Talk:Abdul Karim (the Munshi)

The other guy

I've removed the dab page regarding the former detainee. No one has written an article about him. The Munshi is by far the more famous of the two. If anyone cares to write the article about the detainee, he can put a note at the top of the page. A dab page is not justified.--Wehwalt 14:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think a dab page is not justified as the Abdul Karim article. Google searches seem to indicate many more references for the Munshi than for the other two. So I have restored the Munshi to the main Abdul Karim page and built a dab page and a reference to it at the top of the page.--Wehwalt 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't take my word for it. Run your own google searches. Many more results come up for the Munshi. 18,900 for "Abdul Karim" and "Munshi". 591 for "Abdul Karim" and "Bangladesh chemist". 10,600 for "Abdul Karim" and "Guatanamo detainee" The Munshi is widely known. The others are not. What more do you want?--Wehwalt 05:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of 'other guys', as can be seen under the disambiguation article Abdul Karim. So I have added the top line 'This article refers to Queen Victoria's Indian Secretary. For other uses, see Abdul Karim', using a similar line in the Avalanche article as a template. However many articles have no such link to their disambiguation article, even where it has been created, so if I've unwittingly broken some other convention, please feel free to remove my line.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting is a no-no

Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages, includes a section entitled: How to rename a page. Which states:

Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.) If you come across a cut-and-paste move that should be fixed by merging the page histories, please follow the instructions here to have an administrator repair it.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 21:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Will you start discussing substantive matters on this talk page now?--Wehwalt 04:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice article

I enjoyed reading about this unusual and unexpected person, whom I had never heard of before stumbling on this page.   Will Beback  talk  11:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to review it at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Death at 46

He died so young - do we really have no idea how/why? 196.44.240.61 (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, there is very limited information on his life in India. Thanks for the comment and the praise in your edit summary.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of sic; and incomplete references

Hi! Am just curious to know how the use of sic in the article, does not go against the principle of WP:NPOV? The use of sic reflects a particular POV, which is certainly far from neutral. Secondly, the references quoted do not seem to be verificable. For example, what does Basu, p. 22 mean? Which year, which publication, which library or archive has it been taken from? A google search for Basu leads to some "Bipasha Basu" or "British Association Of Softball Umpires". What source is "Basu" or "Anand" or any of the other references quoted. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, check the bibliography for full reference information. I need to look at the sic.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed both "sic" templates, which were both in quotations, against the words "Hindustani" and "Hindoo". On balance, I believe that the sic templates are unjustifed. The reader is perfectly clear on what is being referred to. The purpose of the sic template is so that the reader does not think the writer made a mistake in a nonstandard or mistaken spelling or usage. I don't believe the reader is going to think we made a mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It was my mistake - I didn't realise that the details were in the bibliography. Regarding the use of "sic", the reader can surely draw his own conclusions, and you did the correct thing by removing them. One more "sic "template remains in On a journey through Italy, he published an advertisement in the Florence Gazette stating that "[h]e is belonging to a good and highly respectful famiely. [sic]".[28] . Also is the spelling of the word family, incorrect in the ad or is it a typo? Thanks once again. --Tinpisa (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's properly there. It was incorrect in the original, or probably we would not have bothered to directly quote!--Wehwalt (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Have a nice day!--Tinpisa (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Introducing Indian cuisine in UK

The greatest legacy of Abdul Karim was the introduction Indian cuisine to UK, if not upping its market value as when the queen ate it everybody got curious...and thus western world subsequently followed suit. Many food writers and food documentaries have mentioned this fact, not able to recall name right now though, Madhur Jaffrey or Anjum Anand. Try this article .India Today for reference... I am looking around...lets see what comes up. All the best and good work! --Ekabhishek^talk 11:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Some links here
• Patil (visiting Indian President) will be shown “Queen Victoria’s Hindustani diary”, at Windsor..

I don't think it has much value in this article.. --Sam 15:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Indian food was already in England, there are mentions of Karim and other servants seeking out Indian restaurants.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Urdu/Arabic translation of his name

I have found a slight error with the Urdu translation of his name. The translation of his name is the and the Abdul Karim part of his name should be عبد الكريم, because it is actually "servant" (عبد), followed by Al-Karim (الكريم), which means "servant of the most honorable [Allah]". The article has [حافظ محمد [عبدل کریم as the Urdu translation for his name. Note how the Abdul Karim part (that I have put in brackets) is different from عبد الكريم, which is the correct way to write it. Thus, it should be عبد الكريم and NOT عبدل کریم. The incorrect one does not say "servant", nor does it say "THE MOST Honorable", rather it just says "Honorable", which does not fit because it is important to emphasize that the subject is "THE most honorable" (Allah), and not just "honorable". So all in all, the incorrect version is saying "honorable [something]", where the [something] is the invented word عبدل (if you're confused, servant is actually "عبد"). This is very different from "servant of the most honorable", which as I have said is the meaning of Abdul Karim.

Anyway, this was just to explain why I'm going to change the Urdu translation of his name. It's almost like writing "Harr Ypotter" instead of "Harry Potter"; the incorrect one doesn't make any sense at all. The writer probably used a translator or something similar to get the Urdu for his name. Hamzah1995 (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually someone added it this morning. Dr. Kay and I did not think it necessary, and are not competent in the languages anyway. I personally have no objection either to the addition or the correction and doubt if my colleague does, as he has made several edits since the addition. I did delete someone who added IPA, I do not think Karim's name terribly difficult to pronounce.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need for IPA. The name is phonetic, except for the 'A' in "Abdul", which is produced from the throat, and MANY non-arabic/urdu speakers (and even few arabic/urdu speakers) cannot or have difficulty pronouncing it, so there really isn't a need to signify that; it would just confuse things. From the transliteration that I've seen on the internet, that throaty vowel sound that I mention is normally represented by an apostrophe before the vowel. For example, in this article's case, it would be: 'Abdul Karim. If there are any small edits or needs dealing with Arabic and Urdu (and maybe even Spanish), feel free to contact me to deal with it.Hamzah1995 (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall add you to my list of go-to people for different things on wiki!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Any speculation, similar to that about John Brown, about the Munshi being Victoria's lover?

This article contains a number of references to the similarity between the Munshi's position and the earlier position of her servant John Brown. The John Brown article contains several references to speculation and/or jokes suggesting that Victoria and Brown were lovers, or even secretly married (including the title of the well-known movie Mrs Brown, supposedly a joke by Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli). So this seems bound to have raised, and to continue to raise, similar questions about whether the Munshi was also Victoria's lover. Yet, rather unsatisfactorily (at least in my view), this article seemingly has litle or nothing to say on the subject either way, not even at the level of 'as with John Brown, some speculations inevitably arose about a possible sexual relationship between the Munshi and the Queen, but historians give such speculations little credence for reasons x, y and z' - indeed the John Brown article says her relationship with the Munshi is used by some as evidence that her relationship with Brown was little more than that between an employer and a servant. Can anybody adequately document this issue? Tlhslobus (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Beyond malicious gossip at the time, what could there be? I know of no reputable source that contends that Victoria and the Munshi were lovers. She was pushing 70 when they met.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to suggest she had an affair with him, but I am saying that others are liable to draw that conclusion, both as a result of the article's comparisons with John Brown, and as a result of non-Wikipedia articles or TV programmes with titles like Channel 4's "Queen Victoria's last love" (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/queen-victorias-last-love/4od ), and so on. That Channel 4 programme title is especially important, as it is probably what caused many people (including me) to first hear about the Munshi. And many of these (including me) will not have seen the programme, and many will thus often know nothing about him except what that title implies or hints. In which case it is arguably Wikipedia's job to counter this by explicitly stating that no reputable source contends that Victoria and the Munshi were lovers. But the the present article fails to do this, and I'm in no position to fix that given that I don't know that there are no such reputable sources, and nor do I know of any reputable source that states there are no such reputable sources (although I was hoping that some expert like you might know of some that do make such a statement).

Incidentally, since you mention her age, I will point out that her age is a rather weak argument, as many women are well able to have sex at 70 and beyond, and, rightly or wrongly, at least one writer currently referenced in the John Brown article has described her as 'almost a nymphomaniac', albeit in the context of a possible much earlier affair with (and/or secret marriage to) John Brown rather than the Munshi. That writer was Michael Thornton at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2106204/Victorias-secret-According-tantalising-new-evidence-Queen-Victoria-married-Scottish-groom-bore-secret-daughter-spirited-America.html - though it may currently be easier to access the same article at the bottom of http://www.biyokulule.com/view_content.php?articleid=4605 (that also has an article about the Munshi, seemingly written from a broadly Asian perspective, if I remember right). Thornton also added that a post-mortem suggested that she suffered from a condition that would have made sex uncomfortable in the last years of her life, though he gives no clear evidence about whether it would already be affecting her at 70. Also speculation about an affair with the Munshi, especially nowadays, would not necessarily be deemed 'malicious' - it could be intended (or at least defended) as a 'beautiful romance' that should be deemed appropriate for our supposedly multi-cultural multi-religious anti-ageist and anti-classist egalitarian world, with anybody disagreeing being in danger of being classified as a 'wicked racist Islamophobic ageist snob', and arguably that is roughly what titles like 'Queen Victoria's last love' are intended to either imply or hint.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I will say that I refer to gossip at the time as what was malicious. I will notify my colleague on this article, User:DrKay and let us see what his view is.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like a good idea. In the interim, I've added a somewhat inadequate single sentence mention of the Channel 4 programme. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing of any direct speculation. The only thing I remember is that their visit to Glassalt Shiel was considered inappropriate, but that is covered in the article in the same spirit as the sources (I believe). I doubt anyone in the Victorian age would think that a sexual relationship between an elderly British queen and a young Muslim Asian man was at all likely. At this remove, it is difficult for a modern mind to comprehend just how remotely unlikely any such relationship would be. DrKay (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and what I find even more convincing is that Edward allowed the Munshi to march in his mother's funeral procession. If he believed there was impropriety, that never would have happened.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I fear you're both missing the point. Wikipedia is not being read by Victorians or Edwardians or Edward VII, but by 21st century people, for whom such a relationship is not merely conceivable but is being fairly strongly hinted at in 'popular culture' through misleading titles like 'Queen Victoria's Last Love' (as well as through the article's references to John Brown), and there is currently nothing in the article (as distinct from this Talk page) to authoritatively counter those hints, whereas it seems to me there ought to be (and I'd probably try to put it in myself, if only I knew how to do so properly).Tlhslobus (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no speculation that I'm aware of. DrKay (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There may be no speculation in academic circles, but common sense suggests that such speculation probably almost automatically exists in the mind of any typical (and thus typically ill-informed) person (probably originally including me) who sees the title 'Queen Victoria's Last Love'. And indeed that is probably precisely why that title was chosen. And I don't seem to be alone in thinking that such mental speculation should be addressed and answered - see for instance the following extract from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9227264/Queen-Victorias-Last-Love-Channel-4-review.html

---

Start of Extract

Queen Victoria's Last Love, Channel 4, review Terry Ramsey reviews the documentary exploring Queen Victoria's relationship with her Indian servant Abdul Karim.

By Terry Ramsey 7:00AM BST 26 Apr 2012

You may have seen the stories that pop up in the popular press about British women, old enough to know better, who fall in love with dusky young waiters in far-flung parts of the world. But it seems that like so many unusual British customs, this practice dates back to Victorian times – and was pioneered by the Queen herself.

Yes, according to Queen Victoria’s Last Love (Channel 4), she became enamoured of a handsome table-hand, having fallen for his exotic charms. His name was Abdul Karim, and in 1887 he was given to Queen Victoria by the Indian arm of the Empire to be a servant. It was not long before the attentive young man caught her eye.

Queen Victoria had by this time lost her beloved consort Albert (in 1861) and subsequent companion, the ghillie John Brown (in 1883). Maybe she had a soft spot for servants because, at almost 70, she fell under the spell of Karim, who was in his early twenties – though, despite the teasing title of this documentary, it was not a sexual, or even a romantic, affair. She loved him like a mother – and, indeed, signed letters to him as that.

---

End of Extract

And I think the article ought to contain some line similar to the above 'Despite the teasing title of this documentary, it was not a sexual, or even a romantic, affair. She loved him like a mother – and, indeed, signed letters to him as that.' But I'm not sure how to do this right - I can't just quote Ramsay, because he or she is not authoritative, and if I don't quote him or her it may be plagiarism or breach of copyright. Plus I fear you'll just delete it like you deleted my little 'Popular Culture' section (despite this being almost standard in biographical articles, including John Brown's), and I don't want to fiind myself in an edit war, especialy not with me as a complete amateur against an expert like you.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The article already says: 'She often signed off her letters to Karim as "your affectionate mother, VRI" or "your truly devoted and fond loving mother, VRI".'

You wrote "In April 2012, Britain's Channel 4 Television broadcast a programme, narrated by Geoffrey Palmer, about Queen Victoria (played by Veronica Clifford) and the Munshi (played by Kushal Pal Singh) entitled 'Queen Victoria's Last Love'." I changed that to "Queen Victoria's Last Love, Channel 4 2012 documentary narrated by Geoffrey Palmer, about Queen Victoria (played by Veronica Clifford) and the Munshi (played by Kushal Pal Singh)". Please do not characterise my edits as either deletion or edit-warring when they are not. DrKay (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to discuss the programme beyond the existing link, it is irrelevant to the actual historical person, who is the subject of this article. They are using sexual hints to draw in a few extra viewers. That has nothing to do with this article. Popular culture sections are a fancy way of including trivial concert. This is a featured article, which should maintain certain standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if my phrasing unwittingly caused offence, Dr Kay. I did not say you were edit warring. I said I was worried about getting into an edit war. As for deletion, I put in a section headed 'Popular Culture'; that section no longer exists. The plain English for what has happened is that it has got deleted. I'm sorry if that word offended you - it genuinely never occured to me that I was being offensive, and may I apologize again for any offence I may have caused. As for my original point, I am well aware that the article says 'your loving mother', but it still doesn't say the relationship was not sexual. Some people may interpret writing 'your loving mother' as implying it was not sexual, others may doubt this, or simply fail to notice the unstated implication. But we've probably all wasted far too much time on this already, so we will seemingly just have to agree to differ. In other words, I give up. You win. Congratulations. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see a way of changing the lead from "gaining her affection" to something like "gaining her maternal affection" (or motherly or indulgent or protective or benign) and/or "close relationship" to "close platonic relationship" or similar. I don't see any other easy way of addressing your concern. DrKay (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent suggestion. I've put in those two changes. And once again, sorry if anything I said caused offence.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with "mother-like affection" and have reverted". "Motherly" or "maternal" would be best, or omitting the word entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, 'Maternal' is fine.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't have been snippy. Thank you for helping to improve the article. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for your help. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There is plenty of speculation. Edward VII had all photographs and letters between Victoria and Karim destroyed. It stands out a mile. Big deal92.10.241.106 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Film

Awaiting a WP:RS: A feature film is in production, based on Victoria & Abdul: The True Story Of The Queen's Closest Confidant Paperback, the 2011 biography by Shrabani Basu. It stars Judi Dench and Ali Fazal in the title roles. Stephen Frears, the director, has often made films based on stories of real life characters, but has never met any of them.

The article isn't about Frears and he obviously hasn't met Abdul Karim or Victoria. Hence, the final sentence is unnecessary. Basu's biography was published in 2010 and "paperback" is extraneous. DrKay (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Platonic relationship vs. relationship

I see from the section above "Any speculation, similar to that about John Brown, about the Munshi being Victoria's lover?" that this has already been discussed - but rather I will approach this from a different angle. The word "platonic", in this case, is an extra adjective - something which defines the relationship between Victoria and Abdul. As it is not known whether their relationship was in fact platonic or sexual (I'm not siding with either one here) it should simply say "relationship". The word "relationship" is exactly what they had - to say "platonic" would insinuate that there is overbearing proof that is was only platonic, something which this article and other references don't appear to be able to support. In short, I'm removing the word "platonic" not because it should insinuate that their relationship was more than that, but rather because it cannot be proven that it was a platonic relationship. Garchy (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, there's no evidence or source saying it was sexual. DrKay (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not refuting that - but I think "relationship" is a simple enough explanation without having to add "platonic", which doesn't seem to be heavily sourced either. I'm not trying to imply specifically that it was sexual (although we don't know) - just trying to remove an adjective that I didn't think was necessary for a full understanding of the topic. Garchy (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Relationship is a term which connotes a strong posssibity of sex in today's language. I don't think it is justified. The sources make it clear that there were many reasons that the two were unlikely to have had a sexual relationship.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Incorrectly attributed picture?

This picture is claimed to be of Queen Victoria and Abdul Karim, but the person described as Abdul Karim bears no resemblance to the other three photographs/paintings of Abdul Karim (weight, facial hair, age etc). It doesn't look like Abdul Karim from any other picture I could find using Google Images, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Karim_(the_Munshi)#/media/File:Queen_Victoria_and_her_Indian_servant_Abdul_Karim_in_1893.jpg

The version of this picture at the National Portrait Gallery describes the image as "Sheikh Chidda; Queen Victoria": http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw06521/Sheikh-Chidda-Queen-Victoria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.47.189 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

In the link you've given to the NPG there is a notes section that reads "In this photograph Karim stands in attendance as the Queen works on her boxes in her garden-tent at Frogmore House in Windsor." There is also: http://npg.si.edu/exhibit/britons/briton11.htm, which identifies the attendant as Abdul Karim. DrKay (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake on their part because it says it's Sheikh Chidda in the title and in one of the description boxes ("Sitters: Sheikh Chidda, Indian servant to Queen Victoria. Queen Victoria (1819-1901), Reigned 1837-1901."), and one of the other description boxes says Abdul Karim Hafiz. Because the UK NPG is the original repository for this photograph, the error in the second description box was copied over to the Smithsonian Institute in the link you shared above. Most importantly, the person in the image looks like Sheikh Chidda (https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&tbm=isch&q=sheikh+chidda&oq=&gs_l=#imgrc=7TT1ihLdCWECAM:), and not like the Munshi (https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&tbm=isch&q=sheikh+chidda&oq=&gs_l=#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=abdul+karim+munshi&imgrc=AUCkbQVuW4L6wM:). This is NPG's error, but I won't look into it further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.47.189 (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Name in Urdu

The ideal place to source the Urdu spelling for Abdul Kareem's name would be his gravestone, however, the best photo I can find of it (the BBC's (rather poor quality) photo) is illegible, to me at least. However, the Urdu spelling is clear from the title of a book by BBC journalist Raza Ali Abidi, ملكه وكٹوريا اور منشى عبدالكريم (roughly, Her Majesty Queen Victoria & Munshi Abdul-Kareem), where he spells "Munshi Abdul Kareem" as منشى عبدالكريم (Publisher's page, Google book digitalised copies with Urdu and English details). (Just pinging DrKay on this.) Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 20:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I suggest it should be in the infobox, in a way similar to Khruschchev.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. DrKay (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have added it to the infobox as a native name. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 17:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hafiz

Hafiz has a very particular meaning in Islam, ie: someone who has memorised the Qu'ran. Aside from one quote of a sentence written by Victoria, is there any support for the fact that he did indeed have an entitlement? Given that he for some time successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of the royal court regarding his father's status, and that Victoria was indulgent of him, I think it unwise to assign to him a title that quite possibly did not in fact apply. Or are there sources which actually discuss this? - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Why would we doubt him? As for his father, he's trying to compete on equal social terms with people whose ancestry in the nobility goes back to William the Conquerer, and I think Victoria, no fool, saw this and declined to shame him. I do not think it wise to say, exaggeration as to one thing makes him a liar who should not be believed as to anything. Additionally, were he not, there would have been ample opportunity in his lifetime to trip him up.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because he lied about other things for gain? I am well aware of Victorian social mores, thank you, and also of Victoria's idiosyncracies (I know her diaries were massively edited and even destroyed but those idiosyncracies shine through even in what remains of them). What I am not aware of is just how difficult or otherwise it is to memorise the Qu'ran. I did read it (in an English translation) many years ago and I certainly wouldn't want to undertake the task. - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I do not deny that Hafiz became a part of his name but it did so because Victoria granted him the title Munshi Hafiz. It was not in her power to do so - she had no status among Islamic clergy etc. I'm not sure how best to deal with this. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. I'm currently traveling and don't have access to the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

15 years

The lead claims Karim served Victoria for the last 15 years of her reign. No. I have corrected it. June 1887 to June 1901 is 14 years and she died January 1901 (Which for those who have difficulty with numbers is 13 years 7 months). I'm noting this since competency in grade school math is not as widespread as I would expect.72.16.99.93 (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect image attribution

How, in the name of all that is holy, have all of you missed the fact that this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Queen_Victoria_and_her_Indian_servant_Abdul_Karim_in_1893.jpg is not Abdul Karim? A quick search reveals the individual in this photo to be a different Indian servant, Sheikh Chidda. The original uploader appears to have trusted a random Indian webpage over the National Portrait Gallery's more well-researched material. I've just submitted a name change request for the file over at Commons, but for heaven's sake, how did this escape notice for so long? Even a cursory glance at this person makes it obvious this is NOT the same person being discussed on the article. - ක - (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

See section above this one and https://npg.si.edu/exhibit/britons/briton11.htm. DrKay (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Vernacular clerk -- what does vernacular mean in this context

Hello. The following sentence appears in the "Early Life" section: "After three years in Agar, Karim resigned and moved to Agra, to become a vernacular clerk at the jail." The word vernacular links to the Wikipedia article of this name, but does not seem to explain what was a vernacular clerk in India at the time. Could someone explain this? Texteditor (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That's taken exactly from the source. It isn't explained.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't claim any specific knowledge but it seems to me that such a post would be part of a regime which promoted the use of the relevant local language in running the jail, and being a link between that and British officials whose primary language was English. An abstract of a book about languages at this time, available at:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/language-and-the-making-of-modern-india/how-the-vernacular-became-regional/90E5E3DE5A7559A8A31478042B035337

emphasises the importance placed on using vernacular languages in administration. Sbishop (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Please update the photo

the infobox containing munshi's picture is a drawing.please remove that because we have actual picture of munshi here.[[1]] Regards-- KEmel49 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It's better to keep the color high resolution file in the lead. The photo is in the article body. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok,if it's better than nothing more.thanks--KEmel49 (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)