Jump to content

Talk:Shivaji

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Santoshdts (talk | contribs) at 18:49, 5 August 2020 (→Citations in Lead: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeShivaji was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
June 17, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

Portrait

In my opinion, this image from commons is better suited for the main portrait. This image is also from the same time line and thus, is a reliable depiction (almost same if you compare). Current image (Shivaji's portrait (1680s) in the Rijksmuseum) is not terrible but the subject is oveershadowed by a giant border. Let me know if anybody has objections. I'll attempt this in few days if there are no replies here. Thanks. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the change, but I think it's worth noting that if the large border is seen as an issue, cropping the existing image is always an option.
Alivardi (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, definitely. I also think the British Museum image is much crisper. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 18:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Sambhaji was not irresponsible heir but because of a internal politics it became complicated for him to be a new Chatrapati. 2402:3A80:C8F:B847:8B3D:B034:7E0D:DB68 (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not doneUnclear what change your are seeking. --regentspark (comment) 01:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To change name

Change name from Shivaji Bhosale to Chatrapati Shivaji Bhosale and there is mistake Shivaji Bhosale 1 not I. Dnyanesh M. Patil (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Dnyanesh M. Patil, please read the wikipedia policy on adding honour titles first. Signed, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Write the name of the great king with honor as "Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj". Mayurnikam9696 (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Rafiq Zakaria book

The book by Rafiq Zakaria "Communal Rage in Secular India" is used as a reference book for article on chatrapati shivaji. It can not be used as a reference book because Rafiq Zakaria was a politician and not a historian. He wrote his thoughts in the book and not actual history. So please grant me the permission to remove the book name from bibliography section. Thankyou! Mahusha (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria was indeed a historian, with a PhD in the History of South Asia. The book appears to be a very good source; unfortunately you replaced the citations using that book with other sources without providing any reason, back in February. Could you explain your reasoning behind this series of edits? --bonadea contributions talk 12:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you are comparing the great historian G.S Sardesai with Rafiq Zakaria. Please take some information, who was G.S sardesai. He was the man who first wrote his book A new History of Marathas by examining 8000 contemporary documents and references. His books are considered as general reference to Maratha History. I will agree Rafiq Zakaria is a historian, but have he examined this much documents about "Maratha History". The answer will be NO. I think we should give more importance to Maratha Historians to this article, rather than Rafiq Zakaria. Please think of it. I am sure this article will be a good article if due importance is given to the main historians of Maratha History. Thankyou! Mahusha (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure why it was a good idea to change the source for a quote from one to the other, when the content is essentially the same – and looking at your edits, there are actually subtle but very important changes in content as well. The gist of the section used to be that Shivaji was tolerant towards other religions than his own, giving his treatment of Muslims as a prominent example, but after your edits, it seems to be all about the treatment of non-muslims. Information about Shivaji's inclusion of Muslims in his military has been removed entirely, even though it was sourced, which I can't understand at all. Pinging Sitush for input on this issue. My gut feeling says that a scholarly work from 1946 (Sardesai's New History of the Marathas: Shivaji and his line) should not be used in preference to a scholarly work from 2002 (Zakaria's Communal Rage In Secular India), but there may be other considerations as well. In any case, please do not remove Zakaria from the list of references just yet.
Looking at the sources used, it might be worthwhile to update the Cambridge History of India (Haig) references to The New Cambridge History of India and double-check the information supported by those referencs. Haig's edition is from the 1930s, so should not be relied on too much for that reason, while the new edition is quite recent. I see that the library at the campus where I work has the newer book, so I could get hold of it there, unless someone else has quicker access to it (I'm not sure when I'll next be on campus). --bonadea contributions talk 11:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sardesai is (technically) from the British Raj era and we try to avoid that stuff. Then again, I think he did a revised version of the Marathas book in the 1950s: still dated but it might scrape through for matters where he and more recent sources disagree (ie: we could show both opinions per WP:NPOV). Against that possibility, I think he often worked in retirement with sponsorship of the government, which is definitely going to taint the output. Hagiography etc is a feature of Indian historical writing and the immediate post-independence years were a period when they were trying to assert a glorious new identity.
As a rule, we prefer modern academics and we assume they have consulted the writings and ideas of any relevant earlier historians. If Sardesai was indeed a "Marathan historian" in the sense of being a Maratha himself, then that's also a little dodgy. As a comparison, there are numerous historians of the UK who were in their day considered to be "great" at what they did - Arnold Toynbee springs to mind - but are now thought to be of little merit. Mahusa, is there anything specific that you consider to be poor regarding Zakaria's book? Please bear in mind that Indian historians of a certain era tended to really glorify their subjects and we know that Shivaji has come in for that treatment.
Regarding the New Cambridge, I think it is a completely different work from the 1930s series: different organisation, focus etc. There may be difficulties reconciling the two series for statements that we make here, although it is certainly worth checking. The old series, in any event, really could do with being replaced by alternate sources. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why these selected lines "Verily, Islam and Hinduism are terms of contrast. They are used by the true Divine Painter for blending the colours and filling in the outlines. If it is a mosque, the call to prayer is chanted in remembrance of God. If it is a temple, the bells are rung in yearning for God alone" were taken from the letter written by Shivaji Maharaj and then giving the reference of book by Zakaria. Yes the book by GS sardesai is of 1946 and book by Zakaria is of 2002, but facts are facts, and they are sancrosanct. It was a letter written by Shivaji Maharaj to Aurangzeb on the issue of Jizya on Hindus. But to show him secular, selected lines are taken from his letter. It is not at all needed to do this to show him secular. Whether the book is written in 1946 or in 2002 but does the content written in the letter will change?? Mahusha (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)SitushBonadea[reply]

Sitush I am not against Zakaria, I am against the selective picking of information to suit someone's agenda. Mahusha (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on the content of letter, or how it is represented in the article, note that we don't care what the letter says. We only look at interpretations that reliable sources make of that content. In other words, what Zakaria says (or Sardesai, if acceptable) is what should go in the article. --regentspark (comment) 13:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! Mahusha (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2020

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj 103.84.82.114 (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:HONORIFICS – Thjarkur (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in Lead

I have removed the Maintanance tags (Citation needed and Failed verification) from he lead. The Lead serves as an introduction to the article and is a summary of most important contents. The citation for "the chhatrapati (emperor)" sentence can be found in Corronatation section and for Marathi language, it's been cited in Promotion of Marathi and Sanskrit section. Finally, the failed varification tag also seems confusing, as the cited source discusses exactly what the text in question says. Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 18:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shivaji&oldid=971372939"