Talk:Capture of Peshawar (1758)

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

Maratha[edit]

This battle doesnt exist and this page should be deleted, along with the attock battle page and any sections in any pages giving a notion that marathas had a presence north of sonipat, until they were checked at panipat much later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:DE0:2F98:D428:3E3C:773C:4BA4 (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The Marathas were clearly not an Empire, they deny being a Confederacy...therefore they should just be called Marathas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.56.188 (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC) This article is garbage... Exactly one reference listed suggests a Marhatta presence in Peshawar (Alexander M), while even the Indian sources espouse the standard narrative of a Sikh backed occupation till Attock. I reiterate... This article is misleading and should be binned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.50.173 (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken marathas had help from the mughals and sikhs in their battles in Punjab. This article needs to state how long the marathas held on to Peshawar. I think it was less than one year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.116.58 (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is made up history. Only reference to a Marhatta presence was when they were routed at Hasan Abdal by Khattaks fighting in the name of Ahmad Shah. If this really happened, you wouldn't be struggling to find references for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.245.214 (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not mention the actual battle which is the main topic of the article. Except the battle the article has everything. The citations also doesn't mention any such battle. I think this article is just some kind of a boast, I propose that the article should be deleted. Hiensrt (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After the battle,[edit]

"Maratha soldiers in Peshawar reportedly took home many Peshawari women to Pune," looks unsourced. It has been challenged. It should be left out unless it can be reliably sourced. This whole page has sourcing problems. Non of the cites display cited content, and it is impossible to determine what sources to where. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs removed[edit]

User:Hiensrt is removing refs as an act of vandalism, he had proposed deletion of this article too. [1]. Removing refs is not ok. Crashed greek (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly said twice that the reference is listed in WP:PUS and still you keep on adding this reference. JBW could you look into this page, this editor is trying to add a reference which is listed in WP:PUS. The author is not a historian at all and google search of the author give no result except this book. This wikipedia article is potential WP:HOAX and highly unreliable. No citations other than this dubious one mentions any battle. Please look into it.Hiensrt (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are those refs WP:PUS? Just claiming it as one doesnt make it as one. There are multiple sources about this subject, but still you call it as a hoax. Crashed greek (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are keep on reverting edits when I made perfectly clear that the reference is listed as WP:PUS. How is it my claim? Here [2] is the list, see in the others section, the book is listed there. Your repetive vandalisation and edit warring is not helpful. You already got final warning for other reasons. Don't try to disrupt the genuine work of other editors, otherwise you may get permanently banned.Hiensrt (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your link [3] is an essay, it is not an official wikipedia policy. But your earlier link WP:PUS is also an essay, so your comment is misleading Crashed greek (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources[edit]

Article [4], under section "Others" shows that author Jeneet Sorokhaibam is not reliable. This is what it says:

Chhatrapati Shivaji: The Maratha Warrior and His Campaign by Jeneet Sorokhaibam (Vij Books, 2013)For example, see page 139: "Afzal Khan felt that the ensuing battle..." Copied from the 2012 version of the Wikipedia article on Afzal Khan (general).

Also author Abhas Verma is not reliable as he has no professional expertise in the area and is writer by choice. Also the writer is a regular user on quora as well and a blogger. Here is his profile, [5]

Therefore, updated and more accurate information from academic scholars with citations were added, to replace the unreliable sources above. MehmoodS (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 can you please shed some light here? The article heavily relied on unreliable sources I mentioned above, which shows the unreliability of the source but crashed greek states that the article [6] is just an essay. And the article also did not follow proper citation templates which I made a fix and improvement on. And now crashed greek is reverting all changes including citations from academic historians/scholars I added to the article. MehmoodS (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crashed greek Please join the discussion to reach a consensus about the reliability of the sources above before reverting any changes. Like I have shown that the article clearly shows why author Jeneet Sorokhaibam is unreliable. He plagiarizes from Wikipedia itself. On the other hand, Abhas Verma is just a random writer, a quora user and blogger who is writer as hobby and is actually an IT employee working in Bangalore. So that is why I replaced these sources with citations from real academic scholars and information provided by scholars, which you removed as well earlier. If you think that the above two sources of Jeneet and Abhas are still reliable, then please get a vote on WP:RS noticeboard and if the conclusion is to keep these sources, then I would have absolutely no problem readding them along with the extra citations and changes I applied. Does that sound reasonable? MehmoodS (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your link [7] is an essay, it is not a wikipedia policy. So no need to discuss about that. The previous section of this talk page, #Refs_removed, same link is quoted. Likely that you are a sock puppet of User:Hiensrt above, who had proposed deletion and removed refs. Removing references is vandalism. Please refrain from edit war. Crashed greek (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crashed greek Please refrain from causing disruptive editing and blaming editors especially when others have informed you about the disputed content before on the article's talk page. Instead, please take a civil path to reach a consensus. The disputed sources, in particular the one by Jeneet mentioned in [8], under section "others", has a list of sources that fail WP:CIRCULAR and should not be used as its basis is in the policy on verifiability so "Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources/Books_that_plagiarize_Wikipedia" should not be disregarded. Here is what I will do for time being, I will add the "disputed references" along with all other references and information from academic scholars that you removed. Then I will proceed with, taking the disputed sources to the WP:RS noticeboard (this is the route you should have taken since its on you to prove the reliability) to get the decision. If the decision through noticeboard is to keep the disputed sources, then they will stay but if not, then they will be removed. I hope there are no more issues from here on. MehmoodS (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All disputed references along with additional citations by academicians have been added to the page. Disputed references have been submitted to WP:RSN to get its reliability or unreliability consensus. Based on the result, decision will be made whether to keep the disputed references or remove them. MehmoodS (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are removing multiple sources. You cant remove a reference by pointing link to an essay. Crashed greek (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
actually you are removing multiple sources. And the disputed references fail WP:CIRCULAR policy. MehmoodS (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop reverting, there is no consensus to your edits in the talk page, keep it in the stable version. Crashed greek (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concensus to the disputed references is in WP:RSN and stop adding duplicate references on the article when all the sources already exist. MehmoodS (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a source has plagiarized Wikipedia, then it is most definitely unreliable. Find another. Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true. That source has not plagarised wikipedia. Crashed greek (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It does according to "Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources/Books_that_plagiarize_Wikipedia" and mention of the book and author is also included in the article. All the explanations have been clearly provided above. MehmoodS (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an essay, not a wikpedia guideline. Crashed greek (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You fail to understand the explanation provided above. Also the concensus is in [9] about the disputed sources. All sources including disputed ones already exist on the article and nothing has been removed as of yet from the article till WP:RSN concensus is complete. MehmoodS (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date[edit]

It took place over two months, really?Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven Mr.Slater, looks like you removed all the sources that I added of the academicians and only left the unreliable ones that have been found unreliable on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dispute over unreliable sources. Can you revert to my last version which includes all the citations that I added including the disputed ones for time being till issues are resolved please? MehmoodS (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all the ones being used for the date, as it is contrasted, and the ones you used to support a date for the battle, were for the capture of three separate cities (in other words a campaign, not a battle). Thus your sources did not support that as a date for the battle either.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My references were supporting the date of April-May (Not 8 May) and the extra information on the lead paragraph, "The Battle of Peshawar took place in April–May 1758 between Durrani Empire and the Maratha Empire, where Marathas were assisted by Sikh forces, which resulted in Maratha victory and the capture of Peshawar".
The unreliable sources had the date of 8 May and that is why I corrected that based on the academician's citations. This is what the modified version looked like [10] that I fixed earlier but through many reverts by other user, ended up with a bad version. That is why I mentioned earlier to revert to my version which makes it much more clearer. This is the version [11]. MehmoodS (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No they did not, they did not even support the idea this was a battle.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is there if you look at the source [12]. It states that "The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758".
And I had this citation on the page. My version had all information based on reliable sources by academicians. MehmoodS (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not it says they captured 3 cities between that date. It does not say there was a battle at any of them. It is thus wp:or (as it fails wp:v) to say there was a battle at Peshawar. Also are you saying there was one huge battle that took place over an area 265 long, that would be the worlds largest battle by area.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly states that and I even showed you the page to read with the exact quotes. Ofcourse, it doesn't say that there was a battle at any of those cities in particular but it does say that all 3 cities were captured between April-May 1758. So the lines can be modified to state that "the capture of Peshawar took place between April-May 1758" MehmoodS (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was a large battle which followed with the capture of three cities. MehmoodS (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was there, source? Also (and again) did this battle occur over a 265 mile long corridor (in fact it is larger than that, as that is just the distance between two of the cities)?,Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at this source [13], second half of the page states that "In March-April 1758, they conquered Sirhind and Lahore in collaboration with Adina Beg and the Sikhs." So this is where I understand that the large battle took place followed with the capture of Peshawar and other cities from April-May 1758. Because the line after that says "The province of Multan and Northwest frontier were overrun and the forts of Peshawar and Attock were garrisoned by the troops". MehmoodS (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
March is not after April or may, so again this looks like OR, read wp:synthesis. What you think is true is irrelevant, we need RS actually saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you mean by March is not after April or May. Here is another source [14] which gives information of battle occurred in Lahore, followed with Battle at Sirhind, and the Afghan army was later pursued from cities to cities which eventually followed with capture of the 3 cities we were discussing including Peshawar. You need RS actually saying what? That Battle of Peshawar took place? Then no, sources do not state that. Peshawar was one of the cities that Afghans took refugee in while being pursued and once they saw the Maratha and Sikh army approaching, Afghans left the city to take refugee to another and finally repulsed from the state of Punjab completely. MehmoodS (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need a source to say "a battle occurred at Peshawar", not in the region, there.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh I certainly agree with you on that and so far I haven't found any that specifically says or mentions "Battle of Peshawar in 1758". If you are implying that since no source mentions it and that the page is hence incompetent, I agree with you. Not sure, maybe you can delete the page and direct the title to another page which mentions the capture of the city Peshawar 1758. MehmoodS (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a suggestion we turn this into a redirect, and also I would suggest a rename as well to Capture of Peshawar (1758).Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Capture of Peshawar[edit]

As there is no source supporting there was a battle here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I say, change the title to Capture of Peshawar (1758), delete the page and direct the title to another page suitable for it. MehmoodS (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary tags as unverifiable and failed verification[edit]

The discussion [15] was only about 2 sources Jeneet Sorokhaibam and Abhas Verma. But other sources like [1] [2] [3] [4] are not disputed. So those tags should be removed. Crashed greek (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of them say there was actually a battle there, as in "the Battle of Peshawar", as far as I can tell they do not, they only refer to its capture.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One source says "The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and", and attacked means a battle. Another source says "The province of Multan and northwest frontier were also overrun by Marathas", so overrun also means a battle. Another source says "The Marathas, assisted by Sikhs, defeated the Afghans and captured Attock, Peshwar and Multan in the spring of 1758" and defeated means battle. I am ok with renaming to "Capture of Peshawar", but the tags of unverified source and failed verification are not ok. Crashed greek (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they overran the province, that does not mean the battle was at Peshawar, again it must say there was a battle THERE, not SOMEWHERE. I think yes, capture is better.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Barua, Pradeep (2005). The state at war in South Asia. University of Nebraska Press. p. 55. ISBN 9780803213449. The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.
  2. ^ War, Culture and Society in Early Modern South Asia, 1740-1849
  3. ^ Mehta, Jaswant Lal (2005). Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813. New Dawn Press, Incorporated. p. 256. ISBN 9781932705546. "The province of Multan and northwest frontier were also overrun by Marathas and the forts of Peshawar and Attock were garrisoned by their troops"
  4. ^ Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 Volumes] By Alexander Mikaberidze https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Conflict_and_Conquest_in_the_Islamic_Wor/jBBYD2J2oE4C?hl=en&gbpv=1 Page 43 "The Marathas, assisted by Sikhs, defeated the Afghans and captured Attock, Peshwar and Multan in the spring of 1758.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capture_of_Peshawar_(1758)&oldid=1216253236"