Talk:Akbar

The numbering of Akbar's wives is confusing.

According to the article, this a more accurate numbering of Akbar's wives:

1. Ruqqaya 2. Abdullah's daughter 3. Salima 4. Jodha 5. Abdul's wife 6. Gauhar 7. Jagmal's daughter 8. Miran's daughter 9. Kunwari 10. Bhanmati 11. Nathi 12. Puram 13. Bhakkari 14. Itimad's daughter 15. Qasima 16. Rawal's daughter 17. Bibi 18. Shams' daughter 19. Qazi's daughter

GrAmPaGe Edit FiXeRr (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Reply  

Hi, one small wikilink fix in the Taxation section. The dedicated articles Dahsala system and Zabt both exist but this sentence doesn't point to them.

Change: in the Taxation section, change

The system was abandoned in 1580 and replaced with the ''{{transliteration|bn|dahsala}}'' (also known as ''{{transliteration|bn|zabti}}''), under which revenue was calculated as one-third of the average produce of the previous ten years, to be paid to the state in cash.

to

The system was abandoned in 1580 and replaced with the ''{{transliteration|bn|[[Dahsala system|dahsala]]}}'' (also known as ''{{transliteration|bn|[[Zabt|zabti]]}}''), under which revenue was calculated as one-third of the average produce of the previous ten years, to be paid to the state in cash.

Both link targets resolve: Dahsala system and Zabt. Thanks! NoseFaceButt (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Done Day Creature (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

The current phrasing in the "Early years" section creates a historical misconception. It implies that Akbar received command of Hindal Mirza's forces and wealth as a shared inheritance with Ruqaiya Sultan Begum ("conferred on the imperial couple"). However, under the early Mughal military and administrative system, a deceased commander's military assets and jagir (estates) reverted to the imperial throne (escheat). They were state property, not private family inheritance. Humayun reassigned these assets to Akbar in his capacity as the crown prince to maintain the chain of command, independent of his betrothal to Ruqaiya.

Please make the following change to accurately reflect the chronological facts and the imperial nature of the military transfer.

Change this text: Out around the time of nine-year-old Akbar's first appointment as governor of Ghazni, he married Hindal's daughter, Ruqaiya Sultan Begum, his first wife. Humayun gave Akbar command of Hindal's forces and conferred on the imperial couple all of Hindal's wealth. Akbar's marriage with Ruqaiya was solemnized in Jalandhar, Punjab, when both of them were 14-years-old.

To this text: Following the mourning period for Hindal in 1551, Humayun appointed the nine-year-old Akbar as governor of Ghazni and transferred to him the retainers, lands, and military command previously held by Hindal Mirza.^[1] Around the same time, Humayun arranged Akbar's betrothal to Hindal's daughter, Ruqaiya Sultan Begum. However, contemporary and later sources clarify that the transfer of Hindal's assets was a strategic elevation of Akbar within the Mughal imperial system, rather than a marital inheritance from this betrothal.^{[2] [3]} The marriage itself was solemnized several years later in Jalandhar, Punjab, when both were about fourteen years old.^[4]

• (Note to reviewing admin: Please retain any existing inline citations [24][25] and place them at the end of the newly structured sentences appropriately).* NRRD (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

DoneRegentsPark (comment) 22:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

"One of the greatest Mughal emperor" —> "emperors" Hoytvontoyt (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Fixed. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 22:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

The current text skips one of Akbar's marriages, which causes the numbering of the following wives to be incorrect. According to S. M. Burke, Akbar: The Greatest Mogul (1989, p. 142), Akbar married the elder daughter of Jamal Khan in Delhi in 1556 before his marriage to Abdullah Khan Mughal's daughter during the siege of Mankot in 1557.

Please add the following paragraph immediately before the sentence beginning "His third wife was the daughter of Abdullah Khan Mughal."

His second wife was the elder daughter of Jamal Khan, a member of a leading zamindar family. Their marriage, solemnized in Delhi in 1556, was intended to foster good relations with the zamindars.^[1]

Since this marriage is currently omitted, the numbering of the subsequent wives is off by one. Adding it places Abdullah Khan Mughal's daughter as Akbar's third wife, Salima Sultan Begum as his fourth, and Mariam-uz-Zamani as his fifth.

Not done You could be right but there are a lot of wives and this would need a lot of renumbering and citation checking. That's beyond the scope of an edit request and I suggest you start a discussion on this in a separate section. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The section heading in the Mariam-uz-Zamani article was changed. help updating these links.

From:

[[Mariam-uz-Zamani#Birth of twins|Hassan Mirza]]
[[Mariam-uz-Zamani#Birth of twins|Hussain Mirza]]

To:

[[Mariam-uz-Zamani#Twins son|Hassan Mirza]]
[[Mariam-uz-Zamani#Twins son|Hussain Mirza]]

Thanks! Furogh e Lotf (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Done RegentsPark (comment) 21:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Akbar → Akbar the Great Akbar the Great – Akbar is widely known in English as "Akbar the Great", and the lead already identifies this as a widely recognized epithet. I propose moving the article to "Akbar the Great" because it is a common English name used for the emperor. This would also make the title consistent with other historical rulers commonly known by the epithet "the Great", such as Alexander the Great, Alfred the Great, and Catherine the Great. Smg20837 (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. — Raihanur (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

• Support move to "Akbar the Great". Very much his well-known common name. And disambiguation needed - there is an Akbar II. Walrasiad (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• Support. Even if this were the primary topic for Akbar, the fuller title is more recognizable. But Akbar II, who reigned for 31 years, seals it. Srnec (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• Oppose Obviously no one can dispute plain "Akbar" is primary. "Akbar the Great" may be "common", but is not normally used in the best sources, and does not meet WP:COMMONNAME. Akbar II (d. 1837) did not really "rule" for 5 minutes, having about as much power as the current mayor of New Delhi (if the is one). Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose, he is the primary target and WP:BESTSOURCES applies in spirit per Johnbod HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for your comments @Johnbod @HerrHeulsuse

I do not think it is accurate to say that "Akbar the Great" is not used by high quality reference works. For example, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions and Encyclopaedia Judaica both use "Akbar the Great" as the article title. At the same time, I acknowledge that other scholarly works use simply "Akbar", so the discussion should be based on the overall balance of reliable English-language sources.

The point about Akbar II's limited political authority reinforces that Akbar is the primary topic, which I do not dispute, but it is not directly relevant to whether the article's most common English name is "Akbar" or "Akbar the Great".

Finally, Wikipedia already uses epithets in article titles where they represent the established English name (e.g. Alexander the Great, Abbas the Great, Alfred the Great). The question here is whether "Akbar the Great" likewise represents the established English name in reliable sources. Smg20837 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

An encyclopedia for Jewish matters is not a WP:BESTSOURCE, since Akbar is mostly unrelated to Jews. You have yet to prove that it is a common name among best sources. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

That's what makes it the best source for usage. It's a work of general reference directed to the general public, not specialists. That's what Wikipedia is aiming at. Our readers are not specialists. Nor is any context given in the article title. It must be WP:RECOGNIZABLE by itself. And "Akbar the Great" is a lot more recognizable than "Akbar" simply. I'd assume an article titled simply "Akbar" to be about the personal name found commonly across Asia, not a specific person.

Specialists don't come to Wikipedia. Non-specialists do, people who come across the name in Encyclopedia Judaica, and come here to learn more about him. Walrasiad (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Jesus is also a common name across the Iberian peninsula and Latin America, but we still have the religious figure at that title, not under "Jesus of Nazareth", "Jesus Christ", or "Jesus, Son of God". It is the same here because of wp:pt HerrHeulsuse (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The title Jesus is supported by decades of consensus and falls under wikipedia's rules on primary topics. It isn't titled simply because it's more recognizable than "Jesus of Nazareth." The situation is different from Akbar, where there isn't necessarily the same level of primary topic dominance or long standing consensus. Smg20837 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Additionally, "Akbar" is not exclusively associated with the Mughal emperor. It is an Arabic word meaning "greater" and is widely recognized from the phrase Allāhu Akbar. Since the term has meanings beyond the historical figure, treating "Akbar" as if it unambiguously refers to the emperor requires demonstrating that he is the primary topic, rather than assuming it. Smg20837 (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Note: WikiProject Islam, Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Afghanistan, WikiProject Pakistan, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Indian history, and WikiProject Bangladesh have been notified of this discussion. — Raihanur (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Kindly change:

| name = Akbar

to:

| name = Akbar the Great

Reason: This request does not propose moving the article. It only changes the name displayed in the infobox. The lead already identifies the emperor as "Akbar the Great", and using the fuller name in the infobox would improve recognizability. Smg20837 (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Not done: If the move discussion ends up moving then obviously yes, but otherwise no, it makes a lot more sense to use same name in the infobox as we use for the article Cannolis (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply