Talk:Shivaji/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Change the Name

Dear Wikipedia I have a strong request to you that Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Was A Great Legend Warrior, in fact he is the adored deity of the whole of India. And you are a great source of information And it is not right for us to mention "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj" in a single word like "Shivaji", from one point of view it is a great insult to the deity of Whole India! So change the Name Shivaji and put There "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj". I Hope You will understand 🙏 2409:4042:2C8F:6F5D:0:0:28B:5904 (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Because the actual name is Shivaji - he was a king, not a deity. Chhatrapati and Maharaj are honorifics and honorific are not allowed on Wikipedia. Please read WP:HONORIFIC Banglahindu (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm! But, there can be (convenient?) exceptions. "Meghan Markle" was well-known before she married into the Royal family. But, her page is "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". Same goes for Kate (Catherine) Middleton - "Catherine, Princess of Wales". I'm sure there are few more examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine,_Princess_of_Wales 2601:646:9B81:42E0:A558:D9C6:6656:F69C (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Shivaji itself is a honorific. The suffix -ji is said to be a short form of "Jivan", which means a person lives/is immortal which indirectly makes him god or equivalent to god. Exactly that's why -ji is very popular honorific in north India. Other eg is Pitaji (father), Mataji (mother). (Although there is a scarce information to support this on net) His original name was "Shiva", he became a great person so people started calling him Shivaji. The article should be ideally named Shiva 1 (Indian King) to distinguish him from other Shivaji's and Shiva, the god. In this context articles Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Catherine, Princess of Wales are correct article names, but Peter the great, Mahatma Gandhi is not. A wikipedia-wide change needs to be done here ideally. Vatsmaxed (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ji* - is nothing more than addressing someone with respect. Like 'Sir', 'Saheb/Sahab'. I haven't heard or came across it being short fro 'Jivan - which means a person lives/is immortal which indirectly makes him god or equivalent to god'. Your source/s, please? And, may be you can make an edit here -ji. Shivaji 2 and later - are less known. Shivaji is THE Chhatrapati Shivaji. So, ideally, the title should be "Shivaji/Shivaji I, Chhatrapati"?

2601:646:9B81:42E0:B8FD:A469:2F73:71BF (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, Inserting my reply here. You should have @.. me as I ma not actively monitoring this page. Well -ji article mentions that one of the probable etymology is "Another is that the term means "soul" or "life" (similar to the jān suffix) and is derived from Sanskrit." This though partially justifies what i am trying to say here. Also *Ji* means respect as you have mentioned. So "Shivaji" already is a respected article title. As i opine, there as to be a wiki-wide change to simplify all famous names across all languages. For eg Maharana Pratap should be changed to Pratap 1 (King), Mahatma Gandhi should be changed to Gandhi (Freedom Fighter) or Gandhi (Father of India), Queen Victoria should be changed to Victoria (Queen) and so on.

But, IP editor, that is not really an an analogous situation. If the two article titles you mention had included the phrase "Her Royal Highness", it would have been similar, but not identical, to this article title including "Maharaj". There's been some recent heated discussions on the talk page of William, Prince of Wales where the view was expressed that it was "disrespectful" not to call the article "Prince William, Prince of Wales" – but that's also against Wikipedia's article naming rules.

MOS:HONORIFIC is not the only relevant guideline here. Have a look at the section Use commonly recognizable names in the policy page Wikipedia:Article titles. (Policy is stronger than guideline.) Then have a look at the guideline on names of royalty and nobility; that mainly deals with European royalty, but many of the points apply here as well. Finally, read the guideline on Indic names, especially the section "Titles and honorifics". If, having read that information carefully, you believe that reliable English-language sources so overwhelmingly use the name "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj" that it is the commonly recognizable name, you could start a discussion based on that. But you would need to have strong policy-compliant arguments for such a change. --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

in jest... with much respect. Unless, I'm missing something, I don't really see *heated* discussion on William, Prince of Wales talk page. Neither was I looking for verbatim "disrespectful" . There are about dozen folks talking for about a week in early September. Honestly, if you look at Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex, why isn't it "Harry, Duke of Sussex"? . So, there shouldn't be much noise adding 'Prince' to William's name. Ideally! Isn't that also against Wikipedia's article naming rules, to have it as "*Prince* Harry, Duke of Sussex" as opposed to "Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex]"?

Also, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility), Sovereign:4 does cite "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of general article titling policy, e.g. Queen Victoria, Alexander Jagiellon". the guideline on Indic names isn't as exhaustive as Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility), and probably exceptions be added. Thank you! 2601:646:9B81:42E0:B8FD:A469:2F73:71BF (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

As I have said in the past, even the University in the city of Kolhapur is named Shivaji University without the honorifics. Adding Chhatrapati and Maharaj before and after his name respectively is a more recent trend, and probably has to do with the political situation in Maharsashtra in recent decades with different parties and groups vying with each other to claim the right to his memory. BTW, Kolhapur was ruled by Shivaji's descendents until the Indian independence. I hope I have made my point.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(w/ due respect)

No! Sorry to say, you haven't made a point at all. You, probably, may have made a point in the past about "Shivaji University" in Kolhapur, and you certainly highlight that in your reasoning now. (I haven't checked the details of your past reasoning - it's probably archived, and you can guide me to its location). But, that does not make it 'RIGHT' now. Neither, it did then (probably). And, potential political outfits or the past rulers that you raise as a point (VALID - I agree!), shouldn't rob us from logical reasoning and comparing it with what we have there.

Here are few notable examples from Mumbai named after Queen Victoria without the honorific title. That cannot be our explanation and reasoning to strip the title of her wiki And, we *should NOT*. Everyone, has a right place in history.

- Victoria Terminus, Mumbai - now CSMT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhatrapati_Shivaji_Terminus

- VJTI: Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute, Mumbai. Premier engineering college in Mumbai, and (perhaps) well-known in India - now, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veermata_Jijabai_Technological_Institute (my own alma-mater) named after Queen Victoria without the honorifics.

- Victoria Gardens, Mumbai - now, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jijamata_Udyaan.

- Victoria Docks, Mumbai

Not to forget, Victoria Memorial, London. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Memorial,_London

All of the above, are prestigious and grand in their own way. So, the way a - Memorial, Railway Station, University, College, Garden, Zoo, Port Authority - is named, should not be our justification. Just my 2 cents. Thanks!

- 2601:646:9B81:42E0:B8FD:A469:2F73:71BF (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia as stated in earlier comments it is request to you that Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Was A Great Legend Warrior, in fact he is the adored deity of the whole of India. And you are a great source of information and I think I have to suggest to mention "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj" in a single word like "Shivaji", if you see wiki has already mentioned king Alexander as Alexander the great and also see other legends.If it is honorific there is no problem to mention as Chatrapati Shivaji raje or chatrapati Shivaji maharaj it is request to please update the page name.Wikipedia already providing trustworthy and right information i hope you understand the humble request. Prashant Dange11 (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, I request you to change the name from 'Shivaji' to 'Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj'. 'Shiva' & 'Ji' are not different word. It's a single word(name) 'Shivaji'. So we have to give respect to him by calling as 'Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj'. Also I request to change name 'Shahaji' to 'Shahaji Raje' and 'Sambhaji' to 'Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omkarssalunkhe055 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Omkarssalunkhe055, 'Shiva' and 'Ji' are indeed two different words. He was called Shiva during his young age, and when he became a great king, started being called "Shivaji" as mark of respect. Same as "Pitaji" , "Mataji" etc... Shiva was and is a very common name in western Maharashtra, since patron deity of most Marathas is Khandoba, a manifestation of deity Shiva. And as I told above, ji is a respect already. Same explanation stands for others.

An example is ... Shivaji's grandfather kept names of his two sons Shahaji and Sharifji after Sufi saint Shah Sharif. "According to Shivabharata, composed by Shivaji's court poet Paramananda, Maloji's wife Umabai prayed to the Sufi Pir Shah Sharif of Ahmadnagar to bless her with a son. She gave birth to two sons, who were named Shahaji and Sharifji after the Pir." Vatsmaxed (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia have a strong request to you that Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Was A Great Legend Warrior, in fact he is the adored deity of the whole of India. And you are a great source of information And it is not right for us to mention "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj" in a single word like "Shivaji", from one point of view it is a great insult to the deity of Whole India! So change the Name Shivaji and put There "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj". I Hope You will understand Krishnabelsare (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Write the name as Chhtrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Krishnabelsare (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Make it As 'Chhtrapati Shivaji Maharaj' Krishnabelsare (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Write the title of Wikipedia as Chhtrapati Shivaji Maharaj Krishnabelsare (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I request the team to change the name from just shivaji to Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj of the legendary leader king I have words to respect him.Please do understand our concern.And please do respect the Indian legends Vishal Mahantesh Charantimath (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Title

Change name from Shivaji to Shivaji I

there were multiple chhatrapatis named Shivaji: Shivaji I and Shivaji II so we should specify which one this article is about SKAG123 (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Not necessary.The others have not been notable at all, and therefore no need to change the title.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

you bastard

who wrote this non sense and omitted joke ==

n 2003, American academic James W. Laine published his book Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India to, what Ananya Vajpeyi terms, a regime of "cultural policing by militant Marathas".[205][206] As a result of this publication, the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune where Laine had researched was attacked by the Sambhaji Brigade.[207][208] Laine was even threatened to be arrested[205] and the book was banned in Maharashtra in January 2004, but the ban was lifted by the Bombay High Court in 2007, and in July 2010 the Supreme Court of India upheld the lifting of the ban.[209] This lifting was followed by public demonstrations against the author and the decision of the Supreme Court.[210][211] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.30.178.207 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: It is not clear what you want to change in this article.
Please request an edit in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". SKAG123 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Second position

Shivaji initially served in the Ahmadnagar sultanate as stated in the article. succeeding his father Shahaji. therefore I added the position in the info box. "He was given Deshmukh rights of Pune, Supe, Chakan, and Indapur for military expenses. He was also given Fort Shivneri for his family's residence (c. 1590).[25][26]"

SKAG123 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Akshaypatill has challenged this edit claiming it to violate WP:UNDUE, However, I disagree since this edit adds a position that Shivaji served not an opinion or a view about the monarch.

articles such as George I of Great Britain, William III of England, and Charlemagne include the various positions served by the monarchs, so I don't see a problem with including it in this article. SKAG123 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Provide a realible source please. Akshaypatill (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Marathi book Shivkaal (Times of Shivaji) by Dr V G Khobrekar, Publisher: Maharashtra State Board for Literature and Culture, First edition 2006. Chapter 1
2. Salma Ahmed Farooqui (2011). A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: From Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Dorling Kindersley India. pp. 314–. ISBN 978-81-317-3202-1.

both sources are cited in the article. SKAG123 (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources are referring to Maloji and Shahaji and not Shivaji. Please read carefully. Akshaypatill (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It also says that Shivaji Succeeded his father Shahaji in this position

this source linked in the article Shahaji also states this.

"Shahaji was allowed to retain his jagir in the Pune region but was barred from living in the area as part of the Mughal-Bijapur treaty. The jagir was placed under the nominal administration of his son Shivaji, with his subordinate Dadoji Kondadev as its manager. Shahaji was transferred to the southern part of the Bijapur Sultanate."

Source:

Stewart Gordon (1993). The Marathas 1600-1818. The New Cambridge History of India. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-26883-7. SKAG123 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A. R. Kulkarni's 'The Marathas' has explained this well in details. The jagir belonged to Shahaji. It was an autonomous Jagir. And in 1936, Shahaji himself assigned 36 villages of the Pune region to Shivaji. So, unless a source explicitly says that Shivaji served at a perticular ruler we ought not to assume it. Also, Shahaji had said on multiple occasions when Shivaji took possessions of villages which were under the ruler, that Shivaji isn't under his control and he is acting independently. Shahaji also told the ruler that he can take actions against Shivaji if he deems it necessary. I have written a significant portion of this article and I know these sources very well. Akshaypatill (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Change the title to Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

Please correct your title, it's not Shivaji It's Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. King of the great maratha empire, kind of modern india. He is more than God for us, all indians and you are disrespecting the great king, warrior. As you respecting Alexander with the "the great Alexander" Then why don't you respect Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. It's my kind and humble respect to you. Please change the title to Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj... Ashrukate (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashrukate (talk • contribs)

  Not done: Please read WP:HONORIFIC and WP:COMMONNAME. This has been addressed several times.

SKAG123 (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Change in surname

Surname is wrong. It is Bhosale, not Bhonsale. Please delete 'n' from the surname. 103.81.37.63 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

✅ Done However I corrected to Bhonsle which is what was present in the sources. SKAG123 (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

False information and incorrect Names, please stop sharing incorrect information on platforms like Wikipedia

1. 'Bhosale' is the correct name not Bhonsle. 2. After so many messages why title page name is not yet changed to "Chhatrapti"? He was a brave King, just not a common name. 3. Shivaji Maharaj was NOT 'Shudra' , wrong information is shared in the article. Better to correct it before publishing SmiSV (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

1. The Surname has various different spellings. However, Bhonsale is the most commonly used in the sources. please read Wikipedia:COMMONNAME
2. Again, please read WP:HONORIFIC and WP:COMMONNAME. This has been addressed several times including in the header of this talk page
3. There are multiple sources linked in the article that state Shivaji, as a member of the House of Bhonsle, came from a Kunbi community. Please provide reliable sources that state otherwise.

SKAG123 (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

multiple internet sources does not mean all information is correct, this information seems intentionally bombarding so people start believing it. SmiSV (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

please provide reliable sources that state otherwise SKAG123 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2023

Please add that his father was dadoji konndeo according to james laine though it is controversial 2607:FEA8:C5F:E7A0:72DF:303F:6CE7:E3F9 (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Reason? Capitals00 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

James Laine’s book was already controversial and banned as he mentioned wrong information, this request by the user is totally unacceptable SmiSV (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

James Laine never said Dadoji Kondeo was Shivaji's father.He just mentioned some people in Pune making a joke about it in his book. Unfortunately, he and particularly an institute in Pune paid a heavy price for this "joke". No need for this offensive trivia to go in the article. BTW, Laine's book may have been banned in India only, not anywhere else.Even in India, the Indian supreme court lifted the ban in 2010Jonathansammy (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Introduction Section Needs Changes

Introduction section has some content that can be misleading and has extraneous info that is not necessarily warranted. Had removed some content from it, but the edits seem to have been reverted twice. Starting a section here to get everyone on same page. See following for why the content was removed -

"and a member of the Bhonsle Maratha clan" - There is no such thing as a Bhonsale Clan. There are / have been quite a few people with that surname, but historically they have not pledged allegiance to each other, nor have they necessarily fought *for* each other. For a group to be called a clan, it needs to have few characteristics, Bonsales do not satisfy those. Also, the phrasing is misleading. Maratha Clan leads to 96 Kuls of Marathas, which is fundamentally a different thing.

"Shivaji carved out his own independent kingdom from the declining Adilshahi sultanate of Bijapur which formed the genesis of the Maratha Empire." - Shivaji's Kingdom had parts of at least two Shahis of Deccan, and parts of Mughal Empire. Also, Shivaji *Founded* Maratha Empire. He did not start something that converted to an Empire. Peshwas ruled under and by the authority of descendants of Shivaji, so this statement is fundamentally wrong, misleading, and undermines the role and contribution of Shivaji.

"Shivaji's legacy was to vary by observer and time, but nearly two centuries after his death, he began to take on increased importance with the emergence of the Indian independence movement, as many Indian nationalists elevated him as a proto-nationalist and hero of the Hindus." - Shivaji's appropriation by Indian Nationalists should go in an article on that Subject. It is not a part of Shivaji's Legacy *per se* - Shivaji never advocated violance against other religions. Its hard to see why this text was included in Introduction section on Shivaji to begin with.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shivaji&oldid=1160298444 for the changes I made to Introduction section.

Rough Draft of what Introduction Section should be -

"Shivaji Bhonsle I (Shivaji Bhonsle; Marathi pronunciation: [ʃiʋaːd͡ʒiˑ bʱoˑs(ə)leˑ]; c. 19 February 1630 – 3 April 1680[5]), also referred to as Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, was an Indian ruler best known as founder of Maratha Empire.[6]

Over the course of his life, Shivaji engaged in both alliances and hostilities with the Mughal Empire, the Sultanate of Golkonda, Sultanate of Bijapur and the European colonial powers. Shivaji's military forces expanded the Maratha sphere of influence, capturing and building forts, and forming a Maratha navy. Shivaji established a competent and progressive civil rule with well-structured administrative organisations. He revived ancient Hindu political traditions, court conventions and promoted the usage of the Marathi and Sanskrit languages, replacing Persian in court and administration.[7][8]

Shivaji continues to have an oversized influence on Maharashtrian Socio-Political landscape. He has been hailed as an influence and as a Hero by numerous sections of Maharashtrian society with each section reinterpreting his life and work. "

Introduction section being small is no justification for including wrong / misleading information. Nonentity683 (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

cc: @Jonathansammy Nonentity683 (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Nonentity683, There are many sources on how Tilak in late 1800s used the memory of Shivaji for mobilizing nationalism in Maharashtra. Shivaji was a forgotten figure until Tilak and his contemporary Nationalists revived his memory with renovation was his memorial at Raigad, and celebration of his birthday. I can give additional sources if required. This veneration of Shivaji in Maharashtra has only grown since that time with every other public building named after him.I am obviously exxagerating but i hope you get my point. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy : "Shivaji was a forgotten figure" is a mischaracterisation. Multiple authors before Tilak and Phule have written about Shivaji, most notably James Grant Duff.

Tilak or his contemporary Nationalists did not discovere or revive Shivaji's Memorial on Raigad, nor did they start the Shivaji Jayanti.

It was Phule who discovered the Shivaji's Samadhi on Raigad, who wrote extensively on Shivaji, and did his best to make sure Shivaji reached wider audience.

Tilak did start a charitable trust and collected funds for this cause, but the money was never actually used for anything related to Shivaji. The Bank where the money was stored declared Bankruptcy, and the fate of money in the relevant accounts is not known as of today.

As such, credit for rediscovering Shivaji cannot be given solely to Tilak or Nationalists.

By giving credit for reviving Shivaji's legend to Nationalists but not mentioning anyone else, the Introduction Paragraph is presenting a blatantly and provably wrong version of History. It goes against Wikipedia's policies around fairness, balance, and original research.

The references you have cited are not freely available. Link for " The myth of the Lokamanya : Tilak and mass politics in Maharashtra " is not showing any pages after 12, and JSTOR article is firewalled. As such, it is not possible for me to verify your claims.

Sources I can easily cite :

1. "THE FAMILY of Lokmanya Tilak and a descendant of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj have stepped forward to assert that it was Mahatma Jyotirao Phule who discovered the samadhi of the Maratha king even as they acknowledge the role Tilak played in its renovation. "- https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/lokmanya-began-process-for-chhatrapati-samadhi-renovation-says-family-7900130/
2. "Notably, Jyotirao Govindrao Phule, popularly known as Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, established the Shiv Jayanti celebration in 1870, and since then, people have been celebrating the day with great fervour. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/first-time-ever-grand-celebrations-of-chhatrapati-shivaji-maharajs-birth-anniversary-in-agra-fort/articleshow/98063341.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst"
3. "Perhaps first among ninteenth-century writers to eulogise Shivaji as a hero, Phule 'Presented Shivaji as the Leader of Maharashtra's lower Castes...' " - Revenge and Reconciliation, Understanding South Asian History (Search for "Phule Shivaji" inside https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Revenge_and_Reconciliation/xAASBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1)
4. Search for "Phule Shivaji" inside https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Caste_Conflict_and_Ideology/5kMrsTj1NeYC?hl=en&gbpv=0 (Caste, Conflict and Ideology Mahatma Jotirao Phule and Low Caste Protest in Nineteenth-Century Western India)
5. Search for "Phule Shivaji" insidehttps://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Shared_Histories_of_Modernity/wGsJEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Phule+Shivaji&pg=PT226&printsec=frontcover (Shared Histories of Modernity China, India and the Ottoman Empire)
6. "Mahatma Jyotirao Phule was the first one to commence the event of Shivaji Jayanti in 1870 after he found the grave of Shivaji Maharaj in Raigad (1869), about 100 miles from Pune.The celebrations were later carried forward by Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1894." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/98519463.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst"
7. "Tilak also started a Shri Shivaji Fund Committee for celebrating 'Shiva Jayanti', the birth anniversary of the Maratha empire's founder, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj." - https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/bal-gangadhar-tilak-death-anniversary-know-interesting-facts-about-maker-of-modern-india
8. "Mahatma Jyotiba Phule rediscovered the tomb and started Shivaji Jayanti celebrations. " - https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/chhatrapati-shivaji-arranged-for-brahmins-from-kashi-for-his-coronation-on-june-6-1674
9. "Sadly, the bank collapsed in 1913 so, Tilak went to court and was sanctioned Rs 33,911 with interest. However, before the funds were released, the liquidation process was started and the money could not be retrieved." - https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/lokmanya-tilak-initiated-restoration-of-shivaji-maharajs-memorial-in-raigad-report
10. "On Tuesday, BJP’s Rajya Sabha MP Chhatrapati Sambhajiraje joined the debate to admonish Raj Thackeray. “I can state with some authority that Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s memorial was not built by Lokmanya Tilak,” Sambhajiraje said. Sambhajiraje hails from the Kolhapur royal family, is a descendant of the great Maratha warrior king Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and the great grandson of Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj." - https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/shivaji-memorial-at-raigad-fort-was-not-built-by-tilak-sambhajiraje-7899540/
11. "One must not talk on history till one is absolutely sure, Rajya Sabha MP Sambhaji Chhatrapati said on Tuesday when asked about MNS chief Raj Thackeray claiming during his Sunday rally that the 'samadhi' of Maratha warrior king Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was built by freedom fighter Lokmanya Tilak. Speaking to reporters in Delhi, he said the samadhi was built by social reformer Mahatma Phule in 1925, adding that the real credit for its construction went to all devotees and followers of the legendary warrior king." - https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2022/may/03/maharashtra-sambhaji-chhatrapati-debunks-raj-thackerays-claim-about-shivaji-samadhi-2449367.html

Nonentity683 (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy : Also, your reply focusses only on the Nationalist part. That still leaves open the discussion on first two points. Nonentity683 (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Nonentity683, Thanks for the references. They are mostly newspaper sources.I couldn't find mention of Phule discovering shivaji's samadhi in O'Hanlon's book, although his name comes up 70 times.Tilak, Shahu of Kolhapur, or Phule , it doesn't matter to me who did or who didn't do what.For the article what matters is Shivaji inspired these people. Phule projected him as the leader of the lower castes of Maharashtra, Tilak projected him as leader of all Maharashtrians (presumably Hindu), and Shahu like Phule wanted to appropriate him for the non-brahmin castes. This all comes under legacy. In more recent times Bal Thackeray used his name to start Shivsena which was at its inception a party for Marathi people of Mumbai.Shivaji, one likes it or not, looms really large in contemporary Maharashtra. The body of the article covers this all.Since the introduction is supposed to be the summary / abstract of the article, legacy has to be mentioned. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy : 4 concerns here -

1. The Introduction section mentions only Nationalists, and no one else. (For that matter so does your original reply, which also makes a number of untrue claims). It is biased to hilt. As such, relevant part of Introduction Section is liable to be removed, unless you are willing to add to it and support all your claims with references.
2. "Newspaper articles are not reliable" is not a Wikipedia policy.
3. Newspaper Article mentioning Shivaji and Tilak's descendants admitting that Phule discovered Shivaji's Samadhi should be good enough source for Wikipedia in this context. Whether or not it meets Academic Bar for proof is another thing. (Note that "Academic Bar" for proof has not been met for your claims either. References you cited are not publicly accessible to begin with.)
4. O'Hanlan's book is cited as proof that Phule wrote about Shivaji. It has not been cited as a reference for Phule discovering Shivaji's Samadhi. My reply makes no claim of this nature.

There are two more points in the original Concern ("Bhonsale Clan", and downplaying of Shivaji's role / significance as Founder of Maratha Empire.) Nonentity683 (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy : "Shahu like Phule wanted to appropriate him for the non-brahmin castes." - This is nothing if not bias, and statement is defamatory. Shahu of Kolhapur _was_ anti-caste and supported Dalit movement. He supported Ambedkar both financially and otherwise, and was a champion of progressive causes. Phule is undisputed champion of oppressed classes. "appropriate " part of statement is outrageously defamatory to both, because it takes view that what they did was appropriation and not an interpretation of Shivaji's deeds. Afterall, among other things, Shivaji's army did have a nontrivial number of Muslims, Shivaji never differentiated on basis of caste and he did treat all of his citizens equally. As such, word "appropriate" is not warranted here.

It is extremely odd that your first reply mentions only Tilak as one who discovered Shivaji's Samadhi, that reply does not mention Phule at all, you challenge valid references, your references are not publicly available and now you are making outrageous statements about champions of Dalits like Phule. What is the point of all this exercise? Nonentity683 (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Nonentity683, you should try to get free access to wikipedia library if you want to have better access to academic sources. Please apply for it, you will find it extremely useful.Also many academic sources are either fully available on google scholar or you can get snippets ot it.This includes Cashman's book.Cashman, an american takes a totally neutral view.He would have no agenda in promoting or denigrating any particular group in Maharashtra.For a historical figure like Shivaji, hundreds of academic books and papers are available, and therefore one should rely on them rather than newsmedia for adding content.Also one can not rely on the word of family member for what his or her ancestor did / or did not.See Wikipedia:IS. I don't think anybody disputes the role of Shivaji as the founder of Maratha empire. His legacy is the inspiration he provided for the social and nationalist causes in 19th century Maharashtra. it is already there in the body of the article. So getting back to the origin of this dispute, let me reiterate once again:The intrduction section is a summary of what is in the body. So if you want to make changes to the introduction please amend the appropriate section in the body of the article first. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy : This reply does not in any way address two of the concerns raised originally. Also, it does not in any way address the concerns around bias in Introduction section.

Raising this with other Wikipedia Moderators. Nonentity683 (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Nonentity683 This exchange has become too large, and I have lost your "two concerns". Please let me know what they are in order for me to answer them.As far as bias is concerned, please make a draft proposal of changes you want to make, and we can go from there. Please make sure that the changes adhere to Wikipedia NPOV policy.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy : Suggested changes are the ones you reverted. See the link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shivaji&oldid=1160298444 .

See original / first message in this thread for the "two concerns". Nonentity683 (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi folks, I can try to help out here (sorry someone removed your 3O request—I only see two editors here, Nonentity683 and Jonathansammy, so I think that was in error). The first thing I think we should do here is identify the diffs that are in dispute. I can go and find them, but in the future, Nonentity683, if you're coming to a talk page to say something like, "Had removed some content...but the edits seem to have been reverted twice," it will help the discussion if you link to the diffs you're taking issue with when you make your initial talk page post. H:DIFF will give you an overview if you need that. With the diffs, any editor who comes into contact with the thread later (like myself) can easily get up to speed on what the disagreement is about. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 23:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, looks like we're discussing this revert and this revert. Looks like they were almost the same back-and-forth both times. I can see now why the 3O request may have gotten turned down before, as two different editors performed these reversions, Jonathansammy and RegentsPark.

Nonentity683, since you were the one to make the 3O request, I want to note just for the future that this does imply there are two users who disagree with your edits as opposed to one, even if RegentsPark hasn't said anything here yet. I'll try to help since I'm already here, but even if I ended up wholly taking your side, if I couldn't convince Jonathansammy or RegentsPark we would be evenly split and maybe quite far from consensus.

The ideal use of 3O is when there are only two editors interested in the dispute in any capacity (including purely through their edits). When there are three or more editors involved somehow, and direct communication with them hasn't settled things despite your best efforts, you're more likely to get a conclusive end to the dispute through mediated dispute resolution (if other editors are not arguing constructively or straying off-topic), one of the relevant WikiProjects listed at the top of this page (if the dispute is over content that requires deep familiarity with the subject matter), an RFC (to attract attention from a wide pool of uninvolved editors), or by alerting an admin (if the way another editor is behaving is more the central issue as opposed to their position on the article). If we do end up split down the middle, we may still need to resort to one or more of those approaches to resolve this. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 00:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

All right, I've reviewed the thread. As far as I can tell from the diffs, there are actually four points of dispute. Nonentity683, in the future, if you can make these sorts of contentious deletions one point at a time, and resolve each one with the other editors before you go on to the next, it will make things easier on anyone you might summon up for 3O...anyway let's dive into this massive discussion.

Should the lede say that Shivaji was a member of the "Bhonsle Maratha clan"?

Nonentity683's objection: "There is no such thing as a Bhonsale Clan."

The citation currently given for this claim in the lede is to a tertiary source written by a professional historian for a popular audience, Peter Robb's A History of India from 2011. I would really prefer a better source for that, like a secondary historical source for a specialist audience on Shivaji specifically. Also, there's no quotation given and I don't have that book on hand, so I have no way of verifying if it supports the phrasing "Bhonsle Maratha clan".

That's pretty weak support, I would say, and fair to challenge. However, Nonentity683, it doesn't look like you've provided any source for your claim yet. Without a good source to support it, like a work of academic history, it rests on weaker ground than the existing text. If you do have a source like that to support your claim, it would be great, because then we can put that part of the article on a firmer foundation.

Should the lede say that Shivaji "carved out his own independent kingdom from the declining Adilshahi sultanate of Bijapur which formed the genesis of the Maratha Empire"?

Nonentity683's objection: "Shivaji's Kingdom had parts of at least two Shahis of Deccan, and parts of Mughal Empire. Also, Shivaji *Founded* Maratha Empire. He did not start something that converted to an Empire."

The existing source for this given in the lede is a history book from 1900 (not 1966…I'll correct that), Rise of the Maratha Power, by Mahadev Govind Ranade. It would really be preferable to have a more contemporary source than this. Also, Ranade did have a master's degree in history, but I would really prefer a work by a professional historian. Ranade's political activities might suggest a degree of bias on his part as well.

The full text of the book is here, but I browsed around in it and couldn't find anything that definitively supports this claim at a glance, although maybe it would be clear if I read the whole book in detail. The rest of the article sorta paints this picture but you could maybe argue it's a bit WP:SYNTH to state it in exactly that way without a source that really puts it like that. I don't know that I would object to it that strongly since it's just a short summarizing passage in the lede and not obviously wrong to me, but, Nonentity683, if you do want to make a case to that effect, it would definitely help to cite a source that clearly shows that it's inappropriate to say that Shivaji "carved out his own independent kingdom from the declining Adilshahi sultanate." I think all that passage is referring to is the territory, and in a pretty rough way; I don't know that it means he started out with something other than an empire, just that his empire was formed from what used to be Adilshahi land, at least in part.

Should the lede say that Shivaji was "formally crowned the Chhatrapati of his realm at Raigad Fort" in 1674?

I didn't see any discussion of this. Nonentity683, did you mean to take that out? It's also sourced to Rise of the Maratha Power, and I also couldn't find any mention of this at all, at least not using this kind of language. From some of the other stuff in the article it sounds like he was definitely crowned in 1674, but I haven't found much about it happening at Raigad Fort or him being specifically deemed "Chhatrapati" at that time in the other sources, at least not yet. Maybe to experts on this topic this is obvious and beyond dispute, but I think it could use clearer support in the article.

Should the lede mention Shivaji's significance to the Indian independence movement and Indian nationalism?

Nonentity683's objection: "Shivaji's appropriation by Indian Nationalists should go in an article on that Subject. It is not a part of Shivaji's Legacy *per se* - Shivaji never advocated violance against other religions."

Whether or not we should relate Shivaji and Indian nationalism really depends on the sources. If we have have reliable, secondary sources that relate them directly somehow, whatever the sources say is fair material for this article, even if we disagree with them. If we don't have those sources, it's WP:OR. So, again, let's look at the sources for the existing claim in the lede.

First we've got Tilak and Gokhale: Revolution and Reform in the Making of Modern India, a 1966 work of history by Stanley Wolpert, professor of history at UCLA from 1959–2002 and a specialist in Indian history. That's an ideal source for this kind of article. 1966 is a bit old, but not so much that I would worry a lot about it (for academic history at least—unless you could show that a more recent consensus among historians had supplanted it somehow).

Here's what Wolpert has to say:

A more immediate progenitor of the 1897 trial [of Tilak for sedition] was in fact the Shivaji festival, which formed the next link in the developing organizational chain of militant Hinduism's mass party...Tilak and his supporters sponsored the first of these new annual festivals in 1896 to commemorate the birth of Shivaji Maharj...in 1883, James Douglas remarked, "No man now cares for Seevaji...not one man now contributes a rupee to keep or repair the tomb of the founder of the Mahratta Empire."...There the matter rested for a decade, however, till April 23, 1895, when Tilak editorialized: "Many days have passed since we heard the well-known verse: 'make famous today the name of Shivaji', but no one is met with acting along the lines of this advice."...Soon after this prodding, a public meeting was held in Poona with the announced intention of collecting funds to embellish Shivaji's samadhi and "to hold annual festival celebrations." (p. 79–80)

And a bit later:

Before the next festival began, Tilak insisted that "hero worship" was at the root of "nationality, social order, and religion." The Shivaji festival in reviving hero worship built the foundation on which those essential prerequisites for the commonweal could be firmly established. "As soon as we lost svarajya the memory of the political heroes who had worked body and soul for independence and who had thereby protected our religion become quite extinct," Tilak explained. (p. 81–82)

I'd say this is pretty hard to argue with! Wolpert is telling in detail exactly the story that is stated in summary in the lede. This alone would be enough to effectively support that whole passage in my eyes, but the editor who added it was nice enough to also supply a second source.

The other citation is to Nationalism in India: Texts and Contexts, a compilation of essays from 2012 2021 compiled by two English professors. The actual citation (which isn't mentioned in the ref and should be, I'll fix it) is to "The founder of Hindu nationalism? The representation of Shivaji in Philip Meadows Taylor's novel Tara", by Ayusman Chakraborty, who appears to be an associate professor of English at West Bengal State University. So, this is recent work on literary history from a professional specialist. On questions of Shivaji's representation in literature, it doesn't get much better than this, although we'll have to see how well it applies to the passage it's being used to support. The title of the essay makes me think it will probably be relevant, though.

Here's Chakraborty:

The projection of Shivaji as a nationalist icon gained prominence with the rise of the Indian independence movement. With the ideas of nation and independence gaining popularity, Shivaji was represented as a patriot who freed his nation from foreign rule...Bal Gangadhar Tilak was the first to present the Maratha leader as an icon of Indian nationalism. By organising the Shivaji festivals, Tilak brought back Shivaji into the limelight. Laine rightly asserts, "the first and second festivals in 1896 and 1897 were were influential in wedding the Shivaji tale to nationalist discourse" (Laine 2003, 72). Here, it must be recognised that Tilak tried to maintain a secular image of Shivaji, one that would find favour with the Hindus and the Muslims alike...But as Malavika Vartak points out, Tilak could not sustain the secular image of Shivaji for long, as "the idioms and issues that were used during the course of the [nationalist] movement were often read as anti-Islamic" (Vartak 1999, 1132).

From the presentation of Shivaji as a nationalist leader, it takes just a small leap of the imagination to portray him as a Hindu nationalist leader [emphasis in the original]. As we have already seen, Shivaji has been represented right from his own times as a Hindu patriot...

The appropriation of Shivaji by Hindu nationalists does not appear surprising, given that "Hindu nationalism as we know it today was born in Maharashtra in the 1920s" as Christophe Jaffrelot points out (Jaffrelot 2007, 14). Again it was a Maharashtrian Brahmin, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar or Veer Savarkar, who iconised Shivaji as the architect of Hindu nationalism. (p. 32–33)

This is very in line with Wolpert and gives even stronger and more detailed support for the idea of Shivaji as not only an Indian "proto-nationalist" icon but often a specifically Hindu one as well.

Given these two sources, I can hardly think of anything anyone could cite that would justify removing that passage in the lede. Adding to it maybe, complicating it perhaps, but not flat-out removing it. A lot of trouble in this discussion so far might have been saved by just going to those two citations…

Having said all that...

In summary, I think the "Bhonsle Maratha clan," "carved out…from the declining Adilshahi sultanate," and "formally crowned the Chhatrapati…at Raigad Fort" passages are reasonably contestable given the existing citations, but to make a strong case against any of them would take high-quality sources. The stuff about nationalism seems basically beyond dispute to me.

Just as a side note, I want to mention, Jonathansammy's objection to using newspaper sources here is reasonable. Shivaji is a historical figure, Tilak is a historial figure, Phule is a historical figure, etc. Contemporary newspaper writing on these kinds of topics will be tertiary source material, since it will be summing up the work of historians. We should prefer secondary sources—that is, the work of historians themselves. Tertiary sources can help settle questions of weight when you have a large pool of secondary sources on a topic, but since we're also writing a tertiary source, material from tertiary sources tends to be "overdigested" for other purposes here. When it comes to tertiary sources, too, I prefer undergraduate textbooks, then published encyclopedias; that kind of newspaper writing is frequently over-breezy and unreliable in my experience. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 05:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟: Thanks for looking into this, and for the long and well researched reply.

The first edit was reverted by @RegentsPark because it was "unexplained deletion of sourced content". I doubt that he has any concerns other than that, although I'll let him pitch in here if he wants.

You are right in saying that we should discuss them one by one. Lets start with the easiest bit.

"carved out his own independent kingdom from the declining Adilshahi sultanate of Bijapur which formed the genesis of the Maratha Empire"

My concern here is that this makes it sound as though Shivaji started something that later on evolved into Maratha Empire. This diminishes Shivaji's role. This is wrong because every single Maratha ruler claimed legitimacy and authority because they were heirs of Shivaji.

As for Academic sources -

1. “Shivaji, founder of the Maratha Polity” Page 59, “The Marathas 1600-1818”, Stewart Gordon, Cambridge University Press https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Marathas_1600_1818/iHK-BhVXOU4C?hl=en&gbpv=0
2. “Shivaji, founder of Maratha state” Page 28, “Marathas, Marauders, and State Formation in Eighteenth-century India”, Stewart Gordon, Oxford University Press https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Marathas_Marauders_and_State_Formation_i/yBlKh1Pwof0C?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=Maratha%20Empire
3. “From the Ranas of Cheitore sprang the lianas of Oudepoor, universally admitted to be die oldest family in Hindoostan; and €am them, according to die legend quoted, it is pre^ tended that the founder of the Mahratta nation, as hitherto known to m, drew his lineage.” - Vol 1 Page 26 History OF THE MAHRATTAS, James Grant Duff, Longmans, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green - https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_FKQ9AAAAMAAJ/page/n27/mode/2up https://ia902608.us.archive.org/2/items/bub_gb_FKQ9AAAAMAAJ/bub_gb_FKQ9AAAAMAAJ.pdf
4. "The Grand Rebel: an Impression of Shivaji Founder of the Maratha Empire", Kincaid, Dennis, Collins, London (https://www.indianculture.gov.in/ebooks/grand-rebel-impression-shivaji-founder-maratha-empire)
5. “Shivaji, Principle Founder of the Maratha Confederacy” Page 218 Rise Of the Maratha Power, Mahadev Govind Ranade https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Rise_of_the_Maratha_Power.html?id=3Xouqxapyj8C&redir_esc=y https://www.indianculture.gov.in/rarebooks/rise-maratha-power-0

Note that page on Maratha Empire of Wikipedia says "Maratha rule formally began in 1674 with the coronation of Shivaji of the Bhonsle dynasty as the Chhatrapati. " . Encyclopedia Brittanica page for same (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Maratha-Empire) says "The formal Maratha empire began in 1674 with the coronation of Shivaji as Chhatrapati ". Although I understand that Wikipedia policy is not to consider EB as source.

Relevant line of Introduction should say that "Shivaji Bhonsle I (Shivaji Bhonsle; Marathi pronunciation: [ʃiʋaːd͡ʒiˑ bʱoˑs(ə)leˑ]; c. 19 February 1630 – 3 April 1680[5]), also referred to as Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, was an Indian ruler best known as founder of Maratha Empire.".

Please let me know if you believe that sources cited here are proof enough. If they are, we can make changes, and move on to other disputed parts in Introduction section. Nonentity683 (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy on Indian articles, Raj era , i.e. pre-1947 sources are not considered reliable. Grant Duff has written so much on Maratha history but that is nearly 200 year old, Ranade's in more than a 100 year old. Same goes for Kinaid. So please ignore #3,4,and 5. thanks,Jonathansammy (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

So, I just want to emphasize again, I don't think that passage implies that Shivaji didn't found a new kingdom. Excepting the first humans to arrive on a continent or the like, any new kingdom has to be founded on land that used to belong to someone else. "Carve out" means "take something from a larger whole, especially with effort or difficulty" (per Oxford which I sadly can't link to but shows up in the Google results if you search "'carve out' meaning"). "Adilshahi sultanate" in this context can refer exclusively to the sultanate's land, as when referencing any political territory. So, taken together, it can imply that Shivaji founded his new empire on lands that used to belong to the Adilshahi. If you want to dispute that passage, you need to show that that's materially false in some sense—i.e., that Shivaji did not found his new empire on lands he acquired from the Adilshahi. It's not enough to just show that he founded the Maratha state; I don't think anything in the article is meant to contradict that.

Jonathansammy, do you have a link to that policy? I don't think I would ever base anything here on a source that old anyway, but it's interesting to know. (I think it might be from this thread?) 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 20:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mesocarp : My primary concern / dispute on this point is not who the land belonged to. Its that the text does not explicitly call out Shivaji as the Founder of Maratha Empire. Sorry if this part was not clear from earlier replies.

The text does not explicitly deny that he was the founder, but the way it is written can be taken to mean that he started something that later on evolved into a Kingdom - wording is "formed the genesis of the Maratha Empire". That wording is quite vague, and in any case there is more than one way to read / interpret that.

Given that there does not seem to be any dispute on two sources, can I ask as to what would be required to make changes to Introduction Section so that it explicitly says that Shivaji was the Founder of Maratha Empire? I can make changes to body of the Article citing all the sources if that is what is required.

Thank you again. Nonentity683 (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

First line of last Paragraph in Coronation Section of this Article says "Shivaji was crowned king of the Maratha Empire (Hindawi Swaraj)". Is that enough to make this change in Introduction Section? Nonentity683 (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

cc: @Mesocarp Nonentity683 (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see, thanks for clarifying that. As a native English speaker, I can at least say that, for myself, "carved out his own independent kingdom from the declining Adilshahi sultanate of Bijapur which formed the genesis of the Maratha Empire" leaves absolutely no doubt in my mind that (a) Shivaji did found the Maratha Empire itself and (b) the Maratha Empire was a long-lived and significant power in the region, persisting long after Shivaji's reign. The word "genesis" there is meant to indicate that the Maratha state has its own significant and lengthy history, which Shivaji kicked off—not a way to say that Shivaji didn't really found it. It indicates the prominence of the Maratha Empire. This is a common convention in English-language historical writing in my experience. I get what you're saying, that "genesis" could theoretically be taken to mean that he founded something else which later became the Maratha state, but in practice I think the convention is just too strong to take it that way. If I wanted to say that his kingdom was not equivalent to the Maratha state but became it later, I would instead say something like, "He carved out his own independent kingdom from the declining Adilshahi sultanate of Bijapur, which formed the seed that ultimately became the Maratha Empire." I think you would have to be that specific, or you would invite misunderstanding.

I wish I had some kind of hard evidence to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, but of course, language being what it is, there's always going to be some degree of personal intuition involved in these kinds of questions. I think most English speakers would agree with me, but of course that's ultimately just a guess. If you really don't want to take my word for it, and the input of Jonathansammy and RegentsPark doesn't convince you either, we could put together an RfC to consult a wider range of editors on this point. It's worth noting that RfCs can be labor-intensive and time-consuming, though, and it may take weeks to come to any kind of conclusion if we go that route. I would definitely read the whole RfC page in detail before deciding you're in favor of doing it that way, if you're not already familiar with the process.

As a side note, I do think it's worth noting that it's very clear from the page in general that he did found the Maratha Empire—it says "1st Chhatrapati of the Maratha Empire" right there at the top. Don't you think common sense suggests that no one would write anything in the lede which contradicts that? 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 23:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mesocarp : Thanks, I think we are making progress on this point. I think that we are in agreement that Shivaji was Founder of Maratha Empire.

I understand your point, but English Wikipedia is used by a large number of people who are not native English Speakers, best example being India itself. As such, I think it would be best if we remove any ambiguity. Per discussion in this Thread

1. The Body of article identifies him as a Founder (although not in those exact words) and
2. We have 2 reliable academic sources that are saying same thing, and the reliability of these sources is not being disputed by anyone.

Ideally, that should be enough for this change. At the same time, I'll let you judge if it is.

I don't mind doing an RfC. But before we get there, I would prefer to see how many points of dispute (out of four) we can resolve using 3O process. That will reduce the work we need to do in RfC. Nonentity683 (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the very next line to the one being contested says "In 1674, he was formally crowned the Chhatrapati of his realm at Raigad Fort." If his title is clearly given as "1st Chhatrapati of the Maratha Empire", we should ideally be able to change lede to explicitly say that he was the founder of Maratha Empire.

I am fine with "Shivaji carved out his own independent kingdom from the declining Adilshahi sultanate of Bijapur. In 1674, he was formally crowned the Chhatrapati at Raigad Fort." staying in lede. Nonentity683 (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was almost expecting your point about Indian English speakers, it's almost impossible to settle these kinds of questions by arguing from your linguistic background. :P I was only trying it because it's hard for me to come up with anything more solid than that.

I think, if you don't plan to remove anything from the lede in this case, and you just want to add something explicitly saying that Shivaji founded the Maratha Empire, I guess I don't really mind. Honestly, I'm not exactly attached to you preserving the existing phrasing either, I just know that other people wanted to revert those changes before—but they might only have been worried about the deletion of sourced content as opposed to anything about the phrasing. I'd say you can give whatever you like there a try re Shivaji being the founder and we can see how other people watching the page take it.

I do think the potential lack of clarity with the existing lede on that point is a little speculative—like, you came here already knowing that Shivaji is the founder, and I was able to pick it up right away, so we don't yet have an example of someone who did read the lede and actually got confused on that point (at least I don't think so). If we did have someone like that here, I think it would be easier for us to figure out exactly what the problem would be and the best way to change the lede to fix it. Beyond that, though, I admit that these kinds of questions about phrasing are very subjective and hard to really address through other kinds of evidence. That's the only reason I brought up the possibility of an RfC, because that can be a useful way to settle subjective questions. We won't necessarily need that in this case, though. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 04:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy : Briefly checked following pages, not sure if the policy you mentioned is on these pages.

1. Wikipedia:Verifiability
2. Wikipedia:Reliable sources
3. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
4. Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist
5. Wikipedia:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context
6. Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources
7. Wikipedia:Core content policies#History
8. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources in particular has a list of Topic specific Pages, but it does not seem to have any Indian History specific page.

Unless you can point to a page that mentions the policy you cited, #3, 4, and 5 are valid sources. (If you can in fact point to a page, guess that policy itself needs to be challenged, seeing as it makes books from likes of Sarkar and Sen ineligible as a reference on Wikipedia.) Nonentity683 (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Jonathansammy might be referring to this thread. Like several other editors there, I don't like the use of history sources that old period, for any article. The consensus among historians changes over time, and that's especially true for anything pre-WWII or even pre-60s—historical methods changed a lot in the 60s–70s with the rise of fields like feminist history, environmental history, the application of critical theory to history, etc. which had a strong impact on the entire discipline. Some historians from that long ago are still seen as reliable today in some sense, at least on certain points, but we shouldn't trust ourselves to make that judgement; we should let more contemporary historians figure that out. They will sometimes cite historians from that long ago, but they have enough expertise to do that with the proper care, accounting for their biases and so on. We don't, at least not here—it becomes WP:OR.

As a side note, a lot of the pages you're citing there are essays and not policy. What constitutes a reliable source is a frequent point of contention and not necessarily trivial to resolve by citing policy, either. Sometimes the community comes to a broad consensus on a specific source via the RSN, an RfC, etc., but often these kinds of questions have to be settled on a case-by-case basis through conversations just like this. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 23:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That thread is specifically about British-era Ethnographers, and the point they are raising is that these people were not necessarily trained professionally as Ethnographers, that they were Civil Servants who were doing some Ethnography work, and that that work in itself cannot be reliable. I agree with that point.

But I do not see any widespread discussion in that thread on whether or not we should completely do away with all sources before 1945. 2 Editors have said it, but that is not unqualified ("is almost never a good idea" and "should rarely be using"). In any case, it is their opinion, and I don't think that that qualifies as a Policy.

I agree that we should prefer recent sources over older ones, and I agree that older sources should be looked on with Skepticism. But with figures / subjects like Shivaji that do not draw and have historically not drawn much Academic Treatment, we are not left with very many sources if we apply this principle.

I agree that we should decide on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, I am not seeing any concrete evidence as to why #3, 4, and 5 should be ignored. I would understand if there is recent Academic work that has called reliability of these Sources / Authors into question, but I am not seeing that here.

Yes, some of those pages are Essays, but they are linked to by the official Wikipedia Pages. In any case, the point I was trying to make there was not that those are sources of truth for policy (which would be the actual policy pages), but that I did not find anything resembling Jonathansammy's claim on these pages.

Thanks again. Nonentity683 (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mesocarp Nonentity683 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mesocarp Thanks for weighing in.I believe, and have told user Nonentity683 before that the lede is the summary of the article.If they want any changes then they should start with the body of the article, and tackle the Introduction / lede as the very last task. Also the lede does not need citations if that information is already cited in the body. Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to note what I found in the body as well, although I admit was looking in a kind of cursory way (there's a lot of ground to cover…). I was focusing mainly on the citations in the lede because, for a contentious article like this, I think it's prudent to ensure that the citations in the lede support the lede effectively. It might not be strictly necessary, but it can save time for someone who isn't already familiar with the whole article (like me) and makes it easier to settle disputes about the lede. MOS:LEADCITE does mention that anything in the lede which might be challenged should be supported with citations, and I think in this article's lede just about anything might be challenged (as we've seen).

Nonentity683, it is true that even if something in the lede has no citations, it's technically enough if it's supported by citations in the body. So, if you want to dispute something in the lede, if you don't look through the whole article, you might miss the passages and citations in the body that support the lede. If you find good citations in the body for something that seems more weakly supported in the lede, I think for this article it would be worth supplying those citations in the lede as well (not to excess, just enough to establish proper support). No other change necessarily needs to be made in that case, though. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 19:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Something else to note too, on the other hand—Nonentity683, if you find strong citations that directly contradict something in the lede, it probably implies that parts of the body need to be changed or added to somehow as well. But, you should make sure you have really good sources, and that they really do show a direct contradiction. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 20:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Nonentity683, As you know anybody can edit Wikipedia, and so feel free to make any changes you like to make. As long as they are backed by reliable sources, I don't think there should be any problem. Also you seem to be stuck on the introduction. Does it mean you are totally OK with the body of the article? I would be curious to know. BTW, I am not the only watcher of this page. Anyhow, good luck and once again thanks to 🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ for weighing in.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy : The whole reason why we are having this thread is that the changes I made were reverted, and the only way forward was to have some discussion on Talk page. Now that we have started 3O process, its best that we finish it so it does not look like I am doing something untoward.

Putting aside your use of word "stuck", I noticed that the article can use some cleaning up, but that Introduction section was in desperate need of same. Since changes required for Introduction section were already backed up by text of article and changes to article would require good sources (which would take considerable time), changes to Introduction section were done first. Was planning to move to Article, but the changes to Introduction section were reverted, and the process around that is taking time. Nonentity683 (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2023

Add chatrapati shivaji maharaj to shivaji maharaj's name we see him as a god for us please give some respect he was not our friend that we would call him by his only name please its my request again add maharaj after his name everywhere Ashutosh4598 (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We don't add honorifics to names (see WP:HONORIFICS).--RegentsPark (comment) 13:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2023

Pls add Shivaji "Maharaj" in front of each name where there is only Shivaji. Krishna Kadbhane (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.

This also seems like a request to change the name of the article to Shivaji Maharaj, which has been discussed previously. Xan747 (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

Instead of name shivaji I want the name as Shivaji Maharaj. NilamT (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding recents reverts

@SKAG123 :

There is a lot of scope for improvement in this article. ATST, not everything needs changes. For some of the changes you reverted, lets discuss them here.

Is Shivaji considered a National Hero in contemporary India?

Note that this sentence is not saying he is a national Hero, but that he is considered to be one. Burden of proof for assertion that Shivaji was / is a national Hero is much higher. For assertion that he is considered to be one, it is enough to show that people from various parts of India consider him to be a National Hero.

To that end, see following references from reliable sources -

1. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/chatrapati-shivaji-was-a-national-hero/article6915168.ece
2. https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/shivaji-an-idol-hero-till-sun-and-moon-exist-says-fadnavis-amid-row-over-statements-on-warrior-king/article66161190.ece
3. https://frontline.thehindu.com/columns/article30217102.ece
4. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rajnath-singh-draws-flak-for-saffronising-shivaji/article36158697.ece
5. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/20/india.comment
6. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35709930
7. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02stvy6
8. https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/28/opinion/IHT-letters-to-the-editor-92357672905.html

Did Aurangzeb start his campaign because he felt Threatened by Marathas?

See "Shivaji and the Decline of the Mughal Empire" by M. N. Pearson (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2053980) for short answer.

Nonentity683 (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: "National Hero"; every one of those sources is reporting a statement made by someone else, typically a Hindu nationalist politician. Such sources are insufficient. What we need is secondary sources saying he is considered a national hero. I rather suspect you won't find such a source, because it's a meaningless statement; Shivaji's rule occurred centuries before India existed as a nation-state in its present form; what would that even mean? The historians have much more nuanced things to say about his significance in the national imagination today, and we're doing an okay job summarizing those already. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 :

"reporting a statement made by someone else" - That is exactly what we are trying to do, decide if *people* of India consider him to be a national Hero. Note that the list contains an incumbent Prime Minister referring to a Shivaji related matter as "National Pride".

"because it's a meaningless statement; " - It is not a meaningless statement in this context. To reiterate, this issue is not whether or not he *is* a national Hero, but whether or not he is considered to be one. Latter is really about perception, which is what the section is really about - Interpretation. See Folk hero, and Giuseppe Garibaldi.

"Shivaji's rule occurred centuries before India existed as a nation-state in its present form" - Just because Shivaji's rule occured before current nation state does not mean that he cannot be considered a national Hero now. If his contributions were and his impact on History is large enough, he *can* be considered a National Hero.

To add to the list, consider following (might add to this list later on) -

1. Jadunath Sarkar is referring to Shivaji as a National Hero / Hero - https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Shivaji_and_His_Times/WYFrgILWbIgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Shivaji+Hero&pg=PA23&printsec=frontcover

Nonentity683 (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's still original research. You need a secondary source saying he is considered a national hero (and a detailed secondary source, not a throwaway line in a tangential source), not a collection of individual opinions calling him a national hero (I'm referring here to the opinions being reported, not the authors of those reports). Vanamonde (Talk) 19:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 : Following that criteria, all of Jadunath Sarkar needs to be thrown away, which is not a good approach. But that is another discussion.

To reiterate, this is not about assertion that Shivaji *was / is* a National Hero. If that was the case, we would need to rely on Historians.

This is about sentence that he is *considered* to be one by people. Ideal way to settle this would be repeated opinion polls conducted by reliable pollsters, but those polls have not happened.

One proxy for that *is* collection of individual opinions. Note that a number of those opinions are of constitutional office bearers (e.g. Chief Ministers / Prime Ministers). Nonentity683 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You're not hearing me, and you have clearly not read WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH carefully. Please do so. Anything you wish to add to the article needs to be supported by a source that says what the content says. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 :

"You're not hearing me" - This can be interpreted as hostile / patronising. This should be avoided.

Have already gone through the links, and you already have multiple sources claiming Shivaji as a National Hero, including Jadunath Sarkar.

Not all of those Newspaper sources are from India, or from Indian Politicians. BBC and Guardian article are clearly and explicitly saying just that - that Shivaji is viewed as a National Hero. Nonentity683 (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Another incumbent PM calling Shivaji a National Hero - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/pm-narendra-modi-maharashtra-cm-uddhav-thackeray-share-stage-amid-frosty-bjp-shiv-sena-ties/articleshow/92215370.cms?from=mdr. Nonentity683 (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many individuals call him something if they are not reliable sources. I don't want to keep repeating myself, so I'm stepping away from this discussion; it's obvious you do not have consensus for your addition in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

There are links to BBC and Guardian articles explicitly calling him a National Hero, and statements from 2 different Indian Prime Ministers *when they were / are* in office calling him a National Hero. Nonentity683 (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

These are *not* unreliable sources. Nonentity683 (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed the statement about Shivaji being a national Hero because it clearly violates WP:PEACOCK. The statement needs to be written in a more neutral tone. I also removed the statement about Shivaji threatening Aurangzeb because It talks about events such as the Mughal Maratha Wars and the Capture of Delhi that happened well after Shivaji's death. It is also not written in a neutral tone. There are separate articles about these events. I also added an NPOV tag since this article contains several statements that violate WP:NPOV. Also, News media is not a reliable source for history articles. (see WP:HISTRS) SKAG123 (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 : The news articles have not been added as a source for Historical facts, but for how Shivaji is viewed today. How Shivaji is viewed today is something for which Newspaper Articles can be a good source. Again it depends on context - we cannot add OpEds, and Newspapers have to be in Wikipedia's list of reliable sources (which they all are).

To reiterate, the sentence was saying that people *consider* him to be a National Hero. That in and of itself is not WP:PEACOCK if we can back it up with enough evidence. Consider the cases of Giuseppe Garibaldi and Joan of Arc. They both have the same status of a National Hero in their respective countries.

If the sentence said that Shivaji *is* a National Hero, it would most likely be WP:PEACOCK (unless, of course, there is some academic work proving otherwise). Nonentity683 (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Stating "Is considered a national Hero" is too broad as It does not specifically state who. If that was written it should be in the format "___ considers Shivaji a "National Hero of India"." Since the opinion of Phule and Tilak, It's better to omit the last sentence entirely. SKAG123 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 : To take the example of Giuseppe Garibaldi and Joan of Arc, we would not say xyz consider them to be National Heroes. Nonentity683 (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

In the case of Giuseppe Garibaldi

Pater Patriae or Father of the Country is an actual term used by historians to describe him. "National Hero of India" is not. It is an opinion of some individuals. (unless you provide reliable scholarly sources that state that)

Statements from Politicians are not reliable sources for History articles. (please see WP:RS) Therefore, there is no need to include them. SKAG123 (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@ SKAG123 : We are not referring to him as "National Hero of India", but saying that he is considered to be "National Hero". First one would be an actual title that would need to be vetted by Historians, second one is more of a view held by people in India today.

That being said, these are not all quotes from politicians. Links in this thread contain quotes from two Prime Minsters *when they were / are in office* calling him a National Hero, and two separate articles from BBC and Guardian explicitly calling him a National Hero. Nonentity683 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

the statement "In modern day India, Shivaji is considered a national hero" is too broad. Most citations are quotes from politicians. News media (regardless of the country of origin) is not valid here as per WP:HISTRS. We already have statements about how various later reformers view him, therefore no need for this statement. SKAG123 (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but they are not all quotes from Politicians. Most recently added references for this are Academic sources. Nonentity683 (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, as mentioned above, even though the Article itself is about a Historical Figure, the statement in question is about how he is viewed currently. How Shivaji is viewed in modern / current India is not solely the purview of Historians.

Copy-paste from WP:HISTRS - "Articles that deal with current events, or events occurring entirely in the previous one or two years are not regarded as historical articles, since they have not been studied by historians. "

Even though this statement itself pertains to Articles that deal with current events, this can be taken to mean that the parts of Article that pertain to current events are not covered by WP:HISTRS.

Also from WP:HISTRS - "Finding and using scholarly sources is a best practice, not a requirement.".

In this context, these Newspaper links should be a good source. Whether or not you agree with the provided sources is another discussion. Nonentity683 (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• I have once again removed the "national hero" content, because the sources were not fit for purpose. You cannot simply google "Shivaji National Hero" and insert any source you find; you need to find reliable sources that actually support the statement you are inserting. If you had read Guha, for instance, you'd see he was summarizing Tilak's views, not describing Shivaji's legacy. I have explained this in detail above, so I will just say that further attempts to insert original research into the article may result in a trip to AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93 : Going forward, you might to stop assigning intent / assume that someone is not acting in good faith. There is nothing to indicate that I simply googled "Shivaji National Hero". You have already been asked to refrain less than polite behaviour, I reserve rights to raise any more rudeness from you in relevant forums.

  "If you had read Guha," - I had already read Guha and knew fully well that that book discusses Shivaji in context of Tilak's views. You have chosen to completely ignore rest of sources that actually call Shivaji a National Hero, and instead only focussed on one that does not explicitly call him that.

  E.g. Mathew N. Schmalz, Peter Gottschalk are explicitly saying that Shivaji is viewed as a National Hero. They are discussing this in context of James Laine's episode, but they are saying exactly that - that Shivaji is viewed as a National Hero.

  Not sure what AE means here.

  Copy-paste from my reply above - "

  Also, as mentioned above, even though the Article itself is about a Historical Figure, the statement in question is about how he is viewed currently. How Shivaji is viewed in modern / current India is not solely the purview of Historians.

  Copy-paste from WP:HISTRS - "Articles that deal with current events, or events occurring entirely in the previous one or two years are not regarded as historical articles, since they have not been studied by historians. "

  Even though this statement itself pertains to Articles that deal with current events, this can be taken to mean that the parts of Article that pertain to current events are not covered by WP:HISTRS.

  Also from WP:HISTRS - "Finding and using scholarly sources is a best practice, not a requirement.".

  In this context, these Newspaper links should be a good source. Whether or not you agree with the provided sources is another discussion."

  Nonentity683 (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Refrain from* Nonentity683 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    If you did actually read the sources, then I apologize. However, it makes the rest of the problems I've pointed out more serious; you still need secondary sources supporting the content you wish to add. If you have such sources, please list those specifically, with supporting quotes. Otherwise, you clearly have no consensus for your preferred version, and reinserting it is inappropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    As @Vanamonde93 mentioned you need reliable secondary sources that support your argument. This article is about a 17th century figure, not a current event. Also as I mentioned, Your statement is too broad and not necessary. SKAG123 (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Name should be Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

Mentioning Shivaji is showing disrespect to the great Maratha Warrior. The name everywhere should be Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj 103.24.61.61 (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: Please read WP:HONORIFIC and WP:COMMONNAME. This has been addressed several times. SKAG123 (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

We need to add Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in the title of this topic.

Whatever you mean in your articles related to WP:Honorifics and WP:Commonname, Its not just a title, "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj" is the name we address him by. If you want to continue using his first name throughout the article, do so. But we want the titles to include "Chhatrapati" and "Maharaj". Stop arguing baselessly and get it edited. Mandarwadekar (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: The Common English Name in the vast majority of the sources is Shivaji. SKAG123 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)