Talk:Maratha Confederacy

Requested move 31 March 2024

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

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

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)


 * Oppose – According to information in the article, they were at their peak in 1758 and the confederacy began after the death of Madhavrao I in 1772. So the Marathas were an empire at their peak. The period from 1674-1772 is larger than the period from 1772-1818, so the Marathas were an empire for longer than they were a confederacy. Also, I do not think the Ngram search establishes a common name. The ratio at its maximum is approximately 3:2 post-1995. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * More recent data from Ngram suggests that Maratha Empire has become more common compared to Maratha Confederacy. Arnav Bhate (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As @Arnav Bhate rightly said, empire were for a large amount of time and so this title justifies it. Curious man123 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Requested move 17 April 2024

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

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

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: Support by nominator. Also pinging @SKAG123 who originally put forward this suggestion. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: See Ngram, Maratha Empire is more common in scholarly sources. It is clearly then the WP:COMMONNAME. Add your statements to the article while citing reliable sources otherwise they are just original research. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's because the English word was "Mahratta" not "Maratha" which is more recent rendering. Check this . You can clearly see that the Confederacy was way, way more popular. Besides Maratha Empire has got only slightly more common very recently, such recent changes are not usually used to decide names in Wikipedia. Also WP:COMMONNAME is not the supreme parameter to decide names. It is very often abandoned when their are better and more accurate options. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you very conveniently left out Mahratta Empire, which was more common, especially in contemporary sources. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Move: N-gram graphs are not the sole determinant influencing the decision. "The New Cambridge History of India: The Marathas" does not refer to the Marathas as the "Maratha Empire" at any point. Both the infobox and the article's content are centered on the Bhonsle state of the Marathas of Satara. Even if we insist on labeling it as an "empire," who would be considered the emperor? The Marathas of Satara did not hold imperial authority over the entire region.-- Imperial [AFCND]  13:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Emperor in Raigad, and later Satara, did hold authority until 1749, when Shahu died. After that, it was the Peshwa. The confederacy began in 1772. I am basing this on the article. If you do not agree then find sources and edit the article. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Peshwa holding de facto power for a short period doesn't change anything. There were individual Maratha states within the Confederacy since at least 1721. See Baroda State for example. Additionally, the chhatrapati (not emperor) held only nominal power and no real authority. The Peshwa too didn't hold much real power and had power only over his own dominions which later became the Bombay Province and the Central Provinces after being annexed. Earlier on he did have some power and respect but no real authority to govern territories within the Confederacy which were not his own, like Baroda or Nagpur. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposal: Move to 'Maratha State' instead. Neither 'Empire' nor 'Confederacy' seem suitable, given that the type of government changed multiple times. The word 'State' does not convey what the type of government was and seems to be quite used  in scholarly sources as well. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That can't be. You forget, there were multiple states within the Maratha Confederacy. Look at the infobox map again, it says Maratha States. So states like Nagpur, Gwalior, Baroda were also each a "Maratha State". "Maratha States" might work but again post-1818 successor states like Satara were also Maratha states. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maratha state as this typically refers to the smaller states/kingdoms under the Confederacy/Empire. I would Support Maratha Confederacy or Maratha Empire as the Marathas were a large confederacy at their peak. SKAG123 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Just because the Maratha government was decentralized doesn't mean the article can't be titled Maratha Empire. For example the Holy Roman Empire is also a similar situation. The WP:COMMONNAME especially at the peak (1758-1818) should determine the name of the article SKAG123 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was the Maratha Confederacy at its peak time 1758 to 1818. Also the Holy Roman Empire was never ever called the "Holy Roman Confederacy", that's undisputed. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

*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)
 * Neutral It was not an empire in a conventional sense, but historically, the entity or the entities have been grouped under empire or confederacy. Google scholar search on the two terms post 1947 gives a much larger number of hits with empire rather than confederacy.I am OK with either term but not state, any newly coined term, or Maratha Swarajya. The latter should be restricted to the territories under Shivaji's control over which Shahu was later granted Sardeshmukhi rights in 1719 by the Mughals.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jonathansammy, I think you replied at the wrong spot. I think you meant to oppose "Maratha State" right? Here you are replying to Deepstone. PadFoot2008 (talk)
 * Sorry my mistake.I did not properly read the section heading. My vote between Confederacy or Empire would be Neutral, or either. ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jonathansammy, you voted "Oppose" here. You said you want to be neutral. You need to change it to "Comment" (or "Neutral") if you want to be neutral. PadFoot2008 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. SKAG123 (talk) 17:32, 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)
 * I don't know how to write bold letters, someone correct it please Hassan Gangu (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock

*Move: According to nomination AdityaNakul (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * Move according to the nomination. Mehedi Abedin 11:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The nom or supporters need to provide some reason based on policy (see WP:TITLE), which they haven't done. Vpab15 (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vpab15, See WP:NPOVTITLE. The current is not neutral. It has a biased PoV. Scholarly sources which are not biased due to nationalist reasons use Maratha Confederacy. As of now both Maratha Confederacy and Empire have more or less same number uses as per ngram. PadFoot2008  06:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence the current title is not neutral. The are lots of empires per List of empires, not all of which have "empire" in their title. Even though it is a somewhat arbitrary decision to call something an empire, it is a word used too widely by historians to make it non-neutral. In any case, the current title is the most common in reliable sources, so it would be acceptable to use a non-neutral title. Vpab15 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vpab15, Using a non-neutral title is not acceptable per Wikipedia titling policy. Wikipedia policy dictates that the title should be neutral. (See WP:NPOVTITLE) WP:COMMONNAME is not supreme. Besides both the names have near equal usage in the past decades with both surpassing each other in usages every few decades. "Maratha Confederacy" is also very commonly used. Wikipedia suggests that the most commonly name should be used; but other names can be used if the most common name is not very obvious which in this case isn't as both have near equal usages. PadFoot2008  17:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Move: Firstly, as aforementioned the title is NPOV. Usually NPOV wouldn't matter if this was an extremely common name like Alexander the Great, but in this case, it is not a common name. It is interchangeably in sources used as "Maratha Confederacy", or "Maratha Empire". However since sources in a vast amount use the Maratha Confederacy, and that the "Maratha Empire" would be an NPOV title as proposed above, the best solution here would be to move. If you are also more of an expert on Maratha history or have dabbled in that field, you'd know how really divided the Marathas were, hence another reason why Confederacy would be appropriate. Noorullah (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been stable with the current title ever since it was first created. To make a move, an impetus both per policy and sources would be needed. For policy I do not see an issue of POV, article titles need not conform to historical analysis if sources prefer to use the name regardless. This takes us to sources, as evidenced there is no clear preference among historical or tertiary sources for either confederacy or empire (Britannica for instance has two articles for both, ). Perhaps then a move to simply Maratha/Marathas should be preferred. But for all this hassle and with no clear incentive, I do not see a problem with staying put with the same title which we have had for more than a decade and a half. Gotitbro (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Britannica also uses Maratha Empire for 1674 to 1818. Historically, the Confederacy was formed only in the 1770's after the Panipat defeat  (Britannica has a sub-article on Maratha confederacy), after which it was known as "Maratha confederacy". The kingdom was not a confederacy till then. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History  uses Maratha Empire from 1674 to 1818. RS do use the term Empire for 1674-1818. Confederacy is used for limited time in the latter history of the kingdom; the WP:POV argument seems flawed. Redtigerxyz  Talk 12:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Britannica nor the other encyclopedias you cited are reliable sources. Regarding tertiary sources on WP:RS: "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact-checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE)."
 * @Redtigerxyz Noorullah (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is Britannica and Oxford Research Encyclopedias, an encyclopedia published by Oxford University Press not be considered "Reputable tertiary sources"? Redtigerxyz  Talk 13:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's have a look at the latest the The New Cambridge history of India:Marathas. That centres around solely the history of Marathas. Nowhere even at once it calls as the "Maratha Empire". Imperial  [AFCND]  13:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't see how having a book titled "The Marathas"provides any evidence about usage of the term "Maratha Confederacy". Actually, book uses "empire" from the very start : 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)
 * @Vpab15, That's the Blurb of the book. How does it became the part of it? Imperial  [AFCND]  06:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ImperialAficionado Well, Stewart N. Gordon has himself used the term Maratha Empire in his thesis, therefore, I don't see any problem with using "Maratha Empire" either. Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per recent Ngram searches, and . Moreover Gordon (the author of Cambridge The Marathas 1600–1818) has himself preferred Maratha Empire in his  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Move: As was said, both Maratha Confederacy and Maratha Empire seem to be widely used, and calling this collection of sovereign states an "Empire" is a bit of a long shot, even if it was called so by certain historians. The proposed title does not hold the NPOV issues the current does, and adheres to WP:COMMONNAME as both debated names are widely used. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Move: The current title is not justified as modern day standard calls it a confedracy. The Marathas under Shivaji to Rajaram were a group of rebels. It was only under the time of Sahu that they started imperial expansion so that is the period in which we can call Marathas as Empire but after his death it was confedracy with nominal accecptance of overlordship to Peshwa and and descendants of Shivaji Rawn3012 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Adding the map of Maratha Empire in 1758 and removing the map of 1760.
Maratha Empire was at peak in 1758, but the map there is of 1760. The map of 1760 is contradictig the statement below it saying "Maratha Empire at it its peak in 1760". Therefore, I'm the replacing the map of 1760 to 1758. The map is available in Wikipedia commons. 27.97.236.117 (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At least now that the page has been indef protected (by me), you can't force your preference anymore using multiple IPs. Now you'll need to actually take the time to write out a convincing argument, substantively explaining why you consider it to be contradictig. And doing so without insults, and while also proofreading for intelligibility — or even this avenue will be out. El_C 17:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The first edit had a map from 1760, but the description below mentioned 1758. So, I replaced the map with one from 1758 when the Maratha Empire was at its peak. However, some editors reverted it without reason, and one user recently changed the description from 1758 to 1760 along with the statement. I'm simply questioning what problem editors have with showing the peak of the Maratha Empire in the 1758 map. 2402:8100:384E:3F7C:AC52:E91E:48D4:A649 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So here's what you could do. Go the artilce's revision history (link) and find those editors who reversed you on the map. Copy their user names into the following: and submit that text here, which will WP:PING them. If you don't get a response from anyone in, say, a week, I'll personally re-add your preferred changes. El_C 17:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and sorry for being rude. 2402:8100:384E:3F7C:AC52:E91E:48D4:A649 (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2402:8100:384E:3F7C:AC52:E91E:48D4:A649 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My objection with the map is that it shows Maratha control of Mysore in 1758, which was not the case. Arnav Bhate (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it shows numerous other things wrong apart from Mysore. It is occupying large parts of the Hyderabad state which is completely incorrect. It is occupying southern Oudh province which it didn't. It is occupying the Carnatic province, which it also didn't. It is vastly exaggerated. Lastly, northwest India was only briefly under joint Maratha-Sikh military occupation during the Afghan war. The map doesn't acknowledge that and tries to make out that the territories were annexed by the Marathas. Also it is user-made map which are very untrustworthy and unnecessary especially that we have so many genuine contemporary maps.  PadFoot2008  11:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Indeed, user made maps are generally problematic, because of their un-reliability. And for a C-topic such as this, often is accompanied by an agenda (usually an ethno-national one) that seeks to go outside the modern historiography. It's fine to argue what the historiography does or does not say—like those two years (1758 to 1760) being pivotal or at least dramatic in some fashion—but it's difficult to justify a user-made map over one from a published source. At the very least, there would need to be a clear consensus that it ought to be preferred over a map that's from a published source. Thank you. El_C 17:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They are talking without giving any source. The map of 1758 is also attached in various articles of Wikipedia page. See this https://mr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A0%E0%A4%BE_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF2402:8100:3854:C3E2:538A:CA8A:4EF:F131 (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That map is not present on the page you have linked but a similarly bad map is present. Also, it is up to you to provide citations, not us. Arnav Bhate (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure np. FYI there are ways to request assistance with dispute resolution. A request like 3rd opinion, for example, as the name implies, requests a 3rd opinion from an uninvolved editor. So good to keep in mind in case of any future issues. See WP:DR for the the dispute resolution policy itself. HTH. Regards, El_C 04:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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  Rah ' io ' 1234  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 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)

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


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

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 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. [https://books.google.co.in/books/about/The_New_Cambridge_History_of_India.html?id=1CsRzwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y ''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  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  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 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 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:. 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: 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 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,. 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 . 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. 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 ). 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 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 @ 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, 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. 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 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 . 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 . @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 ; 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, ! 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 and  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 1730 Although 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)

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)
 * 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)