Talk:Shivaji/Archive 4

their is no date like 19feb 1627
one user is deleteing 19feb 1630 on the basis of some "USELESS" site, it was april 1627 and not feb 1627. the april 1627 was rejected by all scholars from which scholar you are posting feb 1627 their was no date like that for shivaji birth date. IT SEEMS YOU ARE A BIG FAN OF "SIR JADUNATH SARKAR" but he was a useless historian and his date was april 1627 which was rejected and balkrishna feb 1630 was accpeted.122.161.8.146 (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You are yet to give even a single reference for ur claim that Shivaji was born in 1630, not 1627. The exact date of birth may be disputed, but the year of birth is not...

I am reverting your edit.. First show a single credible reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajshree.jk (talk • contribs) 13:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

you dumb fool the date is feb 1630 and april 1627---http://books.google.co.in/books?id=WYFrgILWbIgC&pg=PA14&dq=shivaji+birth+date+1630&hl=en&ei=jjjSTpynGIztrQe69aht&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=shivaji%20birth%20date%201630&f=false

here is your date its april 1627 and this date has been rejected, the date which is accepted is feb 1630---http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=_zjSToPhKcjnrAfz_b3pDA&ct=result&id=6wpuAAAAMAAJ&dq=balkrishna+shivaji+birth+date&q=birth+date#search_anchor

one more link 1627 has been long rejected and 1630 was proposed by the best historian of shivaji the great dr balkrishna--http://www.archive.org/stream/shivajithegreatv030775mbp/shivajithegreatv030775mbp_djvu.txt. their is no source which mentions shivaji birth date as feb 19 1627 122.161.224.99 (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The anon is right. It's either "19 February 1930" or "6 April 1927". Please see the references cited at the end of the date or in the "Early life" section. utcursch | talk 12:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this true?
This item is found on the article List of dogs:

Waghya, Chhatrapati Shivaji's pet dog. Waghya is known as the epitome of loyalty and eternal devotion. After Shivaji's death, the dog mourned and jumped into his master's funeral pyre and immolated himself. A statue was put up on a pedestal next to Shivaji's tomb at Raigad Fort.

Is this true? It is uncited, but if any person knows about this please reply if you know it to be true and tell me so. If it is true, we can try together to save it from deletion by looking for some citation. Does the statue exist to this day? Do you live near the statue? Can you take a picture and upload it to the commons? A picture might be as good as a citation.

Chrisrus (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Who are dadoji kondadev and Samarth Ramdas
i strongly request the authors that dont mention Samarath ramdas swami and dadoji konddev as the gurus of shivaji maharaj,there is not a single evidence which proofs that dadoji and samarth ramdas are gurus of shivaji maharaj.The historians of sambhaji brigade have proved that dadoji kondadev and samarth ramdas were the enemies of swarajya created by shivaji maharaj.for more information go on this link and see the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qznA-bZR_dQ  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratapsinhraje (talk • contribs) 17:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

can you cites sources for all the blabbering you have just done.Pernoctator (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

i have the links,for more information read the book of prof.namdeorao jadhav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratapsinhraje (talk • contribs) 06:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Afzal khan episode
Being such a contentious page and sub-topic, I thought that I will pen my thoughts here before making any changes. I went through several books regarding this episode and have come across views which are different from what is stated in this article

The cambridge history of India states that Shivaji violated the prior agreement of appearing only with a sword by wearing armour and the waghnakh in addition to the dagger. It further goes on saying that he struck the first blow to Afzal Khan while embracing him and that Afzal Khan responded in self-defense.

HS Sardesai in his book Shivaji, the great Maratha, Volume 4 (which happens to be the only citation in this section) cites Mohan Lal Mehta Vyogi and says that the "treacherous intention" of Afzal Khan did not succeed as Shivaji stabbed him, thanks to his fast reflexes. No mention of any stabbing by Afzal Khan.

In the book Chhatrapati Shivaji, Bhawan Singh Rana describes the incident as Afzal Khan holding Shivajis neck while embracing, with an intention to stab him. Again the source mentions shivaji stabbing him, with no mention of any use of the sword by Afzal Khan

J Nazareth also mentions a similar account of the incident in his book Creative war-fare

To me, this particular section especially (and the article in some places) does not adhere to a neutral point of view. The entire incident is currently described as folklore with no references as back-up. Looking forward for opinions on this. 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2015
I would kindly request you edit the article's title from "Shivaji" to "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj". Referring to following articles on Wikipedia of other similar historic great personalities of India, who have their honorary title with their names in article's title. Hence I would request the editing to be made for title of this article.

Rani Laxmibai - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_Lakshmibai Maharana Pratap - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharana_Pratap

For any clarifications regarding the request, drop an email at gawade.gitesh@gmail.com

Gawade.gitesh (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses the common name of a person unless additional names or titles are needed for disambiguation. Shivaji is the most common name and cannot be confused with anyone else and that is why we use that name.

Upbringing para states Shivaji Maharaj as being likey illiterate
Change of following sentence is requested in UPBRINGING PARA "The boy was a keen outdoorsman, but had little formal education, and was likely illiterate"

This sentence should be removed on grounds of it being vague in terms of it stating the reference of FORMAL EDUCATION which is absurd ,such kind of education didnt exist back in those days, Most of the Maratha nobility contemporaneous with Shivaji Maharaj, as also those who preceded or followed him in point of time, knew the simple arts of reading and writing, use of words like FORMAL EDUCATION is totally Incorrect

Also The sentence states SHIVAJI MAHARAJ as being LIKELY ILLITERATE    which too is WRONG and should be corrected ( in FURTHER READING section : The life of Shivaji Maharaj, Founder of Maratha Empire]

This same Reference link sheds light on the EDUCATION details of SHIVAJI MAHARAJ

Thanking you

Rohit25sz (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree to what Rohit25sz had highlighted. When their was no School, no University, no Education System then how can a person be called as illiterate. In those days, everyone had Formal education at the most. Shivaji Maharaj use to write Letters to his generals, wasn't that enough? ... I had once removed the sentence but it was reverted ... Hope this time some good editor might understand & support. - Ninney (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

As some user state.. AKBAR too was illiterate, let me ask the editors, is it (Akbar being illiterate) even mentioned in the wikipedia article on Akbar ?? Great men who created history, brought a revolution for the masses,fought all their lives for a cause, is it appropriate to call such MEN ILLITERATE ??

refer Akbar's article Akbar  which has highlighted and emphasised on much more important issues unlike this article on Shivaji Maharaj

edit request : kindly drop the reference of LITERACY as a whole


 * : Wikimar24 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)info on education : more light can be thrown on Shivaji maharaja's education. Shivaji Maharaj got military training and learnt the art of government from Shri Dadoji Kondadev. Shivaji Maharaj’s mother Jijabai and his guru Ramdas motivated him with the noble and nationalistic ideas and imparted in him love for the religion and the motherland. Some improvement can be made. He cannot be called termed as "illiterate" his work was remarkable and thats what counts. edit request : kindly drop the reference of LITERACY as a whole i support Rohit25sz
 * 'Probably illiterate' appears to be well referenced. Do we have solid references that state he could read and write? --regentspark (comment) 23:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Its simple, Article on AKBAR has no reference on literacy, such a reference is totally unimportant, further as I have previously said, if there are multiple references which contradict each other, no editor should state such a fact ( as it being unclear) why use words like PROBABLY, LIKELY ??

nobody opens a wiki link to find out how well educated someone like SHIVAJI MAHARAJ or AKBAR was, they became such famous men due to what they did for masses, the cause they fought for , they were warriors, add more info on that. THIS LITERACY STATUS IS DEBATABLE..HENCE REMOVAL OF SUCH A REFERENCE IS CALLED FOR.

also it is stated in article in UPBRINGING para - he carefully studied the two great Hindu epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata; these were to influence his lifelong defence of Hindu values , isnt this funny how one can study , say atleast READ the two EPICS and still be called ILLITERATE ?? This now truly is a biased opinion of editor of this article who LIKELY feels that one should be able to READ & WRITE English language primarily to be called literate.

get me a person who is an illiterate who has STUDIED RAMAYANA & MAHABHARATA

ref : Shivaji, the Great Maratha, Volume 1 By H. S. Sardesai - pg 86-87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbs21 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (There is no need to shout!) Edits to Akbar are best addressed in Talk:Akbar. For Shivaji, we have a well referenced statement 'probably illiterate' that is of some interest to the reader. We can't infer that he could read and based on his studying something because that would be WP:OR (for example, perhaps he had a good tutor who read to him and explained stuff from the epics you mention). You need to find a source that contradicts 'probably illiterate'. --regentspark (comment) 12:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

incase you are new to what happned here 1. some user earlier mentioned AKBAR being Illiterate too, sole reason for me to compare this article to Akbar's 2. one needS to shout for someone to listen, i have given two references (two different books) , in case you missed that too 3. you stating that some fact is not, and i saying it is wont prove what really is/WAS ( thats History and its debatable) 4. in case you again missed it, i am SHOUTING again, PLZ listen, this topic being debatable, with both sides providing references contradictory, i have requested the edit to be: THE BOY WAS A KEEN OUTDOORSMAN (HAD LITTLE FORMAL EDUCATION and was likely illiterate)  WORDS IN BRACKETS TO BE DROPPED

REF 1. Shivaji, the Great Maratha, Volume 1 By H. S. Sardesai - pg 86-87  THIS ONES IN your OWN ELABORATE ARTICLE IN CASE YOU AGAIN MISSED IT

REF 2. The life of Shivaji Maharaj, Founder of Maratha Empire] THIS ONE  too is in your OWN ELABORATE ARTICLE IN CASE YOU MISSED THIS TOO

and there was no FORMAL EDUCATION system at Shivaji Maharaja's time

why am i being asked constantly to provide same references is not known ,(There is a need to listen and read ! after all we are literate arent we) thanking you Rbs21 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It appears that this change is still being discussed, so please don't file a formal edit request until you reach a consensus. Gparyani (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As per the book on Shivaji Shivaji, the Great Maratha, Volume 1 By H. S. Sardesai - pg 86-87  its is clearly mentioned that

though Shivaji didnt know to read or write, yet he possessed considerable erudition. Though Shivaji may not have pored over books,he certainly mastered the contents of two great Hindu epics by listening to recitations and story tellings.The noble examples of doing & suffering,of action and sacrifice, of military skill & statecraft which the stories of Rama & Pandavas accord, the Political lessions and Moral maxims with which these epics are filled ,deeply impressed Shivaji's young mind.It has become a fashion these days to call a person uncultured if he cannot read or write and on this ground the English and some Europeans looked upon the Indians as uncivilised.Although literacy is one of modes to make a person civilised, yet a mere smattering of knowledge does not make a person educated. The want of book knowledge does not impair ones efficiency as a man of action in the world. During the Muslim rule in India,reading and writing was not common here.Education progressed by listening to recitations and story telling from religious books. Apart from his education in reading and writing, Shivaji had the best physical and military training.He was a good Archer and Marksman, skilled in the use of spear and sword and excelled in Horsemanship.Though he may have not pored over a single book , he certainly mastered about the state affairs under the tutelage of his guardian - Dadaji

hence the use of words like FORMAL EDUCATION is wrong and refering to Shivaji as ILLITERATE should be avoided. Rbs21 (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rbs21, I don't get it. The text you quote above supports both 'illiterate' as well as 'no formal education'. Illiterate means that he could neither read nor write and no formal education means that his education was unstructured. There is no judgement of any sort implied in either of those two things. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ The quotation above clearly supports the existing phraseology - Arjayay (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

when Formal eduction didnt exist, how could he (SHIVAJI) possibly undertake it ? the means of education were different then, the ARTICLE says he was illiterate and ends there, what i have quoted states that , yes he couldnt read or write but also sheds light on other important aspects which are more empowering and overshadow his illiteracy , please try to add something more in that article , just saying he was illiterate is wrong. the existing phraseology says he was illiterate and had no formal education, what i posted clearly mentions that such sources of education didnt exist back then, the para i posted says a lot and not just about reading and writing, it states about various other things/forms that made him the Man/warrior/King we all know, which proved pivotal. hence just referring to him as illiterate wont suffice, the kind of education he received (which was prevalent) was listening to recitations and story telling from religious books , yet calling him illiterate seems illogical. and you have quoted the same ideology that has been mentioned in the para i posted - it has become a fashion these days to call a person uncultured if he cannot read or write and on this ground the English and some Europeans looked upon the Indians as uncivilised.Although literacy is one of modes to make a person civilised, yet a mere smattering of knowledge does not make a person educated

thus when you are writing an article about someone,isnt it important to refer to that person or judge him based on the conditions that existed back then ?? a plain reading of the para i posted should have removed all doubts but i guess you tend to infer exactly what you feel like, it clearly defeats the very purpose of this "edit req" or "talk page " for that purpose. Rbs21 (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your most recent edit. Sources use the word illiterate and that's what we should use. --regentspark (comment) 17:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

not acceptable, i have quoted a source from this article's reference which says he couldnt read or write but illiteracy meant different in those days(this is already debated by me) another source from one of other reference is as under

''The annalists make no mention of the manner in which Jijabai conducted the education of her son Shivaji. It is, however, clear that during this time he seems to have made considerable progress in riding and horse management, archery and marksmanship, the use and exercise of the patta, the national Maratha javelin, and other warlike exercises, as also in reading and writing.''

this is in the book : The life of Shivaji Maharaj, founder of the Maratha empire found in further reading

I had not deliberatly qouted this as I myself am aware that this is debatable what many historians have debated is not at all open for us to write upon taking a particular side

hence i request that the edit I made now be accepted Rbs21 (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel compelled to revert the most recent edit as well as the first edit as being unsourced and dubious changes; however, I haven't read the above WP:TLDR posts. Seeing that you have given RBs21 the benefit of doubt and responded here, could you recommend our next course of action? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rbs21 is merely trying to wear us down by his/her long exchanges. The reality is that the word 'illiterate' when applied to Shivaji is well sourced and there is nothing debatable about it. A case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is getting disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

please understand, i have nothing about this article and would only help to improve it but the word used is inappropriate, how could one say its not debatable when i personally have given you two references , one which tell why he shouldnt be termed illiterate (Shivaji, the Great Maratha, Volume 1 By H. S. Sardesai) and other says he could read and write ( The life of Shivaji Maharaj, founder of the Maratha empire), i dont seem to fathom how Illiterate is well sourced and i am wearing anyone down

consider this simple example : would it be appropriate if some author wakes up tomorrow and writes - shivaji was illiterate as he couldnt operate a cellphone ? would he be termed technologically illiterate when such devices didnt exist back then? similarly If Formal type of education was inexistent during Shivaji's time, how could he possibly undertake it ? plus if only kind of education that as prevalent was listening to recitations from elders /gurus ( already elaborated by me earlier) can he be then termed illiterate just because he had no book knowledge which was inexistent ?

How can someone take (a form of education) that was non existent ?

if one writes an article and bases an opinion referring from one book and there are other books that say exactly opposite, how can there be consensus ad idem ( here in terms of people reading the article who know the other fact)

isnt it wrong to refer to someone on talk page as being disruptive or accusing someone just because that person is trying to provide enough references to support what is just and unprofessional by calling it as LONG exchanges ?

its not the matter of me or anyone liking sonething or not, i have just mentioned something which doesnt fit in - ILLITERATE Rbs21 (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rbs21, the Sardesai reference clearly supports the illiterate statement (there is no other interpretation of though Shivaji didnt know to read or write). Note that Wikipedia prefers the works of modern historians. If the 1880's book (your second reference) claim that he could read and write had gain respectability, then historians wouldn't have been calling him illiterate in the early 2000s (our references). --regentspark (comment) 17:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

correction..respected user.. kindly have a second look at H S Sardesai's book - PG 86 - 87, ( my entire purpose of repeatedly asking for an edit will be clear) it says as under:

SHIVAJI's EDUCATION - ''On the subject of Shivaji's education ,there is divergence of opinion among Historians. Grant Duff and Prof. Jadunath Sarkar describe Shivaji as unlettered, like three other heroes of Medieval India , Akbar, Haidar Ali and Ranjit Singh.Whereas Prof Takakhav in his book 'Life Of Shivaji Maharaj', says that he was a well educated Prince,made considerable progress in Urdu and Persian and had a grounding in Sanskrit language. Rajwade in his book 'Materials for history of Marathas', states that he knew the simple arts of reading and writing.In our view, neither Akbar nor Shivaji was Illiterate.Even if we admit Shivaji didnt know reading or writing , yet they possessed considerable erudition. Though Shivaji may not have pored over books,he certainly mastered the contents of two great Hindu epics by listening to recitations and story tellings.The noble examples of doing & suffering,of action and sacrifice, of military skill & statecraft which the stories of Rama & Pandavas accord, the Political lessions and Moral maxims with which these epics are filled ,deeply impressed Shivaji's young mind.It has become a fashion these days to call a person uncultured if he cannot read or write and on this ground the English and some Europeans looked upon the Indians as uncivilised.Although literacy is one of modes to make a person civilised, yet a mere smattering of knowledge does not make a person educated. The want of book knowledge does not impair ones efficiency as a man of action in the world. During the Muslim rule in India,reading and writing was not common here.Education progressed by listening to recitations and story telling from religious books.Apart from his education in reading and writing, Shivaji had the best physical and military training.He was a good Archer and Marksman, skilled in the use of spear and sword and excelled in Horsemanship.Though he may have not pored over a single book , he certainly mastered about the state affairs under the tutelage of his guardian - Dadaji ''

respected user/s Never has he said he was an Illiterate. ( the edit i wanted earlier)

He has clearly himself given referrences of Historians who say he was literate.

He has himself said it is debatable (divergence of opinion among Historians) { my second edit was based on this}

respected user/s, i havent made this up to cause anyone discomfort, i have a complete backing and hence request the proper edit.

Thanking You Rbs21 (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem very categorical. Sardesai's opinion seems not to be based on any particular evidence and he backtracks considerably with the "Even if we admit". However, if you object to the word illiterate, we could consider replacing the sentence with: Shivaji as a boy was a keen outdoorsman and, though he received little formal education and most likely could neither read nor write, he is said to have possessed considerable erudition. The meaning is the same but the implications of illiteracy are considerably toned down. --regentspark (comment) 13:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015
There is is some misinformation given Regarding Sambhaji that he was addicted so Sensual Pleasure etc. This information is wrong and defamatory to Raje Sambhaji. This information has no proof and unacceptable.

Shaileshgawande (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

❌ There are clear references to support those statements - Arjayay (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2015
Why you have given the title Shivaji. It should be Chhatrapati Shivaji Raje. 89.241.59.5 (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2015
Shivaji used the guerrilla warfare in Deccan which was pioneered by Malik Ambar

Sarthak.salunke (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. It is already mentioned in the article that Shivaji introduced guerrilla warfare to his military. Cannolis (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

See Also Section
Before my edit the 'see also' section had the below names:
 * Guru Gobind Singh
 * Maharana Pratap
 * Dhar
 * Deccan Wars
 * Banda Singh Bahadur
 * Jassa Singh Ahluwalia
 * Baghel Singh

Except for Dhar and Deccan Wars, does it make any sense? If these Sikh nobles can find its way into the 'see also' section, then may be we can add another 100 names of all the nobles of India! I am deleting these and retaining only those, which make some sense.

Amit20081980 (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Shivaji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140224133323/http://www.navhindtimes.in/panorama/shivaji-s-only-fort-goa to http://www.navhindtimes.in/panorama/shivaji-s-only-fort-goa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)