Talk:Shivaji

Frequently asked questions - READ BEFORE POSTING

Q: Why can I not add "Shri", "Chhatrapati", or "Maharaj" to Shivaji's name?

A: 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).
For example, Charles III is referred to as "Charles" throughout, not "King Charles" or "His Majesty" 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.

Q: Why was my request or comment removed?

A: Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to move the page or to change the name will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:HONORIFIC, WP:Requested moves, WP:Common name, and WP:Article titles.

This section is permanently on this talk page and does not get archived. It is for mobile-device users for whom the normal talk page header and FAQ are not shown.

Request to Rename Article "Shivaji" to "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj"

Hello Wikipedia Team, I would like to request a page title change from “Shivaji” to “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj”. “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj” is the full and widely recognized respectful name, and is commonly used in historical, cultural, and public references. Kindly consider renaming the article to reflect the correct and complete name. Thank you. Saurabh1Tamhane (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

See Talk:Shivaji#Frequently_asked_questions_-_READ_BEFORE_POSTING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Any further requests along these lines should be reverted off as repeatedly requested and rejected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It may be worth adding another FAQ entry for this, such as the final question in the FAQ at Talk:Adam's Bridge. I'll do that. From now on, revert on sight. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

"Ji" is already an honorific Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 04:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

That's integral to his name, and it's how reliable sources spell it. No need to slap more honorifics onto it. The honorific suffix "ji" may have originated from Shivaji rather than being a product of modern honorific usage, but I don't know for sure. In any case, there are many surnames and given names that include an honorific already built into the name, such as Sridhar or Shreenivas (sri/shree="respected"), Santosh or Sanjay (san="saint"), Sahebzada (literally "son of the Sahib"), Contessa (derived from "count"), Fitzgerald ("son of Gerald"), and so forth. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

What is honorific about Fitzgerald? —Antonissimo (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Technically a surname that's derived from a patronym. I think Anachronist is technically wrong with some of the honorific examples, but the larger point about how we treat honorifics is accurate and the important thing here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@Antonissimo: "Fitz" is old French for "son of". Whether "son of" is an honorific is a different question; I just assumed it is. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

My apologies for being the "Well, actually..." dude here, but the question was asked! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

It is frequently an honorific addition to a name, but not in this case; as Anachronist points out above it is integral to this name. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a useful way to look at is that it's not that honorifics are forbidden we're just honorific-neutral in that, unless there's a specific exemption, we go with the WP:COMMONNAME whether or not it has the honorific and don't default to the honorific. Shivaji is the WP:COMMONNAME by consensus, so it doesn't really matter if there's an honorific in the name or not. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Right, if honorifics were forbidden then we wouldn't have the title Mahatma Gandhi. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Or U Thant. They are so common that many people don't realize they're honorifics. Queen Latifah is probably off-topic, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

However, in my opinion, wikipedia team should once again consider whether the current article title “Shivaji” should become “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj” in accordance with the general practice and guidelines of Wikipedia.

While the statement about the avoidance of any honorifics in article titles is true, there are certain peculiarities which should be taken into account. Unlike any modern honorific such as “Shri” or “Ji,” “Chhatrapati” is a royal sovereign title bestowed at the moment of coronation. It is comparable to the imperial designation of emperor. Thus, its presence in an article title is justified and cannot be considered improper.

Moreover, the WP:COMMONNAME policy should be applied in a contemporary context with respect to international usage. In numerous high-quality articles, journals, official documents, educational textbooks, and museum resources, the historical maharaj is referred to as “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj,” not only “Shivaji.” As such, the omission of the title may be regarded as incomplete information.

Also, the issue of disambiguation must be considered. Being a common given name, “Shivaji” could easily refer to another person or location without the addition of the title which serves as a means of distinction.

Finally, Wikipedia follows the rule of using regal titles or any other.

@Saurabh1Tamhane @Vanamonde93 @Anachronist @Antonissimo @CoffeeCrumbs @EasternShah @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Jéské Couriano VedantAndhale (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Should Henry VIII be renamed His Majesty Henry, eighth of that name, King of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith? —Antonissimo (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I see what you’re getting at with that comparison, but I don’t think it’s quite the same situation.

Something like “His Majesty Henry…” is clearly a full ceremonial style, it’s not how reliable sources normally refer to him, so it makes sense that Wikipedia doesn’t use it as a title.

With “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj,” it feels a bit different to me. “Chhatrapati” isn’t just a decorative or stylistic addition, it’s a formally assumed royal title, and the full name does show up quite a lot in academic and institutional sources, especially those dealing with Indian history.

So I think the real question here isn’t about adding a long formal style, but simply about what name is actually most commonly used in reliable sources. If it turns out that “Shivaji” on its own is clearly the dominant form, then that’s fair enough, but I think it would help to base that on actual source comparisons rather than an analogy that might not fully line up. VedantAndhale (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

And for those who will point me to FAQ. I’m not entirely convinced that the FAQ applies cleanly to this particular case. It feels like it may be generalizing how WP and WP should be used, especially when it comes to a historically established title like “Chhatrapati.”

The FAQ seems to group “Chhatrapati” and “Maharaj” together with honorifics like “Shri” or “Ji,” but I think that comparison is a bit questionable. “Chhatrapati,” as I understand it, isn’t just a courtesy title, it’s a formally assumed sovereign title, granted at coronation, much closer in meaning to something like “King” or “Emperor.” In many historical contexts, titles like these are treated as part of a ruler’s identity, not just an optional addition.

More importantly, WP is based on how subjects are actually referred to in reliable sources, not just on a general preference to avoid titles. The FAQ states that Shivaji doesn’t fall into the category where titles are commonly used, but I think that’s something that really needs to be backed by evidence. From what I’ve seen, a significant number of English-language academic works, as well as government and institutional sources related to Indian history, do regularly use “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.”

Because of that, leaving out the title altogether can feel a bit counterintuitive and possibly less reflective of how he is widely recognized in reliable sources.

I’m not saying the FAQ is wrong in general — just that this might be a case where its application deserves a closer look. If “Shivaji” is indeed the most common form in reliable sources, it would be helpful to demonstrate that with comparisons, so the conclusion is clearly grounded in evidence rather than assumption.

Happy to help gather sources if that would move the discussion forward. VedantAndhale (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:RFC is an option (Talk:Shivaji#Requested_move_30_March_2026 is quite recent though, but not the same same thing), or at least it will be after you are WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. But if you want to try that, read the instructions on formatting/listing carefully. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Given the topic area Shivaji falls into, VerdantAndhale technically shouldn't be anywhere near this topic. The main reason I'm not dropping them a contentious topic warning is because they're doing something pretty much nobody else demanding we change it has done - actually stay and defend their position. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh right, I forgot, we're in draconic-land. But yes, that is appreciated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The way I see it, any effort to reasonably discuss the matter by these users is both very welcome and something that should not be interrupted once they get to the stove and start cooking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

In any case, VedantAndhale, unless you have a more general RFC that would apply, rather than something that's specifically Shivaji-related (or Sambhaji for that matter), it's something that should really wait until you're extended confirmed. Because of the long-term chaos in this topic area on Wikipedia, there's really not much flexibility tolerated by the English Wikipedia communication. That has nothing to do with anything wrong with what you wrote; it's just what the situation is right now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The fact remains that we do not as a rule include monarchs' titles in the titles of their Wikipedia articles. As I pointed out above, we have Elizabeth II, Akbar, Akihito, and Salman of Saudi Arabia. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Is it a common given name because of this Shivaji, or independently? —Antonissimo (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC) And are parents who give that name disrespectful in not naming their sons Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj? —Antonissimo (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It's likely the same situation as Muhammad/Mohamed/etc being a common given name because of the Muhammad. In Latin America, Jesus is a common given name for a similar reason. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Bro your are absolutely right because The Chatrapati is not just word it's a big position 👑 in swaraj so Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is right

Jay Bhavani 🚩 Jay Shivray 🚩👑 ~2026-31455-60 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

okay, I know this might scare you, but WP:HONORIFIC. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 16:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

a modest proposal

It might help to have the READ BEFORE POSTING visible in the first screen-height. —Antonissimo (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

We are running on the assumption they can't really see any of the templates at the top and are copy-pasta'ing from somewhere. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 00:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Relying on a bug is questionable policy. —Antonissimo (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Not at the moment. The bug in question has been in place for quite some time, this page can be changed around if it ever gets fixed. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 21:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It's why the FAQ is its own section on the page instead of a banner up top. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 21:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes... I was in agreement with you Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 21:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

it feels like botting, doesn't it?

this is why I have trouble trusting temp account. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 11:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It's unwitting meatpuppetry by Indian users who likely have no idea they're being used to brigade us. The requests appear to be copypasta'd from somewhere, since many of them reference Google's Knowledge Panel (because trying to get Wikipedia to change a completely different entity's own website always works out so well). I imagine they're unaware of (more Western-influenced) Wikipedia culture and don't realise that this is being resisted because it goes counter to policy (WP:COMMONNAME), is impossible (I invite you to read the earlier link), and assumes the reader is someone already "read in" to the various wars, battles, and lionisation instead of some random dude off the street half a world away from India (arrogant/presumptuous). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 06:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I know. I was just saying it feels like botting. Which that feeling is made worse, because, well, I think you can guess why. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 12:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request

Is it necessary to mention Shivaji employing people of different faiths when this is not mentioned in any other ruler's wikipedia lead not even akbar's lead. Is it okay if it can be redirected somewhere else in the article? Also are there any statistics be given for actually how many belonged to different faiths in his army? Page https://books.google.ca/books?id=iHK-BhVXOU4C&pg=PR9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=85&f=false Page 85 mentions nothing about opposition of local brahmins. Can moderators please put citation needed tag? https://books.google.ca/books?id=iHK-BhVXOU4C&pg=PR9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=opposition&f=false Nothing in the whole book mentions opposition by Brahmins.

Also the second source is fifty pages long and twenty pages long. Can the moderators please put citation too long tag.

Also did Jyotirao Phule really revive Shivaji 's legacy? There are letters from balajirao's time which says we are soldiers of Shivaji.

Would the moderators be open to a different lead and different sources with consensus from others as the current ones are too long or not find-able ? Thanks. Rama1234567 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I found the mention in the first reference to opposition of local Brahmins two pages later, on page 87, and fixed the cite.

As to the other things, edit requests must be specific x--->y form, and also be uncontroversial (meaning nobody could reasonably dispute) or broadly accepted as the current consensus already. Your participation in a broader discussion should wait until you have extended-confirmed access. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, I will participate in the discussion after I have extended-confirmed access. However I couldn't find page 87 in the book. Can you provide me the link to the page of that book? Rama1234567 (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request: lead clause not supported by its cited source

The lead's second paragraph reads: "during this time Shivaji also wrote a series of letters apologising to Mughal emperor Aurangzeb for his actions and requested additional honors for his services. He was later conferred with the title of Raja by the emperor." The only source attached is Eraly 2007, p. 672.

That source does not support the characterisation. Eraly's passage reads: "In April 1667, Shivaji wrote to Aurangzeb seeking pardon, and entreated with Jaswant Singh to intercede for him... Though he would not accede to Shivaji's plea for conferring on him a mansabdari rank and a fief, he granted Shivaji the chieftain's rights (deshmukhi) in his old domain... On the intercession of Muazzam, the emperor also conferred on Shivaji the title of raja."

Three mismatches: (1) the source says "seeking pardon", not "apologising ... for his actions"; (2) what it describes is a plea for a mansab and a fief that Aurangzeb refused, not a request for "additional honors for his services"; (3) the source places this in April 1667, after the escape from Agra, whereas the lead places it in the post-Purandar period of 1665–66 ("during this time"). The clause was added on 22 August 2025 (Special:Diff/1307212665) in front of the pre-existing Eraly citation, which until then supported only the title-of-Raja clause.

Per WP:V and WP:STICKTOSOURCE, please replace it with wording that follows the cited source, for example: "In April 1667 he wrote to Aurangzeb seeking pardon and asked Jaswant Singh to intercede for him; Aurangzeb declined his request for a mansab and a fief but recognised his deshmukhi rights and, in March 1668, conferred on him the title of Raja."

Separately, the body's citation for the same episode () appears to point to the wrong page: the passage is at pp. 81–82 of the 1919 first edition of vol. IV (pp. 116–117 in the 1930 third edition). Page 98 of that volume covers Jai Singh's invasion of Bijapur in 1665–66.

Hargoa (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Spelling

In October 1670, Shivaji sent his forces to harass the English at Bombay; as they had refused to sell him war materiel, his forces blocked English woodcutting parties from leaving Bombay. In September 1671, Shivaji sent an ambassador to Bombay, again seeking materiel, this time for the fight against Danda-Rajpuri.

Materiel to Material ZolPushpa (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Not a properly formatted edit request, but there's no need at this point: materiel is used correctly here, a French loanword used in English that specifically refers to military equipment and supplies. In the future, please use the WP:EDITREQUEST template, so that people who answer edit requests can properly see the request rather than just the subset of people who follow this page. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)