Talk:Battle of Kolhapur

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Redirect, 22 September 2023, see discussion.
speedy keep, 1 April 2015 (UTC), see discussion.

	India portal This redirect 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as Low-importance).
	This redirect was last assessed in April 2012.

Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia Start‑class

This redirect 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Maratha

The Marathas were clearly not an Empire, they deny being a Confederacy...therefore they should just be called Marathas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.56.188 (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for your claim? WBRSin (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duff source backs up almost none of this

Just a heads-up, I'm looking at Duff right now, and this is all he says about this claimed battle (and I'm having a hard time finding RSs that actually call it by this [or any] name):

Roostum Zuman, an officer of Beejapoor, stationed at Merich, was directed to march, when too late, for the protection of the Kolapoor district: he had only three thousand horse with a small body of infantry, with which he was permitted to advance to the neighbourhood of Panalla, when Sivajee, in person, attacked him with his cavalry, routed his party with great slaughter, and pursued him across the Kistna177. Thence, having written to Annajee Dutto to assemble all the spare infantry at Vishalgurh, Sivajee continued his route, plundered many of the villages as far as the neighbourhood of Beejapoor, levied contributions[1]

MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links / Sources for this article

Here are some links that may talk about Battle of Kolhapur / Shivaji during 1659.

[2][3][4][5] Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but I didn't got enough information about the context as in the article. The date, names of commanders, strength(was removed) and the involvement of Mughals are missing. I prefer you to make a copy edit of this page with perfect citations. Else, it would be deleted. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the citation to the background section instead.

Now when the actual event took place, on 10th November 1659 and when the Khan was killed Pg 164 - Last paragraph Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, it was the part of Battle of Pratapgad? If yes, instead of deletion, we can merge this with that. But still from where did the Mughal and number of men came from. The cited source still haven't mentioned Kolhapur nor Rustam Zaman. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found one that talks about Miraj and Kolhapur [6] Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also talks about the defeat of Rustam Zaman but no reference to the troops. We should stop checking for Battle of Kolhapur and need to check w.r.t Rustam Zaman, Battle of Pratapgad, Afzal Khan and most importantly Anajee Dhutoo/Tanaji Malusare. I guess they are the same person but the source got his name wrong? Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Can you copy edit this article? Btw the source that talks about Miraj and Kolhapur says about the defeat of Rustam Zaman? Ans the involvement of Mughals? Ajayraj890 (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From

External link: [7]

"He then entered into a correspondence with Aurungzeeb, the Moghul’s viceroy in the Dukhun, and representing how greatly Moohummud Adil Shah had mismanaged the government of the Konkun, procured Aurungzeeb's concurrence to his taking it under his own superintend dance for the emperor Shah Jehan"

This may verify the involvement of Mughals.

"In 1659, Anajee Dhuttoo, one of Seevajee’s dependents, was sent against Roostum Zuman, whose Jagheer or command, comprehended Miruj and Kolhapoor above the Ghauts, and below the ghats the whole Konkun, south of Dhabol to Rajamundroog, or Karwar, with the exception of that only, under the immediate management of the Warree Sawunts"

If I am right, the above implies that Roostum Zuman was already in control of Miruj and Kolhapoor.

"Roostum Zuman was worsted by Anajee Dlmttoo, but the Warree Sawunts adhered to their allegiance to the Beejapoor government, and for some time kept him in check." - Defeat of Rustam Zaman

Similarly, there may be sources present for the army as well. We may need a subject expert to verify if the above interpretation is right.

And, I won't be able to help you with the copy, as I not familiar with writing history articles. I am more into finding sources. Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will check if there is any sources that clearly explains the event. The Mughal involvement is still questionable as this is about a military conflict. Ajayraj890 (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update/Correction: Annaji Datto Sachiv and Tanaji Malusare are different people and the source didn't get it wrong. Jeraxmoira (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted two recent citations. Please read WP:RAJ. Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain in detail how WP:RAJ is relevant here. Battle of Kolhapur has nothing to do with the Indian caste system. Jeraxmoira (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the full article. I asked the same question because I used to cite those sources. If you have any questions, ask it on the talk page of the user. Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you delete those sources by yourself after making it clear. Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to delete anything here. As said above, WP:RAJ is irrelevant to Battle of Kolhapur. Battle of Kolhapur happened in 1659. One of the source I cited is from 1840 which is before the British Raj. The other source is from Govind Sakharam Sardesai, who was a historian from Bombay Presidency. WP:RAJ talks about the Indian caste system, Writings of British Raj administrators and Writings of Britons during Company Rule. Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should talk to @Sitush inorder to avoid an edit war. Ajayraj890 (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is no edit war going on here.~~ You removed the sources citing WP:RAJ as a reason. I explained how WP:RAJ is irrelevant here. If you are not satisfied with my explanation, start an RfC. The other editor you are pinging here, has never edited this article previously. I am not sure why I need to talk with him. Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira WP:RAJ is mistitled in some respects. We avoid any sources written in or before the Raj era. The WP:HISTRS essay supports this & is also widely accepted. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to this article and to the claims that the source is backing, It is neither controversial nor unreliable as there are multiple similar sources in the AfD which confirms the same. WP:citogenesis is why we are not using any modern sources. Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira The AfD is irrelevant to this. Find reliable sources or I will just send this back to AfD and, believe me, if I throw my weight behind deletion it will happen. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, citigenesis will not be relevant for modern academic sources. And if none of those mention this battle then it deserves to be deleted. The AfD you linked was pathetic. - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be merely a skirmish. Do this kind of events really deserves a seperate article? There are several major events still not present on Wikipedia. For example, overthrew of Khalji dynasty of Bengal, fall of Zamorin, etc which has greater significance in history. This military conflict seems to be a part of Battle of Pratapgarh. I prefer the information regarding this event can be merged with that article. If it is a bad idea, I apologize. Ajayraj890 (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you threatening me with a deletion of a random Indian history article which I am trying to improving? You do you :) Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira Not threatening anything, merely telling you how it is. Either find reliable sources or the article will be deleted. That's how this place works. - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just search ACLS Humanities, Brill & JSTOR, none of which appear to have anything relating to this battle. I will try a few other academic databases etc before long. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the Cambridge University Press or Duke University Press databases. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at Edinburgh University Press. Oxford Journals next - with > 400 results for "kolhapur", this one will take me a while. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]