Talk:Maratha invasions of Bengal

Ali Vardi Khan and the Nawab of Bengal were subjected to the Mughal Emperor
Alivardi Khan took command of the musnad of Bengal, and managed to get his authority confirmed by the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah in the year 1740. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 468SM (talk • contribs) 11:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Maratha
The Marathas were clearly not an Empire, they deny being a Confederacy...therefore they should just be called Marathas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.56.188 (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No they were an EMPIRE. Nabbedhigh (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection
Himel Rahmon (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Neil N  talk to me 02:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Stop deleting sourced material from the page, use talk page to discuss. Thanks. Shimlaites (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Himel Rahmon Stop getting into an edit war and discuss on the talk page, you are removing sourced content, which is disruptive and amounts to vandalism. Shimlaites (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've checked the links you have added. But those books don't support the contents you have added. It's you who is disrupting. Shimlaites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himel Rahmon (talk • contribs) 15:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * They do support all the content added, point out which part is not backed by these reliable sources. Also you are adding Bengali language sources on an English language page, which is not relevant. Shimlaites (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Himel Rahmon Stop reverting and deleting the sourced content from the page, till the discussion is on and a consensus is worked upon. You are getting into an edit war and non-constructive editing. Shimlaites (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Shimlaites Bengali language sources can be added and it's NOT against wikipedia policy. And I've repeatedly said that your contents aren't supported by your links or anything else. So stop engaging in war and find a valid source before reverting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himel Rahmon (talk • contribs) 15:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have only added valid sources unlike you, the sources clearly says that the Nawab paid the chauth till the 1758, after which he came under British protection, he also paid 3.2 million outstanding chauth to the Marathas, again backed by sources. Now you give me your claims and sources backing them. Shimlaites (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Himel Rahmon and kindly make yourself aware of Wikipedia rules on how to respond and blocking, you have already reverted multiple times, removing sourced data. Shimlaites (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Himel Rahmon Stop with these blind reverts, your inexplicable reverting is evident of the fact that you have no argument or counter citation. Stop vandalizing the article. Shimlaites (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Himel Rahmon Also kindly learn the difference between title and "part of". Shimlaites (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Himel Rahmon NO engagement by you on the talk page no mention of the reason for deleting content and no source given to back your data. Shimlaites (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox related edits
Would you discuss that why you are so hell-bent on edit warring to insert misleading POV depicting Bengal Subah as the winner despite their clear defeat? Similarly your over-use of scroll (an unreliable source) didn't made sense since you are misrepresenting sources there too. But lets talk about your main POV. In which world your make-believe "winner" had "agreed to cede Orissa to the Marathas" or he "was constrained to patch up with them at their dictates"? Srijanx22 (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources state it as a military success of Bengal Subah, quotes were already provided from two books of Sen Gupta and Marshall, so the comments of "misleading" and "misrepresentation" are clearly groundless. In any case, my last edit changed it to "Success of Nawab of Bengal in repelling the invasions". Scroll.in wasn't used by me, rather it was cited by those who were trying to push the Maratha POV, be my guest if you want to remove it. Regarding the ceding of Orissa, the causes were already explained in the lead with citations, the Nawab was struggling with several other issues like threat from Awadh, the armed rebellion by Afghan soldiers in Bihar and governer of Orissa, Mir Habib, was already rejecting Nawab's authority that made him to sign the treaty. You still haven't explained what misrepresentations you found in other sourced contents that made you remove about 1000 bytes. Clearly you didn't even have a proper look at the edit and reverted it impulsively. -- Zayeem  (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That didn't answered my question. Sources don't describe the whole conflict as military success for Nawab since they lost too much area to Marathas and had to pay tribute annually. If anything, we need to highlight in infobox more carefully that this was a victory for Marathas but unlike you I haven't done so because I haven't searched for sources clearly stating it as such. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have just recirculated the same argument without even looking at the edit. These are the quotes,
 * Alivardi showed exemplary courage and military skill in every frontal battle that took place between his forces and the Marathas, in each of which, almost without exception, he had the upper hand — Sen Gupta
 * The Nawab's army could generally win victories and clear territory... — Marshall
 * I'm not sure what more do you need to imply the military success of Bengal. Yet, I changed the infobox to "Success of Nawab of Bengal in repelling the invasions" which also matches the lead description of your edited version. Issue with ceding of Orissa is already explained, it was handed over not as a result of a defeat but as an agreement, it's not even a proper loss of territory since Orissa still formally remained a part of Bengal Subah. Your only argument to revert is "victory" in infobox which was not even there in the edit you reverted, makes it unnecessary. And since you haven't explained, I'm guessing you don't have any problem with the contents outside the infobox? -- Zayeem  (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's called WP:CHERRYPICKING. You failed to mention:
 * "...he had the upper hand. But his soldiers were unable to move fast and keep pace with the speed and easy manoeuvrability of the Maratha horsemen who moved like the wind in any direction they chose, outflanking the nawab's army and merrily."
 * "The Nawab's army could generally win victories and clear territory in western Bengal, but its grip on Orissa was becoming less and less secure. In 1748 the Marathas appeared in Bihar. In 1750 they again raided up to Murshidabad."
 * None of the sources claim "military success" of Nawab of Bengal contrary to your baseless claims above.
 * I am also appalled to see if you think that you can convince others to think that only your edits to infobox could be problematic but not the rest of the edits. "and won all the frontal battles against the Marathas" is a misleading claim, then changing "Bengali Muslims" to just "Bengalis" contrary to the source is also misleading, and thus blanket revert of your edits was entirely justified. Santosh L (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like you didn't read the full page of the book, the later part of Sen Gupta read, "In any case, the object was not occupation but plundering. They would often do the vanishing trick before the Nawab's forces came in hot pursuit". So the Marathas were rather fleeing from the Nawab's forces. This doesn't negate the suggestion of Nawab's victory rather strengthens it.
 * The second source also implies the same thing, the Nawab's forces won victories, Marathas fled, when Nawab's forces vacate, Marathas would return to plunder the areas. The Orissa issue is also explained above.
 * "Contrary to the source", can you quote the source to support your claim? None of the sources I read in the article talks about Bengali Muslims specifically, they state either both Hindus and Muslims or Hindus especially.
 * You just can't claim misrepresentation of sources and remove the sourced contents. Explain why you removed the contents outside the infobox, else, the blanket revert is just plain disruption. -- Zayeem  (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Mogul India and Mogul Bangladesh
"Maratha invasions of Bengal" can be calculated as part of the wars between "Mogul Empire" and "Maratha Confederacy".

22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)///////////////////////////22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.147 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SKAG123 (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Datta - Alivardi and His Times
The Datta source dates from 1939, with more recent reprints. Like Sarkar's Fall of the Mughal Empire, it comes under WP:RAJ and thus we should not be using it. I'm sure that there will be more modern studies with sufficient detail. - Sitush (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Got it. So, can I cite from the sources that are already present in the reflist? Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 Not sure if you can or cannot because you & Krishna57edits have been going at it hammer-and-tongs. You definitely can't use Datta or Sarkar, shouldn't use school textbooks and almost certainly shouldn't use state gazetteers -  none of these things would usually be considered reliable. - Sitush (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please do us a favour? Can you remove all the unreliable and unusable sources from the reflist? So that I can take information from the reliable sources. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I am leaving this section for a while and let me know if I can use the references that are already present in the reflist. Thank you Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 I don't want to be accused of edit warring. If is happy for me to clean up the cites, as you are, then I will do it. But not otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you should do it. If those references are not allowed, shouldn't that be removed? Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 Yes, they should be removed but I am wary of edit warring. It would be better if Krishna57edits agrees with you so that there is consensus. - Sitush (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say that, although I tidied up some of the reference errors introduced by recent edits before seeing this section, I agree that the Raj-era sources should be removed from the article. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Wham2001 Thanks. I will gut the poor stuff in a few hours - Krishna57edits has just been blocked for a couple of weeks. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 You have just overwritten a lot of my recent edits with this. Why? - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can you explain? Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush got it. It was an edit conflict. I was editing the same time you edited. Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 Weird. I didn't get a conflict message. I'll have to do them all again, which will be the third time today for some of them. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I think you should revert to your version. I can add my sources later. Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 No need. I've done them again. Give it a couple of hours & a bot will fix any broken citations.
 * You probably should avoid using sfn. It's bad form to mix citation styles & the guidance is that, unless there is consensus to change the style across an entire article, we stick with the style used when it was created. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you! Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Flags
Please read WP:MOSFLAG. This article resembles more a kid's colouring book than an encyclopaedic entry. Most of the flag icons are repetitive & unnecessary. - Sitush (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I am re-editing the table to add citations. Should I remove the flags? Ajayraj890 (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 That is what I would do. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. But I have to inform you something that I couldn't find much information from post-British history books about the section 'List of Battles'. What should we do next? CN tags will be effective but I tried so much and I only found such events from older sources. Ajayraj890 (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 If they're not in modern sources their significance has probably been exaggerated in the past. Sarkar, in particular, made mountains out of Maratha molehills, calling all sorts of minor skirmishes etc as battles. But tag for now & see if anyone comes up with something, eg from JSTOR searches. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed that earlier. But some modern books copied the exact Wikipedia version and I have even seen people citing those on Wikipedia itself. Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 Those are mirrors & should not be cited. Eg books published by General Books LLC. See WP:MIRROR. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. That was what happened in Draft:Battle of Umberkhind. Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent content removal
@Capitals00 you had removed a major chunk of article stating "restore only by using reliable source". Mind telling which of the sources covering Maratha atrocities are unreliable? Sutyarashi (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * pinning @ImperialAficionado, cause ImperialAficionado had too reverted anon IP on the same ground. Sutyarashi (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed a table, which showed the list of military conflicts. The table was created by myself and most of the rows in the table depended on WP:RAJ, and as you can see in the above discussion @Sitush commented that "This article resembles more a kid's colouring book than an encyclopaedic entry" and that was true. That is why removed the table. ImperialAficionado (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Removal of the table is ok, my question was about the section below it. It does not cite any WP:RAJ source. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't edit anything except the table and the infobox. If I did, that would be a mistake. ImperialAficionado (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The table is not only misleading but it is also undue. It should not be here. Capitals00 (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right. However, I was talking about the section after it. It's pretty well sourced, so I've re-instated it. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Removing result section
The result parameter should only contain either "x victory" or "y victory". According to Template:Infobox military conflict guidelines, it has been fixed. Imperial [AFCND]  06:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @HinduHistoryEnjoyer, see the above comment and edit summary. Please do not reinstall the words to the result parameter.  Imperial  [AFCND]  14:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Maratha Ditch
the Maratha Ditch was constructed directly as a result of this war!

mention of such a megaproject should be done in the legacy section of this article.

10:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\10:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\10:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\10:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 43.242.179.105 (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)