Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Map in infobox

Proposal withdrawn by the nominator because of lack of support. Can be seen at the bottom. (non-admin closure) Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

The current map in infobox depicts that the Rajput states were a part of the Maratha Confederacy and mis-labels them as "Mahratta States". The Rajput states were not part of the Maratha Confederacy and most contemporary maps showed them to be separate. Such as these ones:

It's my suggestion that we use the third map (India map 1700 1792.jpg), it is much more detailed and shows the Rajput states as separate entities from the Maratha Confederacy. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Nominator Support] per nomination. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose various sources (cited in the body of this article) state that the Marathas had at least indirect control over the Rajput states at their peak. SKAG123 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with SKAG123.The Map of India during British rule has British territories as well as Native territories (e.g. Rajput states or Hydrabad state).Although nominally independent the native states were part of the British empire.In a similar manner, during 18th century maratha rule, there were tribute states around India that paid share of their revenue ( mostly a quarter or Chauth of the proceeedings ) to the Marathas.Having said that, all the big and small powers during the 18th century ruled in the name of the totally powerless Mughal emperor.My two cents.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - First two out of the three maps provided by the nominator itself contradicts him. It seems he has misunderstood the maps. The word Rajputs there doesn't show that it is their territory. It shows the name of the place just like Bihar and Bengal. In the all the maps we can see that Bihar and Bengal are shown British Territories but yet the name of the place is shown. Similar is the case with Maratha and Rajput. It is a Rajput land under Maratha Empire just like land of Bihar and Bengal under British occupation. Also to see the markings of the top two maps. It is marked as Maratha Territory/Confederacy but with Rajputs it is just written Rajput(s). Try to understand the difference. If still some confusion read Secondary school history books. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith. I do not see what secondary school education has to with this. Marathas were not any significant power to have their chapter in any CBSE textbook, as far as I can remember. And please do look at the map carefully, there's a boundary between Maratha and Rajput territory not a regional name. Anyways I am withdrawing my proposal. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator: I am hereby withdrawing my proposal due to clearly visible lack of support. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Prominent mention of Bajirao and his caste

Caste mongering is evidently a prevailing problem on Wikipedia with India-related content and nothing exemplifies this more than prominent mentions of Bajirao and his Chitpavan Brahmin caste in the lead paragraph of the article. Not sure when this was added, however, the blanket statement that Bajirao created the empire is a myth mostly propagated by contemporary upper caste authors and folks influenced by the 2016 Bollywood movie. Mahadev Govind Ranade in his seminal book in 1914 'The Rise of Maratha Power' clearly details Shahu's pivotal role in the expansion of the empire. He managed the rivalry between Raghuji Bhosale, who controlled large parts of Central India and Bajirao. Shahu recalled and deployed commanders and even the great generals of North India and close associates of Bajirao such as Holkar and Shinde held deep reverence for Shahu. Bajirao deserves to be known as great but it is curious how the article uses selective references to justify a hyperbolic statement that seems clearly designed to glorify a caste. Urging the main authors and editors of the article to remove this statement. 2605:8D80:1398:8272:9D5F:6F87:6110:5D8F (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit it then and make it better. Witchilich (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your extremely useful suggestion. Tried it before writing the talk post but given the edit war that ensued, it was best to put an explanation over here. 2001:569:7F49:2B00:5C19:988D:8641:A10B (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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

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 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. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator support: per above. Also pinging @SKAG123 who originally put forward this suggestion. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
That's because the English word was "Mahratta" not "Maratha" which is more recent rendering. Check this [1]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 1821. 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)[reply]
  • 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 [2] [3] in scholarly sources as well. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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) 12:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Agree with this. SKAG123 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
I don't know how to write bold letters, someone correct it please Hassan Gangu (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: {{re|user name1|user name2|etc.}} 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)[reply]
Thanks for your help and sorry for being rude. 2402:8100:384E:3F7C:AC52:E91E:48D4:A649 (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnav Bhate and An Asphalt: 2402:8100:384E:3F7C:AC52:E91E:48D4:A649 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maratha_Empire