Jump to content

Talk:Execution of Sambhaji

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

Wrong information about execution of sambhaji

[edit]

Sambhaji maharaj was never imprisoned by shivaji maharaj 103.178.143.49 (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are cited. You are welcome to verify it. Imperial[AFCND] 15:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reliable source, stop spreading false information. 103.134.5.244 (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are cited after the claim made, so for the imprisonment sources 2 and 3, namely Sex in Indian Harem Life and A forgotten literature: foundations of Marathi chronicles.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Speederzzz, the source already existed before the claim. [4]Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 and [5]From the Death of Shivaji to the Death of Aurangzeb: The Critical Years. I just elaborated the content by taking other sources from Sambhaji. Imperial[AFCND] 14:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly meant after as in "located further to the right of the text" but good that you elaborated. With the amount of IPs running around the more sources, the better.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 14:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is to deafame chhatrapati Sambhaji maharaj by false facts and their own agenda P2612994 (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information

[edit]

Every thing written here is false and manipulated. 2405:201:2:CB55:C100:D6E4:9EAE:2A2A (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific and provide sources? Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 19:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You Know It Pretty Well That This Article Is Baseless & Manipulated. 103.134.5.244 (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not, it is properly sourced by what seem to be high quality sources.
Also please keep WP:CIVIL in mind, if you do not follow wikipedia's rules, you will be blocked from editing.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 123.208.188.198 (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read an entire artucle and it shows how deliberately some coward is trying to potray wrong image P2612994 (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this conviction this are wrong convictionR ape, torture and robbery

[edit]

Remove this conviction this are wrong convictionPrem jage (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That part was taken from The Mughal Empire by John F Richards, which is a well reliable source. We've got multiple other sources with the same. Not ready to remove. Imperial[AFCND] 10:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
John f. Richard is not a reliable source..this info is biased and wrong. Please provide contemporary source..other wise legal action will be taken. 87.196.82.242 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not use any contemporary sources for citing. And if you need it for personal use, refer Muntakhab al Lulab by Khafi Khan. And letting you know that you are wrong in the case of John F Richards. His books are reliable. Imperial[AFCND] 19:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We Know More About Our History Than Those Dumb Fuck Britisher. 103.134.5.244 (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then it surely isn't difficult to get a reliable source that proves your argument. Also please stay civil.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong info given

[edit]

More safe character given to Aurangzeb, this is wrong 2607:FEA8:5A1F:52E0:A8CF:E3CB:EDEB:833A (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written in WP:NPOV. If you think there's any exceptions, kindly point out and we will try our best. Imperial[AFCND] 10:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Information

[edit]

Our Shambhuraje never committed rape nor looted anyone. Whatever he did was for the preservation of the state. But those for whom he fought have no value for it. However, it is mentioned in the convicted part. I am ashamed of whoever mentioned this. I request that this information be removed. 150.129.159.112 (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources to prove what you state? And what you say doesn't even disprove what you claim.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 16:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well What's Written In This Article Also Doesn't Prove Anything. And Your Just Trying To Spread Rumors & False Information On Our History. So Keep At It, Anyways nobody uses Wikipedia for information now a days. 103.134.5.244 (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make any baseless accusations, if you do you will be blocked from editing. And indeed, something being in a wiki article doesn't prove anything, however the sources do make a good case.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If "nobody uses Wikipedia for information anyways", then you shouldn't worry about this. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2025

[edit]

Please study the history and rewrite all the information provided here is false and insult to a great king 2402:E280:3E74:17F:1169:A48:B07D:E589 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False information about Sambhaji Maharaj asking Aurang to give his daughter

[edit]

The claim that Sambhaji Maharaj asked for Aurangzeb's daughter in marriage in exchange for converting to Islam is not supported by strong historical evidence. 106.214.61.254 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unless you come with sources everyone will ignore you.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 21:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, Eraly does not appear to mention it. This was removed on Sambhaji as well because this information was sourced to works of non historians. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin added again. Quoting from Early ie, Duff, basing his story on Maratha manuscripts, says that Aurangzeb offered to save Shambhuji's life if he became a Muslim, to which Shambhuji, who "expected and wished for nothing but death", replied, "Tell the Emperor that if he will give me his daughter I will become a Mussulman"-not an improbable response from Shambhuji. Imperial[AFCND] 05:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then proper attribution will be required "as per Maratha sources", this narrative is also excluded from reliable sources who merely report his execution for the crimes he committed. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The attribution is now given. The sources are taken, which are reliable and covers the topic in-depth as well. Cambridge Publishing sources gives a proper narrative, but the explanation is quiet narrow. Imperial[AFCND] 05:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons provided in modern sources best reflect the academic view. Besides Eraly who is entirely basing himself on Duff (who is also basing himself on Maratha manuscripts), is there any other scholar that has also written about this "conversion" narrative? - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried searching about it. But almost everytime gets ended up with Raj era sources or narrowly described ones. You're doing best though. Imperial[AFCND] 07:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think since WP:SCHOLARLY introductory WP:TERTIARY textbooks, such as those in the New Cambridge History of India series, have not included this narrative, we should do neither. After all, they are the best way to understand the due weight. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better to keep it as a theory, as Eraly makes a direct quotation from the translation. If there's another theory contradicting the version, we can keep that too. We should keep all the narratives, as long as they are taken from reliable sources. Imperial[AFCND] 08:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE are policies, Eraly merely quotes a Raj era author. Besides modern sources do contradict it as Sambhaji was executed for his crimes not for refusing to convert. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just made my opinion. You can go on, or lets seek what others think. Imperial[AFCND] 09:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for recent interest

[edit]

chief minister of Maharashtra Devendra Fadnavis recently called "for the removal of `objectionable' content about Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj". I believe there is a Template to notify editors about this but I couldn't find it.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/fadnavis-asks-police-to-contact-wikipedia-over-objectionable-writing-about-sambhaji-maharaj/ar-AA1zgYUA Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 19:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/chhatrapati-sambhaji-maharaj-objectionable-comments-wikipedia-maharashtra-devendra-fadnavis-chhaava-2682002-2025-02-18
Another article. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 21:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think notifying any administrator will do better. I don't know much about using templates, or dealing with such situations. Imperial[AFCND] 06:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are already aware, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Article_being_reported_to_cyber_police
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Protection_level_at_Talk:Sambhaji
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 09:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Speederzzz, well they now started teaching others how to edit Wikipedia in youtube (can't share the link), just because of these issues. Imperial[AFCND] 06:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the edits follow the rules I think it's great that more people learn how to edit wikipedia!
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 09:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OR?

[edit]

@Stormbird, I reverted your version. That wasn't original research, but well supported by John F Richard as the quote goes pg no-218 Shambhaji, in contrast to his father's practice, condoned casual rape and violence by his troops. The reduced Mughal garrison of Burhanpur remained penned up in the citadel as the raiders burnt, looted, raped and tortured. Imperial[AFCND] 06:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of drive-by edits without any argument?

[edit]

Should we start removing these argument-free posts? They fill up the post and do nothing to improve the post. There is already a warning above the page on repeating conversations.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 17:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It true but please becouse who was read this report and he thik is the chatrapati shambhaji maharaj was repist but it is totally blameable word 2409:40C1:2159:89F6:4063:8AFF:FEC0:D734 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot make any edits not supported by reliable sources, so when people make these posts were they bring no sources we editors cannot use anything said in them.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 17:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sad the above person thought you were talking about removing content from the article. Go on. I too find no use with any of the above conversations. Imperial[AFCND] 18:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2025

[edit]

the line that Sambhaji Maharaj permitted rape by his soldiers is false and malicious . There is no evidence to support this claim. It is an intentional insult of a respected historical figure. Kindly do the needful 2402:E280:3D34:CE:D01E:906B:DB6F:F56B (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 10:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Speederzzz, seems like the legal threats went well. [1][2]. Imperial[AFCND] 11:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These things happen sometimes, often they go nowhere or the government blocks certain Wikipedia pages in their country. I'm not laying awake over it.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 11:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

[edit]

Speederzzz, I am new here. You just reverted my sourced content because it was copied from the Maratha Empire article. I want the readers to know that eventually a Maratha Empire was established. How best can we do that?-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the Maratha confederacy wasn't "eventually" established. It was founded by the father of Sambhaji, so it wouldn't fit within the "aftermath" section. What would still be useful in my eyes is that the end of the Deccan wars is not described in the section. Which is a bit weird since Sambhaji was executed because of the war.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 17:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Speederzzz: So why don't you add what happened eventually. I am scared to do it myself because you or someone else may revert it.-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can propose something here or on my talk page and we can workshop it together. I've not been feeling well lately, so I don't really feel like researching a lot right now. however, I'm always happy to help someone!
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 18:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Speederzzz: I propose adding a sentence like this in the, "Aftermath" section, "The beheading of Sambhaji lead to the deccan wars[1] which eventually lead to the establishment of the Maratha Empire.[2][3][4]".-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
only, according to our Deccan wars page and the Maratha Confederacy page the deccan wars and the maratha confederacy started with Sambhaji's father Shivaji. I have been trying to find out more information on the Influence of the Deccan wars on the on the later rise of the Marathas, but some of our pages seem to contradict eachother (The Deccan wars page is of suprisingly poor quality with much of the text having citation needed tags), or themselves. It seems to me right now that the deccan wars didn't have much of an effect on the later rise, except that Sambhaji's son got taken hostage by the Mughal emperor, providing him a privileged position that he could exploit later on in life. But I can't read more now because I have an appointment.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Haig L, t-Colonel Sir Wolseley (1967). The Cambridge History of India. Vol. 3 (III). Turks and Afghans. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press. p. 395. ISBN 9781343884571. Retrieved 12 May 2017.
  2. ^ The Cambridge History of India. University Press. 1955. p. 395. Retrieved 23 February 2025.
  3. ^ Garg, Sanjay (2022). The Raj and the Rajas : Money and Coinage in Colonial India. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-82889-4. From the Mughal point of view, the hostilities between the Company Bahadur and the Marathas could appear as a troublesome contest for power between the Imperial Diwan of Bengal and the Vakil-i Mutlaq or Imperial Regent. The actual participants of course were considerably more cynical of the position of the Emperor, both the English and Scindia treating their suzerain lord with scant respect..The paramount position of the Mughal within the rituals of supreme and sovereign authority may be amply demonstrated by reference to the coins of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Following the doctrine of khutba and sikka, new claimants to hegemony could be expected to be revealed on the coins of different jurisdictions. Yet for much of India they are not to be found. Reference to the graph at the end of this paper will confirm that both the Marathas and the British coined in the name of the Mughal.
  4. ^ Mehta 2005: "Vishwanath consolidated the Maratha power in the Deccan and led an expeditionary force to Delhi (1718–19) as an ally of the Sayyad brothers. He made the Maratha presence felt at the metropolis for the first time, secured the release of Shahu's family members from Mughal captivity, and obtained the confirmation of the Mughal-Maratha Treaty of 1718 from the emperor. This treaty, by which Shahu accepted the nominal suzerainty of the Mughal Crown in return for his right to collect chauth and sardeshmukhi from all the six provinces of 'the Mughal Deccan'...Delhi became the hub of Maratha political and military activities with effect from 1752, and they used the Mughal emperor as a mere tool in their hands to wield the imperial powers in his name and under his nominal suzerainty."

Incorrect information of reason to launch campaign against Marathas

[edit]

Incorrect information of why Aurangzeb decided to launch campaign against Marathas. Rape and murders by Maratha Army was never the reason. Aurangzeb was ambitious to rule India and his dream could not be completed without ruling the Deccan plataeu which was under the rule of Marathas. Hence Aurangzeb launched the campaign. Anikane (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And what's your reliable academic source you're basing that statement off of in contrast to said sources already in use in the article, Anikane? SilverserenC 19:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:4ece9fb8-5732-443b-9c69-df9c9c1ac5ee
Go through the above link and multiple reliable sources are mentioned here. I have read it, you may read it as well. Subhasad Bakhar, Shivdigvijay have clear mention of same. 58.84.61.174 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think simply giving a book and saying 'that's how it is' isn't going to help anyone, you're going to need to tell us what pages we need to look at. Besides, this seems like a school book and it doesn't have a title or author (things editors need to evaluate the validity of a source). The book itself seems to reference a few books, perhaps those are better sources to refer to.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 20:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Speederzzz: I am unrelated to the IP above but using your suggestion, I found this, "The flight of the defeated rebel Akbar to the Maratha king drew Aurangzib to Southern India.[1][2][3][4]" Can you paraphrase and add this sentence as the reason for Aurangzeb coming to the Deccan? UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence can be paraphrased to, "Aurangzib was drawn to Southern India due to the vanquished rebel Akbar fleeing to the Maratha monarch, Sambhaji.-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "History Of Aurangzib,vol.5 : Sarkar,jadunath : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive". Internet Archive. 2015-07-01. p. n128. Retrieved 2025-02-23. With the accession of Shambhuji the scene changed. The flight of the rebel prince Muhammad Akbar to the Maratha Court forced Aurangzib to march to the Deccan to watch this new danger to his throne and to personally guide the operations of his troops. He arrived at Aurangabad on 22nd March 1682, and soon began a well-planned and vigorous offensive against the Maratha power.
  2. ^ "History Of Aurangzib,vol.5 : Sarkar,jadunath : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive". Internet Archive. 2015-07-01. p. n14. Retrieved 2025-02-23. The flight of the defeated rebel (Akbar) to the Maratha king drew Aurangzib to Southern India, where he was destined to spend the last 26 years of his life in tents and to wear out the empire's revenue, army, and organised administration as well as his own health in an unending and fruitless struggle.
  3. ^ Ashraf, Syed Dawooo (2016-10-23). "Full text of "Mughal Administration Of The Deccan 1658 1707 With Special Reference To Maharashtra"". Internet Archive. p. 19. Retrieved 2025-02-23. Aurangzeb came to the Deccan with the main intention and aim to watch and check the activities of his rebel son Akber, Sambhuji the Maratha King.....
  4. ^ Ashraf, Syed Dawooo (2016-10-23). "Full text of "Mughal Administration Of The Deccan 1658 1707 With Special Reference To Maharashtra"". Internet Archive. p. 49. Retrieved 2025-02-23. During his reign Aurangzeb was not satisfied with the Mughal gains in the Deccan and his son Prince Akbar was in rebellion and fled to the Deccan so he personally arrived in the Deccan and spent there the second half of his reign.

All what is written is totally incorrect and misguiding.

[edit]

What’s the issue, please delete this page or else amend what is written, this is clear disrespect of Chatrapati Shambaji Maharaj, and like NCERT history textbooks, shown the false narrative of aurangzeb, who have given no right to disrespect like this. 152.59.5.185 (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to provide a reliable source for any sentence you want to add to any article of wikipedia. What we now have is based on reliable sources provided by editors who support, "the false narrative of aurangzeb". You can see the above two sections of what reliable sources I have provided (and I am neutral). More about those reliable sources can be read by clicking this: WP:RS.-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about recent addition in Aftermath

[edit]

@UnprejudicedObserver1, I saw you added a new sentence to the aftermath section, but I'm a bit confused about it. You say "The beheading of Sambhaji lead to the deccan wars which eventually lead to the establishment of the Maratha Empire." However, the page for Maratha Empire states that it was founded by Sambhaji's father. The Deccan Wars page states that the deccan wars actually started with the death of Sambhaji's father.(although that page is pretty bad and the source cited does not explicitly name the series of conflicts the deccan wars).

Reading the sources your provided, I cannot see how they actually validate your claims. The first source provided states:

"From the Mughal point of view, the hostilities between the Company Bahadur and the Marathas could appear as a troublesome contest for power between the Imperial Diwan of Bengal and the Vakil-i Mutlaq or Imperial Regent. The actual participants of course were considerably more cynical of the position of the Emperor, both the English and Scindia treating their suzerain lord with scant respect..The paramount position of the Mughal within the rituals of supreme and sovereign authority may be amply demonstrated by reference to the coins of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Following the doctrine of khutba and sikka, new claimants to hegemony could be expected to be revealed on the coins of different jurisdictions. Yet for much of India they are not to be found. Reference to the graph at the end of this paper will confirm that both the Marathas and the British coined in the name of the Mughal."

This doesn't reference Sambhaji once, unless "Company Bahadur" is somehow related to him. And it seems to discuss the power of the mughal emperor and the cultural power of using the mughal title to claim legitimacy.

The second source states:

"Vishwanath consolidated the Maratha power in the Deccan and led an expeditionary force to Delhi (1718–19) as an ally of the Sayyad brothers. He made the Maratha presence felt at the metropolis for the first time, secured the release of Shahu's family members from Mughal captivity, and obtained the confirmation of the Mughal-Maratha Treaty of 1718 from the emperor. This treaty, by which Shahu accepted the nominal suzerainty of the Mughal Crown in return for his right to collect chauth and sardeshmukhi from all the six provinces of 'the Mughal Deccan'...Delhi became the hub of Maratha political and military activities with effect from 1752, and they used the Mughal emperor as a mere tool in their hands to wield the imperial powers in his name and under his nominal suzerainty."

This is later than the deccan wars, which ended in 1707 when the Mughal emperor died. Thus not supporting your statement. It only supports that a descendant of Sambhaji obtained favourable treaties from the Mughal emperor, eventually Seizing de-facto control over the Mughal empire.

I will remove the addition for now, since both sources fail verification.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 19:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2025

[edit]

Chatrapathi Shambhaji Maharaj , also known as one of the bravest maharatha ruler and the son of chatrapathi shivaji maharaj , was brutally tortured and executed on 11 march 1689 and the torture was carried for 40 days before his execution , (the wrong information -X- that is provided says that shambhaji was offered to convert to islam but to save his life but in response Shambhaji asked for aurangzeb daughter , which is not true i have read all the articles aswell as books depicted on this and none of the books or articles suggest suggest that shambhaji was a rapist or asked to marry any of aurangzeb's daughter) , (the correction which should be is -Y- Shambhaji maharaj declined to convert into islam and furter on insulted aurangzeb infront of his courtier for his cowardly behaviours which enraged aurangzeb and then the Torture was held for 40 days in which shambhaji maharaj and kavi kalesh both were brutally tortured , mutilated and executed .

Wrong information/Wrong Data - X , Correction- Y 

Please look into this matter as Chatrapathi Shambhaji Maharaj is known as one of the bravest warriours of india and if such wrong information are made on him will cause the next generations to learn wrong about him and his sacrifice would be never remembered Garv Chaudhary Singh (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unnecessary information

[edit]

I can’t find any relevance to information “ . Unlike his father, Sambhaji tolerated instances of rape and murder committed by his army during these conflicts.” in execution of Sambhaji. The source attached also doesn’t mention it. So I propose it should be removed from this page. Rushikesh90 (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source does mention it, and his preference for rape is a big part of his character Shambhuraje is a chump (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim is demonstrably untrue. It's right there on page 218, Shambhaji, in contrast to his father's practice, condoned casual rape and violence by his troops. The reduced Mughal garrison of Burhanpur remained penned up in the citadel as the raiders burnt, loot, raped and tortured. The Marathas "plundered lakhs of rupees in cash from the bankers and merchants of every Purah [quarter], and set fire to them. Some men of noble birth killed their women and received martyrdom as they fell in fighting..." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not questioning the source here but how is this related to the page title Execution of Sambhaji? It is well known that Aurangzeb captured Sambhaji thats why execution happened. There is another page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambhaji where this can be debated or mentioned. If the same information is repeated here it does not makes sense. 2402:E280:3E02:46C:5847:B43B:E5F9:5FC7 (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs The IP seems to be right. The inclusion of "Sambhaji tolerated instances of rape and murder committed by his army during these conflicts" seems reduntant for this topic, it should only stay on Sambhaji. I find no reason for such Inclusion. Heraklios 16:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convictions

[edit]

The recent change by a user by removing "rape torture and robbery.." from convictions is cleary a POV move. From John F Richards, it makes a quotation that "The reduced Mughal garrison of Burhanpur remained penned up in the citadel as the raiders burnt, loot, raped and tortured." from page 218, the very next page states "For the dominant notables of Burhanpur, Shambhaji's raid was not simply an outrage against public order, but it was a blow directed against the Muslim community by an infidel. If the Mughal empire could not safeguard Muslim lives and property, the Friday congregational prayers could not include Aurangzeb's titles as ruler." The following paragraph states that "Stung by this appeal, and dismayed by his son's rebellion, Aurangzeb marched towards south..." A person who read from page 218 to 224 will understand that his act at Burhanpur made Aurangzeb pressed by the Muslim Ulemas to attack Marathas. And what was his acts at Burhanpur per John F Richards? See the first quotation. And I can see another person removed the part Aurangzeb marched towards south for not for this issue, but because of his rebellious son. Well, both are cited by the source. So I am hoing to add this too. Tagging @CoffeeCrumbs, please confirm this. Hionsa (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I am not denying that the source mentions the fact that Sambhaji tolerated instances of rape and murder committed by his army during these conflicts or anything of the sort.
But he was not convicted for it, quote:
"A panel of ulema sentenced him to death for having slain and captured good Muslims." AlvaKedak (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For others who want to check it, it's page 223.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find any imperial orders for the conviction of Sambhaji such as "rape torture and robbery" or "Wars with the Mughal Empire" in the source. You should refrain from pushing your original research (more like fantasies) which are nowhere backed by the sources. If only Slaying and capturing Muslims during the Sacking of Burhanpur (1681) should be there, presenting the official order, which I guess is already added by Alvakedak. I'll be removing another conviction: Wars with the Mughal Empire as it's nowhere to be found in the source. Heraklios 16:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Execution_of_Sambhaji&oldid=1277595227"