Talk:Shivaji

Mis information about shivaji maharaj succession

This article is hijacked by partisans of peshwa and putting whatever they like in this article , one fine example is bajirao ? it is wriiten that" The Maratha Empire reached its zenith under the reign of Peshwa Bajirao I" Idiot do you know Bajirao was serving shahu chatrapti , he was not king , he was peshwa . Bajirao did certain role in expansion but that does not mean that maratha empire reached zenith under his reign , are you a fool ? How can you forget contribution of angre on sea , bhosale in eastern india ? in which way peshwa was connected with it ? tell us history , not gossips dear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.78 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

removal of Bajirao photo

Bajirao was not a ruler , he served under Shahuchatrapati , so why yiu are showing wrong information on shivaji maharaj page , if you are having little common sense and understanding of history , why like a coward you are writing false history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.70 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2021

Naming of Shivaji is the insult of Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj so people taking about shivaji by taking only his initials this is wrong because they Crated So much to the India and World and given Big ideal Personality,I know You will Accept My Request. Shambhusohan (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

He basically wants change of title from Shivaji to Chhatrapati Shivaji. Its his common name and calling him just Shivaji is seen as insulting to Marathis and any other followers. Just as title of Wiki pages for some other people are [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]] [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]]. The list goes on but Chhatrapati means Emperor and thats his name, Emperor Shivaji. Beyond this, they do call him C. Shivaji Maharaj which is basically like "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" page on wikipedia. But the former (C. Shivaji) pretty much suffices based on common-name use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitter Writer (talk • contribs) 10:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ Sagar sanjay hatwar (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – NJD-DE (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Gijs Kruijtzer

(Comment moved from User talk:RegentsPark) You reverted my edits on page Shivaji. The changes I had made were based on the given source. The source just mentions that things changed in the decade of 1977-86 and does not explicitly or implicitly state that the Shivaji was responsible for the change. Please read the source carefully before reverting any edits. I have reverted your reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaypatill (talk • contribs) 3:54 pm, Today (UTC−4)

@Akshaypatill: I don't know much about this topic but a simple google search brings up this: Kruijtzer is not averse to making strong assertions, ..... that the roots of modern communalism rest heavily (if not entirely) in the interplay between Shivaji and the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb during the decade 1677-87 (p. 8, 266 ff.).[11] As far as I can see, it is well supported. Are you sure you're not just deleting content you don't like without reading the sources? --RegentsPark (comment) 20:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:Let me check in the book.

@RegentsPark: Couldn't find it in book (P 8). I think you are quoting an article, please check out the original text.

@RegentsPark: The text says - "Something had changed in the decade 1677-87. In the Introduction it has already been noted that all the Hindu-Muslim riots that we know of from the historical record of the Deccan and North India occurred after this decade. But what is more, the wave of tolerance and explicit religious syncretism that had swept the Islamic courts of India around the turn of the sixteenth century, and which reverberated through the seventeenth century, had come to an end."

Hmm. I don't have access to the book so, I guess, I'll let someone else figure this out. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Please refrain from making uncostructive edits if you aren't familiar with the subject or haven't got hold on a valid source. Thanks.

Turns out that I could get hold of an e-book version from a library I have access to. The place to look is in the Introduction and not in the section you're looking at. Kruitjzer says: Moreover, I would argue that the roots of modern communalism (the antagonism between the “communities” of Hindus and Muslims) are to be found in this decade in the interplay between Shivaji and the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (p8-9). Still, I'll let others decide whether this needs to be included or not. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:RegentsPark Shiavji died in 1780. I can't understand the authors point.Akshaypatill (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

(You mean 1680!) I guess what he means is that that particular decade, which started with Shivaji's battles with Aurangzeb's Mughals, was the root of modern communalism in India. As he says in the section you quote above, this Maratha-Mughal struggle signified the end of religious tolerance in the Mughal court (which became more Islamic under Aurangzeb) and from that springs the communal divide we see today. The changes occurred in the Mughals between 1677-87 but these were triggered by Shivaji's conquests before his death. At least, that's my reading of all this. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of content

A lot of content on this page has been removed by some editors stating that the sources are unreliable or old or too new and the page is being maintained as is. Some editors term the sources too old while some say contemporary sources are not valid. I request everyone to be open to new content and improvements rather than keeping it as is. You shouldn't decide on your own whether a resource is valid or not but by the guidelines provided by Wikipedia. Please have a discussion on the talk page before removing new content that is at least sourced. :@Fowler&fowler: Akshaypatill (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Objections on the new content.

User:Vanamonde93

Can you please point out your objections? I am sure I have given proper source to every edit I have made. Looking for objections from other editors too.Akshaypatill (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

First off, you've been edit-warring it in despite objections from at least 3 editors. Second, you've been told several times a 1919 source is not reasonable. Third, your usage of book titles to support the honorific "maharaj" is contrary to WP:NOR; you need a source saying it directly, not just using the honorific. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the sources you used, is described in the link you cited as a work of fiction. How is that an acceptable source? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The 5th edition of the 1919 book is available and I will try to get hold on it. I will try to find other reliable source too. Thanks you. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Akshaypatil, the 5th edition of a 1919 book is still content written in 1919 (and definitely not updated since 1958). Please try to find recent scholarly sources instead. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Vanamonde93 and User:RegentsPark The book you discarded because it is published in 1919, is already being used in the article. See - Section [12] "In late March 1680, Shivaji fell ill with fever and dysentery,[123]]". Another - [13] Second paragraph - "According to Sarkar, Shahaji was...." This is the same book and same author, same year. To my surprise you seem to have missed this - [14] The last paragraph - "In 1919, Sarkar published the seminal Shivaji and His Times, hailed as the most authoritative biography of the king since James Grant Duff's 1826 A History of the Mahrattas. A respected scholar, Sarkar was able to read primary sources in Persian, Marathi, and Arabic, but was challenged for his criticism of the "chauvinism" of Marathi historians' views of Shivaji.[174] Likewise, though supporters cheered his depiction of the killing of Afzal Khan as justified, they decried Sarkar's terming as "murder" the killing of the Hindu raja Chandrao More and his clan. Assuming good faith.

Akshaypatill (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The 5th edition of the 1919 book is available and I will try to get hold on it. I will try to find other reliable source too. Thanks you. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Please explain these edits - 1 & 2.

Acclaimed scholars have drafted entire chapters on what you perceive as "mundane details" — Vajpeyi, Ananya (2005). "Excavating Identity through Tradition: Who was Shivaji?". In Varma, Supriya; Saberwal, Satish (eds.). Traditions in Motion: Religion and Society in History. Oxford University Press. pp. 239–268. VoC Records are quite illuminating in this regard. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam For - [15] I have checked the source and though, the first few sentences are correct, the source doesn't mention anything about 'bribing the guard'. Here is the text - Once again, orders to kill Shivaji were only rescinded by the intervention of Jai Singh. In despair, Shivaji asked that his men be allowed to return home, and he allowed to retire to Benares as a sannyasi. This request was also denied. A week later in early July, Shivaji's entourage was, at last, allowed to leave for the Deccan. Finally, Shivaji was able to negotiate a loan of 66,000 Rs. from his patron at court and managed to escape. Aurangzeb's urgent enquiries, over the next several months, uncovered no particular plot or escape route through the three sets of guards surrounding Shivaji's residence. And also as per my research Shivaji's men were freed as per his request. I have collected sources for my content. I will rewrite it soon. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam For - [16] I thought it isn't notable. But if you think so, let it be.Akshaypatill (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Please indent your posts. Gordon (1993, p.78, note 32) writes, More likely, he [Shivaji] simply bribed the guards. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam The Sarkar, which Gordon cites to make his point has written otherwise. See - Sarkar Jadunath - Shivaji and his times pages =165-167. Also, a more recent book has given proofs that Shivaji feigned illness and escaped. Here it is (The numbers are the author's references supporting his claims.) - "Then, in the morning of 18th August 1666, the Emperor received the staggering news that Shivaji had escaped!2054 How he escaped was not immediately known. But the accounts given in the Sabhasad Chronicle and Khafi Khan’s Muntakhab-ul Lubab of the manner in which Shivaji escaped are quite similar and are corroborated in the essentials by the Jedhe Chronology, a letter dated 3rd September 1666 by Parkaldas, an English letter dated 25th September 1666 from Surat to the Company, and a letter dated 20th September 1667 from the Portuguese Viceroy to the King of Portugal.2055 The story in brief is as follows:2056 Since his house arrest, Shivaji had feigned illness and had then started sending out fruit and sweetmeats to Hindu......." See - Mehendale Gajanan(2011)Shivaji his life and times (Page - 609)Akshaypatill (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Gajanan is not an RS. Take your issues to CUP or Gordon. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam Be civil please. Check out these sources - Sabhasad Chronicle (Siva Chhatrapati, pp.67-69); Khafi Khan (History of India as Told by Its Own Historians, Vol. VII, pp. 279-81); Jedhe Chronology (SCP, p.23); Rajasthani letter No.44 in Shivaji’s Visit to Aurangzib at Agra; EFI (1665-1667), p.165; Portuguese–Maratha Relations, p.45. Newsletter of the Mughal Court, 18th August 1666 (AFS, Vol. VI, No. 6); Ballushah to Kalyandas, 18th August 1666 (Rajasthani letter No. 29 in Shivaji’s Visit to Aurangzib at Agra).Akshaypatill (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

We, as editors, cannot use primary sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam Not all resources are primary. And may I ask why Mehendale isn't RS?Akshaypatill (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that we are talking about this book:

"PARAM MITRA PRAKSHAN" is not a publisher of repute and there is no evidence of peer review.

"Gajanan Bhaskar Mehendale" is not an author of repute, what are his academic qualifications?

The book is yet to be reviewed by any prominent scholar. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The author is a prominent Marathi historian . The author is History Researcher at Bharat Itihas Sanshodhak Mandal which is one of the prominent history research institutes in India. We have his page in the local language at https://mr.wikipedia.org/s/4009. He has been awarded for his works by Government of Maharashtra in 2010. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The basic problem here is one of source reliability: the burden of demonstrating reliability is on you, and by insisting on using questionable publishers, very old sources, and a work of fiction, you're not doing yourself any favors. Please describe the changes you wish to make, and the sources you are using to support those changes, individually; and please stick to reliable contemporary sources while doing so. Please also keep in mind the need to give sources due weight; a Times of India piece cannot outweigh historians published by academic publishers, no matter what it says. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Vanamonde93 As I said above the 1920 book is already used in the page. So that's why I used the book. But it is now being termed as too old. Very little is written in English about Shivaji in recent time. For the book by Mehendale, though the publisher of the book is local, the author is noted historian from maharashtra. The author has gave refernces literary to every sentence (Check out the footnote you reverted from death section for example). Also- I am quoting from a book by Sumit Guha - History and Collective Memory in South Asia, 1200–2000, University of Washington Press - "The effort to supply credible evidence could go to considerable lengths, as illustrated with evidence from two different cases. The first has been exhaustively studied by Gajanan Mehendale, a major historian of Maharashtra, and the following draws on his work."

From Times of India [17]-The scholar, Gajanan Mehendale, who has painstakingly authored an objective, unbiased and most respected biography of Shivaji Maharaj, after a research spanning over 30 years. Also here Indian Express calling him "Eminent Historian" [18] Akshaypatill (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Also Oxford Bibliographies Online maintained by Oxford University Press which offers exclusive, authoritative research guides for researchers has listed the book as refernce for Maratha Rule (1674–1818).[19] - "Mehendale, Gajanan Bhaskar. Shivaji: His Life and Times. Thane, India: Param Mitra, 2011. A richly documented account of Shivaji’s rise to power that is particularly strong in detailing the military and diplomatic campaigns that led to the geographic expansion of Maratha influence. Also includes very useful appendices, including a review of the historical sources available in many languages. In other appendices, Mehendale reviews the documentation relevant for debated topics, including Shivaj’s birth date, the role played by and Shivaji’s relationship with the Saints, and whether Shivaji was literate."Akshaypatill (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

User:RegentsPark Would like to have you opinion too.Akshaypatill (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

TOI/IE are not HISTRS. That said, I trust Sumit Guha's judgment. What do you propose to include/exclude using Gajanan? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• My main problem with Akshaypatill's edits is the replacement of uncertainty with certainty based on one or two sources. Originally, we say that the cause of Shivaji's death is disputed but the new text describes it with certainty. Not, imo, a good idea. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Also, I googled Mehendale and he appears to be a popular historian (the preface to his Tipu book is interesting). While there is nothing wrong with being one, popular historians write with specific audiences in mind and their work is not peer reviewed. We should keep that in mind when using material from their works. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  RegentsPark, can you link the preface? I am not seeing anything on Tipu. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sure. [20]--RegentsPark (comment) 13:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

User:RegentsPark The cause of death is disputed in the sense that different records gives different causes. As per British records it was bloody flux, Portuguese records states it was anthrax, while his biographer says it was fever. As we cannot conclude which one is right, I think we should include all of them. Also I think you likely have got hold on the book as you got the book on Tipu. If you have, see the citations, he have cited almost every sentence he says. No claims without citations. For the peer-review part - See here -[21] [22] Sources are rigorously peer-reviewed and vetted to ensure scholarly accuracy and objectivity. We employ a system of rigorous peer review to ensure that all articles are accurate and balanced. All articles are carefully reviewed by outside scholars and the Editorial Board to confirm that they are accurate and even-handed. To ensure objectivity, this process is single-blind. Oxford Bibliographies is project by Oxford University Press, so I think we can trust them.Akshaypatill (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

They have described the sources too - [23] Gordon 1993 is a brief but comprehensive historical treatment that spans the time period of Maratha power. Kulkarni 1996 is a similar overview, with a detailed section on Shivaji’s family background. Mehendale 2011 is the most comprehensive of these overviews in detailing events and people important in Shivaji’s rise to power.Akshaypatill (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

I have changed Chhatrapati Shivaji to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. I am putting my arguments for the change here- I have quoted a reliable sources and footnote. Aside from that, as per the guidelines at - MOS:HON 'Honorifics and styles of nobility should normally be capitalized, e.g., Her Majesty, His Holiness. They are not usually used in running text, though some may be appropriate in the lead sentence of a biographical article, as detailed below, or in a section about the person's titles and styles.' As indicated Wiki doesn't fully prohibit the use of honorifics, especially in lead. In section Honorific prefixes and suffixes, there are guidelines about prefixes but nothing on suffixes. Also wiki allows this - "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa." The Indian english news media rarely uses Shivaji without Maharaj as evident here in leading newspapers (reliable sources) in India - The HinduThe Hindu 2The Indian ExpressIndian Express 2Times of IndiaHindustan TimesHindustan Times 2Akshaypatill (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a patently silly crusade you are on. Every monarch has honorifics that were used to address them, and are sometimes still used by sources that wish to be respectful; this does not affect how they were known. Elizabeth II (only relevant because it's an FA) does not include the phrase "also referred to as Queen Elizabeth", quite rightly, because it would be nonsensical. Really we ought not to say "also referred to as Chhatrapati Shivaji" either; we ought to explain his title in that sentence, along the lines of "ruled as the Chhatrapati, or emperor, of a territory that grew into the Maratha Empire". But that's not a fight I've the stomach for. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Vanamonde93 Noted. Will not bring it again.Akshaypatill (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of content because source is old?

Since when has there been a policy to remove content because the source is considered too old? Since when did the age of the source became a question about its reliability factor? Akshaypatill - Your reasoning for removing content due to the age of the source is baseless. There is another source included which is of 2016 and yet you still removed the content. MehmoodS (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional source has been added by Abraham Eraly. So there is no need to remove the content as all sources have same information. MehmoodS (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, @RegentsPark Can you shed light to user Akshaypatill who keeps removing information with reasoning that the source is too old? I have included two extra sources which has same information and yet the user keeps removing content considering the sources either old or unreliable. Your assistance would be helpful. MehmoodS (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 himself has termed Sarkar's book is too old to be cited. User:MehmoodSand there is already a discussion going on the matter. And you had cited Jann Tibbetts and not Abraham Eraly. And I doubt the validity of Jann Tibbetts as RS. Akshaypatill (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Akshaypatill if you have doubt about reliable source then you should discuss it on WP:RS discussion board for a decision. Either ways, there is another by Abraham Eraly. MehmoodS (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

User:MehmoodS As Vanamonde93 stated in thread above it is the editor's responsibility to prove the reliability of the source. And as told, there is ongoing discussion on the issue above. Because different records gives different causes of death of Shivaji. I request you to hold on till the cause is brought to consensus.Akshaypatill (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

if the source is in question then Wikipedia: Reliability Noticeboard is what's recommended so that inputs and opinions can be provided. Reliability looks at author, publisher and the claim its supporting. These all play into the source being reliable. Age of source has never been a question. And the claim in question has been made in numerous sources. Usually if there are other claims from reliable authors then those information can be included as well without removing existing information that supports it will citations. MehmoodS (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

User:MehmoodS Abraham Eraly is fine for me as source. Just to inform you that, I was making the same arguments and wanted to use Sarkar's book as source. But was opposed by no less than 3 Administrators and couple of editors that the book is too old to quote as a relible source. Akshaypatill (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of image.

User:Fowler&fowler You have removed a image from the article with vague explanation. Can you cite a source that says it is misleading illustration. Your explanation seems like original research to me. Akshaypatill (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021

Change the title shivaji to Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj NihalChavan2002 (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj NihalChavan2002 (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Religious Policy

User:Vanamonde93 The content you removed from my edit is in the book on page number 121. I have updated the page number - It says - It would be inconsistent with the facts of history to say that Shivaji invaded Bardes to avenge the policy of religious persecution of the Hindus by the Portuguese. There is no reference to this either in the Treaty or in the records. There was no premediated plan to kill the three Priests. The Priests and a few Christians must have been killed in the course of action. Shivaji had adopted a policy of religious toleration and he would not interfere with any state on religious grounds.Akshaypatill (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Akshaypatill: the piece I removed was "though there was no premeditated plan to kill them and they must have been killed in the course of action". Please explain how that is supported by the page you linked; as far as I can see, all it says is that three priests and a few Christians were killed in what Shivaji considered a punitive expedition. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Vanamonde93 I have updated the source page number. It is on page 121. The google page doesn't give a page number on the page. So I hadn't updated it, now I have. It says - "It would be inconsistent with the facts of history to say that Shivaji invaded Bardes to avenge the policy of religious persecution of the Hindus by the Portuguese. There is no reference to this either in the Treaty or in the records. There was no premediated plan to kill the three Priests. The Priests and a few Christians must have been killed in the course of action. Shivaji had adopted a policy of religious toleration and he would not interfere with any state on religious grounds." Akshaypatill (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I see. The content is not found by searching for "premeditated", for some reason, but I see it now. This makes me wonder why that sentence is relevant at all, however; if the source says there were no killings on the basis of religion, how is this relevant to his religious policy? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Vanamonde93 Should we remove it then? I hadn't thought about that as I just wanted to correct the information.Akshaypatill (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I would lean toward removing it, yes. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Newly found birth year Shake 1549

Newly found birth years of Shivaji maharaj is 1627. Pl refer Sardar Mujumdar's Hastlikhit note in Modi lipi,as per published in Pudhari Paper dated 19th Nov 2021. 2409:4042:4E00:1257:0:0:C24B:5815 (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

महाराजांचा जन्म

सरदार मुजूरमदार यांचे मोडी लिपीतील ह‌स्तलिखित प्रमाणे महाराजांचा जन्म शके १५४९ ईसवी सन १६२७ असा आहे. 2409:4042:4E00:1257:0:0:C24B:5815 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)