Talk:Maratha Confederacy

29 May 2024

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)

"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 @Mohammad Umar Ali had been edit warring for hours and talking about how he was adding correct and sourced information, it was reverted, yet no one was replying to him in order to achieve consensus. He was acting like it was gonna be the end of the world if the article wasn't fixed with the correct sources and information right now, (he even "quit" a few days after) while as we know, there is no deadline. I honestly prefer the old lead ([2]) 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)

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)

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)

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)

Apologies, my bad. I hadn't noticed that. PadFoot2008 05:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have provided you the sources, please reply on that. Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 Shahenshah as their nominal 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)

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)

It would make the lead too long. It's already mentioned in later paragraphs in the intro. PadFoot2008 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Then mention this line "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" in that para too. As it would make the lead more shorter and suitable Rawn3012 (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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 [3] 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 [4] 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: [5]. 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)

@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)

Here’s the link as to where I was asked to participate/join: [6] Noorullah (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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 [7] 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)

@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)

Thanks for pulling my attention, I will look into the new information. >>> Extorc.talk 04:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Oh right. My bad. >>> Extorc.talk 12:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Using "Shahenshah" is wrong

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)

I never used the phrase "Mughal Shahenshah" (that just sounds stupid and is not a commonly used phrase). What I was asking of you was to discuss here and gain a consensus before making a change. Additionally, here Mughal is an unnecessary reference to the name of the dynasty, instead of the dominion ruled which is more informative. The article is List of Mughal emperors, no article called "Mughal emperor" exists. Also note that WP:COMMONAME applies to the article title not the article body. PadFoot2008 12:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

So how you added that? You add something and if anyone wants to change it then he/she should have a consensus. Also, I found a source which mentions Peshawar, Attock, etc. as part of Maratha Confederacy here is the link [8]. Can I add it now, also the territorial extent which you used in the intro paras of the article fails verification while mine one doesn't. Can I make the changes now? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I found this Mughal (disambiguation) where there is a mention of Mughal Emperors which redirect to List of emperors of the Mughal Empire. So we can link it to List of Mughal Emperors. I support it. Kindly mention your viewpoint. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Mughal emperor, rather than "Emperor of Hindustan" "Shehanshah" etc, is by far the most common way that sources refer to, ahem, the Mughal emperors and there is no reason to deviate from the common terminology here . Also it is perfectly fine to link to the redirect Mughal emperor and there is no need to pipe the link explicitly (see MOS:NOPIPE). Abecedare (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Maratha Kingdom

"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)

You ngram doesn't suffice here. If you had use the case-sensitive option you shall see that "Maratha Kingdom" has large usage even in comparison to Confederacy or Empire. [9] Also, additionally Confederacy or Empire don't apply to the early stage of the entity in question (during the rebellion). PadFoot2008 04:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Empire and Confederacy still are vastly preferred over kingdom. For most of its time,(1728–1818) Marathas were a confederacy or empire as both of which as preferred by scholarly sources over kingdom. Therefore the term is not needed in the lead.

A Similar discussion about adding Mughal Kingdom to the lead of Mughal Expire also rejected for the same reason. SKAG123 (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

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)

Seems like you haven't seen the recent revision history then. Shahenshah of Hindustan was changed to Mughal emperor and Maratha Kingdom was removed from the lead, both which I opposed but the changes still got through. I am certainly not "dictating" the page. Also, see WP:OTHERCONTENT, whatever is there on the Pratihara or Vijayanagar articles don't matter here. PadFoot (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rawn3012, I've introduced some changes into the lead, mentioning the Peshwa and Scindia influence over the emperor in the lead. I think that is better and should be mentioned. Pinging @Flemmish Nietzsche for his opinion on the new lead. PadFoot (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, It would be interesting to see @Flemmish Nietzsche here. As he had claimed that both me and @Mohammad Umar Ali are sockpuppets. Rawn3012 (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of the changes seem good; I restored the first sentence as there is no reason to remove "early modern" and change "four" to "4", cut up the two lengthy sentences in the first paragraph and removed the efns you added as the first one is fine being in the second sentence and the second just repeats what was said before it but in a different way; the actual content you added seems fine and neutral though. @Rawn3012, yes I claimed you and MuA are socks, and I still have good suspicion to believe so until checkuser says otherwise, but this doesn't mean I believe anything you two (or one) say is incorrect or non-neutral. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rawn3012 Sry for replying late, I was busy with something else. I agree with you that Padfoot often tries to push his narrative. The territorial extent sources which he has used in last para of the intro fails verification, when I added failed verification template sometime back, Padfoot told me to have a consensus for it which literally irritated me. Regarding the territorial claims I have already provided multiple sources stating PUNJAB to be a part of Maratha Empire along with a map for the same (see this map [10]). I think we can change that information as it is sourced (WP:RS), and sourced information doesn't require consensus. If Padfoot removes it, it will be a clear violation of Wikipedia norms then maybe one of us or Flemmish could report it to WP:ANI demanding action to be taken against Padfoot over reverting our sourced edits in this article. Though I want Padfoot to cooperate with us so that we could better the article rather than having these edit fights. Regards. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I will be inactive for a few days as I have some urgent work to deal with so @Rawn301 and @Flemmish Nietzsche kindly see that the changes which I have done are not just blindly reverted. I’ve added some information (WP:RS) and organized the events chronologically, which I believe makes the content more presentable for the readers. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. Once your edit is reverted you have to discuss them not engage in an edit war. Your source does not mention Tamil Nadu and the case of Peshawar/Punjab was discussed above. The source mentions that they only established their "sway" over the regions. It was a brief military occupation and not even annexed but under military rule. Again see Soviet Union for example, which had controlled entirety of eastern Europe for two years during WWII, but has no mention in its extremely long lead. PadFoot (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is your saying, you need to state sources for the same. The information added by me has reliable sources while yours doesn't even have 1? Also this map [11] which is taken from a reliable book (WP:RS) clearly depicts those regions Peshawar, Punjab, etc. part of the Maratha Empire. Parts of Tamil Nadu are also dotted see that map. Soviet union point is absurd, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Provide sources else don't remove. I am adding it as I have already provided sources (WP:RS). Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, this issue has been discussed above. At this point, you are just repeating arguments. Those territories were not annexed to the Confederacy and were under (very) brief military occupation. PadFoot (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What was discussed you provided no support for you claim not a single one? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead was agreed upon in the earlier discussions. I would again advise you not to edit war and discuss here. PadFoot (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I want our discussion to have a result so kindly answer these things.

1.)Provide source for your claim regarding territorial changes.

2.)I never agreed to the lead misses important information and last two paras need to be restructured not only contains wrong informantion. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

1.)The lead contains many things which fails verification. 2.)It lacks information which it should have. 3.) It is chronologically worng. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

When was it discussed and if it was (according to you) what point did you or others make to prove it? Kindly explain in concise form. It wasn't you simply don't have any argument in support of your claim. Moreover answer other things i asked too else i will revert your edit once again. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Please just stop edit warring (including @PadFoot2008 as well, just because you think you're right doesn't mean you're not edit warring). The lead is fine as it is. I think the argument over the maximum borders stated in the lead can be fixed by simply saying "the stable borders were xyz" rather than arguing over how large the exact territories occupied temporarily in war were. These do not have to be mentioned at all in the lead, or even in the article at all. Your verifiability problem concerns can be solved by simply remembering that the lead does not have to be cluttered with citations the same way the body is; not every single fact in the lead needs a reference, as the material is again covered below with sufficient sourcing. This is why not every fact in the lead is verifiable with the sources provided in the lead, which are adequately few. I also don't see any problems right now in the lead with chronological insufficiency, and even if there are, it is fine for now; discuss it first and do not revert just because the other person is not discussing this second. As I've said before, this can wait. Lastly, we do not need more info in the lead; the lead should be a summary of the essential details, not everything slightly notable. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources say x lead contains y Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

also please read this which one you find better kindly tell Maratha Confederacy: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia which lead you find better Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, I fully agree with you here. I support your recent fixes as well. PadFoot (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Successor State in infobox

@PadFoot2008 you added those states, but i dont see any reasons to be mentioned as these were not independent states, as those were under Company Rule (Not directly but by signing subsidiary alliance). Unless we have numerous sources which explicitly tell those states as successor states, those are included in the company rule during east india Company. Curious man123 (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I addressed your problems by changing Company rule to British India, which refers specifically to the Presidencies and Provinces under British rule, and excludes princely states. And see the article itself for sources, you can't clutter the infobox by listing citations already in the main body in the successor list. And I don't need "numerous sources". PadFoot (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 No you didnt, it doesn't work that way. After British defeated marathas, maratha rule was over and those became the princely state under britsh rule. There is no reason to mention it a separately unless those are independent state ( which can be considered "successor states") and going by that logic there were numerous smaller princely state which can under british after dissolution of maratha that were under Marathas but that are not mentioned. And kindly refrain from edit war, i reverted your edits which implies you have to discuss it here as per the rules even if you think i am mistaken and require to garner consensus and make a way for those edits. Curious man123 (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Curious man123, alright I restored "Company rule in India" as the successor. PadFoot (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Propsing Map Change

Pinging @PadFoot2008 @Flemmish Nietzsche @.Mohammad Umar Ali. The map of the Maratha Empire, which is this 1, is inaccurate. As Marathas never controlled Rajasthan. They only raided areas and expet Ajmer(that too for a very short period) never controlled or administered anything in Rajputana. Rajput states of Jaipur and Marwar always fought with the Marathas and were keen enemy. Showing Rajputana in the Map of the Maratha Empire is "Wrong". By looking the conflicts between Marathas and Rajputs in the battles of Pilsud, Mandsaur, Lalsot, Patan, Merta, Fatehpur, Malpura. It can be concluded that there were regular conflicts between Rajputs and Marathas due to Chauth payments. Some of them were won by Rajputs and some by Marathas. So in those battles in which Rajputs won, there were no tribute payments and in those in which Marathas won, they were unable to extract tribute, and only war repriations were paid. As quoted by Rima Hooja, "The genius of Mahadji Scindia and the talents of De Boigne helped the Marathas recover their position swiftly...Bijay Singh was forced to agree to Maratha's terms. He paid over an indemnity of sixty lakh rupees and returned Ajmer to the Marathas in 1791" If Rajput kingdoms were truly vassals of Marathas why did they never pay tribute to Marathas and fight with them? Hence the present map is wrong and needs to be changed. As sir Jadunath Sarkar rightly asserts "Pitted against European armed and French-trained Marathas, Rajput states capitulated one after the other. The Marathas managed to conquer Ajmer and Malwa from Rajputs. Although Jaipur and Jodhpur remained unconquered." Mewar was the only Rajput state which payed Chauth to Marathas but only two times. Rest of the time either Mewar refused or delayed the requests of Chauth. My proposal is to use the map which is this 2. It shows the territory controlled by Bhonsle's or Maratha Kingdom, then the territory controlled by Maratha confedracy and at last with a ligher shade the territories which Maratha raided or controlled for a shord period of time or had influence.

Regards

Rawn3012 (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have concerns regarding the inclusion of Rajputana in the current map as well. However the proposed map has many problems as of now. The areas raided or shortly controlled is anachronistic and should only show a particular year rather than every year combined which provides a false representation. Even depicting the areas raided or briefly occupied is quite unnecessary. Showing the actual Maratha Confederacy is enough. Besides there are other problems as well. Awadh is shown to be too small, and the Nizam's dominions are inaccurate as well. The Nizam had controlled eastern Maharashtra but the proposed map shows the Nizam's dominions to be limited to modern day Telangana borders which is very inaccurate. PadFoot (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, but many maps like this [12] show Rajputana as a part of Maratha empire at their peak if not always similar to Peshawar, etc. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Many maps of different author shows Rajputana in the Maratha Confedracy but this context is totaly false as Jaislmer and Bikaner never payed Chauth or infact were in never contact with Marathas and as Sir Jadunath Sarkar has said "that Jaipur and Jodhpur remain unconquerored". The arguement of collectiong chauth is totaly false Rima Hooja in his books has said that war indemnity were paid not chauths. There were some cases too when Marathas were defeated, in that case neither chauth not indemnity were paid. Hence including Rajputana is not right.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Though I don't know much about these, but defaulting on Chauth and not paying war indemnity isn't a valid reason to not include the areas in the map. If Rima Hooja says Jodhpur and Jaipur were not conquered ever maybe those could be removed but whole of Punjab till Peshawar was definitely under Maratha control as backed by numerous sources. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @PadFoot2008 @Mohammad Umar Ali Please see the new map 2. It shows the areas that are commonly agreed upon by most of the historians as being controlled by Marathas. The rest of the discussions will take place, and if agreed, I will make the respective changes, or it's an SVG file, which means you can edit the map by yourself.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rawn3012, It requires a small correction — Delhi wasn't a part of the Confederacy itself. Also you could consider the following colour scheme and format [13]. You don't need to show the modern day borders or a legend or name inside the map, that shall make it look tidier. Also add a rename request to rename it to "Maratha Confederacy.svg". The current name is a bit absurd and has grammatical errors. Overall the map seems very good. PadFoot (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 I have updated the map with the boundaries of the Maratha confederacy extending till Gwalior and had placed a request for name change.Rest of the changes I was not able to do as It would make the map too plane. Hope you would understand my problem. Link for the new Map3. Please consider it for infobox

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This version is good [14]. @Flemmish Nietzsche, what do you think about it? PadFoot (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not terrible, but I'd prefer the version with the extra details and the temporarily controlled territories in a lighter shade [15]; showing only the territories fully controlled without showing, for example Delhi even though it wasn't technically part of the Confederacy, is somewhat misleading so I think the first version is best, provided it is touched up a bit so the borders are more clean and the Kingdom borders are removed as those are unnecessary. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche@PadFoot2008 I thing that we guys should have a consensus among ourselves, like which map do we have to use or what changes are needed to be done. So please suggest the changes as it would save time and effort. Rawn3012 (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, I don't think the first map should be used as I said before, it is anachronistic and territories in the lighter shade are sum total of territories all territories ever occupied or raided at different times which cannot be shown together, as it's misleading and anachronistic. Additionally, it is unnecessary to show the territories under temporary brief military occupation (2–3 years) for an entity that existed for over a century. Showing its non-war peacetime borders are good enough. The third map is good here. PadFoot (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Is the lighter shade really a sum of all territories ever occupied? Just looking up "Map of the Maratha Confederacy" will give you many results which say otherwise, and say that this territory was all Maratha at this set date. While I agree that it's misleading to show the lighter shade territory as equally controlled as everything else, it is equally misleading to just ignore it altogether and pretend that territory was not a part of the Confederacy to any degree. I'm not saying everything in the lighter shade should be on the final map, though. I agree with the Rajasthan and other territorial concerns and thus I think the lighter shade should only cover the area going roughly up to the Punjab, though it should definitely be there. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, the territories (Delhi and the Punjab) were occupied by the Afghan Empire, and then at request of emperor Alamgir II, occupied from the Afghans by the Marathas between 1757 and 1761, and then ultimately lost at Panipat (1761). Such a brief occupation, and not even annexed territories, need not be included in the map, especially when the Marathas have fought numerous other wars in the south and east, and briefly occupied other regions as well during wartime throughout its existence. PadFoot (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche@PadFoot2008 I would like to introduce you guys to the map of the Sasanian Empire. It shows the territories controlled by the Sasanian Empire in a dark sky-blue shade and also the territories occupied by the latter during the war against the Roman Empire in a light sky-blue shade. Remember that these(area under light-blue shade) were shortly occupied territories as the Romans recaptured those areas 2 to 3 years later. We can do the same but with minor changes by mentionig the Marathas raided those territories, captured them, and then lost them against the Afghans, or we can stick with the changes made by Padfoot.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The Sassanian Empire map mentions that they controlled those regions for 25 years, apparently? That's a very long time IMO. PadFoot (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! My mistake, have not seen the map properly but What I am thinking is that including influential areas is prone to dispute. Hence we should go with the stable areas for now. What are your thoughts? and yes give me some time too to improve the map.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the initiative, Rawn3012! I just wanted to emphasize that any map that is chosen should be verifiable by reference to source(s) such as the Schwartzberg Atlas (p. 149 or p. 54), the Collin Atlas (p. 53),Gordon's adapatation of the latter (p.170), etc. It is perfectly fine to discuss what source(s) should be used for the map and which time period the map should depict, but once those are selected, the inclusion/exclusion of a region from the map should be dictated by the source(s). Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well,@Abecedare I appreciate your recommendation and fully agree with you on the matter of having a verifiable source for the map, but the thing I want to point out is that the maps of historical powers can be made with textual information too, which in this case we have. Talking about the exclusion and inclusion of territories, multiple sources have contradictions, as modern-era sources of Rima Hooja do not agree with the inclusion of Rajputana in the Maratha areas. So we have to be careful with the sources too or what we can do better for now is to include only stable boundaries.

  Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Any user-generated map would need to pass a high bar to avoid WP:SYNTH and/or a case would have to be made that reliable sources prefer to depict "only stable boundaries" for the Marathas, which is not what I have observed as seen in the three standard academic sources on the subject that I listed in my previous post. Can you please provide the exact sources and relevant quotes/maps that you are relying on so that they can be evaluated for reliability and due weight?

Note too that the maps in this article have been discussed numerous times (see talkpage archive) including a previous proposal by PadFoot2008 to exclude Rajput states that was withdrawn in face of unanimous opposition; pinging SKAG123 and Jonathansammy who participated in that discussion. Abecedare (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Abecedare Please see the first comment of mine in the discussions, as quotations and proofs have been provided in that. Also, I would make the map based on tertiary sources and graphical sources (if available), so how there is WP:SYNTH ? Rawn3012 (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, it is helpful to provide a direct link and/or list at least the authors, title and page-numbers when providing quotes, and to separate them more clearly from ones own gloss. In this instance, I was able to trace the Hooja quote to p.716 of her A History of Rajasthan but don't see how Hooja describing the Marathas' (re)conquest of Ajmer etc is helpful to your contention that Rajput states should be removed from Maratha empire maps. I couldn't find the source for the Sarkar quote (did you perchance quote the wikipedia article Battle of Patan instead?) but Jadunath Sarkar is a dated source in any case (see WP:HISTRS).

If those quotes are it, that's clearly not a basis to modify the mapping practice of Stewart N. Gordon or A Historical Atlas of South Asia. Abecedare (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It will always be difficult to have precise borders for the Maratha confederacy.I As I have said in a previous post, until its aboiltion in 1857, the Mughal emperor was the de jure ruler of the territories under the control of the Marathas or the East india company. If one considers effective control as the basis for ae map then one has to define what that means? Does it mean areas under direct administration like areas around Pune, or all subordinate states that paid annual chauth to the marathas? Anyhow, the above points notwitstanding, I would recommend the map by Cooper for the Maratha polity in 1730Although I can find papers by Stewart Gordon on Maratha administration in Malwa and Karnataka, I couldn't find maps in these papers that would be suitable for this wikipedia article. Jonathansammy (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 @Flemmish Nietzsche Can you guys see the new Map 1. It removes the modern international boundaries and shows topographic features. Along with major cities and confederates of the Maratha Confederacy. The extent here used is stable boundaries of Marathas which they controlled between c1737-1803.

Regards! Let's talk Rawn3012 (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Flags?

Hello @RegentsPark, I don't think MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS doesn't apply here. See popular articles like United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Russian Empire, German Empire, etc. The flags are meant to be used there and I don't think MIF applies there. It is probably meant to avoid it's overuse as in here where it is used in the succession parameter, where it is not meant to be used. I removed a load of these incorrect usages from the articles of the first few Maratha kings and plan to do it on the rest of the kings as wells as the Peshwas too, but, here in this case, the flags are meant to be used here in the "flag_p1" parameters and are extremely commonly used in popular articles. PadFoot (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I assumed that the flag of British India would be the same as the Company's, but if that's not the case then it should be left blank, or probably the Union Jack should be used (if that was the official flag)? PadFoot (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008: Most flags that relate to Indian entitles are unsourced and unverifiable and it is a good practice to avoid using unsourced and unverifiable flags (the British India flag is an excellent example). Since that is the case for most flags, there is no encyclopedic reason for including them since they are distracting and convey no useful information. RegentsPark (comment) 02:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright I am not adding the flags then. PadFoot (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Maratha Empire map

In 1759 Maratha Empire extended to Peshawar 1.39.25.242 (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2024

It shouldn't be just "Maratha Confederacy" in the title instead it should be "The Holy Maratha Confederacy or Empire" as this Empire stands as an Epitome of Dharma on this Earth. 103.174.28.254 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Your alternate name doesn’t seem to meet the requirements of being commonly used by English speaking reliable sources, as required by WP:COMMONNAME CloakedFerret (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)