Q: Why can I not add "Shri", "Chhatrapati", or "Maharaj" to Shivaji's name?
A: As per WP:Honorifics and WP:Commonname, in Wikipedia, we refer to people by their commonly used name in the cited academic sources. We do not include titles or Honorifics unless they are commonly used in the cited sources (Shivaji does not fall in this category). Please note Charles III, where he is referred to as "Charles" throughout, not "King Charles" nor "His Royal Highness" or whatnot. We clearly note Shivaji's titles in the article, we just don't repeat them each time his name is written. Please refer to this talk discussion for more details.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Shivaji was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 15–21 October 2023.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Somewhere around here is a tangential remark about the validity of Sarkar as a source. There is some truth to it, however: he was a Maratha apologist and Indian nationalist, writing pre-World War 2. I _know_ he is highly regarded as a populist historian even now but he doesn't meet our commonly accepted standards of reliability, eg WP:RAJ and WP:HISTRS. While those two links are essay-like, they are both frequently referred to, including in discussions at WP:RSN, and as such have a broad consensus in support.
It is difficult to imagine that some stuff investigated over a century ago by a person with such traits would be routinely considered reliable nowadays. What am I missing, aside from his heroic status in India itself? - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link you posted doesn't work for me, but I don't have a dog in the fight as far as Sarkar is concerned, and I'd agree that a Raj-era source should not be used unless a compelling reason is presented for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link isn't working for me either. Anyway, the article has cited Sarkar for non-controversial statements and almost every sentence has an alternative reliable source which isn't WP:RAJ.
Moreover, here is what Prachi Deshpande has said about Sarkar in her book "Creative Pasts: Historical Memory and Identity in Western India, 1700-1960" published by Columbia University Press in 2007 -
"In 1919, Sarkar published the seminal Shivaji and His Times, hailed as the most authoritative biography of the king since James Grant Duff's 1826 A History of the Mahrattas. A respected scholar, Sarkar was able to read primary sources in Persian, Marathi, and Arabic, but was challenged for his criticism of the "chauvinism" of Marathi historians' views of Shivaji.".
A. R. Kulkarni says:
Shivaji and His Times, was widely regarded as the authoritative follow-up to Grant Duff. An erudite, painstaking Rankean scholar, Sarkar was also able to access a wide variety of sources through his mastery of Persian, Marathi, and Arabic.Akshaypatill (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change article Name from Shivaji to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj[edit]
I request you to please change article name from Shivaji to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Wikipedia has given article name of Alexander 3 as Alexander the Great. Shree Maharana Pratap's article name is also Maharana Pratap with his title Maharana. Then why Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj's name is without title?? Please don't play with our religious sentiments. Millions of people consider him as idol and God. We cant see his name taken disrespectfully without title of king
As soon as possible please change the article name to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Jped20 (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t use Honorifics in Wikipedia unless a part of the common name. This is not a case SKAG123 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I Read the policy , but just wanted to give few examples as reference where honorifics are used in title, ex. Mahatma Gandhi, Maharana Pratap. Also in Marathi Wikipedia of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj the name is mentioned as "छत्रपती शिवाजी" - (https://mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%80_%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C) I have read the wikipedia policy but I think when it comes to sentiments of millions of people few exemptions are there which is been followed like I mentioned examples above.
Chhatrapati itself is a part of his name and after coronation he is being referred as Chhatrapati and its not honorific word in his name. The word will not make any change in his name.
Also Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was greatest Maratha warrior of all time in history of India and the millions of sentiments are attached with the name across the country, so considering these points its sincere request to make an update to title and refer his name with Family Name at other places in Wikipedia.
Please let me know if you need any further information from my side on this. Vishnu Parande (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is news media not scholarly work (see WP:VER) Mahatma Gandhi and Maharana Pratap is the Commonly used English names for these figures in the sources in the article. (seeWP:COMMONNAME) The sources in the article refer to the figure as Shivaji.
Versions of Wikipedia in other languages may have diffent rules SKAG123 (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I am not getting how name can be different in different language , name should be same in every language. I am seeing spelling mistakes in Family name as well. Family name should be "Bhosale" and not "Bhonsale". we should always give priority of native language names, if he is from Indian origin and used to speak Marathi language we should be considering his Marathi name. There are thousands of Articles and books in Marathi language where he has been named as Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, ex Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj by Keluskar(Marathi Writer) is very first detailed biography book in Marathi Language where he has been mentioned with Full name. Language is just medium of communication it should not make any change in meaning. You are only referring few English writers book and ignoring hundreds of Marathi book. There are English book as well where he has been referred as Chhatrapati, ex.‘Challenging Destiny’ by Medha Deshmukh Bhaskaran. In Maharashtra(one of the state in India), we had history subject at primary school named as "History of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj".
Chhatrapati Shivaji is also a common name like Maharana Pratap and Mahatma Gandhi. I don't think there should be a problem updating the title considering the exception like above examples. Since Wikipedia has given title as Shivaji the title Chhatrapati is being ignored through out but actually it comes with his name only.
Wikipedia is a source of information where millions of people refer it as legitimate source of information, and sentiments are also as important as the information and I believe writing Chhatrapati before his name is legitimate and there is nothing wrong with it. Also I don't there should be change in Wikipedia policy based on Language.
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks SKAG123! Vishnu Parande (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every edition of Wikipedia has its own rules, including rules about how articles are titled. There is no guarantee that all editions will use the same title - in fact many routinely use something different, especially language editions that use different alphabets. All that matters on the English Wikipedia is the most commonly used name in English language sourcing, given without honorifics. That is this article's present title. Thousands of articles and books in Marathi will not affect the titling here at all. MrOllie (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me but I am not finding it appropriate :), also what about the spelling mistakes in his family name , the Family name is Bhosale and not Bhonsale also if we are not considering the news media and Marathi references, how we can consider the references from English writers, not getting who will be knowing the history better, local writers or foreign.
As I mentioned above the language is just medium of communication it should not change the actual meaning.
The wikipedia policy should be either to not use honorifics or should use commonly used names and can not be both but unfortunately we have both here :)
The title Chhatrapati was given to first Shivaji only and not his predecessor Shivaji's, not getting reason adding 'I' after his name. so I think using Chhatrapati before his name should not be an issue again, at least for title here.
I see many earlier requests for this change and unfortunately answered with same reason again rather than considering it commonly used name and sentiments(title Chhatrapati is legitimate only) Thanks! Vishnu Parande (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to disagree with the English Wikipedia's titling policies, but we are going to continue to follow them all the same. MrOllie (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I got it, so we can not even correct the spelling mistakes in Family name? it should be Bhosale and not Bhonsale, it should not be misspelled because of English pronunciations. Vishnu Parande (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a misspelling, there are multiple correct ways to transliterate it to Latin script. MrOllie (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In India, in English we write it as Bhosale(as per pronunciation in original language), do you really think there is no difference in pronunciation for Bhosale and Bhonsale :) Vishnu Parande (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia we follow the sources, not personal opinions of what pronunciations sound like. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how Wikipedia verify the resources , whether it is legitimate or not, based on articles, books and ultimately writers opinions like us who update the article on Wikipedia , there are hundreds of articles and books so which one we need to consider legitimate. could you please help me to find the source where this family name comes from, there should not be change in name based on language, name should be same across all language. It should be based on pronunciation from native language.
just copy and paste should not be the case . Thanks! Vishnu Parande (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are listed in the references section of the article. Again, we're going to follow Wikipedia's policies, not your beliefs about how it should be. Since we're now repeating ourselves, this will be my last comment here until something new comes up. MrOllie (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source of the comment "But even this failed to satisfy the greed of the Brahmins."?[edit]
This seems like a comment rather than a fact. Is this the bias of the writer? I think wikipedia should refrain from making statements like this which could be opinions of a book writer. Mrudulaj286 (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed section. Appears to be unsourced POV content. SKAG123 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
Not done: see MOS:HON Cannolis (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done. Capitals00 (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
