Talk:Third Battle of Panipat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Arbitrary sub-heading

The article has been cleaned-up substantially. The obvious jingoistic slant has been rectified to a great extent. Kindly re-examine the article and convey your views-srichrome (a college teacher from Delhi-India)

No sources

Why does this article not cite any references? Siddharth Prabhu 08:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
All references mentioned as '3rd' have been changed to 'Third' for consistency. Siddharth Prabhu 08:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the third battle of Panipat. And yes...the casualities were close to 1,00,000. Believe it! - PPP from Bombay

Attempted edits

Yeek! I just read the edit history and, far from being the first to brave the Edit Job from Hell, I see that Magnus and Danny and others have helped it along already - which leaves me wondering what the first version was like!

But no disrespect intended to the original contributor: despite the fractured English, there seems to be an impressively detailed and careful history of the battle here, and I'm going to dive in and try my hand at another edit or two. It's worth the effort, I think. I just hope that my turning it into reasonably fluent English doesn't completely misrepresent the underlying facts—cause I am reasonably well-versed in reading and writing about battles, but (to my shame) I've never heard of this one! Wish me luck! Tannin 12:24 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Good luck... I never heard of this one either... --Christopher Mahan

Maybe you can tell the difference between "Battle of Panipat" and "Third Battle of Panipat" --Christopher Mahan

Hmmmm .... Right now, no. But a quick Googling brings up this one in 1504 and this one which is said to be the sixth Battle of Panipat and happening in Delhi today!

(Tannin decides that this one is a serious editing job, and races off to the all-night shop for a supply of chocolate to sustain himself. Back in 20.:)

I think 3rd. (see: http://www.panipat.com/pnphistory/battle_three.htm ) --Christopher Mahan

---

I remember reading this a while back, and after deciding to try to make some sense of it I gave up and moved on to the Battle of Ticameron. The long and short of it is that this article appears to be completely incorrect on every detail. For instance, the death toll is 10,000, not 100,000. While bloody, this is hardly historical.

EDIT : pls recheck your history..till today the people of pune in maharashtra land of peshwas say that there was not a single household which had not lost a male member in the battle of panipat..and its widely used as a reference in normal course of language to indicate a great loss..

Thankyou Maurie. I haven't read your new version over yet, but it needs only a glance to see that it's much improved. Tannin

NPOV

Despite the cleaning up, it seems to me that this article still has a slant and is not completely accurate. I suggest further investigations into whether or not it is NPOV, especially considering the previous edits made by the creator who seems to be following a certain angle of History. In addition, I believe that even now, the article's neutrality and accuracy are disputed. DigiBullet 03:25, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Read the article carefully, i see quite a bit of a slant in it.Having read some other books on Indian history , the article seems to have left out the following.

a)Abdali IIRC was invited by the Mughals who were fed up with the raids of the marathas raiding right up to the gates of delhi.

b)Abdali's force was smaller than the Maratha force confronting it, but the Afghan general manuevred into an advantagous position ensuring his own supplies buit denying supplies to the marathas.

c)The Marathas having nearly exhausted their supplies offered at one stage to surrender huge tracts of territory to the Afghans and to return home but this was refused.

d)The theory of descendants of the defeated Marathas being in Baluchistan is nonsensical.The Brahui tribe (which speaks a Dravidian language) has been in Baluchistan for centuries predating the battle of Panipat.

---

OK as of now, everything up to the "Perpetual Atrocities on descendants of Maratha prisoners of war" section remains OK. That section itself needs to be removed (along with maybe the last para from the previous section). All agree? Qwertyca 19:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<some angry comments here> I believe this is pece of propaganda crap ........wikipedia is well served to remove this.

---

This is to question the veracity of the 'facts' presented by Digibullet.

a] Abdally was not invited by the Mughals, but the Rohilas (Najib Khan)

b] Only the Maratha supply lines from Pune were cut. The Jats of Bharatpur refused to help the Marathas because of the Maratha refusal to sack Delhi after it had been captured.

c] The Marathas never made an offer to surrender tracts of territory to the Afghans. In fact, the Marathas went into battle confident of victory, maybe overconfident so.

d] The descendants of the defeated Marathas do exist in Punjab and other northern regions. Jay Ranade is one such Marathi descendant born in Ludhiana, Punjab.

e] While it may sound unfair to talk of the betrayal of the Maratha allies, but it did dimish any chances of the Marathas rallying, since their firepower was an advantage the Marathas had over the Afghans. However, almost all accounts of the battle blame the Maratha cavalry commanders in the flanks for charging the Afghans too early for the Maratha loss, and correctly so.

f] The casualties for this battle were quite high, definitely above 60,000, including both sides. The Afghans never invaded India again, and the Marathas mark the day as a black one.

Zoshisan

---

I've edited this further in an attempt to achieve a neutral tone. Also fixed the grammar in places. Most of my 'neutrality' edits were simply removal of comments that seemed out of place - this includes the section on the political reasons for the Marathas defeat, which while not biased was really jammed in without any supporting discussion (and occurred in two places for no apparent reason). Links to some of the political entities mentioned might make that paragraph more viable.

The final section ('Perpetual atrocities...') has been renamed, and much of it removed. Sentences that begin 'I think...' or 'The UN needs to...' are decidedly out of place in an article that is supposed to have a neutral POV. If supporting evidence for some of the original claims is online anywhere, I'd suggest adding some links at the end of this article; neutral POV does not preclude linking to sites that have a definite opinion.

bbartlog

---

I ve not edited this page in anyway YET. Couple of points though--

1) The point about Maratha descendants being in Balochistan is complete nonsense. Kenneth Kennedy has written about in his book.

2) This brings me to the second point - do there exist ANY factual Maratha records of this battle? Afghan/Islamic records have historically proven to be false.

---

I doubt there are any records in English about this battle. There are some Marathi bakhars (a term for a historical record), but it has been observed that many Marathi bakhars about previous Maratha history seem to be very flattering of the Maratha leader in question, some just ludicrous. I will mail some of my history professors, but I am doubtful that it's possible to get a NPOV about this battle online.

Zoshisan

User:Siddiqui edits

Can somebody look at this [1]? Siddiqui (talk · contribs) please don't deleted or blank text and references without giving reasons in the edit summary or talk page. [2]

Detailed information about Battle of Panipat

Apart from Bakhars, detailed and compiled information about the battle between Marathas and Ahmad Shah Abdali can be found in a Marathi Novel called Panipat. This novel is an outcome of extensive research by Vishwas Patil. If someone has a copy of this book, he/she may try editing this page. Cheers

A much better source of information and analysis of this battle is a book named "Panipat, 1761" written in Marathi by Prof. T.S. Shejwalkar of Deccan College, Pune. The book presents in great details the causes and events that led up to the battle and describes the events on the battlefront based on thorough research. The section describing the battle on January 14th, 1761 provides information on the tactical manouvers of both sides and offers extensive analysis on the course of the battle based on maps he himself created after visiting the region, the weather on the day as reported in the Farsi chronicles and by Nana Phadnavis. Other aspects that the book tries to explore are:

1. The social and political analysis of the rule of Peshwa in India.
2. The events that forced the hand of Sadashivrao bhau.
3. The actions of Nanasaheb Peshwa that could be proved fatal to the Maratha forces.
4. The importance of this battle vis-a-vis the political turmoil in India then and its effect on the rise of the British power in India.

Professor Shejwalkar was a reknowned historian of Maratha history. He originally wrote the book in English and Deccan College press had published it.
Please check http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007J4GV8/sr=8-4/qid=1150716034/ref=sr_1_4/103-6452179-0263868?%5Fencoding=UTF8 for old copies.

JATS AND THE 3RD BATTLE OF PANIPAT

__________________________________________

For a contemporary account of the times by an eyewitness, see

Jats and the 3rd battle of Panipat.doc

“Jats and the 3rd Battle of Panipat” http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/

There has been plenty of discussion on the in the jathistory group See Msg# 53 and follow up discussions –

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/53

Jats, Maharattas, and the Battle of Panipat

The overall thrust of the main article is open to more than just a little questioning.

The Jats of the SarvKahp of Haryana had allied with and fought with eth Maharattas against the Muslim Rohillas. They invited Abdali to save them and Islam.

With the death of Dattaji in the battle, the Maharatta power was ended in North India.

Historical accounts show that the Mahrattas under Sadashiv Bhau, with a powerful army went north to seek reestablish the Maharatta revenge against the Muslim rulers for they’re earlier defeat.

The initial phase was welcomed. Bhau sent letter to all chiefs in the north, and a copy of his original letter is posted in the files section of the yahoo jathistory group: sadashiv bhau.doc,

The Jat emperor Surajmal was persuaded to support Sadashiv Bhau, despite his earlier bad experiences with the Mahrattas.

Delhi was conquered. Here Sadashiv Bhau and his courtiers decided they did not need to honor their promises, and alienated Surajmal, who escaped a conspiracy by Sadashiv Bhau’s courtiers to capture and imprison him.

The Mahrattas in their arrogance refused to listen to good military advice of the Jats.

The talk of how the Jats got upset because the Mahrattas would not allow them to loot Delhi, is not quite correct, and contemporary records from Muslim Chroniclers and later Indian Historians, Including Prof KR Quanago, Jadunath Sarcar, reject the Maharatta version, as being self serving.

They refused to follow the guerilla tactics suggested by the Jats, and instead moved for an open confrontation. In this they were accompanied with the women, families and other camp baggage.

At Panipat, the Rohillas and Abdali out maneuvered them. The Jats of the Haryana Sarv Khap stayed and fought at Panipat.

For a detailed account of the Battle see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/

Jats and the 3rd battle of Panipat.doc

COMMENT: I Am putting this on the discssion page rather than editing the main article .

If no contrary material is posted, say in week, then I will edit the main article.

Ravi Chaudhary 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

17C guns

I know nothing about this part of indian history, but no field guns of that age could fire 2 km. The entire battle descrition feels weird with 2000 guns on camels, long range fighting and bows. I'm sure that 99% of the article it's wrong. Not to mention the part with atrocities that is very biased. If no one knows the truth better just to mention what is known. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.231.67.1 (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Italic ww211q344r4ttt4rtr4345erfr

Response

The alleged flag of the Rohillas actually belongs to a principality at Rampur founded in the late 18th century and the alleged flag of Shuja-ud-Daula was actually founded in the 19th century long after the Third Battle of Panipat. Therefore it is very clear that the principality of Rampur and its flag does not represent all the Rohilla and that the alleged flag of Awadh was introduced far later during the reign of Ghazi-ud-Din Haider (1814–1827), who is known to have chosen the fish symbols.

Furthermore the Shuja-ud-Daula, the Nawab of Awadh and the Rohillas led by Najib-ud-Daula were actually subjects of the Mughal Empire.

Note: After Shah Alam II escaped the clutches of the Marathas in Delhi, he appointed Najib-ud-Daula as his Mukhtar Khas (Chief Representative). Najib-ud-Daula continued to hold this position and more until his death in the year 1778.

&

Note: Shuja-ud-Daula was actually confirmed as the Mughal Grand Vizier appointed by none other then Shah Alam II.

{This totally proves that these two leading figures during the war were subjects of the Mughal Empire and that neither the Nawab of Awadh led by Shuja-ud-Daula nor the Rohillas led by Najib-ud-Daula were separate entities}

(Note: Zain Khan Sirhindi, Murad Khan and Amir Beg; were Mughal servicemen and actually led the Mughal Army during the battle.)

Therefore the following proves that the only two "Empires" that ever existed on the so-called "Muslim side" (if i may) were the Durrani Empire and the Mughal Empire and their vassals and tributaries:

Third Battle of Panipat
Part of Maratha Empire, Durrani Empire
The Third Battle of Panipat, 14 January 1761, Hafiz Rahmat Khan, standing right of Ahmad Shah Durrani, who is shown on a brown horse.
Date 14 January 1761 Location Panipat, modern-day Haryana, India 29.39°N 76.97°E / 29.39; 76.97 Result Durrani victory, with heavy casualties on both sides and massive retreat Territorial changes Maratha driven back to the region around Puna, by Ahmad Shah Durrani and the combined armies of various Muslim rulers in the Mughal Empire.
Belligerents
Durrani Empire Mughal Empire Nawabs of Awadh Nizam of Hyderabad Sultanate of Mysore Rohillas	Maratha Empire
Commanders and leaders
Ahmad Shah Durrani Timur Shah Durrani Wazir Wali Khan Shah Pasand Khan Barkhurdar Khan Wazirullah Khan Shuja-ud-Daula Najib-ud-Daula Amir Beg Jahan Khan Zain Khan Sirhindi Murad Khan Shuja Quli Khan Hafiz Rahmat Khan Dundi Khan Banghas Khan Nasir Khan Baluch Ahmad Khan Bangash	Sadashivrao Bhau † Shamsher Bahadur I (Krishna Rao) † Vishwasrao † Malharrao Holkar Mahadji Shinde Jankoji Shinde Gardi † Bhivrao Panse Bhoite Purandare Vinchurkar (Infantry & Cavalry) Sidoji Gharge
Strength
42,000 cavalry, 38,000 infantry in addition to 10,000 reserves, 4,000 personal guards and 5,000 Qizilbash, 120–130 pieces of cannon as well as large numbers of irregulars. Thus, totally an army of 100,000.	40,000 cavalry, 15,000 infantry, 15,000 Pindaris and 200 pieces of artillery,. The force was accompanied by 300,000 non-combatants (pilgrims and camp-followers). Thus, totally an army of 70,000.
Casualties and losses
Estimates between 20,000 combatants killed.	Estimates between 30,000 and 40,000 combatants killed in the battle. Another 40,000-70,000 non-combatants massacred following the battle.

Coalition

The Marathas were indeed defeated by a combined coalition led by Ahmad Shah Durrani, the Mughals, Muslim nobles and chiefs and particularly the Nawabs.

After Shah Alam II escaped the clutches of the Marathas in Delhi, he appointed Najib-ud-Daula as his Mukhtar Khas (Chief Representative). Najib-ud-Daula continued to hold this position and more until his death in the year 1778.

After Najib-ud-Daula, forced the usurper Ghazi ud-Din Khan Feroze Jung III to flee from the Mughal capitol Delhi, he gathered the Mughal Army, Muslim nobles and planned the Third Battle of Panipat by maintaining correspondence with Ahmad Shah Durrani...in the meanwhile Shah Alam II was nominated by Najib-ud-Daula to become the next Mughal Emperor. During the Third Battle of Panipat, Shuja-ud-Daula was actually the Mughal Grand Vizier appointed by none other then Shah Alam II.

According to M.J Akbar the Third Battle of Panipat was phyrric victory dedicated in favor of Shah Alam II, who undoubtably anticipated the victory of Ahmad Shah Durrani (an ally of the young Prince Ali Gauhar and his father Alamgir II)...there is no doubt that the Mughal's in their entirety stood against the Maratha leader Sadashivrao Bhau, who alongside Imad-ul-Mulk was directly responsible for the murder of Shah Alam II's father the Mughal Emperor Alamgir II...Ahmad Shah Durrani's victory forced the Maratha's who had ravaged the Mughal Empire for genreations to think otherwise.

Ahmad Shah Durrani enjoyed the blessings of Muslim theologians and Imams, who would never allow the Maratha to ever control the Mughal court.

After Ahmad Shah Durrani decisively defeated the Marathas during the Third Battle of Panipat he was warmly welcomed in Delhi and thereafter recognized Shah Alam II as the rightful heir to the throne of the Mughal Empire.

Immediately after the Third Battle of Panipat: Mirza Najaf Khan, Hyder Ali, Nizam Ali, Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah and Mian Ghulam Shah Kalhoro...began to attack the Maratha and drove them back to the regions around Puna.

Re-Shah Alam II

Immediately after the Third Battle of Panipat: Mirza Najaf Khan, Hyder Ali, Nizam Ali, Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah and Mian Ghulam Shah Kalhoro...began to attack the Maratha and drove them back to the regions around Puna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs)

Read it carefully. "Immediately after", not during. utcursch | talk 14:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Read it again these Nawabs were already in correspondence with Najib-ud-Daula in 1760 and later maintained ties with Ahmad Shah Durrani during and after 1761.

Shah Alam II as commander

The Mughal Empire was directly involved in the Third Battle of Panipat, Shah Alam II and his Nawab's and servicemen fought during the battle or made efforts to support the war effort against the Maratha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs)

Feel free to add this bit with a reliable source. Also note that "made efforts to support" is not equivalent to "was a commander". utcursch | talk 10:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the reference doesn't support your assertion that Shah Alam II was a commander, or the casualties figures. utcursch | talk 11:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sanderson Beck's books and website can't be used - as self-published material, they fail WP:SPS. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: "major figure" is not same as commander mentioned in the infobox. utcursch | talk 09:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

i have added a new reference that pretty much confirms the old reference :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.23.229 (talk • contribs)

Another fake ref. From the link

"Ghazi-ud-din had put Alamgir II to death in 1759, replacing him with a puppet, but after the battle of Panipat, Ahmad Shah nominated a son of Alamgir II as emperor, with the title of Shah Alam (1761–1803)."

This actually disproves your point. It implies that Shah Alam II actually became emperor after the Battle of Panipat. The reference doesn't mention anything about Shah Alam II participating in the battle or the casualties. utcursch | talk 06:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources, references and copyright

During my attempts at adding citations to the article i came across some texts/references that were wrong or are incredibly outdated. I ask the author of those references to provide more information such as publishers or dates, or where new copies could be available. I have a major issue with plagiarism concerning this article. On the page [3] the editor writes: Kanjpura on the banks of Jamuna River, sixty miles to the north of Delhi, was next besieged and the whole Afghan garrison was killed (Also see Syed Altaf Ali Brelvi, Life of Hafiz Rahmat Khan p-108-9). Ahmad Shah was encamped on the left bank of the Jamuna River, which was swollen by rains. The massacre of the Kanjpura garrison, within the sight of the Durrani camp, exasperated him to such an extent that he ordered crossing of the river at all costs. S M Lateef, “History of the Punjab”, p-235, quotes "Tarikh-i-Ahmadi", and writes:... In the wikipedia article the text is: In Kunjapura on the banks of the Yamuna River, sixty miles to the north of Delhi, was next stormed by the Marathas and the whole Afghan garrison was killed or enslaved (Also see Syed Altaf Ali Brelvi, Life of Hafiz Rahmat Khan p-108-9) Ahmad Shah encamped on the left bank of the Yamuna River, which was swollen by rains was powerless to aid the garrison. The massacre of the Kanjpura garrison, within the sight of the Durrani camp, exasperated him to such an extent that he ordered crossing of the river at all costs.(S M Lateef, “History of the Punjab”, p-235, quotes "Tarikh-i-Ahmadi") The first question to ask is one of copyright, as it is a public domain website and i can find no evidence of copyright permissions heled or withheld, i have not deleted the offending statements. They do need rewording though. The second question is, what is the correct name of the river.? My other main problem is the fact that these references are being quoted through a third person; he said, that he said that he said: this is correct. The information in the article needs to be properly sourced and cited. I have started adding citation templates but some of the texts aren't accessible and so need to be properly cited so that other editors can verify them. Woodym555 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The only question I'm able to answer is that the name of the river is more commonly spelled Yamuna, and as Hindi does include a J sound, I find the quoted spelling incorrect. Piouspiast 10:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Vishwas Patil's book is a novel. Maybe well researched at that but can it be quoted as a reference for an important article like this?

Yes, why not? Vishwas Patil is an established author. Agreed that the book is a novel. But, the events mentioned in this novel are nothing but facts. The book may be categorized as a novel because it may describe the thought processes, feelings, aspirations, dreams etc. of various characters from the writer’s point of view, but the writer hasn’t manipulated any event or fact. This book is completely based on facts and is backed up by concrete proofs. According to me, the sole purpose of such a book being written as a novel is that people should read it, they should develop interest towards it. Otherwise how different is it going to be from our history text books? Kesangh (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A few events in that book are not facts. Mr. Patil himself has said that he has taken some "creative liberties" to write the book. I was present in the audience when he said it. It means he has "manipulated" to some extent. And that is why it is different than history text book such as T S Shejwalkar's or S M Pagdi's book on Panipat.

Well Anil, can you please clarify as to which 'few events' you are talking about and particularly where did Mr. Patil take 'creative liberties'? Vishwas Patil's book Panipat has similar viewpoint to that of Shejwalkar's. To name a few- Panipat suggests that the battle was fought to save the Mughal Empire, that the Marathas were sacrificed for the cause of Timur's successors and Ibrahim Khan Gardi's infantry and artillery division fought courageously. Kindly sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Kesangh (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources, reliability and bias

I will try to explain my reasoning behind my reverting the large scale additions of text to this article recently. As i have stated in my edit summaries wikipedia is not a place for original research. All additions need to be sourced and verifiable if they are to remain. They also need to be written from a neutral point of view. The additions, in my opinion, did not meet these policies. The text had a heavy bias towards one side and was unsourced. If you have the sources I would be happy to help you add them in and add the appropriate referenced text. Please try and discuss this before re-adding the text to the article. Thankyou. Woodym555 15:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nanasaheb's pic

I think the image put up is of Peshwa Nanasaheb II, wrongly attributed to Balaji Bajirao II or Nanasaheb I. Can anyone check this? Salilb (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The image has been removed. Salilb (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is terrible, a sorry excuse for propaganda. Do you honestly believe that a marauding army would carry around 300,000 'pilgrim and camp followers'? What were they visiting? How were they being provisioned? What were they doing on a field of battle? You could only be so credulous.

Indeed they were either Begar/Forced-Laborers or the whole pilgrim thingy is just an excuse of decisive defeat. 10:22, 16 Jan 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.252.113 (talk)

German map

The map of the extent of the Durrani empire has a German legend. An English map is required. Anyone can change the current one or get a new one? Salilb (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

pics

I've used some pictures from British library and other sources. I will try and improve the article, it needs to be shrunk down and cleaned up reference wise. --Zak (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

POV n irelevenat material

Here and again here. Someone please tell us if its pov, imaginary... etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hometech (talk • contribs) 06:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion - As requested at WP:Third opinion I'm here to offer a third opinion. I would note that I haven't previously been involved with editing this article and have had no dealings with the two editors before.

I would recommend that you both read WP:BRD – if an article is edited and that edit is reverted, it is time to discuss it on the talk page, not continually edit the article, arguing in edit summaries. You're half way there requesting a third opinion, but you haven't discussed it amongst yourselves yet. In my opinion the quote is not NPOV as defined at WP:NPOV, as it is attributed to the leader of one of the armies, so it is clear that he will have a POV. However, it's clearly in the wrong part of the article - the quote is about the battle, not the aftermath. Sections don't need to begin with a quote, this quote could be slimmed down and incorporated into the prose, or just quoted separately during the Outcome section.

Ultimately, there are more important things for all editors here to be focused on. There are parts of the article that require sourcing and apparently some of it might be a WP:COPYVIO. Look at the Featured Article review, there are some hefty criticisms and they should be addressed as a priority.

So, two things:

• Concentrate on the quality of the article.
• Discuss controversial edits on the talk page to reach a consensus.

Good luck, Bigger digger (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

Please stop reverting over File:The Third battle of Panipat 13 January 1761.jpg in the infobox. Please discuss the reasoning behind your positions here and come to a consensus. What are the reasons for removing it? Woody (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument that this image is disrespectful to a certain community does not hold up to WP:NOTCENSORED. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Shantanu's comment below is copied from their talkpage

OK friend.

Save the picture on your computer. Magnify it. See the left margin of the picture...come to the middle.... the camp of the Maratthas. You will find an / a few afghan soldiers ravishing ladies of the Marattha camp. Hindus and especially Maratthas will find this seriously offensive.... so will any sensible person. I do not know how many people have noticed this. I noticed this a few years ago when a copy of this painting was displayed in India and immediately taken off.

Though this is a work of art... there may be a posibility of it being excessive or partisan in nature. Is the reasoning good enough? If not...please excuse my action.This is a free (civilized??) form of sharing information after all.Thanks

--Shantanu2806 (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As you say, this is a free form of sharing information and therefore it is all-inclusive and not censored. Some articles may include images that some people may find objectionable when they are relevant to the content. "Being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. It is a painting from the period and offers an artistic depiction of the battle, the best we are going to get, and therefore it should be re-instated in the article. Please see a similar discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images that discusses a similar theme. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I agree to the point that we currently do not have a better picture to capture the event. The debate on "what is objectionable" varies from culture to culture and civilization to civilization. This will always remain a point of contention. Ravishing women, decapitating people and destroying human lives en-masse was always a been used as a tactic for opression, terror and establishing power by cultures alien to India be it Hitler, Tamerlane, Chengiz Khan or Atilla and in this case Ahmed Shah Durrani. The only recorded massacre in "Indian" Pre-Islamic History was The Battle of Kalinga.... some 200 years BC.

The graphic depiction of such incidents [which are a fact] would only lead to a further irritations. Just FYI....Ahmed Shah Durrani is hated and despised in India.Pakistan has named one of their missiles (weapons) Abdali. This is just to spite India / Indians.

Now India is not what it used to be 20 years ago. We are in a position of strengh say with respect to countries which have Tamerlane, Abdali etc as icons. We are in a position of strength viz-a-viz all our 'invaders' be it Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asian countries or even Britain.

Nett nett though logical ....such pictures eventually add bad blood and generate more heat than light.

Please feel free to re-install the picture (for I will not...). I am sure you will not fully understand how the feeling is.

--Shantanu2806 (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to discuss nationalistic issues nor who has the upper hand in terms of military hardware. Wikipedia is the place for neutral, encyclopedic articles about topics that provide the facts to readers. I don't think anybody who reads this article and sees the image will take it to mean that Wikipedia intends to offend a civilisation.

In the past I have tried to maintain a neutral version of this article, but without sources to hand I cannot enforce that or rewrite the text. I will continue to try. I agree that I doubt I will ever understand the particular feelings around this matter. Thank you for your co-operation in this matter, regards, Woody (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki moderators and wiki community this article seems heavily biased. Please fix this issue ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.44.5 (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

well, there are alternative pictures depicting this battle, they can be used instead.Kesangh (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WAS MOGUL EMPIRE NEUTRAL

was mogul empire neutral in this war, though they have no generals of note but they have resources, mogul supported durrani,rohilla and nawab so they should also be made a party.

Though defeated Maratha proved that even with their 2nd string generals they are better than Durrani empire in one on one who was too scared to go against Maratha Empire alone and formed multiple alliance with rohilla ,mogul, and nawab of oudh. Above this "ahmad shah durrani" is considered the best afghan general ever ofcourse he is no match for greatest Maratha generals "chatrapati shivaji(aurangzeb used to have nightmare of this man), santaji ghorpade, baji rao, dhanaji jadhav" this also break the myth that pathans or afghans are brave, "POPULATION OF MARATHA IS WAY WAY LESS THAN AFGHANS, IT WAS ONLY MARATHA no other hindu group against whole country" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.23.126 (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please find a reliable ref. utcursch | talk 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Shah Alam II and Ahmad Shah Durrani were supporting each other since the death of Alamgir II in 1760. 468SM (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Mughal Lohar's socks

The recent edits from 182.182.*.* seem to be from the banned user Mughal Lohar (talk · contribs). The user continues to add inaccurate content supported by fake references. For example, The begums of Bhopal by Shaharyar Khan was added by this user to support the statement that Bhopal State participated in the Battle of Panipat. However, the book says exactly the opposite: "Bhopal’s forces could not have been present at Panipat". Given such deliberately misleading editing, I'm reverting the user's contributions. utcursch | talk 05:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Typo in second paragraph

There is a typo in second paragraph. It should be Afghan not AFghan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatar Khan (talk • contribs) utcursch | talk 06:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. The intro still needs copyediting, though. utcursch | talk 06:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

The After effects of panipat that have been mentioned need to be changed, why have the after effects of third battle only' discussed to such an extent that send a very negative message in the society specially among the marathi people, this needs to be changed the truth is not always very good and needs to be hided at times for the social harmony, please take off the discription part especially the once that describes how the 22000 children and women were treated after the battle, this directly affects the young minds and might lead to unlawfull events in the society after reading this. so as like various books that describe the mascarce after india pakistan partition were banned this sort of description under wikepedia should also be banned. Thanks Sachinchvn (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. utcursch | talk 11:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Marathas 1758.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Marathas 1758.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Marathas 1758.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Third Battle of Panipat Commanders and leaders list

In this war Ibrahim Khan Gardi was a Maratha Empire general. But his name is not mentioned in the list. For more information please visit this page Ibrahim_Khan_Gardi. He was only solo Muslim general who served Maratha Empire. So it's very important for history And the people who is reading this page.He was an expert in artillery, he initially served the Nizam of Hyderabad, before working for the Peshwa of the Maratha Empire. As a general of the Maratha Empire, he commanded a force of 10,000 men, infantry and artillery. He was captured and killed by the Afghans Third Battle of Panipat in 1761. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasibc4 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The list misses one of the prominent Afghan general Haji Atai Khan who killed Govind Pant Bundela in surprise attack but later himself was killed in the Main Battle. Atai Khan was nephew of Grand Vizier Shah Wali Khan(Prime Minister of Durrani Empire).14.96.72.72 (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Shamsher Bahadur I (Krishna Rao was son of Bajirao and Mastani. He was killed in war. He needs to be in leader list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gajanangaikwad (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Add this book also in the section further reading

Add this book also in the section further reading , It is really a nice book which gives very good accounts in detail: Third Battle of Panipat by Abhas Verma ISBN: 9788180903397 Publication: Bhartiya kala Prakashan

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.153.65.102 (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: If I understand right, you have some interest in this book which causes a conflict of interest in adding it to the article. That being the case, you also cannot add it by proxy, using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Some interested editor needs to read the book and make a call on whether to add it or not. Regards, Celestra (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.153.65.102 (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC) I have read this book and i being a maratha wants this book to be added . Maybe you can buy one copy and read this book and make a nice change . This book is vailable on flipkart.

Not done: You have not added any new information, and I agree with Celestra. By the way, to sign your posts, please type ~~~~ right after your message. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit in Prelude Section

Initial skirmishes Changes in Battle of Kujpura: The name of the Quiladar at Kunjpura was Najabat Khan who was killed , another general of Abdali who was killed in this skirmish was : Qutub shah who slayed Dattaji Sindhia. Qutub shah was cought alive by Damaji Gaikwad and was executed on the orders of Sadashivrao Bhau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.153.65.102 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: After trying to have the book added to Further reading, it is somewhat suspect to then ask to use it as a reference. Also, when using the {{edit semi-protected}} template, please clearly state the change you would like in a "please change X to Y" degree of detail. It is not obvious how your text would be added to the Initial skirmishes section and there is currently no mention of Kunjpura anywhere in the article. One gets the impression that a few facts were strung together without regard to whether they improve the article, merely as a vehicle for adding this reference. Please read WP:NOTHERE. Respectfully, Celestra (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Initial skirmishes Change : With both sides poised for battle, there followed much maneuvering, with skirmishes between the two armies fought at Karnal and Kunjpura. Kunjpura, on the banks of the Yamuna River 60 miles to the north of Delhi, was stormed by the Marathas and the whole Afghan garrison was killed or enslaved.[14] Marathas achieved a rather easy victory at Kunjpura, although there was a substantial army posted there. Some of Abadali's best generals were killed.

to With both sides poised for battle, there followed much maneuvering, with skirmishes between the two armies fought at Karnal and Kunjpura. Kunjpura, on the banks of the Yamuna River 60 miles to the north of Delhi, was guarded by Najabat Khan . Abdali has stored a large number of arms and ammuniatian along with food and fodder for his army.The Marathas attacked the fort on 17th october , 1760 the whole Afghan garrison was killed or enslaved. Najabat Khan was killed in this skirmish and many Afghan generals of note were killed in this battle.Qutub shah , who ahd killed dattaji Shindhia was cought alive by Damaji Gaikwad and was executed on the orders of Sadashivrao Bhau. Celestra Battle of Kunjpura is a very important section in the Battle of panipat , one cannot ignore this . It is this battle taht provoke Ahmad Shah Abdali to plunge into the flooded Yamuna and take on the Marathas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhas17 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: You will become auto-confirmed after two more edits, so you will be able to make this change yourself. I _strongly_ recommend that you find some other reference for this change since you have already self-identified a conflict of interest around that book. I'd further recommend that you engage with some of the other editors who have previously contributed here in order to keep your addition at the same level of summary as the rest of the article; the addition you suggest is far more detailed than the surrounding text and may need to be trimmed. Finally, please use a spell checker amd grammar checker on the text. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Salilb HI salib can u look into these requested changes . AnikulkarniHI Anilji can u look into these requested changes . ~~Abhas17~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhas17 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

25,000 Baloch warriors of Balochistan

That is a likely name for a page, is it?
Also, this page has linkrot trouble.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014

101.56.235.53 (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Your request is blank. Stickee (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Subjects of the Mughal Empire

Shuja-ud-Daula, Najib-ud-Daula, Hafiz Rahmat Khan, Dundi Khan and Banghas Khan were all subjects of Shah Alam II.

Shuja-ud-Daula for example held the position of Grand Vizier of the Mughal Empire, he was appointed by Shah Alam II and Najib-ud-Daula held the position of Chief Representative (Mukhtar Khas) of the Mughal Empire appointed by Shah Alam II before the Third Battle of Panipat. 468SM (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

They were not subjects of Mughals but were independent entities, Shah Alam II was not even on throne when the war took place, please read the citations, the battle was not fought between the Marathas and Mughals, it was fought between the Marathas and the Afghans, no source mention Shuja-ud-Daula, Najib-ud-Daula as Mughal subjects or Mughal loyals. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Shah Alam II claimed he was emperor after his father's assassination, his claim was supported by Shuja-ud-Daula and Najib-ud-Daula in the year 1760. Both served Shah Alam II and rejected Shah Jahan III (who was seen as a Maratha puppet and an usurper) 468SM (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are presenting your POV, for example words like "Maratha puppet", who are you to judge who was a puppet or not? WP is not a place to add Fyour POVs. First point out whats wrong, that is wrong with the facts, not POVs. Barthateslisa (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Shah Jahan III was put to the throne and deposed by Sadishivaro Bhau, he was indeed a puppet usurping Shah Alam II's rights. 182.182.3.100 (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Much more accurate changes to the article have been made the names of the two Nawabs of the Mughal Empire such as Ahmad Khan Bangash and Shuja-ud-Daula have been proven. 468SM (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Tribesmen

It should be noted that Rohillas were not the only tribesmen to serve under the command of Ahmad Shah Durrani. For example the Bangash and the Qizilbash and various other Muslim tribes are not being represented as belligerents in the Third Battle of Panipat (article section). 468SM (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Rohillas were not under Durranis, they were India based Afghan tribes, who aligned with the Durranis, whereas the other tribes you have mentioned were part of Durrani's army, hence not separately mentioned. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So many tribes not only Afghan, supported Ahmad Shah Durrani...for example the Qizilbash and the Shia Muslim aristocrats of Awadh fought for Ahmad Shah Durrani, many Muslim tribes in the Punjab and Kashmir region were also supporting Ahmad Shah Durrani (for example against the Sikh Confederacy)...we have a moral obligation to correctly place all the involved belligerents in the section of Ahmad Shah Durrani's supporters including subjects of Shah Alam II, who served against the Marathas at the Third Battle of Panipat. 468SM (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What "moral obligation"?, WP is not a place to make tributes to anybody, provide sources and proper verified citations, who mentions those tribes as a separate entity and not in service of Durranis. As far as Shah Alam is concerned, most sources mention Marathas to be his protector not the Durranis, hence don't push wrong facts. For example here Barthateslisa (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Marathas were supporting Imad-ul-mulk, these two entities assassinated Alamgir II, Shah Alam II fled delhi eastwrds where he found refuge and support from Shuja-ud-Daula (Grand Vizier and Nawab of Awadh). Shuja and Najib joined Ahmad Shah Durrani at Paipat 1761 (but u mots note that both of them were subjects of Shah Alam II).

How many times it has to be repeated WP is not meant for your vandalism and POVs, here is a source which says that it was Marathas who installed Shah Alam after his rebellious Nobles, deposed him earlier. Do not edit until a consensus us reached upon. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Marathas and Shah Alam II's relations only normalized in 1771 and it is to be noted that Shah Alam II's only interest was in the protection offered by Mahadaje Shinde; he was never an ally of or a subject of the Maratha Confederacy. 182.182.39.114 (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahmad Khan Bangash was the Nawab of Farrukhabad he was a subject of Alamgir II and Shah Alam II, he joined Durrani at Panipat 1761 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 468SM (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Article is too lengthy==

This present article about the Third Battle of Panipat is too lengthy (emotional, based on hear-say) and needs a very important and relevant size reduction. 468SM (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Baloch

Perhaps the claims are relevant that the Baloch tribes were also supporting Ahmad Shah Durrani. 468SM (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, there were no baloch tribesmen in this war, Abdalis did not trust the Baloch in order to grant them sorvgienty or let them join the army. Akmal94 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Mahadaji Scindia

Maharaja Mahadaji Scindia - was he a deserter of this Battle? He is a respectable figure and was considered as the Greatest Man of 18th century Asia. He is one of the most senior Mahratta nobles and was instrumental in resurrecting Maratha supremacy in North India ten years after the Third Battle of Panipat. Strongly advise, need to re-consider this. Amit20081980 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

@RegentsPark:, @Plastikspork:, @Dougweller:& @Ugog Nizdast: , Do see the vandalism of @FreeatlastChitchat:. Ghatus (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced claims.

Ahmed Durrani did in fact return to India after this battle. If I'm not mistaken he returned 3-4 times to Punjab.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.116.58 (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2016

In the aftermath section, there is a spelling mistake that needs to be corrected. "Charkara" is the wrong spelling and the correct spelling is "Harkara", which is a Marathi term for "Messenger". Parag Soma Gawde (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Parag Soma Gawde (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Supported by Suresh K Sharma (1 February 2006). Haryana: Past and Present. Mittal Publications. pp. 175–. ISBN 978-81-8324-046-8. so  Done, and thanks for catching this, Parag Soma Gawde! — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2016

In the section "Reasons for the outcome", It is mentioned that Sadashivrao was sent to the North on the orders of Peshwa, but it is not completely true. Actually, it was Raghunathrao, who insulted Sadashivrao again and again, for being only good at cleric work and named him as "Boru Bahaddar"(Pen Wielder). Sadashivrao did had some campaigning experience in the Deccan (Karnataka conquest with Mahadaji Scindia, Devgiri Conquest, etc. for example). He had such an impressive personality, that he was even offered the job of General in the Karveer Princely State, a Maratha factional state with an Independent Chhatrapati. But he accepted to simply wield the pen in the service of Peshwas back at Pune. Angered by the Repeated insults of Raghunathrao and Gopikabai, Sadashivrao accepted to lead this Northern India mission. Also to mention, Raghunathrao was not really ready to go on the North Indian Mission for the fourth time and demanded a huge amount for campaign against Afghans. But Peshwa rejected Raghunathrao's demands on the grounds of Heavy Loans which was to be waived off by the Peshwas, on the accounts given by Sadashivrao, which hurt the ego of Raghunathrao, thus engaging the both in a Word War. Hence, to shrug of his tag of Pen Wielder, Sadashivrao accepted this North Indian Mission to stop the Afghans, and promised Peshwa to complete this mission in low budget. Please make this corrections according to your standards. Parag Soma Gawde (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Parag Soma Gawde (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources to support the change. GAB^gab 16:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

State of the article

This article has been a mess for at least as long I have been contributing to Wikipedia and it looks like it was so even before that. I know it is contentious and I know it has attracted a lot of sockpuppets but, really, enough is enough. I am almost inclined to stub it. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Add link suggestion

Add links to articles on 'zamburak' and 'jezail' in introduction.Tomseattle (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2017

176.83.47.190 (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Third Battle of Panipat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813210837/http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/ahmadshah.html to http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/ahmadshah.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Strengths and casualties

People keep changing the army strengths and casualties in the infobox. We do have a couple of sources but they're old and, certainly in the case of Duff, unreliable. If nothing decent turns up in the way of modern academic sourcing, I'd be inclined to just remove the information. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

And now they have been altered again. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It's happening once again.--Vyom25 (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is a source that shows Maratha army had 200,000 horse, 20,000 foot, and 300 guns. This is page 170 in "The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians: The ..., Volume 8 by Sir Henry Miers Elliot". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELITE125 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Was it Pyrrhic?

The box say it was Pyrrhic victory, but if you read the source mentioned, it says it was decisive victory.

I have removed the pyrrhic portion and the unreliable Sykes source and replaced it with Kaushik Roy, an academic historian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No the Percy Sykes was not an unreliable source [4] His works are academically acclaimed as used as references in many modern sources as well. 115.96.147.106 (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ahmad-Shah-Durani.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Changes to figures

According to India's Historic Battles: From Alexander the Great to Kargil, by Kaushik Roy, page 80. The only number present is 25,000 men under Jahan Khan. Not 41,800 Afghan cavalry or 32,000 Rohilla infantry, which is what the IP added. Also, the 55,000 Maratha cavalry, 9,000 Gardi infantry, and 40 cannons are not present on page 80, which the IP changed indicating Roy references this information.

So, considering this is source misrepresentation, the IP should bring their concerns to the talk page and explain their edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned in Page 84, do take some efforts to go through a source by yourself please :- [5] 115.96.147.106 (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ibrahim Khan Gardi

He was a leader of Cannon Unit on Maratha Side in 3rd Battle of Panipat, for whom Found No mention of a word in the list of Sardars Given for both Sir, which is injustice to his Great Contribution to nearly win of Panipat by Maratha. Hence, I request to add his Name along with Sardars in the indexing list of them. Raygadh (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Result of Battle

The result of such battle which is one of the great battle of eighteenth century cannot be put in imbagous slot in order to confuse the reader. The topic should be clear and Result of Battle atleast have a heading. Deleting the heading should have a clear unbiased reason in talk page. Hasan.2526272829 (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hasan.2526272829: But the result of the battle isn't in an "ambiguous slot"? It's stated once in the infobox and then again in the lead at the top of the article. The defeat and its repercussions are then extensively discussed in the "Battle", "Reasons for the outcome", "Massacres after the battle", "Aftermath" and "Legacy" sections. I don't see how an average reader could miss all that. Writing another section which just restates the same content without providing any further infomation simply doesn't add anything meaningful to the article.
Alivardi (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

date of the battle

I thought this was settled; but Duff's History of Maratha mentions the date of the battle as the 7th January 1761 (page 148 ) Tkul (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)tkul

James Grant Duff does not appear to have been an academic historian. According to India's Historic Battles: From Alexander the Great to Kargil, by Kaushik Roy, page 80, the Third battle of Panipat was 14 January 1761. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

ok. may be that is true. His book is well researched though and there are other timelines which are correct. Why not at least mention this in the article as a possible date?Tkul (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)tkul

Why should we use an unreliable source compared to using what an academic historian states? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Information not consistent with the References

There are some information I have updated which were not consistent with the reference. I noticed there are numerous other information that though are pointed to a reference but are not consistent. Like take Kaushik Roy's book. I made some correction today but there are several other incorrect information not consistent with the book but still pointed to it as reference. --WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Battle of Kunjpura was a separate battle and it has no reference in Kaushik Roy's book. The reference is incorrect. Also since its only about Battle of Panipat, shouldn't other battle information not be part of this article? - WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Kunjpura was separate battle

Kunjpura Battle took place in 17 October 1760 between Marathas and Najabat Khan. Third Battle of Panipat was separate which took place 17 Jan 1761. So Kunjpura battle and casualities are not relatable to the counts that took place at the third battle of panipat. Also the references given, do not mention casualities.--WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020

106.222.0.240 (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

casualties are wrongly reported on both side what is the proof

There are currently sources cited. Is this information not verifiable in these sources? – Thjarkur (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

change (zamburak and jezail) to (Zamzama Canon, zamburak and jezail) Mrummanhasan (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources.--regentspark (comment) 12:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Birje patil (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

But immense also was the price that the Maratha valour had succeeded in exacting from their foes. The Pathans won the victory, but it was pyrrhic. On the last day alone they lost no less than 40000 Moslem soldiers on the battlefield. Attaikhan, the general who cut off Govindpant's head, Usman and several other leaders of their forces were cut down. Nazib was seriously wounded. Moreover, they knew that they owed their success as much to chance as to their estimable valour and excellent generalship. The Marathas lost the battle: but not without inflicting on their foe such severe wounds as to invalid him permanently to win the war. Citation[[HINDU-PAD-PADASHAHI A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE HINDU EMPIRE OF MAHARASHTRA ]]HinduPad-Padshahi-1925_Edition. Hindu~Pad~Padashahi OR Citation [[A Review of the HINDU EMPIRE OF MAHARASHTRA BY V. D. SAVARKAR 1925 PUBLISHED BY B. G PAUL & CO. MADRAS]]

https://savarkar.org/en/pdfs/HinduPad-Padshahi-1925_Edition.pdf HinduPad-Padshahi-1925_Edition.pdf HINDU-PAD-PADASHAHI A CRITICAL REVIEW OF TH E HIND U EMPIRE OF MAHARASHTRA Hindu~Pad~Padashahi OR A Review of the HINDU EMPIRE OF MAHARASHTRA BY V. D. SAVARKAR 1925 PUBLISHED BY B. G PAUL & CO. MADRAS

Birje patil (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

But immense also was the price that the Maratha valour had succeeded in exacting from their foes. The Pathans won the victory, but it was pyrrhic. On the last day alone they lost no less than 40000 Moslem soldiers on the battlefield. Attaikhan, the general who cut off Govindpant's head, Usman and several other leaders of their forces were cut down. Nazib was seriously wounded. Moreover, they knew that they owed their success as much to chance as to their estimable valour and excellent generalship. The Marathas lost the battle: but not without inflicting on their foe such severe wounds as to invalid him permanently to win the war. https://savarkar.org/en/pdfs/HinduPad-Padshahi-1925_Edition.pdf HinduPad-Padshahi-1925_Edition.pdf HINDU-PAD-PADASHAHI A CRITICAL REVIEW OF TH E HIND U EMPIRE OF MAHARASHTRA Hindu~Pad~Padashahi OR A Review of the HINDU EMPIRE OF MAHARASHTRA BY V. D. SAVARKAR 1925 PUBLISHED BY B. G PAUL & CO. MADRAS

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

This, Letter of abdali.jpg is not reliable source that Mblam9416 keeps inserting which he added himself on Wikipedia. Nor is it in English.

Also Mblam9416 is falsely attributing the source of Kaushik Roy to his comments which has absolutely no mention of what he stated. HaughtonBrit (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

[6] is not reliable source. Nor is it in English with any source to back up the claim that the user is making to support his comment. HaughtonBrit (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

96.231.134.18 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to change the numerical size of both armies' and deaths on both size.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Strength Section Needs Editing

In the Strength Section, only 12,000 Rohilla Infantry has been mentioned.

However, the actual count is 40,000 and not 12,000.

Please refer the line - "He not only provided, Ahmed Shah Abdali, with 40,000 Rohilla troops but also 70 guns to the combined forces" on - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najib_ad-Dawlah

Plus, you may also refer https://mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%80_%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80_%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%A2%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%88

or

https://gu.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AA%AA%E0%AA%BE%E0%AA%A3%E0%AB%80%E0%AA%AA%E0%AA%A4%E0%AA%A8%E0%AB%80_%E0%AA%A4%E0%AB%8D%E0%AA%B0%E0%AB%80%E0%AA%9C%E0%AB%80_%E0%AA%B2%E0%AA%A1%E0%AA%BE%E0%AA%88

where the Abdali Army totals around till 1,00,000. Also, Casualties and losses Section is incorrect too. Some miscreant has shared wrong data.

Flags

Please note that per WP:INFOBOXFLAGS, the use of flags in infoboxes is discouraged. Also, in this case, some of these flags (e.g., the Mughal Empire one) have been shown to be fake and many are unverified. WP:V is a core policy on Wikipedia and no one should be violating it. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

“Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions.” Noorullah21 (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

No exceptions for fake flags though. The "Alam" is a known fake flag. Please add citations for other flags.--RegentsPark (comment) 11:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Then the flag will be removed until a proper one can be put into place. Noorullah21 (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you think about perhaps ie https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_Mughal_Empire_by_bot.png

Or perhaps , though these are fictional except for the one above I believe. Noorullah21 (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There are better things to bother about than flags of various combatants. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. : An extended conversation at User_talk:Noorullah21#September_2021. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Mblam9416 and Noorullah21

MbIam9416 and Noorullah21. You need to provide reliable references and sources with specific page number to verify if the states you mentioned did partake in the Third battle of Panipat. You cannot just randomly pick any source which has no reference or backing to support the statements you inserted in the article. Before making any change, please show the sources with page number to investigate. Once proven, you have the right to add the change. Canon8 (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Khanate of Kalat was an obvious participant (treaty of 1758); see any history text on Balochistan. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

But were they participant in Third Battle of Panipat? Are there reliable sources from accredited historians and scholars to back it? That is all we are looking for. Canon8 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Canon8 Hey so, kalat has been confirmed but for Tanoli i cant link the sources properly, but you can see he fought in the battle on page Suba Khan Tanoli, what should I do? Noorullah21 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Noorullah21 Why can't you link the sources? What is the issue? Citations are required to back/support the information so that readers can read and verify just like you did great work with Kalat citations. Try your best but keep in mind, the sources have to be reliable.Canon8 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Jayant Narlikar's story

It would be nice to see a reference to Jayant Narlikar's short story "The Adventure" in the popular culture section. It is an alternate history story that flips the result of the battle as a what if question. The story is available at archive.org: https://archive.org/details/TheAdventure-JayantNarlikar

Return of the Mughal

The 1765 map of "Mughal domains" loyal to "Shah Alam II", is probably the greatest phyric aftermath of this "Third Battle of Pamipat". 13:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)\\\137.59.221.36 (talk)\\\\ 137.59.221.36 (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please change the numbers

59.88.72.6 (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜  melecie  talk - 08:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Army size

The size of both armies is quite inaccurate. Instead of Kaushik Roy's book, I advise that we should use other sources of other writters, who have devoted so much time and energy in doing immense research on the third battle of Panipat. Abhigyaaningle (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to propose a change, then what you need to do is to state the change you want, and cite the sources for the change. When citing books, you need to give the edition and the page number. (We need both because page numbers are not always the same for different editions.)

What is not helpful is saying we should have a change, and saying that some books support the change, but giving no clue what these books are, etc. Saying that in some unspecified library there are some unspecified books that support an unspecified change is useless.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2022

The casualty numbers do not match the source. Change the Durrani side to 15,000 Rohillas and 5,000 Afghans killed and wounded, and 50,000 civilians killed or enslaved. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:FCF5:989B:22EF:795E (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Another source estimates that 22000 civilians were enslaved. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit, but the source for 50,000 killed explicitly states: "50,000 hapless Maratha camp followers... were slaughtered in cold blood or sold to slavery." The 50,000 includes both killed and enslaved and does not negate the 22,000 figure. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:7175:3C6:3E65:4D91 (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Third battle of panipat

Good 42.107.193.64 (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Panipat

Panipat 203.161.179.40 (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

History

Third battle of panipat 223.225.170.181 (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Bragges of Pakistan

Voice 39.48.126.64 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Bragges of Pakistan

Voice 39.48.126.64 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Counter factuals?

It talks about how it would have been had a different commander. It should be MAY at most if the speculation is worth keeping at all, no need for alternate history writing like that 136.54.112.214 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sardesai's Marathi Riyasat

How is this source been discreditted? I don't see any relevant posts on the Reliable source notice board @Noorullah21 Normstahlie (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv Normstahlie (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ll send some things to back this up in a bit. Noorullah (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Sarkar was very critical of Sardesai's use of Maratha Bakhars, or historical ballads..." [7]

"However, unlike some of his contemporaries, such as a Maratha Historian G.S. Sardesai (1865-1959), Sarkar was vehemently against a partisan reading of the sources." [8]

"It does not require any detailed analysis to prove that Sardesai was not correct, and that he suffered from an Anti-Mughal bias." [9] (pg. 222)

Sardesai is also criticized here: [10] Noorullah (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Sardesai is not a reliable source. Noorullah (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Quoting the article:-"The chapter ends by documenting the persistence of this tension, even between the intellectual positions held by Sarkar and Sardesai, who were otherwise united in their battles against the Puna school. The chapter thus demonstrates the early beginning of histories relating to identity-movements in colonial India and their impact on public debates about historians’ methods. On the latter questions, Sarkar had to make concessions even to his comrade-in-arms, Sardesai."[11]

The concessions made here by sarkar makes me question the relevance of the argument made to discourse Sardesai's reliablity, it can also be inferred that they did not reach any conclusive end on either sides. Normstahlie (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ballads often act as primary sources in Indian history, descriptions of historical figures (Like Nizamuddin Auliya by Amir Khusraw) hinting at their personality and accomplishments. masnavis written by Amir Khusraw's one of them being Miftah ul-Futuh written in praise of Jalal-ud-Din Khalji's victories, and another one of them being Khaza'in ul-Futuh recording Alauddin Khalji's construction works, wars and administrative services are regarded as historical sources despite being a form of poetry.

There is no doubt these ballads are often exaggerated which is the reason for Sarkar's criticism, but something to be noted here is that Sarkar himself worked with Sardesai on multiple occasions and they were close friends he was also the one who recommended Sardesai to be an editor at Peshwa Daftar where he reviewed thousands of documents and wrote his book which is in question here the "Marathi Riyasat". Normstahlie (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"Sardesai is not a reliable source"

You cannot judge that when no author mentioned in your sources discredit him out right or call him unreliable.. Normstahlie (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a compelling case is made here, I've made an argument earlier specifically unpacking the articles here. Sarkar does not call Sardesai unreliable or discredits him, being critical does not equal discrediting his works or nulling his legacy, such an inference is poorly understood. In addition to that, Sardesai has also written letters critical towards Sarkar's work does not mean he deems them unreliable. Normstahlie (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

From the context alone, it can be inferred that Sarkar is providing constructive criticism to Sardesai and not calling him a nationalist in any sense, he points out the recurring cycle of Nationalist Historiography which could be an outcome of Sardesai's works, Sarkar also himself admits that there is an unavoidable bias in historical narrative it is also too ambiguous to say that Sardesai committed any such blunders unless we have evidence to his bias which violates WP:NPOV, with enough contextual evidence. Normstahlie (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The author Siba Pada Sen recognizes Sardesai's works,

Quoting from the same author:- "In the light of what has hitherto been said we may examine the writings of a few modern Indian historians. Sardesai, Sarkar, Sen and Panikkar are representative historians by any standard; and it may be profitable to concentrate on their works. There can hardly be any doubt as to their contribution to Indian"

This is contradictory of what you are trying to potray. Normstahlie (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Also [12], this source seems biased in itself.

Refer p188, The author calls V.D Sarkar a terrorist the tone of the paragraph is also full of emotionalism and a left leaning anti nationalist bias, which is a bias nonetheless. Normstahlie (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Sardesai is a source that needs WP:RS secondary sources to sufficiently back it up. The historians such as Siba Pada Sen point out Sardesai's clear bias such as against the Mughals which would make him inappropriate to disclose on Mughal topics (especially such as this page). Sardesai is unreliable because of the issues raised around him and his sources (including his biases).

Saying that there's an unavoidable bias in historical narrative does not excuse Sardesai, when scholarship is meant to be NPOV especially. These ballads are not valid sources either,

I'm not sure what your argument is with Amir Khusrau, but that is completely irrelevant to what is at hand here.

The quote here as an example is not mentioned by any another WP:RS or scholarly source. [13]

"Though Abdali won the battle, he also had heavy casualties on his side and sought peace with the Marathas. There were rumours in his army that the Peshwa was organising another 60-80,000 troops to take a revenge from the Afghans. So, Abdali sent a letter to Nanasaheb Peshwa (who was moving towards Delhi, albeit at a very slow pace to join Bhau against Abdali) appealing to the Peshwa that he was not the one who attacked Bhau and was just defending himself." -- This is completely unsupported by any other sources, which shows that what's being pointed out here is completely WP:UNDUE and nonsense. Noorullah (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how Sardesai's bias against Mughals is relevant to this article when it's clear that the battle is fought against the Durranis, and Mughals had little to no influence in how the battle turned out they are quite literally non participants.

"Saying that there's an unavoidable bias in historical narrative does not excuse Sardesai, when scholarship is meant to be NPOV especially."

Historical Narrative is bound to have bias, that is written by Sarkar himself. Please do not use his articles if you are not going to adhere to his writings in order to create a reference.

"These ballads are not valid sources either,

I'm not sure what your argument is with Amir Khusrau, but that is completely irrelevant to what is at hand here."

Please read my prior arguments, I've pointed out how Ballads by Amir Khusraw are regarded as primary sources for modern historiography, the same way Marathi Bakhars are also considered valuable but are often subject to accusations for exaggeration of facts. They are considered valuable for their input nonetheless, Sardesai may have added them to show the Marathi view of history to maintain a neutral stand. This source which highlights the alleged use of Bakhars by Sardesai is not WP:RS in itself, it has a clear bias (refer p188). It deems V.D Savarkar an outright terrorist potentially out of an anti-nationalist bias, which is still a bias nonetheless.

No author calls him unreliable. Minor Biases are seen throughout the works of numerous famous historians. The supposed "anti-mughal" bias is not elaborated upon by the author, we don't even appropriately know the context in which this bias has been highlighted by Siba Pada Sen so we cannot reach a conclusion here, but the same author also regards the works of Sardesai as something that should be concentrated upon indicatively recommending his work and keeping him in the same position as Sarkar and other famous historians which would make sardesai even more reliable[14]ref p.221.

Here are some sources other than Sardesai which mention this letter:

[15], [16].

I will repeat this again: None of the mentioned sources call him unreliable, or discredit him. He was a prominent historian who had worked with other famous historians like Jadunath Sarkar and Tryambak Shankar Shejwalkar, I am sure they did not find him "unreliable" hence why they worked with him. Most sources mentioned to argue his reliability, do not even deem him unreliable author Siba Pada Sen literally praises him for his work. I've already discussed how the george igger's source is biased earlier. Normstahlie (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I also don't see how highlighting the state of the Durrani army post war is WP:UNDUE, and it is surely not nonsense. Normstahlie (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This battle is directly in the time period/Mughal timeframe of decline and is significant. You keep trying to tip-toe around NPOV, also I don't see anything on Amir Khusrau using ballads, which again is completely irrelevant to try and cross-reference here. Also again; "During his stay, Gandhi debated Savarkar and other nationalists in London on the futility of fighting the colonial state through acts of terrorism and guerilla warfare." per his page.

The Anti Mughal bias is elaborated.. it very clearly says that it does not need any detailed analysis whatsoever to even identify such in his works, meaning it is blatantly obvious, "we cannot reach a conclusion here", yes we can, it's by reading what the author said. The author mentions that their works "may be profitable" due to their contributions.

Farid Adel is not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS. (not a historian, nor scholarship on the matter).

The state of the Durrani army post war is WP:UNDUE, because no other source configures the same conclusion Sardesai intends to imply. Hari Ram Gupta clearly shows the battle was an utterly crushing Afghan victory [with no reprecussion afterward]. [17] (page 184-186) Noorullah (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

According to the article itself, the Mughals were non participants in the war and during the referenced timeframe Mughal monarchs only held symbolic power . There were two major belligerents involved in the war ; Marathas and Durranis it seems unnecessary to push a contrarian narrative. Normstahlie (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Amir Khusrau wrote mathnawi's like Miftah ul-Futuh and Khaza'in ul-Futuh recording history in the delhi's court in the form of poetry similar to Marathi Bakhars both are considered a valuable contributions to history but often criticized. You cannot call one a valid source and dismiss the other one.

"it very clearly says that it does not need any detailed analysis whatsoever to even identify such in his works,"

The slide has been cut-off before further explanation by the author, the author clearly speculates the "anti-mughal" bias at the end of page 221.Normstahlie (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I've never called Amir Khusrau a valid source..? I'm not sure how relevant he is, YOU'RE the one who brought him up, I made no remarks to him whatsoever, I've only called Sardesai unreliable.

This battle is significant in Mughal history, and again, an anti-Mughal bias is clearly highlighted. We went over how Sardesai clearly misinterprets whether intentionally or not about the state of the Durrani army. Eitherway, this seems like this is going in circles, so I think dispute resolution [or other editors] should weigh their opinion.

I think his quote about the Durrani army is complete nonsense, as well as what what he claims Ahmad Shah said. Noorullah (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the prior arguments made by me, regarding anti-mughal bias and the author's speculation of it, also the reason why I said there is no appropriate way to approach a conclusion when the full page is not available on preview. I really don't know where we went over how Sardesai misinterprets anything when we were primarily talking about reliability of the source and not the source itself?

Sardesai had been deemed reliable by renowned authors such as Sir Jadunath Sarkar and Tryambak Shankar Shejwalkar, and is regarded as a representative historian by Siba Pada Sen. Normstahlie (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"However Sardesai's anti-mughal bias should-"

The author clearly says that it would be profitable to concentrate on the works of Sardesai, calling the mentioned historians representatives by any standards, so the author is in no way "discrediting" the source and it's quite obvious by simply going through the page.

Farid Adel and his book "The Champion of True faith" referenced previously does seem to be a published monograph, [18] and is included within Google Scholar.

The state of Durrani army post war wouldn't be WP:UNDUE when it has been talked about in a WP:RS source. H.R Gupta is not a appropriate historian to refer when talking about Maratha History as their scholarship was mainly focused on The Sikh rule of India per their article [19].

Gandhi is not in authority to call V.D Savarkar a terrorist, his acts were in revolutionary efforts for freedom. British government at that point in time deemed him to be a terrorist, which could suggest a WP:RAJ influence in the source. Normstahlie (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, no, you keep repeating yourself when he has been discredited by the same historians including a very obvious stated anti-Mughal bias. I've already talked about why he said it would be profitable... Not only are these quotes completely unsourced except from Sardesai himself, (which other non WP:RS sources such as Farid Adel only cite).

It is WP:UNDUE, No other source except Sardesai mentions it, please read what WP:UNDUE means, its corroborating a claim only made by that one source. Hari Ram Gupta is a reliable source on the Punjab, he is not a historian focused on the History of the Sikhs, you clearly misinterpreted this from the line... "The main focus of Gupta's work was the Sikh history of 18th century. He planned to give a comprehensive account of multiple aspects of Sikhs via his multi-volume History of the Sikhs."

"Gandhi is not in authority to call V.D Savarkar a terrorist, his acts were in revolutionary efforts for freedom. British government at that point in time deemed him to be a terrorist, which could suggest a WP:RAJ influence in the source." ... Or it shows that [in his article as well] he has been corroborated by WP:RS sources for being involved with terrorism? Noorullah (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hari Ram Gupta also has a very clear book on the Marathas and Panipat, ironically named.. "Marathas and Panipat" [20] Noorullah (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point it's clear that we are going around circles, the "anti-mughal" bias source is seemed to be used at convenience. The author clearly declares the reliability of Sardesai, also I am going to repeat myself again the anti-mughal bias is not applicable in this scenario when the battle does not involve Mughals as direct participants even if so they did not hold any real power to manipulate the outcome.

Sardesai and Shejwalkar , both mention of this exchange. Again, the condition of Afghani army post battle isn't undue. WP:UNDUE prohibits including minority views other than in a see also section, this does not apply here since the letter is recorded in a WP:RS source. The reliability of the scholar in question is further corroborated by Tryambak Shankar Shejwalkar, Sir J.N Sarkar and Siba Pada Sen.

Dr Hari Ram Gupta's scholarship, per article is solely focused on Sikh history. He also uses Dr G.S Sardesai as reference in his book "Marathas and Panipat"[21], this only further solidifies Sardesai's reliability.

"... Or it shows that [in his article as well] he has been corroborated by WP:RS sources for being involved with terrorism?"

The claim made by Gandhi is not relevant in any case, V.D Savarkar as I've previously mentioned is not regarded as a "terrorist" by any means he's considered to be a nationalist and a freedom fighter. He was deemed a terrorist by the colonial government which in essence implies WP:RAJ influence.

I would recommend calling for dispute resolution as suggested by yourself earlier. Normstahlie (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes again this will keep going in circles so dispute resolution (or the intercession of other editors is best).

Also, what I meant of the Afghan army condition post battle is WP:UNDUE, and WP:FALSEBALANCE, there are no other sources that remotely say anything close to what Sardesai claims of what became of the Afghan army after the battle. (Which is why it is a minority view, no other WP:HISTRS publications state the same thing, alongside the quote). Noorullah (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd prefer a neutral party's intervention.

WP:FALSEBALANCE is irrelevant to the conversation. Dr G.S Sardesai's accounts are considered mainstream scholarship and reliable whereas WP:FALSEBALANCE emphasizes on avoiding the addition of "extraordinary" claims which aren't usually backed with mainstream scholarship.

Dr G.S Sardesai's books are written with intricate details and deemed as finest works in Maratha history by his fellow peers. Normstahlie (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE is relevant, there aren't other WP:RS sources that corroborate what Sardesai attempts to say, such as about the state of the Durrani army -- nor the quote in question. Noorullah (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The quote and the state of the durrani army are quoted within Sardesai's Marathi Riyasat which is considered a mainstream source in itself. Normstahlie (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. But WP:RAJ is a complicated topic. To my knowledge, Raj era sources are generally considered to be unreliable and/or outdated. And this includes topics outside of caste. I know User:SamuelRiv had a different opinion on this matter, but I’ll cite a content expert and administrators answer to this question which was asked by another user a few months ago.

(by User:RegentsPark)

“Question: Does WP:RAJ apply to everything pertaining to Indian topics, if it was written before 1947?”

“Answer: This is kind of a complicated question. WP:RAJ applies mainly to the many British administrators who wrote "histories" and "caste biographies" based on their own personal experiences rather than using standard methods of historiography. Unfortunately, many Indian writes, both Raj era as well as post-Raj ones, writing on various caste and religion topics end up using Raj era sources and base their work on those sources. In short, I would suggest discounting most Raj era texts regardless of who wrote them and be careful about using obscure or popular texts post-Raj. Sticking to modern academic writers is probably the safest. Context, to quote TB below, matters”

Keep in mind authors like Narendra Sinha are considered outdated generally despite mostly writing about history in particular and not just caste. Sarkar is also at times considered outdated despite being a military historiographer however his work is still used amongst mainstream scholars. So context matters, but I would consider Sarkar to be an outlier where he may be outdated but his work remains highly valued. But for the vast majority of sources from that era, they are generally considered unreliable, per Regentspark. Although context matters, I don’t see why Sardesai’s work would be any different. It’s still a raj era source and thus can justifiably be removed. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

As you said WP:RAJ in itself is extremely complicated, but the defined parameters to deem a source WP:RAJ do not apply to any of the mentioned authors. Hence you cannot simply deem them WP:RAJ and remove them considering they are written by extremely well regarded historians (that is by mordern historiographers). *Note: The mentioned authors wrote in and around RAJ era. Normstahlie (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how WP:RAJ does not apply to this source? Per the quote from RegentPark, most if not all text from the RAJ era are indeed deemed to be unreliable/outdated. This was written and published during the RAJ era, thus it’s a WP:RAJ source and can be removed. (Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC))

Being Published during Raj Era does not automatically make it "WP:RAJ" there could potentially be an influence in the source, which is not seen throughout the writings of either Sarkar or Sardesai. There is an heavy emphasis of caste based history which again isn't relevant in their writings. Normstahlie (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Wherever this goes, I'd like to remind @Someguywhosbored that Sardesai himself and his quote + interpretation on the Durrani army are purely stated by him only. No other WP:RS source corroborates what Sardesai implies, which is WP:UNDUE. -- It's arguably even WP:EXTRAORDINARY. It is a minority view point [both in view of the fake quote, and the implications of the Durrani army]. As per WP:EXTRAORDINARY "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Same for @Normstahlie:, but you believed that since Sardesai was a "mainstream source" - that this is excusable, which it isn't per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Noorullah (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point I think the source itself is being mischaracterized and downplayed alot (essentially an ad hominem). I really have no idea how WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies in this situation again since the mentioned quote is not contradicted by other WP:RS on maratha history, and if it is WP:EXTRAORDINARY it cannot be WP:UNDUE. I will also say this Sardesai's claims are corroborated by Shejwalkar, both of which are considered reliable scholars on maratha history. Eitherways, as I said dispute resolution seems like an appropriate choice, we can also have @SamuelRiv also weigh his opinion. Normstahlie (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies because there is no other source (high quality WP:HISTRS) corroborating what Sardesai is saying. If no other source is corroborating what he is saying, it is WP:UNDUE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. You say his claims are corroborated by Shejwalkar, can you cite this with the quote and how Sardesai talks about the Durrani army?

Also another editor (Someguywhosbored) has now weighed in his opinion, so as this discussion expands, dispute resolution is no longer needed as more editors are involving themselves. Noorullah (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

“Being Published during Raj Era does not automatically make it "WP:RAJ" there could potentially be an influence in the source, which is not seen throughout the writings of either Sarkar or Sardesai. There is an heavy emphasis of caste based history which again isn't relevant in their writings.”

im pretty sure RegentsPark comment has already clarified all of this. Majority of sources published within the raj era are considered RAJ. And this includes sources that focus on topics outside of caste(see historians I mentioned in my previous comment). As a general rule, if it’s a raj era source, it’s usually considered unreliable.

“In short, I would suggest discounting most Raj era texts regardless of who wrote them and be careful about using obscure or popular texts post-Raj. Sticking to modern academic writers is probably the safest. Context, to quote TB below, matters”

Per RegentPark, you should be looking for a more recent source and stick to modern academic writers. If this is the only source that makes this claim, then yeah it would be WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems there's a clear consensus/opinion here from three editors. (me, regent, and someguywhoisbored)

@Normstahlie The source is from the WP:RAJ era, and it is already discouraged from being used. What doesn't help is that there isn't any other WP:RS/WP:HISTRS that corroborates the quote or the state of the Durrani army, which as aforementioned, makes it WP:EXTRAORDINARY.

I think this issue is settled. Noorullah (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, Regent is not even involved in the matter yet. You are dismissing the source solely on the basis of your and someguywhosbored's opinion, which is being disputed by me and samuelriv's opinion. Also I would like @Someguywhosbored to link the debate so I can read the context by my own.

Here is Shejwalkar's Panipat [22]

refer page 99

"He tried to conciliate Peshwa by sending condolence messages couched in an apologetic tone, and also by opening negotiations for a political settlement"

refer page 100

Shejwalkar call's the battle to be financially disastrous for the afghans. Normstahlie (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Regents park made his stance clear...

"To my knowledge, Raj era sources are generally considered to be unreliable and/or outdated"

The source is being dismissed because its WP:RAJ era, and its WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Shejwalkar is another RAJ era source, so again that is not reliable. Furthermore this does not corrborate what Sardesai is saying. He does not corroborate the quote, or the state of the Durrani army. So not only is this addition from another source irrelevant because its RAJ era, it does not even apply to the same discussion of what Sardesai tried to imply.

Samuel has also not given his opinion.

I'm sorry but this discussion should just end here, anything beyond this is purely WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Three different editors (Me, Someguy, and Regent) have all made their case and disagreed with you, that's the end of it. Consensus has been made and we collectively came to the same conclusion. -- That Sardesai is WP:RAJ era, and in this case, also applies to WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Noorullah (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I would wait for @RegentsPark. We do not have any modern authoritative text for the battle of Panipat. Dismissing the source solely on it being from RAJ era without any evidence of it being relevant to WP:RAJ, I would like for regent to atleast clarify his pov since it seem he had made a generalizing statement which has room for speculations, especially when Sardesai and Shejwalkar are considered to have some of the finest scholarships on Marathi history.

The Shejwalkar source does clearly seem to imply what Sardesai did, he literally calls the battle a pyrrhic victory for the afghans being financially disastrous to them and mentions of a letter being exchanged between Nanasaheb and Ahmad Shah couched in an apologetic tone.

Also you seem to conveniently switch consensus when it was unanimously agreed upon that WP:RAJ does not apply to this source. It is clearly said that WP:RAJ disqualifies caste histories which isn't even relevant to either of the sources quoted by me, it seems like you are creating strawman arguments. Normstahlie (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure we can wait on him if he’s willing to share his opinion. It would be good to get some clarification in case I’m wrong.

Didn’t realize that I forgot to post the discussion which is why you might be misunderstanding this. [23]

“It is clearly said that WP:RAJ disqualifies caste histories which isn't even relevant to either of the sources quoted by me, it seems like you are creating strawman arguments”

Pretty sure the question was asking whether all text during the raj era is considered WP:RAJ. This includes historians who were mainly military historiographers like Sarkar(although sometimes he’s an exception to the rule).

“ WP:RAJ applies mainly to the many British administrators who wrote "histories" and "caste biographies" based on their own personal experiences rather than using standard methods of historiography. “

He clearly included both “histories” and “caste biographies”. Which means both are typically considered outdated. It’s not just about caste, which is what I was trying to clarify.

I agree with noorullah for the most part. I think you should look for more modern sources as I’ve previously mentioned. Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

We can wait for the clarification, something important to note here is that most good scholarships on the mentioned topic were written during the RAJ era. Modern sources on the topic refer to scholarships written during RAJ era, i.e J.N Sarkar or T.S Shejwalkar among many others which are contemporary scholarships.

Discrediting RAJ sources should be done adhering to WP:RAJ which emphasizes on the removal of authors who wrote histories and caste histories on personal experiences but acknowledges that solid scholarship exists. Dr J.N Sarkar and modern Historiographers i.e Siba Pada Sen both recommend Dr G.S Sardesai, I still don't understand how either of the sources mentioned are WP:RAJ.

For clarification this is the definition of WP:RAJ per article.

"The quality of sources on the Indian caste system varies widely, and while there is some solid contemporary scholarship on the system and individual communities, the more accessible sources often date back to the Raj Era, or are pseudo-histories written and published by members of the various caste communites. And even some recent sources rely heavily on the Raj-era surveys and inherit the problems."

Neither of this in my opinion applies to either of the sources in question. Normstahlie (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• (Responding only because I've been pinged/referred to multiple times here). I don't really have much more to say than the quote above (the context matters one) except that I would be very wary of including content that is cited to a single source from a long time ago (pre or post Raj). It is always better to cite modern historians because our interpretation and understanding of historical events is not static. For these reasons, I would advise against using Jadunath Sarkar as a source and suggest that using Sardesai as the only source for a piece of content is a terrible idea. RegentsPark (comment) 23:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, but this letter was referred by T.S Trayambak as well (previously mentioned) cited from the Peshwa Daftar. I would only also like to ask why we can't add these for a valuable input considering WP:RAJ per definition does not apply to them.

  I don't think WP:AGEMATTERS applies here in all force as well. I don't see alot of modern scholarships on panipat contradicting either Sardesai or Tryamabak. Sardesai did actually reference this letter in his books both written pre and post RAJ era. Normstahlie (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)