Talk:Maratha Confederacy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Talk:Maratha Empire
)

Requested move 31 March 2024

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

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: Moved to Confederacy. 3 !votes were negated for sockpuppetery. Result remains the same. The participants leaned towards favoring the term confederacy as the entity was a collection of states even though both empire and confederacy are widely used in sources. (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 09:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOVTITLE. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:31, 17 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
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) Blocked sock 12:41, 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) Blocked sock[reply]

*Move: According to nomination AdityaNakul (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[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

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.

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-
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
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

@

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]
@
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]
@PadFoot2008 Would you mind reading my comment and try to reach a consensus. Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus has already been reached to not make the unsourced additions you want. It's your job to gather majority support now before trying to add such content. PadFoot2008 02:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding Independence of Maratha Rajas

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]

29 May 2024

Pinging @

suzerain similar to other contemporary Indian entities", added by user@Padfoot2008. This line in this para is not required at all, because usually in the first part of the lead according to Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Lead section we add the general facts, origins, and importance of the topic which you can see from the examples presented like Gupta Empire, Ottoman Empire, Maurya Empire, Vijaynagar Empire and, Austro-Hungarian Empire. However, in this case, it seems like Marathas being a tributary state of the Mughal Empire is more important rather than the fact it covered a substantial portion of the Indian Subcontinent or it was one of the causes of the decline of the Mughal Empire or it was the peak time of Marathi literature and Marathi architecture because by following the same logic I can add in the intro para of Mughal Empire that they were vassals or protectorate of Marathas or in the intro para of the Ottoman Empire that they recognized Timurids as a superior power after the battle of Ankara for some years. The user @Padfoot2008 reverted my edit when I added the same line saying that it was unsourced, although it was sourced. He along with another user, @Flemmish Nietzsche had constantly reverted sourced edits, when one editor questioned the user @Flemmish Nietzsche about this, he replied "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." according to him in Wikipedia , there is no need of adding missing information as no one is gonna die. You can also think that what's the harm with just two lines, but for your information(if you don't know) Marathas and Mughals were arch rivals, see Deccan wars, adding this line in the first para would decrease the importance of the power in the eyes of the readers, Hence, if not the disputed line being removed just add that Marathas covered a significant portion of Indian subcontinent
and they made Mughal throne their protectorate(I tried but my edits got reverted). I have the reliablesources too,

I would urge you to look at this topic and make a clear decision, also pinging other active users of Maratha history, @Arnav Bhate, @ Mohammad Umar Ali, and @SKAG123.

Regards

Sources for my claims :-

1)Sen, Saliendra Nath (2010). An Advanced History of Modern India. Macmillan Publisher. pp. 12 " Balaji substituted for the autocracy of the king the Maratha Confederacy. Despite its weakness, the confederacy made its power felt all over India and endured for more than a hundred years."

2)Gordon, Stewart. The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4). pp. 138""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."."

3)Ágoston, Gábor; Bruce Alan Masters (2009) [2008]. Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. Infobase Publishing.

ISBN 978-1-4381-1025-7. Archived
from the original on 14 January 2023. Retrieved 20 June 2015.

Rawn3012 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Constantly reverted sourced edits" is a bit of an overstatement — I only count two reverts by me, and one was reverting Padfoot. My statement you mentioned is also a bit taken out of context, as @
is no deadline. I honestly prefer the old lead ([11]) better but Padfoots "rewritten" lead is indeed shorter and not more than five paragraphs, so I wasn't gonna revert his lead rewrite just for the better organization the previous had. I do agree though that mentioning more general thinks about the Marathas first before mentioning the at one point Mughal suzerainity over the Marathas is much more neutral and better. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
One thing you fail to understand is that vassals are responsible for protecting their suzerain. The Nizam-ul-Mulk, another vassal, protected the emperor numerous times during the later Mughal era. Status of a "Protectorate" is different, where the protected state recognises the state providing the protection as it's suzerain. In this case, it's the complete opposite as the Marathas recognises the Emperor as their suzerain. PadFoot2008 05:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: Mohammad Umar Ali has been blocked for using sockpuppetry along with numerous other sockpuppets of his. So the only supporter @Rawn3012 had, and whose edits Rawn3012 has been supporting, has been now been indef-blocked by admins. PadFoot2008 05:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't blocked (see block log) but rather the sockmaster was moved to a different account not mentioned in the case where he was initially the suspected sockmaster. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, my bad. I hadn't noticed that. PadFoot2008 05:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flemmish Nietzsche @PadFoot2008 I don't understand why just adding one line that "Marathas controlled a sizeable portion of the subcontinent and had Mughal throne thier protectorate" would enlarge the lead like seriously. Also see the leads of Vijaynagar Empire and Bahmani Sultanate they are more bigger than this. Why it is not pov pushing that they were tributaries of Mughal Empire or accepted them as their suzzerain as already explained above in the first part of the lead according to Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Lead section we add the general facts, origins, and importance of the topic and Marathas controlling a sizeable portion of the subcontinent is more important in first para rather than they were tributaries of Mughal Empire Rawn3012 (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As also explained above, by following similar logic, I can add in the intro para of the Ottomans that they were the vassals of Sultanate of Rum in their early days or recognized Timurids as a superior power for some years after the battle of Ankara,but we don't as we tend tend to explain the achievements of the polity in opening section rather than they were tributaries of some power or not. Rawn3012 (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are not even allowing me to add the simple line that they controlled a sizeable portion of the Indian Subcontinent in their peak by the logic that lead would be too long. See Gupta Empire for more info. You both are just having a same pov and that you are pushing. Rawn3012 (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to push any POV, and you are welcome to add the line as long as you provide a good source. I never said I was against you adding that line, nor did I say it would make the lead "too long". Although your examples of the Bahmani Sultanate and Vijayanagara leads are in no way longer. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are not sourced. Mughals weren't "protectorate" of the Marathas. They regarded Mughals as their suzerain during the entire part of their existence after 1707 and therefore protected the emperor. Your examples are not at all similar to this case. As they were vassals for a very short duration at the very beginning. PadFoot2008 07:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well @PadFoot2008 I am here by providing you the sources that clearly states that Marathas wete the protectorate of the Mughal throne.
2)Gordon, Stewart. The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4). pp. 138""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."."
1)Sen, Saliendra Nath (2010). An Advanced History of Modern India. Macmillan Publisher. pp. 15 " In April 1752, through his wazir, Safdar Jang, entered into an agreement with the Marathas. The Emperor granted Maratha the chauth of the Punjab, Sind and the Doab in addition to the subadari of Agra and Ajmer. In exchange, the Marathas were to protect the Emperor against external enemies and disloyal subjects." Rawn3012 (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided you the sources, please reply on that. Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't understand, pal. The sources mention that the Marathas were "protectors" of the Emperor, similar to the Nizam in the later Mughal era. See the article on protectorate. A protectorate is a type of vassal where the protected state recognises the state providing the protection as it's suzerain which is not the case here. PadFoot2008 13:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, How about adding these lines in the intro para "Shivaji and his succesors fought a prolonged rebellion with the Mughals which came to an end when Marathas were obliged to sign a treaty in which Maratha realm was recognized by the Mughal Emperor as a tributary state. However, in coming years Marathas under Peshwa Bajirao 1 formed a confederacy that supported Maratha warlords to carve their own independent kingdoms, through this, in coming years Marathas were able to feel their power all over the Indian Subcontinent. They also protected the Mughal throne as they continued to recognize the
suzerain
similar to other contemporary Indian entities"
Source for my claims:-
1)Sen, Saliendra Nath (2010). An Advanced History of Modern India. Macmillan Publisher. pp. 12
2)Gordon, Stewart. The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4). pp. 138 Rawn3012 (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Above line is from NPOV, and it also explains how Maratha kingdom transitioned into Maratha Confederacy and how it became a dominant state in 18th century. Also it would not make the lead too long. Rawn3012 (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would make the lead too long. It's already mentioned in later paragraphs in the intro. PadFoot2008 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then mention this line "The Maratha realm was recognized by
suzerain similar to other contemporary Indian entities" in that para too. As it would make the lead more shorter and suitable Rawn3012 (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Unjustified Distortion of the Page after Move by Sockpuppet Lobbies

After going through the superficial debates entirety of discussions regarding the Maratha Empire here have been carried out between profiles very questionable motives, made in 2022-2023 and then supported by @Robertsky here [12] on 22 May 2024. With due respect @Robertsky cannot possible fathom the misinformation he has formalized. There is no justification for such radical negationism by selective hypothesis of small brand of authors, when the status of Maratha State under Bhonsles can be established as an Empire (Hindi: Samrajya) with other set of academic consensus based on accessible public and contemporary European and Marathi sources.

Even before entering a debate, at the least examine the accounts voting for the "move". Inviting senior editors @Daniel_Case, @Ivanvector to observe the proceedings, since they have blocked these profiles earlier as well and/or have experience in this.

User Padfoot2008 [13] is of very questionable motives as the entirety of the history of contributions by this profile are selective

supremacist
revisionisms. Before we return to him, let us see the other lobbyists. One of the users @
Maratha
history and the choice of alias itself is testifies to the malice.

The other two users @

Bangladeshi operator) is the only genuine profile here, and we have already seen that @Hassan_Gangu is a convicted sockpuppet. @Noorullah21
doesn't appear to have voted, but appeared in the debates to support the other profiles.

Based on literally 4

Maratha Empire, allowing @PadFoot2008
to engage in a series of distortions in various other pages. @PadFoot2008 is also guilty of a very pathetic attempt at browbeating by posting a warning for 3-Revert Rule without any authority or backing: [14]. This is why there is a strong indication of malice by me towards @PadFoot2008

@Robertsky maintain neutrality, and integrity of history and check the "consensus debates" and the participants who are attempting to control the narrative first. The Maratha State was an Empire with an Emperor at Satara who was recognized till the end of each body with allegiance to him. Once this is acknowledged, we can start a formal academic debate. Restore the page to its original state and revise all vandalism by @PadFoot2008. DeccanFlood (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeccanFlood I’m sorry, but this just looks like a large attack post.
I was in the debate because I was requested to join it on my talk page. Noorullah (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s the link as to where I was asked to participate/join: [15] Noorullah (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are @Hassan_Gangu and @AdityaNakul profiles which voted for this facile consensus debate not convicted abusers of Wikipedia guidelines who engaged in deceitful tricks like sockpuppets and false inflation of voters for the move? They were suspended by a very senior editor @Ivanvector. @PadFoot2008 and @Flemmish_Nietzsche are 2 2023 profiles run by Islamic state aggrandisers as entirety of their contribution log conclusively proves.
There is no "attack post", you must not divert from the presentation of visible facts as they are. The fact that you, a
Muslim profile (not passing any judgement on your contributions or character), were invited here [16] shows that @PadFoot2008 has engaged in religious identity-driven lobbying, as he well expected you to support the matter in his favour. This entire debate was a sham. DeccanFlood (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@DeccanFlood, you should read the edit summary of the move carefully. The move was done at the request of @Extorc after they had closed the discussion. I have no reason to deny the technical request placed by them as such. If you wish to appeal for the closure to be vacated, discuss with the closer first, not me, and do it in a civilised manner. That being said, Extorc I know it has been awhile since the close of the discussion, but it seems that the socks were uncovered only days after you had closed the discussion. Do you mind checking to see if the consensus is still as it was, or it warrants a change? Thanks. – robertsky (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pulling my attention, I will look into the new information. >>> Extorc.talk 04:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky I have updated the RM closure and struck the sock. The consensus remains. Interesting to note the pageviews since the move. The article flourishes under the new title. >>> Extorc.talk 06:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't include redirects. If you did, the page views remain largely consistent as it was before the move. – robertsky (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. My bad. >>> Extorc.talk 12:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maratha_Confederacy&oldid=1228310425"