at the end of the article which describes his influence over India after his life and his legacy for India and for Mughal Empire. --Seyyed(t-c 13:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is subsection about Relations with the Ottoman Empire. I think there should be a subsection about Relations with the Safavids Empire as well. Akbar's reign coincided with Tahmasp I who was Humayun's ally, but later captured Qandahar. His last years also coincided with Abbas I. The problem of Qandahar never solved and always caused some tensions. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias: Done--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Yes, the article is stable.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  Done--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Overall:

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

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

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

Illogical (Deliberate?)

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

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

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

Why are facts being twisted?

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

Admiral Ackbar

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

Abu'l Fath ....

• "Abu'l Fath Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar" -Llc 0 Takabeg (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Arabic script missing?

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

Birth Date

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

images from greatestbattles.iblogger.org

iblogger.org is on the blacklist[10] so images from it should not be used. See also the whitelist discussion|[11]

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

Birth date

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

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

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

Adherence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mahrana Pratap

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

Edit request on 17 May 2013

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

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

Trimming down the infobox

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

Birbal

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

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

Majumdar

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

Reformation of the article on Akbar

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

Appreciate you taking interest in improving this article. For the last time, Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak and `Abd al-Qadir Bada'uni are primary sources and your interpretation of them is not allowed, you cannot cite them directly. You have dramatically altered the meaning of many sourced statements without any reason, added dozens of pictures filling both sides of the page and some of your content was unsourced. It doesn't take someone to be knowledgeable about this topic to realise that your edits were not constructive.

You are relatively new here and please remember this: Next time when you want to introduce such changes please discuss it here before doing it so that such problems won't arise, otherwise we will revert you. We can go through your edits and help till you learn. See featured articles for ideas on how articles of high quality should look like and you can also edit short articles for practice. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Great the Great?

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014

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

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

akbar

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2014

Jodha

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014

the information should have been more comprehensive....

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2014

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

Done  NQ  talk 09:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly incorrect justification for Akbar's purported tolerant religious outlook

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015

Maharana Pratap organised another attack, known as the Battle of Dewar, in which the Mewar army was victorious. Pratap was able to claim back much of the lost territories of Mewar and freed much of Rajasthan from the Mughal rule.

Source: https://vamadevananda.wordpress.com/tag/maharana-pratap/ Prithvi rahul (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please use only reliable sources and not blogs. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015

This is request to remove title great from Akbar's name.

Is it correct to title Akbar as great? Dear Sir/Madam,

I request you to read article at below mentioned link and then add title great with name of Akbar. I don't think Akbar should titled great, IMO we should title Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi as great but not people like Akbar who were very brutal and killed many innocent people and forcefully converted many people into Islam.

Wikipedia is today's encyclopedia for young generation and we should spread good moral values for next generation.

Please correct me if I am wrong, also regarding history I will it was always rulers driven and may or may not be correct and depends on knowledge of writer because what I heard from my ancestors that Akbar was very brutal and he was never able to acquire complete Rajputana.

Please correct me if you think I am wrong.

Please refer this very valid question on quora. http://www.quora.com/Why-do-Indian-historians-refer-to-AKBAR-as-AKBAR-THE-GREAT#

Best Regards, Prithvi

Prithvi rahul (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that reports what sources say. Please provide reliable sources for any changes you want done. —SpacemanSpiff 18:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016

Prof. Dr. Taskeen Ahmad Khan (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Most Respected Sir/Madam! I want to Add the 'Image' provided below in the section covering on the Expeditions of Akbar in the North-West Frontier region of India:

File:Prof. Dr. Taskeen Ahmad Khan - 03.jpg

An Imaginary Pencil Sketch showing the Battle of Karrapa and Malandrai (1586). The Mandanr Yusufzais and Yusufzais tribesmen opposition was greater than before. On reaching the Karappa Crest just South of Daggar the Mughal Troops imagined they had reached their goal, the Samah, only to meet with bitter disappointment. In front of them was yet another narrow dale, leading right by difficult ways up to Malandrai Pass. Everything fell into confusion, the van and main body pushed on in disorder; only in rearguard, under Zain Khan, was there any semblance of ordered array. The tribesmen lined both crests parallel with the track to the summit, and poured in volleys of arrows and stones on the harassed crowd. As night came on, the ranks became panic-stricken, and, the way reconnoitered, were entangled in the mazes of the hills. In their anxiety to get forward many fell into pits or over precipices, and the the route was blocked, elephants, horses and men mixed together in inextricable confusion and disarray. In the melee which followed Raja Birbul and 8,000 (Eight thousand) men of Emperor Akbar's Army lost their lives, including the gallant Bhitanni, Hasan Khan. The poet, Abul Fateh, cowering beneath a bush, was picked up by Zain Khan, who pushed slowly on with the only force that held together. After heavy fighting he and Abul Fateh reached a point near the crest of the Malandrai and bivouacked for the night. The tribesmen, glutted with slaughter and spoil, drew off, and, three days, later Zain Khan with a sorry remnant reached Attock Fort to report what had befallen.For two days Akbar would not admit Zain Khan and Abul Fateh to his presence; he charged them with failure to bring in the body of Birbul to be burnt. (Noteː This Pencil Sketch drawn in July 1973 by Mr. Taskeen Ahmad Khan received the First Award by the University of Peshawar in the same year).

Not done: Caption is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too long --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, that watermark needs to be removed. This image will not be used until then --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

chittorgarh massacre

Akbar ordered the massacre of the civilian population in chittorgarh of 30,000-40,000. there are plenty of historical sources, the same books from which all the other info on this page is from, and obviously it has unilateraly deleted nonetheless.

thats why i never to wiki = biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.148.195 (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2016

14.99.223.46 (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Akbars first and last love is not jodha.He was a man of equality.Please do not get carried away by serial jodha Akbar.Akbar had so many wives and concubines after that.If you read Akbarnama and munkhtab ut tawrikh you will know the truth.Please people respect Wikipedia.Do not write wrong information and spoil your reputation.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Peter Sam Fan 13:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Death/ Desecration of Tomb

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

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

References

I have also heard about it. The gates of Taj Mahal were said to have been taken away by Hindu Jats. But, I am not 100% sure.Ghatus (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2016

Akbar: Great Monarch or Tyrant ? http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/history/akbar-great-monarch-tyrant/ Chander Arora (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, nothing can be sourced from a non-scholarly source for historical matters. Please see WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

All emperors from Ashoka to Akbar were tyrants, autocrats and dictators. You have to judge a ruler in line with the age he lived. From that point of view, Akbar as well as Ashoka were GREATS, compared to others. One should not judge past characters with present moralities and ideals.Ghatus (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

JODHA BAI IS NOT AKBAR'S FIRST AND LAST LOVE

In the section about his first hindu wife,I would like to tell you that she was not Akbar's first and last love.I think the person who wrote the article seem to have mistaken for Jahangir and Nurjahan.Akbar married Raja bharmals daughter as a part of his political move.Raja Bharmal was introduced to him much before the wedding and Akbar found the family to be obidient.It was Raja bharmal who offered his daughter to Akbar to save his kingdom.Akbar did not do a ,love marraige. Akbar's liberal policy towards the other religion was devoloped by his tutor and he wanted to rule India in a peacefull way.This doesn't mean she was his first love.No historical chronicle says anything about Akbars love with her.After her marraige in 1562, he loved Abul wasi's wife and forced her husband to divorce her, and married that lady.That lady is reported by Akbars historian to be a virtuous lady.Then he married many princess and commanders daughte'sr.There were kids through concubine born to him.Then how can you say Harkh bai was his first and last love.Even after Salims birth, he was flirting with the ladies of salim christis house hold.All this information is in Munkhtab ut tawarikh,a book written by a historian in his court.I'm not asking you to write anything negative about Akbar, but do not write wrong information.The concept of 'first and last love' came only after the Jodha Akbar serial.In that they were showing that Akbar saw Harakh bai before the wedding.It is definetly not that.no historical chronicle gives such evidences.A fake serial should not alter history.Wikipedia is a trustwothy site,so please do the changes and do justice to the future generation.I'm sure the concern person will have time to go through historical books,do not go through blogs in the net,they were trying to promote the fake love story.Distorting history is a crime to the future generation.See yourself whether there is any HISTORICAL EVIDENCES.Today if I write my views as a book,that is not history.History should be based on facts.I hope you will help history.Thank you-A HISTORY LOVER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.81.202 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Raja bharmals daughter was not Akbars first and last love.Akbars love is not given in any historical books.Just following serial,movie and biased blogs are not correct in the part of wikipedia.Akbar was not a romantic hero.There is no concept like this in any of his historical books of his era.Please atleast the wikipedia of Akbar be correct.It is better the changes are done as soon as possible.Mariam Zamanis wikipedia page has been overglorified by her fanatic blog people.Akbars hindu wives were equally treated and given liberty to worship.It was Rajabharmals family which was very loyal to him even before the wedding.So she was not his first and last love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.134.199 (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Nurjahan-Jahangir,Mumtaz-Shahjahan,Prince Khusarao-his wife deserved to be called as first and last love.Jahangir had openly said in his memoir that he understood what is marriage only after marrying Nurjahan,after her he took no wives and was loyal to her till the end of his life.In case of Mumtaz-Shahjahan also he did not take any wife after her and was loyal to her.After her death he turned to be a womanizer but did not have love for anybody,she was his last love.In case of Khusarao also even when he was offered the throne by Nurjahan he refused to marry Nur's daughter for the sake of his wife which costed his life.But in the case of Harkbai-Akbar how can she be his love.Akbar married multiple wives not only for political reason but also for lust.His marraige with Abulwasi's wife,Salimi christi's daughter in laws,sending enuch into nobles harems to get girls for him are examples of it,All this happened only after his marriage with Harkbai. Jahangir also was a womanizer before Nurjahans wedding but after that the love he had for Nurjahan he changed.Is it Akbar married all the other ladies to make them sphincters,no definitely not.He had kid born through concubines and other wives.He is a man known for equality,he started practicing it first in his harem.The titles and power given to Mariam zamani was only in Jahangir's period as a queen mother.If Prince Daniyal had taken the throne all the power should have gone to Daniyals mother.People who claim that power was given during Akbars reign ask them to give evidences from historical books and not modern historians view or bazar gossip.Modern historians view is interesting to read but that is not history.According to Historian Drik collier Salima was Akbars favorite wife,so can we make that into history.So Harkbai was not Akbars first and last love.Wikipedia should follow historical facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.89.80 (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why the statement first and last love is not changed.Just a fake love story created for commercial purpose should not distort history.Why Wikipedia which maximum people watch around the globe write such unauthentic information.Please change as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.228.220 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2016

In the footnote, the year of birth is stated as 1942 (twice). Elsewhere, the year of birth is correct.

2A02:1811:4C1E:C800:BC2B:FFBA:D443:1469 (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Please do read what the footnote says. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Playing draughts or pachisi?

Is Akbar playing draughts or pachisi in the picture File:Akbar plays draughts with living pieces at Fateh pur Sikri, 1575.jpg (see section Personality)? Is there a reliable source? Wiki-uk (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Pratap organised another attack, known as the Battle of Dewar, in which the Mewar army was victorious. Pratap was able to claim back much of the lost territories of Mewar and freed much of Rajasthan from the Mughal rule.

Source: https://vamadevananda.wordpress.com/tag/maharana-pratap/

There are no links provided in here to reliable journal, book, or other academic sources. Needs to provide stronger base Ridshah (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Birth and death place

I have checked other good articles on prominent European monarchs such as Charles I of England, Henry VIII of England, etc and all of them state the birth and death place in the infobox in accordance with the present-day places. This is the better way and helps to avoid ambiguity and confusion.

Why clatter the infobox by stating his birth place as Umerkot, Rajputana (present-day Sindh, Pakistan) and his death place as Fatehpur Sikri, Agra, Mughal Empire (present-day Uttar Pradesh, India). It really looks odd and untidy — Helena_Bx (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists is never a good argument. If you want to make an argument, please base it on reliable sources. On Wikiproject India, this is how we mention places. Indian history has a lot more variation than that of England. So that is not a good comparison. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akbar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222020147/http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/bibweb/Miles/1200-1750.html to http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/bibweb/Miles/1200-1750.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Akbar

'Akbar' is an Arabic word (on the weight of 'afal'(أفعل)) as an elative or noun of preference = ism at-tafdeel (اسم التفضيل)) & it means 'greater' (& not great which in Arabic will be 'kabir'.ّّ5.108.109.189 (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of reference by Adamgerber80 (talk · contribs)

Adamgerber80 (talk · contribs) is deleting the refeerence to Shrivastava, A. L. , a world renowed historian, from the article. His book on Akbar is well known. Please discuss.

This seems to be your argument across many pages on Wikipedia that many of his books are "well known". Yet you have not provided places where he is considered so. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You have made no convinging argument that Shrivastava, A. L. is not notable. Obviously he was a notable historian in his time, and this article also includes many other historians who are far less well known. You seem to be simply reverting all of my edits without considering the worth of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.110.245 (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reason why he should be considered notable to this page. No content on this page uses any of his works as references. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

He is in the further reading section, not in the references section!! Why are you SINGLING OUT this book in the whole further reading section. Only because I added it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.110.245 (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please explain to me the significance of this author and his/her expertise on Akbar? Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

He is an expert on Mughal history, having been the recipient of Sir Jadunath Sarkar Gold Medal of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta (1953) for his research work on medieval Indian history and a writer of numerous histories on Mughal India, including in the acclaimed "The History and Culture of the Indian People". That alone should be proof enough. A quick search shows numerous examples of books and articles about Akbar citing him like here: [12] [13] [14] [15] and many more.

I think I have shown enough evidence that he is notable. I think we should let someone else decide on basis of this if Shrivastava is notable enough or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.110.245 (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we can keep this. A.L. Srivastava was a notable historian, but is unlikely to be regarded as representing modern historical scholarship. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture does not show Mughal army men

The picture subtitled "Mughal army military men" shows the cannon Malik-e Maidan in Bijapur Fort. (For a photo, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijapur_Fort#/media/File:Malik_E_Maidan.jpg). Therefore the men shown cannot be Mughal soldiers, because Bijapur was conquered by the Mughals by Aurangzeb in 1686 only. Before that, it was an independent sultanate. If the soldiers are putting the cannon to use, they are members of the Bijapuri army and very likely fighting the besieging Mughals. Or do we know of a Maratha attck on Bijapur after the Mughal conquest? Only then, these men could be Mughal. Thanks for considering, Curryfranke (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of referenced information

Per the source, The Jahangirnama: Memoirs of Jahangir, Emperor of India, Thackston, Wheeler M., page 437, "Ruqayya-Sultan Begam, the daughter of Mirza Hindal and wife of His Majesty Arsh-Ashyani [Akbar], had passed away in Akbarabad. She was His Majesty's chief wife. Since she did not have children, when Shahjahan was born His Majesty Arsh-Ashyani entrusted that "unique pearl of the caliphate" to the begam's care, and she undertook to raise the prince. She departed this life at the age of eighty-four."

Yet user:Mariam uz Zamani Jodha Begum, removes Ruqayya-Sultan Begam and replaces it with "Mariam-uz-Zamani", which is not supported by the source. User:Mariam uz Zamani Jodha Begum has tried to replace this referenced information, 4 times with no explanation in the edit summary. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Are we sure that's a falcon?

In the photo at the article's beginning, the caption identifies the bird on Akbar's hand as a falcon, but that looks like no South Asian falcon I'm familiar with. I think it might be a goshawk. Perhaps the caption should be changed to 'Akbar practising falconry' or something similar? Just to make it more general and simultaneously more accurate? Wikigreenwood (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It may be a gyrfalcon or a white goshawk. Gyrfalcons from Russia or Norway were regularly exchanged as diplomatic gifts. I don't know about Akbar, but Shah Jahan received nine white goshawks, two gyrfalcons and nine saker falcons from the ruler of Balkh in 1635. (Qazvini, Muhammad Amin: Badshahnama, History of the first ten years of Shah Jahan's reign, British Library Persian Ms. Or. 173, fol. 399 b.) The painting does not just portray Akbar as hunting with falcons. It shows him with a royal status symbol, for who else in India could own a Central Asian albino hawk or a gyrfalcon, if not as an exclusive gift from abroad? Curryfranke (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Religion or Not?

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

References

The more so as the word Din-e Ilahi appears in the work of Akbar's critic Badauni only. Curryfranke (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Unwelcome in the Hijaz?

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

References

That is true.

INTEXSTEVE (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Issue

The main issue I have with this page is the fact he is known as akber the great, well Akber mean great so it would be Great the Great.2600:1004:B0A2:B56E:F5DB:BF82:CA7A:599C (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Disputed edit

Dhawangupta, you state that Akbar wasn't 9 years old at the time of this battle, but rather 9 years into his rule. Fair enough. But I still have problems with the edit. Let us take at a look at your first paragraph:

In the early years of his reign, Akbar ordered a massacre of infidel Hindus of Garha in 1560, under the command of Asaf Khan. Abul Fazl states that 40,000 peasants, along with 8,000 Rajputs, were executed, while trying to defend their temples and property.

References

I am surprised that you provide a link for "SAGE Publications", but not for the book itself. This version of the book is not available for preview online. So I presume you have a hardcopy version of the book. Can you tell us the section/entry of the Encyclopedia you were looking at? Who wrote this entry? Can you provide a quotation that your paragraph is based on?

Fortunately I was able to locate another version of the book that is available for preview. But the page 173 of this edition deals with "Biochemical factors in aggression". Nothing about Akbar.

Since you have edit-warred with two editors including a senior administrator, I presume you are really confident of your content. So can you please provide the full citation and a quotation to establish the veracity of this content? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

We have a short Mughal conquest of Garha, which does not mention this massacre, nor does Asaf Khan. If it checks out, it should go there first. But "executed, while trying to defend their temples and property.." sounds like "died in fighting" to me. The old Oxford History of India (p. 341, 1981 edn), no fan of Akbar, has a hostile long para on the conquest, without mentioning a massacre. Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak is the claimed source, presumably in his Akbarnama. The online SAGE booik preview includes the article on "India" (pp. 863-865), which doesn't mention this, but it might be under say "massacre". Keay, John, India, a History, 2000, HarperCollins, ISBN 0002557177 doesn't mention it (or even the conquest) that I can see. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what methods are being used for verifying the sources but I do note that page numbers may be different to others depending on the Google books' print or snippet versions. Source clearly supports the disputed content by saying: "In 1545, Sher Shah Suri led a campaign of religious violence across the eastern and western states of the Indian subcontinent. Akbar, in the early years of his reign, ordered a massacre of Hindus of Garha in 1560 CE. The Mughal historian Aub-l Fazl states that 40,000 peasants, along with 8,000 Rajputs, were executed." Dhawangupta (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I see this is all over the internet from Hinduvuta sources, but The Cambridge History of India, Volume 5, has a page-long account of the conquest which doesn't mention the massacre (like the Oxford one it does mention the massacre of all the palace women on the defeated raja's orders). Unlike the SAGE source, these are by specialized historians. The Akbarnama account is online in an old translation, but unfortunately 2 pages are not on the preview. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this version of the same book has the full account by Abu'l-Fazl, with no mention of a massacre at all! Like the accounts mentioned above, what it dwells on is the treasure taken in the conquest. Actually, I wonder if there is confusion with the Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568), where there does seem to have been a massacre, but not such a large one. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This one says: "to another case where 8,000 Rajput soldiers were killed ; and from anger at their stubborn resistance 30,000 out of 40,000 peasants were massacred when Akbar entered Chitor after the siege." Another source.[16] These details are about what happened with connection to fort of Chittor. Dhawangupta (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The siege of Chittorgarh and the killing of 30,000, is already discussed in the article citing work of Vincent Arthur Smith and Satish Chandra. Abecedare (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Related: I have removed other parts of the recently added content about persecution of Hindus because:
  1. The Antonio Monserrate account is a primary source. We'll need secondary scholarship to assess its claims and put in the proper context.
  2. The donation to Abdul Qadir Badaoni is a cherry-picked anecdote, which again needs context and better sourcing than The Legacy of Jihad, written by a medical doctor.
  3. The POV sub-section titles "Persecution of Hindus", "Support of Hindus" that were introduced, are inappropriate. That binary is not how such topics are dealt with.

That said, the current Relations with Hindus sub-section is neither well-written nor well-sourced, either (relying entirely on two non-specialist sources). For now, I have removed the sentence, "It was rumoured that each night a Brahman priest, suspended on a string cot pulled up to the window of Akbar's bedchamber, would captivate the emperor with tales of Hindu gods." from the section. It is admittedly apocryphal, clearly undue, and sourced to a history of curry. Further work on the section is needed. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with most of what Abecedare and Johnbod say above. I would add that given the large body of scholarship on the Mughals, using a single line from a book that intends to give a very broad overview, and even in doing so feels the need to attribute that statement to a Mughal-era scholar (I assume "Aub-l Fazl" is Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak), raises serious due weight concerns. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

Change Flight to fight Dinudhanraj (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: "flight" appears to be correct -- according to the source, the leader was in exile. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please explain removal of images Fixing style/layout errors

Don't see any strong reason to remove the below images.

Mughal Army artillery men during the reign of Akbar

Akbar plays draughts with living pieces at Fateh pur Sikri, 1575

Akbar The ungreat Because He was not tolerant in islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamgood40 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

Akbar is a villain akbar destroy india and सनातन धर्म this akbar is very rude Baaali (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Bali Baaali (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear what edit you would like to be made. Please provide the exact text you would like to add, remove or change and provide sourcing for it. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Request : Changes in Marriage

Hello, could you please add in the marriage section about Rukmavati Bai, also known as Jodhi Bibi, the youngest daughter of Rao Maldeo Rathore by Tipu Paswan(concubine) who was born posthumously to him. She married Akbar in 1581 when she was about 17 (I think) . She was sent to Akbar in dōlō and this marriage was either arranged by Chandrasen or Udai Singh. You can find several sources including The Mertiyo Rathors of Merta, Rajasthan Volume II pg-35. Manavati (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Request: Add Massacre of Ghara

Could you add the Massacre of Ghara, where Akbar ordered the massacre of 48,000 Hindus, including 40,000 peasants and 8,000 Rajputs in 1560? (Persian: ابو الفتح جلال الدين محمد اكبر; October 1542– 27 October 1605), popularly known as Akbar the Great, (Persian: اکبر اعظم, romanized: Akbar-i-azam), and also as Akbar I (IPA: [əkbər]), was the third Mughal emperor, who reigned from 1556 to 1605. Akbar succeeded his father, Humayun, under a regent, Bairam Khan, who helped the young emperor expand and consolidate Mughal domains in India.

To:

Abu'l-Fath Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Akbar (Persian: ابو الفتح جلال الدين محمد اكبر; October 1542– 27 October 1605), popularly known as Akbar the Great, (Persian: اکبر اعظم, romanized: Akbar-i-azam) and also as Akbar I (IPA: [əkbər]), was the third Mughal emperor, who reigned from 1556 to 1605. Akbar succeeded his father, Humayun, under a regent, Bairam Khan, who helped the young emperor expand and consolidate Mughal domains in India.

There is an extra comma that should be removed INDT (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done although I removed the comma after "Akbar the Great" instead. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Notes

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2021 (2)

2409:4063:6E8E:AFD:1C4E:BC4:48B9:90E8 (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Jalaluddin Mohammed Akbar Moghal is often credited by history textbooks as a “great” and “tolerant” figure; in an attempt to show a non-existent “bright side” of the Mughal rule, which ruthlessly slaughtered Hindus and demolished some of the strongest pillars of Indian culture- our temples!

Jalaluddin Mohammed Akbar took the reins of the Mughal empire after his father, Humayun Moghal, accidently fell while climbing down the stairs of his royal library and died of severe brain trauma. At the age of 13, young Akbar took over the throne of his father in the garden of his palace in Kalanaur on 14th February, 1556. Due to his young age, the empire’s chief minister Bairam Khan was made the chief executive of Akbar till he could take over the affairs of the Mughal Sultanate.

SECOND BATTLE OF PANIPAT

Eyeing over the throne, several Afghan rulers began plotting against the Mughal empire. One of these conspirators was Adil Shah, an Afghan prince who wanted to take over the throne of the Mughal empire. Hemu, the Chief Minister of Adil Shah, was tasked to overthrow the Mughal Sultanate and capture the territory surrounding Delhi.

In the October of 1556, Hemu lead a surprise attack on the Mughal Empire which he decisively won after the Mughal generals escaped from the veteran war strategist’s wrath. After the sweeping victory, Hemu proclaimed himself as an independent ruler of Delhi and was crowned as Raja Vikramaditya ‘Hemu’ Chandra.

Thirsty for revenge, Bairam Khan and Akbar rounded up their troops and battled the forces of Raja Vikramaditya in November 1556 at Panipat. During the battle, an arrow pierced into the skull of Raja Vikramaditya, making him fall unconscious on top of his elephant, Hawai. Bairam Khan’s soldiers got hold of the unconscious Raja Vikramaditya and presented him to the emperor. On the persistence of Bairam Khan, Akbar slayed the Raja in front of all his troops by a swift slash of his sword.

Ideally, this should have been the end of the battle, since the Vedic practises say that the battle has ceased once the commander is dead. Wrongly thinking that Akbar would respect their practise, the soldiers of Raja Vikramaditya began returning to their bases. Akbar then ordered his troops to chase each soldier of his opponent and behead them, bringing back the skulls as trophies. After the gory incident, Akbar dispatched the head of the slayed Raja to Humayun’s harem in Kabul; and paraded the torso in Delhi as a sign of victory. After returning to Delhi, Akbar ordered his soldiers to build a tower of skulls belonging to Vikramaditya’s soldiers in the centre of the Mughal capital- giving him the title of Ghazi (slayer of non-believers).

BATTLE FOR CHITOD

In 1567, Akbar had adopted a policy of “marry-or-die”, where he began a process of marrying the women of the Rajput royal family. The Rana of Mewar, Uday Singh refused to give his daughter’s hand to marry Akbar. Outraged, Akbar waged a war against the kingdom of Mewar and attacked the fort of Chitod (Chitorgad) where 8,000 brave Rajputs were posted to guard the fortress. The Mughals used musket shots to attack the fort, which killed the commander of the Rajputs, Jai Mal.

When the news of Jai Mal’s death spread amongst the inhabitants of the fort, utter panic and chaos ensued. Akbar was infamously known for taking the women of captured forts as sex slaves in his harems, but the brave Rajput women were not ready to lose their honour to a Mughal ruler. On the morning of 24th February 1567, Rajput women of Chitod jumped onto pyres to avoid being taken away as “pleasure women” in the harems of the Mughal rulers.

(Depiction of the second battle of Panipat)

Patta Singh was made the leader of the remaining Rajput troops; the soldiers donned the colour saffron and were prepared for their last battle. A fight till death ensued, and every soldier who took part in the battle got martyred. The fort of Chitor was home to 30,000 Hindu peasants who got massacred on the orders of the Mughal Emperor.

This battle proved to be a turning point in the life of Maharana Pratap Singh, who later tried to bring back the glory of Chitorgad.

This would start a new episode in the History of Mediaeval India.

REALITY OF HIS NEW “FAITH”

Mughal Emperor Akbar started the faith “Din-e-Illahi” which placed himself as a “prophet”, who should be worshipped by the adherents of his new “faith”. Neither was this faith adopted by those outside of his court, nor did his own children adopt his new religion. Infact, his son Jahangir slaughtered a Hindu “infidel” in public and received the title of “Ghazi”.

Akbar had over 5,000 wives in his harems, and was regularly asked by his Sunni court officials to limit the number of his wives to 4, due to it being prescribed by the Quran. Miffed with the regular criticism of him violating the Quran, he founded the religion Din-e-illahi to moralise him having thousands of wives, which also included teenage girls from Russia and other countries.

This served as a propaganda tool for the Mughal emperor to fool the public and make him gain a “tolerant” image amongst his people

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — LauritzT (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2021

Please ad one more wife of Akbar, Jodhabai. Anil Makadia (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Article Lacks Neutral Tone

While not getting into the debate of whether or not Akbar deserves praise. The content of the article does not read in a neutral manner. Instead of stating that, "x and y stated that Akbar was great, or just or brave, etc.", the article directly asserts, "Akbar was great, Akbar was brave, etc.". To maintain neutrality, I believe that it's important that it does not seem that Wikipedia is saying this, but the sources that Wikipedia pulls from. Chantern15 (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

The chief consorts of Akbar historically recorded are three Ruqaiya sultan, Salima begum, and Marium uz Zamani begum while this page mentions just one. Tarikh I Farishta mentions the favorite consort of Akbar to be Marium uz Zamani written during Akbar and Jahangir reign. This page posts incorrect information which does not comply with history. 223.130.31.80 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If akbar is born on 15 October 1542 and jodha born on 1October 1542 so how akbar elder than jodha

If akbar is born on 15 October 1542 and jodha born on 1October 1542 so how akbar elder than jodha 2401:4900:545D:3F3A:0:0:122B:C1B8 (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

List of things named after Akbar

A new list article has been created for things named after Akbar. Please include it in the article, preferably under the Legacy or See also section. List of things named after Akbar the Great — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalYouth20 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Flunkrock, MONSTERADELICIOOSA.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2022

In the matrimonial alliance of diplomatic section " wherein the Hindu Rajputs who married their daughters or sisters to him would be treated on par with his Muslim fathers-in-law and brothers in-law in all respects except being able to dine and pray with him or take Muslim wives. These Rajputs were made members of his court and their daughters' or sisters' marriage to a Muslim ceased to be a sign of degradation, except for certain proud elements who still considered it a sign of humiliation "

This needs to be changed because 1) Not all Rajputs have matrimonial alliance with Mughals except two or three kingdoms 2) Bibi Mubarak the niece of Akbar was given to Kachwaha Rajput Raja Man Singh , why this matrimonial alliance is not mentioned ? Is it humiliation ? 2) The alliance was not humiliation at all , it is the matrimonial alliance , it was not forced by anyone which need to be mention as humiliation 3) how it is degradation ? These are your thoughts ? Marrying someone is not degradation Asr99.0979 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Muzaffar Shah III Pensioned or imprisoned?

Referring to the conquest of Gujarat, this article says 'The king, Muzaffar Shah III, was caught hiding in a corn field; he was pensioned off by Akbar with a small allowance.'

However the article on Muzaffar Shah III says that 'Mughal Emperor Akbar annexed Gujarat in his empire in 1573. Muzaffar Shah III was taken prisoner to Agra. In 1583, he escaped from the prison and with the help of the nobles succeeded to regain the throne for a short period before being defeated by Akbar's general Abdul Rahim Khan-I-Khana in January 1584. He fled and finally took asylum under Jam Sataji of Nawanagar State.'

There is no mention of being pensioned off there, only imprisonment from which he escaped. Anyone care to reconcile these? LastDodo (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2022

In the bibliography section change the link from Satish Chandra to Satish Chandra (historian). Thanks Szymon71 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Kautilya3 (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Bayinnaung

In the foreign relations section, can someone add akbar's relationship with bayinnaung of the toungoo empire? I'd do it myself, but the page is protected. Here is the source: Phayre 1967: 118–119 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedStorm1368 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Origin of epithet.

The book cited for "Akbar was accorded the epithet "the Great" because of his many accomplishments,[33]" does not in fact give a basis for this claim. The book simply mentions 'Akbar the Great and his many accomplishments'. The reference should be deleted and replaced with 'citation needed'. Nomist (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Good catch! This would indeed appear to be a case of original research (atleast for that specific claim with that specific source), so I have refactored it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Request and opinion for removal of Reference

The reference, Rambles, in consort section which talks "Jodha Baee" I think should be removed. The reason are- 1. He wrongly not only refers to the princess as "Jodha Bae" (Okay, common mistake, no problem) but also says she belongs to Jodhpur which is false. 2. The source refers to a halfway demolished tomb which did actually belong to a Jodhpur princess, Jagat Gosain and not Mariam-uz-Zamani.

Older references use both "Jodh Bai" and "Jodha Bai" interchangeably for both Mariam-uz-Zamani and Jagat Gosain.

Could it please be removed to avoid confusion? I'm only asking for removal since the source talks the demolished, Mariam-uz-Zamani's tomb is intact. It's very likely there will be other sources which talk about Mariam-uz-Zamani in such ways.

Manavati (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2022

In the section "Conquest of Rajputana" it is written that the Mewar King "Pratap Singh, was later defeated by the Mughals at the Battle of Haldighati in 1576. 1) Maharana Pratap Run Away During Battle Of Haldighati In 1576. 2) Maharan Pratap Tried To Save His Kingdom But Aftar Lost Battle Of Haldighati In 1576. 3) Maharan Pratap Lost His Kingdom By Mughal Empire Army. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Many People Thought Maharana Pratap Won The Battle Of Haldighati In 1576 But it is Only a Fake/Misinformation It's Wrong. Many Historians Believe The Battle OF Haldighati In 1576 Won By Mughal Empire Army. Kindly check this facts and update the page as Maharana Pratap was the lost the battle of haldighati. Kunwarsst (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Akbar's Armour

here is an image of Akbar's Armour please add this in the "Military innovations" category
Location: Chhatrapati Shivaji Museum, Mumbai
2600:8806:403:5100:988F:B8D5:4F86:4566 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Akbar's Armour

here is an image of Akbar's Armour please add this in the "Military innovations" category
Location: Chhatrapati Shivaji Museum, Mumbai
2600:8806:403:5100:988F:B8D5:4F86:4566 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:403:5100:E5F1:C2C1:8403:FB1A (talk)

For Improvement of Akbar the Great's Article

Please make the following change to the article: Hello sir/madam i am again request for edits regarding page, i wanted Add and Replace.

Add,

Please changes X to Y''.

Like, From X - Abu'l-Fath Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Akbar[9] (25 October 1542[a] – 27 October 1605),[12][13][14] popularly known as Akbar the Great[15] (Persian: اکبر اعظم Persian pronunciation: [akbarɪ azam]), and also as Akbar I (Persian pronunciation: [akbar]),[16] was the third Mughal emperor, who reigned from 1556 to 1605. Akbar succeeded his father, Humayun, under a regent, Bairam Khan, who helped the young emperor expand and consolidate Mughal domains in India.

To Y - Abu'l-Fath Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Akbar[9] (25 October 1542[a] – 27 October 1605),[12][13][14] popularly known as Akbar the Great[15] (Persian: اکبر اعظم Persian pronunciation: [akbarɪ azam]), and also as Akbar I (Persian pronunciation: [akbar]),[16] was the third Mughal emperor, who reigned from 1556 to 1605. Akbar succeeded his father, Humayun, under a regent, Bairam Khan, who helped the young emperor expand and consolidate Mughal domains in India. Akber I is also known for his wealth, and has sometimes been called the wealthiest person in history.

click on this Link.

Ref- Source- Click this link - Not Jeff Bezos Or Elon Musk, These 11 People Are The Richest People In Human History 8 min read

Replace,

Portrait of Emperor Akbar. From X - Govardhan. Akbar With Lion and Calf ca. 1630, Metmuseum, Portrait of Emperor Akbar. To Y - Emperor Akbar with falcon on his left hand. If you can't it so please reply to me.

 Not done: The first one is unnecessary trivia while the second one has no reason given at all. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Reference 13 bad link

The reference 13 ( Tharoor, Ishaan (4 February 2011). "Top 25 Political Icons:Akbar the Great". Time.) its broken. The correct is:

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2046285_2045996_2046303,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutekinomi (talk • contribs) 08:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

akbar's wife trnslated ramayana

Please add content from below References: https://scroll.in/article/684556/eight-exquisite-mughal-miniatures-of-the-ramayana-commissioned-by-emperor-akbar#:~:text=Akbar's%20Ramayana%2C%20completed%20in%201584,interpretations%20of%20the%20various%20scenes.

https://www.vedantu.com/question-answer/translated-ramayana-into-persian-a-isar-das-b-class-10-social-science-cbse-5feab38c41231c3a78492d34 183.82.127.28 (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph related to bhavishya purana is wrong and has no proper source

Paragraph related to bhavishya purana is wrong and has no proper source. Bhavishya purana itself is a fabricated book heavily modified in 18th century. So nothing in this book can be used as authentic writing. Its a well known fact for most hindus but vested interest still use such sources to pass false narrative as authentic. Please remove the whole para related to Bhavishya purana. Vishnunn (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Vishnunn, where is your evidence? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

Dear Editors,

My request is to remove the title of “Ghazi” from Akbar’s Wikipedia page as the citation mentioned in ref#1 quoting the book “Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India” by Aditya Prakashan authored by Kishori Saran Lal in 1999 is the ONLY citation provided citing Akbar as Ghazi and no other valid citation could be found.

And the cited author (Kishori Saran Lal, here) itself been labelled as extreme “right-wing” by other contemporary historians including noted historian Jeremy Black.

His other work viz. “The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India (1993)” has been criticized by Peter Jackson in the Journal of the “Royal Asiatic Society”, stating that book contains "a markedly selective and one-sided account of India's Muslim past”

Prof. Avril A. Powell of University of London labelled his book as "propaganda"

There are few other Indian professors as well including Prof. Irfan Habib who labelled his recent works as “tendentious, communal and deeply objectionable” but the point which i was making is considering the present situation and the amount of unverified and misleading polarized content available on social media and web against the Mughals in India, it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to stick to standard sources, references and citations only and not to allow particular groups to use it as a tool for manipulating the masses by providing half or misleading information or any other kind of misinterpretation of standard texts and target their political agendas from Wikipedia’s shoulders.

My opinion: As far as the killing of Hemu is concerned, as cited by the author, Akbar was only 14 year old kid in the 2nd Battle of Panipat and it was actually Bairam Khan who was leading the Mughal Front, so clearly the case of Akbar declaring himself as Ghazi should not be considered as he is just a kid. Also, it cannot be verified, until and unless someone video recorded that declaration 😅, or unless this info is found in any other medieval era text like Ain-E-Akbari or some other text written by someone during that period, which is not available in this case.

You can ignore “my opinion” part but i believe i provided sufficient evidence above to NOT consider the present cited source as a “Standard citation” to label Akbar as a ‘Ghazi’.

It is also important to consider this edit as necessary as we are living at a time where an Emperor who was once considered as equal as that of Ashok in principles and ideals, his image is being questioned by many and is being bombarded with allegations and unverified and twisted accusations. To maintain Wikipedia’s apolitical nature, it is of prime importance to only consider relevant and verified information on it’s page. (specially when the page is on the top hit list of vandals and cyber hooligans)

Therefore, kindly consider accepting my request to remove the title of “Ghazi” from Akbar’s Wikipedia page.

Thank you for your valuable time.

Mayankmalviya64 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Mayankmalviya64 Mayankmalviya64 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:OR -Lemonaka‎ 01:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The line “Holy men of many faith, poets,architects, and artisans all over the world adorned his court (from) for …

From is not a proper English sentence in it can you remove it. 154.192.17.77 (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Islamic extremists

The legacy of "Akbar the Great" has been under attack by Islamic extremists. 08:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)08:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)08:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\08:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)08:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)~\\\\\\\ 43.242.178.102 (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2023

Change Title from 'Akbar'to 'Akbar the Great' just like 'Suleiman the Magnificent'. 2A02:C7B:114:2800:9D0A:FC44:D1C9:76AC (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2023

"In 1578, the Mughal Emperor Akbar referred to himself as:[citation needed]"

The citation is: "India in the Persianate Age", Richard M. Eaton. pp 235

The year should be 1579 instead of 1578. KCtakes (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cherrell410 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 September 2023

i would like to add to the different campaigns of the great emperor akbar and his rule Kdoggiegamer (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2023

I wonder if you can add that the restaurant Akbar is named after him. It's an institution in Edison, NJ and also has a branch in Garden City, NY.

https://www.thefloranj.com/about-akbar-restaurant/ Celera65 (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:WTAF, would like to see that this restaurant or someone affiliated with it is notable by themselves. Otherwise it would pretty much be advertising for this one restaurant Cannolis (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Akbar's wiki page

could you please add all the battles he fought and his rivals? 36.255.233.66 (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)