Talk:Maratha clan system

message: The vandalism in Maratha related articles are at its peak. I have recklesly fighting against it witout any help. I can't fight against all world alone. But certainly have created an example. I have realise that it's now time to fight against vandalism. I got banned. But i will certainy post good , basic, fundamentl information. Thanks who help, admire me.Excuse, for those i insulted in the war. No personal bad feelings. No enimy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.141.252 (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am retire-- Vishal Prakash Dudhane-- Vishal1976 

message: The information in the Para -
Nimbalkar
This is an very ancient family from Maharashtra.The original surname was pavar. They shifted to Phaltan at year of 1270.This family is mainly located at Phaltan now.The award Naik was given by King of Bijapur in Mid of 17th Century(Before birth of Shivaji Maharaj). They had their separate princely state from 1270 to 1950.Chatrapati Shivaji maharaj was married with Maharani. Sai Bai Naik Nimbalkar. This family is landlord in District Satara. This family is highly influential in the politics of Maharashtra. Late. Shreemant Malojiraje Naik nimbalkar was an First Water Resource Cabinet minister in Maharashtra Government. Now a days Shreemant. Ramraje Pratapsinha Naik nimbalkar is an Cabinet Minister for Water Resource(Krishna Vally Development Corporation) in Maharashtra Government. Nimbalkar family mainly comes under "PanchKul" which is having higher preference than 96k.
- 
There is no historical proof for "The award Naik was given by King of Bijapur in Mid of 17th Century(Before birth of Shivaji Maharaj)" The Naik is Title Given by the very old System before muslim rule in India. This title is historical i.e. in the period of Satwahnas, the leaders of the regions are named by this title. This system was populer in Samrat Ashokas period. You can observe that the Naik is surname which is common in Orisa and South India.
The Title 'Raje' was from Bijapur ruler and has no better meaning than 'Naik'.
"This family is mainly located at Phaltan now"
This is perfect wrong statement - The Main family resides in Phaltan - Branches are spread over Indian region. When 300,000/- Hone revenue region is commanded by the family before "Raja Maharaj Shiv Chatrpati's" period so the area was from south of the Aurangabad to the Umarga and from Konkan to the Hingoli  - no one can claim that there are no other Nimbalkars.
Sultanji Naik Nimbalkar - SarSenapati of Shahu I - Joined Nijam, played politics and secured all Nimbalkar's and Many others families Jagirs and helped Sahu's prime minister - Peshwas in number of ways to spread in north, South as wel as in east. In East - Nagpur region there are Nimbalkars settled in the period of Raghuji Bhosale and were instrumental in Maratha Empire.
Panchkul refers to 
1.Parmar - Powar/Nimbalkars and Clan members
2.Parihar - Sisodiya - Bhosale/Ghorpade and Clan members
3.Chauhan - Chavan and Clan members
4.Rathod - Ghatge and clan members
5.Salanki - Solanke/salunkhe - Chalukya and clan members
This numbering is not strict so no one is superior to each other in fact I mean to say that ther should not be any grading in 96 clans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jai04082000 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NIMBALKAR

message: What is happening to the histroy section of this article-- Vishal1976  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.253.85 (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is happening to the histroy section of this article-- Vishal1976 

message: Link:- http://www.wikirage.com/wiki/Maratha_clan_system/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.252.122 (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hot news-- Vishal1976 

message: This list is a total wrong and for finding a Maratha Name you must study all his relatives.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.57.2 (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This List is do not have any authentication...... 

message: ......  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.37.47 (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  can anybody tell me surname ''chinchole'' comes under which kul of 96 k maratha 

message: Sumitra - He was the last king of Ayodhya from solar dynasty. In the fourth century BC, emperor Mahapadma Nanda of the Nanda Dynasty forced Sumitra to leave Ayodhya. He went to Rohtas with his sons. His son Kurma established his rule over Rohtas. 
Rohtas or Rohtes 0r Rashtrakuta, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suryavanshi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.180.198 (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAJPUT  "ROHTAS OR ROHTES OR RASHTRAKUTA" 

message: It seems then most probable that, as already stated, the Marātha caste was of purely military origin, constituted from the various castes of Mahārāshtra who adopted military service, though some of the leading families may have had Rājpūts for their ancestors. Sir D. Ibbetson thought that a similar relation existed in past times between the Rājpūts and Jāts, the landed aristocracy of the Jāt caste being gradually admitted to Rājpūt rank. The Khandaits or swordsmen of Orissa are a caste formed in the same manner from military service. In the Imperial Gazetteer Sir H. Risley suggests that the Marātha people were of Scythian origin:
“The physical type of the people of this region accords fairly well with this theory, while the arguments derived from language and religion do not seem to conflict with it.... On this view the wide-ranging forays of the Marāthas, their guerilla methods of warfare, their unscrupulous dealings with friend and foe, their genius for intrigue and their consequent failure to build up an enduring dominion, might well be regarded as inherited from their Scythian ancestors.”
reference:-http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20668/20668-h/20668-h.htm#d0e6680 2.http://books.google.com/books?id=QA2OKK0-bdcC&pg=PR20&lpg=PR20&dq=maratha+Scythian&source=bl&ots=jKH-qxg8cn&sig=Tsr6plVddbMDn2X8guS7Z8vMAJw&hl=en&ei=i6PwSZuHGI_y6gPEwpi2Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 3.http://books.google.com/books?id=76c1VSYnPE0C&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=maratha+Scythian&source=bl&ots=vh0T1YB4WJ&sig=BV26hSvCx1MqsbwHI-jhdSW3cgc&hl=en&ei=i6PwSZuHGI_y6gPEwpi2Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4 4.http://books.google.com/books?id=oVkANw-rsksC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=maratha+Scythian&source=bl&ots=7jQB526Gj5&sig=i_b2ksJMilXkGc0jVODRj-NpyRs&hl=en&ei=i6PwSZuHGI_y6gPEwpi2Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7
5.http://books.google.com/books?id=76c1VSYnPE0C&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=Imperial+Gazetteer+Sir+H.+Risley&source=bl&ots=vh0T1YC2PE&sig=KxUrRFOidsGarMhrbpzoz9NU1qo&hl=en&ei=YKbwSdyZApD26gOX2fS1Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9
Imperial Gazetteer Sir H. Risley suggests that the Marātha people were of Scythian origin
sonu 08:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marātha people were of Scythian origin: 

message: I got bored and plunked this into MSWord.  Using Find/Replace I turned every Devak into Devak, removed every  bolding mark except the title of the article, etc.  Just took a few minutes and really cleaned it up.  This article is still, however, a bleeding train-wreck of unreferenced claims, biased edits, and unstandardised layout.  There seem to be a lot of people interested in this article;  why does nobody else help with keeping it cleaned up? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting:  removed 4kB just in unnecessary bolding and wikifying. 

message: See this discussion at WT:INB, where the issue of the POV and factual accuracy of this and related articles is being discussed. Abecedare (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the edits of the past few months, it appears that the list of clans, surnames, etc., is entirely original research (WP:OR) edited willy-nilly by any IP or new account that comes along. Change the name of a clan, change it back and forth, add new surnames, add a new clan,, all without any references. There are now 95 clans (should we change the title?), and reliable sources say that there are actually many more than that when you add up the lists from various sources. It's like the section has become some sort of clan/surname registry for anyone to add their name if they think it should be there. The entire section should arguably be deleted until there is a "reliable source" that confirms "all" the details in the section. Priyanath talk 02:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking to suggest the same recently, and glad to see you're on the same page.  The page is nothing but people adding and deleting names based on their preferences, adding dubious (and apparently contested) details about cultural/historical details, etc.  I likewise support leaving whatever documentable facts exist about the "96K" and deleting the honeypot that the actual list has become. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A straightforward list of just the clan names would be helpful, but I haven't been able to find a reliable source online. Does anyone have even that? Priyanath talk 03:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gracious, but this article was a honeypot.  Note how the dozens of weekly edits (largely IPs) have dropped to almost nothing since the ever-changing lists were removed.  I still need to go dig around and find a semi-authoritative EL with a suggested list, though it'll probably be some old 1890s British piece of dubious accuracy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The listing was ridiculous.  It was constantly being changed by IP editors, with names being removed and added willy-nilly, the list fluctuating from 94 to 101 clans (supposedly 96, yes?), people constantly changing the claimed guru, devak, etc. of each clan with no explanation.  How on earth was that "accurate"?  Not to mention all the twits putting in stuff like "BHOITE CLAN IS GREATLY RESPECTED MAHRATA CLAN AND IS FOUND IN GREAT NUNMBER IN MANCHESTER UK."  How exactly does that help Wikipedia?  Editors put their heads together, agreed that the list was going nowhere, and trimmed it down to a much shorter and more readable article based on actual published sources.  MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

text: The concern is that if we put another list of names/gurus/details up again, it'll rapidly degenerate into the same utter mess the article did previously, with dozens of IPs coming in every week to muck with the list.  If there is a good online book or reputable article giving some credible version of "the list", by all means let's post a link to it.  But simply adding an easily-modified list of names, no version of which is likely to be acceptable to everyone, is to yet again turn this article into a disaster.  There are evidently numerous opinions as to "the list", and presumably the book you have on hand is just yet another interpretation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the list has apparently held up, what does everyone think about turning it into a multi-columned, bullet-style list?  I feel like it would help out the reader when looking at it. Cleanelephant (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The list most certainly did not "hold up". In a matter of weeks, 2 clans were removed and 7 added, and basically none of them giving any justification whatsoever. How is that authoritative or credible? So long as there is a list, we will have IPs coming to tamper with it. There are a few workarounds for this, like putting the list in a edit-protected sub-template that can be displayed here but not edited by most contributors, but even then the problem is "which list"? The sources readily indicate that nobody really agrees on a list, so even if we put up a frozen list, we'd still have to caveat it "List of 96k per the 1897 Maharashtra Provincial Census" or whatnot, and then we'd be dealing with constant complaints that the 1897 is wrong and horrible (because it doesn't count my clan) and that we should use Dr. So-and-So's list instead (which happens to contain my clan). There's just no reasonable way to do it, other than use the External Links section to provide folks links to some representative lists from Reliable Sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and factual accuracy 

message: Regarding articles of maratha history,there are lots of debacles from time to time and by evidences too.lets know that for wikipidian standard committee complete list is available on Book ' Marathas and deccani musalman ' and for others like Maratha People we have several books stating our ancestory with confused writing.
Wikipidian Committee is also right and Maratha Peoples are also Right about this Article named Maratha Clan System.
Now,i have a book in Marathi language,in which all the surnames of Maratha Community are compiled and i want to post that data on wikipidia.which contains 96  clans of Marathas Accurate Name.
Some peoples are doing wrong work by Posting that Holkars are Maratha By Cast.Thats Not true because they are from Dhangar Cast.IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT  HOLKARS ARE ORIGINALLY FROM VILLAGE HOL IN MAHARASHTRA.I PERSONALLY VISITED THIS PLACE SEVERAL TIME.
About maratha surname there is "clan scattering concept" that concept made maratha clans surnames listing difficult due to its presence.e.g. Pawar(Parmar) is original clan and some members in the past from this clan deed several things like bravery or migrations etc. which made clans like Dalvi,Nimbalkar.But some sources have shown separately nimbalkar and dalvi as clan.
Another e.g. about Bhosale - some sources in Marathi Showed that Bhosale Clan is Sub branch of Sisode Maratha clan.Also they states Ghorpade as a Sub branch of Bhosales.
Like this several problems get created by past Marathi Historians.The reason behind marathas clan history articles deletion is made by this clan scattering concept.
Regarding Change in devak,guru,and other info. - It is welknown that Marathas Have been migrated due to various reasons from history time.It made impact on their rituals.e.g.Some clans have done crimes or anything wrong  in politics,so they have turned their rituals into other clans ritual without changing their original  name or doing so.(Starrahul (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The concern is that if we put another list of names/gurus/details up again, it'll rapidly degenerate into the same utter mess the article did previously, with dozens of IPs coming in every week to muck with the list.  If there is a good online book or reputable article giving some credible version of "the list", by all means let's post a link to it.  But simply adding an easily-modified list of names, no version of which is likely to be acceptable to everyone, is to yet again turn this article into a disaster.  There are evidently numerous opinions as to "the list", and presumably the book you have on hand is just yet another interpretation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the list has apparently held up, what does everyone think about turning it into a multi-columned, bullet-style list?  I feel like it would help out the reader when looking at it. Cleanelephant (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The list most certainly did not "hold up". In a matter of weeks, 2 clans were removed and 7 added, and basically none of them giving any justification whatsoever. How is that authoritative or credible? So long as there is a list, we will have IPs coming to tamper with it. There are a few workarounds for this, like putting the list in a edit-protected sub-template that can be displayed here but not edited by most contributors, but even then the problem is "which list"? The sources readily indicate that nobody really agrees on a list, so even if we put up a frozen list, we'd still have to caveat it "List of 96k per the 1897 Maharashtra Provincial Census" or whatnot, and then we'd be dealing with constant complaints that the 1897 is wrong and horrible (because it doesn't count my clan) and that we should use Dr. So-and-So's list instead (which happens to contain my clan). There's just no reasonable way to do it, other than use the External Links section to provide folks links to some representative lists from Reliable Sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  REasons 

message: Despite the HTML comment at the top of the article, it is back to 45 kilobytes. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to 45 kilobytes 

message: An anon has just tried again to insert what they believe to be the definitive list of kuls. It wasn't in English, which was enough in itself to revert, but the article also makes it clear that there are numerous variants of these lists. We long ago decided not to bother - please do not start it up again without first gaining consensus to do so. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of kuls 

message: As per the details on this article, it become necessary to shed some light on those five primary maratha clans which later divided into 9) subclans. The Real Rana (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the list of five primary maratha clans? 

message: someone is taking advantage of this open forum and vandalizing the list of historical clans which is not fair . please respect each other 
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.59.53.20 (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of clans was removed because nobody was providing anything remotely resembling proper sourcing for the listing, and it would turn into endless fighting as people insisted on adding their clan, removing another clan, etc. Fundamentally, according to what the article says, there is no such thing as a universally agreed-on list of Maratha clans. If it cannot be proven that a given list is right, then we can't have it on Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deliberate attempt to sabotage this site

message: Do not add unsourced content and do not keep edit warring like you did 1, 2, 3 and 4. Discuss your issues here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2019 

message: I have added details of 96 clans. All data is authentic. 
You should welcome good inputs as it facilitates your purpose.
If not then it means  you want text to be published at your will or the way you want to publish. In that case create your own page
This page is to facilitate self growing content.  (read  Wikipedia t&m). Do not discourage the contributors to put data. 
If you feel there is any wrong input let me know. I can assure you that none of the information is unsourced through proper channel. Also check the references.
If you have problem with authenticity of information I confirm the data is accurate and useful
Content is useful for every surname of 96 clans.  Go through the text you will find useful. 
To reduce the text I have included 7 top clans now
All data is verified and authenticated. I have added references below Correction With Evidence (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced additions. On top of it the writing was poor, essay-like and blocky. That is all around un-encyclopedic. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a Directory. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content added to clans 

message: the gentleman who is editor of this site dont know much about clans , pity  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.35 (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  do know anything about maratha clans

message: Regarding this removal. This source says something like "". Perhaps it the sentence can be reworded to "Thus, these clans have no ritual foundation." as you have put in the edit summary? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Agree and will make the change.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  I think you put the citation needed tag inside the quote in the citation. Please can you review the edit? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear  Yes, indeed. It would be great you could expand on the term kshatritization.I can find sources on sankritization but not on kshatriyatization. I am sure you will agree with me that in the last century and half Sanskritization has in practice meant kshatitization in most instances. Having said that, until you started using that term on wikipedia, I had never come across the term anywhere else.So please supply a reliable source where it has been used  and remove the tag.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear ,  I agree with you. 'Kshatriyaisation' is used but not on wikipedia. On this article page it is used by this reference. Thanks. LukeEmily (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shall I add the above sentence → "Thus, these clans have no ritual foundation."? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Please go ahead.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Hey , , 'ritual foundation' phrase is a bit confusing. LukeEmily (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

text:  Dear , Per Hindu mythology, there should by no kshatriyas in present times because Parshuram got rid of them. Hence "no ritual foundation". But as we discussed on your page, numerous people and groups have fought to be called Kshatriya and so there is a rich history on the topic and therefore "historical foundation" is not the correct phrase. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know if you are familiar with Gramanyas. As per puranas, Kshatriyas *do* exist in Kali Yuga but the caste had to be mentioned in the Purana to validate that claim. The "no Kshatriyas and no Vaishyas in Kaliyuga" is a theory from Harivamsha or Vishnu Puran that was used to attempt to put an end to Vedokta of some castes in Maharashtra that is why some sources quote it. But was contradicted by other Puranas in specific cases i.e. some Kshatiyas escaped and destroying Kshatriya means destroying the kingdom not literally killing them all. Hence there are non-Brahmin ritually upper castes in Maharashtra. Skanda Puran for example is the Puran was used heavily in the Gramanyas that does state that Kshatriyas exist in the Kali Yuga. From the Rajput page CHitpawan and Maratha page, I saw a citation added by editors that discussed the ritually upper castes of Maharashtra. They are only Brahmins, CKP and  Saraswats. Based on study of caste debates in the 18th -19th century, this is accurate as all these castes find mention in Puranas. Hence there is no need for Sanskritization or inventing genealogies by Brahmins for these castes.   LukeEmily (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2020