Talk:Akbar/Archive 3

Bias
Sweta fails at life. This article has clear bias as is the article you are currently reading. It has a clear anti-Akbar and possibl anti-Muslim bias, using many weasel words and circumlocutions to present Akbar in a bad light. The article should be edited thoroughly, preferably by someone with knowledge about the period, to eliminate all bias. Agger (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree completely. Seems very well refrenced. Books cited have been written by very well known, peer-reviewed historians. 59.92.153.219 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No matter how well referenced, the "information" in this article is incredibly one-sided. Anything remotely positive such as Din-i-Ilahi seems to be given a cursory dismissal as being irrelevant or ineffective whereas anything that looks like persecution is expanded on in detail--NichS21 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that article seems to be biased. I've checked some of the articles linked from this one, and they seem to have a consistent pattern of bias too. Krishnalokam (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does not seem biased. Din-i-ilahi is mentioned as a personality cult and it is linked to the main article. It was not a religion. Everyone be precise in what is wrong and offer suggestions for improvement. General handwaving is not too productive. Aoki Li (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article doesn't seem to adhere to a neutral point of view perspective. Yes, there are a fair amount of references, but the section about relations with Hindus is one sided. For example, sentences like: "Fazal gave a positive spin to Akbar's reign by glossing over uncomfortable facts of the emperor's reign related to his interaction with other communities of his empire, which has been repeated by numerous historians over the years." are a bit dubious. I don't think anyone has any problem with highlighting less than impressive aspects of Akbar, if they are backed up by solid references, but this particular section seems almost exclusively negative with weasel words as well. I think I have a book on Akbar somewhere, so I'll try and make some improvements when I find it 94.193.48.97 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do develop consensus here on the talk page with other editors before making large scale changes. This blurb from the article "Historian Dasharatha Sharma says that we are prone to idealise Akbar's reign with court histories like Akbarnama and give Akbar more then his due" . 59.92.150.104 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you reading the same article that I am?

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

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

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

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

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

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

A little vague in places
I have noticed whilst reading the article in question that it is, in places, most certainly a little vague. Since I am not an expert I would ask those that are to try and clear these areas up somewhat, if not completely.

Passages I found to be wanting are:

It took him the better part of two decades to consolidate his power and bring parts of northern and central India into his realm.

... reputedly keeping thousands of hunting cheetahs.

... incorporated art from around the world into the Mughal collections.

I have entered this section in the hope that the wikipaedia community shed light on these areas.

94.192.182.212 (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC) bob

Relations with Sikhs
Akbar, ALIES RAKESH KUMAR the Emperor of India, on his way to Lahore, paid a visit to Guru Amar Das at Goindwal. He was informed that he could not see the Guru until he had dined with others from the Guru's kitchen. Akbar partook of the food in the Langar, the more he had it, the more he relished it. After that the Emperor had an interview with the Master. It is said that the Guru rose to receive the Emperor in his arms, but Akbar spontaneously bowed to touch the feet of the Master. The monarch felt a thrill of joy and peace by the holy touch. Having seen the large number of people fed from the Guru's kitchen, Akbar requested the Guru to accept his services and his offerings. But the Guru replied,"I have obtained lands and rent- free tenures from my Creator. Whatever comes daily is spent daily, and for the morrow my trust is in God." Akbar then replied,"I see you desire nothing. From thy treasury and thy kitchen countless people receive bounties, and I also entertain similar wishes, I will grant these 84 villages to thy daughter, Bibi Bhani." This was the estate where Guru Ram Das built the city of Ramdaspur which is now called Amritsar.

Please add references to this section and then move it to the page.

Vandalism
Reverted edits by the user: sachkasamna who has been banned indefinetely.

59.92.200.163 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Muslim or former Muslim?
The categorization of him as a "Former Muslim" and a "Founder of a new religion" seem doubtful - was Din-i llahi a sect rather than a new religion? Hugo999 (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does not seem like it was a religion. Categorizations seem incorrect too. Should they be removed? 59.92.184.92 (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ascent to greatness
Saw it in a book that Akbar was famed for his expertise in identifying traps. 86.131.222.184 (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)