Talk:Shivaji/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Quick review

Since this was requested at INB, I took a quick look at the article. Generally, this is a refreshingly neutral and well-written article for such a contentious topic. There are some issues which require clarification or detail in the body; these include his supposed support of "Hindu values", which is a very fuzzy term; indeed, it may not be appropriate at all, given the degree of variety in Hindu custom. Far better to describe the specifics things he supported, and then ascribe them to a desire to support Hindu custom. Also, the legacy section needs some work. Aside from the uncited content (which will presumably be fixed), we don't really need individual testimonials from historical figures. It would be far better to give an overview of perceptions of Shivaji, and provide a couple of testimonials as examples. Similarly, there are likely to be thousands of things named after Shivaji; I don't think we should be listing all but the most notable of those. Finally, we need some discussion of how Shivaji is used as a symbol by Hindu/Marathi nationalists; and if the article is to be taken beyond a GA, it probably needs to analyze this in detail. Vanamonde (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: thanks for the feedback! I do need to very carefully scrutinize anything about Hinduism in the main chronology to ensure it's supported by a broad base of sources and not simply a Hindutva fringe.

Do I read right that you think the Commemorations section is too long? And should we keep it bulleted, or aim for more one paragraph of prose?

Are you okay with the overall length of "Depiction in popular culture" provided we limit it to only works which are bluelinks, and leave all the rest in the separate branch article?

Uncited content is now mostly fixed and I'm tracking down sources for the remainder within the biography section.

Will it be a major issue that something like 23 of our maybe 150 cites are to one book? Sarkar's Shivaji and His Times" is pretty much the seminal work on Shivaji, and probably the single best work for play-by-play chronology. I have tried to use Sarkar mostly for basic timeline (and under the assumption that some later writers don't cover all those points because Sarkar does satisfactorily) and attempting to avoid Sarkar for anything more controversial where I want to show a broader body of sourcing.

I agree that Legacy is going to be one of the trickiest (and most interesting for geeks vice casual readers) sections, so I'm polishing up the chronology first and then tackling the thornier issue of the Legacy section. It's going to get... colorful.

Re individual testimonials in the Legacy section, are you opposed to quotes from figures even as prominent as Nehru?

Thanks for the initial look, I'll continue to polish, and will let you know when I file the GA request. Would you suggest I'm best to file for GA rather than FA? Or file for GA first and (potentially) FA later? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I've removed the bulleting at "Commemorations" and tightened it down to just a few cited sentences. Do you need me to do similar to the "Popular culture" section? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Quick response; a heavily used source shouldn't be an issue at the GA level; I'd definitely recommend GA before FA; I'd suggest trimming both commemoration and in popular culture, and if possible, finding some overview sources; and really pay attention to the use of his image in politics. Vanamonde (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Read up the reference of Setu Madhavrao Pagadi on the authenticity of the letter by young Shivaji to Deshpande, but the reference leads to page 10 of the Book to some Rajwade claiming the letter might not be authentic. Suggest we remove opinion based inferences of scholars who weren't sure about their work or review they were doing. Amitized (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Early Life of Shivaji

Why is Early life of Shivaji a different article? Should it not be part of this article? Also if it needs to be different (due to size), why not just put a link to it instead of duplicating information here? Then we do not have to manage two copies. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The forked article is more in-depth than what we have here. The question is: should the Early section here be shorter than it is now, longer, or stay the same? I'm open to opinions as to whether it's too long or short, but personally I think the current length is pretty reasonable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

Line below has to be removed- as this doesn't have any reference. Also a particular community's opinion without any basis doesn't add value to this article. Rumours followed Shivaji's death, with Muslims opining he had died of a curse from Jan Muhammad of Jalna. 180.151.131.33 (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done D4iNa4 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done I object, both the removed items were clearly cited, and why should one community's view be excluded? The point of that section is to show there was controversy over Shivaji's cause of death. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas, "Poisoning" cause is to be kept because ppl do die because of that reason in general. But "Curse of some person" removal make sense. Has anyone died of curse? Can anyone prove that someone died of a curse from some person??? No ! This thing doesn't have any basis just because some ppl have superstition, it cant be a cause of death hence "Curse" line should be removed. "Poisning" line is to be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.133.123 (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas: removal was correct. Can you tell how this source supported the information? It has no mention of "Raigad Fort". This source is not working. The original request concerned "opinion without any basis", which is definitely correct. We can't use speculations to dispute the history since most historians don't provide WP:UNDUE weight to them either. Capitals00 (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• The "curse" part is illogical. A lot of people claim after someone's death that the person died for his sins or died because of curse. I was following the IP's request but I also saw some more defective sentences in that same section of the article. "some Marathas whispering that Soyarabai," is either misrepresentation or just a hype. According to historians[1] that was Sambhaji who accused Soyrabai of poisoning Shivaji. There are rumors about that too if she committed suicide or just disappeared, but we can only add "Sambhaji had accused Soyarabai of poisoning Shivaji." And anything more than that will become WP:UNDUE. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

D4iNa4, I disagree. We are not saying "Shivaji died of a curse", we are saying "The Muslims *believed* that Shivaji died of a curse." I think this is not at all Undue since a wide number of sources mention this belief. Please just look at GoogleBooks and search "shivaji curse 'jan muhammad'" and note this is frequently recorded in history books. I'll await your reply before I add mention of it back. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have found only one reliable source yet[2] which says "many Indian Muslims claim that his death was caused by the curse that Sayyid Jan Muhammad placed on him". IF you want to reword per this source I would be alright with it or otherwise you can provide sources for your above wording. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas - first of all, U havent provided any references to bolster your point. Second, there is one reference provided by @D4iNa4 which says *Many Indian Muslims* & NOT *Muslims* which you are saying and portraying as if *All Muslims* are saying that. Third, you mention Muslims *believed* the curse , can you tell me how can a curse be believed, and third person is expected to understand it? Now lets go by reference provided - "Many Indian Muslims claim that his death was caused by the curse...". Here, *some muslims* claim (& not prove) that there was curse (which can not be proven either). So basically situation is - its someone's opinion on curse is included in this article which is not fact and no value addition in whatsoever respect, best to be removed ! 180.151.168.224 (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @180.151.168.224: no references? I explicitly put a cite to Gier that supports the statement. To be explicit, I put "many Muslims", even though I think "not every single one" is implicit. So far as "how can one believe a curse?" I don't see where there's any confusion. If I say "medieval French people believed in dragons" are you going to insist they didn't? It is not implied anywhere that the curse theory is correct, we are just noting (and multiple sources support this) that *some* Muslims *believed* he died from a curse. "He died from a curse" is not a fact, "some Muslims believed he died from a curse" is a fact. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas: - I rechecked your own given reference , page 18 , complete sentence - "Shivaji died of dysentery on March 24, 1660, and ........,many Indian muslims claim ....by the curse .....", this reference itself is wrong one, incorrect year of death 1660 , way off by 20 years !!! And you are quoting this as reference. This statement about "curse" taken from wrong, invalid reference makes strong case for removal! pls do the needful180.151.168.224 (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@180.151.168.224: that's a good observation, though Gier is a solid historian (at least in terms of what GoogleScholar turns up) so that's like a misprint. That said, if you look at the gBooks search results for "shivaji curse jalna" you can see that Sarkar, Karandikar, Green, Karaka, Sardesai, Apte, Azad, etc. all mention the curse story. Again, Wikipedia is not saying Shivaji *did* die of a curse, instead we are reporting that some people *said* he did and it is a significant perspective from one community of people. Do you have a prefernce as to which writer(s) we should cite for that sentence? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Govind Pansare's book "Who was Shivaji?"

MatthewVanitas, There is a text written by an Indian rationalist Govind Pansare who was gunned down by Hindutva terrorists for his opposition to blind religious faith and dogma. It was written as a rejoinder to the RSS vision of Shivaji as a "Hindu" king. He has given some arguments and facts against the view held by Hindu chauvinists and deserves to be taken into consideration. It was written originally in Marathi and subsequently translated into English and is available on Internet Archive. 06:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

8 wives

Shivaji had 8 wives, only few are mentioned. Komalpaw (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Correction

Plz update chartapati shivaji maharaj surname spelling BHOSALE IS CORRCT Shubhra143 (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source (see WP:RS for your alternative spelling. --regentspark (comment) 12:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Upbringing

@RegentsPark: Please explain why my last edit regarding Shivaji at Bijapur court was removed. Thank you.

The young Shivaji held a protest against the slaughter of the cattle and didn't observe the usual etiquette of the court. That's what is implied here Onkuchia (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Shivaji Early Depictions and Religious policy

diff of the contested edit

regentspark Let me know why the verifiable words were removed and unverifiable words were restored. Words are selectively quoted as we can see from the source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkuchia (talk • contribs) 10:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Onkuchia (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

For one thing, copying the source's phrasing verbatim is a copyright violation. --bonadea contributions talk 10:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

bonadea I did not understand. The page is an open source page from Google books.Onkuchia (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

regentspark Kindly check the source before restoring the unverifiable words. The source does not say "several" priests were killed. It says "Three priests were killed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkuchia (talk • contribs) 10:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Google Books is not open source, and published text is copyrighted - please see the information about copyright on your user talk page. Secondly, "three" is "several" - the definition of that word in various dictionaries is "more than two but not many". --bonadea contributions talk 12:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

bonadea Okay but then why use "Several" when the author says "Three". Several could also mean 10,11...I've not got any convincing reason why this change was removed.Onkuchia (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea and RegentsPark: And as for the 89th reference in the early depictions section, the author uses "traders" word and say that they later acknowledged Shivaji as a grand rebel. This is missing in the article. I think the words used in the article do not maintain a neutrality of view as we know we have both positive and negative depictions from Englishmen and Portuguese. Not every Englishmen viewed him as a robber, contrary to what selective words imply. Onkuchia (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas: Could you please look into this? Onkuchia (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Onkuchia, I aligned the text with the source. Best. --regentspark (comment) 17:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I need your help. Could you please look into the 89th reference of Shivaji Quoted words in the article are more of some editor's opionions than the athor's. Englishmen and Portuguese's perception about Shivaji as "a grand rebel" (mentioned in the quoted source) has been conveniently ignored.I think this violates the basic trait of Wikipedia — neutrality of view. My change as per the source was removed for apparently no reason. No one wants to give any explanation to this either. Onkuchia (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The source is not good enough to be a WP:HISTRS. There is no evidence presented for anything.

The sentence in the article is clearly a misrepresentation of the source. The source is saying that the European observers, who started out thinking of him as a bandit, were soon "dazzled" by his prowess. You can't take one part and omit the other. And, in fact, there is no need for that sentence because the first paragraph already covered the European observers in a much more sensible way. So, I am going to delete it.

More generally,

• The entire section titled Early depictions, which seems to have been created for the same of the GA nomination, is problematic. If I see a section like that, I would first expect to see how the Marathas thought of Shivaji. He was clearly a huge inspiration for them. So, saying nothing about it seems deceptive.
• Worse, since the next section is titled Reimagining (and covering Jyotirao Phule's depictions), one gets the impression that "Early depictions" is covering everything till then. But it is not. Here for instance is the Nizam scolding his uncle for being disrespectful to the Marathas:

Upon learning that the nobleman had shown great disrespect towards visiting Maratha representatives, the Nizam rebuked him for being uncomprehending (nafahm), lacking in wisdom (nadan) and shortsighted (kamandesh). The Nizam explained that the Marathas ‘are the landholders of this country’ who could not even be defeated by Emperor Aurangzeb, ‘despite his immense army and expenditure of the entire treasure of Hindustan (that is, northern India)’. Due to the Khan’s lack of courtesy (ta‘azzum), all of the Nizam’s efforts to make them ‘obedient and loyal to me through diplomacy’ are now threatened. Such behaviour is ‘inexcusable’.[48]

If the Mughals first thought of Shivaji as a bandit, I am sure they soon realized their folly.

• The section titled Reimagining is also problematic, because it suggests that Shivaji was a nobody until he started being treated as a hero in the mid-18th century. That is far from the truth. Shivaji founded in his own lifetime, what you might call "Maratha nationalism", which brought down the mighty Mughal Empire and eventually inspired both Indian nationalism and Hindu nationalism. That is a huge legacy! Is the idea of "reimagining" proposed in some reliable source?

I would like to request all the regular contributors to this article to take a look at this section and rebalance it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

References

@Kautilya3: Take a look at this statement "There is less evidence of Shivaji's attitude towards the Christians" in religious policy section — this is an unsourced statement. I couldn't find any source for this claim. As far as I know, we have enough evidences of Shivaji's religious/political policy against both Englishmen and Portuguese. I have read lot of comtemporary English letters wherein it's mentioned that Shivaji led expeditions in Portuguese territory in response to thr forced conversions of Hindu orphans Onkuchia (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That sentence is introducing the what little evidence the editor was able to find about Christians. If you have more information, you are welcome to add it. What is needed is information of the treatment of Christians under his rule, as opposed to raids etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: the "Early depictions" section was not written for the GA, it goes back quite a few years to when I made a Historiography section.

The section titled Reimagining is also problematic, because it suggests that Shivaji was a nobody until he started being treated as a hero in the mid-18th century. That is far from the truth. Shivaji founded in his own lifetime, what you might call "Maratha nationalism", which brought down the mighty Mughal Empire and eventually inspired both Indian nationalism and Hindu nationalism. That is a huge legacy! Is the idea of "reimagining" proposed in some reliable source?

You raise good questions but also skip others. While it would be useful to have some coverage of how Shivaji was perceived over the course of the history of the Maratha Empire (although I would imagine it's probably pretty uniformly positive without too much variety), the way you've phrased it here is also in danger of falling into the opposite reaction, projecting current nationalist visions of Shivaji uniformly throughout the past.

The "Reimagining" picks up at Phule because, as best as I can tell from the sources, Phule was prominent for not just glorifying Shivaji but applying his legend to have resonance in current politics. If you have evidence of similar but earlier efforts, that would be useful. Phule was writing a half-century after the collapse of the Maratha Empire, and well over a century after the Anglo-Maratha Wars diminished Maratha preeminence. We do not want to imply that Shivaji was uniformly a nationalist hero from his death to 1947 to the present, unless we have ironclad sources to back that up. I'll posit the question: when did Shivaji become a heroic figure of most/many Hindus and/or Indians in Greater India, rather than being a Maratha hero? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear that the Marathas, following the lead of Shivaji, demanded an equitable share of power for Hindus in the subcontinent, respect for Hindu religion and religious places, and freedom to practise their religion as they saw fit. This is "Hindu nationalism" at its heart, even though it is not the debauched variety of the 20th century. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Some selections from Kulke & Rothermund:

He [Shivaji] consciously emphasised the religious aspect of his military ventures and claimed to fight for the Hindus against Muslim rule. (p. 194)

Aurangzeb who had given up the tolerant policy of his predecessors and had reintroduced the hated jizya (poll tax) for Hindus, exacerbated this religious confrontation. Actually, Aurangzeb did not stop cooperating politically with Hindu princes and he did not spread his faith with his sword. Shivaji on the other hand, did not mind having a Muslim ally when the sultan of Golconda supported his campaign in South India,'... But, in general, Aurangzeb and Shivaji were perceived as protagonists of Islam and Hinduism respectively and their confrontation helped to highlight this fact. (p. 194)

See also Cattle slaughter in India#Maratha Empire which cites Ian Copland and others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my own position, I am not arguing that Shivaji was a Hindu nationalist. There was a certain amount of religious slant in his thinking, but that was not the predominant factor. He was mainly bidding for power in the name of marathas. I think he believed that the marathas, being the natives of the land, were entitled to have their own kingdom. They didn't have to work for the others, like his father was doing. The hindavi swarajya term, even though it is heavily contested, does capture this idea quite well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review - ready?

I offered to review this a while ago, and have finally found the time to do so. However, I find that the page is rather unstable at the moment, and unless the disagreements are resolved soon, probably will have to be failed because it isn't stable. Therefore, I don't want to bother reviewing it until I've seen some evidence that the disagreements have, in fact, been resolved. Vanamonde (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde93, no need to hold up the GA review on our account. These debates will continue. But I don't see any danger of instability. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

How to find who proposed this for GA? This needs improvements. --Gian (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it was probably MatthewVanitas. But the GA review is not the time to be making any major improvements. There will be plenty of time after the review is over. If you can help, I suggest you address some of the comments being brought up in the review. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, there are good suggestions in the review. I will help where I can. --Gian (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Rawlinson

I am deleting the whole paragraph relating childhood stories, which was inserted only recently, sourced to an English professor writing in 1915. Certainly not a WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shivaji/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have now placed this article on hold. There are a substantial issues with this, but I do not believe them to be insurmountable. I will keep this on hold for a week, after which, if no improvements have been made, I will have to fail it. I am quite willing to change this to a different, specific, deadline, but I am not willing to keep this on hold indefinitely, especially as this has already been open for three weeks. Vanamonde (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• As this has now been on hold for nine days without much progress being made, I'm afraid I have to fail this review. There is enough material here for anybody who wishes to try again, and if this is renominated after my concerns have been addressed, feel free to ping me, and I will be willing to pick it up again. Vanamonde (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Apologies for the delay. I see no reasons to quick-fail this, so I will comment on it in detail over the next few days. Since it is a topic of contention and also an important article, I will be fairly nitpicky: please bear with me. Vanamonde (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Early life

• I'd suggest separating the birth-date discrepancy into a separate sentence. Done

Separated the two things. Qualified govt chosen date clearly as such, it is not scholar's consensus. Scholar's opinion that it is disputed should come first. --Gian (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Better, but now there's grammar and accessibility issues; what is Shivaji Jayanthi? Vanamonde (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I can try running the article with word grammar check? I don't know how to help with accessibility, I let the earlier claim remain, only appended one more reference, so that should be okay kind of I think? I wonder why they don't print in English. Gian (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

By "accessibility" I really mean "comprehensibility to the ignorant reader"; hence my question "what is Shivaji Jayanthi"? Also, "govt" should be avoided.

Edited. Shivaji Jayanthi diretctly translates to birthday of Shivaji in Marathi. They have given holiday on that day. --Gian (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Link Ahmadnagar and Bijapur.  Done -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Is it common to refer to the Mughal empire as an Islamic Sultanate?

Yes. --Gian (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• The "Upbringing" subsection needs a little bit of work on the prose. I've copy-edited it a little, but I haven't accessed the sources (and don't want to get too involved anyhow). Phrases like "deeply religious", "lifelong defence", "Throughout his life he was deeply interested", could all benefit from being written in plainer prose.  Done

Replaced with plainer prose. --Gian (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Better, but could still use some work.

• "addicted to asking questions" again, "addicted" is incorrect in this context.  Done. That whole paragraph is gone now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• "Having made peace with the Mughals..." it isn't clear that he is in conflict with them.

This is in context of his father. Giving a larger context to this will bring in that history, maybe we can leave this sentence as is? --Gian (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's not what I mean. His father is previously described as having served all three Sultanates. So, he is either sworn to the Mughals, or a vassal of an independent ruler. How is he in a position to make peace?

• "His family settled at the city of Poona, an ancient center of Brahman learning and so he was surrounded by an atmosphere of rigid and uncompromising orthodoxy." There is some redundancy with the previous material here.  Done

Removed, it was redundant. --Gian (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• some inconsistencies in spelling: Poona vs Pune.  Done - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• "recitations of Kathas and Puranas" what are these?  Done - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Why is Rama linked, but not Sita or Pandavas?  Done - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• "most picturesque stories" I do not think "picturesque" is what is meant here. Furthermore, "he once stole through the Mussalman lines, into the heart of his enemy's camp at Poona" has other problems; what are "Mussalman lines", which enemy is this, and how are they in Poona, where he is supposedly growing up? This might be best removed.  Done

Removed the sentence. It was a letter by letter copy from the source. --Gian (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• "most likely could neither read nor write" This sounds odd after seeing material about his "studies" of Hindu epics earlier. It isn't mutually exclusive, but some clarification would be helpful.  Done

It wasn't supported in sources either and entire statement is puffer with "keen outdoorsman", "possessed considerable erudition", I removed the entire sentence. --Gian (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• "who complained to Shahaji to no avail in making him compliant" grammatically something off here.  Done

Took a shot. --Gian (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• "posted there by Bijapur." Everything before this suggests Bijapur is a place, not a person.  Done

Looking at the source the year was also off by 1. The intent was ruler of Bijapur. I corrected it. Gian (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Around 1645, the teenage Shivaji first expressed his concept for Hindavi Swarajya (Hindu self-rule), in a letter" This is grammatically off, and also needs further context; what does he mean by Hindu self-rule?  Done

Added context from a journal source. --Gian (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Better, but Kautilya3 suggests Shivaji isn't actually referring to Hinduism here...

The word means so in common usage in Marathi and there are scholarly sources supporting it too. It is best left at one sentence instead of making longer analysis when it has a separate page. --Gian (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You should note that WP:NPOV is a requirement for GA. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off on judging this for now, but please remember that because of attempts to portray Shivaji as a Hindu-nationalist icon in the present day, we've to be very careful about such claims; if we make them, they've to be strongly supported by solid sources. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The term "Deccan" needs explanation

Conflict with Bijapur

• "Accounts vary" accounts of what?  Done --Gian (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think "conditionally" (for release) should be removed. No conditions are mentioned by Sarkar. (Note that Sarkar's book is also pretty old.) Gordon says Shahaji's imprisonment was unrelated to Shivaji's rebellion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Removed. --Gian (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Link or explain "Gingee"  Done --Gian (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• "During this period..." It's not clear when "this period" began, because this is the next reference to Shivaji's actions after his fort captures.  Done --Gian (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• "Raja" seems in this case to be an honorific  Done --Gian (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• "which his vassal Shahaji disavowed." Shahaji was Adilshah's vassal, and was also imprisoned, so this is doubly confusing.

Earlier in the article: 1. Shivaji's father Shahaji Bhonsle was a Maratha general who served the Deccan Sultanates. 2. Shahaji often changed his loyalty between the Nizamshahi of Ahmadnagar, the Adilshah of Bijapur and the Mughals 3. In 1637, Shahaji took Bangalore from the Mughals, and was permantently posted there by the ruler of Bijapur. 4. On 25 July 1648, Shahaji was imprisoned by Baji Ghorpade under the orders of Bijapuri ruler Mohammed Adilshah, in a bid to contain Shivaji. 5. Shahaji was conditionally released in 1649 after the capture of Jinji secured Adil-Shahi position in Karnataka. Shahaji was his vassal, he was imprisoned to contain Shivaji. Still Shivaji caused damage and Shahaji disavowed. I agree the father son were playing tricks on us. But with the previous description it makes sense. --Gian (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. I know Shahaji was Adil Shah's vassal, but the phrasing makes this confusing.

Can you specify the specific confusion, is it because of similar sounding names? --Gian (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Never mind; the alternative is worse.

• "The Bijapuri forces marched into the Maratha-held Konkan, despoiling the shrine of the goddess Bhavani and other Hindu holy sites" Several points here. Shivaji himself has been described as fighting with other Marathas, so "Maratha-held" is ambiguous here. "Bhavani" needs linking. "the shrine of Bhavani"; if we know which one it is, this should be specific; if we don't know, this should be a shrine. It is unclear what the "Konkan" is. Finally, this is a potentially inflammatory claim, so I'd like to see the quote from the source supporting this.

 Done Trimmed the text as per source, provided the linking. The supporting text seems to be this: "In 1657, the new sultan, Ali Adil Shah, sent Afzal Khan, one of the most capable commanders, with a 10,000 man army to subdue Shivaji. Along the route the Bijapur troops profaned the shrine of Bhawani at Tuljapur as well as several other major Hindu shrines in Maharashtra." --Gian (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, this is now worse; it contains an Easter-egg link to the temple, still doesn't mention its location, and uses "despoiling", which is a rather loaded term to use on the basis of a single source.

Added location. What could be alternative words acceptable to you, is the book's word 'profaned' better? --Gian (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I expanded the wording using Richard Eaton's information:

But the drama of that notorious encounter has overshadowed an event of perhaps far greater significance for the future of Bijapur, as well as for that of the Marathas. This was the wanton destruction and desecration of Hindu temples indulged in by the Bijapuri general while en route to meet Shivaji in the Western Ghats. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Rephrased further, I think we're okay now. Vanamonde (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Both the sources are good. I just edited one word as it was watered down too much and did not reflect the sources. --Gian (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

And I'm not okay with that. Just "desecrated" would be fine, "attacked and destroyed" is okay, but "desecrated...in an act of deliberate destruction" is overdoing it, and sounds POV. Vanamonde (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Content actually has "in an apparently deliberate act of destruction" rather than "in an act of deliberate destruction" which is very watered down, and sounds like white washing. But "attacked" is unfit here, temples were "profaned" or "desecrated", and the sources also use it, I would keep it "desecrated", that could be middle ground since you also agree to it and we can do away with the wanton destruction part. Afzal Khan desecrated the Hindu places of pilgrimage, especially Pandharpur, while advancing to meet Shivaji. --Gian (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am ok with "attacked". But "on their way" is wrong as per Eaton. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

We could say "before engaging Shivaji..." Vanamonde (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

References

• The image caption should make it clear that this was a painting, and clarify what context it was painted in.  Done --Gian (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• When was it painted, and by whom?

It was painted in 1920 by Some one with initials M S E in Mumbai. Should this be added to caption, it will become very big then? --Gian (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The link describes Kolhapur as a city, in which case "pressed into" is incorrect.  Done --Gian (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• First sentence of "Siege of Panhala" is run-on and confusing.
• " This perceived betrayal" why is it a perceived betrayal?
• The "battle of Pavan Khind" subsection has several issues. Some of the material is redundant with the previous subsection, it isn't clear which bits are based on popular legend and which are not, and there are spelling inconsistencies and grammar issues. I suggest that it be trimmed a bit and merged into the previous subsection.

Conflict with the Mughals

• "and son of the Mughal emperor" it would be helpful to have a name and a link.
• "recognition of his right to the Bijapuri" the "his" is ambiguous here.
• "he launched a raid into the Mughal Decccan.[58] Shivaji's confrontations with the Mughals began in March 1657..." messy chronology here.
• 'by sending Nasiri Khan, who defeated the forces of Shivaji at Ahmednagar' what, by himself?
• "Shivaji and his battle" sounds like Shivaji was fighting for the Mughal throne
• Shah Jahan should be mentioned the first time, not the second (see above).
• "Upon the request of Badi Begum of Bijapur" who is this?
• The sentence I quoted is too long; needs to be broken up.
• The term "Mirza Raja" needs linking or removal, and Jai Singh's position vis-a-vis Aurangzeb needs to be made clear.
• In the section beginning "in April 1663", the text needs to make it clear what part is supported by reliable sources and what isn't.
• The paragraph beginning "In retaliation for Shaista Khan's attacks" seems out of place; should it not be moved up?"
• "gold hun": the link says "Pagoda", so why is a different term used here?
• "and was promptly placed under house arrest under the watch of Faulad Khan, Kotwal of Agra." This seems not to have a source
• The term "Kotwal" needs linking and/or explanation
• The spelling and italicization of "mansabdar" needs standardization.
• "title of raja" again, linking or explanation
• The previous fact in the article about Sambhaji is that he was made a mughal mansabdar with 5000 horses; and then again, with nothing in between? I'd suggest omitting that sentence
• "rights of sardeshmukhi and chauthai to Shivaji" those two terms both redirect to Chauth.

Reconquest

• "Reconquest" is a strange title. Reconquest of what?
• In fact, the entire section designation is odd, because really it's a continuation of "conflict with the Mughals".
• Who is Muazzam?
• " The Mughals also took away the jagir of Berar from Shivaji to recover the money lent to him a few years earlier." What money? If unknown, it should be "money", not "the money".
• "major portion of the territories surrendered to them in a span of four months." Was the surrender over four months, or the recovery? Also, were there other territories besides Berar?
• "the Mughals resumed hostilities with the Marathas" Contradictory: they're already fighting in the previous paragraph.
• Link or explain Danda-Rajpuri and Rajapur
• "the issue of the Rajapur indemnity" What is this?
• "Umrani" and "Nesari" are mentioned in the title and nowhere else.
• "Anandrao Mohite became Hambirrao Mohite, the new sarnaubat (commander-in-chief of the Maratha forces)." The link here is to a specific individual, which makes me suspect that there's some mismatch with the source material here.
• "Raigad Fort was newly built by Hiroji Indulkar as a capital of nascent Maratha kingdom." Completely out of context; a new paragraph is required for certain, and more detail would be useful. Also, "nascent" is odd, as there's clearly been a nascent empire for a while by this point. This whole thing may even be better discussed along with his coronation.

Coronation

• "A kingly title could address this and also prevent any challenges by other Maratha leaders, to whom he was technically equal" Very heavy editorial voice here.
• There's a closing tag gone walkabout
• "great Maratha Jahagirdar " "great" is peacockery
• "Controversy erupted..." there's a missing transition here. We've heard why Shivaji may want to be a king, but not that he actually decided to become one.
• "albeit one in need of the ceremonies befitting his rank" again, heavy editorial voice. "who had not had the ceremonies" etc would be better.
• the link for "Shudra" says they were laborers, not farmers.
• "king of the Marathas" as written, this implies all the Marathas accepted him as king; is this in the source? If not, this needs clarification.
• Ceremonial details don't add much, and I'd suggest omitting them.
• "Bengali Tantrik goswami" this needs explanation.
• "under inauspicious stars" similarly.

Conquest in southern India

• "but failed to dislodge them." dislodge from where?
• The section title implies that Shivaji focused on south India during this period; is this correct?
• "a conflict between the Afghans and Bijapur" Bijapur and Afghanistan are a long, long way apart, and have the Mughal empire between them. What's going on here?
• The previous mention of Bijapur had them suing Shivaji for peace. Did he attack them again immediately after they granted him tribute?
• "agreeing to reject his alliance with Bijapur" whose alliance: Shivaji's or Golkonda's? And why does Deccani patriotism require the rejection of an alliance with Bijapur?
• "Karnataka" was this a recognized region at the time?
• "intended to reconcile with his half-brother Venkoji" when and why were they estranged?
• Link Tanjore and Ekoji (even if the latter is a redlink
• "and maintenance of Shivaji's future memorial (samadhi)" Confusing; did Shivaji promise that a memorial would be built outside his kingdom after his death?
• "who was irresponsible" a little more detail would be helpful; if not, better to say "whom Shivaji considered irresponsible" (assuming the sources support that)

Death and succession

• "some Muslims opining" is too broad

Governance and military

• "He named the Ashta Pradhan (council of ministers) according to Sanskrit nomenclature, with terms such as nyayadhish, and senapat, and commissioned the political treatise Rajyavyavahar Kosh." This is incomprehensible to the general reader. I would suggest pruning this to "He commissioned works in Sanskrit such as the political treatise Rajyavyavahar Kosh".
• "Hindus were relieved to practice their religion freely under a Hindu ruler" Editorial voice is too heavy here.
• "others have rebutted" strikes me as ungrammatical
• The "religious policy" section has several ungrammatical sentences, and could use a copy-edit.
• The term "Konkan" is still used twice without explanation.
• What is "Suvela Machi", and why does it's picture add to the article?
• The painting of the army should be described as such in the caption

Legacy

• This section has a general tendency towards puffery, intentionally or otherwise. The very first sentence, for instance, is decidedly unencyclopedic.
• Furthermore, the controversies are not described in sufficient detail. If a particular book or description of Shivaji proved controversial, we need to include not just descriptions of the controversy, but assessments of it, in reliable sources.
• Since these are more general points, I won't review this section in detail until they have been dealt with.

General

• I would suggest that the references in this article be converted to the sfn format. At the moment, unless a person has popups enabled, the page number information and the reference details are in different places in the article. Per WP:CITEVAR I cannot compel anybody on this point, so this isn't a condition for this to pass GAN, only a suggestion.

• The current format is poor, regardless, because it is not in fact consistent. I thought I had mentioned this some time ago, perhaps on my own talk page when the GAN was first mooted. There is a mix of styles, including use of {{rp}} at times. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• True: I hadn't gotten far enough to see that, or maybe I just missed it. It still isn't a GA requirement, but I would strongly suggest that the nominators fix this. Vanamonde (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 In progress -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Links should generally be placed the first time a term is used; there's several instances where this isn't the case.
• @Gbohoadgwwian: you're doing some decent work here, but with all due respect, I'm not sure you're able to comprehend or fix the grammar and prose issues I'm raising; so may I ask you to stick to fixing other issues, and leave the wording alone for the moment? Vanamonde (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• There are a lot of terms in the article from a variety of Indian languages (so far as I can tell). While I've addressed some specific instances above, I would suggest that the entire article be checked, and all non-English terms linked and/or explained (both, for preference). Vanamonde (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• The level of detail in the "Marathas after Shivaji" is too high; and generally, I would like to see most of it moved to the legacy section.

Upbringing

I believe this section will have a better flow if the second paragraph is made third and third paragraph is made second.Any thoughts.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you are right. Kautilya3, what is your opinion? --Gian (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see an issue of flow. But things should be chronological order. Was the Mavali associations after he returned from Bangalore? The article doesn't talk about any return. Perhaps that should be clarified first, if possible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hindavi Swarajya

The article currently has this sentence:

Around 1645–46, the teenage Shivaji first expressed his concept for Hindavi Swarajya (Hindu self-rule), in a letter to Dadaji Naras Prabhu.

References

The first two sources do not support the content:

• The Pearson article has the passage

The Maratha success became self-sustaining after the mid-i66os, and went on and on in a self-generating fashion. The initial successes were a result of several well-known factors: the terrain of the Maratha swaraj (homeland), so difficult for a cumbersome Bijapuri or Mughal army; Shivaji's tactical expertise, especially the use of light fast horses and the strong yet inexpensive hill forts; the existence of happy hunting grounds in the weakened sultanate of Bijapur; Aurangzib's involvement in the war of succession just when it seemed that he could and would turn on Shivaji and nip him in the bud.

Not only does this not have any "hindavi" in it, but it translates swaraj as homeland, which is definitely the right translation in this context. It seems that Shivaji might have used swaraj in this sense multiple times.

• The Malavika Vartak article has the passage:

The kind of interpretation that Phule had warned against is exemplified in the works of his contemporary, Eknath Annaji Joshi. Joshi published his work in 1877 titled 'The Advice Given by Dadoji Kondadev to Shivaji Maharaj'. Besides the use of classical Marathi which was used only by the brahman literati, the title gives a strong indication of the ideological leanings of the work as it focuses on Dadoji Kondadev's contribution, an approach which as we have'seen is diametrically opposite to that adopted by Phule. Joshi lays emphasis on the role of Dadoji Kondadev in moulding Shivaji's character and inspiring him to establish a Hindavi Swarajya by resisting Mughal rule. Joshi's work differs with Phule's in terms of the imagery used for instance, central to Joshi' s work is the idea of Ramrajya to signify an age of peace and prosperity while Phule, to make the same point uses the concept of Balirajya [O'Hanlonl983:25].

This is dealing with Annaji Joshi's portrayal of events, not sure if he is an authentic historian. But it says nothing about Shvaji writing a letter when he was a teenager.

• I can't access the occurrence of Swaraj in the Vijayanagara Voices book. I wonder if somebody can provide a quotation? But, given that it is a book covering "Voices", it is unlikely that it is talking about actual events either.

All said and done, it looks like the sentence is wholly unsupported by sources. I am deleting it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I would also add that hindavi (equivalent to hindi) most likely meant "Indian" in this time period. It could not have meant "Hindu". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3, The Vijayanagara voices does mention Shivaji's use of the phrase "Hindavi Swarajya".The author also cites other older books from which got he the information.I hope you do not mind me reverting your edit with modifications. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

When a talk page discussion has been opened, I would hope you would wait for the discussion to conclude before reinstating material unilaterally. You have not provided a quotation from the third source. You have reinserted Malavika Vartak citation even though I said it doesn't support the content. And, you haven't addressed "Hindu self-rule" business. So, I think this is a half-baked reinstatement and quite surprising coming from an experienced editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry for the haste.I distinctly remember adding one or more of these sources years ago in the lede.Hence the eagerness to put the sentence back.Anyhow, here is the footnote from "Vijayanagara" source:

"Probably the earliest use of a word like Hindu was in 1645 in a phrase in a letter of Shivaji "Hindavi swarajya",meaning independent from foreign rule,'self-rule of Hindu people'.

See Wilfred Cantwell Smith,The Crystallization of Religious communities in Mughal India',reprint from Yad-Name-ye-Irani Minorsky,Tehran,Tehran University 1969,p.21".ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

In "Hindavi Swarajya", Swarajya means Self-rule and not homeland. The Pearson text uses 'swaraj' rather than 'swarajya' and is in a specific context explicitly meaning homeland ("the terrain of the Maratha swaraj"). "Swarajya" was used by Bal Gangadhar Tilak also. Hindavi does not mean 'Hindi', it probably means Hindus. It is possible that subconciously you are reminded of Hind Swaraj written by Gandhiji. But it is different from "Hindavi Swarajya" as used by Shivaji. --G (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Hindavi

Don't be so sure about what "Hindavi" means. Hind definitely meant India, and Hindu meant the non-Muslims of India. The extreme closeness of the two terms should tell you to be very very cautious in making any claims. We know for certain that "hindavi" was the language of Amir Khusrau[3] (for which we now use the names Hindustani or Urdu). So, I find it unlikely that anybody would use hindavi in a sense that excluded Muslims. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, whose book was referenced by Jackson, says this:

The earliest relevant usage that I myself have found is Hindavi swarajya from 1645, in a letter of Shivaji. This might mean, Indian independence from foreign rule, rather than Hindu raj in the modern sense. A little later this same champion of the country's indigenous traditions is referred to by his son Sambhaji as Haindava dharmoddarika, later in that century.

So Smith is interpreting "haindava" "hindavi" to mean Indian rather than Hindu. Sambhaji's Sanskrit phrase doesn't help us either. "Haindava" could have meant "Hindu" in adjectival form, but it could have also been just a Sanskritisation of hindavi. Note that "Hindu dharmodharaka" could have served equally well. So, why go to the extra trouble of coining "Haindava"? (I am also not sure why oddarika appears with an i, which makes it feminine. Whoever coined that term had only hazy knowledge of Sanskrit.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I only said "Hindavi does not mean 'Hindi', it probably means Hindus.". I think you will concede that it does not mean Hindi like you stated. I have my doubts about 'Hindus' too hence I used 'maybe'. But that is a reasonable interpretation indeed at the given time of history and present in one reference that Jonathan used and one I mentioned. Please do not confuse it with Khusrau's language, Shivaji spoke in Marathi, it is also spoken as Haindavi Swarajaya in Marathi but popular English spelling became Hindavi. How do you conclude what Sambhaji said was a Sanskrit phrase? --G (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

My two cents:Isn't it the case that words like Hindi,Hindavi,Hindu are of Persian/arabic origin?In those languages these words either mean India,or Indian.In Shivaji's days,persian was the court language of the Adilshahi and other islamic powers.Adilshahi did,however, use Marathi for revenue records etc., but Marathi used in those days was heavily laced with persian vocabulary.So a hybrid phrase such as Hindavi (Persian) Swarajya/Swaraj (Marathi/Sanskrit).ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Irfan Habib telling us how these terms were used in medieval times:

But almost simultaneously, from the 14th century onwards, a new word 'Hindi' (also 'Hindustani') began to be used for the general category of Indians, irrespective of religion, for now Muslims too were natives of India, and the term Hindu with its religious connotation would not serve to include them. So Amir Khusrau (d.1324), the famous Persian poet, would say with pride that he was "a Hindustani Turk", and that Hind was his "home and native land". In his Nuh Sipihr he speaks of India's contributions to the world (the numerals, the Panchatantra and chess!), and of the several regional (Hindawi) languages, the Sanskrit of the learned and the common 'Hindi' tongue; but then Persian, he claimed, was now also a part of the Indian language-stock, having been brought hither by the Ghorians and Turks.

So, I suspect that Shivaji's Hindavi could either be a national term (meaning Indian) or an ethnic term (speaker of native Indian languages), but most likely not a religious term. Hindavi and Hindi were synonymous, one being drawn from a Persian root and other from a (borrowed) Arabic root. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did Khusrau not say he was a "Hindi Turk"? How do you conclude what Sambhaji said was a Sanskrit phrase? What does Irfan Habib say directly about Shivaji's invocation of Hindavi Swarajya in 17th century (instead of superimposing remarks about Khushro of 14th century)? --G (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe sources with direct mention of the phrase "Hindavi Swarajya" as coined by Shivaji are dependable. The other doubt I have is what was the meaning of the term "Hindu" in 14th century and 17th century? It also has Persian origin and had a regional rather than religious appeal at a time. --G (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

See Hindu. "Hindu" was originally a national term for Indian. But when the Muslim rule started in Sindh, people that accepted Islam were not referred to as "Hindu" any more. Thus a religious connotation started, which persisted. By the 14th century, the people that we now call Hindus seem to have accepted the label and ascribed it to themselves (as a secondary identity; the primary identity was their jati). Others such as Jains, tribals, dalits, and foreign groups didn't do so. But, again, I don't think the acceptance of the Hindu label was all that widespread. The elites who contested for power used it. A farmer in a village probably had no need for the "Hindu" label. If a Muslim tax-collector came and called him a "Hindu", he would have said "yeah, whatever". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

As for sources, we need to use WP:HISTRS. Jackson does qualify, but he doesn't seem knowledgeable about the issue. His footnote [11] claims that "Hindavi Swarajya" was "probably the earliest use of a word like Hindu". He doesn't seem to know that Hinduraya Suratrana had been used a couple of centuries earlier. It is all the more astonishing because he is studying Vijayanagara, which was itself a "Hindavi Swarajya" of its time. I will have to see what the book reviews say about the book. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Swarajya

The next question is, what did "Swarajya" mean? Here is a source that clarifies:

Words undergo a change of meaning with succeeding generations and a historical dictionary of a language is really necessary. When Shivaji spoke of Swarajya in 1645, he may not necessarily have meant an independent State. He was perhaps referring only to securing a free control over his jagir at Poona. To Brahme of Chakan he wrote:... (Because of your grace, I became entitled to this rajya). Here also Shivaji refers to his jagir when he speaks of the rajya. We should not import 20th century meanings into 17th century words... even if Shivaji mentioned hindavi swarajya or rajyache adhikari in 1645 or 1648 it does not necessarily mean that he was contemplating the establishment of an independent State.

Monier-Williams dictionary gives the meaning for svarAjya as

n. independent dominion or sovereignty RV. AV.; own dominion or kingdom R. Katha1s.

This suggests that he was talking about an independent dominion for hindavi people, whoever they might have been. "Self-rule of Hindu people" seems like a big stretch. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of Swarajya was never contested in the article. I had replied earlier.--G (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I am contesting it now. And opposing your interpretation and what is in the article currently. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I am probably not getting this, I am under the impression that what you understand of Swarjya is the same in the article and same in my view. Are we contradicting? --G (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This is contradicting Jackson's interpretation, "self-rule of Hindu people", in two ways. First, it is interpreting rajya as kingdom/dominion rather than as "rule". Second, it is making no allusion to all "Hindu people" or "hindavi people". This is merely saying an independent dominion of hindavi people, however small it might be. Even Shivaji's original jagir of Poona was admitted. But it had to be independent.

I believe that in the medieval times, there was a tacit balance of power between Hindu and Muslim warrior clans. When the Vijayanagara empire was in the play, Vijayanagara and the Bahamani sultanate (or its successors) balanced each other. When it shrank, that balance was destroyed. Shivaji needed to reestablish it, by creating a hindavi kingdom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"Swarajya" or "Swaraj" means self-rule or home-rule (unless explicitly redefined by certain author in their text for some limited context). Pleae refer to Swaraj, Purna Swaraj, Hind Swaraj, Gandhiji's usage of it, Dayanand Saraswati 's usage of it. It is not required to reconstruct its meaning from parts when the word has a definite unambiguous meaning. If I may give a crude analogy, you are taking the meaning of 'crore' (ten million) and 'pati' (husband) to reconstruct the meaning of 'crorepati' (rich) as ten million husbands. Your inference that Swarajya does not mean self-rule is wrong. On "Hindavi Swarajya" as used by Sivaji in 17th century:

In Sivaji's case, the struggle for national independence was not so much for the sake of mere political autonomy as for religious freedom, which was being curtailed by the Muslim conquerors. Nor was Sivaji's goal the establishment of a democracy, but rather the reestablishment of the traditional Hindu order of society according to the ideals of class and stage in life. It is not surprising, then, that Sivaji referred to the goal of his nationalist efforts as Hindavi-Swarajya'.

In Maharashtra today Shivaji is the most important of all heroes, father of an exclusivist Marathi identity and an early warrior in the fight for indigenous (in this case Hindu) self-rule.

Historical records indicate that he was a man of immense charisma and great personal courage and that he did indeed, found a Hindu kingdom that invoked classical Hindu modes and modalities of kingship.

--G (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

These are all Religious studies scholars. I have no information about their knowledge of history. James Laine's book was extremely controversial. So were the books of Wendy Doniger, Arshia Sattar's Ph.D. supervisor. And, Mackenzie Brown is using translations from 1926, a time of intense Hindu-Muslim conflict. He doesn't seem to have seen the Marathi texts for himself. Here is a statement of Shivaji that he quotes:

I have formed a league of all Maratha chiefs with the object of preserving their estates, in order that we should be masters in our own home: that we should preserve or destroy Moslem Kingdoms at our pleasure.

Notice that there is no occurrence of "Hindu" anywhere, or hindavi even. The whole meaning of the passage now rides on the word "Moslem". Suppose the original Marathi source had used "Turk" instead. Then his whole theory falls flat. This is not a reliable source for history.

I would also be curious to know what was the original source wording for "own home".

And, please don't bring up Gandhi and Dayananda Sarasvati. They have absolutely no bearing on what Shivaji thought or said. And also, please look up meanings of words in dictionaries before claiming to know what they mean. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The dictionary meaning of Swarajya is Sef-rule. I see several journal article unambiguously interpreting it as Self-rule. Please provide sources that interprets Swarajya as self-land/homeland.--G (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have bolded the words of the scholar at the top of this subsection. You should read that and his entire commentary (the source is available online), and reflect on it. Please don't keep making the same bad argument again and again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Meaning of the direct phrase "Hindavi Swarajya" as used by Shivaji in 17th century

Some sources that directly interpret the Phrase "Hindavi Swarajya" as used by Shivaji: . Other Journal articles that are based directly on Shivaji and the context for this phrase: . I believe taking apart each word in some other era or context then stitching them to reconstruct a meaning is not needed here. --G (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There are thousands of sources, G. Please consult WP:HISTRS. I won't bother looking at others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

And also, please state what it is the source says that is relevant for the discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is a Marathi scholar stating the meaning in unequivocal terms:

Shivaji's coronation and setting himself up as a sovereign prince symbolises the rise of the Indian people in all parts of the country. It was a bid for Hindawi Swarajya (Indian rule), a term in use in Marathi sources of history.

I think I have discussed this enough now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a Govt Publication. Peer reviewed Journals have discussed it in detail, we also discussed in previous section. Please don't imply Shivaji meant 'Indian' in 17th century. --Gian (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

But this source is currently being used on the page. Has anybody contested its accuracy?

In any case, here is a source from Shivaji's own time period:

As narrated by 'Abdul in the Ibrahim nama when Sultan Ibrahim 'Adil Shah invited him to compose a book of verses, 'Abdul asked the sultan what medium of communication he could possibly use, as he is merely a Dehlavi (that is, of Delhi) who knows nothing of Arabo—Persian poetry and whose language is merely Hindavi, that is, of India (not Persian, we might add).[8]... As the Ibrahim nama records, 'Abdul's patron encouraged him to compose his poetical work in the local idiom, arguing that it is poetry that brings rup (form) to a language... He further reasons with 'Abdul, telling him that the poet's use of "his country's language" would go a long way in promoting it as a medium of literary expression.

From this it is clear that Hindavi was the name of the language that we now call Hindustani, and it was equally used both by Hindus and Muslims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No, we are not going to discuss meaning of individual words out of context. Just now you said it meant "Indian", now this. No scholar says Shivaji meant a language for 'Hindavi Swarajya'. This is a museum book on arts, it does not mention Shivaji anywhere. It is original research to find separate meanings of Hindavi and retrofit them into the phrase 'Hindavi Swaraj' coined by Shivaji. Peer reviewed Journal article directly commenting on the complete phrase as used by Shivaji are reliable sources for this. I think I will excuse myself from further discussion on this. --Gian (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• You have started this section yourself labelling it with "as used by Shivaji in the 17th century". However, pretty much none of your comments relate to Shivaji or the 17th century.
• You have cited Arshia Sattar's book review (which is not exactly a "journal article") to support the position that Shivaji meant "Hindu self-rule". However Sattar prefixes her sentence with "In Maharashtra today", clearly not Shivaji's meaning. You haven't pointed out where she made any claims about what Shivaji meant.
• Meckenzie Brown's journal article only makes vague references to religion and Hindu order, but doesn't say anything explicitly about what "Hindavi Swarajya" meant. Drawing any conclusions from this involves WP:SYNTHESIS.
• Finally, you have started shooting down Pagadi's book as a "Government publication", whereas it is published by Navajivan Trust, a Gandhian organisation founded by Gandhi himself to promote Hind Swaraj, whereas it is published by National Book Trust, an autonomous organisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, I think Jonathansammy, you and I had extensive discussion on article talk page. Thanks for reaching out, I am also feeling like you are doing original research by trying to synthesize meaning of a phrase by retro-fitting meaning of individual words from disparate context. To respond once again to some points you bring here, let me say I have provided journal sources that discuss Shivaji and the phrase directly. I provided the short quotes too. You mentioned that Pagadi book is by National Book Trust, why do you say now it is Navjivan Trust? --Gian (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I am slow, I am having difficulty with edit conflicts. NBT website clearly indicates it is under Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt of India. Regardless, please confirm if you want to stick with Hindavi-meant-'India' in 17th century by Shivaji according to it? Because your following comment says it means a language. Earlier you said it means Hindi, then Hindustani. All that I am saying is stick to high quality source that talks directly of the entire phrase directly as used by Shivaji. I do not want to take this to wp:are and I am doing good reading and contributing positively in the ga contributions. --Gian (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Setumadhavrao Pagadi is a highly acclaimed source. So is Wilfred Cantwell Smith. Smith said, quite explicitly, that Hindavi Swarajya did not mean a "Hindu Raj". You are ignoring these statements repeatedly. It is quite obvious to any right-thinking person that Shivaji deliberately used Hindavi so as to be inclusive of both Hindus and Muslims. He could just as well have used "Hindu Swarajya" if that is what he meant. It is quite ridiculous to portray him as a Hindu nationalist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistake with the "National Book Trust". The fact that it is managed by HRD doesn't mean a thing. Every central government university/institution is managed by HRD. They are not labelled as "government organisations". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A Publication with Govt of India in the logo itself is different from saying Delhi University is aided by Govt. Anyways, so Pagadi, in English, translates Hindavi as 'India', but you presented another sources saying it is a language, so what is it according to you? You also gave different interpretation of Swarajya as homeland instead of hom rule. So, please frame a complete meaning of "Hindavi Swarajya", if I may hazard a guess it is "Homeland of people speaking in Hindustani language", which was already there, so what was Shivaji trying to achieve? I believe the meaning of a phrase should not be re-constructed from component words in different context. Do you realize you are the one importing 20th century term into 17th century when you are talking about Hindu Nationalist? Mackenzie's analysis in the religious background is detailed and apt, it is a peer reviewed journal article. The religious conflict is also mentioned by John F. Richards, who is a scholar in this field. Why would Afzal Khan choose to "profaned the shrine of Bhawani at Tuljapur as well as several other major Hindu shrines in Maharashtra" to provoke Shivaji? Some scholars have already commented and we may not ignore them all and reconstruct the whole meaning from original research. --Gian (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The Deccan Sultanates used Persian as the court language, as Jonathansammy already pointed out, and historians tell us that that they employed many foreigners. The rest of this post is WP:FORUMy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You have done synthesis and ignored good sources that contradict your world view. You selected multiple intent for individual words from out of context sources and synthesized a meaning that fits your view. What language Deccan Sultanates used, whether they employed foreigners, hence you want to disapprove of scholarly comment by your own logic is original research. I also presented why certain facts fit in place for which you talk insultingly and tell to go publish papers. There was least interest to listen and respond, there was a preconceived picture and you went after justifying it. I do not want to collaborate like this with you. --Gian (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

References

About Chhtrapati Sambhaji

It is false that son of Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Chattrapati Sambhaji maharaj was irresponsible and 'addicted to sensual pleasure'. Its very very wrong to say this as he was one of the greatest warrior, talented person, great poet with knowledge of 16 languages. One should reread books on sambhaji maharaj (Chhava, Sambhaji) before saying such things on this big platform. Ranjitrpowar (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @Ranjitrpowar: Please take a look at Talk:Sambhaji#How_best_to_cover_Sambhaji's_confinement_at_Panhala?. The vast body of scholarship says that Sambhaji committed moral offenses, and for those was confined to Panhala fort. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I would also suggest reading annexure from Sambhaji book by Vishwas Patil. He provides many proofs against "womenizer" tag. Even if we consider Chatrapati Sambhaji was once addicted, how did he recover from addiction? It is highly insulting to call him with such words. If Chatrapati Shivaji had punished him, he could have surely removed tag of "Yuvraj" and could have rightfully dethroned him. Swapnil.ichche (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Desecration etc.

Opening a section for the issue of desecration. The OED defines "desecrate" as

To take away its consecrated or sacred character from (anything); to treat as not sacred or hallowed; to profane.

To me, it is a very mild term, and in a way, a weasel term. Walking into a temple with shoes would be an act of desecration. Knocking down an idol that the followers hold in deep devotion is much more than that. To a rationalist, it might be just a piece of stone that is damaged. But for the idolator it is a deeply insulting and painful act.

"Attack" is stronger. It implies violence.

"Destroy" is even stronger. It implies destruction.

So I am not sure why User:Gbohoadgwwian is insisting on the term "desecrate". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

My reasoning is that the three provided sources use "desecration". All three sources also talk of destruction, one source even tells about molestation of local people. The original wording "despoiled" is also fine. "Attacked" is a very generic term, an infantry can be attacked, a temple is desecrated. Afzal Khan's motive was to "desecrate" the temple and destroy and loot it with an intention to force Shivaji to come out. "Attacked" would require giving explanation that the attack wasn't repelled and Khan successfully destroyed all the Hindu images and molested local people. "wanton destruction" as given in source is also fine. Saying "attacked ... in an apparently deliberate act of destruction" is white washing. All sources note the intensity and severity of this incident, it is extremely watered down here and not reflecting the sources honestly at all. --Gian (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To repeat my point again, "destruction" is a stronger description than "desecration". As Vanamonde93 has mentioned, using both is overdoing it. Do you want "destruction" or "desecration"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not really an option when all sources use desecration (and destruction). The information of several temples is also absent from present text and limited to two named ones. The content is unfaithful to the sources.

• In 1657, the new sultan, Ali Adil Shah, sent Afzal Khan, one of the most capable commanders, with a 10,000 man army to subdue Shivaji. Along the route the Bijapur troops profaned the shrine of Bhawani at Tuljapur as well as several other major Hindu shrines in Maharashtra.
• But the drama of that notorious encounter has overshadowed an event of perhaps far greater significance for the future of Bijapur, as well as for that of the Marathas. This was the wanton destruction and desecration of Hindu temples indulged in by the Bijapuri general while en route to meet Shivaji in the Western Ghats.
• Afzal Khan desecrated the Hindu places of pilgrimage, especially Pandharpur, while advancing to meet Shivaji.

I propose that the present text include "and other Hindu shrines". These sources are not news articles, these are scholarly history books, summarizing them faithfully is good practice.

--Gian (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You are still ignoring the points that have been made. "Destruction" subsumes "desecration". It doesn't make sense to use both the words.

Since Eaton is knowledgeable about temple destruction issues and he devotes several pages to these episodes, I think we can just focus on Eaton. His use of of both the terms probably implies that Afzal Khan destroyed one temple and desecrated others. From the Afzal Khan (general) page, it seems that the Bhavani temple might have been the one that was destroyed, and others desecrated. If so, that is what we should state. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not ignoring Kautilya3, I am presenting my views (with arguments). Eaton tells about the "destruction and desecration of Hindu temples", is it not correct? Let me check this source also again. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 10:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Page 182-183 tells of desecration and destruction. Given the context, desecration (and destruction) is the appropriate word in my informed opinion and used in all history sources. Destruction does not necessarily subsume desecration. For example, destruction of a temple for road widening project does not automatically assumes desecration if the locals approve of it. I am expressing my understanding with sound reasoning, please express any disagreement without assuming bad faith. I am raising the point that present text should include "and other Hindu shrines". --Gian ❯❯ Talk 10:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I will stress the above arguments, @Kautilya3, that desecration is not subsumed by destruction as you argue. Destruction doesn't imply desecration and desecration doesn't require destruction even when we are talking about undesirable events. If I have my army burn the temple murthy intentionally, I am desecrating the temple without destroying it. If I have my army destroying a church as incidental damage (e.g., german cities in ww2), but following that attack they reconstruct the church, that is not desecration. One act is a physical act and the other is a display of faith animosity. Given that that is what went on in the specific episode - and all references attest to that - I don't understand what is the issue with having destroy and desecrate as the wording.

Re: your argument here, "Walking into a temple with shoes would be an act of desecration. Knocking down an idol that the followers hold in deep devotion is much more than that. To a rationalist, it might be just a piece of stone that is damaged. But for the idolator it is a deeply insulting and painful act," I think you are missing the point and the common usage of the word. Desecration, sacrilege, blasphemy, heresy, and similar terms are tied to the intent of the act. Your OED reference is pretty clear - to profane, to treat as unsacred. Walking into a temple with shoes unaware of the act is not desecration (though may be perceived in this manner). However, a rationalist that is aware of the sacrilege that is to walk into a temple with shoes and does so is performing an act of sacrilege. He is intentionally and knowingly offending peoples by acting against the sacred. His personal beliefs are irrelevant for this class. It's like offending. If I call someone a pig, it doesn't matter if I know that that they are not a pig - what matters is that I intended to cause that harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.1.74 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the sources are very clear on it. It is deviation to waive a dictionary without context when we have contextual research material, where is the necessity for such original research? But such original research has happened in another section above against reliable contextual references and I do not want to waste time presenting even more reference or reasoning where no one is interested in them and only wishes to reconstruct things originally from some dictionary or another unrelated context. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 15:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Shivaji transformation from Shudra to Kshatriyas

Many of the Brahmins and Maratha chieftains considered Shivaji as Shudra as a result of which Shivaji adopted a lineage for himself using Brahmanical rituals I would like to add a section on this Proof provided below

https://books.google.com/books?id=mMf1DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT639&dq=shivaji++shudra&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGz8HAz_HbAhWCDnwKHRH9CfMQ6AEIQTAE#v=onepage&q=shivaji%20%20shudra&f=false By Satya Shri

https://books.google.com/books?id=5kMrsTj1NeYC&pg=PA169&dq=shivaji++shudra&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGz8HAz_HbAhWCDnwKHRH9CfMQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=shivaji%20%20shudra&f=false Caste, Conflict and Ideology: Mahatma Jotirao Phule and Low Caste Protest By Rosalind O'Hanlon , University of Cambridge publication — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryavarat (talk • contribs) 15:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Satya Shri's book is a self-published one, and cannot be used per WP:SPS. The second book talks about the views of Jyotiba Phule, and isn't a good source for adding the bit about Shivaji's claims to Kshatriya lineage to this article. This topic has been discussed in better sources -- you should consider those (e.g. Susan Bayly's Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age, which is used in the article Bhonsale).

Also, you need to be more specific about the changes you're proposing. See Wikipedia:Edit requests. utcursch | talk 20:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I am proposing adding a new section in the article

Sivajis transformation from Shudra to Kshatriya

Book: The Marathas 1600-1818, Volume 2, By Stewart Gordon

https://books.google.com/books?id=iHK-BhVXOU4C&pg=PA87&dq=shivaji+Brahmins+coronation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9wsOXgPPbAhWEAXwKHbTJDy4Q6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=shivaji%20Brahmins%20coronation&f=false

In the section we should mention

Sivaji being a Maratha was considered as a Shudra and the Brahmins refused to coronate him as king. Hence Sivaji worked with Gagabhat to invent a fake Kshatriya lineage so that the he can control Brahmin deshmukh of the regions Please check link University of Cambridge publ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryavarat (talk • contribs)

This is already mentioned in Shivaji#Coronation. utcursch | talk 14:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

While Gordon clearly seems quite skeptical, "fake" would be a step too far. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request - Shiv Smarak memorial

I believe some information regarding the Shiv Smarak memorial (which began construction in 2016) should be added to the section Commemorations. As the Shiv Smarak article notes, the memorial will be the tallest statue in the world once completed, and its construction has been met with some controversy from environmentalists and local fishing communities. Sources: [4]; [5]. (Note: I've disclosed a conflict of interest with Roads & Kingdoms. I am not paid for contributions.) WillA98 (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2018 (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. (Thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest.)​ — Newslinger talk 09:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2018

Kindly change the name from SHIVAJI to CHATRAPATHI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ thank you Ayushgharge (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please change name fom shivaji to chatrapati shivaji maharaj as he was very special and auspicious to us. Prince swapnil (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

By "us", do you mean marathas? If yes, that is probably true- they revere him. But he is not at all revered(considered a "God figure") by other Maharashtrian/Indian communities. However, he is generally respected. He has been used for political gains(starting from people like Bal Gangadhar Tilak but even Tilak did not show any reverence for him) as marathas are 30% of Marathi population but you will not find any non-maratha household considering him a God figure or worshiping him. Probably only non-Maratha politicians will do that to garner votes. So I don't understand what you mean by auspicious. In any case, even a God figure like Rama is called Rama and not Lord Ram.22:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit to Shivaji article

Capitals00 - could you care to explain what you mean that the edits "do not appear constructive". Are you referring to the formatting of references I gave or that you just happen to not like that I actually gave references of contemporary records that support one accepted date? Mkarja (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mkarja: your edits don't describe why you are removing important content of the article. I will explain more later but first I would like to hear your explanation. Capitals00 (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Julian calendar

User:Mkarja, What is the relevance of the Julian calendar to the birthday of Shivaji? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, the "based on multiple ..." part is unsourced. You should always source such statements. --regentspark (comment) 21:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Jonathansammy:Good question! If you read the reference pdf, it would clear that the currently accepted date by the Government of Maharashtra of 19 February 1630 is based on the old Julian calendar and not converted to the Gregorian calendar of today. The English continued to use Julian, as you may know until 1752. Contemporary English Factory Records on Shivaji were all in Julian.

Take the example of Thomas Jefferson (or any historical British/American personalities born before 1752) where the birth date is always converted for all official purposes to Gregorian. In the case of Shivaji it is not converted to March 1, 1630! This piece of information is lost on many and is critical to mention.

Julian is often shortened as O.S (Old Style) and Gregorian as N.S (New Style)

Hope this helped...

User:Mkarja, This is an important piece of information.You should expand it in the Note section with reliable sources.The references you cite do not say explicitly that Maharashtra government has got the birth-date wrong per the Gregorian calendar.Our average reader is mainly interested in the birth-date per calendar currently in use which is the Gregorian calendar.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have to admit that I find it odd that the Government of Maharashtra, an entity that has existed only since 1960 - well after the Gregorian calendar was adopted, should go about using the Julian calendar. If you're going to include this, please provide ironclad sources - academic ones - that indicate that this Julian calendar thing is both accurate as well as worth including. --regentspark (comment) 23:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The reference pdf for the Julian to Gregorian issue with specific example of Chh. Shivaji is a published article (Apte, Mahajani, Vahia) from a peer-reviewed scientific journal (Current Science) with authors from a public research university (TIFR). I am not sure what other "iron-clad" sources are fancied here!

I have seen a lot of content on Shivaji where it is referring to information from a book published by a university, and the author in the book is not citing any reference to the claimed information that is included in this article. That is acceptable? Mkarja (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the reference and am not sure it needs more than a passing mention (also, it says nothing about the Maharashtra government). Perhaps just include the date and cite it to this paper. The entire Julian vs. Gregorian thing is unnecessary unless there are many academic sources that discuss it. --regentspark (comment) 18:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Indian

change ((Indian)) to ((Indian people|Indian)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:F5D7:5960:169F:B409 (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Death and succession sourcing?

The reference for the first paragraph of the "Death and succession" section seems to be wrong. Page 551 of that book isn't contained in my Google preview, but pages 550 and 552 deal with the East India Company's internal organization and relation to British authorities. It seems unlikely that in the middle of such an essay on British laws, offices and councils there would be something about Shivaji and his crown prince. The book gives some details on Shivaji and Sambhaji on page 47, but that's less detailed than what we have. What's going on? For now I'll change the page number, but more work may be necessary. Huon (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

123.201.100.136 (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why do you want it created? Also, please write the article as a draft first. DannyS712 (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong name

Name is wrong."Shivaji Bhonsle" is not right, "Shivaji Bhosale" is the right name. SagarNalawade (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019

Hello,

Please Shivaji Bhonsale to Shivaji Bhosale because there is a spelling mistake.

Source : https://www.mapsofindia.com/who-is-who/history/chatrapati-shivaji.html

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tusharmisal (talk • contribs) 03:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That's right, "Bhosale" is the right spelling SagarNalawade (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Shivaji was popularly known as "Pahadi Chuha" (Moutain Rat) as he used to attack enemies, then run back into the hills

I've come across several references supporting the same.

Shivaji was known as "Pahadi Chuha" as he used to attack enemies, then run back into the hills.

Would appreciate if Marathi editors accept this very well-known fact and allow it's inclusion into the article.Sakura6977 (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Are any of these sources WP:HISTRS? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of sources that mention Aurangzeb or other Mughal generals calling Shivaji a "Mountain Rat". I don't think it should be a problem adding it to the article.After all, this "mountain rat" and the people he inspired helped to destroy the Mughal empire.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Johnathan, I see. Thank you :).Sakura6977 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

References

The sources cited by you fail WP:HISTRS, although there are other sources regarding the "mountain rat" bit. However, these sources do not state that he was popularly known as mountain rat: they say that Aurangzeb (and probably some other opponents) described him as such. May be a one-line mention in the "Conflict with the Mughals" section, but definitely doesn't belong in the lead. utcursch | talk 21:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not have autoconfirm user access, so probably can utcursch or Kautilya3 do the needful? Sakura6977 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, branding and trivia are not my way of writing Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Don't know or care about what aurangzeb used to call him.. I'm from bihar and back here he's better known as "pahadi chuha".. even a small kid knows that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:6696:B565:0:0:D5D:40AC (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

correct the spell for "Shivaji Bhonsle" to "Shivaji Bhosle" Umeshthorat2 (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Seems that Bhonsle, Bhonsale, Bhosale, and Bhosle are all allowed spelling variations. See Talk:Bhonsle#Bhonsle_,_Bhosle_or_Bhosale where it seemed that Bhonsle was more common in authoritative sources. – Þjarkur (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

Please Suffix Shivaji with Maharaj or prefix with Chatrapati. We do want to utter his name with LOT of respect. 72.200.161.25 (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See the manual of style regarding honorifics: In general, honorific prefixes – styles and honorifics in front of a name – in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to: [...] styles and honorifics related to royalty, clergy, and sainthoods, such as His Holiness, The Reverend, Her Majesty, and The Venerable. – Þjarkur (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

omission of details of battle of salher

Battle of salher is important battle in which marathas defeated mughals in a pitched battle does not find mention in this article .same to be included please . I can edit but leave it to the person who is editor this website . d b kasar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.59.74.4 (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2019

Please look for to correct the "Death" section, get inputs from various historical incidents and proofs. SunilSutar82 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi SunilSutar82, you're welcome to correct any incorrect information in this article and in any other article. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Maharaja name should be added after king of bhoslane dynasty it is disrespect against him.

I don't like this it is my king's disrespect and I can't tollerate it. BhartiNimane123 (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019

hi sir/madam , i requested to change name shivaji bhonsale to shivaji bhosale. bhosale is the right pronounce in maharashtra(INDIA). i hope this change is happen in as early as possible. thanks. "heysanket" (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 12:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2019

Inspiring Series made on Shivaji Maharaj.

     1. Raja Shivchatrapati
     2. Swarajya Rakshak Sambhaji(Sambhaji Maharaj, son of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj) Sejalyerunkar (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise request and provide reliable sources to verify any claims. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please replaced unsourced sentence with this sourced sentence

Add the following citation and expanded sentence in place of the unsourced last sentence of "Siege of Panhala" section. Since I do not have funky tools, please run the tool to verify/check source quality, etc. Thanks.

In March 1673 Shivaji retook Panhala, plundered affluent commercial town of Hubli where he also punished British factors, took several forts including Satara, and reached the vicinity of Bijapur city. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2019

Please change the Search heading of arcticle from Shivaji to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and please make this changes, Everywhere else in the following historical article, Thank you. Hrithik2944 (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This is a request that has been discussed repeatedly; see the information in the page header for why it is against Wikipedia's manual of style to make those changes. --bonadea contributions talk 13:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Name chatrapati Shivaji maharaj

Edit name Chatrapati shivaji maharaj Bhushandeshmukh0068 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit name chatrapati shivaji maharaj every where in the content Maharaj 1115 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

replace name shivaji to "shivaji maharaj" Prakashkale470 (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Change the name 'Shivaji' to 'Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj' Ak00170 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2019

Please rectify the title of this page to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Currently on the page Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj's name is written without any titles. TheRationalRight (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

​We try not to include titles and honorifics in article titles. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

change in the title name

if there would be change in the title instead of "SHIVAJI" why cant be "CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ"??? Pratik chandrakant kadam (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

See WP:HONORIFICS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

Title of the page is Shivaji=X which is absolutely wrong please change X to Y= Chhatrapati Shivaji Rushipatil0998 (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please see WP:HONORIFICS.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2020

Please change article name from just Shivaji to Chhatrapati Shivaji Raje Bhonsle Vidya pande (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The article title follows Wikipedia's conventions and style guidelines. Please see WP:HONORIFICS. --bonadea contributions talk 07:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Name Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

It should be chatrapathi shivaji maharaj Viraj696984 (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Chatrapati Shivaji maharaj is a Maratha Empire And Chatrpati Shivaji Maharaj is First Maratha Empire So There should be name is Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vaibhav Patil123 (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit Name Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vaibhav Patil123 (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Heading name should be change from 'Shivaji' to 'Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj'. Wikipedia Should respect legends. There are too many requests for changing name still no action taken... Why? Harshalss45 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Please read this and this. The reason all these identical requests are denied is because they go against Wikipedia guidelines for naming articles. --bonadea contributions talk 20:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Even a University formed in 1962 and named after Shivaji, in a town that his descendants ruled until 1947, didn't think it important to have the prefix, Chhatrapati, and the suffix, Maharaj in the title of the institution.Insisting on the prefix and suffix only started in the 1980s or 1990s when the Maharashtra based Shiv Sena party started gaining widespread support. Regardless, as bonadea said the requests for name-change go against Wikipedia guidelines. Jonathansammy (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2019

Jayshah130 (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add the title in the Name shown on First Line as Shivaji Maharaj as well as the Title Chattrapati

 Not done This is a request that has been discussed repeatedly; see the information in the page header for why it is against Wikipedia's manual of style to make those changes. --bonadea contributions talk 07:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Shivaji Sris20 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Conflict with Bijapur (Objectionale content written currently which may be an attempt to hurt maratha sentiments)

MidouBan007 (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

In 1645, at the age of 16, Shivaji carried out his first military action by attacking and capturing Torna Fort of the Bijapur kingdom. By 1647 he had captured Kondana and Rajgad forts and had control of much of the southern Pune region. By 1654 Shivaji had captured forts in the Western Ghats and along the Konkan coast. In a bid to contain Shivaji, Adilshah imprisoned Shivaji's father in 1648–49 and sent an army led by Farradkhan against Shahji's other son Sambhaji at Bangalore, and another army led by Fattekhan against Shivaji at Purandhar. Both Bhonsle brothers defeated the invading armies. Shivaji petitioned Emperor Shahjahan's son, Dara Shikoh, who was governor of Deccan, pledging his loyalty to the Mughals to seek his support in securing the release of his father. The Mughals recognised Shivaji as a Mughal sardar and pressured Adilshah to release Shahaji. In return Shivaji had to cede a fort and Sambhaji had to cede Bangalore city and a fort to Adilshah.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)