Talk:Maratha Confederacy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:RAJ claim misunderstood by Rawn3012

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please see WP:RS Rahio1234 09:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Did you see? And in the above pages [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do you understand English baby boy? Read the second, third and fourth sources. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No it isn't unless a reliable source explicitly states that the Marathas annexed those territories. PadFoot2008 13:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Since when is 'The New Cambridge History of India' an unreliable source? Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

@PadFoot2008 Would you mind reading my comment and try to reach a consensus. Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

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)