Talk:Sack of Delhi (1757)

September 2024

IP, stop edit warring. Please read the article, particularly the sections following upto the sack of Delhi and the Aftermath section. This is not a battle, this was a sack. Neither militaries (Mughal or Maratha) were involved. However, the Marathas were very much 'involved' in the conflict itself, as mentioned in the sections. PadFoot (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Which part of the article mentions it foot? 2405:201:A404:213B:681E:2FBE:3E3F:7ECF (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

please discuss any changes. Edit warring will get you nowhere. SKAG123 (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources of Maratha involvement

Are there any sources that state the Maratha Confederacy was directly involved? If anything that Mughals may have had minor Maratha support. If this is not directly stated it is likely original research SKAG123 (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes..read the invasion section/background, the Afghans invaded the Mughal Empire and fought there with the Marathas as they advanced on Delhi, such as Narela. Noorullah (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I changed the Marathas to support in the infobox as that’s what the sources state. I could not find any evidence that the Marathas were subordinate to the Mughals. SKAG123 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@SKAG123 The Marathas were not "subordinate" to the Mughals, but the Marathas assisted the Mughals at this time because the Mughals were their vassal. (iirc), but yes, the supported by works as well. Noorullah (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sack of Delhi (1757)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Noorullah21 (talk · contribs) 19:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 10:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review; comments to follow shortly. On a first glance, significant work needs to be done on the prose, but I'm glad to not find any of the close paraphrasing issues previously found in your work so far. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General comments

• Only the last sentence of the second lead paragraph is cited in the body.
• Rohilkhand and Bengal are listed as belligerents in the infobox, but don't seem to have played much role in the campaign.
• Why is the infobox image a portrait of Ahmad Shah? The MOS:LEADIMAGE should be representative of the article. If there is no image that depicts the military campaign, there is no need for an infobox image.
• Why is so much detail on the background necessary? The events, most of which take place at least five years prior to the sack, should probably be covered in two/three paragraphs.
• Why is the size of Ahmad Shah's army not mentioned in the prose?
• Please take a look at the prose throughout the article—it is distinctly substandard. One very quick look reveals numerous errors, such as:
  • "Part of Indian Campaign of Ahmad Shah Durrani"
  • "Beginning decline since the death of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb"
  • "estimates ranging from 30 to 120 million rupees, and even as high as 300 million rupees worth of goods"
  • "the Bengal Subah was overtaken by the British"
  • "Further invited"
  • "Ahmad Shah accepted the invitations began his fourth invasion"
  • "seizing the city with effectively token resistance"
  • Irregular uses of "unto", excessive use of "Ahmad Shah" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 Hi, thanks for reviewing. I've tried cleaning up many of these issues.

  Some things I'd like to address is that Rohilkhand is involved per Najib ad-Dawlah, which I've clarified more in the article. While Bengal had troops deployed, though this is touched on in the aftermath section.

  For what you might think is excessive detail on the background, I think the subject of the matter is significant because it's relevant to provide information on all the previous invasions and what led to it to provide the full context [and buildup], I've tried cutting down on it.

  I've also tried cutting down on the usage of Ahmad Shah throughout the article and fixed prose issues. Noorullah (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  What context for the 1757 campaign do the numerous sentences about manoeuvring around Lahore give? I am confident that the article will lose nothing from the third and fourth paragraphs being combined and sharply condensed. Najib ad-Dawlah appears to have been acting on his own intiative, not as a representation of Rohilkhand. That the Marathas supported the Mughals is also not cited; all the body says is that they engaged in battle with Ahmad Shah. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 Najib ad-Dawlah was the independent chief of Najibabad, he defected from the Mughal to the Afghan side, and after the conflict, he was left as regent/ruler in Delhi for the Mughals.

  That supported by Marathas part was not added by me, I'm removing that, but they were directly involved in the conflict [as seen at Narela], the Mughal Emperor at the time was a vassal/puppet of theirs. (iirc)

  I'll also work on cutting down the paragraphs from lesser needed details such as that. Noorullah (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 I've condensed the paragraph(s) quite a bit now, let me know what you think of it. Noorullah (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  So if ad-Dawlah was independent, how was Rohilkhand as a larger entity involved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 I see the point you're making, what should I change in reference then? Should I change "Rohilkhand" --> "Najibabad" (The area he governed), or remove it entirely, I might remove it entirely for now. Noorullah (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Prose

• "urgently requested aid from Delhi" who at Delhi did he request aid from?
• "Moin-ul-Mulk forwarded the demands to the Mughal Emperor Ahmad Shah Bahadur. Instead of receiving reinforcements, Alamgir authorized ..." who is Alamgir, why does he have anything to do with Ahamd Shah Bahadur and Moin-ul-Mul, and why would he be receiving reinforcements?
• "The second invasion's relative ease bolstered Ahmad Shah's ambitions in future invasions." bit wordy
• The division of the "invitations" of Mughlani Begum, Najib ud-Daula, and Alamgir II is unnecessary.
• You need to explain why the Mughal emperor would invite a foreign ruler to help against his vizier.
• "The Marathas assembled a contingent" who and why?
• A contingent of 3,400 men battling a force many times larger and suffering only 100 losses seems extremely unlikely.
• "and the Jama Masjid in Delhi saw Ahmad Shah's name read in the Khutbah. The Afghan forces continued advancing on Delhi, arriving before the city on 28 January" what does the first sentence mean? If it was a mark of respect, why do it before the Afghan forces arrived?
• "Threatening that he would sack the city, Ahmad Shah pressed his demands" what were the demands?
• "where he led" you've got two male leaders, who's "he"?
• "much of the inhabitants" --> many
• Again, what does "Ahmad Shah's name was also inserted in the Khutbah for other mosques" mean?
• Who're Feroz Shah Kotla and Timur Shah Durrani?
• " It was also demanded that extensive amounts of tribute were to be given from the Mughal nobility" why so much use of the passive voice?
• "Upon being refused, Ahmad Shah sent his own tax collectors, extracting further tribute, with individuals suspected of hiding valuables being subject to torture such as foot whipping, with many thousands dying under the torture or being crippled, and several others committing suicide." adding five run-on participle phrases to a sentence does not make it clearer.
• "Over 100 wives of Intizam-ud-Daulah were also seized, with Intizam ud-Daulah also being summoned to Ahmad Shah and demanded to summon over 10 million rupees." again, passive voice and unneccessary add-on phrases.
• "which she did after fainting and regaining consciousness" is this encyclopedic detail?
• "were forced to be sent against the Afghans" reads extremely clumsily. Don't use the passive voice unless you have to!
• "Its been estimated from contemporary writers that the Afghans seized 30 to 120 million rupees, and even as high as 300 million rupees" ... so 30 to 300 million rupees?
• You need to cut down on your comma usage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Fixed most of these issues, the only suffering 100 losses was because it was quite a light skirmish I believe. The Khutbah thing was typically honouring the rulers sovereignty/suzerainty, I added a link to this in one of the khutbah statements, which goes to a section on how rulers would do that.

Trying to also cut down om comma usage. Noorullah (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)