Talk:Sambhaji
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sambhaji Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Template:Top 25 report Template:Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice Template:FAQ Template:OnThisDay Script error: No such module "Message box". User:MiszaBot/config
Controversial content
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-02-27/In_the_media#Editor_under_pressure_removes_edits_about_Hindu_nationalist_historical_figure talks about controversy, but does not mention which claim in the article is or was controversial... can anyone clarify? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Piotrus, there appear to have been two main statements in the article that were deemed "controversial", despite them having the backing of dozens of scholarly sources going back decades. Both claims you can see in the lede of the article. The first is that the reason for Sambhaji's confinement at Panhala Fort was due to sexual impropriety and likely the rape of a Brahmin woman. The second is that he briefly defected to the Mughal Empire to fight against his father. SilverserenC 01:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- There were also objections concerning claims about atrocities committed by Sambhaji's forces, the general quality of his governance, and disagreements over the exact circumstances of his final capture and execution (the last of which is complicated by historical sources providing diverging accounts) signed, Rosguill talk 01:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'd put in a fair bit of work to try to improve this article, but its still got a ways to go frankly. I'm still not sure the sourcing/framing on the controversial stuff is great, and I imagine we could probably do a better job presenting some of it. I'd started work on a historiography section, which I hoped would alleviate some of the concerns of presenting stuff in WikiVoice. But I stalled out post-war, and had been busy doing other things. If we could work on building up that section, we might be able to meaningfully improve the lead, which is the part that folks are maddest about (although it did go through considerable rework when this first came up). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Afaik, no media that reported on this said what content was problematic, possibly because Fadnavis never told them. This one [1] guessed a little. I haven't seen any attempt in media at a fact-check or similar, but I think "offensive" is the actual problem. I asked a similar question at Talk:Sambhaji/Archive_2#Surge_of_requests_incoming!. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)