Jump to content

Talk:Maratha invasion of Deccan (1739)

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

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.279393 Thankyou

Victory discussion

[edit]

bajirao victory there was no invasion of deccan it was battle of godavari were bajirao defeated nasir jung in a pitched battle even jadunath sarkar tells that nasir jung wanted to sign treaty And source were return after the death of bajirao tarik I hindi 1742 bajirao brother chimaji appa tell victory of bajirao Source history of Maharattas Source Source new history of maratha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4081:1E86:29A4:0:0:3588:7B13 (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are valid, also thanks for the additional information user 2409:4081:1E86:29A4:0:0:3588:7B13 IndicHistorian555 (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Read WP:RAJ, @Sitush, could you explain this to him? Ajayraj890 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush has nothing to do with this, these are not WP:Raj sources. IndicHistorian555 (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush is an administrator who created the policy of WP:RAJ. And you clearly doesn't know what WP:RAJ means. Ajayraj890 (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia only allows secondary sources. So you can't use Tarik-I-Hindi directly here. Furthermore, according to WP:RAJ, you can't use pre-1947 sources. Feel free to add suitable sources without removing the existing ones. Ajayraj890 (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources are also added there but then you're making excuses and reverting. IndicHistorian555 (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are adding WP:RAJ sources. No worries, an expert from WP:MILHIST will make a conclusion. Ajayraj890 (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added all the valid sources related to this event which has nothing to do with WP:RAJ which you have been using as an excuse to remove said information. I am also leaving this to the experts to look at seeing you already have been vandalising and creating fake battles/events and adding them to BajiRao's page when the things went completely opposite. You've been creating bias edits and were also previously warned of your POV. IndicHistorian555 (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are making personal attacks, which I want to avoid at all cost. I am editing wikipedia following its rules and regulations. I have all the right to edit and create articles that I needed with reliable sources. And I think I don't need that 'BIAS' tag. Thank you! Ajayraj890 (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are not personal attacks but my own observation of your edits. Personal attack would have been if I targetted you on your page, tagged admin for no reason or followed your edits when I was simply editing BajiRao's page and found about it. IndicHistorian555 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation found. That too from a WP:RAJ source. Please remove that. Ajayraj890 (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been re-edited to avoid any copyright violations. 0 percent copyright Thanks. IndicHistorian555 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, that is WP:RAJ source. You can't use that. Wasn't that publisbed before 1947? Ajayraj890 (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 Can you look over this case, user @Hassan Gangu has been endlessly reverting edits without talk and valid reasons. IndicHistorian555 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are using WP:Raj sources and the admin you tagged may know that too. Hassan Gangu (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ

[edit]

@IndicHistorian555, you are using WP:RAJ sources. Please be careful about that. Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IndicHistorian555, @Hassan Gangu, please don't mess this article. Please be patient and wait for the WP:MILHIST to conclude this Ajayraj890 (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajayraj890: I was pinged here (see above), and I just blocked and tagged the pinger as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am shocked by seeing the number of reverts in this article. Could you please warn the other user for edit warring? Ajayraj890 (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need me to warn users, you could so so yourself. However, it's a pretty obvious warning, so I just did it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thank you. Ajayraj890 (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha invasion of deccan

[edit]

vandalism Maratha victory Nasir jung was compilled to retreat Sources History of maharattas 

Page 473

Peshwa bajirao l by VG Dighe Page 201 New history of maratthas by govind sakharam sardesai Page 180 Koitot (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And also history of maharattas
Page 466 Koitot (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those comes under WP:RAJ. Please provide reliable sources so that I could edit the article body. Since there are opposite claims on the victory, the result will be most likely displayed as disputed. ImperialAficionado (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with @Koitot because there seems to be targetted attempts at vandalising Maratha pages particularly battles of BajiRao as observed from talk sections recently. HistoricPilled (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
maratha invasion of deccan maratha victory

Nasir Jang, hearing at Aurangabad of the invasion marched with forty thousand men to oppose it. The armies met on the banks of the Godavari and for two months an indecisive struggle raged up and down the river. At last Bajirao forced Nasir Jang to retreat to Aurangabad and take shelter in the fort. Nasir Jang was soon closely besieged. At last, he sued for peace and gave Bajirao in jaghir the districts of Handia and Khargon south of Indore. Bajirao had thus attained the object of the war. He sent Chimnaji

Source A history of maratha people By C.A kinciad, C.V.O LCS Volume 3 Page 266

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.279393 Thankyou Koitot (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources opposing this claim. So, one sided victory cannot be displayed. ImperialAficionado (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
maratha invasion of deccan
<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/in.ernet.dli.2015.505257" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Source peshwa Bajirao by sarkar jadunath and VJ Dighe Koitot (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
page 200 Koitot (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you can understand what I am saying. There are opposite claims. So we can't put one sided victory there. Please confirm that you got what I am saying. ImperialAficionado (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work

North8000 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maratha_invasion_of_Deccan_(1739)&oldid=1204179374"