Jump to content

Talk:Shivaji/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Removal of content because source is old?

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

Additional source has been added by Abraham Eraly. So there is no need to remove the content as all sources have same information. MehmoodS (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93, @RegentsPark Can you shed light to user Akshaypatill who keeps removing information with reasoning that the source is too old? I have included two extra sources which has same information and yet the user keeps removing content considering the sources either old or unreliable. Your assistance would be helpful. MehmoodS (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 himself has termed Sarkar's book is too old to be cited. User:MehmoodSand there is already a discussion going on the matter. And you had cited Jann Tibbetts and not Abraham Eraly. And I doubt the validity of Jann Tibbetts as RS. Akshaypatill (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@Akshaypatill if you have doubt about reliable source then you should discuss it on WP:RS discussion board for a decision. Either ways, there is another by Abraham Eraly. MehmoodS (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
User:MehmoodS As Vanamonde93 stated in thread above it is the editor's responsibility to prove the reliability of the source. And as told, there is ongoing discussion on the issue above. Because different records gives different causes of death of Shivaji. I request you to hold on till the cause is brought to consensus.Akshaypatill (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
if the source is in question then Wikipedia: Reliability Noticeboard is what's recommended so that inputs and opinions can be provided. Reliability looks at author, publisher and the claim its supporting. These all play into the source being reliable. Age of source has never been a question. And the claim in question has been made in numerous sources. Usually if there are other claims from reliable authors then those information can be included as well without removing existing information that supports it will citations. MehmoodS (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
User:MehmoodS Abraham Eraly is fine for me as source. Just to inform you that, I was making the same arguments and wanted to use Sarkar's book as source. But was opposed by no less than 3 Administrators and couple of editors that the book is too old to quote as a relible source. Akshaypatill (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of image.

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021

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

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

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

Religious Policy

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

@Akshaypatill: the piece I removed was "though there was no premeditated plan to kill them and they must have been killed in the course of action". Please explain how that is supported by the page you linked; as far as I can see, all it says is that three priests and a few Christians were killed in what Shivaji considered a punitive expedition. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Vanamonde93 I have updated the source page number. It is on page 121. The google page doesn't give a page number on the page. So I hadn't updated it, now I have. It says - "It would be inconsistent with the facts of history to say that Shivaji invaded Bardes to avenge the policy of religious persecution of the Hindus by the Portuguese. There is no reference to this either in the Treaty or in the records. There was no premediated plan to kill the three Priests. The Priests and a few Christians must have been killed in the course of action. Shivaji had adopted a policy of religious toleration and he would not interfere with any state on religious grounds." Akshaypatill (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I see. The content is not found by searching for "premeditated", for some reason, but I see it now. This makes me wonder why that sentence is relevant at all, however; if the source says there were no killings on the basis of religion, how is this relevant to his religious policy? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Vanamonde93 Should we remove it then? I hadn't thought about that as I just wanted to correct the information.Akshaypatill (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I would lean toward removing it, yes. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2021

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
He basically wants change of title from Shivaji to Chhatrapati Shivaji. Its his common name and calling him just Shivaji is seen as insulting to Marathis and any other followers. Just as title of Wiki pages for some other people are [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]] [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]]. The list goes on but Chhatrapati means Emperor and thats his name, Emperor Shivaji. Beyond this, they do call him C. Shivaji Maharaj which is basically like "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" page on wikipedia. But the former (C. Shivaji) pretty much suffices based on common-name use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitter Writer (talk • contribs) 10:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Newly found birth year Shake 1549

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

महाराजांचा जन्म

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

Please provide source. Also this is English Wikipedia so it would be better if you could communicate through English. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Expansion of Maratha Empire after Shivaji

I am moving the section after the military as it disrupts the flow of the article. Also, it isn't really about Shivaji but the Maratha empire and we have a separate page for the Maratha empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaypatill (talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

James laine

Those idiots write here james laine was academician , they dont know this so called great scholar citing his colleagues's joke as a historical truth , is it worth of a historical facts? is he scholar ? Dare to speak truth if you say you are a scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.89 (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ashta Pradhan Mandal

User:Diannaa Will this be okay?

  • Peshwa or Prime Minister - General Administration
  • Amatya or Finance Minister - Maintaining Public accounts
  • Mantri or Chronicler - Maintaining Court records
  • Summant or Dabir or Foreign Secretary - Relationships with other states
  • Sachiv or Shurn Nawis or Home Secretary - Managing correspondence of the king
  • Panditrao or Ecclesiastical Head - Religious matters
  • Nyayadhis or Chief Justice - Civil and Military justice
  • Senaparti/Sari Naubat or Commander-in-Chief - All matters related to the army of the kingAkshaypatill (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes that's okay. You don't need to convert it to a table - the bulleted list format works too.— Diannaa (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Diannaa Sorry, but I have already have made the table. I think the table format helps for better readability. However, I will replace it with bullet list, if the table format is problematic. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
There's no problem using a table if that's your preference. — Diannaa (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Shivaji Maharaj Birth Year

As per Sardar Mujumdar Hastlikhit, Shivaji Maharaj Birthyear derived as 1627. 2409:4042:4CC6:A402:0:0:C20B:1206 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

Shivaji Bhonsale I, also referred to as Chhatrapati Shivaji, was an Indian ruler and a member of the Bhonsle Maratha clan. Shivaji carved out an enclave from the declining Adilshahi sultanate of Bijapur that formed the genesis of the Maratha Empire. 2401:4900:5190:1716:4419:EB18:7073:4BD6 (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Correction

Please correct the name as Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj 106.210.188.242 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2021

Please change the title from Shivaji to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj where ever needed. Thank You. 202.177.235.249 (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't use titles in that way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Please check and correct as necessary

under "Early life" => "Background and context" "... In 1936, Shahaji joined in the service of Bijapur and obtained Poona as a grant. ..." "1936" cannot be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djamak (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I put in 1625 based on our article on Shahji. If that year is incorrect, please drop a note here along with a source. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
User:RegentsPark Sorry, I had added it. It is 1636 as per Gordon's book. I mistyped it to 1936. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Page 59. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@Akshaypatill:. No worries. You might want to fix this on the Shahji page as well. The text there reads "in 1625, Shahaji shifted his allegiance to Bijapur". --RegentsPark (comment) 17:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
User:RegentsPark Shahji's page is correct too. He changed sides again after that. I am changing the year in Shivaji to 1636. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Akshaypatill

Akshaypatill is deleting all negative things done by Shivaji. Wattissingh (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It was discussed on talk page. The Priests were killed in course of action. And Vanamonde93 had suggested to remove it, as it adds little value to the religious policy of Shivaji. Here is the discussion - Talk:Shivaji#Religious_Policy Akshaypatill (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Objections on the new content.

User:Vanamonde93

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

First off, you've been edit-warring it in despite objections from at least 3 editors. Second, you've been told several times a 1919 source is not reasonable. Third, your usage of book titles to support the honorific "maharaj" is contrary to WP:NOR; you need a source saying it directly, not just using the honorific. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
One of the sources you used, is described in the link you cited as a work of fiction. How is that an acceptable source? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The 5th edition of the 1919 book is available and I will try to get hold on it. I will try to find other reliable source too. Thanks you. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Akshaypatil, the 5th edition of a 1919 book is still content written in 1919 (and definitely not updated since 1958). Please try to find recent scholarly sources instead. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Vanamonde93 and User:RegentsPark The book you discarded because it is published in 1919, is already being used in the article. See - Section [11] "In late March 1680, Shivaji fell ill with fever and dysentery,[123]]". Another - [12] Second paragraph - "According to Sarkar, Shahaji was...." This is the same book and same author, same year. To my surprise you seem to have missed this - [13] The last paragraph - "In 1919, Sarkar published the seminal Shivaji and His Times, hailed as the most authoritative biography of the king since James Grant Duff's 1826 A History of the Mahrattas. A respected scholar, Sarkar was able to read primary sources in Persian, Marathi, and Arabic, but was challenged for his criticism of the "chauvinism" of Marathi historians' views of Shivaji.[174] Likewise, though supporters cheered his depiction of the killing of Afzal Khan as justified, they decried Sarkar's terming as "murder" the killing of the Hindu raja Chandrao More and his clan. Assuming good faith.

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

The 5th edition of the 1919 book is available and I will try to get hold on it. I will try to find other reliable source too. Thanks you. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Please explain these edits - 1 & 2.
Acclaimed scholars have drafted entire chapters on what you perceive as "mundane details" — Vajpeyi, Ananya (2005). "Excavating Identity through Tradition: Who was Shivaji?". In Varma, Supriya; Saberwal, Satish (eds.). Traditions in Motion: Religion and Society in History. Oxford University Press. pp. 239–268. VoC Records are quite illuminating in this regard. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
User:TrangaBellam For - [14] I have checked the source and though, the first few sentences are correct, the source doesn't mention anything about 'bribing the guard'. Here is the text - Once again, orders to kill Shivaji were only rescinded by the intervention of Jai Singh. In despair, Shivaji asked that his men be allowed to return home, and he allowed to retire to Benares as a sannyasi. This request was also denied. A week later in early July, Shivaji's entourage was, at last, allowed to leave for the Deccan. Finally, Shivaji was able to negotiate a loan of 66,000 Rs. from his patron at court and managed to escape. Aurangzeb's urgent enquiries, over the next several months, uncovered no particular plot or escape route through the three sets of guards surrounding Shivaji's residence. And also as per my research Shivaji's men were freed as per his request. I have collected sources for my content. I will rewrite it soon. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
User:TrangaBellam For - [15] I thought it isn't notable. But if you think so, let it be.Akshaypatill (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Please indent your posts. Gordon (1993, p.78, note 32) writes, More likely, he [Shivaji] simply bribed the guards. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
User:TrangaBellam The Sarkar, which Gordon cites to make his point has written otherwise. See - Sarkar Jadunath - Shivaji and his times pages =165-167. Also, a more recent book has given proofs that Shivaji feigned illness and escaped. Here it is (The numbers are the author's references supporting his claims.) - "Then, in the morning of 18th August 1666, the Emperor received the staggering news that Shivaji had escaped!2054 How he escaped was not immediately known. But the accounts given in the Sabhasad Chronicle and Khafi Khan’s Muntakhab-ul Lubab of the manner in which Shivaji escaped are quite similar and are corroborated in the essentials by the Jedhe Chronology, a letter dated 3rd September 1666 by Parkaldas, an English letter dated 25th September 1666 from Surat to the Company, and a letter dated 20th September 1667 from the Portuguese Viceroy to the King of Portugal.2055 The story in brief is as follows:2056 Since his house arrest, Shivaji had feigned illness and had then started sending out fruit and sweetmeats to Hindu......." See - Mehendale Gajanan(2011)Shivaji his life and times (Page - 609)Akshaypatill (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Gajanan is not an RS. Take your issues to CUP or Gordon. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
User:TrangaBellam Be civil please. Check out these sources - Sabhasad Chronicle (Siva Chhatrapati, pp.67-69); Khafi Khan (History of India as Told by Its Own Historians, Vol. VII, pp. 279-81); Jedhe Chronology (SCP, p.23); Rajasthani letter No.44 in Shivaji’s Visit to Aurangzib at Agra; EFI (1665-1667), p.165; Portuguese–Maratha Relations, p.45. Newsletter of the Mughal Court, 18th August 1666 (AFS, Vol. VI, No. 6); Ballushah to Kalyandas, 18th August 1666 (Rajasthani letter No. 29 in Shivaji’s Visit to Aurangzib at Agra).Akshaypatill (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
We, as editors, cannot use primary sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
User:TrangaBellam Not all resources are primary. And may I ask why Mehendale isn't RS?Akshaypatill (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Assuming that we are talking about this book:
"PARAM MITRA PRAKSHAN" is not a publisher of repute and there is no evidence of peer review.
"Gajanan Bhaskar Mehendale" is not an author of repute, what are his academic qualifications?
The book is yet to be reviewed by any prominent scholar. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The author is a prominent Marathi historian . The author is History Researcher at Bharat Itihas Sanshodhak Mandal which is one of the prominent history research institutes in India. We have his page in the local language at https://mr.wikipedia.org/s/4009. He has been awarded for his works by Government of Maharashtra in 2010. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The basic problem here is one of source reliability: the burden of demonstrating reliability is on you, and by insisting on using questionable publishers, very old sources, and a work of fiction, you're not doing yourself any favors. Please describe the changes you wish to make, and the sources you are using to support those changes, individually; and please stick to reliable contemporary sources while doing so. Please also keep in mind the need to give sources due weight; a Times of India piece cannot outweigh historians published by academic publishers, no matter what it says. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Vanamonde93 As I said above the 1920 book is already used in the page. So that's why I used the book. But it is now being termed as too old. Very little is written in English about Shivaji in recent time. For the book by Mehendale, though the publisher of the book is local, the author is noted historian from maharashtra. The author has gave refernces literary to every sentence (Check out the footnote you reverted from death section for example). Also- I am quoting from a book by Sumit Guha - History and Collective Memory in South Asia, 1200–2000, University of Washington Press - "The effort to supply credible evidence could go to considerable lengths, as illustrated with evidence from two different cases. The first has been exhaustively studied by Gajanan Mehendale, a major historian of Maharashtra, and the following draws on his work."
From Times of India [16]-The scholar, Gajanan Mehendale, who has painstakingly authored an objective, unbiased and most respected biography of Shivaji Maharaj, after a research spanning over 30 years. Also here Indian Express calling him "Eminent Historian" [17] Akshaypatill (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Also Oxford Bibliographies Online maintained by Oxford University Press which offers exclusive, authoritative research guides for researchers has listed the book as refernce for Maratha Rule (1674–1818).[18] - "Mehendale, Gajanan Bhaskar. Shivaji: His Life and Times. Thane, India: Param Mitra, 2011. A richly documented account of Shivaji’s rise to power that is particularly strong in detailing the military and diplomatic campaigns that led to the geographic expansion of Maratha influence. Also includes very useful appendices, including a review of the historical sources available in many languages. In other appendices, Mehendale reviews the documentation relevant for debated topics, including Shivaj’s birth date, the role played by and Shivaji’s relationship with the Saints, and whether Shivaji was literate."Akshaypatill (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
User:RegentsPark Would like to have you opinion too.Akshaypatill (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
TOI/IE are not HISTRS. That said, I trust Sumit Guha's judgment. What do you propose to include/exclude using Gajanan? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
User:RegentsPark The cause of death is disputed in the sense that different records gives different causes. As per British records it was bloody flux, Portuguese records states it was anthrax, while his biographer says it was fever. As we cannot conclude which one is right, I think we should include all of them. Also I think you likely have got hold on the book as you got the book on Tipu. If you have, see the citations, he have cited almost every sentence he says. No claims without citations. For the peer-review part - See here -[20] [21] Sources are rigorously peer-reviewed and vetted to ensure scholarly accuracy and objectivity. We employ a system of rigorous peer review to ensure that all articles are accurate and balanced. All articles are carefully reviewed by outside scholars and the Editorial Board to confirm that they are accurate and even-handed. To ensure objectivity, this process is single-blind. Oxford Bibliographies is project by Oxford University Press, so I think we can trust them.Akshaypatill (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
They have described the sources too - [22] Gordon 1993 is a brief but comprehensive historical treatment that spans the time period of Maratha power. Kulkarni 1996 is a similar overview, with a detailed section on Shivaji’s family background. Mehendale 2011 is the most comprehensive of these overviews in detailing events and people important in Shivaji’s rise to power.Akshaypatill (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I managed to complete reading Mehendale and am strongly against using him as a source except for the most uncontroversial aspects.

Obvious Hindutva apologist at work-with descriptions about how Muslim men regularly persecuted Hindu women-,the book is a glorified collation of primary sources on Shivaji. To borrow from Munis D. Faruqui, the work reads like the British imperial gazetteers of yore: heavy on detail, low on arguments.

Compare this section on Shivaji's caste-change and coronation with how mundanely Mehendale covers the issue. Sheds necessary light on the work. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Returning to the issue of bribery, we have Eaton (2019, p. 318) reiterating the claim. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I ain't be using it for anything but factual data like the death of Shivaji or his coins and things like that. And I trust entries in Oxford Bibliographies Online for reliable sources. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
And for religious policies I have used Gordon. No Mehendale for anything related to religion. From what I have read to the date, I believe Shivaji was not attempting to create a universal Hindu rule. He was tolerant. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
For the escape from Agra, I have quite a few other sources that support that Shivaji was feigning illness. We will be having a new talk section for it soon. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Common name.

User:Vanamonde93 Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is how he is commonly referred to. What should be explained if it is common name? It is common name is an explanation in itself. See Alexander the Great, Tipu Sultan, Ranjit Singh, Akbar, Rana Sanga, Hemu, Maharana Pratap. All these pages have there common or popular name. (The degree to which this name is brought on the talk page is evident to how common the name is.(Joke))

I have provided source that explicitly says it is his common name. Rowman & Littlefield is highly reputed publication [23] and the authors and editors are scholars. And the book is not about contemporary Mumbai. Akshaypatill (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

We had discussed it earlier, but I wasn't aware that other pages have allowded to have common names. I can cite more sources for this.Akshaypatill (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Those other articles are not generally relevant. A person may indeed be known by things besides their given name, but those are generally not their titles. Indeed, of the examples you've provided, the only ones that include a title are also those that have not undergone any form of peer review. The book may not be only about Mumbai, but that section seems to be, and Shivaji is not mentioned aside from in that footnote; as such it's not a great source to use here.
For the record, I do not mind the terms "Chhatrapati" and "Maharaj" being used in the first sentence; but a reader unfamiliar with the topic needs to come away with the understanding that those were titles. As long as we make that clear, I do not mind including them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Vanamonde93 Allright. The reason I came with this is that I have rarely heard someone calling Shivaji without Maharaj. Chatrapati is not usually added, for example slogans like 'Shivaji Maharaj ki jai' (All this in context of India). And that is why it is brought here so frequently. I have quite a few sources that iterate that he is popularly known as Shivaji Maharaj. And also the Maharaj helps distinguish him from other Shivajis.
I agree with your points though. There are more article Like Peter the Great, Ashoka with there common names but they aren't peer reviewed too. Akshaypatill (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Afzal Khan

John F. Richards did not specify anything about who was the first mover. We have Gordon explicitly stating that the precise chain of events that transpired in the camp won't ever be known to historical certainty.

I am acquainted with Sucheta Mahajan's scholarship but it is news to me that her father was a historian! Anyways, the broad-brush survey is hardly famed and quite old. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You should have checked Vidya Dhar Mahajan before commenting. Akshaypatill (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Check what? I have already wiki-linked his article; what do you intend to prove?
Google Scholar gives a citation count of about 37 for all the editions (combined)—which boils down to about 10, on manually screening out unreliable sources—in the 55 years since publication. There is not a single review either. I have never heard about the publisher but they seem to specialize in producing textbooks for Indian curriculum.TrangaBellam (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Vidya Dhar Mahajan is a scholar. Put your sources that supports your points, rather than questioning the scholarships of scholars. Akshaypatill (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
And he has also put this in his recent books, which are not released as ebook. If you want me to cite. Akshaypatill (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
You took this line of argumentation from Talk:Tipu Sultan to WP:RSN and saw how it ended? I have already cited Gordon; what more do you seek?
Mahajan died in 1990 - pretty difficult for us to recover his recent works, assuming he still writes. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Eaton (2019) writes,

But the upstart chieftain treacherously killed Afzal Khan during a negotiating session between the two men [..] Shivaji’s power and audacity had reached new heights.

TrangaBellam (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I have no interest in Tipu or other historical pages and religions and you won't find me on them henceforth. I have studied and read a lot of books on Shivaji and that's why want to contribute on this page. I had added it in a footnote as you had used V.L. Bhave. Anyway, let's work towards a solution. Should we just mention that Shivaji killed Afzal Khan as Gordon did? And remove any other information? Akshaypatill (talk) 08:34, 19 December 20
I am removing the footnote and citing Gordon.Akshaypatill (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I am gathering opinions of scholars, in case we put a footnote. You can cite yours too.
Some more light on the issue by Historian A.R. Kulkarni [24]-

This episode has become a matter of controversy among historians for a long time. Jadunath Sarkar, however, after weighing all recorded evidence in this behalf, has settled the point "that Afzal Khan struck the first blow" and that "Shivaji committed.... a preventive murder. It was a case of diamond cut diamond."E The conflict between Shivaji and Bijapur was essentially political in nature, and not communal.

V. D. Mahajan [25]-

There has been controversy as to who struck the first blow. It has been finally decided that Afzal Khan was the aggressor. Modern researchers have shown that Shivaji did everything in self-defence. Instead of allowing himself to be killed, he killed him instead.

Akshaypatill (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
John F. Richards, Cambridge University Press [26] -

...a mortal struggle in which Afzal khan tried to strangle Shivaji.

Akshaypatill (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
G. S. Sardesai/R.C. Majumdar [27]

As he walked in, the Khan rose and, in his first em-brace, gripped him tightly in his left arm and stabbed him with a dagger in the right hand. With great presence of mind, Shivaji saved the blow, ripping open the Khan's bowels with the tiger

Akshaypatill (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
James W. Lain, Oxford University Press [28]

Afzal calling Shivaji a “peasantboy”.......He feigns to embrace Shivaji, but quickly moves to stab him with a concealed knife. The knife grates against the chain mail, and Shivaji reacts in an instant, deals the huge khan a mortal blow with his sword, rips out his guts and slices off his head.

Akshaypatill (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Mahajan's views are immaterial; neither is he a decorated historian nor is his work cited by many. Richard stays clear of a chronological narrative - why are you quoting him? Nobody doubts that once the struggle materialized, both aimed to assassinate the other. Sardesai/Majumdar are too old notwithstanding that the latter was a notorious communalist whose every alternate view has failed to stand the test of time. Laine is not describing the historical Shivaji but the epical hero - read the entire chapter.
Sarkar's quest to find "historical truth" of episodes like these has been critiqued (!= criticized) by Chakravarty et al. The discipline of history has moved beyond raking brains over such technicalities. That being said I won't mind including Sarkar's take in a footnote due to the citation by Kulkarni. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not presenting the sources for citings but for opinions of different scholars. It is fact that Sarkar and Sarkar's work is widely cited and is considered as the the most authoritative work on Shivaji as iterated here[29].

Shivaji and His Times, was widely regarded as the authoritative follow-up to Grant Duff. An erudite, painstaking Rankean scholar, Sarkar was also able to access a wide variety of sources through his mastery of Persian, Marathi, and Arabic..

. A.R. Kulakarni (from here[30]]) also agrees. While others who say that Shivaji made the treachery has not provided any proof for treachery on part of Shivaji. Gordon has clearly stated that,

Certainly, Shivaji had every reason to be suspicious. In a parallel situation, a decade earlier, Afzal Khan had used just such a truce ceremony to imprison a Hindu general.

All this being said, I ain't proposing that we remove entirely remove everything, but we will incorporate both views. I am of the opinion that because it is based on the records and evidence, it deserves to be in the main body and not just in a footnote.Akshaypatill (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with your edit, except Sarkar believes part. I have added the full note as it is, so we don't need to quote Mahajan and don't need to add it in main body but as a footnote. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Shivaji's Escape from Agra

I am going to rewrite the 'Arrest in Agra and the escape section The section is wholly based on a single source from Gordon and there are quite a lot of sources and scholars who disagree with Gordon. Actually, dozens of scholars as I have listed below.

Gordon says that there is no proof for the 'Feigned illness by Shivaji'. But Jadunath Sarkar has presented a graphic account of Shivajï's visit to Aurangzeb at Agra and his escape from there. He has put forward a large volume of evidence from Rajasthani letters and Persian Akhbars (I have attached all the sources below.) A recent book by G. B. Mehendale too has provided some proofs. A. R. Kulkarni too iterates the same in his book. (In case anyone isn't familiar with these books, both these books are listed on Oxford Bibliographies Online as reference books for Maratha rule along with Gordon's book.[31]) Also Gordon, has used the word 'probably' to describe the bribing, which is a downright assumption and there are no proofs to back the statement. Eaton too has used the word probably.

I am citing a bunch of scholars who disagree with Gordon. -

Nonica Datta [32]

Undaunted, Shivaji feigned illness and, as a form of penance, began to send outenormous baskets filled with sweets to be distributed among the poor. On August 17, 1666, he and his son had themselves carried past their guards in these baskets. His escape, possibly the most thrilling episode in a life filled with high drama was to change the course of Indian history.

Prof. A. R. Kulkarni [33]

Jadunath Sarkar probed more deeply into this fascinating and romantic episode of Maratha History and put forth a large volume of evidence from Rajasthani letters and Persian Akhbars. With the help of this new material, he presented a graphic account of Shivajï's visit to Aurangzeb at Agra and his escape from there.... On 17th August 1666, he put himself in one of the large covered baskets and his son Sambhaji in another, to be carried as sweets tied to a pole on the shoulders of hired coolies. It was thus that he reached the outskirts of Agra, where two horses were ready for the father and the son and thence he travelled to Mathura and reached Rajgad on 20 November

Rajmohan Gandhi, Penguin Books [34]

A year later he presented himself at the Mughal court in Agra.However, not having been received with sufficient dignity, hecomplained, found himself in detention, and escaped famously in abasket of sweets.

Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund - Routledge

But Shivaji escaped from Delhi hidden in a basket; back in Pune, he consolidated his hold on the countryside. ... Rajputs as Aurangzeb had told him to do, Akbar had fled south and had joined hands with Shivaji's son and heir, Sambhaji.

Abraham Eraly, Penguin Books [35]

His escape was set for 29th August. That evening Shivaji and Shambhuji concealed themselves in sweetmeat baskets, and were carriedpast unsuspecting guards and taken to a secluded spot. There the fugitives got out and quickly proceeded to a suburb of the city, where Shivaji mounted a horse that had been kept ready for him, and set offwith Shambhuji behind him. Meanwhile, at Shivaji's residence, his half-brother Hiraji, who resembled Shivaji, took Shivaji's place in his couch, wearing Shivaji's distinctive gold ring. "He was directed to throw a piece of fine muslin over his head, but to display the ring he wore upon hishand, and when anyone came in, to feign to be asleep," says Khafi Khan.

Sachi K. Patel, Routledge [36]

Whilst Aurangzebe was pondering his options, Shivaji, growing restless, was also evaluating his options and eventually devised a plot for his own escape. He firstly sent away his comrades and servants, to ensure their safety. A short time later he feigned illness and as a tribute for his betterment he sent out sweets every evening to brahmins. At first the guards checked the baskets regularly, but later allowed them to pass unchecked. Shivaji capitalised on this opportunity and along with his son slipped into two baskets that were safely sent out. The baskets were deposited outside the city, and from there Shivaji and his son proceeded to Mathurā in disguise. They continued to their home in the mountains of Maharashtra.

Claude Markovits, Anthem Press [37]

However, they tricked the royal guards and managed toescape in a basket of sweets which was to be sent as gift to theBrahmins Shivaji reached Maharashtra in September AD 1666.

Jadunath Sirkar, Raghubir Sihn [38]

Being thus freed from anxiety about his followers, Shivaji set about devising plans for his own escape. He feigned illness and began to send out of his house every evening sweetmeats for brahmans, religious mendicants and influential courtiers. The guards searched the baskets for some days and then allowed them to pass out un- challenged. This was the opportunity for which Shivaji had been waiting. In the afternoon of 19th August,9 he sent word to his guards

J. L. Mehta [39]

He, however, cutwitted the crafty monarch in securing his liberation. He feigned illness and cleverly escaped with his son Sambhaji on August 29, 1666 by concealing themselves in the big baskets of sweets, the interesting story of which is too well-known to need repetition here. To the great delight of his mother, Shivaji reached Raigarh safe and sound in the garb of a sadhu while his son was left at Allahabad in the charge of a trustworthy Brahmin, and was breught to Maharashtra some time afterwards.

Encyclopaedia Britannica [40]

Undaunted, Shivaji feigned illness and, as a form of penance, began to send out enormous baskets filled with sweets to be distributed among the poor. On August 17, 1666, he and his son had themselves carried past their guards in these baskets. His escape, possibly the most thrilling episode in a life filled with high drama, was to change the course of Indian history. His followers welcomed him back as their leader, and within two years he not only had won back all the lost territory but had expanded his domain. He collected tribute from Mughal regions and plundered their rich cities; he reorganized the army and instituted reforms for the welfare of his subjects. Taking a lesson from the Portuguese and English traders who had already gained toeholds in India, he began the building of a naval force; he was the first Indian ruler of his time to use his sea power for trade as well as for defense.

Gopa Sabharwal, Penguin Books, P-235[41]

Feigning illness for several weeks he plans his escape ( August 17 ) and arrives in Mathura , from where he proceeds to Raigarh , dressed as a wandering Hindu monk . He and Shambhaji arrive in Raigarh.....

Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, Pran Nath Chopra - P-151 [42]

The crafty Aurangzeb had his enemy within his grasp and would not let him go . Shivaji then thought of a cunning artifice to effect his escape . He feigned illness , and sent sweetmeats to Brahmans , mendicants and nobles in huge...

H. G. Rawlinson

By a clever ruse, however, Shivaji managed at last to escape from his implacable foe: feigning sickness, he and his son were carried outside the town in one of the long wicker baskets, heaped with flowers and sweetmeats, in which it was the custom to despatch charitable gifts to the crowds thronging the courtyards of the mosques and temples. Once outside the town...

V. D. Mahajan [43]

To find out an excuse to escape from Agra. He pretended to be ill and started sending baskets of sweets for distribution among the Brahmins and the poor. These baskets were watched for some time by the guards but later on, the watch was relaxed. Shivaji took advantage of this and escaped along with his son in these baskets. He managed to reach Maharashtra by following a circuitous route. There was great rejoicing among the Marathas. It was a national deliverance, as providential, as it was roman tic. Aurangzeb suspected Jai Singh and recalled him. The latter died on his way in July, 1667. However, Shivaji did not give up hope. He made up his mind

D. R. SarDesai, Routledge [44]

Shivaji began sending daily presents of baskets laden with sweets and carried by his personalguard to different Mughal dignitaries, including the security force. Both the father andthe son escaped one day hiding in two such baskets; adopting various guises, theyreturned to their homeland in a matter of twenty-five days, on September 12, 1666.


Apart from all these scholars G.S. Sardesai, Doris Marion Kling, Setumadhavrao Pagadi and R. C. Dutta too has stated that Shivaji feigned illnes and escaped in these baskets. Akshaypatill (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I have added a footnote to explain views of different Maratha Historians.Akshaypatill (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit.

User:Vanamonde93 Truschke's book has been called semi-pop work by some editors, so I have replaced it with high quality source (Cambridge). And the sentence was making an impression (the 'was able to kill' part) that Shivaji was there to kill his wives and sons too, which is not correct. You may have found the last sentence flowery(sourced from a Cambridge scholar) but I was going to add more about Powadas based on the event. Anyway, I have removed it. You will find most of the sources calling it a daring act and it was sheer luck of Khan that he was not killed but escaped with the loss of his forefingers - See page 24 of [45] Akshaypatill (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, I request/suggest you to edit out and remove the part that you feel isn't aligned with Wiki policies. You had removed valid edit from an another editor 'Nenetarun'. Akshaypatill (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The entire text about Khan was too close to the source text; you need to rewrite it altogether, you cannot reasonably expect me to fix close paraphrasing for you. Do you have sources for criticism of Truschke's book? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't have searched for any literary review for Truschke's book but, I have seen the book being questioned in talk pages of other articles. I just removed to avoid future objections over the citation. If you want to me to re-add it, I am fine. For the paraphrasing, please give me some time. I am on it. Akshaypatill (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I have tried to rephrase it. I don't know if it is enough or not. Can you have a look? Akshaypatill (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
That rewrite looks better to me, both from a neutrality perspective and a copyvio perspective. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

He was a King

The very first line - Shivaji Bhonsale I (Marathi pronunciation: [ʃiʋaˑd͡ʒiˑ bʱoˑs(ə)leˑ]; c.19 February 1630 – 3 April 1680[5]), also referred to as Chhatrapati Shivaji, was an Indian ruler - He was a King, King is the right word and justifies him. Please edit it. 1.186.197.142 (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2022

Please change name to chhatrapati shivaji maharaj. 49.206.6.29 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

History

Shivaji had 8 wife's 2409:4042:196:27FB:0:0:1285:18A5 (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you cite a realible source? Akshaypatill (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Shivaji maharaj

Shivaji maharaj 2409:4042:70B:5192:4CEC:7E0A:D0E8:7C0B (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

King's surname

Bhosle Not a bhonsle 2409:4042:2218:304A:C071:B29C:2097:8A30 (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022 please add Maharaj after shivaji it's my request to you. Calling him shivaji is disrespecting him! I hope you understand he was the most beloved king of maharashtra

27.96.89.73 (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep "Shivaji". Actually his name was "Shiva" named after Goddess Shivai. "Ji" is already a honorific to him. Calling Pitaji and Mataji (Father and Mother) is not disrespecting them. Calling Gandhiji is not disrespecting Mahatma Gandhi. Vatsmaxed (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

request you to rectify the mistake regarding the name of a Historical personality mentioned in the Title and Description/informational paragraphs

Dear Wikipedia Team and Users of Wikipedia, First, I declare that I do not have any intentions to hurt sentiments to any community, I would like you to understand the point, in order to enable you to take actions to change your article so that your articles will become truely unbiased, more sensible, more adhered to the Same common rule, more logically accurate, and will show the same amount of respects towards all these great personalities, irrespective of the name of thes personalities people generally use. I will put my point with the help of facts and Logic and also would like to have an answer reciprocated the same way. I would like to draw your kind attention to the details behind which I couldn't understand the reason and/or Logic. There are some personalities about whome people have high regards, and wikipedia serves as the source of information of almost all of them for people wanting to know about them. So, I also sense that, its Wikipedia's responsibility to display the information for all these Personalities, with same logic/rule/reason. and if it is not being done, then as a User of Wikipedia, its our responsibility to show Wikipedia the mistakes, by having discussion with all you people. Having said all of these, considering the logic/rule/reason that applies to the title (Name) of the article of many of these powerful and influential historical personalities, I would like to request you to rectify the Title of article called "Shivaji", by replacing it with "Chhatrapati Shivaji" ,as well as replacing all "Shivaji" by "Chhatrapati Shivaji" wherever it is mentioned, in the whole article, the links etc. as it is not as per your Rule/Logic/Reason set to mention the names of these Personalities. There are many example of the titles of the wikipedia Articles that I can share with you to prove my point, but I will share 2 here. 1. the article titled "Maharana Pratap" - In the whole article, "Maharana Pratap" was mentioned respectfully as "Maharana Pratap" and as per the information stated in the article, "Maharana Pratap" was honored as "Maharana" when he was coronated and announced as a King of Mewad region. So, "Maharana" was an honorary term, respectfully used for him, and I think, nothing is wrong in usinh it. Similarly "Chhatrapati Shivaji" was coronated as a "Chhatrapati" in 1674, and here "Chhatrapati" was also an honorary term for him, still, all over in his article, he was referred as "Shivaji" and not "Chhatrapati Shivaji", and this is clearly a contradictory. 2. the article titled "Mahatma Gandhi" - "Mahatma" here in this article, hold same importance as an honorary term for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" and "Mahatma Gandhi" is respectfully used all over in this article.

so according to these example and the articles, The article "Shivaji" must be published with the corrections stated above, to rectify this descripency.

I would like to here your opinions about this. 150.107.180.113 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Please we request you to change our kings name to chatrapati shivaji maharaj on wikipedia

Please change the name from shivaji to Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.Because he is people's king and thats why he is chatrapati. 202.134.168.224 (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Neither Chatrapati, nor Maharaj, appear to be a part of his name. Chhatrapati, according to our article on the term, is a title. Maharaj, is also a title and both apparently mean "great king". --RegentsPark (comment) 17:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

RegentsPark) - Pope is a title and there are pages referring to the respective Pope with a title before their first name. A similar rationale in this case can be applied to have the name Chhatrapati Shivaji as the page title. Amitized (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:202.134.168.224, RegentsPark and Amitized, Keep "Shivaji". Actually his name was "Shiva" named after Goddess Shivai. "Ji" is already a honorific to him. Many rulers-related articles are simply-named such as Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Napoleon etc. Even Hindu gods have simply-named articles, see Rama, Krishna, Parvati, Shiva etc. Pope is a "religious" title though, can not be compared with "royal" case here, see Swami Vivekananda, Guru Nanak etc.

Having said this I will strongly bat for uniformity across all rulers-related articles and religious figures-related articles. For eg, Queen Victoria should be changed to simply Victoria and Tukaram should be changed to Sant Tukaram as in Saint Peter, Pope Francis. Vatsmaxed (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Vatsmaxed and Amitized: I think there is some sort of exception for popes and saints (not sure why that is the case and someone should probably petition for that exception to be dropped). Queen Victoria is an exception for royalty (see Elizabeth II, Ivan the Terrible, and (closer to home) Ashoka). Compared to, say Akbar or Ashoka, Shivaji is probably of lesser importance and it is hard to see how we can make an exception for him. I agree with Vatsmaxed that Queen Victoria should be renamed to something like Victoria (Queen) but that's not a battle I'm willing to take up. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
RegentsPark (comment), Even the University in Kolhapur where Shivaji's descendants ruled until 1947 was named Shivaji University in 1962, without the prefix and the suffix. The use of prefix and suffix is a recent phenomenon, and probably coincides with the rise of the Shiv sena party.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
RegentsPark and Jonathansammy, Agree with you completely. Even popes and saints should have honorific removed from their names. When it can be simply Jesus (and not Jesus Christ) or Muhammad (and not Prophet Muhammad) or Rama, Krishna, Parvati, Shiva etc who definitely hold higher position in their respective religions THAN popes, saints, kings and any other, no pope, saint and king should have honorifics to their names. Which makes me to think that a Wikipedia-wide discussion needs to be started to remove the honorifics. I will try to propose the same after finding about process. But it also makes me wonder whether (Since Shiva is actual name and not Shivaji, ji being a honorific), should Shivaji be renamed to Shiva (King) (not WP:Commonname) in contrast to Shiva (God). Vatsmaxed (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, that was his name and the ji is not a mere honorofic. Regardless, Shivaji is the name used consistently by historians so that's what we should use. --RegentsPark (comment) 03:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: the name is 'SHIVAJI' as mentioned in Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol 1, Part 1, 1896, BUT the The Westminster Review Volumes 123-124, Issues 245-248, 1885 mentions on page 30 that the 'ji' is an HONORIFIC Syllable usually added to the name as it is considered auspicious - being derived from the root either "jiv"- to live OR "ji"- to conquer. STC1 talk 16:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter. I roughly scanned the sources and couldn't find a single one that doesn't refer to him as Shivaji. No one, apparently, uses Shiva. So, Shivaji it is! --RegentsPark (comment) 02:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
correct. STC1 talk 11:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Change in name

It's not Shivaji it's *chatrapati shivaji maharaj* 117.229.175.175 (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see MOS:HONORIFIC. According to the policy the use of honorifics along with a name is discouraged. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2022

Change name from Shivaji to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Raayba (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See explanation of honorifics above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

james laine and his coterie

Idiots , james laine was criticised for his non sense jokes and not his scholarship , are you people afraid of truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.86 (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

if any one of you dare to speak of history then edit this para In 2003, American academic James W. Laine published his book Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India, which was followed by heavy criticism, including threats of arrest.[197] As a result of this publication, the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune where Laine had researched was attacked by a group of Maratha activists calling itself the Sambhaji Brigade.[198][199] The book was banned in Maharashtra in January 2004, but the ban was lifted by the Bombay High Court in 2007, and in July 2010 the Supreme Court of India upheld the lifting of the ban.[200] This lifting was followed by public demonstrations against the author and the decision of the Supreme Court.[201][202] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.86 (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of it. It needs a bit expansion with details. Will do once I get some free time. Need to find reliable sources. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP applies for Laine, a gentle reminder. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
User:TrangaBellam, I didn't understand. I am aware of BLP but... Can you elaborate a little more? Akshaypatill (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Such deeply mention of affiliation with ANY political party should be removed Suggestion

"Shivaji is upheld as an example by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, and also of the Maratha caste dominated Congress parties in Maharashtra, such as the Indira Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party." Nenetarun (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here. It is sourced from a relible source. The 'an exmple' seems un-encylcopedic. I am changing it. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, there seems to be no reason to remove the information. --bonadea contributions talk 11:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Too much hagiography content, can be trimmed as mentioned below : See WP:FANPOV, WP:BLOATED WikiProject tagging

"In modern times, Shivaji is considered as a national hero in India, especially in the state of Maharashtra, where he remains arguably the greatest figure in the state's history. Stories of his life form an integral part of the upbringing and identity of the Marathi people. Further, he is also recognised as a warrior legend, who sowed the seeds of Indian independence."

Above line can be replaced with a one-liner: "In modern times, Shivaji is considered as a national hero in the state of Maharashtra."Nenetarun (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

RegentsPark, please look into it.Nenetarun (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
We have a whole book for the influnce Shivaji carries in life of Marathi and maharashtrian people - James W. Laine's- Shivaji, Hindu King in Islamic India. So it is due in the article. Also his importance in Indian independence movement is also well documented.
PS: I have removed the last sentence as it is covered elsewhere in the article. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
1886 was when the first war of Indian independence was fought, whereas shivaji died in the year 1680; it's a difference of 200 years! Wars he fought were to expand his "maratha kingdom", It has got nothing to do with the indian independence for godsakes! Nenetarun (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I was expecting better from you. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Please enlighten me, how better can you rephrase it?Nenetarun (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
As I said, I have removed the last sentence. If you want to know more, read this book [46]. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I suggest replacing "arguably the greatest figure" with "an important figure". Mainly because "the greatest" is sourced to a single source that is not a WP:HISTRS (unless other sources can be found). Also, the reference to "Indira Congress" is odd considering its scant existence and is not in the source anyway. It should be removed. --RegentsPark (comment) 10:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Legecy - Inspiration : political party ?

Why this political info or misinformation on this article in legecy section ? Most of these parties use The Great Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj's name for gain vote and for political mileage, I suggest to remove that propoganda info immediately from this biography article. This info can be written on Shiv Sena, BJP and NCP's article but it's not appropriate to include here. Or make a seperate article and describe, how when a political party used Shivaji I name for their gain.Success think (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Success think I have no strong opinion here. Another editor had called for it above. I don't find it problematic. But, if you think it is problematic, be bold, go ahead and remove it and if someone objects, you can discuss it. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Akshaypatill:, I think all the active editors like you must have to discuss it here to reach on a WP: Consensus without revert edit back and forth will happen and I don't want that. My openion is we all have to make a seperate article for, 'Shivaji Maharaj influence or so called "inspiration". And move all this political info in it. Add a see also or more info link about it. Success think (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Akshaypatill:, I think @Nenetarun: also addressing same problem, which you reverted. As a experienced editor, I want you to edit out it yourself and we will join you. I want exercise editors @Bonadea:, @David notMD:'s take on it. This info in un-encyclopedic and just portraying Shivaji Maharaj's name in politicall spectrum.Success think (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I hav no expertise or knowledge whatsoever on anything related to India, India history or India politics. David notMD (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @David notMD: Thank for responding, but you can edit political influence section in this article. Success think (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Success think, you are being pretty vague. Please be explicit about which exact text you think is undue in this article. And don't ping editors who have already said they are not interested in editing this article.
Please also read WP:INDENT. It would be a little easier to follow this discussion if it was properly indented. --bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Bonadea: Don't see any wrong in what Success think has done, he has merely pointed out the unnecessary political affiliations mentioned in the page, not to forget the loads of hagiography and puffery.
You have also left a note on my talkpage saying my edits here are civil. I would really like to know which edit is "NOT CIVIL"?!Nenetarun (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
"Wrong"? Nobody said they did something "wrong" (except that they badgered an editor who had said they would not get involved). I asked them to be clear about which text in the article they wanted to remove or change, and why. If you wondered what the notice on your user talk page referred to, your user talk page would be the place to ask. Article talk pages should focus on article content, in particular talk pages such as this one, which see a lot of traffic. --bonadea contributions talk 13:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Success think has been blocked as a sockpupoet. --bonadea contributions talk 13:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

Heading: Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj 2409:4055:4E8E:5AF2:C996:D0F9:E7D:9DDB (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See explanations above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is also known as the father of the Indian Navy. Sreekutty.wiki (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 06:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Great Man and the WARRIOR in india

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was the great Man In indian history, they respect all the religions and respect women's as mothers, Shivaji Maharaj had the taken more knowledge of Mahabharata and Ramayana becouse of Jija mata, jija mata teached to shivaji maharaj in the way of stories.

Chhatrapati Shivaji maharaj was great warrior and great Leader too in indian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndate (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

It is request to change the Wikipedia page named Shivaji to Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj honouring him for his duty in nation building. 103.203.231.251 (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. please also read this thread which talks about this matter. 💜  melecie  talk - 08:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

1st chatrapati of maratha empire

Shivaji 2405:205:C82D:83E3:8DE2:A003:291E:53C2 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022

Change ‘All these metals and articles along with a lakh of hun were distributed among the Brahmins. But even this failed to satisfy the greed of the Brahmins. Two of the learned Brahmins pointed out that Shivaji, while conducting his raids, had burnt cities involving the death of Brahmins, cows, women and children and he could be cleansed of this sin for a price of Rs. 8,000, and Shivaji paid this amount.’ To ‘All these metals and articles along with a lakh of hun were donated and distributed amongst the Brahmins. But still two Brahmins (seemed corrupt one) objected that Shivaji, during his raids mistakenly had burnt places involving the death of Brahmins, cows, women and children and to cleanse his sins he has to distribute more money and the price of Rs. 8,000 was decided and Shivaji had to pay even this amount. Not to forget Shivaji was fighting for Swaraj and such objections weren’t necessary.’ Sid99ss (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done First of all, when proposing a change you need to provide a reliable source supporting your suggested change. Secondly, it is not quite clear what your suggested text means. --bonadea contributions talk 21:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully take the name Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

छत्रपती शिवाजी महाराज 2402:3A80:1EBD:619D:0:16:FE9F:A201 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

No. Because the actual name is Shivaji. Chhatrapati and Maharaj are honorific and honorific are not allowed on Wikipedia. Follow and read WP:HONORIFIC. MehmoodS (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Name Change Request 30 June 2022

Please rename the page from Shivaji to atleast Shivaji Bhonsle 103.203.231.251 (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As noted above in the talk page banners, there was a discussion here that decided the name of the article instead of a longer one and should only be changed with consensus per WP:COMMONNAME. Terasail[✉️] 14:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Use the most authentic portrait of Shivaji in infobox

I propose this image to be used in infobox instead of the existing one as it is regarded as the most authentic portrait of Shivaji. This painting was drawn by the Dutch painter Von Valentyn in 1654 and published by popular historian Vasudeo Sitaram Bendrey in 1930. The existing image can't be considered reliable enough as its author is unknown and it was most likely drawn after Shivaji's death. KmpVmp (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It has been discussed in past with majority support for the current image. Akshaypatill (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@Akshaypatill- If it was discussed in past, that doesn't mean it can't be further discussed. The image which I have proposed was not discussed back then and it is certainly the most authentic portrait of Shivaji available in the public domain. KmpVmp (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@KmpVmp I know. However, you should get consensus before changing it. If you ask me, the current image is much better than this one. And if I remember correctly, the last discussion was a thorough one. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree that the current image is far decent. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Akshaypatill & TrangaBellam, are you saying that the present image should be kept just because it looks good? Doesn't authenticity matter? I have proved that the image I am proposing is the only undisputed contemporary portrait of Shivaji with full details available in public domain while the one kept in British museum is a dubious one with no proper information about author and year of publication? KmpVmp (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The British museum image is a 1680s image; while Bendrey's 1930 image is a copy of a 1654 image (not a 1654 image). Also, the British museum image is a colour image v/s 1930 image which is B/w. Do not support the File:Contemporary potrait of Shivaji 1650s.jpeg.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz, Shivaji died in 1680 while the painting was drawn in 1680s. This proves that the painting was drawn after his death while the 1654 image is certainly a contemporary image and we should prefer the contemporary one. KmpVmp (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
It is not a 1650s image, it is a 1930 copy. Redtigerxyz Talk 13:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)red;">Redtigerxyz
Redtigerxyz, Your comment doesn't make any sense. Do we have the original painting of British Museum? No; what we have is a copy of that painting. KmpVmp (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022

Change the title of the page from "Shivaji" to "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj". 2409:4042:2D8A:DC8:5DB:C167:FF60:B761 (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above and archives for discussions on why the name will not be changed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Kshatriya Kulavantas to Shivaji. Akshaypatill (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Kshatriya Kulavantas article is only three sentences long. It was created in 2013; if it was ever going to be expanded, it would have been by now. The information it contains is outweighed by the hidden notes and warnings advising editors not to add unsourced caste material, or panegyrics to Shivaji.

Would it be suitable to merge its content here? As I understand it, the title's main notability is its use by Shivaji. I think the article's small amount of material could easily be accommodated here. What do editors here think? AukusRuckus (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus:, I have wondered the same myself. I don't know what purpose that small page with that title serves. Agree with you 100%.LukeEmily (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, @LukeEmily:. Both of us, and quite a few other editors too, have had to spend time monitoring and reverting that fiddly little page. It causes more work than it's worth. I'm sure it will still have undue and unsourced material added to it, but at least here it will be on a busy page where that is already happening lots! AukusRuckus (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The merge proposal template on the article was undone, I think by mistake. I am going to reinstate it, but if there's a reason it should not be there, the removing editor can let me know how I've gone wrong. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah this should be merged for sure. BelgiumFury (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I too agree with the proposal and see no objection from any editor. Closing it.Akshaypatill (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just wanted to thank you for doing the merge, @Akshaypatill. Good stuff. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2022

" Please change singular name Shivaji to 'Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj'. Singular name hurts our emotions" 117.99.247.127 (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see above discussion Cannolis (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Not a only Shivaji.

Said Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj 2405:204:9796:34F4:0:0:12C0:20A0 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

you liar

the writer of the following para is a fool , a joker and liar , james laine was criticised for citing a non sense joke as historical proof . why u are not mentioning it , any rationale ?

In 2003, American academic James W. Laine published his book Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India to, what Ananya Vajpeyi terms, a regime of "cultural policing by militant Marathas".[204][205] As a result of this publication, the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune where Laine had researched was attacked by the Sambhaji Brigade.[206][207] Laine was even threatened to be arrested[204] and the book was banned in Maharashtra in January 2004, but the ban was lifted by the Bombay High Court in 2007, and in July 2010 the Supreme Court of India upheld the lifting of the ban.[208] This lifting was followed by public demonstrations against the author and the decision of the Supreme Court.[209][210] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.30.178.212 (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not only shivaji it's chhatrapati shivaji maharaj

It is not shivaji chowk it's chhatrapati shivaji maharaj chowk 2405:204:5705:BB27:2144:86DE:DC4A:BE49 (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Kannada

Lamp 2409:4071:4E06:7ECA:CACA:9FA:B5BF:670A (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

Your written shivaji bhonsale it wrong surname of shivaji maharaj 

         Chatrapati shivaji bhosale this is correct one so please kindly allow me to edit 2405:204:5783:1313:22D1:46FD:B964:7354 (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. —Sirdog (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

Please change the name from shivaji to chattrapti shivaji maharaj 115.96.219.48 (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Declined - No reason specified for edit request. MadGuy7023 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022

Title : Shivaji to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj 45.119.57.39 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. No reason specified. Identical request was recently declined; please read the talk page before using this template. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Change Name / Header

Dear Team,

Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Was A Great Legend Warrior, in fact he is the adored deity of the whole of India. And you are a great source of information And it is not right for us to mention "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj" in a single word like "Shivaji", from one point of view it is a great insult to the deity of Whole India! So change the Name Shivaji and put There "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj". In some regions of India we devotees worship him as a God. Kindly do the needful to make needful changes Gaurav Desale Maharashtra (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gaurav Desale Maharashtra:, Read Honorific|, you'll understand why it is written like this.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shivaji/Archive_8&oldid=1137145015"