Jump to content

Talk:Maratha Confederacy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 24 September 2024

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha Confederacy → Maratha Empire – It was Maratha empire until the death of Madhav Rao in 1772, only after that it was called as Maratha Confederacy. All other sources call it as Maratha Empire. The area of control at peak was from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar, so it was called as Empire. Move was requested multiple times within short period, and last move [1] was closed by a non-admin. This is just revision of history by some wikipedia editors for propaganda, so as to diminish the importance of Marathas in the eyes of readers. Crashed greek (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: An RM with a large editorial participation happened only a few months ago which decided on the current name. The entity had been a confederacy since at least 1721. Also, all the area claims are unsourced exaggerations. PadFoot (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true, it was under titular Monarch called as Chatrapati by heredity, and led de facto by Prime minister Peshwa's who were in power by heredity until 1772. Crashed greek (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is WP:OR. PadFoot (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, instead you saying it had been a confederacy since 1721 above is WP:OR. You being an Iranian you are likely to be biased in favor of Abdali of Afghanistan over Marathas of India. Crashed greek (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refrain from making personal attacks. Additionally, I am not an Iranian. Why would you make that assumption? Look at my user page history, I only added that template very recently as I've started editting Persia-related pages recently. India is still my main topic area. Lastly, the first confederate state of the Confederacy was established in 1721, and until 1761, the Peshwas, themselves a member of the Confederacy, ruled the Bombay Presidency region and possessed a good degree of rank and power higher than the other chiefs, which was no longer the case after 1761 (Panipat). Even before 1761, the structure resembled that of a confederacy, as member states possessed significant independence even then. Perhaps look at the discussions in the archives, especially those that resulted in the consensus to move. PadFoot (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The transformation of the Maratha Empire into the Maratha Confederacy occurred gradually after the death of the empire's most powerful leader, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and more formally after the death of his grandson, Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj, in 1749.
Here’s how the transition unfolded:
Shivaji's centralized empire (1674–1680): Shivaji established a centralized state with a clear hierarchy, centralized power, and territories under his direct rule. His successors initially continued this centralized structure.
Weakening of central authority: After Shivaji's death in 1680, there were internal struggles for succession between his son Sambhaji and others. The subsequent Maratha kings, particularly Shahu Maharaj (r. 1707–1749), faced challenges to maintain control, especially due to the growing influence of military generals and regional leaders.
Rise of the Peshwas: During Shahu Maharaj's reign, the Peshwas (Prime Ministers), starting with Balaji Vishwanath and later his son Baji Rao I, began to exercise substantial authority. The Peshwas effectively became the real rulers of the Maratha Empire, with the Chhatrapati reduced to a ceremonial figure.
Formal transition to a confederacy (1749): After the death of Shahu in 1749, the central authority of the Chhatrapati weakened further, and the empire fragmented into a loose confederation of semi-independent Maratha states. These were controlled by powerful Maratha chiefs such as:
Gaekwads of Baroda
Holkars of Indore
Scindias of Gwalior
Bhonsles of Nagpur
Peshwas of Pune
Each of these chiefs controlled their own territories but owed nominal allegiance to the Chhatrapati at Satara. The Peshwa, based in Pune, remained the most powerful figure but had to balance power with other leaders. This period marked the transformation into the Maratha Confederacy.
By the mid-18th century, this decentralized structure defined the Maratha political landscape until the eventual decline after the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-1818), which led to British supremacy in India. DangalOh (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shahu I died in 1749, but Rajaram II of Satara was his successor. But Prime Minister Peshwas were de-facto rulers since Bajirao I assumed power in 1720 ruling from Pune city, and they continued to be the de facto leaders of Maratha Empire until death of Peshwa Madhav Rao in 1772. Only after that it became a Maratha Confederacy. Crashed greek (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Rajaram II of Satara was not a true king of any centralized empire. The groundwork for an extremely decentralized government led by the Peshwas had already been laid by Shahu, who, though not that weak in leadership, delegated significant powers to the Peshwas. Rajaram II was even more of a ceremonial figurehead than Shahu ever was. Saying the empire became a confederacy only after 1772 isn’t entirely accurate, as the process had been ongoing for several decades, driven by internal factors and the weakening of central authority following major military defeats, especially the Third Battle of Panipat in 1761. By the time of Madhav Rao I’s death in 1772, the Maratha Empire had effectively become a loose confederacy, where major Sardars (such as the Scindias, Holkars, and Gaekwads) held significant power in their respective regions. However, the Peshwas remained nominally the leaders and the most powerful authority within this decentralized structure, until Peshwa Baji Rao II was defeated by the British in 1818.
Personally, I don't have a preference. But saying something like "Shivaji founded the Maratha Confederacy" should be avoided. It was an empire that later turned into a confederation. The dates are debatable, as there is no exact, agreed-upon date for the formal transition. So, nuances are required everywhere. I hope you guys can discuss things without fighting with each other. It’s not as simple as just putting a label on things. DangalOh (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kowal2701 (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Kowal2701, please see the previous discussions regarding this. Ngrams are not the sole indicator of common name. The recent boost can be attributed to WP:CIRCULARity. PadFoot (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem is that the Maratha Empire was never officially declared a confederacy during its time, unlike other contemporary examples such as the Swiss Confederacy (1291–1798) and the Dutch Republic (1581–1795). I mean, I know, and you know, how decentralized it became even shortly after Shivaji's death. But if we look at it logically, confederacy was neither the official designation or position of Marathas nor is it the common name today. However, in purely technical terms, calling it a confederacy does make more sense. That being said, it's important to clarify which time period we refer to the Marathas as an empire and which times it should strictly be called a confederacy. The article currently suggests both terms are interchangeable, which requires much more nuance. Thanks DangalOh (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you on much of the points, however, it wasn't really ever declared as an empire either; in fact, it wasn't really 'declared' as anything by its rulers at all. It's early period of history too was not in the slightest an empire, until 1707, it was more of a 'quasi-state' or a rebellion. PadFoot (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. But it was founded on the centralized framework of a kingdom or empire. One of the clearest markers that the Marathas were forming an empire was Shivaji's coronation in 1674, where he was formally crowned as Chhatrapati (Emperor). This was a highly symbolic and political act that affirmed the Maratha state's sovereignty and independence from the Mughal Empire. Many historical empires did not have formal declarations of being "empires." Empires are often defined by their de facto power and control rather than a singular declaration. The Marathas, through their territorial expansions, administrative structures, and military might, effectively functioned as an empire, even if they didn’t formally declare themselves as such. Shivaji's resistance against the Mughal Empire went beyond being a local revolt and involved challenging the hegemony of one of the most powerful empires in the world at that time.
After the death of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in 1707, the Maratha Empire rapidly expanded, and Chhatrapati Shahu formally re-established central authority, even appointing the Peshwas to handle governance and military matters. Even before 1707, the Maratha state under Shivaji had the essential hallmarks of an empire: a structured administration, military strength, and territorial expansion. He implemented a formal administrative system with Ashtapradhan (a council of eight ministers), which is indicative of empire-like governance.
A confederacy is a more modern concept than an empire and, by definition, requires the consent of all participating entities in some formal manner. On the other hand, empires expand mostly without consent (though rare exceptions exist both ways).
In any case, I can actually make points and arguments for both terms. It is a little more complex than the Roman Republic becoming the Roman Empire. I understand your point of view as well. I hope you all reach a consensus that is more contextualized and reflective of historical considerations and realities.
Regards, DangalOh (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does WP:Circular apply? Ngrams does books which is very useful for establishing common name in history topics Kowal2701 (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kowal2701, Yes it does apply. Google ngrams uses Google Books, which includes exam manuals, MCQ booklets, and stuff like that in its results, which are not considered WP:RS at all, many of them not listing sources or being based upon Wikipedia itself, which is not acceptable here, as you would know. PadFoot (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’d be a small minority of the sources used for the data, Maratha Empire has a massive lead. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change anything. WP:CIRCULAR still applies as the very recent boost can be obviously attributed to Wikipedia using the name until very recently, before which, both had very similar usage. In fact, in reality, only a small minority of books results are considered to adhere to WP:HISTRS. Simply seeing ngram results is not considered a reliable way to check WP:COMMONNAME in these cases. Besides, WP:NPOV is also a concern in this case. PadFoot (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 Brother, I like you, and even when you started the RFC for the name change of CSMI Airport to just Mumbai Airport, I really thought you had genuine intentions for improvement. However, after observing some things, I now feel like you might have some prejudices against the Marathas for reasons I won’t assume. Well, I can think of many reasons, but I’ll refrain.
The point is, are you sure you're doing this because you genuinely believe it violates NPOV and other concerns? Not for some other reason? I’m just letting you know that labeling entities as "confederates" (even though they may have acted like one), when they were using titles such as Chhatrapati/Emperor and never formalized any form of decentralized government, is derogatory and dismissive, to say the least.
It’s like suggesting, "Ha ha ha, you claimed to be an empire, but all you were was just a confederacy. The right-hand men were more powerful than the monarch, haha. We’ll only call you a confederacy because we feel like it, and some sources support this." The sad thing is that, for the most part, the insult is justified because, for most of its lifespan, it was not an empire ruled by powerful emperors, but by weak emperors with loose empires. Still, weak emperors are emperors.
That’s why I’m suggesting you support more nuance, at least in the article if not in the title. Try to understand others' perspectives too. It’s not always about "me, me, me." You would be surprised how many doors it will open for you.
Tell me, Padfoot, are you a reasonable person? I’m not a Maratha, nor am I from Maharashtra or anywhere near that area, and even I can feel the injustice being done here. It’s not like calling it the Maratha Empire would make me any happier, but your reasons for dismissing it seem dubious to me. I’m not extremely convinced. You seem more focused on finding minor faults here and there rather than making a compelling argument for your case that sweeps us off our feet.
Anyway, I guess you’re too involved in this topic, and the temperament of people on Wikipedia is crazy. I’ve given my two cents. Now I leave this topic. Don’t take this the wrong way. Have a good day! M out DangalOh (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DangalOh, I wouldn't really say that I've a particular 'bias' towards or against Marathas. In fact, it's the opposite, I usually invest my time in trying counter POV pushes in various Indian history-related topics, not just in Maratha-related topics. I think you might be aware of the sockwars ongoing since 2022. There are many, many blocked and banned sockmasters and sockpuppets on Wikipedia who have Maratha POV as well as those having an anti-Maratha POV, and both sides have caused significant disruption and, I only serve to eliminate all of those. On a side note, scholars usually don't call the Chhatrapati the 'Maratha emperor', look up the ngrams, that phrase has negligible usage. Lastly, the CSMIA move request doesn't have anything to do with this at al. I had been planning to do it with all airports, including that at Kolkata and Delhi, I started with CSMIA as that name has very few usages in RS, and I thought it would make for the strongest case. PadFoot (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it’s just sad, bro. The legitimacy of the Marathas was challenged even during British rule, as the British considered positioning themselves as the direct successors of the Mughals. By choosing to skip or not properly recognize the Marathas, they aimed to enhance their own legitimacy to rule, given that the Mughals were historically seen as the dominant power in the Indian subcontinent. In this context, a titular suzerainty might still have existed, where the Mughal Emperor was acknowledged as a nominal authority despite his weakened power.
But we should also point out that British historians often relied on Mughal records and perspectives, which naturally favored the Mughals. The British sought to undermine local powers to establish their own dominance. By portraying the Marathas as a declining power and emphasizing their conflicts with the Mughals, they justified their intervention and eventual control over India. The British framed themselves as the legitimate successors of the Mughal Empire, using that narrative to legitimize their rule.
What pierces the heart is that now, our people, using British or British-influenced sources, are putting ghee on the fire. Lol. But anyway, I hope everything gets sorted out here—peacefully. As I read somewhere, "Life is too short," so I hope peace prevails here. Thanks. DangalOh (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t think the boost can be attributed to that, Maratha Empire also seems to be the common name per the sources used in this article assuming they are the WP:BESTSOURCES Kowal2701 (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This was changed for a reason, the Maratha Confederacy had much more usage (in scholarly works, and searches). Noorullah (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the term Maratha empire is POV and is contradicted by academic sources, see Gordon, Stewart (2007-02-01). The Marathas 1600-1818. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 178. ISBN 978-0-521-03316-9. The Maratha polity was not an empire, if, by that, we have an image of imperial Rome or the Mughal Empire. There was no graded civilian/ military ranking with attendant symbols of authority. Those in the military were not, until late in the eighteenth century, full-time professionals. The Maratha polity did not, and could not, impose a uniform legal or revenue system. It never minted a uniform, highquality currency; neither did it build the straight roads which were the pride of the Roman Empire. Large parts of the Maratha polity, unlike Rome or the Mughal Empire, were permanently alienated to military commanders. There was no grand, imperial architecture. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Per @PadFoot2008 reasonings Rawn3012 (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per WP:COMMONNAME. More common in ngrams and also google scholar (since 2020, the proposed title gets 593 results vs 225 for the current one: [2] [3]). The argument that "empire" is POV, is not very convincing. Many territories are called that (see [List of empires]), including the Holy Roman Empire, which was equally or even more decentralized. Vpab15 (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the Mali Empire, Ghana Empire, Luba Empire, and Lunda Empire plus many others were organised like confederations, and yet they are still called empires. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kowal2701 Could you explain, concretely, in what ways the Mali or Ghana Empires were organised like confederations, and in particular how those ways resembled the mode of organization of the Maratha Confederation? Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have little information on the Ghana Empire but scholars believe it was like a confederation. The Mali Empire was composed of subordinate kingdoms which had a local ruler/leader who was assigned a governor (farin). The mansas focussed intensely on internal diplomacy. When the empire crumbled, these kingdoms became independent. Regardless, there's far too much WP:Original research here. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We have little information on the Ghana Empire but scholars[who?] believe it was like a confederation.[citation needed] The Mali Empire was composed of subordinate kingdoms which had a local ruler/leader who was assigned a governor (farin).[improper synthesis?] The mansas focussed intensely on internal diplomacy. When the empire crumbled, these kingdoms became independent. Regardless, there's far too much WP:Original research here.

    Well, at least one thing you and I can agree on, your comment is indeed full of original research. A governor does not a confederacy make; basically all empires have regional governors. Nor do local powerbrokers leveraging the weakening of imperial authority to augment their own power and autonomy; again, a perennial feature of empire. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahahaha you asked for my opinion. Everything everyone is doing here is original research. The clear WP:Common name is Maratha Empire, arguments for Maratha Confederacy stand on nothing whatsoever and the closer should ignore them. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in addition to the points raised by Kowal2701, consider the Holy Roman Empire, which was also a confederation, but it was called an empire, with an emperor as its figurehead, so it is named as such in the article. Similarly, the Marathas considered themselves an empire and also had a Chhatrapati as a figurehead till the end of the polity. Contemporary english usage shows that they were recognised as an empire by their opponents - the British. The Chhatrapati was also more than a nominal figurehead from 1674-1749, and a figurehead from 1749-1818, so the polity was closer to an empire for the majority of its life. Thus, even though it was a confederation at the end, the title empire is more suitable for the polity. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 06:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. The personal opinions of some scholars on how strong an army should be or what type of infrastructure should be developed to be called an empire are irrelevant. If the Marathas considered themselves an empire and had a Chhatrapati as a figurehead until the end of their polity, then it should be called an empire. Full stop. Anyone opposing this has serious POV issues. Historical interpretations are often influenced by perspective and context. What one scholar sees as a fragmented federation, another might consider a decentralized empire. I have seen much weaker and more fragmented polities being called empires, and the Marathas were no joke. I want to sing praises of what Shivaji and others accomplished, as well as the impact they had, but I'll refrain as it might hurt the sentiments of some people here. But yes, I fully agree with you. DangalOh (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, Marathas considering themselves as an empire (or even a confederacy) is unsourced. Also some British historians using the term (others used Maratha Confederacy) doesn't at all indicate that the British or the Company acknowledged it as an empire. Besides, "Maratha king" gives nearly 10 times more hits than "Maratha emperor" as of 2022 on ngrams. This is a clear indication that most scholars do not consider the chhatrapati as an 'emperor'. Also, the Holy Roman Empire is a really bad comparison in this case. As for one, the Holy Roman Empire didn't mint coins in the name of another emperor, or considered another emperor as its suzerain. Secondly, the Chhatrapati possessed no powers at all. The Holy Roman Emperor on the other hand, possessed large powers throughout its existence. PadFoot (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept my defeat, brother. You bothered to reply, so I’m replying. But I’m tired of everything. It’s not worth it. You won’t be seeing me around for a very long time. I’ve wasted enough time on Wikipedia—it’s absolutely undeserving. There are much better things out there. I might lose my hair and age faster if I continue to engage. I like my wrinkle-free face and full head of hair. Have a good time editing! DangalOh (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, have a good day. PadFoot (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are so many empires that didn’t mint their own coins Kowal2701 (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like? I hope you are not talking about empires that didn't have official coinage, which is a different matter altogether. Besides, empires do not acknowledge the suzerainty of other emperors. PadFoot (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just WP:OR and arbitrary criteria, the point is that WP:AT says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) and Maratha Empire is the WP:Common name per ngrams in English language sources and the sources on the page. Your arguments are just personal opinions not based on policy and shouldn’t be taken into account when determining consensus Kowal2701 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, see WP:CIRCULAR. Both names are WP:COMMONNAMES. Ultimately, consensus is determined by editors. PadFoot (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Maratha Empire is by far and away the common name over Maratha Confederacy. Ngrams isn’t circular otherwise we wouldn’t use it. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimately, our opinions on the topic aren’t important, it’s the opinion of scholars reflected by WP:Common name Kowal2701 (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In Wikipedia, consensus is determined by the editors of Wikipedia. See WP:CONSENSUS. Additionally, WP:COMMONNAME is not the sole criterion used to determine the page title. PadFoot (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but it is the main one per WP:AT. The WP:Criteria are there to determine when there’s no clear common name, but regardless I don’t think any of them favour either option. You could weakly argue Empire is more consistent with other articles such as the decentralised ones I’ve listed. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kowal2701 Even if Padfoot's criteria were arbitrary, it is telling that you chose to raise this objection after they asked you to cite your claim that There are so many empires that didn’t mint their own coins, and not after they made the initial assertion that the Holy Roman Empire didn't mint coins in the name of another emperor. You are just shifting the goalposts. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Complete nonsense, the goalposts are always the same on wikipedia. You can ignore them as much as you like. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You bring up an excellent point about the title "Chhatrapati"; indeed this tells us a lot about how the Marathas were organized. I suggest you create a new move proposal to rename the page "Maratha Umbrellaocracy" to reflect the meaning of this title, since it is readily apparent from the fact that they called their figurehead ruler "Husband of the Umbrella" that the parasol was central to their conception of leadership. Your comment provides a much needed reminder of that quintessentially Maratha institution—that of royal marriage to an umbrella—which unfortunately tends to be forgotten in such discussions. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The designation of "Maratha Confederacy" reflects a more accurate understanding of the political structure that existed after Shivaji reign. Numerous scholarly sources support this classification, because of the decentralized nature of the Maratha polity. Nxcrypto Message 04:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Former countries, WikiProject Military history, Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Maharashtra, WikiProject History, WikiProject Indian history, WikiProject Politics, and WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ on this as Marathas were the rulers who ruled their subject throught council of ministers or rather technically speaking through Prime minister. There was no Empire as such which is ruled by a single dynasty or monarch. Donchocolate (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Both Maratha Empire and Maratha Confederacy appear in sources frequently. However regardless of what title is used, the lead should clearly state the Marathas were a polity or confederacy rather than a traditional empire. SKAG123 (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The sheer unseriousness of this proposal is manifest in its nakedly false assertion that this polity stretched from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar practically in the same breath as they insinuate a shadowy anti-Maratha WP:CABAL is spreading propaganda, so as to diminish the importance of Marathas in the eyes of readers. Of course, any observant Wikipedian will be quick to notice the proposer is themselves a member of the anti-Confederacy cabal, an organization chiefly devoted to reducing the number of confederacies on Wikipedia. As a card-carrying member of the anti-imperial cabal, I am compelled to vote against this proposal. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:There isnt such a need for moving when both have been mentioned in lead.Maratha Confedracy can refer a whole time for Marathas than empire.An Empire is usually ruled by a single dynasty which isnt with Marathas.It may be an empire for a short term but Confedaracy is for more wider time.
Edasf (talk) 06:54, 12 October 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.

Maratha Empire Being A Tributary of Mughals

[edit]

The link which says Maratha Empire was recognized as tributary of mughals is not saying that. Here is page 395 Of Cambridge History of India Vol 3 and no where does it mention Marathas being tributary of Mughals. https://archive.org/details/cambridgehistory035492mbp/page/394/mode/2up Is it possible for the moderators if the moderators can instead word it as Marathas from the time of Shahu Recognized Mughals as soverign nominally but in practice controlled the Imperial Affairs. Rama1234567 (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Padfoot2008@Jonathansammy 2607:FEA8:8DB:6CA0:61EF:1FD9:7B08:20E9 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Marathas had to pay big tribute to the Mughals due to having an inferior fighting force. Sambhaji's addiction to sensual pleasures (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all please lets talk about the present conversation. I do not believe that Sambhaji Maharaj was addicted to them but that is my opinion. Eitherways I am just saying Marathas never really paid big tribute to Mughals there was an agreement which said to give tribute but Marathas did not gave any tribue. I can dig it up if you want but there is a letter by Nizam of it. Regardless it is well known that Mughals were only nominal rulers, their rule was only nominal while Marathas ruled the area for practical purposes. I can give a lot of examples. Below is just one example. Note: This post is not intended to offend anyone or anybody.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm34CGtFAgM Rama1234567 (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most de fecto rulers of India like the Maratha states and the British East India Company ruled in the name of the Mughal emperor even though the power of emperor did not extend beyond the doors of the Red fort.This fiction came to an end in 1857 after the Indian Mutiny when the company deposed Bahadur shah Jaffar and sent him into exile.Rather than paying tribute to the emperor, these rulers in some cases formally obtained rights from the emperor to collect taxes on his behalf. In other cases, the Marathas simply levied Chauth (a quarter of a state's revenue) on their own vassals. My two cents. Jonathansammy (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are correct but above link says Marathas were recognized as Tributary when the source itself does not mention that. Neither did Marathas actually paid tribute. The thing is even this vassalage was in name only while Marathas ruled in practice. See this of William Dalrymple: https://archive.org/details/the-anarchy-by-william-dalrymple/page/n341/mode/2up?q=servant " the real condition of the so-called Emperor is this: that he is actually enslaved and a mere cypher, being the servant of Scindia at the monthly wages of Rs15,000". This shows that it was not a clear cut case that Marathas were servants of Mughals and the relationship was more complex. Please get rid of the sentance that the Marathas being recodgnized as being tributaries of Mughals. Thanks. Note: this is not intended to offend anyone or anybody. Rama1234567 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2025

[edit]

I want the ability to edit the article as I want to if I find add new information for reader as well as I want to ensure that information there is verified and authentic. Rama1234567 (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: You will be able to edit the article when you are an autoconfirmed user. That takes 4 days and requires that you make 10 edits elsewhere. LizardJr8 (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Sambhaji is kid lover (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues and classification

[edit]
  • Reassessed article to C-class.
The article fails the B-class criteria currently listed in the following "Hidden categories":
  • Articles with unsourced statements from June 2015
  • Articles with unsourced statements from July 2016
  • Articles with unsourced statements from August 2017
  • Articles lacking reliable references from August 2017
  • Articles with unsourced statements from December 2017
  • Articles with unsourced statements from August 2018
  • Articles with unsourced statements from August 2020
  • Articles with unsourced statements from September 2020
  • Articles with unsourced statements from May 2022
  • Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from January 2023
  • Articles with unsourced statements from July 2023
  • Articles with unsourced statements from February 2024 -- Otr500 (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 April 2025

[edit]

Maratha Confederacy → Maratha Empire – The last two moves lacked any deeper source evaluation and analysis; most comments based their arguments on nothing but their own assertions, which fall within the WP:OR realm. Also, it's worth noting that the moved discussion was influenced by now-blocked socks [4][5][6]. However, this RM will be based on scholarly views rather than editors' personal understanding, as seen in "Naming it with 'empire' suffix is overly biased PoV", "Maratha Empire is a nationalist name", and "When an entity should be called empire?". Relying on these points will only ignite another round of debates, which is completely unwarranted and will merely divert the discussion. We don't actually need to delve much deeper into these questions when decades of extensive studies by reputed publishing houses and established scholars are available. Here is the Maratha Empire vs. Maratha Confederacy table, left only for editors to initially base their arguments on: Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Engine "Maratha Confederacy" "Maratha Empire"
OUP 114 136
CUP 1 9
Wiley 20 24
Taylor & Francis (Books) 95 1,784(?)
Taylor & Francis (Journals) 44 57
Brill Publishers 41 78
JSTOR 248 354
Sage Journals 29 43
Springer Nature 40 88
ProQuest 928 2,813
De Gruyter 137 228
Ngram 6,621% x 10^(-10) 17,767% x 10^(-10)
Google Scholar 1,180 2,130
They did not address any concerns raised by PadFoot2008. Not to mention Mehedi Abedin,Flemmish Nietzsche were also unconvinced by their argument.Maratha Empire is also a POV name. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, we can't WP:SATISFY every editor. What these editors previously stated was nothing more than personal remarks, which don't require anyone's inspection. Besides, I see Noorullah in the September 2024 move contradicting himself by later supporting the common name, which clearly favors 'Maratha Empire' [7]. Heraklios 14:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- There have already been two RM in a period of one year with a large editorial participation discussing in length the best appropriate name. The current name is the output of that. Now again, having another is nothing but a sort of no good time consumption of many good editors.
Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous, we're not bound by limited requested moves. Did you even evaluate the sources before voting?, or you only oppose it because of 'having another' move discussion is unjustified in your say? Heraklios 16:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had already participated in two discussions prior to this and only thing which I will say is how you deduce Marathas were an Empire. Did they have a "Emperor" as the sole figure of authority? Did they have a centralized administration? Did they have a centralized army? Did this polity had a single fixed foreign policy? Now, Answer to all these questions has been rightly given to us by An Advanced History of Modern India by Sailendra Nath Sen Page no 12 "Balaji rightly realized that the revival of Maratha power in its old monarchial form was no longer possible. He inaugurated the Jagir system and Maratha war lords found out admirable opportunities to carve independent principalities for themselves. Instead of the autocracy of the King. Balaji established the Maratha Confederacy. "
Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry folk, bad luck trying to push your original research. The OP had already pointed out in the proposal to avoid these "historian-like debates," as if we're eligible to start our own research and spark unnecessary discussions. Let's keep it circumscribed to scholarly legends. You're no one to raise these questions, and I'm no one to answer such strenuous ones -- let me be clear. Although, I can correct you on your points about "fixed foreign policy," "Emperor," and "Centralized army." The Marathas had decorated bureaucrats in the Ashta Pradhan (Council of 8 ministers), one of whom was the foreign minister. They also had a line of Chhatrapatis (Paramount rulers, equivalent to emperors). The army was intact until the death of Madhavrao II & Battle of Kharda in 1795 -- just my own two cents of OR. Heraklios 17:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask you to be a historian, and aside from that, you would have easily countered my questions with any scholar's research on Maratha polity and its administration. As a matter of fact, you didn't. I had already provided you one source that tells us that Marathas were a confederacy with each ruler having its own independent principality. See comments below by Ratnahastin and Capitals00 for more info.
Regards
Rawn3012 (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your irrelevant questions need not to be addressed, just because Mauryan Empire had lose-knit structure, we don't start a move discussion to Mauryan Confederacy, we have a talk page for that. If you want to include the Balaji rightly...for themselves part in the article (which I guess it's already there) then start a RfC or have a thorough discussion. Your assertions have no means on a move discussion which is apparently based on a detailed data measurements. You might be interested in The Maratha Empire. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison between the Mauryan and Maratha structures is fundamentally flawed. The Maratha Empire, particularly at its peak, operated under a confederate model, with powerful regional generals such as the Scindias, Holkars, and Gaekwads. In contrast, the Mauryan Empire was a highly centralized monarchy. Authority resided solely with the emperor, be it Chandragupta, Bindusara or Ashoka who ruled through hierarchical bureaucratic system, as evidenced by the Ashoka minor edicts in the south side which describes Ashokan highly centralised form of governance. Despite any perceived hypothetical decentralization in later phases, the Mauryan state was never a confederacy. In fact, one of the widely cited reasons for Mauryan Empire decline particularly by historian Romila Thapar was the overcentralization of power, which made the state structure brittle and unable to adapt by post-Ashoka descendents. Bringing in the Maratha model here is only historically inaccurate and irrelevant to the nature of the Mauryan polity. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 11:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's vague to see the contesting editors basing their arguments on WP:POVNAME while WP:POVNAMING suggests:

if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased.

Moreover I failed to understand, what is actually bias in Maratha Empire? 'Empire' couldn't be more neutral. I say we can have a look at Safavid Iran & Afsharid Iran, this feels like nationalistic article title but it's irrelevant when the sources tilt more lofty towards it as it can be seen in the move discussions. Heraklios 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Former countries, Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Indian history, WikiProject Maharashtra, and WikiProject History have been notified of this discussion. Heraklios 16:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Maratha polity was not an empire, so the proposed title is not only POV but also inaccurate. Gordon Stewart says: "The Maratha polity was not an empire, if, by that, we have an image of imperial Rome or the Mughal Empire. There was no graded civilian/ military ranking with attendant symbols of authority. Those in the military were not, until late in the eighteenth century, full-time professionals. The Maratha polity did not, and could not, impose a uniform legal or revenue system. It never minted a uniform, highquality currency; neither did it build the straight roads which were the pride of the Roman Empire. Large parts of the Maratha polity, unlike Rome or the Mughal Empire, were permanently alienated to military commanders. There was no grand, imperial architecture." Ratnahastin (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another set of personal opinions. We don't need to write our own theses on Wikipedia. Stewart is not the sole authority on Maratha history. Even so, we have his article titled: The Slow Conquest: Administrative Integration of Malwa into the Maratha Empire, 1720—1760. There's another magnificent article by Sumit Guha: The Maratha Empire. Take a good look at both. The rest of your comment doesn't need to be addressed, as I said -- it's just your own evaluation. Heraklios 14:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ultimately, the question boils down to whether it was an empire or a confederacy.
  • Mahajan, Vidya Dhar (1967). India Since 1526. S. Chand. p. 148. It is true that the Maratha Empire was a vast one but it was not well knit. It was not a unitary state and all power was not in the hands of the Peshwa. The Maratha Empire was a confederacy. Power was shared by Many Marathas Chiefs and most important of them Holkar, Scindhia, Bhonsle and Gaikwar. It is true that nominally the Peshwa was the head of the Maratha Confederacy but, as a matter of fact he had no substantial control over the various Maratha Chiefs. Every one of them was independent in his own territory and did whatever he pleased. They did not hesitate even to intrigue against one another. It was not a happy phenomenon to see Holkar, Scindhia or Bhonsle helping another power against one another. Evidently there was no discipline and solidarity among the Marathas. They were not brought together even by a national emergency. They failed to help one another against their common enemies and the result was that all of them were defeated one by one by the English East India Company.
  • Paranjpe, Shrikant (2020-03-13). India’s Strategic Culture: The Making of National Security Policy. Taylor & Francis. p. 31. ISBN 978-1-000-05247-3. At its height, the Maratha empire under Peshwa Balaji Bajirao (1760) was the closest to being an all-India empire. But unlike the Ashokan or the Mughal rule, it did not have the same centralized administrative machinery. The Maratha polity was not an empire like that of the Mughals; it did not impose a uniform legal system or a revenue system. It has sometimes been described as a 'confederacy'. The regional satraps who held sway remained fairly autonomous-; they may have been 'co-sharers' in the polity. In that sense one would not describe the Maratha polity as a 'unified state'. The Peshwas suffered a massive defeat at the hands of Ahmed Shah Abdali at the Battle of Panipat in 1761.
The correct answer is that it was a confederacy, as such current name should be retained. Capitals00 (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To sort out the exact same question, I have performed a detailed evaluation of the data set. It's not that hard to understand that Maratha Empire is a drastically overused name. Quoting some set of sources out of all is insignificant to the above thorough table. On top of that you're concluding "The correct answer is that it was a confederacy" without defeating the numbers already presented. If we keep quoting countless sources, don't you think the proponents of Maratha Empire would still get the edge? What's the point of this unnecessary burn out? One of the main tenets of deciding the article title is by measuring the common name in reliable publishing cores, disregarding WP:COMMONNAME is just a foul play. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are unnecessarily assuming bad faith. WP:COMMONNAME is not the ultimate guideline. "Bombay" has more results than "Mumbai", but our article says Mumbai. Can you tell the reason why? Capitals00 (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
p. 148 of Mahajan is talking about "Causes of the failure of the Marathas" after Peshwas lost in Panipat. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to that is WP:NAMECHANGES. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 07:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same way WP:POVNAME applies here. That makes WP:COMMONNAME less relevant since both names have been extensively used everywhere but Wikipedia is supposed to maintain accuracy. "Maratha Empire" lacks factual basis. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second source you’ve listed literally calls it the Maratha empire Kowal2701 (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read it carefully. It tells how "Maratha Empire" is inaccurate. Capitals00 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: At Wikipedia, we are bound by sources, and if an overwhelming number of sources identify it as "Maratha Empire", it should be presented as such. Dympies (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not happen. If you were any correct then the page title of "Mumbai" would be "Bombay" because Bombay has more results than Mumbai. Capitals00 (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s a case of WP:ENGVAR, in Indian English Mumbai is the common name Kowal2701 (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a case of ENGVAR. We say "Mumbai" also on the Wikipedia pages that use American English. Capitals00 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Britannica has the main article as "Maratha Empire" to describe the entity from 1674-1818. It says that after 1761 (Panipat battle), the "Maratha confederacy" [8] (Brittannica has a sub-article) was formed. This is when the Peshwas became the nominal chiefs; Holkars, Scindia and Gaekwars rose and became independent. Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Asian History has a chapter on "Maratha Empire". "The Encyclopedia of Empire" has an entry on "Maratha Empire" [9]. So does "Encyclopedia of Early Modern History Online" (BRILL) [10]. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It was clearly an empire under Shahu I though later evolved into confederacy. Even after Panipat (1761), Peshwa Madhavrao forced the Gaekwads and Bhonsles in 1765 to accept Peshwa;s suzerainty so it's wrong to say that Peshwa only held nominal suzerainty over the other chiefs in the empire. The level of control throughout varied but clearly wrong to say they didn't have a cental authority at all. In the reign of Balaji Rao, Gaekwads and other chiefs maintained armies in the service of Peshwa. So, it was more of an empire throughout its rule than a confederacy. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per WP:POVNAME and arguments put forward above and in other previous RMs. The polity was for the greater period of its existence, from at least 1721 until it's collapse in 1818, a confederacy which is referred to by historians and scholars as the Maratha Confederacy. The data shows that both the names are common names, however using the title 'empire' for the article for the entire period, would be a violation of WP:NPOVNAME. PadFoot (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also pinging previous editors, @Flemmish Nietzsche, @Noorullah21, @Brusquedandelion. PadFoot (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any data supporting that assertion? Kowal2701 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously they don't. Shakakarta (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ngrams as well as data presented above, show clearly that both Confederacy and Empire are plausible WP:COMMONNAMEs, and have similar amounts of usage by sources, which would mean editors should decide by considering other criteria; COMMONNAME isn't the sole criteria. PadFoot (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Using that same logic, calling it "Maratha Confederacy" to cover both periods would be a violation of POVNAME Kowal2701 (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You fail to understand. It was for much of its existence, the Maratha Confederacy and not the empire. Even in its initial turbulent rebellion phase from 1674 to 1707, historians use the Maratha kingdom. PadFoot (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant wikiprojects have been notified, no need to canvass the editors who will presumably follow through their last !votes. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors who previously participated in the RMs, should be notified for them to be made aware of the ongoing RM. PadFoot (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright then, let's be more vocal. @Crashed greek, Jonathansammy, Gotitbro, Jonharojjashi, and Curious man123: Shakakarta (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also ping @Oxiyam.Primal, @Mithilanchalputra7. PadFoot (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COMMONNAME says [Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. You seem to be approaching this in the context of a POV war against socks (FlemmishNietzsche is also involved which is presumably why you pinged him), and that would be completely disingenuous WP:BATTLEGROUND. This just looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Kowal2701 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The essay was a humourous one which I wrote a very long time back, and there is no relation to battleground, I only express an opinion against sockpuppetry. As I said above, WP:COMMONNAME would support both the names. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. Besides, no data has been provided that supports that the name is the common name for the confederacy era, which was the duration in which the Maratha polity existed the longest time. PadFoot (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My only interaction with you was in the previous RM, and I’m just concerned it’s evidence of an anti-Maratha POV. Generally I believe history articles should be slightly biased towards the people being written about, but that’s not particularly relevant here. Kowal2701 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And 'Maratha Empire' is evidently the most used common name, please don't overlook the table to push your pov. Also visit WP:POVNAMING where it says: "if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased." Shakakarta (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Making personal attacks against me would not work. I'm not repeating my arguments for the upteenth time. PadFoot (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you pertain is not a personal attack. Listing non blocked sock as possibly on userpage which you want to cite is actually a personal attack (I'm referring to Johnrajjoshi's entry in Flemmish's userpage [11] clerking for a likely tag). Anyways we must avoid canvassing and unnecessary accusations of personal attacks, it leads us to nowhere in this discussion. Shakakarta (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No they don't, you want them to follow your original research, for which they're not bound to. Try to give academic data instead of luring us to your own unacademic class. Shakakarta (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are sources provided in the article for Maratha kingdom; if you are going to pretend that they do not exist, than you are free do whatever you want. Besides it's irrelevant as the I am not saying that it should be the article title, and I've already provided my arguments. I shall go on repeating them a gazillion times. PadFoot (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are X amount of sources for 'Maratha Confederacy' then there are also 2X to 10X amounts of sources for 'Maratha Empire'. Historians who assert the centralized authority like S. Guha could have also been cited but the current situation of the article is messed up with POV bias that needs a huge amount of work after this move. Shakakarta (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PadFoot2008 How could you say it was confederacy from 1721 when Shahu was ruling? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose evidently there is no reason beyond one has a more prominent common name than the other, despite both of them being common names. Both titles are prominent common names, there is absolutely no other reason to call it Empire. The title of the Maratha Confederacy has every other reason to be the article title as well demonstrated by the discussions to fulfill every other Wikipedia guideline and suggestion of being impartial and honest to history and modern scholarship.
RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The case would have been completely different if the numbers would not have been in favour of the Maratha Empire. In case you can't see or don't want to accept the fact that WP:COMMONNAME suggests otherwise, there's nothing that could be done. 'The title of the Maratha Confederacy has every other reason to be the article title' - feel free to name one. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME would lend support to both the names as your data has plausibly shown that both are used extensively and similarly by sources. Besides, other criteria should be considered as well. PadFoot (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read my reply [12] to Abhishek? Surely I'm not going to repeat that there's a significant gap between both data which is in multipliers. Repeating would only be bludgeoning. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ngrams clearly show that the difference is not extremely significant, until very recent years caused by Wikipedia's own influence. Other parameters too, except for two or three, show that the gap is not significant. Please do not make me repeat my arguments. PadFoot (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia's own influence" - What do you mean? Entries in Google books receive no direct impact from Wikipedia (I think you're confusing it with Google trends). Ngram actually gives 3 times more numbers for Maratha Empire than that of Maratha Confederacy. I'm not at loss for repeating the arguments when they're backed with my calculations. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Marathas were empire under chhatrapati's and peshwas, from chhatrapati Shivaji's coronation in 1674 until death of peshwa Madhavrao I in 1772. And it was confederacy only from 1772 to the british victory in 1819 in Third Anglo-Maratha War. And during empire it expanded multi fold, while during confederacy time it was mostly stagnant. But leftists want to downplay marathas as they are majority community rulers, and islamists want to downplay the Marathas as they were Hindus, so in many places in internet and in framing school textbooks there is an effort to not call marathas as "empire", instead they want to call it as "confederacy" or "kingdom". But that is away from truth, as marathas ruled much bigger areas and much bigger population and much longer than many other empires. Crashed greek (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact it was Maratha army and commanders from Pune which went on military campaign up to Delhi and Peshawar, capture wikipedia article of the latter was deleted using afd, before renaming this article from empire to confederacy. The users who opposed such deletion were banned for some other reason beforehand. Crashed greek (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per my last vote. [13] -- If anybody has dabbled into Maratha history, it'd make much more sense on how they're viewed as a decentralized confederacy, rather than one contiguous empire. Noorullah (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Weren't you static to the use of common name [14], which is 'Maratha Empire'? Quite sudden change of mind, hmm. Heraklios 17:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The table looks pretty self explanatory. And I don't get the point of calling it POV name, nor I see anybody put any valid explanation on why it is a POV name, especially when we see it being used by hundreds of scholars for hundreds of times as the table shows. It is equivalent to calling all the scholars at OUP, CUP, Wiley, Taylor & Francis etc, who used the term, as POV pushers, which is totally absurd.
And anyone who is bringing in Stewart Gordon's "The Marathas" to support their claim for it not being an empire, it is total misinterpretation of the text. Stewart Gordon's "Marathas, Marauders, and State Formation in Eighteenth-Century India" published by Oxford University literally has a chapter called [15]-

2. The Slow Conquest: Administrative Integration of Malwa into the Maratha Empire, 1720-60.

Akshaypatill (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Akshaypatill@Crashed greek@Maniacal! Paradoxical@Shakakarta and all others who have lent their support to the Maratha Empire. The thing you guys are not standing which has already been told by @PadFoot2008 to you guys is that WP: COMMONAME should not be the sole factor in deciding the name of the article title. See for example Macedonia (ancient kingdom) Hmm The article title is pretty absurd don't you think? However, it is still kept in the RM that happened over there, despite the proposed name having more page views and even having more scholarly use. Now, I hope that you guys understand that in some cases WP: COMMONAME should be an exception as stated in it "Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below." With that being said I would like to ask you guys to Present us with some sources that go in-depth about the nature of Maratha polity and conclude it as Empire like me @Capitals00@Ratnahastin have provided you. Sources are provided below for the Maratha Confederacy.
  • Mahajan, Vidya Dhar (1967). India Since 1526. S. Chand. p. 148. It is true that the Maratha Empire was a vast one but it was not well knit. It was not a unitary state and all power was not in the hands of the Peshwa. The Maratha Empire was a confederacy. Power was shared by Many Marathas Chiefs and most important of them Holkar, Scindhia, Bhonsle and Gaikwar. It is true that nominally the Peshwa was the head of the Maratha Confederacy but, as a matter of fact he had no substantial control over the various Maratha Chiefs. Every one of them was independent in his own territory and did whatever he pleased. They did not hesitate even to intrigue against one another. It was not a happy phenomenon to see Holkar, Scindhia or Bhonsle helping another power against one another. Evidently there was no discipline and solidarity among the Marathas. They were not brought together even by a national emergency. They failed to help one another against their common enemies and the result was that all of them were defeated one by one by the English East India Company.
  • Paranjpe, Shrikant (2020-03-13). India’s Strategic Culture: The Making of National Security Policy. Taylor & Francis. p. 31. ISBN 978-1-000-05247-3. At its height, the Maratha empire under Peshwa Balaji Bajirao (1760) was the closest to being an all-India empire. But unlike the Ashokan or the Mughal rule, it did not have the same centralized administrative machinery. The Maratha polity was not an empire like that of the Mughals; it did not impose a uniform legal system or a revenue system. It has sometimes been described as a 'confederacy'. The regional satraps who held sway remained fairly autonomous-; they may have been 'co-sharers' in the polity. In that sense one would not describe the Maratha polity as a 'unified state'. The Peshwas suffered a massive defeat at the hands of Ahmed Shah Abdali at the Battle of Panipat in 1761.
  • Sen, Sailendra Nath (2010). An Advanced History of Modern India. Macmillan. p. 12. Balaji rightly realized that the revival of Maratha power in its old monarchial form was no longer possible. He inaugurated the Jagir system and Maratha war lords found out admirable opportunities to carve independent principalities for themselves. Instead of the autocracy of the King. Balaji established the Maratha Confederacy.
Rawn3012 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now, before you guys come up with your scores of arguments. Please do adhere to this statement '" Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below." and come up with a WP: RS that supports the notion of Maratha polity being called an empire while performing in depth analysis.
Regards
Rawn3012 (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt say I support it because it is common name. Read my comment again. You are trying to use straw man logical fallacy on me, first you are saying a thing which I did not even say, and then debunking that thing which I did not even say. Crashed greek (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rawn3012 You are undermining your own arguments by choosing sources that use "empire". If you want this article to be the exception to WP:COMMONNAME, it is you who needs to convince other editors, not the other way around. Vpab15 (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rawn3012: I suggest you to shorten your comment specially when you're bludgeoning the discussion by imitating Capitals00 in all possible way. No need to give attention to PadFoot's research. What you fail to understand that WP:PRECISE is a thing, that's why it's named Macedonia (ancient kingdom). The same way naming Maratha Empire to 'Marathas' is simply violating precision. Same case with Romans, Rashtrakutas, Mongols and etc. You'll obviously get more hits for these ambiguous titles. 'Maratha Empire' is already disambiguated from Marathas so it's unreasonable to bring this argument here. Let me explain why Maratha Empire qualifies all of the criteria for WP:NAMECHANGES & WP:AT:
  1. Common name: Passed.
  2. Neutral name: Passed. Until now the above contesting opposes have not clarified that how 'Maratha Empire' is not neutral. Things would have been different for jargon naming like "Great Maratha Empire", "Hindu-Pat Patshahi", "Hindavi Swarajya" and "Holy Maratha Empire". Try to argue with WP:POVNAMING which contradicts WP:POVNAME. If 'Maratha Empire' is not neutral, then go ahead and prove me wrong that 'Maratha Confederacy' is also not neutral. Let's play tit for tat! and OR for OR.
  3. Precise: Maratha Empire > Marathas. Dealt with ambiguity.
  4. Concision: Maratha Empire is better concise than Maratha Confederacy.
  5. Consistent: If Safavid Iran & Afsharid Iran are not PoV name then there's no reason to WP:STONEWALL 'Maratha Empire'-move
Coming back to your copied sources -- Work of V. D. Mahajan is pretty old, he didn't even force on using Maratha Confederacy over Maratha Empire, rather he just explains how and why it became a confederacy of states. Other sources giving the story of post 1761 politics when Balaji Bajirao gave autonomy to his chief subjects. Loosening autonomy is not a reason to do our own research and start contesting for a well source-ridden move. There were many empires who initially became constitutional monarchy and later Crowned republic, especially in French history; but we don't go on and assert this reasoning to distort history. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sources I see so far, none of them are against calling it an empire. For your argument to work, you should be quoting a reliable source that that says, it wasn't an empire but a confederacy. The ones you are cited, they are commenting on the administrative structure of the empire, which was a bit different from others, for example say Mughal empire. It doesn't mean that it was not an empire just because it had a different structure than another empire. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see this discussion was already had 7 months ago and I am not seeing any reason to change from that consensus. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the fact that discussion was based entirely on OR and ignored Wikipedia's PAGs? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Absurd justification which revolves around WP:UNCHALLENGED — don't you see that almost all reliable academics tend toward the suggested common name? Besides, the previous move discussion was entirely based on original research. Your !vote may not be counted unless you provide a solid rationale. Shakakarta (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - WP:POVNAME applies here. I should also mention that the sources verifying the authenticity of the title "Maratha Empire" haven't really been forthcoming, while there are sources for the opposite, which on its own is enough to sway my !vote. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POVNAMING also applies, which clearly states common names should override any hurdles, there are no sources which assert 'Maratha Empire' as a false, bloated and POV name. You're making your comment on nothing but conveniently overlooking the most basic procedure for name changes which is a common name. There is literally qualitative research and articles that exist solely on the "Maratha Empire" from Britannica, Wiley and Oxford. Surely you didn't read through the whole discussion. Heraklios 16:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Although both the phrases, Maratha confederacy and Maratha empire, are used extensively in academic literature, the polities that existed from Shivaji's conquest of forts near Pune to Maratha capitulation to the British in 1818 had different flavors. Shivaji's was a kingdom, under Shahu that kingdom turned into a de facto empire, and then after 1761 into a confederacy.I may be in a minority (of one perhaps) but I would go for a brand new title such as Maratha polities:1646-1818 where 1646 represents Shivaji's conquest of Torna Fort, and 1818,the Marathi defeat at the end of the Third Anglo-Maratha War. Substitute for Maratha Polities could be Maratha Realm, or Maratha Powers. But if we had a choice between Confederacy or empire only, then my vote is to restore it to Maratha empire.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Native name

[edit]

Hi, can someone add the native name to the infobox (done like at Ancient Egypt or Ethiopian Empire)? I can't find it in a Google search Kowal2701 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to do that but maybe there's a hindrance of WP:INDICSCRIPT (correct me if I'm wrong) and also I'm not very familiar with the native name of the Maratha Empire. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Think we could just add it’s name in Marathi if we could find it. On Marathi Wikipedia it’s "मराठा साम्राज्य" which transliterates to " Marāṭhā sāmrājya" (Maratha empire) Kowal2701 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox says "पवित्र मराठा साम्राज्य, हिंदवी स्वराज्य, हिंदू पत पातशाही" which translates to " Holy Maratha Empire, Hindu Swaraj, Hindu Pat Patshahi" Kowal2701 (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How's that looking? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great overview Kowal! I'm also fine with it. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might need some subject experts for this, because there may be some issues from the Indic script as raised by Maniacal. Pinging @Akshaypatill and Jonathansammy: Can you look into this? Shakakarta (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rawn3012:, any reason you've reverted this? You didn't even leave an edit summary. Kowal2701 (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:INDISCRIPT You are not suppose to add any native language and that too for infobox country title. Rawn3012 (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be an exception, it is plainly obvious which language to use, and nobody is suggesting adding multiple. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Humbly, that is not for you to decide, and not by me either. As said and stated in WP: INDICSCRIPT, we just have to avoid them, particularly for this article. In the near future, some new editor will come and say add Marathi, too. Rawn3012 (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really think that policy needs to be adjusted, but I'll leave it to others, thanks Kowal2701 (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Get a consensus for that at WP:INB. Why is the title in Modern Marathi anyway? Persian was the lingua franca back then, why not add it instead? Now we are simply reigniting the exact form of discussion which led to passing of the complete ban on all indic scripts a decade ago. You should abide by the consensus of the community in the topic areas you are not familiar with. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maratha_Confederacy&oldid=1286733764"