Talk:Battle of Koregaon

Comment by 124.123.57.85

I add here: Even in this Maratha-Anglo (East India Company) war of Koregaon, it is reliably learnt that the Mahars first offered to fight for the Peshwa but the Peshwa proudly refused to take their support and thereafter only Mahars joined hands with the East India Company forces. Of course this is subject to corrections if factually wrong. - I. Mallikarjuna Sharma, Advocate, Editor, LAW ANIMATED WORLD. Comment left by 124.123.57.85 (talk · contribs) on the article page.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2018

More research needed on specific paragraph of "Significance to Mahars" This specific statement "The Peshwas, who were high-caste Brahmins, were notorious for their mistreatment and persecution of the untouchables.[23]" has no concrete basis and it is very stereotypical. Considering the recent clashes in Pune this statement will become source of further insinuation. I request proper citation is needed instead biased view. Change/remove it ASAP please. Paragy (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: The sentence in question is taken directly from a [[WP:RS|reliable source] ] and therefore complies with the core content policies including the neutral point-of-view policy. That is may make some uncomfortable or that it might possibly inspire "further insinuation" is not a valid reason for removal. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2018

An attempt is being made to separate the Peshwas and Marathas, as the word "Maratha" is being edited to "Peshwa". A Peshwa was none other than the Prime minister of the Maratha Empire. I request you to consider redo of the edits where the word "Maratha" is replaced by the word "Peshwa", as "Peshwa" was not an empire, but "Maratha" was. The battle was fought between British East India Company and the Maratha empire, which was ruled by Peshwas after Shivaji. The battle of Bhima koregaon was part of the third Anglo-Maratha war ref: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/the-legend-of-the-1818-battle-of-bhima-koregaon/article22352514.ece The government documents at that time also use the word "Maratha" rather than "Peshwa". ref: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=dboMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA244&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Panmeavi (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Significance to Mahars

I believe this section should be moved to new page (maybe Koregaon Ranstambh?) where the significance of the monument and current events can be described in more detail. Kevink707 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The East India Company was dominated by the Mahars. http://indianexpress.com/article/research/battle-of-koregaon-dalits-mahar-maratha-peshwa-maharashtra-protests-5010172/Save2nyt (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The East India Company decisively won the battle and the Peshwa flew away at night fearing reinforcements on the British side, ending the oppressive Peshwa rule. This is an authentic government source for this information. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/8105/13/13_chapter%205.pdfSave2nyt (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Will be looking at what the majority of the sources state.Winged Blades^Godric 10:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The article already mentions that the Peshwa retreated, and that the Mahars dominate the list of slain Company soldiers mentioned on the obelisk. The claim about Mahars forming the majority of the Company force needs a better source, preferably something that meets the WP:HISTRS criteria. As far as I know, the contemporary records do not provide any information about the caste-wise composition of the Company army. The Indian Express article isn't written by a historian, and the author doesn't cite any source for that claim. The Shodhganga link is not an "authentic government source" -- it is a chapter from a sociology thesis (Empowerment of rural scheduled caste women: a study of Krishna district, Andhra Pradesh) submitted to the Acharya Nagarjuna University. utcursch | talk 21:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There in footnotes ... it says mahas were also in maratha army and rainak saved patwardhan..... While this is half truth. ... When Brahmins became Peshawas real ruler they stopped recruiting mahars

Dalit movements in India and it's leaders Page 33 2017angryindian (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Patwardhan was saved by Shidnak in a battle towards the end of Peshwa rule!Jonathansammy (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

user:Chrisvls Hi, this is regarding your recent revert . Though the newspaper sources are considered authentic. The opinion provided by Anand Teltumbade is somewhat pessimistic. There are whole bunch of other activicts who have optimistic opinions about the significance of Battle to Mahars. So,My question is why keep negative opinion else have both negative and positive opinions and let reader decide which one is correct. Prem Mathurr (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Prem Mathurr (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Prem Mathurr. Wikipedia doesn't have a position about whether to include things based on optimism or pessimism. What would be inserting our own opinion and we are not experts. What we do instead is look at the reliable sources and write articles that reflect, on balance, what those sources say. So if this newspaper is not a reliable source, that is a good reason to exclude it. But that doesn't seem to be the case. If this opinion is somehow obscure or really rare, you could argue that the article is giving it too much weight. But the current treatment is not that long. Certainly having other views in the article is fine, if they are supported by sources, though I think the other view is already represented in the article. So, please make your argument here for interested editors to discuss. Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

user:Chrisvls I don't understand why caste activicts opinion is added in Wikipedia. This opinion is also rare I can give you round table discussion links where other renowned activists successfully countered Teltumbade's opinion. Teltumbade is also famous for making derogatory comments against Mahar.He once said British recruited Mahar because they were cheaply available . But, if you look at the payment received by other caste and Mahar for military duty was same.These activists tend to propagate their own agendas .

Also In many cases I faced the situation where opinions of Mahatma Fule, Ambedkar were not added calling them as activist, social reformer. I believe the opinion of Anand Teltumbade must also be removed. Prem Mathurr (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I do see similar perspectives that the memory of this battle is used by today's actors to forward agendas -- and that these memories may not precisely align with how the battle occurred or was viewed at the time. See[1] and [2]. I think that the article would be better to say that several commentators have made this point, because that's what we see in the reliable sources. It's certainly common that historical events have ongoing discussions and different perspectives about how to interpret them. As for your comment, "I don't understand why caste activicts opinion is added in Wikipedia," the question is not what kind of activist is he. The questions are, is this a significant perspective/discussion of this event, notable enough (in reliable sources) for inclusion -- and are the cited sources appropriate? I would say that with these three sources the answer is probably yes. Chris vLS (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

user:Chrisvls Ok I agree with you. It would be better if we add other activicts opinions too. Prem Mathurr (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete content rather incorrect

What is the base of the content, where did you got this story 103.179.2.59 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)