Talk:Jodhaa Akbar

art director?

for a movie with such good work in recreation of the mughal era and the wonderful sets, no credit/reference to the art director is given.

Title?

Whatever the name of this film, the key disclaimer is missing from the main page: This movie is a WORK OF FICTION' and has no bearing with real/historic events. All similarities are coincidental. The story is not to be confused with the real emperor Jalaluddin a.k.a. Akbar. As for confusion with the "real" Jodhabai, the question does not arise as she is a fictional character' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.22.196.75 (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, what IS the title for the film? Is it Akbar-Jodha or Jodha-Akbar? Could someone provide a link or something to clarify this matter? Thanks! -- Hariharan91 19:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

new pic

heres a new pic of the posters for this movie http://www.indiafm.com/features/2007/08/30/2989/index.html

someone add it plewase i dont kow how to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianguy0987 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The hindutan times review is not a valid review... review from indiafm should be considered instead of the hindustan times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pp1234 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice Ghallug (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Link

i think the hindustan times review is invalid and instead the indiafm.com review should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pp1234 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the below link since it was given as a review and since the film has not even released, no review is possile. The link given is a portal like one with links to mp3 and adds. Seems like this was an advertisement to the site.

• Exclusive Jodhaa Akbar Review —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viswamchn (talk • contribs) 09:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Error

The writer is credited is "Haider Ali" (writer) and the link is made to "Haider Ali" (of 18th century). Surely, no 18th century person wrote the script. C'mon! Tatai (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Anirban Sen

Jodha Bai history

Jodha Bai is the problem here. It is irrelevant to the Jodhaa Akbar page. It is an article about a film, not the history of the name. The history of the name Jodha Bai belongs to an article named Akbar. You are adding a full coverage of the name and its history to the lead. You can provide thousand reliable refs for your additions, but if the claims are not relevant to the film and the film article, it has nothing to do with this article. Also, there are several unreferenced claims in the body, and one review from moviewalah, which is unreliable, and you keep adding it. Plus, as per WP:LEAD, the lead is here to summarise the article, and it is not a summary, you know. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely relevant to people that this movie is gross distortion of reality as various historians have said. This same sentiment is echoed by indian courts. So you can decide that people should not know these facts. You are welcome to challenge the references given in the article with yours, if you can can contradict the ones given. Otherwise please stop your disruptive behavior.

Your point about Lead section being short is fair and I have added stuff to the synopsis section. 124.125.208.23 (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The synopsis is here to relate the story of the film -- not the history of the name Jodha Akbar. See all kinds of WP:FAs for that. That's why it's called synopsis. The history of the name Jodha Bai belongs to another page named Akbar, not to an article about a film. A mention of this name being not historically approved makes its presence on the article. Further info is not needed. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that synopsis is absolutely one sided. Rajputs did not accept akbar as there ruler. Only some did. This stmnt is patently false: "Through a shrewd blend of diplomacy, intimidation and brute force , Akbar won the allegiance of the Rajputs.". Similarly other stmnts are just wrong. Now we can take this to RFC if you are interested but you will not have the last word. I promise. Wikipedia is all about presenting both points of view and not just one. Please understand this fundamental principal.

Itihaaskar (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the co-relation? We are talking about different things: this information does NOT belong to this article. That's all Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This article is about the film, not the historical events upon which it is based. Many/most films about historical subjects are markedly off base, Braveheart among them. It is not necessarily the job of an article about the film to say anything about the factual events upon which the film is based. There are or could be other articles to deal with that matter. This article is about the film, and only the film. References to its historical accuracy, unless questions about that historical accuracy were a significant factor in the discussion of the film as was the case with Braveheart, really don't belong in this article, and then only in so far as indicating that the story of the film is inaccurate. But this is an article about the film, not about the actual events. The actual historical events relative to the subject should be discussed in other articles. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But the article deliberately tries to say movie is well researched. A case was filed in indian courts and they decided director has to put a disclaimer. Itihaaskar (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does it "try to say movie is well researched"? Nobody said that. It is just a movie with fictional characters - not a documentary. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the article carefully. Not only it says that in the lead it also says it is based on historical events! What would be more absurd then the fact that jodhabai is actually the daughter in law of akar and not his wife! Have you read what various historians are saying? Itihaaskar (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead also says "although in reality Akbar's wife was never known as Jodhabai." - BEFORE editing you have to discuss, NOT after. I'm OK with the current accurancy section, but I reduced it though because it was too long. It is important to present the matter, and historians do not compare the versions, only present their view about the orginal case. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You obvsiouly have no regard for fundamental pillar of WP. When you can make off the cuff remark that gossip can be cited you have just trashed the opinion of learned historians. My request to you please bring forth some professional historian who agrees with you. And stop issuing threats.

Itihaaskar (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

When article can make factually wrong claims like : "Rajputs owed allegiance to Akbar" . Should we leave them in because it is a movie page? Please be serious in your argument. Itihaaskar (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

God!! This is a movie/fiction... We already say that the article is not completely historically accurate, but we are talking about the amount of info. You see, I agreed to add your stuff, although two other editors plus me opposed initially. I think it can be added but depends on the it is written. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

historian's view

If you read outlook magazine ( a major news magazine published in India ) you will find the following in the article on Jodha AKbar

"Gowariker consulted me on the film but we disagreed on almost everything." Irfan Habib, Historian.

This pretty much sums up the "research" that Gowariker has done. He talked to many historians and each pretty much told him that jodha was never, ever the name of akbar's queen. Rather his daughter in law. From the same article in outlook:

Leading scholars of medieval history, Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra and Harbans Mukhia, categorically dismiss the idea that Akbar had a wife named Jodhabai.

So it is clear that Ashutosh Gowariker did talk to historians but he himself came up with the ficticious title, and ficticious storyline of this movie.

Besides if a movie makes a ficticious claim that "rajputs owed allegiance" to akbar why should this not be disputed and "the other side" presented (which you have been deleting)? Fact is rajputs DID NOT owe allegiance to Akbar and many of them *ALWAYS* considered him a foreign invader and those who gave daughters to Akbar were banished from being rajputs and no matrimonial alliance was allowed with these "degraded" rajputs. This rule was promulgated by Maharana Pratap. So why are you pushing blatant lies?

Besides you just for argument's sake make laughable claims that "gossip can be cited" thereby trivializing the opinion of all historians.

And while we are at it you might want to educate us why is it that mothers of humayun, akbar, dara shikoh, aurangzeb are mentioned abundantly in court chronicles of mughals and not of Jahangir?

Itihaaskar (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, where are the links to your claim ? Secondly, this (unsourced) quote doesn't sum nothing at all. Thirdly, you did not respond to any of my comments.

The fact that you believe that she never existed does not make it true. Even if historians say that such name did not exist, they are just hisotorians. Their opinions do not constitute a fact. Also, there is no sign of them being notable at all. Who are they? Are they prominent? Should we take their views at face value? For example, "According to Ahmad, Tod was not a professinal historian and depended on folk literature of Rajputs" and who is this Ahmed? We know who Tod is, but we don't know who is Ahmed... Do we? Tod is far more notable and prominent than he is, so why should we take Ahmed's views at face value? More so when he says that Tod is not a professional..

Also, your text clearly indicates that you tried very very hard to present your POV that Jodhaa was not the name of Akbar's wife, concealing and hiding important notes, emphasising and inflating others, repeating yourself -- all for one mission - make up a new "fact" from your own POV. Even if some (most of them non-notable) historians say that Akbar's wife was not Jodhaa, we can never write that "she was never known as Jodhaa", but "according to some/several historians, she was not known as Jodhaa."

Also note that while some claim that it wasn't her name, some claim that it was. Ashutosh, a prolific filmmaker of his generation claims that he consulted many historians and that Jodhaa is indeed one of Akbar's wife's names. Irfan Habib is only one of them, and this "Gowariker consulted me on the film but we disagreed on almost everything." says nothing. We are not here to conclude things and come to our own conlusions. You don't know what they disagreed about and whether the name Jodhaa was discussed at all. And I repeat, he is one of numerous historians Gowarikar consulted.

I suggest you to read, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:N etc., before starting writng such controversial sections. I'm here to improve this article, and also to help you.

I see that you think that she wasn't Jodhaa and you strongly think so, but it doesn't give you the liberty to make a fact out of partial and ineffectual claims. I decided to not remove/delete, but rewrite, copyedit and analyse. That's what I'm doing. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Shahid please read this:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/419034.cms

You further say something that is very disturbing and against the spirit of Wikipedia:

Even if historians say that such name did not exist, they are just hisotorians. Their opinions do not constitute a fact.

You want us to believe your POV and not the words of historians! Your POV is not relevant here on Wikipedia. Why should we believe you and not the historians? You have lost this argument unless you tell us that you are a peer-reviewed historian yourself and give us a pointer to your work.

Please do not revert the article anymore.

Itihaaskar (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha you clearly lost this argument, you have nothing else to say that's why you came with it. I said that for the simple fact that historians' views usually contradict each other, that's why they cannot constitute a fact. Also, there are no signs of notability, who are they? Why aren't there articles about them on the Wiki?

Also, I have no POV here; this subject does not interest me. You are the one who wants us to believe your POV. And I will say that thousand times: you have misrepresented their views, even attributed to them things that they did not say.

Your misrepresentation of the matter and my analisys above is a clear proof to that. You have emphasised your POV, mispresented facts and historians' views, so you have nothing else to say. I have my own version now, and I will implement it once the article is unprotected. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And remember one thing, even if you find hundred historians who say that she never existed, you can never write that she never existed, because -- some people say one thing, others say that thing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be a bit more serious. Irfan Habib is a well known historian. You not knowing him is irrelevant to this debate. Since you have been making tall claims :

"for the simple fact that historians' views usually contradict wach other"

Can you show us which historians contradict, Irfan Habib; Harbans Mukhia (Professor of History at Jawahar Lal Nehru university, New Delhi) and others from various univs in India? From the article in outlook magazine:

Leading scholars of medieval history, Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra and Harbans Mukhia, categorically dismiss the idea that Akbar had a wife named Jodhabai.

It is high time you show us some references to back up your POV. Otherwise it is blatant POV pushing from your side! WP does not entertain such behavior. Sorry. Itihaaskar (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

huh? Sorry? LOL. And who are you to tell me that? What about my analisys? Don't you have something to say? You clearly don't. I'm not talking about the matter. I'm talking about your POV, and the way your text was written. I didn't come up with sources, but your sources were misrepresented here -- that's what I'm talking about. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Let us see what you have been saying Shahid:

"Also, there are no signs of notability, who are they? Why aren't there articles about them on the Wiki?"

So we told you that you are wrong and the historians we are quoting are the top authorities in the field of medieveal history e.g. Irfan Habib.

We are just stating the opinion of these historians. From the article in outlook magazine:

Leading scholars of medieval history, Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra and Harbans Mukhia, categorically dismiss the idea that Akbar had a wife named Jodhabai.

You on the other hand have an agenda that your POV is the right one namely Jodha is the wife of Akbar. We have requested you repeatedly to show us some scholar who agrees with your POV. Now I am inclined to believe that you cannot cite a single modern scholar of history who supports your POV.

Itihaaskar (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are "we"?? You seem to be the only one! Oh sorry!!! You mean you and your sock puppet. OK.

You still can't get the simple fact, I'm not invloved here. I have no POV here, whether she was Jodhaa or not -- I don't care. I only want the subject to be presented fairly. I know who Irfan Habib is, I'm fine with adding his quote -- but remember that we have to present all parts fairly without bias. I will also add Ahutosh's quote. We can't regard these hitorians' views as facts, because other people and other historians contradict their views.

If you want to add sourced info, you have to consider the fact that it must be well-investigated, reliable, fair, neutral, approved wtc. The initial text did NOT apply any of these conditions. It was inflated, full of POV, some facts were concealed, info was not fairly presented and even misrepresented - see my analisys. You can never write "She was never known as Jodhaa Bai" - because it's your POV, historians give only opinions, views, and many of them usually disagree on things. There are different interpretations to every possible historical event/subject. There are also hitorians (in your very source) who say that Jodhaa was Akbar's wife.

That's why I refer you to WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:N once again. And you seem to have nothing new to say, so just don't reply if you have nothing to add.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You said:

"We can't regard these hitorians' views as facts, because other people and other historians contradict their views."

Can you please tell us which modern historians are contradicting Irfan Habib and others that have been quoted above? Itihaaskar (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Have one little example which is sufficient: according to the ToI source "Jodhabai did exist but her real name was something else. She was Akbar's wife (and only then he added), but the name Jodhabai seems to have become popular after the film, Mughal-e-Azam" Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong example. You omitted who the authority is deliberately. Let us see the quote from the article:

Akbar Khan, who has just made a historical film on the era, 'Taj Mahal', said Jodhabai did exist but her real name was something else.

Akbar Khan is a film maker and not a historian. Please try again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itihaaskar (talk • contribs) 06:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Double standards no? See what you wrote in your text, "According to the historian Lifaq Ali Khan, the name Jodha Bai seems to have become popular after the film Mughal-e-Azam." - another attempt to emphasis. When you added, didn't you notice hat it is a filmmaker and not a historian? And even that, every opinion of every notable person counts.

I think you're getting that in the very wrong way... huh... I have already written a text, and that's what I will add according to my analysis above. And I will add Ashutosh's quote to show what his take on the issue is.

And I repeat and listen well, we can never regard these hitorians' views as facts, just because it goes like this, (and, among other things, because other people and other historians as well may contradict their views.)

We can say, "according to several historians, Jodhaa did not exist" but not "she never existed"

Please try again... LOL!!!

Again, please see WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:N. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are unable to cite any historian who supports your POV. So you leave us no choice but to conclude that Jodha Bai was not the wife of Akbar. Wikipedia is not a place to rant one's personal POV. I hope we can request the page be unblocked and you will not engage in revert war. If you have issues you will raise them on the talk page. Itihaaskar (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If YOU have issues you will raise them here, because you are the one who adds the info.

I said and I repeat, I have no POV in this case; this subject does not interest me. You are the one who wants us to believe your POV. And I will say that thousand times: you have misrepresented their views, even attributed to them things that they did not say.

Your misrepresentation of the matter and my analisys above is a clear proof to that. You have emphasised your POV, mispresented facts and historians' views, so you have nothing else to say. I have my own version now, and I will implement it once the article is unprotected.

We are not here to conclude things. Wikipedia is not here to make conclusions about historical issues, but to present views, even if they are unanimous by historians (who are just human beings...) Remember, I will never let you emphasise your POV. You can add "according to historians, she was not known as Jodha Bai" but NEVER "Jodha Bai never existed". This phrase will never exist on the article.

For the Xth time, please see WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:N. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You have a POV that Jodha was the wife of Akbar. We have given you references of unanimous opinion of modern historians like Irfan Habib that she was not. You on the other hand cannot come up with a single reference to support your POV. (You did give one reference of Akbar Khan who is a filmmaker and not a historian).

Second We are not saying Jodha did not exist. She did exist and was the wife of Jahangir. This is precisely the reason why the title of this movie is factually incorrect. Jodha Bai was the daughter in law of Akbar and not his wife. Please read the genealogy of Marwar kings at: http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/ips/j/jodhpur.html

• 20 Raja UDAI SINGH 1583/1595, born 1539, married and had issue, 17 sons and 17 daughters. He died 1595.
  • Rajkumari Man Bai (renamed Taj Bibi but better known as Jodha Bai), married 1588, Shahzada Salim (later Padshah JAHANGIR, Emperor of Delhi), born 1569, died 1627. She died 1603.

Itihaaskar (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I have POV about and what I have no. I told you. You can think and say and claim and provide whatever you want. All of the all, all of what you said, is POV. "She was that.. and she was that... etc..." - but you have sources from different sites with different historians, so the one thing you must write is "according to several historians... she was that and she was that". Whether historians or not, there are people who claim that she was his wife, including the director of the film, so you can cite thousand historians' views and stay with nothing, but I won't let you write your POV as fact, because it's still a POV. Historians say that and that, but at the end of the day, nobody has the full authority to state them as fact, basing themselves on views. There is no clear evidence or whatever regarding the issue. Even historians who agree on her not being his wife etc. cite different reasons to their views. That's the first proof to that - nothing is factual. We are basing ourselves on different views, on opinions so the obvious thing is to say that we are basing ourselves on opinions.

Meaning

"according to historians, she was not known as Jodha Bai" - right way.

"Jodha Bai never existed". - wrong way.

Also, your version needs major copyediting, based on different Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Your text was full of POV, misrepresentation. I already have a new text and I will display that on the page once it's unprotected. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You have rambled on and on without citing a single source to back up your claim of Jodha being wife of Akbar. And now you want to be the last word on the article? Wikipedia is about citing credible sources and not POV ranting. This is not a personal website where you can upload what you feel like. Two facts should emerge "not a single modern historian agrees with Ashutosh Gowariker." Second Jodha was the wife of Akbar's son. If you have a problem with these two please air them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itihaaskar (talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL... You were sock puppeting so why should we take your words at face value?????? I repeat for the last time. It is NOT my claim. I don't have a claim. That's your POV, that she was and she wasn't, but compared to Ashutosh, you are absolutely nobody. I don't consider you a constructive editor, thus I don't take your words seriously. I have a better version which will be displayed. But your POV is only supported by historians, (most of which are non-notable) and their views are not facts.

This:

Wikipedia is about citing credible sources

Please cite sources for THAT.

Can you find an evidence or proof of Akbar's wife not being Jodhaa? YOU CAN'T!

You are an unestablished editor, so please see WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:N. We have guidelines.

Also, why do you keep ignoring my analysis? Nothing to say?? huh!!!

Historians say that and that, but at the end of the day, nobody has the full authority to state them as facts.

Give me a ref where it is stated: "It was proved, Jodhaa was not his wife". Do you have one?

It is NOT a fact. Remember that. Historians usually claim different things, so what will be the explanation???

Even the source from Rediff says, "It is claimed by some historians that Jodha was not Akbar's wife, as is shown in the film."

Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See this is getting funny. You have ZERO source/reference to support your POV that Jodha is the wife of Akbar. I repeat you do not have a single historian whom you can cite. While you have been given the opinion of major historians of India, Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra, Harbans Mukhia etc that Jodha was not the wife of Akbar. So what does this mean? Simply no historian agrees with Gowariker, the director of this movie, that Jodha was wife of Akbar.

Secondly there is agreement amongst historians that Jodha was the wife of Jahangir. You can try and prove wrong if you can cite some historian who disagrees with this!

Itihaaskar (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If it means anything, i think it is far more important to focus on the film itself rather than venture too much into historical debate. A historical inaccuracies section is useful, but a] it should be short and concise b]should certainly not be POV or disputable, or go off the track. Please remember it is a film article not a forum for historical debate. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable. But this article as espoused by ShSh's POV that it is "well researched" and "the director of this movie consulted various historians" to come up with story line falls flat when scrtunized. ShSh has been unable to cite a single historian who supports his POV namely Jodha is the wife of Akbar.

Then the second point is who Jodha was. Again modern historians of medieveal India have aired there opinions that Jodha was the wife of Jahanir, Akbar's son. This fact is also mentioned in the genealogy of Marwar kings:

http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/ips/j/jodhpur.html

• 20 Raja UDAI SINGH 1583/1595, born 1539, married and had issue, 17 sons and 17 daughters. He died 1595.
  • Rajkumari Man Bai (renamed Taj Bibi but better known as Jodha Bai), married 1588, Shahzada Salim (later Padshah JAHANGIR, Emperor of Delhi), born 1569, died 1627. She died 1603.

But ShShSh without citing a single historian to support his POV wants to create confusion that title of this movie, meaning Jodha is wife of Akbar, is correct.

There are further blanket statements in the article that "rajputs owed allegiance to Akbar". This is a lie. Rajputs like Maharana Pratap always considered Akbar a foreign invader and infact banned all inter marriages with rajputs who gave there daughters to mughals. Itihaaskar (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to know nothing about Wikipedia. First of all, it's Shshshsh. Secondly, I didn't write that the movie is well reseached. When soing so - you're accusing me of something. Unless you support your claim with some WP:DIFF, it's a lie, and even an attack.

I have absolutely no problem to remove that claim that the movie is well researched and everything else. I have problem with the way you write down your POV. And it's well pointed above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone has heard enough of your POV that Jodha is the wife of Akbar. Time to come up with some historian's reference. Can you point a single modern historian who says jodha is the wife of akbar? So why should we not say Akbar's wife was never known as jodhabai?

Itihaaskar (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I've never said that Jodhaa was his wife. You still didn't answer, Can you find an evidence or proof that Akbar's wife was not Jodhaa? I said PROOF, not historians' quotes. Can you? Can you find any factual approval? YOU CAN'T!

We cannot regard historians' views as facts. They have views and it's fine by me, but there isn't any concievable evidence to justify it. Is there?

Historians can disagree and that's what we have to say: "Historians disagree". Logical, no?

Even the source from Rediff says, "It is claimed by some historians that Jodha was not Akbar's wife, as is shown in the film."

Before continuing with useless statements, answer me, what do you have to say about that????? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Birbal's name

{{editprotected}}

change "Maheshdas/Birbal" to "Maheshdas/Raja Birbal"

Why? feydey (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wh is Birbal and what are you talking about? This subject is far from being uncontroversial or supported by consensus. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 Not done please establish consensus for this change. Happy‑melon 10:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned and Protests

The article does not mention that the film was banned in 3 states in India: Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh (ban lifted by high court now) and UP. Also the protests by some Rajput groups, which led to the banning. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. This should be mentioned.

Itihaaskar (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Will be mentioned once the film is unprotected, but not in details. The reason + the protests is enough. This is a film article, and we have to work mainly on the reception, box office and production sections. These are the major aspects of the film. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You cannot decide what goes on in this article. Understand that. The fact it was banned is important and will be mentioned in full detail. Itihaaskar (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

THe fact that it is Banned is important too.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I can decide, and I will, because I'm an editor who tries to improve the encyclopedia, not a sock puppeter who tries to spread his POV. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aaja Nachle discusses banning, Jodhaa-Akbar should too.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's work: inflation, incohorence, POV

Itihaaskar (talk · contribs) has added a full block of text, regarding the historical accuracy of the name Jodhaa (the name of the female lead). Meaning, whether the name "Jodhaa" was indeed Akbar's wife's name or not. However, my review of the text shows that the paragraph was not fairly/properly written. The text clearly highlights his personal view that the name never existed.

Here is your text:

There is popular perception that Rajput wife of Akbar, mother of Jahangir, was known as "Jodha Bai".[8] However, Akbar's Rajput wife was never known as "Jodha Bai" during her lifetime.

The name of Akbar's wife was kept out of the Mughal records deliberately because the islamic clergy and the mughal populace could not come to terms with the future mughal emperor being the son of a Hindu woman. In Tujuk-i-Jahangiri she is clearly referred as Mariam Zamani.[9] During the Mughal period, Akbar's Rajput wife was never known as "Jodha Bai". Neither the Akbarnama (a biography of Akbar commissioned by Akbar himself), nor any historical text from the period refer to her as Jodha Bai.[9]

According to Professor Shirin Moosvi, a historian of Aligarh Muslim University, the name "Jodha Bai" was first used to refer to Akbar's wife in the 18th and 19th centuries in historical writings.[9] According to the historian Imtiaz Ahmad, the director of the Khuda Baksh Oriental Public Library in Patna, the name "Jodha" was used for Akbar's wife for the first time by Lieutenant-Colonel James Tod, in his book Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan. According to Ahmad, Tod was not a professinal historian and depended on folk literature of Rajputs.[10] According to the historian Lifaq Ali Khan, the name Jodha Bai seems to have become popular after the film Mughal-e-Azam.[9]

According to N R Farooqi, Jodha Bai was not the name of Akbar's Rajput queen; it was the name of Jahangir's Rajput wife, whose real name was Jagat Gosain. Jagat Gosain was referred to as "Jodha Bai" or "Jodhi Bibi", since she belonged to the royal family of Jodhpur.[8] Jodhi Bibi was the daughter of Udai Singh of Jodhpur, and a wife of Jahangir. She was the mother of Prince Khurram (later Shah Jahan).

I wanna copyedit the whole section. It was terribly written and was very much POV and WP:UNDUE:

Samples for wrong conlusions, POV and incohorence

First example of misrepresentation

The name of Akbar's wife was kept out of the Mughal records deliberately because the islamic clergy and the mughal populace could not come to terms with the future mughal emperor being the son of a Hindu woman. In Tujuk-i-Jahangiri she is clearly referred as Mariam Zamani.

• First of all, The name of Akbar's wife was kept out of the Mughal records deliberately because the islamic clergy and the mughal populace could not come to terms with the future mughal emperor being the son of a Hindu woman is completely irrelevant and incohorent!
• Secondly, you wrote, she is clearly referred as Mariam Zamani - clearly???? Let me refer you to the article which you are taking this info from; it says: "she is referred to sometimes as Mariam Zamani" - isn't there a difference between "clearly" and "sometime" for you? --- that means - POV of the writer, and an attempt to emphsise the matter that she was not known as Johaa Bai.

---

Second flaw, POV emphasis

Akbar's Rajput wife was never known as "Jodha Bai"

• This statement appears twice in your text. This is a clear attempt to emphasise your POV, and also a misrepresentation of the matter. Who says that? It should be written:
  • (a) Only once.
  • (b) Should be at least accopanied by some clause... something like: "according to several historians" or "several historians claim..."

---

Third note, concealment of important details; misrepresentation

According to the historian Lifaq Ali Khan, the name Jodha Bai seems to have become popular after the film Mughal-e-Azam.

• Please reread the TOI article, and tell me if that was the only thing this historian said. Here is the full quote, according to the source "Jodhabai did exist but her real name was something else. She was Akbar's wife (and only then he added), but the name Jodhabai seems to have become popular after the film, Mughal-e-Azam"
• Why didn't you write it down. It makes a big difference. Doesn't it?

---

Fourth example, irrelevant notes

According to N R Farooqi, Jodha Bai was not the name of Akbar's Rajput queen; it was the name of Jahangir's Rajput wife, whose real name was Jagat Gosain. Jagat Gosain was referred to as "Jodha Bai" or "Jodhi Bibi", since she belonged to the royal family of Jodhpur.[8] Jodhi Bibi was the daughter of Udai Singh of Jodhpur, and a wife of Jahangir. She was the mother of Prince Khurram (later Shah Jahan)

• OK, this (Jagat Gosain was referred to as "Jodha Bai" or "Jodhi Bibi", since she belonged to the royal family of Jodhpur.[8] Jodhi Bibi was the daughter of Udai Singh of Jodhpur, and a wife of Jahangir. She was the mother of Prince Khurram) is completely irrelevant and has no relevance to the sunject matter/case you're talking about/dealing with.
• The matter here is only that: "According to N R Farooqi, Jodha Bai was not the name of Akbar's Rajput queen; it was the name of Jahangir's Rajput wife, whose real name was Jagat Gosain." further info is irrelevant here. Be focused.

---

Misses

Ashutosh Gowarikar says:

“ While making the film I did my best to go by the book. I consulted the best historians and went through the most rigorous research. And there are different names used for Akbar's wife, Jodhaa being one of them. In fact, there's a disclaimer about the Rajput queen's name at the beginning of the film. But to see that, the protestors have to see the film. ”

• This quote should be definitely included in the section, to present both sides.

---

Note

It is important to note that apart from historians' views there is no factual approval of the matter. We cannot regard historians' views as facts. They have views and it's fine by me, but there isn't any concievable evidence to justify it. Is there?

Historians can disagree and that's what we have to say: "Historians disagree". Logical, no?

Even the source from Rediff says, "It is claimed by some historians that Jodha was not Akbar's wife, as is shown in the film."

Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please change your POV

This is what you say:

"It is important to note that apart from historians' views there is no factual approval of the matter. We cannot regard historians' views as facts. They have views and it's fine by me, but there isn't any concievable evidence to justify it. Is there?

Historians can disagree and that's what we have to say: "Historians disagree". Logical, no?"

Please tell us what is proof according to you? Remember you have been claiming "historians disagree" forever and yet you have have not cited a single one who disagress with Irfan Habib and others. So what does this mean? You have a POV, that you want to push in this article, that Jodha could have been the wife of Akbar because "historians disagree" but there is not a single historian that you can quote. This is height of POV pushing. I hope someone notices this and tells you that you cannot push POV on wikipedia. It is a big no no.

Itihaaskar (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ig you don't have nothing new to say, so it's better for you to keep quiet. Historians claim that she was not Akbar's wife, and that's what we will say, that historians claim. It is not a fact. A proof is a proof, chack the dictionary. I'm not here to expand your lexicon. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing new is coming up

These are things that need to emerge:

• a) Jodha was not the wife of Akbar (No historian says Jodha was Akbar's wife). Ashutoash Gowariker made a mistake. Historians are unanimous that Jodha was not Akbar's wife.

• b) There was a real person Jodha who was wife of Jahangir as is clear from Marwar records and as historians are saying.

• c) Rajputs did not owe allegiance to Akbar. Maharana Pratap the foremost rajput ruler of his age always considered akbar a foreign invader of India.

So What is the fuss?

Itihaaskar (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh, and who are you to decide? This is a film article. We will mention that in short. Your claim, "Jodha was not the wife of Akbar" is based on the fact that no historian claims otherwise. But the claim is not factually approved. Historians' views are views, not facts. That's why we will write clearly: "According to several historians, Jodha was not the wife of Akbar" -- BTW, that's what will be written, whether you like that or not. Otherwise you have a clear evidence/proof.

Even the source from Rediff says, "It is claimed by some historians that Jodha was not Akbar's wife, as is shown in the film." Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are being absurd. If all historians agree on something then it is fact as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It is fact that the Battle of Waterloo took place in 1815. If afilom sets it in 1830, then we can say this is plain wrong. Numerous articles on history-based films and TV shows have sectionswhich discuss inaccuracies or creatie departuresfrom fact. It's quite normal. If facts are undisputred by historians they can be presented as simply facts. Paul B (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Paul for brining much needed sanity to this discussion. I was just surprised that people here can treat the view of historians as if it amounts to nothing.

Itihaaskar (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

hhh Itihaaskar, don't hurry to celebrate. Paul, sorry? And who are you to decide such a thing? You are being absurd. If all historians agree on something then it is fact as far as Wikipedia is concerned. - first of all, see WP:NPA, secondly, whay are you basing this claim on?

On the other hand, see Blofeld's message, the one after this. He is a valuable editor, and he agrees with me. I repeat, we will say, according to several historians, we'll not introduch it as a fact. Otherwise, it will be removed completely. And why are you neglecting Redtigerxyz's comment? It's 3-2. Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be serious and don't act like a child. Paul is correct that if *all* historians agree then that is fact as far as Wikipedia goes.

Instead of talking why don't you give us a reference who supports jodha is the wife of akbar?

Itihaaskar (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What? I have no POV. In fact, I tend to agree that she was not Jodhaa Bai. But it is my POV and your POV and the historians' POV. There is NO EVIDENCE that she was not. Also, why did you remove the director's quote? Mmmm I smell bias... I was fair enough to write it in an encyclopedic manner -- "historians claim, historians disagree" -- but it doesn't make their view a FACT. IT's up to the reder to decide whether she was or not. We do not ommit their views. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are just views and there isn't any concievable evidence to justify it then they cannot be taken as fact. It is very important to avoid saying something was if it is just speculation. If a number of historians have cited something PLEASE state somehting like "historians such as .... have argued that ... was never married to .... as depicted in the film although there is little evidence to confirm this". Something like that perhaps. What Shahid has said above "It is claimed by some historians that Jodha was not Akbar's wife, as is shown in the film" looks perfect also. A historical accuracy section is very useful but it can be tricky writing it so it doesn't appear POV or disputable but its bery inmportant who try to write it from neutral and balanced viewpoint e.g "historians have speculated" rather than something was something. Trust me on this I passed A-level history and special level history with flying colours and a great deal of it was writing in this way to weigh up the arguments of historians and not state something as fact in an essay so I should know something about this, Personally I think Itihaaskar you are going into too much detail and concern over this when that paragraph should not be the main section of the article. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC).

Exactly. Agree with every word. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why have the last para of section "Historical Accuracy"??? Was Jodhaa Akbar's wife or daughter in law? What historical documents say? What historians feel? This should be discussed in Jodhabai article, not here. That discussion is WP:UNDUE in Jodhaa Akbar. Mughal-e-azam first portrays Jodhaa as Akbar's wife, in a Hindi movie. So do we write a section about Historical Accuracy of that film too??? (Sarcastic) The effects of the debate on Historical Accuracy: protests and banning, should be discussed. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. The focus of this should not be on the film article but rather the Jodhabai article itself. The film article should summarize historian speculation of historical accuracies in the script and characters not be an essay on history ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Redtigerxyz!!! I agree with everything you say. That's why the page is protected. That was my point. This section does not belong to this article, but user Itihaaskar does not get it. Even the way he wrote it was full of POV -- please see my analysis above. I was removing the section, saying that it was completely WP:UNDUE to this article, but he was reverting (he was also blocked for using a sock puppet. What do you say?) -- that's why the page is not protected. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

"One should also take into acount that Jodhaa Akbar is a movie, not a history book. Since when are movies supposed to be history lessons? People who are against the movie should remember this. The diricter is not trying to say that his movie is true, he even admits to creating 70% of the movie. People who want to know the true story of Jalaludin Mohamman Akbar should look it up themselves."

This is tainted by the POV of the author. Please revise so that it is neutral towards both sides of the dispute. bigminisachin1231 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I had reverted the edit of the user who'd added that, but surprisingly it's still there. Now removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Gross figure

I propose to change the BOI link of the gross figure with this box office mojo link stating the films gross as $26,890,354. Plz state you views. Thanks! Secret of success (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Most film articles (Bollywood at least) use BOI. It only makes sense. BollyJeff || talk 01:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jodhaa Akbar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131006052405/http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=308&catName=TGlmZXRpbWU= to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=308&catName=TGlmZXRpbWU=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jodhaa Akbar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517081018/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/bollywood/article3368909.ece to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/bollywood/article3368909.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110425201300/http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=127&catName=MjAwMC0yMDA5 to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=127&catName=MjAwMC0yMDA5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131020075613/http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=348&catName=TGlmZXRpbWUgV29ybGR3aWRlIEluIFVTICQ= to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=348&catName=TGlmZXRpbWUgV29ybGR3aWRlIEluIFVTICQ=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jodhaa 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/20110906061439/http://www.bollywoodhungama.com:80/features/2009/02/16/4855/index.html to http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/features/2009/02/16/4855/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Jodhaa 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/20110708082632/http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/2008/10/23/12089/index.html to http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/2008/10/23/12089/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sify.com/movies/ashutosh-gowariker-to-make-a-historical-news-bollywood-kkfv86jfjbgsi.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/Beauty-queen/articleshow/15779448.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/delhi-times/Mashallah-Hrithik-learns-Urdu/articleshow/2265339.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Bahus%2Bcharm%2Bvs%2BPatna%2Bboy/1/38880.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tata.in/article/inside/5SAi6eaU6SA%3D/TLYVr3YPkMU%3D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://specials.rediff.com/movies/2008/feb/11sld1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.southasiabiz.com/2007/12/jodhaa_akbar_some_latest_news_4.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080042809&ch=3%2F1%2F2008+8%3A31%3A00+PM
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=308&catName=TGlmZXRpbWU%3D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=348&catName=TGlmZXRpbWUgV29ybGR3aWRlIEluIFVTICQ%3D

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) 08:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jodhaa 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/20150205062606/http://www.apunkachoice.com/titles/jod/jodhaa-akbar/mid_24826/synopsis/ to http://www.apunkachoice.com/titles/jod/jodhaa-akbar/mid_24826/synopsis

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) 07:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jodhaa 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/20140220204148/http://www.raaga.com/channels/tamil/moviedetail.asp?mid=t0003116 to http://www.raaga.com/channels/tamil/moviedetail.asp?mid=t0003116

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) 23:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)