Talk:Jodhaa Akbar

message: 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)
thread_title: Title?

message: 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)
thread_title: new pic

message: 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)
thread_title: Deleted Link

message: 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)
thread_title: Error

message: change "Maheshdas/Birbal" to "Maheshdas/Raja Birbal"
:Why? feydey (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  please establish consensus for this change. Happy‑melon 10:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birbal's name 

message: 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:
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:
*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:
*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:
*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:
*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: 
*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)
thread_title: OK, let's work: inflation, incohorence, POV

message: ;First example of misrepresentation:
*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:
*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:
*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:
*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: 
*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)
thread_title: Samples for wrong conlusions, POV and incohorence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Please change your POV

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jodhaa Akbar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jodhaa Akbar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified