Talk:Maratha Confederacy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map in infobox[edit]

Proposal withdrawn by the nominator because of lack of support. Can be seen at the bottom. (non-admin closure) Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The current map in infobox depicts that the Rajput states were a part of the Maratha Confederacy and mis-labels them as "Mahratta States". The Rajput states were not part of the Maratha Confederacy and most contemporary maps showed them to be separate. Such as these ones:

It's my suggestion that we use the third map (India map 1700 1792.jpg), it is much more detailed and shows the Rajput states as separate entities from the Maratha Confederacy. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Nominator Support] per nomination. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose various sources (cited in the body of this article) state that the Marathas had at least indirect control over the Rajput states at their peak. SKAG123 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with SKAG123.The Map of India during British rule has British territories as well as Native territories (e.g. Rajput states or Hydrabad state).Although nominally independent the native states were part of the British empire.In a similar manner, during 18th century maratha rule, there were tribute states around India that paid share of their revenue ( mostly a quarter or Chauth of the proceeedings ) to the Marathas.Having said that, all the big and small powers during the 18th century ruled in the name of the totally powerless Mughal emperor.My two cents.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - First two out of the three maps provided by the nominator itself contradicts him. It seems he has misunderstood the maps. The word Rajputs there doesn't show that it is their territory. It shows the name of the place just like Bihar and Bengal. In the all the maps we can see that Bihar and Bengal are shown British Territories but yet the name of the place is shown. Similar is the case with Maratha and Rajput. It is a Rajput land under Maratha Empire just like land of Bihar and Bengal under British occupation. Also to see the markings of the top two maps. It is marked as Maratha Territory/Confederacy but with Rajputs it is just written Rajput(s). Try to understand the difference. If still some confusion read Secondary school history books. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith. I do not see what secondary school education has to with this. Marathas were not any significant power to have their chapter in any CBSE textbook, as far as I can remember. And please do look at the map carefully, there's a boundary between Maratha and Rajput territory not a regional name. Anyways I am withdrawing my proposal. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator: I am hereby withdrawing my proposal due to clearly visible lack of support. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prominent mention of Bajirao and his caste[edit]

Caste mongering is evidently a prevailing problem on Wikipedia with India-related content and nothing exemplifies this more than prominent mentions of Bajirao and his Chitpavan Brahmin caste in the lead paragraph of the article. Not sure when this was added, however, the blanket statement that Bajirao created the empire is a myth mostly propagated by contemporary upper caste authors and folks influenced by the 2016 Bollywood movie. Mahadev Govind Ranade in his seminal book in 1914 'The Rise of Maratha Power' clearly details Shahu's pivotal role in the expansion of the empire. He managed the rivalry between Raghuji Bhosale, who controlled large parts of Central India and Bajirao. Shahu recalled and deployed commanders and even the great generals of North India and close associates of Bajirao such as Holkar and Shinde held deep reverence for Shahu. Bajirao deserves to be known as great but it is curious how the article uses selective references to justify a hyperbolic statement that seems clearly designed to glorify a caste. Urging the main authors and editors of the article to remove this statement. 2605:8D80:1398:8272:9D5F:6F87:6110:5D8F (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit it then and make it better. Witchilich (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your extremely useful suggestion. Tried it before writing the talk post but given the edit war that ensued, it was best to put an explanation over here. 2001:569:7F49:2B00:5C19:988D:8641:A10B (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 March 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha Empire → Maratha Confederacy – Based on This Ngram search Confederacy is the more commonly used name, especially post 1995 1995. The Marathas were a Confederacy rather than an empire at their peak so this title makes sense. SKAG123 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – According to information in the article, they were at their peak in 1758 and the confederacy began after the death of Madhavrao I in 1772. So the Marathas were an empire at their peak. The period from 1674-1772 is larger than the period from 1772-1818, so the Marathas were an empire for longer than they were a confederacy. Also, I do not think the Ngram search establishes a common name. The ratio at its maximum is approximately 3:2 post-1995. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More recent data from Ngram suggests that Maratha Empire has become more common compared to Maratha Confederacy. Arnav Bhate (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As @Arnav Bhate rightly said, empire were for a large amount of time and so this title justifies it. Curious man123 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 April 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move to Confederacy (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 09:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha Empire → Maratha Confederacy – The Maratha state had been a confederation of some sort for much of its existence from at least 1721 when the Baroda State was founded and 1732 when Indore and Gwalior States were founded till 1818. The Maratha state during the Deccan wars under Shivaji and his descendents was not in the slightest an "empire", rather a quasi-state or rebel kingdom from 1674 till 1707. Besides in most non-biased scholarly sources the Maratha realm has been referred to as the "Maratha Confederacy" or "Maratha States". (Look at the infobox map itself. It says "Maratha States".) Calling it an empire is an overly biased PoV. "Maratha Confederacy" should be used per WP:NPOVTITLE. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move: Support by nominator. Also pinging @SKAG123 who originally put forward this suggestion. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: See Ngram, Maratha Empire is more common in scholarly sources. It is clearly then the WP:COMMONNAME. Add your statements to the article while citing reliable sources otherwise they are just original research. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the English word was "Mahratta" not "Maratha" which is more recent rendering. Check this [1]. You can clearly see that the Confederacy was way, way more popular. Besides Maratha Empire has got only slightly more common very recently, such recent changes are not usually used to decide names in Wikipedia. Also WP:COMMONNAME is not the supreme parameter to decide names. It is very often abandoned when their are better and more accurate options. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you very conveniently left out Mahratta Empire, which was more common, especially in contemporary sources. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: N-gram graphs are not the sole determinant influencing the decision. "The New Cambridge History of India: The Marathas" does not refer to the Marathas as the "Maratha Empire" at any point. Both the infobox and the article's content are centered on the Bhonsle state of the Marathas of Satara. Even if we insist on labeling it as an "empire," who would be considered the emperor? The Marathas of Satara did not hold imperial authority over the entire region.--Imperial[AFCND] 13:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Emperor in Raigad, and later Satara, did hold authority until 1749, when Shahu died. After that, it was the Peshwa. The confederacy began in 1772. I am basing this on the article. If you do not agree then find sources and edit the article. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Peshwa holding de facto power for a short period doesn't change anything. There were individual Maratha states within the Confederacy since at least 1721. See Baroda State for example. Additionally, the chhatrapati (not emperor) held only nominal power and no real authority. The Peshwa too didn't hold much real power and had power only over his own dominions which later became the Bombay Province and the Central Provinces after being annexed. Earlier on he did have some power and respect but no real authority to govern territories within the Confederacy which were not his own, like Baroda or Nagpur. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: Move to 'Maratha State' instead. Neither 'Empire' nor 'Confederacy' seem suitable, given that the type of government changed multiple times. The word 'State' does not convey what the type of government was and seems to be quite used [2] [3] in scholarly sources as well. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That can't be. You forget, there were multiple states within the Maratha Confederacy. Look at the infobox map again, it says Maratha States. So states like Nagpur, Gwalior, Baroda were also each a "Maratha State". "Maratha States" might work but again post-1818 successor states like Satara were also Maratha states. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Maratha state as this typically refers to the smaller states/kingdoms under the Confederacy/Empire. I would Support Maratha Confederacy or Maratha Empire as the Marathas were a large confederacy at their peak. SKAG123 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because the Maratha government was decentralized doesn't mean the article can't be titled Maratha Empire. For example the Holy Roman Empire is also a similar situation. The WP:COMMONNAME especially at the peak (1758-1818) should determine the name of the article SKAG123 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was the Maratha Confederacy at its peak time 1758 to 1818. Also the Holy Roman Empire was never ever called the "Holy Roman Confederacy", that's undisputed. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: per nomination. It is inappropriate, and no sources other than early Indian/Marathi records during British Raj, and works influenced by them records the state as "Maratha Empire".--DeepstoneV (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral It was not an empire in a conventional sense, but historically, the entity or the entities have been grouped under empire or confederacy. Google scholar search on the two terms post 1947 gives a much larger number of hits with empire rather than confederacy.I am OK with either term but not state, any newly coined term, or Maratha Swarajya. The latter should be restricted to the territories under Shivaji's control over which Shahu was later granted Sardeshmukhi rights in 1719 by the Mughals.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonathansammy, I think you replied at the wrong spot. I think you meant to oppose "Maratha State" right? Here you are replying to Deepstone. PadFoot2008 (talk)
Sorry my mistake.I did not properly read the section heading. My vote between Confederacy or Empire would be Neutral, or either. ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonathansammy, you voted "Oppose" here. You said you want to be neutral. You need to change it to "Comment" (or "Neutral") if you want to be neutral. PadFoot2008 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. SKAG123 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: The Mordern term Empire is biased for Marathas as it actually was a confederacy of Peshwas, Holkars, Scindias, Gaekwads, and Bhonsales. Hassan Gangu (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to write bold letters, someone correct it please Hassan Gangu (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move according to the nomination. Mehedi Abedin 11:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The nom or supporters need to provide some reason based on policy (see WP:TITLE), which they haven't done. Vpab15 (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vpab15, See WP:NPOVTITLE. The current is not neutral. It has a biased PoV. Scholarly sources which are not biased due to nationalist reasons use Maratha Confederacy. As of now both Maratha Confederacy and Empire have more or less same number uses as per ngram. PadFoot2008 06:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evidence the current title is not neutral. The are lots of empires per List of empires, not all of which have "empire" in their title. Even though it is a somewhat arbitrary decision to call something an empire, it is a word used too widely by historians to make it non-neutral. In any case, the current title is the most common in reliable sources, so it would be acceptable to use a non-neutral title. Vpab15 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vpab15, Using a non-neutral title is not acceptable per Wikipedia titling policy. Wikipedia policy dictates that the title should be neutral. (See WP:NPOVTITLE) WP:COMMONNAME is not supreme. Besides both the names have near equal usage in the past decades with both surpassing each other in usages every few decades. "Maratha Confederacy" is also very commonly used. Wikipedia suggests that the most commonly name should be used; but other names can be used if the most common name is not very obvious which in this case isn't as both have near equal usages. PadFoot2008 17:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: Firstly, as aforementioned the title is NPOV. Usually NPOV wouldn't matter if this was an extremely common name like Alexander the Great, but in this case, it is not a common name. It is interchangeably in sources used as "Maratha Confederacy", or "Maratha Empire". However since sources in a vast amount use the Maratha Confederacy, and that the "Maratha Empire" would be an NPOV title as proposed above, the best solution here would be to move. If you are also more of an expert on Maratha history or have dabbled in that field, you'd know how really divided the Marathas were, hence another reason why Confederacy would be appropriate. Noorullah (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been stable with the current title ever since it was first created. To make a move, an impetus both per policy and sources would be needed. For policy I do not see an issue of POV, article titles need not conform to historical analysis if sources prefer to use the name regardless. This takes us to sources, as evidenced there is no clear preference among historical or tertiary sources for either confederacy or empire (Britannica for instance has two articles for both [4], [5]). Perhaps then a move to simply Maratha/Marathas should be preferred. But for all this hassle and with no clear incentive, I do not see a problem with staying put with the same title which we have had for more than a decade and a half. Gotitbro (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Britannica also uses Maratha Empire ([6]) for 1674 to 1818. Historically, the Confederacy was formed only in the 1770's after the Panipat defeat [7] (Britannica has a sub-article on Maratha confederacy), after which it was known as "Maratha confederacy". The kingdom was not a confederacy till then. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History [8] uses Maratha Empire from 1674 to 1818. RS do use the term Empire for 1674-1818. Confederacy is used for limited time in the latter history of the kingdom; the WP:POV argument seems flawed.Redtigerxyz Talk 12:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Britannica nor the other encyclopedias you cited are reliable sources. Regarding tertiary sources on WP:RS: "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact-checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE)."
    @Redtigerxyz Noorullah (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is Britannica and Oxford Research Encyclopedias, an encyclopedia published by Oxford University Press not be considered "Reputable tertiary sources"? Redtigerxyz Talk 13:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's have a look at the latest the The New Cambridge history of India:Marathas. That centres around solely the history of Marathas. Nowhere even at once it calls as the "Maratha Empire". Imperial[AFCND] 13:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see how having a book titled "The Marathas"provides any evidence about usage of the term "Maratha Confederacy". Actually, book uses "empire" from the very start ([9]): In this book, Dr Stewart Gordon presents the first comprehensive history of one of the most colourful and least-understood kingdoms of India: the Maratha Empire. Vpab15 (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vpab15, That's the Blurb of the book. How does it became the part of it? Imperial[AFCND] 06:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ImperialAficionado Well, Stewart N. Gordon has himself used the term Maratha Empire in his thesis The Slow Conquest: Administrative Integration of Malwa into the Maratha Empire, 1720—1760., therefore, I don't see any problem with using "Maratha Empire" either. Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per recent Ngram searches, Britannica. and Oxford.. Moreover Gordon (the author of Cambridge The Marathas 1600–1818) has himself preferred Maratha Empire in his thesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: As was said, both Maratha Confederacy and Maratha Empire seem to be widely used, and calling this collection of sovereign states an "Empire" is a bit of a long shot, even if it was called so by certain historians. The proposed title does not hold the NPOV issues the current does, and adheres to WP:COMMONNAME as both debated names are widely used. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: The current title is not justified as modern day standard calls it a confedracy. The Marathas under Shivaji to Rajaram were a group of rebels. It was only under the time of Sahu that they started imperial expansion so that is the period in which we can call Marathas as Empire but after his death it was confedracy with nominal accecptance of overlordship to Peshwa and and descendants of Shivaji Rawn3012 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: According to nomination AdityaNakul (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date of End of the Maratha Empire[edit]

What date could be considered the end of Maratha rule? Peshwa Baji Rao II's surrender on 3 June 1818? End of the Third-Anglo Maratha War on 9 April 1819? Prakashs27 (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the map of Maratha Empire in 1758 and removing the map of 1760.[edit]

Maratha Empire was at peak in 1758, but the map there is of 1760. The map of 1760 is contradictig the statement below it saying "Maratha Empire at it its peak in 1760". Therefore, I'm the replacing the map of 1760 to 1758. The map is available in Wikipedia commons. 27.97.236.117 (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least now that the page has been indef protected (by me), you can't force your preference anymore using multiple IPs. Now you'll need to actually take the time to write out a convincing argument, substantively explaining why you consider it to be contradictig. And doing so without insults, and while also proofreading for intelligibility — or even this avenue will be out. El_C 17:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first edit had a map from 1760, but the description below mentioned 1758. So, I replaced the map with one from 1758 when the Maratha Empire was at its peak. However, some editors reverted it without reason, and one user recently changed the description from 1758 to 1760 along with the statement. I'm simply questioning what problem editors have with showing the peak of the Maratha Empire in the 1758 map. 2402:8100:384E:3F7C:AC52:E91E:48D4:A649 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So here's what you could do. Go the artilce's revision history (link) and find those editors who reversed you on the map. Copy their user names into the following: {{re|user name1|user name2|etc.}} and submit that text here, which will WP:PING them. If you don't get a response from anyone in, say, a week, I'll personally re-add your preferred changes. El_C 17:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and sorry for being rude. 2402:8100:384E:3F7C:AC52:E91E:48D4:A649 (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnav Bhate and An Asphalt: 2402:8100:384E:3F7C:AC52:E91E:48D4:A649 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My objection with the map is that it shows Maratha control of Mysore in 1758, which was not the case. Arnav Bhate (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it shows numerous other things wrong apart from Mysore. It is occupying large parts of the Hyderabad state which is completely incorrect. It is occupying southern Oudh province which it didn't. It is occupying the Carnatic province, which it also didn't. It is vastly exaggerated. Lastly, northwest India was only briefly under joint Maratha-Sikh military occupation during the Afghan war. The map doesn't acknowledge that and tries to make out that the territories were annexed by the Marathas. Also it is user-made map which are very untrustworthy and unnecessary especially that we have so many genuine contemporary maps. PadFoot2008 11:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Indeed, user made maps are generally problematic, because of their un-reliability. And for a C-topic such as this, often is accompanied by an agenda (usually an ethno-national one) that seeks to go outside the modern historiography. It's fine to argue what the historiography does or does not say—like those two years (1758 to 1760) being pivotal or at least dramatic in some fashion—but it's difficult to justify a user-made map over one from a published source. At the very least, there would need to be a clear consensus that it ought to be preferred over a map that's from a published source. Thank you. El_C 17:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are talking without giving any source. The map of 1758 is also attached in various articles of Wikipedia page. See this https://mr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A0%E0%A4%BE_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF2402:8100:3854:C3E2:538A:CA8A:4EF:F131 (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That map is not present on the page you have linked but a similarly bad map is present. Also, it is up to you to provide citations, not us. Arnav Bhate (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure np. FYI there are ways to request assistance with dispute resolution. A request like 3rd opinion, for example, as the name implies, requests a 3rd opinion from an uninvolved editor. So good to keep in mind in case of any future issues. See WP:DR for the the dispute resolution policy itself. HTH. Regards, El_C 04:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ claim misunderstood by Rawn3012[edit]

@Rawn3012, please try to understand that WP:RAJ only applies to caste-related content. Additionally it is not a Wikipedia policy, it's on a Wikipedia editor user page and has not been accepted by Wikipedia. The source you removed has nothing to do with WP:RAJ. If you have problems then disscus here. PadFoot2008 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 I have just asked for the modern era sources nothing more than that as moder historian asserts that Marathas were under a nominal suzzerains not tributary state. Putting a message on my talk page regarding od edit war is not fine as I have edited this page today for 3 times only. If you do not understand it then it is not my problem Rawn3012 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a message on my talk page regarding od edit war is not fine as I have edited this page today for 3 times only. This is precisely why they left you the warning. Another edit would put you past WP:3RR, so the warning needs to be ahead of that. — Czello (music) 08:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't require modern-era sources. Any reliable source would do. I had provided a reliable source which you removed on nonsensical claims. PadFoot2008 08:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohammad Umar Ali, please use the talk page to discuss. The claimed extent you are trying to add need not be in the first paragraph. Also I have a good reason to believe you might a sockpuppet of @Sudsahab whose edits you are spectacularly mirroring. Pinging @Drmies. PadFoot2008 09:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:PadFoot2008, you need to produce some decent evidence to make that stick, and a talk page conversation is probably not the way to do that. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just if you're not aware, there is already an ongoing sockpuppet investigation with a great amount of evidence on user Mohammad Umar Ali, which I assume PadFoot2008 is referencing. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any say on the topic. I don't think you have any knowledge about the article and dispute I and PadFoot are having here as most of your comments on the talk page are irrelevant. You even asked for the misinformation which I replied to but you didn't reply any further. You should stick only to the discussion here. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote the page number or line which says Maratha chiefs were completely independent as per your comment about my source? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your quote that you added, it says "The chiefs were to all intents and purposes independent, yet they recognised the Peshwa as the head of the Maratha polity". Do you know what "to all intents and purposes" means? It means the Marathas were de facto independent, and were only nominally subordinate to the Peshwa. No, they were not "completely independent", but this seems like a case, though not exactly the same, of the Sultanate of Egypt under Muhammad Ali with the Ottoman Empire. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you should check who added that source it was PadFoot. Secondly see the other source which I added it clearly states opposite of so besides in the first source neither the page number or surrounding context is mentioned. So assuming by the title ig it talks about the 19th century (1800-1818) while I am talking about (roughly 1720-1800) by this timeline I mean from Bajirao to Madhav Rao II. And if you want I could provide you more such sources so? i think you got my point. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, though I think we should just keep it how it is then — we shouldn't say either way that the Marathas were always independent or always subordinate as neither is true. Either keep the wording how it is or change it to "sometimes subordinate to the Peshwa". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "mostly subordinate to the Peshwa" would be fine cuz the sources state so moreover even in the 19th century there was a nominal recongnition of Peshwa as the head of the Maratha Empire. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sry I wrote mostly by that I meant the original statement i.e. "often subordinate to the Peshwa" Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No i m not a sockpuppet of Sudsahab. Also I have quoted the source what's the problem you are having tell me? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also why can't I add that Marathas became protectors of Delhi throne in 1st para if you could add the info that they continue to recognise nominal suzerainity of Mughal emperor that too unsourced and mine one is sourced+quoted. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:RS Rahio1234 09:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive this is the source for protectors of Delhi throne pg 138 here is the quotation: For the Marathas, probably the two most significant events of the whole chaotic period in Delhi were a treaty in 1752, which made them protector of the Mughal throne (and gave them the right to collect chauth in the Punjab), and the civil war of 1753, by which the Maratha nominee ended up on the Mughal throne.
This is for Areal limit of the Empire/Confederacy (same source); Quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.
Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books
Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please use this talk page to discuss and not cycle between here and my talk page. As I said before the source mentions the regions the Confederacy collected Chauth from, not the the regions were a part of the Confederation. PadFoot2008 09:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this WP:RS source pg 234-237 clearly mentions Marathas capture Peshawar, Attock,etc. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=d1wUgKKzawoC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA234&dq=Advanced+Study+in+the+History+of+Modern+India+1707-1813++while+encamped+in+karnal&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Advanced%20Study%20in%20the%20History%20of%20Modern%20India%201707-1813%20%20while%20encamped%20in%20karnal&f=false Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see? And in the above pages [10] also says that Marathas took control of Delhi after Battle of Delhi 1757 before the Punjab invasion and capture of Peshawar etc. So areal limits need to be discussed in 1st Para see any empire article on Wikipedia for eg. Mughal Empire. Also protectors of Delhi one after treaty in 1752 is already mentioned in the first source with quotation I commented above. Even the 1st source mentioned of Maratha brief occupation of Punjab see the quote: After yet another Abdali invasion, the Marathas, under Nana Saheb’s brother, Ragunath Rao, and Malhar Rao Holkar, returned from Malwa and the Deccan in the campaigning season of 1757-58. A Maratha invasion of the Punjab followed, which coincided with the much more significant Sikh rebellion. The Maratha Punjab adventure was brief; the Ragunath Rao expedition left little administration behind, and the Sikhs successfully resisted any attempt to set up long-term Maratha authority. This clearly says Marathas briefly occupied Punjab and the exact limits can be inferred from my second source JL Mehta Advance study in History of India pg 234-237 Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think you understand. The Marathas occupied those territories during war and then lost them. They never annexed them, i.e., made them a part of the Confederacy. Their armies captured those cities but never annexed them. Thus those territories never became a part of the Confederacy. PadFoot2008 09:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand the term "Peak of an empire" They captured it and briefly ruled over it not for long but for a considerable time and it's still counted when defining their territorial extent for any empire. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover see my 2nd source JL Mehta one clearly says quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived. This clearly indicates Maratha Empire/Confederacy ruled till Khyber Pass. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover your this comment falls within WP:OR while I stated and quoted two reliable WP:RS sources so I am adding the information I hope now you are okay with it? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More WP:RS sources;
Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.
Another WP:RS Source;The state at war in South Asia page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758. SEE the word "CAPTURED" Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I simply told you to provide a source that explicitly states that the regions were "part of the Maratha Confederacy". Not ruled/influenced/protected/raided or whatever other construct you are coming up with. PadFoot2008 12:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand English baby boy? Read the second, third and fourth sources. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are being incivil now. If you still don't understand then just consider this: the Soviets captured the entirety of eastern Europe till Berlin during WWII but it's article doesn't say that they were a part of the Soviet Union. PadFoot2008 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is clear difference between the two and you need to study about partition of Germany between Allied forces after WW2 and East and West Germany and how Soviet influence was in East Germany. Also you should read WP:OTHERCONTENT So your this argument fails. Anything else! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to quote PadFoot2008's earlier comment, The Marathas occupied those territories during war and then lost them. They never annexed them, i.e., made them a part of the Confederacy. While the sources definitely say that the Marathas captured the territory, they do not say they annexed them. You are not addressing the raised issue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling that Maratha Confederacy or Maratha Empire at its peak controlled till Peshawar, pakistan in north and that's what I was trying to mention in the article Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, just don't clog up the already long lead even more and put it somewhere else, presumably in the middle of the Peshwa era section and make sure to clarify that they merely occupied the territory in war rather than fully held it. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed but there's no need. The article probably already mentions it in the Peshwa section. An incredibly brief (about 2 years) wartime occupation by a state that existed for more than century need not be mentioned directly in the lead paragraphs (again similar to Soviet Union). PadFoot2008 13:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are a lot of misinformation in 1st para which are not supported by sources what to do for that? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why it is "misinformation"? The lead also often requires little citations, especially in articles as large as this, as all of the content is later explained and cited in full so not every fact in the lead needs citing. (see MOS:LEADCITE) Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Maratha confederacy were subordinate to the Peshwa not completely independent.
Source: JL Mehta Advance Study in History of India page 190
So the line in intro should be five Maratha rajas often subordinate to the Peshwa
Secondly, After the nominal suzerain point there should be a statement that Maratha became protectors of the Mughal throne after a treaty in 1752. Source already mentioned in the above comments.
Also, there should be a statement telling, that Marthas replaced Mughals as the dominant power in 18th century.
Source: JL Mehta Advance Study in History of India pg 169
Lastly, I still don't get in which source it's stated that Marathas continued to recognize Mughal emperors as their nominal suzerain, quote that source to me to check its verifiability because in all sources it states that Mughals were vassals of Maratha rulers after 1752.
If I think of any other required change or suggestion in the upcoming days I will be conversing with you here again. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So holding up a territory for 2-3 years and leaving Maratha soldiers after capturing and annexing the forts of Peshawar and Attock, etc. with Maratha commanders and Maratha governor of the state (tributary to the Martaha Peshwa) is not considered annexing? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't unless a reliable source explicitly states that the Marathas annexed those territories. PadFoot2008 13:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Punjab governor Adina Beg was appointed by Raghunath Rao and was subordinate and paid tribute to the Maratha Peshwa. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wdym by annex provided the sources above which state capture of those territories from the Afghans. That territories were annexed in the Maratha Empire for 2-3 years. So at the territorial peak of Marathas Empire those territories were a part of it. And any empire boundaries in article are shown at their peak only gradually every empire declines see Durrani empire or Mughal Empire every empire areas are mentioned at their peak else Mughals just ruled Delhi for 100 years and so should I mention just Delhi as their ruled area? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this map, and this is taken from a book that is considered WP:RS by the way I explicitly mentioned it for Rahio1234 as he shouts WP:RS every time I say something;
JL Mehta Advanced Study in History of India pg 170; here is the link https://books.google.co.in/books?id=d1wUgKKzawoC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA170&dq=Advanced+Study+in+the+History+of+Modern+India+1707-1813++while+encamped+in+karnal&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Now it clearly depicts Maratha boundaries till Khyber Pass (Peshawar) and these areas were considered part of the Maratha Empire as per the statement evident above the map! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is 'The New Cambridge History of India' an unreliable source? Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008, Well I am replying very late as I was busy with ongoing changes to some other wiki pages. Here I want to ask you to give the exact quotation of Haig L, t-Colonel Sir Wolseley (1967). The Cambridge History of India. Volume 3 (III). Turks and Afghans. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 395. ISBN 9781343884571. Retrieved 12 May 2017, for checking the reliability of the claim that Marathas were the tributaries of the Mughals in 1707(As the link to Google Books does not omit page 395). Another thing is that the line mentioning the Marathas as a tributary state of Mughals is not much required at all, As in the times of Shivaji too, Marathas were the tributaries of Mughals(see the treaty of Purandhar). Despite that, if you had to mention it, you can mention that Marathas were the tributaries of the Mughals for most of the time in their early days. After which by rising to power in a string of battles they made Delhi their protectorate and continued to recognize the Mughal Emperor as their normal suzerain.
Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source for Mughals being the protectorate of Marathas is mentioned below and has been presented by @Mohammad Umar Ali too.
The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive this is the source for protectors of Delhi throne pg 138 here is the quotation: For the Marathas, probably the two most significant events of the whole chaotic period in Delhi were a treaty in 1752, which made them protector of the Mughal throne (and gave them the right to collect chauth in the Punjab), and the civil war of 1753, by which the Maratha nominee ended up on the Mughal throne
Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, cuz by a similar logic anyone could mention in the intro paras of Mughal Empire that they were Maratha vassals from 1752. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding Independence of Maratha Rajas[edit]

See JL Mehta Advance Study in History of India Pg 87 quoting; Hence the Peshwa emerged as the most powerful man in the Maratha polity and became the de facto ruler of the state while the Maratha king, who bore the royal title of Maratha Chhatrapati, and was formally adorned with all the insignia of royalty, was reduced to the position of titular or symbolic head of the state. Also, PadFoot2008 hasn't provided a counter argument for the previous discussion so I am assuming he is satisfied with my sources or else state any source. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's you job to gain a consensus not mine. You can't assume you have my consensus. You do not not have my support. Gain a consensus first and then make the changes you want. PadFoot2008 04:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who is undoing my edit. I have reliable sources to add the information but you don't seem to be satisfied with it so you provide counter claim here for the queries you have or let me add the information as per sources. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why can't I add template tell that also? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because bickering about not being able to add a template which states the problems with the article is less productive than actually discussing and gaining consensus for the changes that need to be made to resolve those problems. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is not discussing what to do tell? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The solution: stop editing the article for now. No one's gonna die if there's some information missing from the Maratha Confederacy article on Wikipedia. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let an article be as it is because it doesn't suit someone POV and he don't have sources to counter argue my claims this has been evidently clear from the above discussion. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're still in the wrong here. Not sure exactly what issue you're referring to, but with the territorial extent discussion, just because the Marathas occupied certain territories doesn't mean they can be included as territories annexed by them. For the Peshwa independence discussion, the wording is what we agreed it should be and any further bickering is nonsensical edit warring. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this map, and this is taken from a book that is considered
WP:RS
JL Mehta Advanced Study in History of India pg 170; here is the link https://books.google.co.in/books?id=d1wUgKKzawoC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA170&dq=Advanced+Study+in+the+History+of+Modern+India+1707-1813++while+encamped+in+karnal&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Now it clearly depicts Maratha boundaries till Khyber Pass (Peshawar) and these areas were considered part of the Maratha Empire as per the statement evident above the map!
Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maratha_Confederacy&oldid=1225704344"