From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
WikiProject India / Maharashtra / History (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

sovereign in first para[edit]


Shivaji was Chhatrapati ("sovereign") of the Maratha empire and crowned so. So according to me it is better to put sovereign in the first para as introduction.

In Early Life section, his status as aristocrat before being a sovereign could be mentioned.

Thanks.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 11:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Since there are no comments against the above with sources I would make the changes.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 09:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is about these edits list: [| 1] , [| 2] by MatthewVanitas.

I am not sure if emperors, especially ones who build empire, are called as aristocrats. Examples on Wikipedia pages would be Alexander the Great, Charles I of England, Henry II of England, etc. I can present a few more examples. There are many kings where such examples would be mentioned so. These languages on these pages are not stilted too.

Also there is no redundancy between sovereign and founder which should be as it is in the sentence.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we're misunderstanding each other here: my concern was that the chronology was confusing: "was a Maratha sovereign who founded the Maratha Empire" seems to indicate that he was a sovereign, and also happened to found the Maratha Empire. Whereas, as I understand it, the Maratha Empire's creation is tied to his coronation, thus he, an aristocrat, conquered territory and then was crowned ruler thereof. I submit this is distinct from the kings mentioned above, in that they were kings who did things, not persons who worked their way up to becoming kings. This is not to diminish Shivaji's historical importance, but to reflect his evolution from aristocrat to conquerer and ruler.
If I can offer a parallel: George Washington was not "a president involved in the founding of the United States", he was "a military officer who became the first president of the United States." So my issue is not that Shivaji was any less of a ruler than anyone else, but that he was not a ruler who presided over a static rule, but someone who didn't start out ruling an empire, but by dint of effort created and ruled one. Might indicating the process in the first sentence help to show this dynamism and chronology? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Per George Washington page, the lede mentions the first President of the United States of America in the first line. The next line is "He led the American victory over Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army from 1775 to 1783, and presided over the writing of the Constitution in 1787." Therefore your edits need to be reverted, as also your questions do not indicate any standards to be followed in any case.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Shivaji-ahirani.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Shivaji-ahirani.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Shivaji-ahirani.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Should the lede term be Shivaji Bhosle or just Shivaji ?[edit]

Per WP:COMMON NAME, the article is titled Shivaji, so why is he referred to as Shivaji Bhosle in the lede? I would submit that just bolding Shivaji seems reasonable, and the term Bhosle appears in the first couple sentences so certainly isn't missing. I took a glance at GoogleBooks and "'shivaji bhosle'" gets 220 hits while "shivaji -bhosle" (meaning "the word shivaji without the word bhosle") gets nearly a half-million. So not at all denying he's of the Bhosle clan, but questioning whether it's truly common/appropriate to refer to him as "Shivaji Bhosle" as though it were a last name in the modern sense. I have some slight suspicion that the inclusion of Bhosle as a true surname here might be anachronistic, perhaps by enthusiastic individuals who are surnamed Bhosle and want to highlight the connection? ;) MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see Alexander the Great, Stephen, King of England for similar example. The lede can have the titles in bold.
Also, the GoogleBooks search does not work for the lede in this case as title Shivaji Bhosale or Shivajirao Bhosale is quite popular. Your suspicion is not backed by sources nor it is correct per me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
You raise a good point with Alexander the Great as an example of further elaboration of names in lede. If the Bhosle name is frequently used in RSs, I withdraw the objection. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Questionable source[edit]

This article appears to be very, very POV-y in tone, and perhaps also in fact. I would appreciate comments regarding one major source, regarding which this review seems pretty decent evidence that it fails our reliable sources policy. A "novel" written for children with the intent of hagiography is not the sort of thing that we would usually use, regardless of the author. - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain how is this POV-y in tone and in fact. I am sure you do not mean that it is POV because he fought in medieval times against mughals, the colonials, etc. One can not assume this without sources. Some info about Balwant Moreshwar Purandare - [| Punaya Ratna awards presented], [| 2] here.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This is real cherry picking Sitush. The review of the book you refer to clearly states in the first line "The book is an excerpt of the big novel 'RajaShivchatrapati' written by Babasaheb Purandare." The second line says "This is specially written for children.... " That does not mean that contents are changed for children. Like say September is difficult for children to read so lets call it May instead. -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
My main point is that this appears to be a novel, and I have no idea which version of it we are using here. What exactly are the author's qualifications as an academic? - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Thisthat2011 gave you two links about the author. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Babasaheb Purandare by his own admission is a "popular historian" and his work should be regarded as secondary source.This is mainly because he does not know Farsi, the Lingua franca of 17th century India. Nevertheless, he is considered an "authority" by Marathi People on life and times of Shivaji. There are a number of bilingual editors fluent in both Marathi and English who can who can translate his work into English. Jonathansammy (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

By "secondary source" you mean "backup/supplementary source", yes? Not WP:Secondary source in the academic sense, right? Further, the phrase: evertheless, he is considered an "authority" by Marathi People on life and times of Shivaji. That's all well-and-good, but do people who don't have an emotional investment in Shivaji consider Purandare to be an authority? Just because a bunch of Americans consider "John J. Smith" an authority on George Washington doesn't mean that he isn't writing hagiography that any non-American would consider patent propaganda; maybe they like Smith precisely because he says a lot of wonderful things about Washington and skips over the grimy bits. I don't know BPs work, so I'm playing devil's advocate here, but fundamentally a "novel" by a "pop historian" doesn't at all seem the kind of thing we should be using if we want to reach Featured Article status here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mathewvanitas, I was just making a general comment on B M Purandare. I certainly would not use the children's book as a reference. He is popularly known as Shiv-Shahir or Shiv's ( Shivaji's) Bard. That in itself might disqualify his work for departing from NPOV. Nevertheless, it is worth translating his work and adding that to the article if it fits Wikipedia's policy on NPOV and reliable source etc.Jonathansammy (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

One must call a certain source as POV-y if the source is used in a sense that represents a "point of view". Blankly classifying a source as POV which is maybe used to verify some date is weird. Also as said before, children's book doesnt mean that facts are altered. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
@JS: if the book stands out amongst the popularly-read bios of Shivaji, I could see it being mentioned in the "literature" section or whatnot. But I don't see the need to actually cite it, unless he's an actual serious historian who conducted independent research. If he, for example, is a serious Shivaji biographer and happened to put out a kids' book as side-project, let's find his serious, peer-reviewed adult books and cite those. If he's a childrens' author in general, then there are probably more serious historians we should focus on instead.
@Animesh: You raise half a good point, but easily rebutted: if we're using a children's book to cite a some basic fact like a date... why on earth are we using a children's book for that? Either there must be plenty of good history books which cite that fact, or else we should be a little suspicious that a children's novel is the "main place" we can find a given fact. I'm honestly not understanding why anyone is defending Purandare's work as an RS. It might be popular (even Notably so), it might be a great read, but for a figure as written-about as Shivaji I can't imagine we're so short on references that we have to turn to a kids' book to cite basic info. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Mahar and Mang troops in his army?[edit]

The article Mahar makes some mention of the role of the Mahar in Shivaji's army, with the implication that his incorporating an Untouchable group into his forces gives some understanding of the revolutionary nature of his empire-building. I'm finding a scattering of refs for that, and some mentions of similar incorporation of the Mang caste (though not as many cites). Would the caste diversity issue be worth adding to the "Military" section? Particularly as the section attempts to focus on his innovations, and is short on cited material. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet again: issue of Shivaji's Kshatriya claims and coronation[edit]

It turns out User: is quite the SPA; not only does this user only edit Shivaji, this user about only edits in order to remove any mention of the questions around Shivaji's heritage that came up at the time of his coronation. I am of the opinion that this "omission" is among the graver deep flaws of this article, aside from just the basic issue of it being hagiographic. I'll go ahead and agree with 75' for the moment that the references provided weren't great and should be upgraded, but the edit summary "Just one sided point of view." is not a reassuring reason to erase one side of an argument

We had previously attempted to hash out this issue in Fall 2011, here: Talk:Shivaji/Archive_3#Finding_agreement_on_how_to_portray_the_descent_controversy. Though we had some reasonable folks on both sides, that was also opportunity for less-helpful editors to charge in with:

  • Its should not be allowed to further caste objectives of one particular person. Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj is a figure of reverence for the whole of India ; but particularly for the entire 96 K MARATHA CLAN , his reverence is second only to God .

Unfortunately large chunks of it became a shout-fest (and I'll note about all those shouting were pro-Rajput Descent, by some odd coincidence), and not much got resolved. In the meantime if folks have suggested ways to work in that Shivaji's eligibility for coronation has been raised as an issue (not that it was right or wrong, but that it occurred), we should get some good sourcing, ensure it isn't fringe, and get it back in there so the article will not loose further credibility for being a puff-piece vice a broad overview of historical perspective. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, checked in and apparently that IP is just User:Bhushanbush82 editing while logged out[1]; and he even dropped into his own Sockpuppet investigation with this IP to defend himself and manually signed his username. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well MathhewVanitas it was you who was shouting about Shivaji low origin(that too without evidence), Shivaji Rajput source has both contemporary agreement as well as nod by many noted historians. On the other hand opposition to Shivaji Rajput origin is more Political(Har Bilas Sarda exposed the British intention to spread this myth to give rise to Dalit Nationalism). Though the so called Low Origin of Shivaji has almost NO contemporary evidences which shows that Shivaji low origin is an invention of modern historians. (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Mathewsvanita dont try to confuse contemporary account or sources with your Reliable Source, the Contemporary sources are the Building blocks for Historians. The original sources which give rise to various theories are of top priority, the books written in 1800s are mostly by Biritish writers but at the same time books of 1980s-1990s about Maratha History is extremely poor. The downfall of great historians have created a vaccum their is just not a single historian right now in India who can be called a reliable historian in maratha history for example see the sources from where Britannica sourced its own article about shivaji---- As you can see the top most reference is to Shivaji the Great by Dr Balkrishna and then by Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These books are about 1930s and still the most detailed books on Shivaji. (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Challenge the Content of the article, and dont try to back yourself with writers or authors who have no authority on this subject. The simple conclusion is Shivaji Rajput Origin is Collaborated by Contemporary Evidences and Shivaji Low Origin is fabrication of 19th century which peaked during early 20th century but its MYTH BUBBLE BUSTED with discovery of "PERSIAN FARMANS" which have been shown in this article you too can read all those farmans given to the ancestors of bhosle and ghorpade it clearly proves that Shivaji was a Sisodia Rajput and Jaduanth Sarkar Mythological theory (which he has adopted from 91 qalmi and shedgaonkar bakhar both very late works) can be PUT TO REST. He was an influential historian he has many historians under his sway who write or say what Jadunath Sarkar said but unfortunately even he cannot "FABRICATE THE CONTEMPORARY SOURCES WHO MENTIONS ONLY ONE ORIGIN OF SHIVAJI AND THAT IS SHIVAJI" , yes but for maintaining neutrality i have mentioned those sources as well. (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Highly POV-laden article[edit]

Just some random quotes from the article with no citations:

  • Shivaji was extremely devoted to his mother Jijabai, who was deeply religious.
  • This victory alarmed Aurangazeb the mighty Mughal emperor, who now derisively referred to Shivaji as the "Mountain Rat".
  • Jauhar did not leave any stone unturned to ensure that the siege around Panhala was unyielding, he personally took utmost care that no one in his army was complacent.
  • In the ensuing Battle of Pavan Khind, Baji Prabhu Deshpande fought relentlessly.
  • Shaista Khan, appreciating his bravery, offered him a jahagir ...
  • Given the uneven match Prataprao reasoned that there was no point in leading his 1,200 cavalrymen into a suicide charge alone.
  • Shivaji is well known for his benevolent attitude towards his subjects. He believed that there was a close bond between the state and the citizens. He encouraged all accomplished and competent individuals to participate in the ongoing political/military struggle. He is remembered as a just and welfare-minded king.
  • Shivaji was the first king of the medieval world to undertake the revolutionary idea of abolishing the feudal system, 150 years before its worldwide recognition in the French revolution.
  • Among the various poems written on Shivaji Maharaj by various poets, Ramdas' Shivastuti ("Praise of King Shivaji") is the most famous.
  • He boldly risked his life, his treasure and his personal well being and that of his family, to openly challenge his immensely larger enemies to defend and achieve freedom and independence for his country. He did not spend any resources on projects designed for self-aggrandizement or vanity, instead he was propelled by his sense of dharma (sacred duty) to his people. The later Indian nationalists have hailed him as a role model for his heroism, selflessness, freedom, and courage. Shivaji earned a high level of admiration and respect from his followers and subjects. Even today, he is venerated in India and especially in the state of Maharashtra with awe and admiration and is viewed as a hero of epic proportions.

Plus the entire section on "Character" is basically POV even with its meager citations.

Anyway, the whole article could just use a lot of reduction in tone words ("ignominously", "admirably", "relentlessly") all of which provide a narrative to scenes and events with no primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You raise a lot of good points; the article pretty much has to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb, citations to children's novels removed, poor tone removed, the portrayal rendered more neutral, etc. Unfortunately Shivaji is a nigh-mythic figure to a lot of people, so this article is subject to constant interference from partisans that just want to inflate a historical personage into a demigod. You can see at the bottom of the page how the entire historical argument that Shivaji's Kshatriya status was a political issue is met with emotional outbursts and rather illogical arguments. I can't promise exactly when, but I have a great intent to finally sit down and hold this article to proper Wikipedia standards. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Did substantial cleanup[edit]

Okay, today and last night I went through about all of the article, fixing unclear bits, removing florid language and bias, etc. Also had to remove what clearly appeared to be little snippets interjected by drive-by editors with no concern for continuity or sourcing. I also marked a few areas as needing clarification, source checks, better sources, etc. As I see it here's the task ahead:

  • Go through the article and resolve any uncited sections (I have hidden some of the especially unclear or poorly written sections) or tagged "who?", "where?" etc. vague material.
  • Take a hard look at the current footnotes/sources and suss out which ones are inappropriate. We currently have 16 footnotes attributed to a television program: "Raja ShivChhatrapati". Not even a documentary, it's a serial costume drama, you can watch it on YouTube. We also have 29 footnotes to Babasaheb Purandare, who best as I can tell is a writer of popular histories, not necessarily a PhD scholar. He himself is certainly notable, and I'm sure his books are good, but best as I can tell he's a storyteller, not a stickler for fact. There are plenty of other sketchy sources, including tourist guidebooks (not RS for history like this). I'm unsure about Sardesai, as I'm not finding a lot of info about him, but the article uses him a half-dozen times too. There are also a lot of books missing weblinks, or publishers/dates, etc that need to be nailed down.
  • Following that, it would behoove us to take a look at some Feature Articles about other political-military leaders (Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte) and see how they're laid-out in order to see what a "winning formula" might be to touch up this article.
  • The above is all technical stuff that anyone familiar with WP could do. The really hard part will be finding some folks who are both neutral and well-read on the topic, who can comb through and ensure that the inclusions aren't selective. I'm not a Maratha expert, but even I already caught the absurd point where the article listed a series of awesome Maratha victories as Shivaji's legacy... and stopped just before the Battle of Panipat (1761) where the Marathas were shattered, and had no whisper of the Third Anglo-Maratha War where the Brits ended their empire. It's like having an article about V. I. Lenin and having the Legacy section end in 1985 with the USSR as one of two world superpowers... and completely skip over their losing the Soviet-Afghan War and the eventual collapse of the USSR.

So, that's what I'm seeing so far. In the short term, we need to get more (or more rigorous) watchlisters, since this article gets pecked to death by drive-by editors making unexplained changes that keep disrupting flow, sourcing, and any stability of even basic things like how the infobox is worded. How does all this sound so far? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work!. If Indian and Marathi editors would like to see this article elevated to FA status then they should be more objective and put their POV aside. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup To-Do list[edit]

  • Yes check.svg Done Remove overly POV terms (glorious, ignominious, epic, etc) throughout the article
  • Yes check.svg Done Mark [citation needed]'s and [who?][when?][where?] as needed, deleting or hiding any truly dubious unsourced material
  • Yes check.svg Done Review sources and remove those which are not WP:Reliable sources or improperly used.
    • Yes check.svg Done Remove 16 footnotes to the television serial Raja ShivChhatrapati
    • Yes check.svg Done Verify non-RS of H. S. Sardesai (6 cites). I'm finding very little about him online except for writing one multi-volume book on Shivaji, and gScholar doesn't seem to show him being cited as notable. Not to be confused with the apparently-notable Sarkar colleague G. S. Sardesai?
    • Yes check.svg Done Verify non-RS of Bhawan Singh Rana (3 cites). Appears to be a PhD, but not finding much on gScholar except he's published a few history books for Diamond Pocket Books of Delhi.
    • Yes check.svg Done Verify the small/miscellaneous refs used, prune out travel guides, fansites, novels, etc. Provide links where missing, note missing page numbers
    • Yes check.svg Done Verify non-RS of Babasaheb Purandare (29 cites). This is the big one; the author is clearly a Notable person, but best as I can tell he's a writer of popular history rather than a academic historian. So his writings may be cracking tales of derrring-do, but I suspect they're not historically rigorous material. Given how extensively this source is used, the issue must be addressed.
    • Yes check.svg Done Check "Further reading" and remove any non-notable authors/publishers/books, arrange in logical order
  • yellow tickY Partly done Before we go cleaning up all the rest, we should check what material should really just be covered in its own linked article. The article Napoleon Bonaparte has sub-sections for about a dozen major campaigns or wars; this article has 14 sections for individual battles. I suspect that in a number of cases we can lump several battles together into a sub-section about a given period of Shivaji's life, and let the reader refer to the linked article to get the blow-by-blow of how the fight went.
  • X mark.svg Not done Once non-RS cites have been cleared out, go through and address any [citation needed]'s with acceptable academic RS's. Remove material which we simply can't source.
  • Possible good sources not yet used:
  • Yes check.svg Done The section "Contemporary foreign accounts" appears of dubious value; how many of these folks were any more qualified to comment on Shivaji than anyone else at the time? It appears it might just be a fluff-magnet. - Removed with this edit.
  • Yes check.svg Done Ensure all material in lede is properly sourced in body, and remove footnotes from lede for cleaner read. Those looking to find greater context and sourcing can check the body.
  • X mark.svg Not done Check current content against a variety of neutral accounts, and identify notable missing information.
    • Yes check.svg Done The article prior to cleanup deliberately stopped right before the Battle of Panipat, obscuring the eventual decline of the Maratha Empire. I fixed this and also briefly mentioned that the empire lasted until 1818.
    • Yes check.svg Done The article has a substantial gap from 1649 to 1657; either describe what happened, or specifically note it was a quiet period.
      • X mark.svg Not done Same issue, narrowed to 1649-1653 now.
    • Yes check.svg Done The Battle of Pavan Khind still has zero sources, and the main article of it isn't much better
    • yellow tickY Partly done When did Hindavi Swarajya become a concept? Was his family always "fighting for freedom of the Marathas", or is there a point where more basic raiding and influence building took on a more political-religious tone?
    • Yes check.svg Done Odd thing to be missing, but exactly when did he transition just regular fighting and raiding to having an actual empire? Was there a kingdom period prior to the empire period? Was the coronation the clear line, or is it more complex than that? At least some sources seem to indicate it wasn't considered an "empire" until the 18th century, being a "confederacy" or "kingdom" prior to that. This claims the Brits called it the Maratha Confederacy until around the 1780s or so.
    • Yes check.svg Done Sambhaji defected to the Mughals at some point; this is glossed over in the article
    • X mark.svg Not done A number of treaties are described in a way that portrays the Marathas having the upper hand; these need to be checked to ensure folks and bowlderising instances where the Marathas were at a disadvantage
    • yellow tickY Partly done The article had an astonishing lack of mention of Shivaji's dealings with the Portuguese, French, and English powers. Within WP:DUE weight, needs to be added.
    • X mark.svg Not done The article contains basically no content about criticism/critique of Shivaji; needs a survey of neutral sources to see if there are any less-admirable acts that have been whitewashed, or at least give some note of his opponents' perspectives. Properly neutral bios of admired Western figures don't shy away from presenting their controversies (see Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill), so I don't see why Indian leaders should be held to a lower standard of scholarship.
      • Coverage of Shivaji's "revolutionary taxes", which some saw as extortion[11]
      • Coverage of Shahaji's political accommodations and abandoning of Shivaji's mother, both causing resentment[12]
      • Accusations of atrocities at Surat?[13] Rajapur factory looting?
    • X mark.svg Not done Here's the huge one: tons of RSs mention that Shivaji had trouble getting coronated because some Brahmins didn't believe he was Kshatriya. Complex and sensitive issue, and likely to provoke outburst from drive-by editors, so when we address this one we'll have to come "loaded for bear" with a substantial number of ironclad references, and prepare for edit warring.
  • yellow tickY Partly done Historiography section: changes in how Shivaji has been perceived over time, from local leader to dacoit to communal icon to proto-nationalist, etc. JS mentioned Lokmanya Tilak as playing a key role.
    • yellow tickY Partly done Note late-19th C. taking of Shivaji as model for caste upliftment in Maharashtra[14]
    • X mark.svg Not done Summarise early British perceptions[15]
    • yellow tickY Partly done There appear to have been some number of riots associated with portrayals of Shivaji in the modern era, fights over statues, defamation accusations, etc. These would bear some note in "Legacy" or similar.
    • yellow tickY Partly done Nehru apparently referred to Shivaji as a "predatory adventurer" until he needed the political support of Marathas[16]
    • yellow tickY Partly done} M. G. Ranade was apparently a key figure in countering the British (and other) narratives portraying Shivaji as a brigand, setting the state for a new portrayal of Shivaji as a "founding father" type instead. This seems to be a key historiographical issue.[17]
  • X mark.svg Not done Following a general cleanup, the format should be checked against formats successfully used on GA/FA bios, and adjusted for optimal flow and clarity.

This is the list as I see it; feel free to modify the above, just add a mention below this signature as to what you changed when so we can keep track. Looking forward to getting this whipped into shape. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of author Babasaheb Purandare at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard[edit]

There is a discussion at the RS Noticeboard as to whether Purandare qualifies as a WP:RS for the article Shivaji. Discussion posted here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Raja_Shivachhatrapati_by_Babasaheb_Purandare_in_the_article_Shivaji_.28Indian_history_bio.29. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Doubt H. S. Sardesai is RS[edit]

While we're here, does anyone object to removing H. S. Sardesai as a source? I'm pretty sure he's not the same person as G. S. Sardesai, and I can't really find anything on him other than that he wrote a multi-volume book on Shivaji (which I can't find available online). So no easy access, and no clear way to verify his credentials. I'd like to remove his cites, so please speak up if you object. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

H. S. Sardesai is a well known authority on Shivaji. A multi-volume book on Shivaji is clearly a good indicator as well, which can not be ignored. As also, being not available online is no reason to doubt anything. The reasoning is shallow.
Babasaheb Purandare is also a well known authority on Shivaji. It is unfortunate that he is considered not good enough source because of political reasons such as 'Brahmin' etc. which is casteist objection, this is an excuse not a reason to ignore sources on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Being multi-volume is no guarantee of academic merit, so that's not an issue. And it's not simply the fact that Sardesai's book isn't available online (though that doesn't help), it's that there's almost nothing about him online. Contrast G. S. Sardesai, who has biographies, is cited in many works, his books referred to in other books, etc. So not at all shallow reasoning.
So far as Babasaheb, please see the full discussiona at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Raja_Shivachhatrapati_by_Babasaheb_Purandare_in_the_article_Shivaji_.28Indian_history_bio.29, and note that so far the general consensus is that he's a novelist, not a true academic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

My recent image changes[edit]

My edits of changing images has been reverted by MatthewVanitas. He has asked to discuss it on talk page first. So, I am here.

But I don't think it needs to be discussed as the present version (of images) was also put without discussion. Originally, some other version (which I was puting) was there in the article, but Redtigerxyz changed those images saying "(infobox, historical img)" here-]. It was never discussed. So I was not making any new edit but just restoring the old image version here-] because that old image version was replaced by some new version without discussion. -Pareen Singh (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Pareen Singh, I would go for the image painted by the Dutch painter who was a contemporary of Shivaji rather than the "Modern", more stylish picture currently in the article. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC))
Pareen, thanks for checking in on the issue, but I agree with Jonathan that the image from Shivaji's own era is probably a better choice than a 20th century version. If you have a counterargument, it'd be great to hear it. Thanks for discussing, and you are correct that the person who changed it to the Dutch portrait initially should have discussed it first. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
It appears Pareen has been blocked a WP:sock puppet account. But still it's good that we have a discussion of the image just in case it arises in the future. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, thanks for changing the image. regards Jonathansammy (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"Citation needed" material removed 4 August 2013[edit]

Preserving here in case someone wants to check around and find a proper cite for these.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Thereafter a truce was made between Shivaji and Adilshah through Shahaji.[citation needed] [after Pavan Khind]

MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Late 2014 uncited removals[edit]

  • Afzal Khan desecrated Hindu temples at Tuljapur and Pandharpur, hoping to draw Shivaji to the plains where the superior Bijapuri army could destroy him. Shivaji, however, sent a letter to Afzal Khan requesting a meeting to negotiate.[citation needed]
MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


Shivaji's birth year is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

If you can cite reliable sources to support the date you've mentioned, then you can add it to the page. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2014[edit]

Shivaji should be called one of the greatest ruler because of what he achieved and what personality he had. (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Add some sources to you statement. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, when making requests always provide reliable sources supporting what has to be changed to what. Also, we do not use words like "greatest" in the encyclopaedia, see peacock wording; such opinions about him are stated (if they are indeed notable) as to who said them, rather than facts per our neutral point of view policy. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Title "Shivaji" Needs to be changed to "Chhatrapati Shivaji Raje Bhonsale"[edit]

I fail to understand why the title of this article is just "Shivaji" and not "Chhatrapati Shivaji".

Raje Shivaji was honored titles of "Shakakarta" "Kshatriya Kulavantas" & "Chhatrapati" during his coronation however the most important fact is these title & honors were unanimously respected by common man during those era & now as well.

Chhatrapati ("paramount sovereign") is not a common post/position/rank/title nor a general term for ruler, monarch, or member of a monarch's or former monarch's family.

Raje Shivaji was noble king who feared nothing and cared for everything and singular name title of "Shivaji" for this article feels more dis-respectful.

There are plenty of examples which can be given for Article on greatest Kings / Politicians / Humanitarians who are published with their entitled sovereign but I would like to make only one "Mahatma Gandhi"

Article on Mohandas Gandhi has the title of "Mahatma Gandhi" a title or sovereign which he was given by the people.

On the personal point of view, today when people look back at the history of India they think about "Gandhi", "Independence War" "Mughal Sultanate & its Architectures" "Hindu Religion" "Democracy" "Buddhism" but for me the most important event in Indian history was establishment of "Hindavi Swarajya" & "Swarajya War" which took place, started by a 16 year old brave Maratha boy.

I don't have any proofs to prove that this is an important event in history and not a story of a man who wanted to become King but I seek answer to a simple question - If Raje Shivaji had not fought against Mughal's & Mughal's would have continued their growth in India... Do you think that any other religions & their legacy in Indian would have survived? Do you think British Governance would have won the war to rule Indian? Do you think we would have seen "Mahatma Gandhi" or "Indian Independence Movement" or "Making of Largest Democracy in World" in the history?

In the end, It is a fact Shivaji Raje Bhonsale was the founder of "Hindavi Swarajya" & has been entitle Chhatrapati ("paramount sovereign"), It must be published / narrated / honored along with his name whenever it is mentioned.

Regards, viraj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viraj s85 (talkcontribs) 19:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The case of Gandhi is the exception that proves the rule. The title of the article reflects the most common name for the subject. Shivaji is the most common name, and that's what the title should remain. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Should it be Bhonsale or Bhosale?[edit]

This would be a minor question. As far as I know, In Marathi Bhosale is never written with the 'n'. Since its the last name should that Be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maksedit (talkcontribs) 17:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is the transliteration of the vowel indicated in Devnagri by the dot above the line. There is no precise analog in English, and I have seen it rendered variously with and without the 'n.' Here, we must depend on community consensus, which at this point appears to favour the 'n,' though I am unsure about how carefully this has been looked at. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I have never seen Bhosale (भोसले) written with a dot above the line when written in Devnagri. If the dot is present in Devnagri I agree with the 'n' being present but I don't think it has a dot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maksedit (talkcontribs) 18:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The title of the page[edit]

The title of the page should be Chhatrapati Shivaji as mentioned above by Vanamonde or Shivaji Maharaj, instead of just Shivaji, as in whole Maharashtra he is always referred to by these names only, respectfully. Regards! Abhilash Mhaisne (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not what Vanamonde said above, he said it should be just Shivaji and I agree with it. This is discussed numerous times before, read the talk archives like Talk:Shivaji/Archive 2#want change in title of this page. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with you Ugog, and I also read the archive, so can't we have Shivajiraje Bhosale , which would neither be against the encyclopaedic title styles, nor would it be dishonouring the great king, just like they have Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ?? With due respect... Abhilash Mhaisne (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well then, with that, WP:COMMONNAME comes into play. Probably the same reason Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi redirects to the more common Mahatma Gandhi. As I see, Chhatrapati Shivaji, Shivaji Maharaj, Shivajiraje Bhonsale etc (see the complete long list of redirects here) are more than enough. Thanks, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, so I guess by the COMMONNAME context, the name should be changed and appeal to the author to do so. Thanks Ugog! Cheers Abhilash Mhaisne (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Abhilash Mhaisne, in my experience, Gandhi's name is the exception which proves the rule; the rule being that honorifics are not typically part of an individual's common name. Even the current Queen Elizabeth DABs to Elizabeth II. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, perhaps we could have another exception to the rule, can't we. Come on, no one calls him just Shivaji. I am not uselessly arguing over the topic. Sincere regards, and no offence. Abhilash Mhaisne (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't see why it should be an exception. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Neither can I. Shivaji is easily recognizable as this august personality. --regentspark (comment) 22:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller regentspark Yeah exactly why I suggested Shivajiraje Bhosale, which would abide by the rules as well as not dishonour this personality. Abhilash Mhaisne (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Does Shivaji dishonor his name? Could you provide a reliable source indicating that the use of Shivaji is considered derogatory? I see it very commonly used (for example, this article refers to him throughout as Shivaji without the raje or the Bhosale). --regentspark (comment) 14:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, WP:COMMONNAME applies unless there is a NPOV issue with the common name. Therefore, as RP said, you would need to provide a source which shows that just "Shivaji" is an NPOV violation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, regentspark, Vanamonde, and Doug the article referenced above by Doug shows that in wide (international level) contexts, he is referred to as Shivaji, which was not in my knowledge. There have been issues in the use of his name, but they refer rather locally here and hence no trustworthy source can be cited about them. Thank you very much. Regards! SlimShadyLFC (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhilash Mhaisne (talkcontribs)

Marathas or The Maratha Empire or the Maratha Confederacy[edit]

I am a student of history. In history, areas conquered or controlled by Marathas are known as The Maratha Empire or the Maratha Confederacy.(Even some times they are called just "The Marathas") It is absurd to call an area over 2,800,000 km²( at zenith) as "Kingdom". It beats common logic. By the way source is given below: [18]

It says-"Shivaji was a Hindu king who successfully fought the forces of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, declaring himself king and establishing the powerful Maratha Confederacy. His story has become legendary.".(Check it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus (talkcontribs) 12:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── First, the lead is a summary of the article and the article discusses the Maratha Kingdom. Some of the sources:J. L. Mehta (2005). Advanced Study in the History of Modern India: Volume One: 1707–1813. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 707–. ISBN 978-1-932705-54-6. – It explains the rise to power of his Peshwa (prime minister) Buluji Vishwanath (171 3–20) and the transformation of the Maratha kingdom into a vast empire, by the collective action of all the Maratha stalwarts. M.N. Pearson (February 1976).

Review Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age by Susan Bayly Review by: C. J. Fuller The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), pp. 546-547 ...stage back before the post-Mughal suc- cessor regimes, notably to the Maratha kingdom of Shivaji (1630-80). Later, in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, in the Maratha and some other post-Mughal kingdoms - as well as in regions ruled by the British - the norms and institutions of caste expanded and strengthened significantly....

The Tyranny of Labels by Romila Thapar - seems a pretty good historian to me at any rate Social Scientist, Vol. 24, No. 9/10 (Sep. - Oct., 1996), pp. 3-23 ...Chauhana could not hold them back. The establishment of the Maratha kingdom also took place at the intervention of the deity. This kind of adjustment which emerges out of upper caste interests may also have been in part a response to the necessary change in the role model.

Towards an Ecological History of India Madhav Gadgil Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 20, No. 45/47, Special Number (Nov., 1985), pp. 1909-1911+1913+1915+1917-1918 ...caste of Kolis and pastoral caste of Dhangars. From amongst these arose Shivaji Bhonsale, the founder of the Maratha empire that dominated the politics of India during the late seventeenth and whole of eighteenth century.22 The Maratha kingdom could survive in the seventeenth century by taking tactical ad- vantage of the..

An Indian Penal Régime: Maharashtra in the Eighteenth Century Sumit Guha Past & Present, No. 147 (May, 1995), pp. 101-126 ..."traditional India" and endow that vacuous term with some historical content. REGION AND REGIME This article will deal essentially with the Maratha kingdom during the eighteenth century. By the middle of that century the Marathas sectively controlled most of the western half of the Indian peninsula, and had extended their power...

National Symbols under Colonial Domination: The Nationalization of the Indian Flag, March-August 1923 Arundhati Virmani Past & Present, No. 164 (Aug., 1999), pp. 169-197 ...represented the degradation of India under foreign rule and her rebirth through sacrifice and destruction.22 Attempts to recharge popular enthusiasm also led to the rediscovery of former heroes, like the eighteenth-century Hindu Maratha leader, Shivaji , who had opposed the Mughal emperors and succeeded in establishing a Maratha kingdom despite..

Veda on Parade: Revivalist Ritual as Civic Spectacle Timothy Lubin Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 69, No. 2 (Jun., 2001), pp. 377-408 ...Sardar). Ramdas Swami appears in modern Indian histories as a Rama devo- tee who, like another Hanuman, took up the sword for his devotion as the guru and ally of Shivaji , the guerrilla leader who successfully defied both the Mughal and Bijapuri Muslim rulers to establish an independent Maratha kingdom...

Regional Disparity in Agricultural Development of Maharashtra B. B. Mohanty Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44, No. 6 (Feb. 7 - 13, 2009), pp. 63-69 ...(Brahme and Upadhyaya 1979; Mohanty 1999). However, wm emerged as the centre of Maratha-Brahmin domi- nance during the rule of Shivaji (Lele 1990; Sirsikar 1995). He established a Maratha kingdom imbuing it with a Maratha identity and also promoted Brahmins by offering them official positions...

PEASANT DESERTIONS IN EARLY COLONIAL INDAPUR LYNN ZASTOUPIL Journal of Asian History, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1992), pp. 119-139 .... II, ed. K. B. Marathe (Pune: Deccan Vernacular Translation Society, 1909), No. 709 (p. 215), No. 735 (p. 241). 12 Hiroshi Fukazawa, "Lands and Peasants in the Eighteenth Century Maratha Kingdom ", Hitotsubashi Journal of Economicst VI, pp. 32-61 (1965), pp. 57-61. 13 Deccan Commissioner's Files, Pune Archive (hereafter cited..

The Madras Corporation Band: A Story of Social Change and Indigenization Gregory D. Booth Asian Music, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Autumn, 1996 - Winter, 1997), pp. 61-86 ...and their acknowledgment of the new political reality. This musical concession to British power, however, did not ultimately contribute to the survival of the Maratha kingdom . The dynasty came to an end in 1855; the following year, the British annexed the state into the growing Presidency...

Review The New Cambridge History of India. Volume 2, part 4, The Marathas 1600- 1818 by Stewart Gordon Review by: Frank F. Conlon The American Historical Review, Vol. 100, No. 3 (Jun., 1995), pp. 931-932 ...were fluid and contested. The early Maratha kingdom was colored more by contingency than by protonational- ism. Modern communalist images of "Hindu" Mar- athas battling "Muslim" foreigners do not bear scru- tiny when examining the composition of the sides of the many Deccan conflicts. Post- Shivaji intra-Maratha rivalries permitted the AMERICAN...

Review Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India by James W. Laine Review by: Richard H. Davis Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 72, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 1045-1050 ...93 of Shivaji . I will return to this and discuss the events more fully, but first I want to describe the book itself. James Lame's Shivaji concerns a warrior of the Maratha community who through adept military and diplomatic maneuvers was able to establish an autonomous Maratha kingdom centered in...

THE MARATHA NATION Wolseley Haig Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, Vol. 78, No. 4049 (JUNE 27th, 1930), pp. 870-884 ...the author of the Zafar-ul-Walih , a history written in the reign of Akbar, the Arabic text of which has been edited by the Chairman from a unique holograph manuscript which he discovered, says that the Maratha kingdom had never heard of Islam until it was invaded in 1294 by Ala-ud-din...

I can find quite a few more on JSTOR, let alone other places. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And of coures GBooks[19]. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2015[edit]

The page name should be name as 'Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj' and not only 'shivaji' a great person we can not call them simply by name...we should have respect towards them.......plz consider my requesr and change accordingly plz...He is the pride of hope u will consider

Sachin 6228 (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sachin 6228, as per wikipedia policy, WP:HONORIFICs are not used in titles. Stated popular title in lead. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2015[edit]

In Upbringing para , this article mentions Dadoji Konddeo contributions,agreed but later refers about FORMAL education In my opinion ,using vague words like FORMAL education should be avoided, as there was nothing like FORMAL education back in Shivaji Maharaj's days, you cant expect him getting a CA or MBA degree back in those days, so use of words FOMAL EDUCATION should be dropped Secondly, this article refers Shivaji MAharaj as ILLITERATE, which one just cannot digest , as a Man of Shivaji's stature being referred to as such is total illiteracy on part of author himself

reference: the book -The life of Shivaji Maharaj, founder of the Maratha empire by Krshnarava Arjuna Kelusakara , published by Publisher: Bombay : Manoranjan press, contributor being- ontributor: University of California Libraries

clearly mentions on PG 35 and PG 36 :- The annalists make no mention of the manner in which Jijabai conducted the education of her son Shivaji. It is, however, clear that during this time he seems to have made considerable progress in riding and horse management, archery and marksmanship, the use and exercise of the patta, the national Maratha javelin, and other warlike exercises, as also in reading and writing.

this article on WIKIPEDIA on Shivaji Maharaj has referred Shivaji as illiterate based on a book  :-Abraham Eraly (2000). Emperors of the Peacock Throne: The Saga of the Great Mughals. Penguin Books India , I have no communal bias but this is no book which should be capable of telling the History of Shivaji Maharaj precisely.

Another blunder is the para - Attack on Shaista Khan

every popular culture on Shivaji Maharaj says SHaista Khan losing THREE fingers, how the author mentions Shaista Khan losing just ONE THUMB is not known reference :- the book -The life of Shivaji Maharaj, founder of the Maratha empire by Krshnarava Arjuna Kelusakara , published by Publisher: Bombay : Manoranjan press, contributor being- ontributor: University of California Libraries

the following points in the section 'UPBRINGING' and 'Attack on Shaista Khan' needs correction 1) kindly remove the words FORMAL education as it is vague given the era during which Shivaji Maharaj was born , even if the author considers simple reading and writing as Formal education, the use of the words - having little formal education is incorrect (ref. PG 35 and PG 36 of the book I mentioned earlier) also definition of formal education _ Formal education is classroom-based, provided by trained teachers. Informal education happens outside the classroom, in after-school programs, community-based organizations, museums, libraries, or at home. ( ref.. google)

2) kindly remove the word "illiterate" as Shivaji Maharaj was more than literate ( ref PG 35 and PG 36 of the Book I mentioned earlier)

3) kindly edit the para - Attack on Shaista Khan , correcting the words ...Shaista Khan escaped, losing his "thumb" with "THREE FINGERS" ( ref PG 232 of the book I mentioned earlier)


I HOPE IT IS CORRECTED AT EARLIEST Rohit25sz (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Closing this request due to lack of communication in responding to a question asked over a week ago. Apparently there is no consensus to make the change as it stands or the request wasn't clear enough either in what needed to be replaced, what the replacement text should be, or why it is beneficial to the encyclopedia to make the change as requested. Feel free to reopen this request when all of the criteria have been met. Thank you, — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Shivaji Maharaj was not an Illiterate[edit]

Edit requested : Removal of words in Upbringing para which refer to SHIVAJI MAHARAJ as likely illiterate

The source cited against it.." emperors of Peacock Throne " , cannot

be a reliable source to tell a tale about someone like Shivaji Maharaj,an arch enemy who fought against those same Emperors of Peacock throne(mughals)

Kindly refer to this book...The life of Shivaji Maharaj, founder of the Maratha empire by Krshnarava Arjuna Kelusakara , published by : Manoranjan press, contributor being: University of California Libraries .

Also, words like FORMAL EDUCATION should be avoided, nothing like FORMAL EDUCATION, the classroom Education we receive nowadays existed back in the days of Shivaji Maharaj

Use of such vague words should be avoided, Definitely there used to be a Teacher/guru back in those days,,and education was imparted but even calling that Formal, would seem like reading a blog, where a blogger types whatever pops in his enlightened mind first.. my point being simple,,, considering the timeline in which the education is referred to,,, such words are a complete misfit.

Another edit : In para " Attack on Shaista Khan " He had lost 3 of his fingers and not just one Ref book The life of Shivaji Maharaj, founder of the Maratha empire by Krshnarava Arjuna Kelusakara , published by : Manoranjan press, contributor being- : University of California Libraries

the same book has this reference too...

this wiki article's author states just one thumb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbs21 (talkcontribs) 01:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

They say Akbar was illiterate as well. Do you need to be able to personally read or write anything when you can have any army of servants doing it for you ? . Whether Shivaji was illiterate or not is therefore not something to be ashamed abouiJonathansammy (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

the question is exactly about what SOME say , the ones who have written this article, arent someone who know much to reproduce history , let alone be it of Shivaji Maharaj,,, another thing, how can someone tell that such reference is not to be ashamed about ?? WIKIPEDIA is no place to post articles based on ones opinions and judgements, i am objecting to a sentence which is completely Wrong ( use the reference links provided in same article)

this article which talks about Shivaji Maharaj as being illiterate has reference links which point to the fact that he WASNT (illiterate) but had knowledge to read and write, obviously if you say he didnt know to read and write Foreign languages , that doesnt make him ILLITERATE

also, ponder upon this, if there are multiple references to Shivaji Maharaj , and say you get a 50-50 opinion on his literacy, you cant write in a negative tone .."likely illiterate" one should write that "its debatable" this being if the sources contradict each other

also my point is very clear... the author/editor of this article has stated Shivaji Maharaj as being illiterate and REFRENCE link is that of "emperors of peacock throne" forget the point of any WIKI article being unbaised , one cannot base an opinion on subject matter (SHIVAJI MAHARAJ) referring to a book on MUGHALS ( emperors of peacock throne) ,, if at all people arent aware - EMPERORS OF PEACOCK THRONE were MUGHALS , and SHIVAJI MAHARAJ was their fierce and arch enemy.

when you live in a land where such great ruler once lived , and years later someone on a platform as big as WIKIPEDIA puts forward a very WRONG image of such a person , you dont feel ashamed, you feel angered and pity those who are terribly misinformed and who are further making millions the same

also having an army or fleet of servants/soldiers to do things for KING , i dont get this , the things or the revolution Shivaji Maharaj started, even talking about his literacy status is trivial, but this being an article and all aspects being covered , it is beneficial to add , but only if you have correct references.

use the reference links... my point will be clear Rbs21 (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbs21 (talkcontribs) 12:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

this is commendable,, this user Jonathansammy has added another link to support the editor regarding the ILLITERACY reference, let me ask this user Jonathansammy or any editor in wikipedia, as Jonathansammy said AKBAR too was illiterate i did search the wikipedia article (on AKBAR) but didnt find a SINGLE REFERENCE to Akbar being ILLITERATE

there are sources (external)which shed light on AKBAR's literacy but the WIKIPEDIA article on AKBAR should be seen, its written in a way better tone than this article on SHIVAJI MAHARAJ

also view this as reference refer pg 86 - 87

here too they talk about the literacy status

let me ask all editors... 1. Even if we say some form of education was not taken by him, it it fair to call him ILLITERATE considering the age at which SHIVAJI MAHARAJ started his fight against the MUGHALS 2. Literacy had a different meaning in those days , Shivaji Maharaj had mastered the contents of two great HINDU epics ,was a great swords-man,had learnt horse riding, archery and marksmanship, patta and other, the want of book knowledge wasnt required then , is it even required to be stated ( not so in AKBAR's article) 3. Considering the time or era when Mughal's evil rule had plagued his land, Shivaji Maharaj was not expected to become a scholar first and then start Fighting Mughals

All this seems a waste of time saying this again and again, the editor or other for that matter dont get this simple point, Literacy isnt something to be mentioned ( learn something from AKBAR article on WIKIPEDIA) when you write about Great Rulers, great men who created History

men like SHIVAJI and AKBAR werent supposed to have book knowledge , calling them illiterate is illiteracy in itself Rbs21 (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Upbringing para states Shivaji Maharaj as being likey illiterate[edit]

Change of following sentence is requested in UPBRINGING PARA "The boy was a keen outdoorsman, but had little formal education, and was likely illiterate"

This sentence should be removed on grounds of it being vague in terms of it stating the reference of FORMAL EDUCATION which is absurd ,such kind of education didnt exist back in those days, Most of the Maratha nobility contemporaneous with Shivaji Maharaj, as also those who preceded or followed him in point of time, knew the simple arts of reading and writing , use of words like FORMAL EDUCATION is totally Incorrect

Also The sentence states SHIVAJI MAHARAJ as being LIKELY ILLITERATE which too is WRONG and should be corrected ( in FURTHER READING section : The life of Shivaji Maharaj, Founder of Maratha Empire]

This same Reference link sheds light on the EDUCATION details of SHIVAJI MAHARAJ

Thanking you

Rohit25sz (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree to what Rohit25sz had highlighted. When their was no School, no University, no Education System then how can a person be called as illiterate. In those days, everyone had Formal education at the most. Shivaji Maharaj use to write Letters to his generals, wasn't that enough? ... I had once removed the sentence but it was reverted ... Hope this time some good editor might understand & support. - Ninney (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

As some user state.. AKBAR too was illiterate , let me ask the editors, is it (Akbar being illiterate) even mentioned in the wikipedia article on Akbar ?? Great men who created history, brought a revolution for the masses,fought all their lives for a cause , is it appropriate to call such MEN ILLITERATE ??

refer Akbar's article Akbar which has highlighted and emphasised on much more important issues unlike this article on Shivaji Maharaj

edit request : kindly drop the reference of LITERACY as a whole

 : Wikimar24 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)info on education : more light can be thrown on Shivaji maharaja's education. Shivaji Maharaj got military training and learnt the art of government from Shri Dadoji Kondadev. Shivaji Maharaj’s mother Jijabai and his guru Ramdas motivated him with the noble and nationalistic ideas and imparted in him love for the religion and the motherland. Some improvement can be made. He cannot be called termed as "illiterate" his work was remarkable and thats what counts. edit request : kindly drop the reference of LITERACY as a whole i support Rohit25sz
'Probably illiterate' appears to be well referenced. Do we have solid references that state he could read and write? --regentspark (comment) 23:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Its simple, Article on AKBAR has no reference on literacy, such a reference is totally unimportant, further as I have previously said, if there are multiple references which contradict each other, no editor should state such a fact ( as it being unclear) why use words like PROBABLY, LIKELY ??

nobody opens a wiki link to find out how well educated someone like SHIVAJI MAHARAJ or AKBAR was , they became such famous men due to what they did for masses, the cause they fought for , they were warriors, add more info on that. THIS LITERACY STATUS IS DEBATABLE..HENCE REMOVAL OF SUCH A REFERENCE IS CALLED FOR.

also it is stated in article in UPBRINGING para - he carefully studied the two great Hindu epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata; these were to influence his lifelong defence of Hindu values , isnt this funny how one can study , say atleast READ the two EPICS and still be called ILLITERATE ?? This now truly is a biased opinion of editor of this article who LIKELY feels that one should be able to READ & WRITE English language primarily to be called literate.

get me a person who is an illiterate who has STUDIED RAMAYANA & MAHABHARATA

ref : Shivaji, the Great Maratha, Volume 1 By H. S. Sardesai - pg 86-87

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbs21 (talkcontribs) 05:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC) 
(There is no need to shout!) Edits to Akbar are best addressed in Talk:Akbar. For Shivaji, we have a well referenced statement 'probably illiterate' that is of some interest to the reader. We can't infer that he could read and based on his studying something because that would be WP:OR (for example, perhaps he had a good tutor who read to him and explained stuff from the epics you mention). You need to find a source that contradicts 'probably illiterate'. --regentspark (comment) 12:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

incase you are new to what happned here 1. some user earlier mentioned AKBAR being Illiterate too , sole reason for me to compare this article to Akbar's 2. one needS to shout for someone to listen, i have given two references (two different books) , in case you missed that too 3. you stating that some fact is not, and i saying it is wont prove what really is/WAS ( thats History and its debatable) 4. in case you again missed it, i am SHOUTING again, PLZ listen, this topic being debatable , with both sides providing references contradictory, i have requested the edit to be: THE BOY WAS A KEEN OUTDOORSMAN (HAD LITTLE FORMAL EDUCATION and was likely illiterate) WORDS IN BRACKETS TO BE DROPPED

REF 1. Shivaji, the Great Maratha, Volume 1 By H. S. Sardesai - pg 86-87 THIS ONES IN your OWN ELABORATE ARTICLE IN CASE YOU AGAIN MISSED IT

REF 2. The life of Shivaji Maharaj, Founder of Maratha Empire] THIS ONE too is in your OWN ELABORATE ARTICLE IN CASE YOU MISSED THIS TOO

and there was no FORMAL EDUCATION system at Shivaji Maharaja's time

why am i being asked constantly to provide same references is not known ,(There is a need to listen and read ! after all we are literate arent we) thanking you Rbs21 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It appears that this change is still being discussed, so please don't file a formal edit request until you reach a consensus. Gparyani (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As per the book on Shivaji Shivaji, the Great Maratha, Volume 1 By H. S. Sardesai - pg 86-87 its is clearly mentioned that

'though Shivaji didnt know to read or write , yet he possessed considerable erudition. Though Shivaji may not have pored over books,he certainly mastered the contents of two great Hindu epics by listening to recitations and story tellings.The noble examples of doing & suffering,of action and sacrifice, of military skill & statecraft which the stories of Rama & Pandavas accord, the Political lessions and Moral maxims with which these epics are filled ,deeply impressed Shivaji's young mind.It has become a fashion these days to call a person uncultured if he cannot read or write and on this ground the English and some Europeans looked upon the Indians as uncivilised.Although literacy is one of modes to make a person civilised, yet a mere smattering of knowledge does not make a person educated. The want of book knowledge does not impair ones efficiency as a man of action in the world. During the Muslim rule in India,reading and writing was not common here.Education progressed by listening to recitations and story telling from religious books. Apart from his education in reading and writing, Shivaji had the best physical and military training.He was a good Archer and Marksman , skilled in the use of spear and sword and excelled in Horsemanship.Though he may have not pored over a single book , he certainly mastered about the state affairs under the tutelage of his guardian - Dadaji''

hence the use of words like FORMAL EDUCATION is wrong and refering to Shivaji as ILLITERATE should be avoided. Rbs21 (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Rbs21, I don't get it. The text you quote above supports both 'illiterate' as well as 'no formal education'. Illiterate means that he could neither read nor write and no formal education means that his education was unstructured. There is no judgement of any sort implied in either of those two things. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done The quotation above clearly supports the existing phraseology - Arjayay (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

when Formal eduction didnt exist, how could he (SHIVAJI) possibly undertake it ? the means of education were different then , the ARTICLE says he was illiterate and ends there, what i have quoted states that , yes he couldnt read or write but also sheds light on other important aspects which are more empowering and overshadow his illiteracy , please try to add something more in that article , just saying he was illiterate is wrong. the existing phraseology says he was illiterate and had no formal education, what i posted clearly mentions that such sources of education didnt exist back then, the para i posted says a lot and not just about reading and writing, it states about various other things/forms that made him the Man/warrior/King we all know, which proved pivotal. hence just referring to him as illiterate wont suffice , the kind of education he received (which was prevalent) was listening to recitations and story telling from religious books , yet calling him illiterate seems illogical. and you have quoted the same ideology that has been mentioned in the para i posted - it has become a fashion these days to call a person uncultured if he cannot read or write and on this ground the English and some Europeans looked upon the Indians as uncivilised.Although literacy is one of modes to make a person civilised, yet a mere smattering of knowledge does not make a person educated

thus when you are writing an article about someone,isnt it important to refer to that person or judge him based on the conditions that existed back then ?? a plain reading of the para i posted should have removed all doubts but i guess you tend to infer exactly what you feel like , it clearly defeats the very purpose of this "edit req" or "talk page " for that purpose. Rbs21 (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted your most recent edit. Sources use the word illiterate and that's what we should use. --regentspark (comment) 17:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

not acceptable, i have quoted a source from this article's reference which says he couldnt read or write but illiteracy meant different in those days(this is already debated by me) another source from one of other reference is as under

The annalists make no mention of the manner in which Jijabai conducted the education of her son Shivaji. It is, however, clear that during this time he seems to have made considerable progress in riding and horse management, archery and marksmanship, the use and exercise of the patta, the national Maratha javelin, and other warlike exercises, as also in reading and writing.

this is in the book : The life of Shivaji Maharaj, founder of the Maratha empire found in further reading

I had not deliberatly qouted this as I myself am aware that this is debatable what many historians have debated is not at all open for us to write upon taking a particular side

hence i request that the edit I made now be accepted Rbs21 (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: I feel compelled to revert the most recent edit as well as the first edit as being unsourced and dubious changes; however, I haven't read the above WP:TLDR posts. Seeing that you have given RBs21 the benefit of doubt and responded here, could you recommend our next course of action? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Rbs21 is merely trying to wear us down by his/her long exchanges. The reality is that the word 'illiterate' when applied to Shivaji is well sourced and there is nothing debatable about it. A case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is getting disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

please understand , i have nothing about this article and would only help to improve it but the word used is inappropriate, how could one say its not debatable when i personally have given you two references , one which tell why he shouldnt be termed illiterate (Shivaji, the Great Maratha, Volume 1 By H. S. Sardesai) and other says he could read and write ( The life of Shivaji Maharaj, founder of the Maratha empire), i dont seem to fathom how Illiterate is well sourced and i am wearing anyone down

consider this simple example : would it be appropriate if some author wakes up tomorrow and writes - shivaji was illiterate as he couldnt operate a cellphone ? would he be termed technologically illiterate when such devices didnt exist back then? similarly If Formal type of education was inexistent during Shivaji's time, how could he possibly undertake it ? plus if only kind of education that as prevalent was listening to recitations from elders /gurus ( already elaborated by me earlier) can he be then termed illiterate just because he had no book knowledge which was inexistent ?

How can someone take (a form of education) that was non existent ?

if one writes an article and bases an opinion referring from one book and there are other books that say exactly opposite, how can there be consensus ad idem ( here in terms of people reading the article who know the other fact)

isnt it wrong to refer to someone on talk page as being disruptive or accusing someone just because that person is trying to provide enough references to support what is just and unprofessional by calling it as LONG exchanges ?

its not the matter of me or anyone liking sonething or not , i have just mentioned something which doesnt fit in - ILLITERATE Rbs21 (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Rbs21, the Sardesai reference clearly supports the illiterate statement (there is no other interpretation of though Shivaji didnt know to read or write). Note that Wikipedia prefers the works of modern historians. If the 1880's book (your second reference) claim that he could read and write had gain respectability, then historians wouldn't have been calling him illiterate in the early 2000s (our references). --regentspark (comment) 17:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

correction..respected user.. kindly have a second look at H S Sardesai's book - PG 86 - 87 , ( my entire purpose of repeatedly asking for an edit will be clear) it says as under:

SHIVAJI's EDUCATION - On the subject of Shivaji's education ,there is divergence of opinion among Historians. Grant Duff and Prof. Jadunath Sarkar describe Shivaji as unlettered , like three other heroes of Medieval India , Akbar, Haidar Ali and Ranjit Singh.Whereas Prof Takakhav in his book 'Life Of Shivaji Maharaj', says that he was a well educated Prince,made considerable progress in Urdu and Persian and had a grounding in Sanskrit language. Rajwade in his book 'Materials for history of Marathas' , states that he knew the simple arts of reading and writing.In our view, neither Akbar nor Shivaji was Illiterate.Even if we admit Shivaji didnt know reading or writing , yet they possessed considerable erudition. Though Shivaji may not have pored over books,he certainly mastered the contents of two great Hindu epics by listening to recitations and story tellings.The noble examples of doing & suffering,of action and sacrifice, of military skill & statecraft which the stories of Rama & Pandavas accord, the Political lessions and Moral maxims with which these epics are filled ,deeply impressed Shivaji's young mind.It has become a fashion these days to call a person uncultured if he cannot read or write and on this ground the English and some Europeans looked upon the Indians as uncivilised.Although literacy is one of modes to make a person civilised, yet a mere smattering of knowledge does not make a person educated. The want of book knowledge does not impair ones efficiency as a man of action in the world. During the Muslim rule in India,reading and writing was not common here.Education progressed by listening to recitations and story telling from religious books.Apart from his education in reading and writing, Shivaji had the best physical and military training.He was a good Archer and Marksman , skilled in the use of spear and sword and excelled in Horsemanship.Though he may have not pored over a single book , he certainly mastered about the state affairs under the tutelage of his guardian - Dadaji

respected user/s Never has he said he was an Illiterate. ( the edit i wanted earlier)

He has clearly himself given referrences of Historians who say he was literate.

He has himself said it is debatable (divergence of opinion among Historians) { my second edit was based on this}

respected user/s , i havent made this up to cause anyone discomfort, i have a complete backing and hence request the proper edit .

Thanking You Rbs21 (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't seem very categorical. Sardesai's opinion seems not to be based on any particular evidence and he backtracks considerably with the "Even if we admit". However, if you object to the word illiterate, we could consider replacing the sentence with: Shivaji as a boy was a keen outdoorsman and, though he received little formal education and most likely could neither read nor write, he is said to have possessed considerable erudition. The meaning is the same but the implications of illiteracy are considerably toned down. --regentspark (comment) 13:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2015[edit]

I would kindly request you edit the article's title from "Shivaji" to "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj". Referring to following articles on Wikipedia of other similar historic great personalities of India, who have their honorary title with their names in article's title. Hence I would request the editing to be made for title of this article.

Rani Laxmibai - Maharana Pratap -

For any clarifications regarding the request , drop an email at

Gawade.gitesh (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not doneWikipedia uses the common name of a person unless additional names or titles are needed for disambiguation. Shivaji is the most common name and cannot be confused with anyone else and that is why we use that name.