Talk:Mughal-e-Azam

Untitled
I think the Persian quotation has been corrupted. instead of

"Ta Kiyamat shukr geom kardgate khwesh ra, Aah garman bez benaam roo-e yare khwesh ra"

Try "Tâ qiyâmat shokr dehom kardgâr-e khwash râ Âh gar man bâz bînam rû-y-e yâr-e khwash râ" — Preceding unsigned comment added by David chaffetz (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment
I won't disagree that Mughal-E-Azam is a noteworthy movie. However, we must keep in mind that we are writing for Wikipedia here, which is not a place for movie reviews. Some liked it and others hated it. There's no movie that absolutely everyone loves.

The main problem is this paragraph: "The film is excellent on many counts. The acting is top-notch, the score, by Naushad, is memorable, the singing and dancing are well-done, and the cinematography (by R.D. Mathur) is stylish. The film evokes the glorious days of the Mughal empire, with its lavish palaces, Persian-style gardens, jeweled costumes, and courtly dialogue (in poetic, Persian-influenced Urdu)."

I'm sure there are people who feel the acting isn't "top-notch," that the score isn't "memorable," and that the days of the Mughal empire were not "glorious." (I sense something of a pro-Persian bias in this, as well, since the Persian influences on the gardens and on Urdu are noted twice.)

I'm removing that paragraph and adding a spoiler warning and that will probably bring this article back into NPOV. --Hnsampat 13:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Need for expansion
This article really needs to be expanded. This was the most most famous movie to ever come out of bollywood. It played booked for years! Although this article recognises the importance of the song "Pyar Kiya To Darna Kya" it forgets there were other songs in the movie that made bold statements about love and parents such as "Teri Mehil Main Kismat" and "Zindabad Aaye Mohaddbat." This movie played a very important role in bollywood history and needs more recognition.


 * Other people might disagree. They might say that Sholay, or DDLJ, or Mother India was the most important movie. An encyclopedia can't really make judgments about such things. Unless you have new factual material to add, the article should stay as it is. Zora 01:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

A great film all round
NOTE MY COMMENT WILL SPOIL THE ENDING TO FILM SO IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM DON'T READ MY COMMENT. Mughal e azam i have to say is an amazing film. to tell you the truth i only recently saw it for the first time in color. the movie itself was very very emotional but i thought the ending would have been a bit more grander becuase there was such a lovely plaot but the ending was just anarkali getting freed without the prince knowing.

Language classification
Dieresis 11:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC) I have my doubts about categorizing the language of this film as Hindustani. Most of the dialogue is courtly, formal, and literary, and I think would be more accurately categorised as Urdu, since Urdu is the Perso-Arabic-influenced literary register of Hindustani. If the language of the film were plainer, perhaps Hindustani would fit. I'm not arguing that there aren't moments where less formal language is used, but for the most part the actors are issuing royal orders and making poetic allusions. The songs are more mixed (and there's even one in Braj).

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 18:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mughal-e-Azam.jpg
Image:Mughal-e-Azam.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC) colourised

Contradiction in number of years in making Mughal-E-Azam
Hi!

There ia contradiction in the number of years it took to complete Mughal-E-Azam. In this article it is quoted to be 9 years, but in K.Asif's (Director of the movie) article it is qouted to be 12 years. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.91.3 (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed it to twelve here. It's kind of hard to define with all the breaks though.  BollyJeff  ||  talk  13:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

section split
I think the soundtrack of Mughal-e-Azam can have a seperate article, the reason that there is a huge history behind it. Particularly in the making of Pyaar kiya to darna kya. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the current state its not needed. If & when it expands, we can have a separate article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ditto Animesh. The section is under construction. But even after completion, I would not like a section split. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's wait to see how big it gets. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  12:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I believe the soundtrack section is complete, so what do u guys say? create a separate article for it? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This film was dubbed into Tamil and released in 1961 with the title "Akbar". The full list of Soundtrack in Tamil is available in Thiraikalanjiyam Part2. I am not sure how to incorporate this in the article.-- UK Sharma3 00:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are the songs available on Raaga.com or iTunes? I'm travelling till Monday, so I can't check. Kailash29792   (talk)  02:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

GA nomination
I must sincerely congratulate user Ankit Bhatt for giving his best efforts to improve this article, all which have ended successfully. Though he's still trying hard to further improve it, I think this article is now itself eligible for a GA nomination. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm flattered by this praise, I must say that I am absolutely not satisfied with this article yet. There are at least 20 more references and major chunks of information that have not appeared in the article, not to mention some still-ongoing reference addition requirements. I'm working towards a state where this article can pass GA and FA in quick succession; after all, an article on a film like this deserves more than a GA. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Though he has done a great job, let's be patient. I am sure there is much more that can be added.  I want to check all the material now and make sure there are no longer conflicting references.  There needs to be agreement among a couple reliable sources for some of the claims here (ex: 8000 troops, pure gold statues, recreating  Sheesh Mahal, etc.) Also, if it can make FA, didn't we want to wait until 2013 for the anniversary?  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Some aspects of this article will have conflicting sources; our job is to add all these sources and clearly say that "it is conflicted". That way, we retain comprehensiveness and do not hide information, since missing out any particular conflicting source can be challenged later on. Btw, what anniversary are you talking about? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Centenary_year BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  17:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is not the centenary of this film. The centenary applies for Raja Harishchandra. I was actually planning to make this an FA so that it could appear on the Main Page on August 5, 2012. No particular reason (2010 would have been the best year, but ah well!) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the whole point of that discussion was to setup several articles to be promoted in 2013, the anniversary of Indian Cinema. You are very optimistic, setting an FA date for this, when Ra.One is still not done.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  18:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The aim was to get this to FA by May 3, 2013 (the 100 year anniversary). And yeah, call me an optimist, it makes me do things better :P. The Ra.One FA review is simply... dead. I mean, no supports, no opposes, just one comment and a whole week gone. No idea why. Perhaps all the necessary reviewers have already seen the article and are no longer interested. Dunno what to do... ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We can have as many articles ready as FAs for appearances. We can then choose which one should go on 5th May. Was just watching some makings of this film on Youtube and WOW! i would love this article for 5th May than any other. All editors do watch those clips. Even if they can not be used as reliable sources it would atleast give you an idea of what you need to search for. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)  19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Link please. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There should be many more.... playlist, one segment is missing out of 7, K Asif's family speaks 1, 2 and 3, has good on-set and premier day clippings, IBN Live's take on making, has few good speakers, 1, 2, 3, 4. Last 5 links are good. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks, I have added them as external links and used a few bits as citations; have not viewed them all yet. I am not sure if this is the best citation format, but it's the same one we used on K3G. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  19:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Contradictions
I suppose many more contradictions in sources would come. One current case i see is below. We do not have any good online sources for old Filmfare Awards. Our source of info is usually this pdf and i dont know why. However it contradicts with IMDB's entry. Neither of the two are RS. Rest all awards match, at least for this film. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Filmfare Awards
 * These sources says 5 crore for the restoration: economictimes, rediff. I don't have highbeam yet; is that 50 crore source really reliable? Afterall, 5 crore = 50 million, so maybe its a misprint.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its definitely reliable; Highbeam does not research on its own, it simply collects articles. The original source for the 50 crore figure comes from HT, I think. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion
Instead of having a non-free image of Madhubala i would suggest adding a non-free video clip of "Pyar Kiya To Darna Kya". From 4:06 till 6:06 from here. It would cover many important points. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The start from 4:06 has a long shot showing a good view of Sheesh Mahal. The start of the video from 0:01 would give better view of Sheesh Mahal but alas we cant have full video.
 * These 2mins include glimpses of all four main characters of the film. We won't get Nigar Sultana in this, but she is seen in quite early shots and kuch paane ke liye kuch khona bhi padta hai.
 * The piece includes the classic mirror sequence.
 * Also would be an example of much acclaimed Mangeshkar's singing.
 * Includes the important & beautiful line (IMO), "Parda nahi jab koi khudase, bandonse parda karna kya".


 * That would be better suited to the film's soundtrack article (which seems inevitable; I've taken a break from this article to focus on some others, but I'll definitely be back soon.) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the age of this film, are we sure that this stuff is still non-free? What is the copyright length in India? If you check out articles like Katherine Hepburn, it is full of pictures from 1975 and earlier, but not after.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  18:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The film's color photos are certainly in copyright, since it came out in 2004. The only doubt remains as to whether copyright exists for the older images; the black-and-white images will be non-free provided that the producers did not renew the copyright on those images in the re-release period.There is one photo I am very eager to upload, which will definitely be free - a photo of Nargis as Anarkali. That is an ideal free image (since in India, copyright age is 50 years). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So if we don't know if was renewed...what can be done?? Also, I don't think its normal to use pictures of people who were not in the film. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  00:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My plan had been to place it in the development section. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In Historical Inaccuracies, "When the film's Salim returns from his time in the military, he is depicted as a gentle and romantic hero, in contrast to the real Salim, who was documented as a brutal drunk who would often beat people to death."

Documented where? If in the Akbarnama or any work by Abul Fazl Ibn Mubarak or works derived from his works, a note should be made that Abul Fazl was a political rival of Salim's and his accounts of Salim's personality should be treated with some scepticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marq au (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , read this source which is already there: "In real life, Salim was a heavy consumer of alcohol and opium, though these habits did not start until he was 18. It is also true that he was brutal: he castrated one servant, beat another to death, and had a writer who wrote nasty things about him flayed alive while he watched." Kailash29792 (talk)  06:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes thanks, but that is my point. The reference is to a movie review blog, not to a primary source. It is hardly authoritative on the actual personality of Prince Salim. Most of the accounts of the the life of Salim come from Abul Fazl, and as Salim famously wrote in the Jahangir Nama,

“Shaikh Abul Fazl, who excelled the Shaikhzadas of Hindustan in wisdom and learning, had adorned himself outwardly with the jewel of sincerity, and sold it to my father at a heavy price.”

In other words, Abul Fazl lied, and he lied terribly about Salim who was his political enemy in order to discredit him in the eyes of the emperor. Salim was supported by the household faction (Hamida Banu, his mother Mariam and the other empresses) who opposed the Amirs led by Abul Fazl. Salim's personality apparently changes remarkably after the murder of Abul Fazl by Salim's ally, Vir Singh Deo. Some historians ludicrously put this down to two weeks locked in his father's bathroom after their reconciliation, but far more likely simply that Abul Fazl was out of the picture and unable to slander him.

Also in terms of historical inaccuracies, Akbar never had an empress contemporarily called Jodha Bai and certainly not one called "Maharani" Jodha Bai as in the credits of the movie and as perpetuated in other famous Indian Movies. Salim's mother was Hira Kunwari, later entitled Mariam-uz-Zamani after the birth of Prince Salim. Salim's fatherhood is subject to speculation, the evidence favouring one of the sons of Sheik Salim Chisti rather than Akbar.Marq au (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-free media
There are currently 4-5 non-free media in the article, with a poster, a DVD cover and three screenshots. While I am unsure if all of them would be necessary to satisfy WP:NFCC, it would be nice if the article had its images reviewed. Secret of success (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know how we can find out if the copyright has expired, at least on the black-and-white one? See above discussion for context. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  00:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See Template:PD-India. The work can be considered free only if "In case of a photograph, work of cinema, sound recording, anonymous work, or governmental work, it was published more than 60 years ago". Secret of success (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's gonna be another boring plain article then. Hopefully the b-w to color comparison is justified. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

complete?
this article hasn't been edited in a while, but looks fair and large enough. Is it complete and stable enough to get a GA nomination? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so. Ankitbhatt has been absent for a while now. When he comes back, he can try to acheive FA, but I think it is suitable for GA now, so I am going to nominate it. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * all the best. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oscar entry
The article claims the film was an official entry for Oscars (only in the lede). I could not find any web/published sources verifying the same. I came across this article which says no Indian film was sent to Oscars in 1960. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  13:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Claim has been removed. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Post GA
I had included some points needed for the FA in the GA review itself. I missed one such then.
 * The "Critical reception" section gives reviews of the film from the present-day critics. All of those are based on the re-released version. These reviews wouldn't actually change had the colour version been not released because they majorly speak of the whole film and not simply the colours. But lack of reviews from the original release is noticeable here. Only few reviews (Laura Bushell of BBC and Ashis Nandy's book) are based on the original film. More of those are needed. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But if present day critics review the film from the old point of view (without saying terms like "it was the greatest of it's time", but like "it is the grandest i have ever seen") along with technical aspects exclusive to the old film, then thats acceptable. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thats right. Present day reviews will stay and they are notable. But surely from 1960 to 2004 something more has been written than the above mentioned two reviews. That is missing. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is "unfortunate" that "forgettance" is the disease that the nation is suffering from. Not only that, even valuable evidence blows away like sand in wind, so not many old reviews may remain. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Improve the transliteration of the Persoan Poem.
The transliteration of the Persian poem could be improved from: ta Kiyamat shukr geom kardgate khwesh ra, Aah garman bez benaam roo-e yare khwesh ra",

to: tâ qiyâmat shukr dehom kardgâr-e khwêsh râ, Âh gar man bâz bênom rû-y-e yâr-e khwêsh râ.

It would also be good to know if the abjad for this particular line of poetry gives the Hejirah year of her death?

Thanks for your consideration.

David Chaffetz December 11, 2016 59.149.193.166 (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In other media
I heard there was a stage version. See http://www.ncpamumbai.com/event/mughal-e-azam and http://www.rediff.com/movies/report/mughal-e-azam-a-world-class-indian-production-at-last/20161027.htm for more about it. Darci (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added to article, thanks. Bollyjeff  &#124;  talk  14:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I found a contemporary review of this film, dated 12 August 1960. It is on page 3. Please see what you can add from it since you appear to be better than me at not violating WP:QUOTEFARM. -- Kailash29792   (talk)  14:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverts with RW
Copied from user's talk page:

You have been reverting edits by others with comments such as "RW 16.1" or "RW 16". Clicking on them takes us to the RedWarn page with no mention of what 16.1 means. I assume it is the software version, in which case that page should mention it as such. In any case, the revert comment does not explain why something was reverted. For example you reverted as vandalism.  - Jay Talk 11:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It was unsourced, hence I reverted it. But I agree I should have used a different method of reverting. Kailash29792 (talk)  04:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Translation of the film name
, the translation you from greatest to emperor, seems to have been there from 2009. Can you provide more details of the FA pass that you mentioned in the revert summary?  Jay (Talk) 03:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Page 33 of this book goes with the emperor translation, and it should be considered RS as it is written by a reputed film scholar. Kailash29792 (talk)  03:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You may want to add the citation in case someone changes the translation again. And add the quote from the page that mentions it. I don't have access to the source, so I don't know what is written. In any case, I was not looking for a source, but a possible link based on your comment that said "...this was the translation used during the FA pass..."  Jay (Talk) 05:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Behold. Kailash29792 (talk)  08:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 05slide3.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mohe Panghat Pe.jpg