Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:34, 23 February 2008

India: Cinema Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup.

Film: Indian Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

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)

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 • 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 • 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. Misplaced Pages 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 14:03, 21 February 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". 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. 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.

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

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. 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. 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. 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.

Ashutosh Gowarikar says:

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

Shahid • 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments here

I also think that it is not necessary to add every so many historians' views. We can be more general and say, "several historians say that the name did not exist..... Others claim that the name did exist....."

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 • 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 Misplaced Pages:

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 wach 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 • 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 • 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)

• Unassessed India articles
• Unknown-importance India articles
• Unassessed-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Indian cinema articles
• Unknown-importance Indian cinema articles
• Unassessed-Class Indian cinema articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject Indian cinema articles
• WikiProject India articles
• Unassessed film articles
• Indian cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles