Talk:Raghuji I

Premise of replacing Gonds

The central premise of this article is saying Nagpur kingdom was established by taking over from gond raja of Nagpur. This is improper. The state was developed from a complex series of military and diplomatic arrangements with multiple fiefdoms getting parceled out. The article needs radical overhaul. Hope experienced editors note it.DeccanFlood (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate Copyright concerns.

My contributions to the article Raghoji I of Nagpur have been marked as copyright plagiarism, referring to this spam-bot compiled Blog:

http://ve65.blogspot.com/2015/02/14th-february-1755-raguji-bhosale-of.html, which is itself accumulating matter from Indian Government-issued Gazetteers that are for Public reference. There is no copyright over the content I have published, nor is any of it owned by this author : https://www.blogger.com/profile/16569700971043615645 with regards to any of the content.

This author has lifted material from Maharashtra State Gazeteers which was directly referred to for chronological and finetuned details. Here is the cached page of the same Bhandara region.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xMd55WVB2j0J:https://cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/BHANDARA/his_maratha%2520period.html&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in

One can refer to the published links here: https://gazetteers.maharashtra.gov.in/cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/History%20Part/History_III/chapter_7.pdf https://gazetteers.maharashtra.gov.in/cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/Nagpur/his1.html

This is not copyrighted content in any way, shape or form. Requesting @Diannaa to restore the material for me to revise if needed but please take quick action.DeccanFlood (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Incessant removal of "the Great" title

As one can see this edit [1] vandalizes a sourced epithet in the opening which continues from historic times of English takeover of Nagpur Kingdom and continues in modern Indian academia just like the openings for Alexander the Great, Akbar, and many other figures are justified. The openings of all these figures relay the same because they are mainstream in academia and pop culture. This makes the mention of the title outside the purview of Wikipedia guidelines on use of honourifics.

The historical figure in question, (Raghoji's) title as an estimation of his achievements is supported by a Historic chronicler British Cecil Upton Wills posted in Nagpur, and carried over in a formally published encyclopedia, and an academic text by scholar P. L. Mishra. There are various other sources like texts by Non-English authors such as Kanai Kundu, and one reputed journal (The Quarterly Review of Historical Studies, Volume 13) which repeats the designation. With this, it is clearly vandalism to remove sourced content and to go above and beyond to accuse editors of the page as "Pov pushing". The various editors of the page who time and again tweaked the honorifics or any unprofessional writing in this page, have never revised the "Raghoji the Great" designation, except for recently banned vandals like @Based_Kashmiri.

@PadFoot2008 who is himself a consistent pov pusher has not challenged the opening for Akbar or other figures who come in purview of his edits, but is insistent on challenging opening of a figure from Maratha history page with less than 10,000 views. Would pointing out such needless impingement amount to battleground mentality since the editor clearly knows about Wikipedia's norms for use of epithets in openings of various historical figures like Akbar? Requesting other Admins to intervene and protect the page.DeccanFlood (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@DeccanFlood, since the title was added without consensus recently, I am removing it. Gain a consensus support first, then add it. Additionally, I must advise you that edit warring would serve you no good. PadFoot2008 10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The title was neither added recently, nor is there any grounds for calling a consensus debate. The title was vetted by all subsequent editors and reviewers of this page, except for banned vandals mentioned previously. You cannot removed fully sourced information, and this qualifies as pure vandalism. You also have provided no basis for this removal except "recency" of edits.

@SKAG123 I would advise you to not to bring in Ngrams in the argument or judge significance of the opening as it is merely informational. As to the point of Ngrams, searching for Akbar the Great in the same vein is false equivalence when most of the literature corpus covering Nagpur Bhosles is neither digitized nor translated. In my first argument against vandalism by Padfoot2008, I have already shown a diverse range of published sources which have been already digitized. If mentioning the title in lead is not significant, removing the title is not significant either. The point of recency is invalid (You can see this has remained unchanged by all editors since 2022:[2]) and so is the obstructive, unconstructive appeal for consensus raised by Padfoot2008 in non-controversial, (and need I remind you again) fully sourced edits are unjustified vandalism. DeccanFlood (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME MOS:HON. A large number of Sources need to mention the title in order for inclusion. This is clearly not the case here as Ngrams shows little to no sources with the title. SKAG123 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This argument has already been addressed. Raghoji the Great is not being used in lieu of his real name or a contemporary honorific. It is epithet as an academic commentary on his legacy. There are no grounds for taking a stance for its removal. Original edit by Padfoot2008 had no justified explanation whatsoever, and you have expressed ambivalence towards the same.

As per multiple readings of [3], there is nothing to support your claim of any objective number of sources necessary or reference to Ngrams result as conclusive. The Ngrams show no result as a matter of fact, while a quoted search on Google Books provides at least 4 varied examples. In Marathi academic sources (B.R. Andhare, Purandare, Kolarkar, Oak, Gadre, etc) we find Raghuji the Great in translated form as a reference in context of addressal of his legacy. These sources are neither digitalized nor available for scrutiny. Despite that I was easily able to find 3 English sources.

Again, the removal of the title from the page without any controversial or disruptive cause of concern, had no justification except the false claim by Padfoot2008 that the title was added recently. It was not added recently, and his claim is false. Nor is recency of addition justified for vandalism of sourced content. Your point that it is not significant or having no "need" for addition is pure ambivalence. DeccanFlood (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME states “ generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.”

A minority of scholars, considering they are reliable, Mentioning the title doesn’t carry weight. Vast majority of sources, especially in English, don’t mention “the Great.” Since this is an English language Wikipedia, we go by titles mentioned in a large number of English Sources. SKAG123 (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@DeccanFlood, @PadFoot2008, WP:COMMONNAME Applies. Ngrams shows zero results for Raghoji the Great, while Akbar the Great and Alexander the Great has several results. Therefore this is not a significant title and doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead. SKAG123 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)