Talk:Maratha Confederacy

Maratha Kingdom

"Maratha Kingdom" in the sources is typically used to refer to Shivaji's initial kingdom. The Second source "Rise and Fall of The Maratha Empire 1750-1818" clearly prefers the term Maratha Empire as used title. Therefore it is not nessery to include this term in the lead Paragraph as it is not used as frequently as Maratha Confederacy or Maratha Empire. SKAG123 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You ngram doesn't suffice here. If you had use the case-sensitive option you shall see that "Maratha Kingdom" has large usage even in comparison to Confederacy or Empire. [2] Also, additionally Confederacy or Empire don't apply to the early stage of the entity in question (during the rebellion). PadFoot2008 04:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Neutrality

Pinging @Mohammad Umar AliAs you have also been conversing with the user @PadFoot2008. He seems to be dictating over the page and only wants to give the history of Marathas which he prefers. If he wants to make a change, then there is no consensus needed, but if someone else wants to make a change he or she needs to have a consensus. Consensus is needed when there is a dispute between the sources like if there is a source "1" saying thing X and another source "2" saying thing Y and does not agree with the information provided in source "1" or editors have another source to counter the source of another user but it seems like Padfoot wants to be with the version which he has written. He is a POV pusher. He stopped you from making an edit that Marathas controlled Punjab. His argument that they administered Punjab or not was baseless as the Vijaynagar Empire after the battle of Raicur extended its sway over the Krishna River doab but they lost it immediately after some time nevertheless the peak of the empire included the regions beyond Krishna River doab. Emperor Bhoja also extended his sway till Kannuj but lost it immediately as Pratihars recaptured their ancestral abode but the peak of his empire included Kannuj as well. Palas and Rashtrakutas also never controlled the regions of Kannuj as it was captured for a very short period by them and it was the Pratihars who had the Kannuj for most of the time and in that too they appointed vassals but the peaks of both empires had the region of Kannuj or Ganga river delta and that's what the peak of Empire means the apex of the state in its controlled territories "they did not administer it" is out of context as they conquered it. This is what matters. He also stopped me from making my edit saying that "lead would be too long " Is there any word limit for the lead part? It summarizes all the points of the page and by adding two to three lines in which world would make the lead "long".I just summarised how bajirao converted the kingdom into confedracy and were the Mughal vassals only in name and the real power was with them but his baseless excuse of lead would be too long prevented it So from now until and unless Padfoot has the source that contradicts the sources of mine or you or any other editor out there none of his arguments would be making any sense and if we have the source we would make the change. What are your thoughts? Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Rawn3012 Sry for replying late, I was busy with something else. I agree with you that Padfoot often tries to push his narrative. The territorial extent sources which he has used in last para of the intro fails verification, when I added failed verification template sometime back, Padfoot told me to have a consensus for it which literally irritated me. Regarding the territorial claims I have already provided multiple sources stating PUNJAB to be a part of Maratha Empire along with a map for the same (see this map [3]). I think we can change that information as it is sourced (WP:RS), and sourced information doesn't require consensus. If Padfoot removes it, it will be a clear violation of Wikipedia norms then maybe one of us or Flemmish could report it to WP:ANI demanding action to be taken against Padfoot over reverting our sourced edits in this article. Though I want Padfoot to cooperate with us so that we could better the article rather than having these edit fights. Regards. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

This is your saying, you need to state sources for the same. The information added by me has reliable sources while yours doesn't even have 1? Also this map [4] which is taken from a reliable book (WP:RS) clearly depicts those regions Peshawar, Punjab, etc. part of the Maratha Empire. Parts of Tamil Nadu are also dotted see that map. Soviet union point is absurd, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Provide sources else don't remove. I am adding it as I have already provided sources (WP:RS). Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Successor State in infobox

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

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

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

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

Propsing Map Change

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

Regards

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

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

Hmm, but many maps like this [5] show Rajputana as a part of Maratha empire at their peak if not always similar to Peshawar, etc. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@Rawn3012, It requires a small correction — Delhi wasn't a part of the Confederacy itself. Also you could consider the following colour scheme and format [6]. You don't need to show the modern day borders or a legend or name inside the map, that shall make it look tidier. Also add a rename request to rename it to "Maratha Confederacy.svg". The current name is a bit absurd and has grammatical errors. Overall the map seems very good. PadFoot (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

This version is good [7]. @Flemmish Nietzsche, what do you think about it? PadFoot (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Flags?

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

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

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

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

Maratha Empire map

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2024

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

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

Vessel of the Mughal empire

The sources stating The Marathas recognizing the Mughal Emperor as the Shahenshah was in name only. None of the sources state a subordinate relationship between the Mughal emperor and the Marathas. The emperor did not collect tribute or have any significant influence on the policies within the Maratha Confederacy. One of the sources states tribute occurred in the region of Shahu but not afterwards until 1818.

The Marathas minting coins in the name of the Mughal emperor does not indicate a subordinate relationship. The East India company did the same until the 1830’s.

Therefore Stating the Marathas were a vassal in the infobox is inaccurate. Pinging users who have edited this article in the past @PadFoot2008. @Jonathansammy @Flemmish Nietzsche@Rawn3012@Abecedere @Mohammad Umar Ali @Arnav Bhate SKAG123 (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Rawn3012 (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There are sources provided that specifically say that the Marathas considered the emperor as their suzerain, there is another source provided that specifically says that the Marathas were a vassal state, (you very kindly removed that source). Also what in the world do you even mean here by saying that Marathas 'recognised the emperor as Shahenshah'? No source says that. The sources say that they recognised the emperor as their suzerain. And being a vassal simply means that the entity recognised another entity as its suzerain. Also as for the East India Company, the East India Company too considered itself a vassal of the Mughal emperor which is the reason why they minted coins in his name in the first place. Paying tribute is different; this is referred to as a 'tributary state', which is a subtype of a vassal state. Tributary states are, in essence, vassal states, but not all vassal states are necessarily tributary states. Besides the status is in fact for listing these nominal statuses. PadFoot (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Flemmish Nietzsche, for his opinion. PadFoot (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

"Considering the Mughal emperor as their suzerain" does not necessarily make them a true "vassal", nor does it necessitate putting such info in the infobox; sure, the Marathas may have considered themselves to be a "vassal" to the Mughal emperor, (and many sources say this) but for all intents and purposes, they were always independent, (and "vassal" implies the suzerain has some degree of control over the subject's affairs) so to say in the infobox that they were for most of their history subject, and thus subordinate to the Mughals, is quite misleading when the actual situation is completely different. Such nuance should thus be left out of the infobox altogether, and I think under MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE we don't need this "status" parameter at all, or it could be replaced with the much simpler "kingdom (time span)" <br/> "confederacy (time span)" rather than the current situation. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, but the status parameter exists to state these nominal things. Additionally, the Marathas did pay tribute from 1707 until a new treaty in 1718. Perhaps we could mention that it was an actual vassal state between 1707 and 1718, and only de jure 1718–1818. PadFoot (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

the status parameter exists to state these nominal things Maybe in some articles, but for many others that is not the case. For example the Khwarazmian Empire article simply states its status as an "empire" rather than mentioning its period of vassalage to the Seljuks, while in other pages the status parameter is left out altogether. If we were to include the supposed vassalage of the Marathas to the Mughals, then we should say that it was near-entirely nominal, and if doing so, it begins to seem like nonessential information which is best left out of the infobox; another example is how the Adil Shahis considered themselves "subordinate" to some degree to the Safavids of Persia, but this of course was again entirely nominal, so we do not state such because it is not essential information, nor does it really help the reader. Your second point does not have me more convinced either, as nominal relationships aren't best suited for the infobox, tribute paid for 11 years or not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, alright, let's keep the status parameter empty in the infobox. PadFoot (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Flemmish Nietzsche SKAG123 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)