![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | On 31 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Maratha Confederacy. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky ( talk) 06:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
*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)
*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)
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)
*Move: According to nomination
AdityaNakul (
talk)
12:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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)
Pinging @ Gog the Mild for dispute resolution, Please see the introductory paragraph of this page or more precisely these lines "The Maratha realm was recognized by Bahadur Shah I, the Shahenshah of Hindustan as a tributary state in 1707 after a prolonged rebellion. The Marathas continued to recognize the Shahenshah as their nominal 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)
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 @ AdityaNakul has already been banned recently for abusive usage. @ Hassan_Gangu which supported the move was ANOTHER sockpuppet of this same person @ AdityaNakul. Do you understand what motives would compel a person to create false numbers to vote for a topic? Why did the senior editors not understand the motives behind a Muslim operator Hassan Gangu (also a pseudonym based on first Bahmani Sultan, used for mocking Marathas of Deccan as their "overlord") who is recorded here for used tricks like a Hindu pseudonym Aditya Nakul (a generic Hindu name). It was clearly a person who wants to engage in negationist distortion of Maratha history and the choice of alias itself is testifies to the malice.
The other two users @ PadFoot2008 and @ Flemmish_Nietzsche who lobbied with superficial supporting for the Move, are sockpuppets made in 2023 with all of their edits driven exclusively towards aggrandisation of historical Islamic States. Other supporters of the Move are also part of the same lobby. @ Mehedi_Abedin (appears to be a 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 Muslim editors who made profiles in 2022-2023, @ Robertsky has effectively vandalized the page on the Hindu 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)
Is the article the "List of Mughal emperors" or "List of Mughal Shahenshahs"? Emperor is the WP:COMMONNAME, and a common english word, unlike Shahenshah. They mean literally the same thing, so I am not sure what your problem is here, @ PadFoot2008. Arnav Bhate ( talk) 12:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
"Maratha Kingdom" in the sources is typically used to refer to Shivaji's initial kingdom. The Second source "Rise and Fall of The Maratha Empire 1750-1818" clearly prefers the term Maratha Empire as used title. Therefore it is not nessery to include this term in the lead Paragraph as it is not used as frequently as Maratha Confederacy or Maratha Empire. SKAG123 ( talk) 19:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @ Mohammad Umar AliAs you have also been conversing with the user @ PadFoot2008. He seems to be dictating over the page and only wants to give the history of Marathas which he prefers. If he wants to make a change, then there is no consensus needed, but if someone else wants to make a change he or she needs to have a consensus. Consensus is needed when there is a dispute between the sources like if there is a source "1" saying thing X and another source "2" saying thing Y and does not agree with the information provided in source "1" or editors have another source to counter the source of another user but it seems like Padfoot wants to be with the version which he has written. He is a POV pusher. He stopped you from making an edit that Marathas controlled Punjab. His argument that they administered Punjab or not was baseless as the Vijaynagar Empire after the battle of Raicur extended its sway over the Krishna River doab but they lost it immediately after some time nevertheless the peak of the empire included the regions beyond Krishna River doab. Emperor Bhoja also extended his sway till Kannuj but lost it immediately as Pratihars recaptured their ancestral abode but the peak of his empire included Kannuj as well. Palas and Rashtrakutas also never controlled the regions of Kannuj as it was captured for a very short period by them and it was the Pratihars who had the Kannuj for most of the time and in that too they appointed vassals but the peaks of both empires had the region of Kannuj or Ganga river delta and that's what the peak of Empire means the apex of the state in its controlled territories "they did not administer it" is out of context as they conquered it. This is what matters. He also stopped me from making my edit saying that "lead would be too long " Is there any word limit for the lead part? It summarizes all the points of the page and by adding two to three lines in which world would make the lead "long".I just summarised how bajirao converted the kingdom into confedracy and were the Mughal vassals only in name and the real power was with them but his baseless excuse of lead would be too long prevented it So from now until and unless Padfoot has the source that contradicts the sources of mine or you or any other editor out there none of his arguments would be making any sense and if we have the source we would make the change. What are your thoughts? Regards Rawn3012 ( talk) 04:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | On 31 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Maratha Confederacy. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky ( talk) 06:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
*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)
*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)
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)
*Move: According to nomination
AdityaNakul (
talk)
12:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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)
Pinging @ Gog the Mild for dispute resolution, Please see the introductory paragraph of this page or more precisely these lines "The Maratha realm was recognized by Bahadur Shah I, the Shahenshah of Hindustan as a tributary state in 1707 after a prolonged rebellion. The Marathas continued to recognize the Shahenshah as their nominal 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)
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 @ AdityaNakul has already been banned recently for abusive usage. @ Hassan_Gangu which supported the move was ANOTHER sockpuppet of this same person @ AdityaNakul. Do you understand what motives would compel a person to create false numbers to vote for a topic? Why did the senior editors not understand the motives behind a Muslim operator Hassan Gangu (also a pseudonym based on first Bahmani Sultan, used for mocking Marathas of Deccan as their "overlord") who is recorded here for used tricks like a Hindu pseudonym Aditya Nakul (a generic Hindu name). It was clearly a person who wants to engage in negationist distortion of Maratha history and the choice of alias itself is testifies to the malice.
The other two users @ PadFoot2008 and @ Flemmish_Nietzsche who lobbied with superficial supporting for the Move, are sockpuppets made in 2023 with all of their edits driven exclusively towards aggrandisation of historical Islamic States. Other supporters of the Move are also part of the same lobby. @ Mehedi_Abedin (appears to be a 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 Muslim editors who made profiles in 2022-2023, @ Robertsky has effectively vandalized the page on the Hindu 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)
Is the article the "List of Mughal emperors" or "List of Mughal Shahenshahs"? Emperor is the WP:COMMONNAME, and a common english word, unlike Shahenshah. They mean literally the same thing, so I am not sure what your problem is here, @ PadFoot2008. Arnav Bhate ( talk) 12:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
"Maratha Kingdom" in the sources is typically used to refer to Shivaji's initial kingdom. The Second source "Rise and Fall of The Maratha Empire 1750-1818" clearly prefers the term Maratha Empire as used title. Therefore it is not nessery to include this term in the lead Paragraph as it is not used as frequently as Maratha Confederacy or Maratha Empire. SKAG123 ( talk) 19:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @ Mohammad Umar AliAs you have also been conversing with the user @ PadFoot2008. He seems to be dictating over the page and only wants to give the history of Marathas which he prefers. If he wants to make a change, then there is no consensus needed, but if someone else wants to make a change he or she needs to have a consensus. Consensus is needed when there is a dispute between the sources like if there is a source "1" saying thing X and another source "2" saying thing Y and does not agree with the information provided in source "1" or editors have another source to counter the source of another user but it seems like Padfoot wants to be with the version which he has written. He is a POV pusher. He stopped you from making an edit that Marathas controlled Punjab. His argument that they administered Punjab or not was baseless as the Vijaynagar Empire after the battle of Raicur extended its sway over the Krishna River doab but they lost it immediately after some time nevertheless the peak of the empire included the regions beyond Krishna River doab. Emperor Bhoja also extended his sway till Kannuj but lost it immediately as Pratihars recaptured their ancestral abode but the peak of his empire included Kannuj as well. Palas and Rashtrakutas also never controlled the regions of Kannuj as it was captured for a very short period by them and it was the Pratihars who had the Kannuj for most of the time and in that too they appointed vassals but the peaks of both empires had the region of Kannuj or Ganga river delta and that's what the peak of Empire means the apex of the state in its controlled territories "they did not administer it" is out of context as they conquered it. This is what matters. He also stopped me from making my edit saying that "lead would be too long " Is there any word limit for the lead part? It summarizes all the points of the page and by adding two to three lines in which world would make the lead "long".I just summarised how bajirao converted the kingdom into confedracy and were the Mughal vassals only in name and the real power was with them but his baseless excuse of lead would be too long prevented it So from now until and unless Padfoot has the source that contradicts the sources of mine or you or any other editor out there none of his arguments would be making any sense and if we have the source we would make the change. What are your thoughts? Regards Rawn3012 ( talk) 04:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)