Talk:Madhavrao I
| WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility | (Rated Start-class) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject India / Maharashtra / History | (Rated Start-class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
I am not writer but i am interested i the life story of Thorile Madhavrao Peshwa.Please send me any information about his life
Details about Nanasaheb
These should be in the article on Nanasaheb and not of Madhavrao I. Salilb (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Swami is not a reference
The cited reference is more a work of literary fiction than a historically accurate document. Almost all of the content in this article is based on this reference and is likely to be inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.150.250 (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that the book is a novel. But, the events mentioned in thi novel are nothing but facts. The book may be categorized as a novel because it describes the incidents like meetings between Madhavrao and his wife, Madhavrao’s wife going Sati, meetings of Madhavrao and other rulers, Madhavrao’s thoughts, etc. from the writer’s point of view, but the writer hasn’t manipulated any event or fact. This book is completely based on facts and is backed up by concrete proofs. The only things which are included in this article from Swami are facts. According to me, the sole purpose of a such a book being written as a novel is that people should read it. Otherwise how different is it going to be from our history text books? Hope you understand. Kesangh (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- What you fail to understand is that in India we have a distinct tradition of literary erudition. In such works of fiction the authors with their utmost sincerity strive to maintain the factuality of historicity. For any departure from truth would be not only be dishonorable but a cardinal sin. Traditionally, we have refrained from the use of citations(Cf. Impact Factor and controversy). For the fact that someone said a certain thing at a certain point of time means little in the classical Indic schools of epistemology. I hope this clears your doubt. I would like to state that in my opinion, as well as in point of fact, the Swami's references should be included as authoritative and veritable. --118.95.90.212 (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
