Jump to content

Talk:Sambhaji

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

Fake allegations - No citations - offensive allegations

I see so many allegations on mass rapes and being poorly viewed by historians. However, I see there are no citations for the content presented. I am disheartened to see wikipedia spreading foul about a freedom fighter like Sambhaji Maharaja. The editors of this post should be condemned and wikipedia must verify such kind of posts before publishing 2406:7400:63:78E6:B97B:7956:1EEB:62BD (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading beyond the lead paragraph. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to add citations to a sentence in the lead if there's ongoing contention about that content from casual readers. Valereee (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we did that they'd complain about the source in some way. "It's from a Westerner." "The guy's from New Delhi." "Source is from the 1700's." "Source is from today, how the hell would they know?" —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know, but at least they couldn't say "not even cited". Which is actually a valid reason to object to content if you aren't aware that the lead summarizes cited content from the body. Valereee (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind having cites in the lead in articles like this, but since the lead is meant to be a summary it sometimes leads to huge cite-bundles, like at Jai Shri Ram and Palmer Report. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of feel like huge cite-bundles is the lesser evil when it comes to readers? Valereee (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being bundles, I don't think they bother the general reader. I think there are many editors who consider a cite-less lead a mark of quality, but I'd say there's enough "challengeable material" to justify lead-refs here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, but part of the issue here is that the sources themselves are also contested, hence my comment about complaining about the sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are not fake just because you don't find it tasteful.
There are multiple citations on it clearly mentioning these events.
We don't have earlier sources that deny it.
Bias is one thing but negating an entire event or series of events is completely different Sn cgh (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

The controversy surrounding this article seems to have died down now, so hopefully cooler heads can prevail. The fact that we have very few good recent sources that discuss the life of Sambhaji (in the English language anyway, though popular histories of Sambhaji in Indian languages are unlikely to be any better), is obviously a headache for actually improving this article. It still looks like Gajanan Mehendale's Shivaji: His Life and Times is one of the best recent sources on the topic, even if it doesn't directly focus on Sambhaji. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source missing?

I tried to verify the "After Shivaji returned from his Southern campaign, he stationed Sambhaji at Sajjangad, hoping to improve the latter's attitude. Sambhaji, although he revered the Matha (Hindu monastics) and their practices, was not adept at following that disciplined routine." part from the Arrest and defection to the Mughals section. Richards is corresponding to that part. Can I get the page number? Borax || (talk to Borax) 16:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another verification issue. The article says Bahadur Kakar Khan was performing the duty of collecting the Jizya tax from the Hindu citizens of Burhanpur. The source attached, Richards neither mentions Kakar Khan nor talks about collecting taxes from "Hindu citizens" of Burhanpur. Richards describes this part as that At Bahadurpur, a prosperous trading suburb of Burhanpur, the raiders seized the Mughal jiziya collector and leisurely plundered the town for three days. The article follows as His forces completely routed the Mughal garrison and punitively executed captives. And completely ignores the following part of Richards which is well, may have became an issue earlier. Read the second paragraph from Richards[1]. This move was made to hide what? Due to the legal pressures? If yes, no comments Borax || (talk to Borax) 17:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]