addiction to sensual pleasures

I want to tell every user, This is a sentence that defames a great king. This is not mentioned in any source. This has been proven that Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj knew many languages, he was a poet, he wrote the Budhbhushan Granth (treatise). Of course, it is found in many references that his nature was irritable, but it is not mentioned anywhere that he was 'addicted to sensual pleasures'. Kiranpawar3210 (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the notice at the top of this talkpage which clearly states "Q: Why does it say "addiction to sensual pleasures"? I do not like that!
A: That is exactly what the cited source says, and other sources note allegations that he behaved inappropriately with a Brahmin woman, or may have committed some other offense. Suffice to say, for whatever reason, Shivaji confined him to Panhala. If you know of an alternate theory for that confinement, and have a reliable source, you can add that as an alternative theory, but you cannot simply remove that explanation unless you have very strong evidence that such story is obsolete according to modern scholars.". You are only bringing up that old chestnut with the same WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no STRONG evidence/source/reference anywhere to support this statement, so nobody can't state it clearly. Source that only the exact words contain should be published here as it is, or the statement making this allegation is completely false.
There is no source has been written word to word as 'addiction to sensual pleasures'.
That sentence seems based on guesswork.
The sentence needs to be changed. Kiranpawar3210 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article:
"Sambhaji's behaviour, including alleged irresponsibility and addiction to sensual pleasures,...."
The sources:
"Though a fine soldier, he became addicted to sensuous pleasures and easy life on attaining maturity and displayed irresponsible conduct unbecoming of a crown prince "
  • Mehta, Jaswant Lal (2005-01-01). Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-932705-54-6.
"when he came in direct contact with the loose life led by the Mughal grandees. It was at this time that he must have contracted the evil habits of addiction to sensual pleasures in severe contrast to the austere life of his father’s surroundings.... Soon after coronation ceremony of 1674, complaints reached Shivaji's ears of his son's evil habits. Shivaji kept him under surveillance at Shringāpore during 1676. "
- Ratnahastin (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
all these mentioned sources are from writers who have had a biased hand in most of their writtings and hence can't be considered as a reliable source..! 49.128.163.172 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
James lane is not at all a credible writer his book was banned in India because he is writings rumours on roads in his books, secondly to prove themselves sentences as wrong kindly refer to the following sources
Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj by V.S.Bendre
Shivputra Sambhaji by Dr.Kamal Gokhale
Chhatrapati Sambhaji-ek Chikitsa by Dr.Jaysingrao Pawar Thorat411 (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello please remove the sentence all together, many have tried to remove it but it has been restored time and again, I will like to tell you that the sources you are using are basically old sources which were written down before 1960 and later on many new references and sources have come forward on the life of Sambhaji Maharaj and which have proven that this information written down in earlier sources was wrong for references of this information being wrong please refer to following sources
Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj by V.S.Bendre
Shivputra Sambhaji by Dr.Kamal Gokhale
Chhatrapati Sambhaji -k Chikitsa by Dr.Jaysingrao Pawar. Thorat411 (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence need to change its wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40C2:700C:D988:3C1A:948:C12A:F721 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fact added without citation

In 1683, he invaded Portuguese Goa, during which Maratha soldiers raped Christian women and later sold captured men and women to Arabs and the Danish

There is no citation added to above claim in the article. I read sources near the sentence but none of them have this.

please add the source or if it's added elsewhere, point me to it.

Thank you Ashu4111 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source in the body [1] says:

According to this account, on entering ‘Bardez and Salcette, the Mahrattas resorted to plunder and arson, demolishing a number of Christian churches and the images therein,®* raping a number of Christian women," carrying off a number of men, women and children and presenting many of them to their soldiers. Some were sold in Vengurla harbour to some Arabs or to Dutch factors. The Portuguese protested to Sambhaji about this.

. This seems to clearly support the statement. The only issue is whether we should attribute it as the source seems to have done. Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wrong disputed narrative content with added wrong sources

Please remove the statement: "Noted for his addiction to sensual pleasures, he was confined by his father at Panhala Fort after attempting to violate a Brahmin woman" as there is no genuine historical record to support this claim. BigReads2000 (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BigReads2000, can you please address the array of sources presented in the section below which do appear to support this claim? On what basis are you arguing against them? signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, correct . Although Zee24 Tas has highlighted this news and Maharashtra CM has instructed cyber team to take out wrong information on this page, it is observed these details are still there. Sambhaji maharaj was never addicted to anything and he never violated women, false information is spread here. Also in many places of Shivaji’s maharaj’s information on Wikipedia Marathi and English , wrong information is added. Wikipedia needs to
always ensure on authenticity of the information SmiSV (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the sources explaining this? In our efforts to follow Wikipedia policies and ensure the verifiability of information, the 30-odd academic sources supporting the current text, which are linked below, need to be addressed, and in the absence of decisively stronger sources, they are the most authoritative account presented here thus far. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between the lead and the body

I have no horse in this race, but I thought it was worth highlighting the differences between the way the sensual pleasures and rape accusation are covered in the lead and body:

Lead:

Noted for his addiction to sensual pleasures, he was confined by his father at Panhala Fort after violating a Brahmin woman

Body

Sambhaji's behaviour, including alleged irresponsibility and addiction to sensual pleasures, led Shivaji to imprison his son at Panhala fort in 1678 to curb his behaviour. While another theory suggests that Sambhaji was imprisoned at the Panhala because he "attempted to violate a Brahmin's wife".

Which more correct/faithful to what scholarly sources say about the topic? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: - Some say that he was addicted to sensual pleasures, while others say that he attempted or violated a Brahmin woman, some however only mention "misconduct" as the reason for confinement. Here are all the sources with varying degrees of reliability. [Credits: MathewVanitas for compiling most of them]

  • Besides the fact that Shivaji grew up apart from his father, we are also aware of his testy relationship with his oldest son Sambhaji, who deserted his father's cause for a time and allied with the Mughals, and is primarily remembered for his affronts to the chaste virtue of brahmin women, his drug use, and his association with Tantric priests of questionable integrity

  • In December 1678, in disgrace for the rape of a respectable Brahmin woman, [he] escaped his father's surveillance and fled.

  • Sambhaji was held prisoner in the Panhala fort because of his misbehaviour with a young woman. The relations between the father and the son went sour.

    • Sri S. L. Srinivasa Murthy (25 May 2012). SHIVAJI. Sapna Book House (P) Ltd. pp. 21–. ISBN 978-81-280-1758-2.

  • He says that Sambhaji fell in love with the daughter of the Surnis, and that Shivaji wanted to punish him severely for this act. Obviously Surnis meant Annaji Datto Surnis, the revenue minister of Shivaji. There is no reason to disbelieve Sambhaji's irresponsible behaviour. Although it is not known whether and if so, Sambhaji was punished, it is certain that Shivaji, so chivalrous where women were concerned, must have been greatly distressed at his son's misbehaviour.

  • Since it is written after the Shivaji Bakhar of Malhar Ramrao Chitnis, whose period of writing is 1811 A. D. it is probable that the cause stated by Chitnis in it for the desertion of Yuvaraj Sambhaji to the Mughals that "Sambhaji committed an outrage on a married Brahmin woman and therefore Shivaji wanted to punish him" might have found an echo in the Busatinussalatin.

  • He further adds that Sabhasad, the chronicler of Shivaji, may not be correct literally in this respect, but the implication therein appears to be probable.24 Jadunath Sarkar comments on this point: "Shambuji (was) a grownup youth notorious for his violent temper and self-indulgent character. . .Shambuji's own conduct brought matters to a crisis. For having violated a beautiful Brahmin woman who was visiting the palace on a religious festival, the prince was removed to Parli

  • He did not hesitate to punish his own son, Sambhaji for misbehaviour with a Brahman woman at Sangameshwar.

  • But he had washed away all the hopes of Shivaji. He had started getting the information of Sambhaji's ill-character after his coronation only. They say that Sambhaji had infringed the modesty of a Brahmin woman. When Shivaji returned to Maharashtra after Karnataka triumph

  • Mr. Laine further made one objectionable statement referring it from Sarkar that, "Sambhaji was chastised for "violating" a brahmin women." (P. 48), is ... this is a chapter of violating a brahmin woman, whether this is a chapter of violating a daughter of Suranis Annaji Datto which is mentioned in Busatin-us- Salatin.

  • It is alleged that Sambhaji's indecent behaviour with women was a common thing. The matter precipitated when he misbehaved with a Brahmin woman and people fled away from the village.

  • His return to Raigad was the signal for renewed intrigues by Queen Soyra, urging the claims to the succession of her son Rajaram. As if to justify her insinuations of Sambhaji's instability and selfish indulgence, the senior prince became involved in a discreditable intrigue with a Brahman woman. Shivaji had him arrested and confined in Panhala Fort.

  • During his life-time his son Sambhaji's conduct was a source of grief and vexation to him. When Sambhaji attempted to violate a Brahman's wife, Shivaji confined his son for a time in Panhala fort and, after his release, placed a strict watch over him.

  • Sambhaji had been confined at Panhala as a punishment for attempting " to violate the person of the wife of a Brahmin. ( Duff ). This is also referred to in a Bombay letter already noted. Shivaji was so strict and strong in his respect for women that, like Mahmud of Ghazni, he would not spare even his son if he offended in this respect. Sambhaji was put in confinement at Panhala and though subsequently released from Panhala he was kept under strict surveillance at Parali.

  • Sambha or Sambhaji or Shambhuji, the eldest son of Shivaji, was born on 14 May 1657. He grew a reckless youth devoid of every spark of honour, patriotism or religious fervour. Shivaji failed to reform him and put him in confinement.

  • when he[Sambhaji](sic) came in direct contact with the loose life led by the Mughal grandees. It was at this time that he must have contracted the evil habits of addiction to sensual pleasures in severe contrast to the austere life of his

  • Above all, he was incredibly, almost insanely brave. Unfortunately, all these stilling qualities were obscured if not altogether obliterated by an addiction to drugs, an excessive fondness for women, a streak of cruelty and, even more than all these, a consuming distrust towards his father's advisers and associates. Apologists for Sambhaji argue that these failings were the consequence of his father's disapprobation, more than their cause; they say that if Sambhaji was wicked and disloyal...

  • The fate however condemned the fort of Bhupalgad to witness in the last days of Shivaji, his strained relations with his son Sambhaji. ln the course of his great achievements, Shivaji, cursed by the cruel wheel of history, met with one cause of vexation, for his son Sambhaji was a man of unruly habits and vices. Finding that Sambhaji would not listen to his words, the dutiful father confined the son at fort Panhala.

  • His eldest son Sambhaji became addicted to sensual pleasures and Shivaji had to take severe measures to wean him away from his habits. The prince was kept under surveillance at Sringarpur and was later transferred to the Fort of Panhala from which he escaped and joined the Mughal general Diler Khan.

  • Sambhaji had never been liked by his father because of his wild and licentious ways. During his own absence in the far south Shivajl had not entrusted him with any administrative work. Further, because of his immoral behaviour, he had been incarcerated in the fort of Panhala.

  • Unlike his father,' observes Khafi Khan, 'Sambhaji was addicted to wine, and fond of the society of handsome women, and gave himself up to pleasure. He was not merely dissolute; in 1678 he had actually deserted to the Mughal camp and had attacked the Maratha fort of Bhupalgad, and Shivaji had been forced to keep him in confinement at Panhala.

  • Though an excellent warrior, he became addicted to sensual pleasures on attaining maturity and displayed irresponsible conduct, unbecoming of a crown prince. What Salim had been to Akbar, Sambhaji was to his father Shivaji.

  • That this was the approach of Shivaji is abundantly clear from a number of his orders and instructions to the officers under him. Let it be noted, in this connection that Shivaji's sincerity with regard to his subjects is established unquestionably by the confinement of Sambhaji, his son and successor designate for misbehaviour, at the Panhala Fort in 1678 A. D. under his own orders.

  • During the absence of Shivaji in Karnatak, his eldest son Sambhaji had stayed at Shringarpur. There were reports about his misbehaviour when he was at Raigad earlier. It was to keep him away from the capital that Shivaji had arranged for him and his wife to live at this small place in the Konkan. In September 1677, Sambhaji begot a daughter. More reports came in regarding the misdemeanour of the young prince and Shivaji ordered him to move to Sajjangad.

  • A sudden and extreme depression took possession of his mind probably on account of his son Sambha- ji's misbehaviour.Sambhaji fell under disfavour and was kept confined with Umaji Pandit to give him lessons at Shrin- garpur.13 Thereafter Sambhaji was for a time put under Ram- das's care also. But there was no improvement in him...

  • The main points in this connection, which require more detailed study are — (l)Why and when the question of partitioning the kingdom came before Shivaji — Whether at the instance of Sambhaji's misbehaviour and immoral ways of life or at the instance of Soyrarai's selfish greed.

  • the elder Sambhaji, then twenty-two years old, though brave and intrepid, had misbehaved himself and was, therefore, not trusted by his father, but was kept confined in the fort of Panhala.

  • Sambhaji had been attracted by the courtly Afghan,5 whom he seems to have met at Aurangabad. He had recently quarrelled with his father and had been confined in Panhala.

  • The good news from Bijapur was spoilt by the conduct of Shivaji's eldest son Sambhaji. He had a large share of his father's talents and courage but, born a king's son, he was impatient of control. He quarrelled with his father, who confined him in Panhala fort.

  • Before Shivaji the Great died in 1680, his eldest son Sambhaji, due to his misconduct, was being kept at Panhala under strict surveillance.

James laine boom is already banned due to wrong fake information so all these reference above are irrelevant. Read the book “ Sambhaji” by @Vishwas patil indian author; “ Chhava” by author @shivaji Sawant . You will come to know real information. Sambhaji was a great warrior and a great human being. He was falsely blamed by Anaji datto surnis as Sambhaji maharaj used to regulate all rules strictly. He always tried to defame Sambhaji maharaj in many ways throughout his life. Shivaji maharaj kept sambhaji majaraj on panahala fort not due to punishment but for security from enemy from that region. Shivaji maharaj only made plan with Sambhaji to act like he is with Mughal so his military troop can rest for some time who was just returned from karnataka victory and Mughals get distracted. Sambhaji maharaj always worshipped his father and never beyond his words , it’s just some jalous people who always defamed him and doing same this now also. @maharashtra cyber please take proper action here. SmiSV (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Chhaava by Shivaji Sawant is a novel. It is not a reliable history text but rather a work of fiction. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, SmiSV I'd advise you to retract your legal threat to contact "Maharashtra Cyber" above, or you will be blocked. signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmiSV Chhava by Shivaji Savant is neither a historical work nor a scholarly analysis. It is a fictional novel based on a historical figure, somewhat like Rao based on Bajirao, or recent example being Amish's Shiva series Seyamar01 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've fixed the lead to be more in-line with the body text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You missed Lala Lajpat Rai:

Among the ladies invited on this occasion was a young Brahman female of exceptional beauty. Sambhaji was smitten with her beauty, and managing to have her taken to his room, violated her chastity. Shivaji was extremely angry at the news of this heinous act. He said that the prince was the heir to the throne and yet was guilty of such an evil action.

— Rai, Lala Lajpat; Puri, R. C. (1980). Shivaji, the Great Patriot. Metropolitan., p.469

I should add that this particular account seems to have a precursor in Keluskar, K. A.; Takakhav, Nilkant Sadashiv (1921). The Life of Shivaji Maharaj: Founder of the Maratha Empire. Vol. 2 (reprinted 1985 Sunita Publication ed.). Manoranjan Press. p. 469.

Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that per WP:LEAD, "He was confined by his father at Panhala Fort, reportedly for his addiction to sensual pleasures or violating a Brahmin woman." does not seem to belong in the lead per article content, there is hardly anything else about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Him being confined and then rebelling to join the Mughals does seem to be a key narrative episode in his life that is worthy of being included in the lead in some form regardless as to the details of why he was there. That said, I am a bit dubious about this bit: ... during which Maratha soldiers raped Christian women and later sold captured men and women to Arabs and the Dutch is that actually relevant enough to Sambhaji to include in the lead? People did shitty things in basically all historical wars, and we don't include the alleged atrocities that Roman soldiers are suggested to have committed in the lead section fo Roman emperor biographies for example. To someone unfamiliar with the subject, it might seem like just simply adding negative material to the lead for the sake of it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with removing that part too. It’s too much detail for the lead. I would keep the other parts though. SKAG123 (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we do keep it, I think we have to consider whether to attribute it. It's attributed in the body and in the source. Given this, I don't know if we should be mention it as a simple fact in the lead. Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this more, I feel that there could be justification to include something. But if we do it should be something more general and again probably attributed. The reason I feel it might belong in the lead is because it seems to me it relates to Execution of Sambhaji, since what his troops did during the Sacking of Burhanpur is claimed to be one possible reason for his torture and execution. But I think if we're going to keep it it needs to be better integrated explaining that his troops seem to have a reputation for atrocities among his enemies. While it's true there such things were very common, from my brief read it does sounds like Sambhaji had a reputation for allowing his troops to do a lot worse than what his father allowed. Nil Einne (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surge of requests incoming!

Apparently, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has instructed the Maharashtra Police to have certain "derogatory" remarks about Sambhaji removed from Wikipedia. I just hope this doesn’t lead to another legal case. That aside, there will likely be a surge of requests to remove the remarks, some possibly accompanied by legal threats. The AP (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed through several Indian news sources like [2], however, none of them seems to be willing or allowed to tell me what the objectionable content is, which I find frustrating, or even if this concerns en-WP. Can someone tell me? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll hazard a guess: does it have to do with "He was confined by his father at Panhala Fort, reportedly for his addiction to sensual pleasures or violating a Brahmin woman."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this appears to be the wording at issue. It once stated as if it was certain fact, which I've toned down, but the fact is that this is a clearly notable and discussed in numerous sources so it should stay. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The flashpoints, in order of prominence seem to be 1) "addiction to sensual pleasures" 2) violating a Brahmin woman 3) that his forces raped Christian women in his Goan campaign 4) that he ever fought on the side of the Mughals. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, that helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we put one of those "Warning! Article subject currently in the news, content may change swiftly per new reports!" banners on the article..? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like it's not quite the right fit, as there's no new reports to speak of. If memory serves I think we have edit notices to address cases of people being mass-canvassed to an otherwise-static issue due to political and media attention. signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The blue-lock does have a quality of its own. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading some more Indian media reactions. Added a few to this talkpage:[3] It's interesting that some note that WP:s references are also objectionable, not just the content. This is a difference from the Asian News International-thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are taking an offence over James W. Laine#Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India source. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks! If only The Hindu could have been arsed to tell us that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the interested, India seeks to arrest US scholar from 2004. Also discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Article_being_reported_to_cyber_police. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, similar issue is going on Execution of Sambhaji. Please have a look at it. Imperial[AFCND] 08:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it in the AN-thread. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh, we're in trouble with the Maharashtra cyber police! Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Zee 24 TAAS, a Marathi news channel, has once again proven the power of fearless journalism, launching a high-impact campaign against Wikipedia for hosting derogatory content on the revered Maratha warrior king, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj.". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Zee News. I wouldn't be suprised if this coverage isn't retaliation for the current state of its Wikipedia article. Tayi Arajakate may be singlehandledly responsible for getting Wikipedia banned in India lol. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Editors might be charged. SKAG123 (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång What was the reason you are editing the page only after the movie is released? Rushikesh90 (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If by "the page" you meant Sambhaji, I learned it (and the film, and Devendra Fadnavis, etc) existed yesterday, so it was hard for me to edit it before that. Press coverage of Wikipedia sometimes interests me. If you meant something else, clarify. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am talking about Sambhaji where the entire paragraph was removed mentioning how he implemented draught relief measures on 17th February. I don’t seem to think why was that even though it is present with enough evidence. This looks very deliberate and opportunistic timing. Rushikesh90 (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you think I removed that paragraph? Fwiw, I didn't. One thing to consider is that this article has a bit more views atm than it usually does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång It is your moral duty to introduce the deleted content if it’s backed by enough sources. Rushikesh90 (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren, other interested, here's a media source, MediaNama, that actually dared to say what's in the WP-article:[4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all objectionable comments

There is no credible source to defame the Sambhaji and since the page is protected the objectionable content should be removed until it is proven true. The users have removed the content praising him already shows clear evidence that they are under outside pressure or influence to defame the great Sambhaji Maharaj. Rushikesh90 (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sambhaji/FAQ may or may not be of interest to you. Consider that other editors might not fully understand what "all objectionable comments" means to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of moral misconduct: The idea that he was confined due to indulgence in sensual pleasures or violating a Brahmin woman seems to have emerged from later British and Persian sources, which often painted Indian rulers in a negative light. Marathi sources such as Bakhar literature and Sabhāsad Bakhar do not support such allegations. Zebahumac (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all historical literature from the period is likely to have problems. This definitely includes Bakhar literature. Such literature might intentionally exclude information they consider too embarrassing or which otherwise doesn't fit into the narrative they might want to present and embellish or even make up stuff which does. What they decide to include and exclude might sometimes be surprising from a modern context, so it needs sufficient experience to decide whether the inclusion or exclusion might just be because of the narrative the write wanted to present or the writer genuinely didn't know about it or believed it happened but could be wrong, or whether it likely did or didn't happen. This is why we intentionally do not generally use primary sources from the period ourselves. Instead we rely on historians to compile accounts from the various contemporary sources and decide what parts seem to be reliable enough to be worth mentioning and adding caveats etc as appropriate. It's clear that many historians feel that these accounts have enough support to be worth mentioning no matter whether they occur in Bakhar literature. Note that this isn't unique Marathi history or Indian history, it's something that is fairly universal. Nil Einne (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Zebahumac etc is sock-blocked:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidWood11. Disappointing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of Confinement by his father at Panhala Fort due to sensual pleasure

I don't think we need LLM-generated complaints here.

The claim that Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj was confined at Panhala Fort by his father, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, due to indulgence in sensual pleasures or violating a Brahmin woman is largely a product of later colonial-era narratives and lacks strong historical evidence from contemporary Maratha sources.

Conflict with Shivaji Maharaj: Sambhaji was indeed kept under close watch at Panhala Fort around 1678, but the reasons were political rather than personal misconduct. Sambhaji had strong leadership qualities, and there was some internal conflict regarding his independent decisions. His association with influential courtiers who opposed Shivaji’s policies may have led to his temporary confinement.

Reasons for Conflict and Confinement at Panhala (1678):

  1. Sambhaji’s Growing Influence: As the eldest son and heir, Sambhaji had a strong personality and military experience. He was eager to take on greater responsibilities, which sometimes clashed with the strategies set by Shivaji and his advisors.
  2. Association with Opposing Factions: Sambhaji reportedly grew close to influential courtiers like Annaji Datto and others who had strained relations with key figures in Shivaji’s administration. This may have created suspicion within the Maratha court.
  3. Independent Decision-Making: Sambhaji often took bold decisions, which were not always in line with Shivaji’s cautious diplomacy. His assertiveness may have worried Shivaji, leading to temporary restrictions on his movements.
  4. The Role of Yesubai and Other Advisors: Some sources suggest that Sambhaji’s wife, Yesubai, and other close allies played a role in easing tensions between father and son. However, the internal court politics remained complex.

Primary and Early Sources:

  1. Sabhāsad Bakhar (1694-1718) – Written by Krishnaji Anant Sabhasad, a contemporary of Sambhaji, this text provides an account of Maratha history. It mentions political tensions between Sambhaji and Shivaji but does not support the claim of personal misconduct.
  2. Chitnis Bakhar – Written by Malhar Ramrao Chitnis, a historian close to the Maratha court, this work also describes the political reasons behind Sambhaji’s confinement but does not mention allegations of sensual indulgence.
  3. Bhīmkarnī Bakhar – Another historical record that focuses on Sambhaji’s military and administrative struggles rather than any moral failings.

Colonial and Later Sources (Less Reliable for Bias):

  1. Grant Duff’s History of the Marathas (1826) – British historian James Grant Duff wrote extensively about Maratha history but relied on Persian sources and later accounts, which were sometimes biased or exaggerated.
  2. Persian Chronicles (Mughal Records) – Mughal historians like Khafi Khan often depicted Marathas in a negative light, and some of these accounts added moral accusations against Sambhaji, which do not align with Maratha sources.

Modern Historians:

  1. Jadunath Sarkar’s Shivaji and His Times (1920) – Sarkar, one of the most respected historians of the Maratha Empire, points out the political reasons for Sambhaji’s confinement but does not support the claims of immoral behavior.
  2. Govind Sakharam Sardesai’s New History of the Marathas (1946) – Sardesai’s work clarifies that Sambhaji’s imprisonment was due to internal political tensions rather than personal vices.

Zebahumac (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sabhāsad Bakhar (1694-1718) .... does not support the claim of personal misconduct"

Ch. [173] One day, on the occasion of the Haladkunkum festival, a beautiful lady came to the palace among the Swuvasinis (ladies whose - husbands are alive). She was taken into the Mahal and wrongly violated. When he got this information, the Maharaja said in disgust,— The heir to the crown has violated one of a higher caste. All the subjects are the king’s relatives. They are so many children to him. What can I do if the offender is my son,—I shall discard and punish him.” So said (the Raje) in his firm resolution

- Ratnahastin (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assessing the Authenticity of the Claim
  1. Sabhāsad Bakhar’s Reliability:
    • Sabhāsad Bakhar was written around 1694-1718, during the reign of Chhatrapati Rajaram (Sambhaji’s half-brother).
    • While it is one of the earliest Maratha chronicles, it was written after Sambhaji’s death and could reflect the political biases of that time.
  2. Potential Bias in the Narrative:
    • Some historians argue that the Bakhars were not purely factual accounts but often contained political propaganda to justify or tarnish certain rulers.
    • Since Sambhaji’s succession was contested and he had enemies among Maratha elites, this passage could be an attempt to discredit him.
    • The Mughals and some Maratha courtiers opposed to Sambhaji might have spread negative narratives. Since Rajaram was in power when Sabhāsad Bakhar was written, it may have been politically convenient to discredit Sambhaji. The Maratha court was divided, and Rajaram’s supporters sought to justify why Sambhaji was not an ideal ruler. It is possible that the incident was exaggerated or fabricated to create a moral justification for his temporary confinement.
Zebahumac (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can make an AI large language model spit out arguments like this. You actually have to provide sources to support your claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it was written after Sambhaji’s death and could reflect the political biases of that time.
Is this your own belief, or was it copied from GPT?
Some historians argue that the....
Which historians?
could be an attempt to discredit him
"Could"? Wikipedia is not a place for original research.
might have spread negative narratives
"Might"? Again, see WP:NOR.
It is possible that
This is completely AI-generated, and you didn’t even check what you were posting. The AP (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Who_is_Kubkullus?

If you can help, please join that discussion. The name Kubkullus appears in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of deleted content shows bad faith

The user @Hemiauchenia reintroduced inappropriate content just because of his location outside India without giving any reasonable source. If this is the condition of WP editors it’s disappointing. I expect other editors to remove objectionable content till it is proved and take strict action to further restrict such type of activities by any other editors. Rushikesh90 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you have failed to properly articulate any single objection to the current sourcing, only vaguely complaining that is "inappropriate" despite the dozens of sources that have been rounded up in support of the claims. To quote Harvey Einbinder's The Myth of the Britannica p. 149

In dealing with historical figures, an encyclopedia should endeavor to assess their lives in the light of contemporary scholarship. There is no need for empty eulogies or fretful silence. Evil need not be condoned nor virtue magnified to serve the interests of a narrow nationalism or a partisan spirit. What may be fitting and proper, of course, is a matter of personal judgment—and each entry must be considered on its individual merits. Inevitably, authors and editors are influenced by existing biographical evidence and prevailing standards of society. Nevertheless, the fundamental principle should be a fidelity to historical truth, rather than a desire to flatter popular preconceptions ...

Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't intended to be a hagiography. If "negative" information is supported by reliable sources, it belongs here. King Lobclaw (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is never proved that these are reliable sources. My point is why only negative information is permitted and when someone removes it, the negative information is reintroduced. There are sources for both positive and negative information then why are you removing the positive information. Rushikesh90 (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only "proof" required is consensus, which has been made clear. If you don't like the consensus, then the burden is on you to make a convincing argument to sway others. While the WMF seems likely to fold again when the opportunity once again arises, the actual editors in English Wikipedia are less prone to being bullied. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would you consider "proof" that something is a WP:RS in the WP-environment? Unlike you, I see more in this article than "negative" information. What do you see as "negative" about "Sambhaji was sophisticated, educated and well-versed in Sanskrit and Hindustani in addition to Marathi."? The aim is that this article should be a summary of WP:RS, and like everything else around here, it's a work in progress. If you haven't read WP:General disclaimer, I recommend it, this is an open wiki after all. WP contains a lot that people will occasionally dislike, it's like the rest of the internet in that way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy section

I think we can do better than the "In popular culture" list. Judging by recent media etc, there seems to be plenty of monuments, maybe festivals/celebrations, praise from politicians/religious figures etc. If there are good sources, we can expand on this. Perhaps some content like "evaluation by historians" is possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something from The Hindu: "Historians have proffered various lenses to examine the life of Sambhaji. Sambhaji’s fealty to the Hindu dharma in the face of certain death has earned him much admiration from Hindu nationalists. Some early Marathi writers, however, portrayed him as irresponsible and wayward. Yet others have held him up as a figure of unwavering valiance who inspired the Marathas in their fight against the Mughals. " Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A section on Legacy can be created and the sections on "Biographies", and "In popular culture" can be used as the subsections. GenuineArt (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source on legacy from 2023: "Ajit Pawar’s remarks had drawn protests from the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde camp) and BJP, whose workers had hit the streets. Chief minister Eknath Shinde, along with several senior BJP leaders, had criticised Ajit Pawar and said that Sambhaji Maharaj championed and protected both Swarajya and the Hindu religion while sacrificing his life." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to editors who worked on this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dympies version

Dympies made an attempt at rewriting the lead section [5], but was reverted. I thought it was worth discussing further. It removes any mention of the alleged reason for why he was imprisoned as well as removing mention of his soldiers reputed atrocities. Overall I am neutral on it, but I wanted to hear others thoughts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the central point is "owing to his misconduct", I'm ok with that, WP:LEAD-wise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the part with "misconduct" as sources differ. Many sources also mention that he was confined for quarrelling or misbehaving with Shivaji, Sarkar and Joshi gives the reason for joining Diler Khan because of a disagreement about succession and inheritance, this is covered in the body. Rest I removed the part about atrocities as that is clearly undue because soldiers committing atrocities was a common occurrence and we cant just blame Sambhaji for it. The rest of my edits were summarizing the left out parts of the body which are also worth including. Dympies (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to put one of those side by side text comparisons here, that might be helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edits by Dympies looked like censorship of relevant facts. Removal of social identity, and the removal of the crime involved was a bad edit. Soldiers commit atrocities under the command of the commander, thus it cannot be censored. The rest of the content looked almost like hagiography. He must also avoid the use of these spurious tags. GenuineArt (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a comparison of Dympies with the current version [6] showing Dympies additions in blue and removals in red Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources do differ as to the reason, but all the reasons suggested can be labelled as misconduct, for the lede saying it was "misconduct" seems fair, as long as we have the details of the potential reasons in the article body. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GenuineArt, the tag wasn't spurious. Quotations should have been made available. On trying to access them, I found that the second citation (Jadunath Sarkar's) doesn't mention any such incident at all. As far as the first citation is concerned, it too doesn't blame Sambhaji but rather says that the Portuguese protested to Sambhaji regarding atrocities. Thats why I opine that this is essentially undue for the lead.
The question is of WP:DUE, lead should be written according to it. Can you explain why you removed my summary of the body? "Misconduct" is better rephrasing and more encyclopedic as all sources blame Sambhaji for his confinement, we don't need to go deep into theories for his confinement in lead per WP:LEAD if in general, all sources are attributing this as a misconduct or misbehaviour on part of Sambhaji. I suggest that you restore my summary of the body there is nothing contentious about it. The article clearly needs a more thorough lead. Dympies (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you are making generic statements about your dubious content removal.
You should propose a new lead if you want, but do it without removing any of the critical text. GenuineArt (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors have opined that they are fine with my rewording of the lead with regards to the" misconduct" part. The consensus is emerging against you. You need to provide an actual reason as to why you think the content merits inclusion, vague opposition will not work. Dympies (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are really going to speculate over a non-existing consensus then let me know why you restored the content days ago that you are censoring now? GenuineArt (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the content because no policy based reason was cited for it, in fact the user said that content in question was "blasphemous" as if this king was a god , any editor even if they disagree would have reverted such an edit! Secondly, you should stop making these unfounded accusations of censorship and actually engage with my arguments. Dympies (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the only time you did it. See your other recent edits: [7][8] where you were maintaining the same edits. You should describe what exactly caused this transformation, because your edits are looking suspicious. GenuineArt (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot accuse other WP editors of being suspicious without proof. Since this is not your first time I am highlighting you. @Valereee Please take a note Rushikesh90 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Informal poll

Should Dympies version [9] be restored? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

  • Yes - My edits were mostly summarizing the parts of body that are warranted in lead, I had reworded the prose in lead to be encyclopedic as sources differ and "misconduct" is a good description to summarise all the sources, a change that was agreed upon by atleast two users and I have removed some content because of issues of WP:DUE. Dympies (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I think it summarises the article sufficiently. Unfortunately, as already pointed out, 'rape and pillage' was, and to some extent still is fairly frequent in wars/conflicts. This shouldn't be downplayed or swept under the carpet. The references support its inclusion in the article. Knitsey (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - The content is reliably sourced, and the cited academic sources are even more critical of the subject than the Wikipedia article itself. For example, Shivaji grew up apart from his father, we are also aware of his testy relationship with his oldest son Sambhaji, who deserted his father's cause for a time and allied with the Mughals, and is primarily remembered for his affronts to the chaste virtue of Brahmin women, his drug use, and his association with Tantric priests of questionable integrity.[10] Even Dympies himself supported the current version as clear from his own previous edits[11][12] until now. The version that is being pushed by Dympies now is concealing the relevant facts. GenuineArt (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No This isn't just changing the lede to say misconduct, this is actively removing reliably sourced content that others are complaining about because accurate academic historical information is that Sambhaji did a number of negative things and they don't like that that's being written about. I see no reason to make these changes. SilverserenC 17:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Current lead:
    "He was confined by his father at Panhala Fort, reportedly for his addiction to sensual pleasures or violating a Brahmin woman."
    Current body:
    "Sambhaji's behaviour, including alleged irresponsibility and addiction to sensual pleasures, led Shivaji to imprison his son at Panhala Fort in 1678 to curb his behaviour. Another theory suggests that Sambhaji was imprisoned at the Panhala because he "attempted to violate a Brahmin's wife"."
    IMO, there's a reasonable WP:LEAD argument for the "misconduct" (or something like "irresponsible behaviour") version on this particular point. Note also that body says, right or wrong, "attempted to violate". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, the better idea would be to cast your vote. Dympies (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I think the overall expansion is good, but I am neutral regarding the two points of contention (the reason for his confinement, his soliders atrocities). Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It's not that simple. Restoring to a previous version means removing the recently added quotes and sourced content. There are other discussions about different information happening too. Focus on the specific information he's having a problem with. Hu741f4 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The lead summarizes the article body correctly. I see no reason to change the tone of the lead only because some are now finding it objectionable outside Wikipedia. desmay (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needed improvement I'm not sure that the Dymplies version was the be-all end-all, but I did incorporate some of it into Special:Diff/1277320903/1277328737. I attempted a more traditional four-paragraph approach, but didn't change the controversial phrases, which I think should probably be addressed separately. My hope with the fourth paragraph was to provide a classic lead example of an balanced analysis paragraph, which addresses both how he is viewed by historians and fans, with examples of his successes and failures. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that your edit to the lead incorporating Dympies changes is a significant improvement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains one or more duplicated citations template

Since this article has the ref-tag WP:REFVAR, consider using in-text TEMPLATE:RP when necessary. Please do not mix short refs with the ref-tag cites, keep it consistent within the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The word accused should be removed from this sentence in the lede

A user has edited the lede and added the word "accused" in this sentence: "Maratha soldiers under Sambhaji's command during his campaigns were accused of committing atrocities against civilians. This cited sources nowhere mention the word "accused" or anything similar. The cited sources are reliable academic sources and they are stating a historical event. The historians aren't accusing him. It makes no sense, hence it should be reverted back to its early version. Hu741f4 (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the word should be omitted. It is not just an accusation. GenuineArt (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this piece of info removed?

This piece of info was removed by someone without clarification and explanation:

In 1683, he invaded Portuguese Goa, during which Maratha soldiers raped Christian women and later sold captured men and women to Arabs and the Danish

The source cited says[13]:

According to this account, on entering ‘Bardez and Salcette, the Mahrattas resorted to plunder and arson, demolishing a number of Christian churches and the images therein,®* raping a number of Christian women," carrying off a number of men, women and children and presenting many of them to their soldiers. Some were sold in Vengurla harbour to some Arabs or to Dutch factors. The Portuguese protested to Sambhaji about this.

Hu741f4 (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the lead is a summary, not a repeat of the entire contents of the article, and one of the sources talked about atrocities committed by his troops in Bengal, so it clearly was a broader phenomenon than Portuguese Goa. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am adding the phrase "including massacres and rape" Hu741f4 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fake narrative about shambhaji maharaj with fake reference

Kindly read below books 1. “Sambhaji” by Vishwas Patil – A well-researched novel based on historical facts. 2. “Chhatrapati Sambhaji” by Dr. Jaysingrao Pawar – A scholarly work clearing false claims. 3. “Shivaji: The Great Maratha” by Ranjit Desai – Discusses the father-son relationship in a balanced way. 4. “Raja ShivChatrapati” by Babasaheb Purandare – A classic book based on Marathi historical records.

and take reference from these books and remove all fake narratives which says shambaji maharaj fought against shivaji maharaj, tried exploit bhramin girl and what not. ImiOSuser (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking to refute the inclusion citing reliable sources, citing historical FICTION as #1 and #3 clearly are is a terrible argument. I am unsure about the reliability of Babasaheb Purandare and Jaysingrao Pawar, and I'll let others chime in. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And... they're blocked. There's been in incredible spike in pageviews, not exactly sure what happened. — EF5 03:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chhaava happened, EF5. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a new phenomenon (as in people looking at history-inspired drama and then looking at Wikipedia), but, you know, less government tend to get involved. Napoleon also had more wiews when he was on the silver screen, but no French politician told the Gendarmerie nationale to go after WP-editors because of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand why some WP-editors are so much against the edits of one section. I see most of the places they are giving reasons like “I am not Indian so Indian laws don’t apply to me” or “ I am unsure about the source” but do not cite sources with any credibility. The James Lane book is already banned in India because of objectionable content without any proof whatsoever. If someone says otherwise then the users are getting banned. @Gråbergs Gråa SångYou have to understand the gravity of situation here Rushikesh90 (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you should understand that the idea of changing an article on history because a politician finds some content in it objectionable is very alien to many Wikipedians, and contrary to the reason they are Wikipedians in the first place. Many Wikipedians also take the position that since this is an open wiki, what it says at a specific point in time shouldn't be terribly important to anyone. Wikipedians want this website to have good content per our standards, but we are well aware that per the nature of things it will never be perfect. Wikipedia is widely read, but so is Twitter and Instagram. People will, given time and WP:AGF, be open to improving the article from the WP POV, as in strive to be a summary of WP:RS on history.
But there seems to be a culture clash here, and how that will resolve itself, I don't know. Perhaps India will block Wikipedia, like Turkey and Pakistan did. Perhaps an Indian court will manage to make this article another Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. We'll see. Fwiw, I disagree with your statement that none of the sources in this article have any credibility, culture clash again, I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am only talking about sources where the WP editors trust so much that they are reverting other edits giving reasons “I am unsure about the source” in short stubbornness of your source is wrong my source is correct. The pages should either have both versions saying they are not agreed upon or should debate or even better create a separate page till agreement is reached. Instead of reaching a solution all here are just reverting the edits. It’s not a politicians demand but that of numerous historians who have no other choice but to reach him. But I think if WP editors and admins want to be relevant about history they can easily debate and come up with something better than what is currently going on. If someone opposes to reach a solution then that editor or user should be banned. Rushikesh90 (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, here are books 2 and 4 on amazon:[14][15] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that these are scholarly? I don't edit about history all that much, but at a glance they seem like popular history books to me, which often are more interested in telling a compelling narrative than historical accuracy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a task for you. Since you are involved in this page let’s dig more on history of Sambhaji. Since you think these books are popular history and compelling narrative let’s dig more. Reply with a book name that you think is accurate historically and I will either prove it’s inaccurate or it doesn’t have the same content that you are debating here. Rushikesh90 (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rushikesh90: Are you making that offer as a historian by trade, or as a random person off the street who worships Sambhaji as a folk hero? (And people wonder why I stay out of contentious topics...) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am enthusiastic history buff. I have read hundreds of books and articles on world history. I usually don’t read wiki pages for history reference though and I admit this is first time for me interacting with history on Wikipedia. But yes there were books which have shown Sambhaji in bad light and I used to believe them 15-20 years ago. But today there are enough references that can prove otherwise. I am not sure how to add book references in Wiki edits line by line but yes I will learn it soon. Rushikesh90 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because those books are 15-20 years old does not necessarily invalidate them. Regardless of their bias (spoiler: All sources have some form of bias) it's possible that those sources may be usable in conjunction with newer ones. What you're basically proposing is to replace a set of Portuguese-biased sources for a set of Maratha-biased sources, which is a distinction without a difference as far as we are concerned; a better option would be to debate each source, see where they agree and where they differ, and then source the article appropriately based on the consensus agreed to.
As to weighting the article, the Cyber Crimes unit and all the drivebys are doing absolutely no favours to this debate or their preferred position. The drivebys make one edit and never bother to follow up to any responces (and I've seen this particular playbook before; it was just as problematic then), while the Cyber Crimes unit makes people want to avoid or stop editing this article or participating on this talk page for fear they'll be dragged before a judge for what's effectively lèse-majesté (especially if they live in India proper). This would leave people who aren't intimidated by Indian police, which would potentially making bias issues worse both because of the lack of a local perspective and fury at a perceived attempt at historical revisionism historical negationism. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
perennial reminder that Historical revisionism is the important daily work of most professional historians, whereas historical negationism is what you're actually alluding to in the last sentence. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
changed, I'm more used to hearing it used in the prjorative/negationist sense. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a widespread misconception; I only realized the distinction myself when a historian colleague pointed it out to me. signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I am also proposing i.e. debate over each point. But here only answers are “ I am unsure of your sources “ or “I am not Indian”. If these are the debate points no one can reach a consensus.
The books are not 20 years old I am saying the books were thought of historically correct then.
I am not asking to remove the content permanently we can move it to some other place or keep debating over it.
At least if you agree Portuguese Bias is what WP editors prefer I am okay to let go of this debate. Rushikesh90 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're actually interested in improving the sources, throwing in an attack, blatant or veiled, on editors in practically every single one of your replies is a very poor strategy for achieving your desired ends. What "WP editors prefer" is to not interact with someone so determined to make people believe they're a bad faith actor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you are actually interested in a debate just attacking one sentence out of everything I have written will also not do it. Rushikesh90 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rushikesh90: I will remind you this article and this discussion is in a contentious topic (Indian Subcontinent). The constant incivility would be grounds for being topic-banned either from Sambhaji or from the topic area as a whole. Govern yourself accordingly, please. And no, the editors on this article, Indian or otherwise, don't want a Portuguese bias or a Maratha bias - they want an article that is well-sourced and as neutrally-written as possible. This task is made all the more difficult due to the real-world reaction to this article, amplified by Chhaava, prompting officials in India to go after the very editors who are trying to participate in this matter in good faith, which in turn risks a backlash from the community they likely aren't anticipating and would not appreciate the gravity of. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all it’s you who is attacking the historians of any bias. I don’t accept that the current consensus among historians is of any bias. Secondly I would not tolerate the personal attack on my character because I am debating over a source. So it should be you who has to behave accordingly otherwise I will take more serious steps. In good faith I am asking again that remove objectionable content until you can provide a reliable first hand source.
And lastly I am not afraid of you or anything you can do so stop threatening me. Rushikesh90 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rushikesh90: All humans have a bias, and this includes historians. That does not disqualify their use as a source except in the most extreme circumstances (read: blatant propaganda or a very obvious conflict of interest). This is why we discuss the suitability of sources and how to weigh and represent their claims individually and in aggregate. To assume sources in general lack any sort of bias what-so-ever assumes facts not in evidence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano @Rushikesh90 Why don’t you both start a separate thread on this talk page and discuss each source individually, rather than calling each other out? And as for Rushikesh90 since you mentioned you aren't familiar with wiki markup, I suggest you go through pages like Help:Wikitext The AP (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FIR against person who made ‘derogatory edits’ to Chhatrapati Sambhaji profile on Wikipedia

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/fir-filed-derogatory-edits-chhatrapati-sambhaji-wikipedia-profile-9849244/lite/ (The Indian Express)

Is this report about enwiki or other language editions? -- — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 16:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take my word for it, but it seems to me that unless English language Indian media specifically says they are talking about a non-English WP, they are talking about en-WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's ENWP, an ANI post has confirmed that. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance of the contested material

Clearly there are many scholarly secondary sources that report on both his personal indiscretions, and the "violation". But given that this issue has become quite heated, can anyone help determine the origin of those claims? Like, was it in a letter? Multiple letters? Contemporary histories? The trouble with writing about historical people tends to be the lack of great contemporary sources. If we could say who attested to it contemporaneously, that might provide a more nuanced take. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it might generally be good to list in toto the primary sources of his life. I've done a similar thing in the past when writing about Julius Caesar---2,000 years after his death, we're really only left with propaganda sources. Everybody had an opinion about him, including himself. Reliable, methods based, peer reviewed scholarship had not been invented yet. I envision we could come up with a sentence here like "Sambhajis life is attested to in letters, monuments and works by contemporary writers x, y, and z" or something, along with an assessment of their reliability by modern historians. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
check this detailed discussion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sambhaji#Theories_for_his_confinement_at_Panhala Hu741f4 (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources do not even mention the caste of the woman violated. In fact the only primary source cited on this talkpage does not mention the caste[16], it is not due for inclusion. Dympies (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dympies I did remove the mention of that from the lead since it doesn't seem very relevant, and rather inflammatory. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hu741f4 Yes, I read those sections, and that is why I asked the question, because they don't seem to say where those authors got those claims, although I admit I may not understand some of the Indian names being used. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources mention "Brahmin" woman so I don't see any solid reason to remove it.

He further adds that Sabhasad, the chronicler of Shivaji, may not be correct literally in this respect, but the implication therein appears to be probable.24 Jadunath Sarkar comments on this point: "Shambuji (was) a grownup youth notorious for his violent temper and self-indulgent character. . .Shambuji's own conduct brought matters to a crisis. For having violated a beautiful Brahmin woman who was visiting the palace on a religious festival, the prince was removed to Parli

During his life-time his son Sambhaji's conduct was a source of grief and vexation to him. When Sambhaji attempted to violate a Brahman's wife, Shivaji confined his son for a time in Panhala fort and, after his release, placed a strict watch over him.

  • Saletore, Rajaram Narayan (1978). Sex in Indian harem life. New Delhi: Orient Paperbacks. p. 143. OCLC 565662028.

Sambhaji had been confined at Panhala as a punishment for attempting " to violate the person of the wife of a Brahmin. ( Duff ). This is also referred to in a Bombay letter already noted. Shivaji was so strict and strong in his respect for women that, like Mahmud of Ghazni, he would not spare even his son if he offended in this respect. Sambhaji was put in confinement at Panhala and though subsequently released from Panhala he was kept under strict surveillance at Parali.

Hu741f4 (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care too much if we say Brahmin or not. As a non Indian reader/writer, it has next to zero meaning to me, so it seems superfluous and feels like [[WP:caste warring]]. But to my main point, in the 1931 book by Vinayak, what's he mean by "Duff"? Is that the name of the secondary source he got it from, or the primary sources? If we could get a sense of the primary sources, we might be able to incorporate that into our presentation of the issue. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur guess, but perhaps James Grant Duff/[17]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
p313 says Duff was a military officer.[18] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The authors included this, as violence against a Brahmin was considered a grave violation in Medieval and Ancient India. The mention of Brahmin is relevant to circumstances of that era. So it carries weight in that context. Hu741f4 (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds plausible, but is there any WP-acceptable way we can hint at this to the reader, via wikilink if nothing else? I get the sense that "violated a nun" would be culturally somewhat similar, maybe I'm wrong. I note that the WP-article Brahmin doesn't include the word woman, but there may be some Hinduism-related article that talks of this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a more apt analogy for the status of Brahmin women would be noblewomen or princesses, rather than monastic clergy. To be honest, as someone who is not Indian myself, I'm surprised that other non-Indian editors are so in the dark about the significance of identifying a historical figure with a high social class of their time. The meaning and relevance seems obvious to me. signed, Rosguill talk 14:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that is why all the authors that I mentioned have explicitly highlighted the caste of the woman. Hu741f4 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2025

The title should be Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj 2605:8D80:4E1:1B23:6966:191F:B111:35B3 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - see FAQ Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chtrapati Sambhaji Maharaj

Why you didn't mentioned how Aurangzeb killed Sambhaji Maharaj? That is written all over in history.He tortured him for 40 days. Why this important incident is not mentioned? Neha1422 (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do - both in this article (Sambhaji#Capture, torture and execution) and in another article specifically for that. Where do you get the "tortured for 40 days" claim from? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This articles is getting more than 100,000 views per day after the release of the film Chhaava, the user probably got this info from that film. Hu741f4 (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First the title of this article should be Chtrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. And second he is Indian King, Maratha King. It is written all over in India History, every indian knows that.Sambhaji Maharaj was captured on 1 st February 1689 and killed on 11 March 1689. He was asked to convert his religion also. You have written all fake narratives with face reference. This article is unacceptable. Neha1422 (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Neha1422: We do not include honourifics or titles in article names. And did you read any of the articles? You're repeating everything said in the links I provided above, minus the Feb 1 1689 date (which isn't noted in either article; the 11 Mar 1689 date however is noted). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you are just defemaing Indian history by writing all fake informations. 2409:40C2:103A:CDA5:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

don't spread wrong information.

He was not addicted to sensual pleasures and was a great leader and warrior, don't spread wrong information. Avinashnaiya921 (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not spread wrong Information about a great Warrior. WIKIPEDIA is platform where everyone lookup to for the genuine information.So please do not spoil it's reputation by posting a wrong information about Great king and great warrior. This is completely misguiding the readers. If there is no strong evidence of information on a particular topic and event then do not post it. 2406:B400:D4:C0CC:8C4B:8091:F03B:257F (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to have sourced information removed you need to provide Reliable Sources which show the information to be wrong. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. If you disagree with something, provide reliable sources. Stating over and over that you just don't like it isn't good enough.
Wikipedia also services an audience far beyond India. Being from India doesn't grant you ownership over a specific article any more than someone from the United States would have ownership over an article about Donald Trump or Joe Biden.
Finally, the similar phrasing of the two above posters probably warrants an SPI check. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth

Here are the views of India's ruling party's ideologues on Sambhaji. [19] Theofunny (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which are irrelevant here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sambhaji
No tags for this post.