Talk:Maratha (caste)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Protected edit request on 12 May 2020

Please change the caste names to "yeoman castes". It is accurate and summarizes all these castes. 22:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. This appears to be the item at issue and the reason why the page was full protected. Please discuss with the other editors involved to create consensus. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have opened up a Section deflating this malevolent edit by solid arguements, based off both, the matter in the source which has been falsely interpreted, as well as the validity of the source which is discredited by many of Wikipedia's guidelines. Please refer to the same and revert the current edit to the last standing edit as put forward materialscientist.115.96.103.214 (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism of the Page by original research and destroying good sources

Recently there has grave vandalism of this page here, on the basis of source, that itself claims to be a *A THEORY* modelled after the manner of development of Rajput identity by a Stewart Gordon in a theory that absolutely holds no water, no consensus and not even a passing reference in the works of scholars after him, either in the field of sociology, history or socio-economic studies.

Here is the page cited from the book (A 1993 Publication which is enough to discard it on basis of this Wikipedia guideline [[1]]):-

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=iHK-BhVXOU4C&pg=PA15&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

We can see that the user engages in malicious unsourced Edits throughout his history, at least with this IP Address, that is:-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/61.0.180.159

He reverts sources of other user, claiming support of "multiple" sources, when in fact it is just *ONE* source that has outlived it's validity engaging in flimsy theories, deliberately churned out to spread misinformation. User Acharya has worked towards extensively showcasing the role of Marathas as "Yeomen" with genuine multiple sources.

We request the experienced Wikipedia editors to correct this vandalism to the last edit by materialscientist ASAP, and nip the misinformation and uproar spreading in the internet second by second due to inaction. 115.96.103.214 (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeoman is athe appropriate word . Please revert changes back to yeoman. Yeoman summarizes all castes correctly.

Due to lack of counter-arguements and counter-interpretition over a already dangerous delay of time where misinformation must have spread without respite, the source of Stewart has now been invalidated on the basis of the arguements placed above and hereby removed and the edits built on this have been restored to consented matter as before.115.96.101.114 (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• 115.96.101.114, I have no idea what you are saying. This verbosity and the grammatical and mechanical infelicities (all over this talk page, it seems) render your writing inscrutable. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The matter would be comprehensible by a parlour understanding of the matter you are dealing with sir. That, and the source utilized by vandal profiles (work of Gordon Stewart) which has been provided above.

In the simplest terms possible:-

The edit claiming Marathas are an amalgamation of various other castes, the one you just restored, is not supported in the source as a fact established in academia.

Even here the source (Gordon Stewart) himself states, that this hypothesis of his, has been modelled after the prevailing understanding behind developmend of another caste community (Rajputs) which is indeed an amalgamation. As a theory itself to present it as the gospel truth is fraudulent and malevolent misinformation especially in the very opening.

Following this, Gordon Stewart's book is a work which is in circulation for more than over 2 decades since publication and has absolutely no consensus in any sociological or historical work researching in the same field. Jeremy Black, a scholar whose opinion is already cited in the page, has implied somewhat similar theory of origin of the Marathas as that of Gordon Stewart, but it is related to more of the designation aspect, and has been appropriately presented on the page.

As such you ought to restore the edits to the state I had corrected them to, which were disrupted not by those contesting it but by a malicious Anti-Maratha sockpuppet who has, according to the very history of edits on this page, utilized over 4 different accounts and IPs to retain his misrepresented matter.

Do respond ASAP or refer another veteran Editor who understands the gravity of this matter aggravated due to your inaction.115.96.101.114 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Quote stewart gordon in supreme court

my friend if stewart gordon and his court 12 friends are saying maratha is nothing but a bundle of OBC caste , nothing else .Then why they are not included in OBC quota of maharashtra and why a court case against maratha reservation , my friend understand Royal maratha clans co exist with farmers that does not mean they have vanished . It was genius of shivaji and shahu raja who were broad minded rulers that many new social groups like maratha farmers , shepherds , chitpavans etc rose into prominence that does not mean royal clan of marathas vanish , anyhow wikipedia is becoming day by day a gang of sycophants , i leave it to your conscious what to present — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.34 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of citations!

Admin LukeEmily has just reverted my edits that were totally appropriate based on multiple Scholarly citations. The sources I had put were from the top Historians and Anthropologists of India!. Wikipedia must be neutral ! It sayd that it is all about neutrality. But what we see is dirty propaganda running here ! KobraPeshwa (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Bhandarkar and Vaidya are 100 years old!! Many of their theories are considered "far-fetched". historyfiles and other external websites are not WP:RS nor scholarly. Please use post independence academic sources for caste pages. See Wikipedia:HISTRS. If a modern source refers to Bhandarkar then it is fine to use. LukeEmily (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please reply. Give a valid reason for the reverts ! The page is about Maratha Caste and not comparison between castes ! KobraPeshwa (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

KobraPeshwa, you are engaging in vandalism. You reverted and removed edits made by other editors. You removed multiple sources. I had not even made those original edits. The maratha caste is a combination of several castes as Gordon and others say. Your sources are pre-independence and not WP:RS. I already gave you valid reasons but you did not listen. LukeEmily (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have added all the content you deleted but kept your raj era content so others can see. LukeEmily (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

KobraPeshwa, please stop. You have been reverted by other editors. You are a maratha caste promoter and we will not allow vandalism. LukeEmily (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted to administrator approved version. LukeEmily (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Come up with sources based on contemporary evidence or stop your vandalism. I don't know what agenda you have ! About me being a maratha caste promoter. Lol😂 I don't even belong to the caste. I just want IC cells such as yourself to stop slandering ethnic communities KobraPeshwa (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

My agenda is to prevent vandalism by caste promoters like yourself. Your edit history shows you are a Maratha. Don't fool us. You are promoting maratha page everywhere. Sitush has reverted you on other pages. Please note that I have checked edit history of this page and admins have approved the lede and scholars will not let you change it.LukeEmily (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

"Widows" section

This is in agreement with the citation provided. The citation mentions that Maratha caste widows did not face the same ritual restrictions as Brahmin caste widows and hence there were fewer Maratha widows in ashrams as compared to Brahmins. The citation has nowhere mentioned explicitly that remarriage of widows was condoned by the Maratha caste

I've moved the comment above from Maratha (caste) § Widows, because it does not belong there. It was added by 117.195.9.223 in its current form here. Please discuss any changes to the text of that section here instead of edit warring.

Thank you for creating the section. Here is the quote: In the process of Brahminisation, other upper castes across the country, tried to imitate the Brahmins and followed similar norms in the matters of marriage, divorce or treatment of widows. In Maharashtra, for instance, the family norms among the Saraswats and CKPs were similar to those of the Brahmins. Marathas although politically powerful and economically well to do, were on the lower rung of the caste echelon. They had different ritual norms which were marginally lenient as compared to the Brahmins. In contrast, the women from the lower castes enjoyed a little more freedom in these matters. Widow remarriage was an accepted practice in many lower castes[Ranade,1991]...For the purpose of analysis, we have grouped these 56 castes into the following basic categories (1) Brahmin, Saraswat, and CKP (2) Maratha, and (3) other castes (page99) Table 8 reveals that women from the upper castes i.e. Brahmin, Saraswat, and CKP together form the largest group(46%) among the women admitted[in the Ashrams]...The data also reveals some significant differences in the marital status of Brahmin, CKP and Saraswat women on one hand and Maratha and other caste women on the other...These statistical differences acquire a special meaning when we look at them in the context of our earlier statement that oppression of widows and the restrictions on married women were far more severe for the women from Brahmin, CKP and Saraswat castes than for women from Maratha and other castes. LukeEmily (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Where does it talk about shaving head etc? This is a good summary "A recent research by a sociologist showed that the oppression and restrictions that the widows and married women faced in ritually upper castes were more than what the Maratha women faced" LukeEmily (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree and have made the necessary changes on the page -177.195.9.223

Ok thank you. made minor change based on source. hope it is ok. no point in blaming only brahmins. It seems other castes are guilty too.LukeEmily (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

References

can someone explain this message?

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:38, 16 October 2020 (Archive failure: ceterach.exceptions.EditError: 'spamblacklist': CeterachError('Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia\'s blacklist. * \'\'\'To save your changes now\'\'\', you must go back and \'\'remove the blocked link\'\' (shown below), and then save. **Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. \'\'\'goo.gl\'\'\', \'\'\'t.co\'\'\', \'\'\'youtu.be\'\'\', \'\...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision [[2]]. What URLs are banned? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't NPOV at all

When a person visits this wiki page they expect to learn about Maratha caste and people within this caste yet its filled with completely irrelevant Prejudiced sections and sometimes outright misinformation even from the citations that are sourced.

There are also sections which are structured like some bigoted hate filled tier 3 blogs. --223.236.109.167 (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You are using phrases like : "hate filled", "bigoted" "irrelevant", "outright misinformation even from the citations that are sourced" to refer to text that is backed by academic sources. Are you implying that western and Indian scholars are bigoted against this caste?LukeEmily (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This conversation just popped up on my Watchlist. It appears that the statement might need to be paraphrased to reflect accurate representation of what the author has expressed and maintain Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Here is the original statement from the page

Brahmins are not to blame for the lack of education of Marathas, as shown by other non-Brahmin communities whose occupations required education, like the Prabhus, Saraswats and Kayasthas. These communities got education despite the barriers imposed by the Brahmins and it has been argued that the need for reservations does not arise if each community tries for its own development.

• “Brahmins are not to be blamed” is in direct conflict with “despite Brahminical restrictions” and obvious statements like “no need for reservation if you picked yourself up” does not have any meaning if there were already restrictions in place for upliftment.
• There could be many reasons why a particular community could not lift themselves up which the author does not elaborate and goes with sweeping generalizations along the lines “Jewish people uplifted themselves, so African-Americans should have done it too despite restrictions by White Americans in the US”.
• I would paraphrase this statement - Despite the restrictions imposed by Brahmins, castes like Prabhus, Saraswats and Kayasthas, whose traditional occupation required education, were able to achieve high literacy. But the same was not true of Marathas.

I would like to hear other editor's opinion on this Heba Aisha, Fylindfotberserk, Мастер Шторм, Kautilya3. Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC).

@Anthony gomes 92: The current version is simply WP:OR. I agree with your proposal. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• The sources seems well and I don't think there is a need of more explanation regarding personal opinions. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• I think that whole paragraph can be safely deleted. The literacy of Marathas was low. That is all that needs to be said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• The view is from the 1920's which makes me nervous including it in the article. Reading the source, there's a bit more nuance in there, pointing that the deprivation was there, but could not be said to be true under British rule. It also noted that the two castes mentioned as getting education did so because of their occupation. The existing text in our article covers that, and then make a sweeping statement that feels like it's tossed aside. It's certainly not the best written para. Ravensfire (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Varna information in lead

Dear User:Karpatear, why did you add Dalit here [3]? Marathas and Dalit are different communities - marathas are not dalit. Secondly, I did a search for "varna lead" all over wikipedia and found these comments by editor Sitush. See Please see User:LukeEmily/consensus. As per consensus, varna is not mentioned in the lead. User:Anthony_gomes_92 , thanks for reverting User:Karpatear's changes. LukeEmily (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Group photograph of a Maratha family (c. 1880).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Series of edits a deletion of sourced info

I dont know what went wrong? But a lot of ip addresses and Shinjoya has deleted some valuable information which was sourced. I am specifically worried about intro part. Here the Stewart Gordon source says the Marathas to be amalgamation of following castes. But I think someone first removed the source and then deleted the information on the pretext that it has no quote to verify. As of now, i have reverted to last best version. Would like to tag LukeEmily, who is knowledgeable in Maharashtra history related articles, for further cleanup. Here is the source and quote for intro:

Stewart Gordon (16 September 1993). The Marathas 1600-1818. Cambridge University Press. pp. 15–. ISBN 978-0-521-26883-7. Looking backward from ample material on the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, we know that Maratha as a category of caste represents the amalgamation of families from several castes - Kunbi, Lohar, Sutar, Bhandari, Thakar, and even Dhangars (shepherds) – which existed in the seventeenth century and, indeed, exist as castes in Maharashtra today. What differentiated, for example, "Maratha" from "Kunbi"? It was precisely the martial tradition, of which they were proud, and the rights (watans and inams) they gained from military service. It was these rights which differentiated them from the ordinary cultivator, ironworkers and tailors, especially at the local level

Heba Aisha (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, Each of the edits were sufficiently described by me. This article is about caste than generalizing entire social group based on trivial examples that do not present the caste as a whole. You need to take responsibility of your edits than engage in canvassing. The version you restored yesterday belongs to 6th of May. See WP:OWN and avoid reverting based on lousy reasons you mentioned above. Shinjoya (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess, someone before you removed this source. And you removed content as u find it not supported by quote. I am aware of WP:OWN and probably you have forgotten the simple thing that, what you have done is vandalism. PS: I am talking about intro only. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me be more specific, if some content is not supported by quotation in front of source. We have tags available, you could have used the "need quotation to verify" rather than removing the content on your personal opinion. It is clear from source what i presented above, that the content you removed was correct one. Please be careful in future. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Heba Aisha: For your kind information, I did add the tag "need quotation to verify" on 10 May here. Then only, I removed the content after waiting for a few days here. Next time, think twice before accusing someone of vandalism.

As far as lead line is concerned, my grievance is still valid. We have no reason to keep Stewart Gordon's version in lead when it is clear from the quotation that he fails to give any proper definition of Maratha caste. Certainly, he is referring to the entire Marathi community rather than the Maratha caste. Our article's title is Maratha (caste) not Marathi people; so why should we keep this amalgamation based definition? And what kind of flawed wording is this: "Maratha (caste) is a Marathi clan"? Which sources say that Maratha is a clan? I strongly doubt that the person who made this lead line knows the difference between clan and caste.

I have always opined that the very lead line of a caste-based article should exclusively state the present status of the community rather than any in-detail historical description; and the present status of Maratha is that it is a caste found predominantly in Maharashtra. As simple as that. The flawed definitions, like we have at present, do no good than confusing our readers. Shinjoya (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

user:Heba Aisha Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions Please see WP:NOTVAND to get overview of what is not a Vandalism,What Shinjoya did was Bold editing. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil and lack of assumption of good faith please dont do that its againstwikipedia's five pillars. And do you have plans to respond to Rathore talk where did the same thing?Ratnahastin (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Gordon talks of Maratha caste only not Marathi people. The next line says about military participation in Shivaji's army, which is true of Marathas. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, Let me rewrite the wordings of Gordon:

Looking backward from ample material on the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, we know that Maratha as a category of caste represents the amalgamation of families from several castes - Kunbi, Lohar, Sutar, Bhandari, Thakar, and even Dhangars

Its clear that he is referring to Maratha as a category of castes rather than a single caste. He has written this definition in context of Shivaj's army. But our article is titled Maratha (caste). Its lead line is supposed to define the modern day caste named "Maratha". Why are you giving undue weightage to Gordon's out of context definition instead of the common definition of Maratha caste? Why do you want to confuse our readers with a flawed definition? I can present over a dozen sources to state that Maratha is nothing but an Indian caste found mainly in Maharashtra. On what basis, do you reject this common definition? Shinjoya (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Another similar point - look at the second citation which is supposed to support the above disputed statement

Constable, Philip (2001). "The Marginalization of a Dalit Martial Race in Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Western India". The Journal of Asian Studies. 60 (2): 439–478. doi:10.2307/2659700. JSTOR 2659700. PMID 18268829. "While the bulk of Shivaji's men were naturally Marathas, they included not only the allied castes of Dhangars and Gowalas, shepherds and herdsmen, but many who had no claim to kinship. For example Shivaji's famous infantry was composed largely of Bhandaris and Kolis. The Ramoshis... who afterwards formed the infantry of Haidar and Tipu in Mysore, were relied an for the capture of the hill forts, while the outcaste Mahars and Mangs served in his artillery, and in the garrisons of these forts" - Patrick Cadell

Here the patrick is refering to the people who made up shivaji's army like dhangars and bhandaris,mahars here the patrick has distinguished them from the marathas as they didn't have claims to kinship.its clearly about military of shivaji not related to present day caste of marathas. Both the source which are adjacent to the disputed text heba restored dont support the claims,and heba you still haven't provided the rationale for restoring other content.Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Gordon is explaining that the Maratha caste is formed from an amalgamation of peasant castes that existed in Shivaji's time. Shivaji himself was a Kunbi. Other sources also agree. The Constable Philip source is talking about other castes too - not only the maratha caste. In Maharashtra, unlike the north, almost all castes including Brahmins produced warriors. However, the Gordon source is talking specifically of the Maratha caste and describes how it was formed from other castes over 2-3 pages in detail.LukeEmily (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, The amalgamation version is still a proposed theory just like Rajput origin of Marathas. None of these theories are universally accepted. Gordon's content is more suitable for the origin section. Its presence in the very first line of the article is a vioation of MOS:FIRST and WP:UNDUE. The very first line of the article should be brief and easy to understand for non-specialised readers, which is not the case with the present version. We should describe the modern day Maratha caste in simple words rather than going deep into its history. And the simple definition is that Maratha is a caste found in Maharashtra. Indian Government and Maharashtra Government too treat it as a distinct caste. If all members of Maratha community are Kunbis, Dhangars or Kolis, then they would not have demanded caste reservation as they could get it by default. But thats not the case. Shinjoya (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday, LukeEmily made a few edits to the lead like 1 and 2. Now the article's lead reads:

The Maratha caste is a Marathi caste subdivided into 96 clans. It was originally formed in the earlier centuries from the amalgamation of families from the peasant (Kunbi), shepherd (Dhangar), blacksmith (Lohar), Sutar (carpenter), Bhandari, Thakar castes in Maharashtra.

I agree with the first line but the second line is still a violation of WP:UNDUE. We can't make such a conclusive statement in the lead that Maratha caste was formed as a result of amalagation of the said six castes. Other theories like Kunbi-only origin, Rajput origin and Yadava origin too exist. To be very honest, no historian can say with authority in a conclusive manner about the formation of Maratha caste as its formation is not well documented. So, I propose that the said amalgamation line be moved to the "Origin" section and it should be written in this way:

According to Stewart N. Gordon, the Maratha caste was originally formed in the earlier centuries from the amalgamation of families from the peasant (Kunbi), shepherd (Dhangar), blacksmith (Lohar), Sutar (carpenter), Bhandari and Thakar castes in Maharashtra.

Shinjoya (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

These are not WP:UNDUE as multiple modern sources sources support it. I checked the article and there are multiple sources in the opening section itself. Second, neither this origin nor the Rajput origin are theories. The historians and anthropologists have given multiple examples in both Maratha and Rajput cases. The statement, To be very honest, no historian can say with authority in a conclusive manner about the formation of Maratha caste as its formation is not well documented is WP:OR. Gordon is a very respected figure for Maratha history and the sources are very high in the scale of WP:HISTRS due to being written by scholars as opposed to journalists or novelists.LukeEmily (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As per WP:MOSLEAD and WP:PROPORTION article should adequately summarise the article the current article gives too much "weight/Emphasis" to the origin theories and their "status" (not varna status when we have a section entirely devoted to varna). I say we should remove other content which isn't given much "Emphasis" in the article and expand the lead to include content from other sections which are completely ignored ( EX-History -present day issues of the caste , political participation,Military service, instead of emphasising too much about their origins which happened centuries prior )Ratnahastin (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, now someone has added Koli to the list of castes in amalgamation statement ie second line of the lead. So now, our lead reads seven distinct castes which "formed" the Maratha caste. Please do let me know how many other respected historians have given the same seven names of castes which formed the Maratha caste? Shinjoya (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya, will try to fix it as per sources. Ratnahastin, I agree with you. We can only keep one line for origin in the leading section and add summary of other sections also. Marital history is already mentioned in the beginning. In general , any summary that is sourced in the article can be added to the starting section. Most editors have issues only if we start removing sourced text as it may violate neutrality of the article.LukeEmily (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, you made a minor edit yesterday. But I still disagree with the present version of lead especially the second line. The accuracy of the names of 6-7 castes which intermixed to form the Maratha caste will always be under question. We can't solve a centuries old puzzle in a single go. I still maintain that the second line should be transferred to the origin section in the wording suggested by me in my previous post and a new second line for the lead may be written which should be as follows:

Most historians agree that it was originally formed in the earlier centuries through admixture of various agricultural and pastoral communities in Maharashtra.

Shinjoya (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You said : he accuracy of the names of 6-7 castes which intermixed to form the Maratha caste will always be under question. We can't solve a centuries old puzzle in a single go. We don't need to solve any puzzle. If you read the other sources also, they support his summary. Kamath and Kher also quote Gordon. As editors, we do not need to do research. Gordon and similar scholars have already done it for us.LukeEmily (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, your last edit is not in line with WP:OWN. I explained each of my edit in edit summary but you reverted to your preferred version of 26 May 2021. I will now re-explain all my edits since 26 May 2021 in detail:

1. Changed the second lead line: As concern raised by me in this discussion, you could not provide other historian references who provided the same list of 6 castes like that of Stewart Gordon. If other historians cite his work, that doesn't mean they agree with every statement of his. He just makes a passing reference of 6 castes without describing which particular clans originated from Kunbi, Dhangar, Lohar, Suthar, Thakar and Bhandari castes. We don't find any other historians taking names of castes like Bhandari, Thakar, Suthar in context of Maratha origin. How can we use his statement in the second line of lead?

2. Removed sub-section of Deccan riots: As per discussion here.

3. Removed duplicate reference: Ref No 6 and Ref No 9 are from the same book and have exactly the same quotations. We don't need duplicate references.

4. Removed J. Johnson source: J Johnson's source was being used to support the the statement that in a broader sense, Maratha referred to all Marathi speakers. On reading the quotations, we find that it is not at all related to the statement.

4. Added image of Shivaji, Map and Maratha soldier: I agree with you over the image of Maratha soldier as he can be from any caste, but Shivaji's image is justified as he belonged to the Maratha caste and he founded the Maratha Empire. It was only in his time that the Marathas rose to prominence. Map is also justified as it shows the significance of Maratha Empire in medeival history of India. Bhonsles, who belonged the Maratha caste, remained the titular heads of Maratha Empire till the very end.

5. Removed Bhonsle's example from origin section: The statement reads: "The other example, given by Susan Bayly, is of the Bhonsles who originated among Maratha and Kunbi populations of the Deccani tiller-plainsmen. The writer Susan Bayly says that Bhonsles originated from the Maratha and Kunbi communities of Deccan. He still distinguishes Maratha from Kunbi caste and fails to conclude that from which caste did Bhonsle originate. His statement doesn't add anything relevant to the section.

I am now reverting your edit. Try to improve the article through one by one editing with proper edit summary rather than reverting to a whole different version in a single go. Shinjoya (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

1. It is not based on Gordon alone. Other sources support the statement. And, other some scholars quote his statement verbatim. I am not simply talking of citing his book but citing his origin statement. I will edit it once I cite other sources. 2. The sources are very clear that the Maratha peasants were involved. 3.But we can use that information and fix it on the page instead of getting rid of the citation. 4. This page is not about Shivaji nor the maratha empire. This is about a caste that was mostly Kunbi origin.

I am very busy right now but will get more involved from next month.LukeEmily (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

References

misrepresentation of facts

Deccan riots or bhandarkar institute issues are not concerned with caste , why it is being shown here to malign maratha caste ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.78 (talk)

I agree with you, IP. Deccan Riots were between peasants and money lenders. Linking it with a particular caste is wrong and violates WP:REL. Shinjoya (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The source mentions them by caste.LukeEmily (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Only one source specifically names Maratha caste. Other sources use peasants or Marathas and Kunbis. Also, no source specifies Marwadi alone but rather says that the dispute was between peasant communities (mainly Marathas, Kunbis and others) and moneylenders (Marawaris, Brahmins and Gujaratis). The concern of IP is right. This sub-section should be removed as per WP:REL, WP: UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Shinjoya (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no requirement that every text needs multiple citations. As long as a WP:RS is present, it is enough.LukeEmily (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Its always better to check other RS to such subjects whose matter looks contentious to readers:

Source 1 (from the section itself) reads:

The Government of Bombay was trying to limit the transfer of land from cultivating castes (Marathas and Kunbis) to money-lending and professional castes (Marwadis, Gujars and Brahmans)....There did not appear widespread Maratha and Kunbi support for the legislation.

Source 2 (from article Deccan Riots) reads:

In the early summer of 1875 agrarian rioting occurred in the Bombay Deccan. The disturbances began at Supa, a market village in Bhimthari taluka of Poona District, where on 12 May an unruly peasant mob attacked the houses and shops of the local Gujarati moneylenders. ‘The combustible elements were everywhere ready’1 and the riots spread through the poor, eastern regions of Poona and Ahmednagar Districts. The riots were directed entirely at the village sowkars (moneylenders), to whom most of the peasant agriculturists of the area were indebted.

Its worth noting that the terms like Maratha and Marwadi are not even present in our article Deccan Riots. The riots were between peasants and moneylenders and hence, we should not give casteist colour to the event. A majority of sources on Google books don't mention any caste angle. But still, if you are keen to know the caste composition of the two involved parties, it was majorly Marathas and Kunbis on one side, and Marwadis, Gujaratis and Brahmins on the other side. Singling out one caste to fit in this article is wrong. The section is a WP:hoax and its written through WP:Cherrypicking giving undue weightage to a single quotation from a reference. Therefore, it should be removed. Shinjoya (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I await your response.Shinjoya (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya, sorry I am not understanding the objection. Looked at the sources mentioned. The sources clearly mention maratha and Kunbis. We can add Kunbis and Brahmins to the text if that is what you mean. There may be other peasant castes but they do not seem to be involved. One reference as long it is reliable should be enough. I think you are misunderstanding WP:UNDUE. If 5 sources said that they were Not marathas but only one said they were maratha it would be undue. But the other sources are not opposing the sources that say maratha. Hence it is not WP:UNDUE.LukeEmily (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, you are prioritising Claude Markovits source and conveniently ignoring the other sources. That is the reason I referred it as WP:Cherrypicking. Claude Markovits isn't the only available RS and nothing stops us from looking at other references too. Here are what some others sources say:

Source 1 reads: The Deccan riots consisted of a series of preconcerted attacks and outrages on village sawcars in the districts of Poona , Satara , Ahmednagar and Sholapur.

Source 2 reads: Deccan Riots: Following the defeat of the ' first war of independence ' , agrarian discontentment came to the fore in many parts of western India . There were several factors behind this : heavy land tax fixed by land settlement , fail in prices of....

Source 3 reads: Relief Measures : The Deccan riots of 1875 roused public conscience and the government realised the need for giving some protection to the peasants , who were compelled to submit themselves to the extortions of the money - lenders.

Source 4 reads: During the last quarter of the nineteenth century , after the Deccan riots of 1875 , the problem of agricultural indebtedness became one of the major official preoccupation.

Source 5 reads: The discontent among the peasants exploded in the well - known Deccan Riots of the 1870s when the money - lenders were attacked.

Source 6 reads: To pay their revenues farmers generally took loans from moneylenders. Once the loans were taken, the farmers found it impossible to repay them since the interest rates were steep. Peasant indebtedness became a serious problem in the rural areas. The uprising began at Supa village in the district of Poona. In 1875, farmers attacked a market place where many moneylenders lived. They burnt account books and looted grain shops. They also torched the houses of sahukars (people who were both traders and moneylenders).

Source 7 reads: Deccan Riots of 1875 were peasant uprisings in which people of thirty-four villages or so in the central Maharashtra revolted against the professional money-lenders residing in the villages and towns, from May to September of 1875; and in many other villages of the region, probably in sixty villages or so, very critical state emerged approaching near revolt.

Its clear that a majority of RS define Deccan riots as a clash between peasants and money-lenders, as noted in our article Deccan Riots. They were not caste driven riots as portrayed in our article. Giving a casteist colour to these riots is like calling 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest as "Jat agitation". Just try creating a section titled "Farmer agitation 2021" in Jat people; you will surely be reverted.

How can we have a section for Deccan riots with a dubious "anti-marwadi" heading when no Maratha organizations like Sambhaji Brigade or Maratha Kranti Morcha were involved in the riots? There was simply no caste angle to the riots. The presence of this section is nothing but violations of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:REL. Shinjoya (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya, The sources mention that the peasants were Marathas, don't they? I don't think the organizations you mentioned were present back then. If the sources mentioned that the Indian farmer's protest were by Jats then we would have to mention them on the Jat page. There are other peasant communities in Maharashtra. We need to fix the Deccan Riots to align with the sources. LukeEmily (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, as I said, Claude Markovits is the only source which exclusively says that Maratha caste did the riots. It isn't the only available source. A majority of sources don't mention any caste. This section is nothing but a hoax made to give a casteist colour to Deccan riots. We can't create sections like these on the basis of a single source. Shinjoya (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Inter-caste issues

I believe the anti-brahmin violence in the first part of 20th century, and the BDD chawl riots in the 1970s may have also involved Maratha-kunbi and other castes. For best part of 20th century, the Maratha and Maratha-kunbi castes were together referred to as Maratha. Therefore, Just as the Maratha empire was not a Maratha (caste) empire, attributing these acts of violence solely to the Maratha caste may not be correct. Thanks Jonathansammy (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Very right Jonathansammy. One such content dispute pertaining to the Deccan Riots is being discussed here. The entire section of "inter-caste issues" is filled with content giving undue weightage to isolated incidents and completely ignoring the Maratha-Kunbi caste complex. Shinjoya (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, Shinjoya Then we need to fix the sections as per the sources. Please add Kunbi as well if needed in any section. I cannot access all sources mentioned by editors in the sections.LukeEmily (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, even I am not able to access most of the sources. Thats why I have a doubt that much of the content is hoax. And if we add Kunbi and other castes, these sections fail WP:REL. Why should we have distinct sections for such mixed caste issues? Many of them don't even have a caste angle. These sections make it a poor article. Shinjoya (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The editors have not even added the page numbers :-( in one case. As far as the victims are concerned, there seems to be a minor contradiction However, I found a source that says The Deccan Riots of 1875 in Poona, Ahmednagar, and Satara, led by Marathas in a sense, were an attempt to challenge the dominance of the Brahmins, who were mostly the moneylenders (Lele 1981: 51). and another source says that The Government of Bombay was trying to limit the transfer of land from the cultivating castes(Marathas and Kunbis) to the money-lending and professional castes (marwaris, Gujars and Brahmans)...[skip]...The latent anti-Brahminism did not emerge much more clearly in 1901 than it had in during the deccan riots of 1875 when cultivators attacked money-lenders in Poona and Ahmednagar districts but, in the process, generally spared the Marathi speaking Brahman sahukars and singled out alien-seeming Marwaris and Gujars instead..(this is from the existing source) These two are in direct contradiction. Hence as per WP:NPOV we need to mention both.LukeEmily (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

References

B.D.D. Chawl riots

Dear LukeEmily and Shinjoya, I have added the URL to the paper by Sharma et al on these riots in the main article. I hope you are able to view the paper. The 11 page paper discusses the riots between Marathas and neo-buddhists, and between Marathas and muslims where the neo-buddhists sided with the muslims. These riots took place in the 1970s and early '80s.Perhaps at that time, Maratha and kunbi were collectively referred to as Marathas. Having said that, I don't think we as editors are at liberty to say that the rioters were kunbi when that word is not mentioned even once in either of the sources. I hope this helps.Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverted to stable version

Jonathansammy and LukeEmily, since you are editing this article for a lot of time. Please, bring necessary edits, as i think my edit has removed some of the good contributions also. It was directed towards reverting edits of banned user but some of good contribution by others has also been reverted. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

caste tension between marathas and others =

Hey guys , u seems to be fond of portraying marathas as at loggerheads with other castes/people , so put entire mughal -maratha war as a religious war , further if marathas are originated from OBC , then why they are not included in OBC ? can any one you answer it rationally ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.87 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the redirect of 'Maratha'

Hi @Jonathansammy:, I think we should redirect the page Maratha to either Maratha Empire or Marathi people, the reason is the term Maratha is used in all the princely states that came under Maratha Empire and also many other articles. Redirecting Maratha to Maratha (caste) leads to confusion in many ways. What do you say? - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 15:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@MRRaja001:, I agree. Outside Maharashtra, Maratha /Mahratta has been used to describe all Marathi people. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy:, @MRRaja001:, I agree too. Even today, many sources refer to even Brahmins of Maharashtra as "Maratha Brahmins".LukeEmily (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy:@LukeEmily: Okay then, shall we change the redirect to Marathi people. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 19:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@MRRaja001:@LukeEmily:Yes please. Thanks.@MRRaja001:

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

Also add in Anti-Brahmin riots that Brahmin women were raped. 1.186.77.18 (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Talk 04:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2022

Maratha surnames - Chavan, Shelar, Shinde, Bhosle, Masaram, Holkar, Malasure Jatin Masaram (talk) 15:12, 10 February 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Parte

Parte 2405:201:25:9867:719D:66FB:8412:E13A (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

just come and fight indiavi 49.43.34.111 (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

2000 3000 49 49.43.34.111 (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2022

Maratha cast is kshatriya cast originated from 96 clans known as 96 kuli marathas. 2409:4042:2305:3301:0:0:809:80B0 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yea Maratha is Kshatriy and higher caste since ages. This page shows misleading information SmiSV (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023

Marathas majorly are landowners, wealthy and upper caste. SmiSV (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2023 (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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

How does it prove your sources are reliable? SmiSV (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

The Maratha is a Kshatriya caste from Maharashtra, Karnataka,gujrat and neighbouring states. 96k Kshatriya Maratha clans originally formed by Kshatriyas of North and South of India Like pawar, salunkhe, nikam, rane, more, mane, rathod, bhosale, chavan, rastrakuta, kadam, jadhav, yadav, etc Kshatriya clans. Maratha share roots with Chauhan, sisodiya, rastrakuta, kadamba, yadava, chalukya, mourya, solanki, parmar, abhir, shilahar, vakataka , satvahan, etc. Marathas were landlord and where holding jagirs, deshmukhi, patil ki, some Marathas sardars were under Adi Shahi and Mughal. Some prominent maratha sardars were Lakhujiraje Jadhav Rao Raja of sindkhed, shahaji raje bhosale, Sambhaji raje mohite, sardar kaloji malusare, mudhoji rao Naik nimbalkar, pilajirao raje shirke, gaikwad, Pawar, Mane etc.and if maratha are caste which is group of castes then all the rajput are also a group of castes. Telling the truth. Sanket112 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2023 (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. Cannolis (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Objection LukeEmily

Mr. LukeEmily, why you removed the Gavli and Koli from this article. The source is already available in the book name Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay By Thomas Blom Hansen on page number 31 with the texts as The exact empirical boundaries of the Maratha caste cannot be estab lished without looking at the past in terms of the present. Nineteenth- century sources allow several interpretations. In the District Gazetteer of Thane from 1882, for instance, Kunbis, Agris and Kolis were all described as discrete castes, and yet, within each, elite layers were called "Maratha- Agris," "Maratha-Kolis" (115-29), and so on, which indicated the use of the Maratha label as a symbol of superiority even within caste groups not connected to Marathas in endogamous terms. In the District Gazetteer of Pune from 1882, Kunbis were described as falling into two classes, Kanbis and Marathas, that could not be clearly discerned (p. 284). In the 1931 census Marathas and Kunbis were lumped together in one category & link is here [[4]] as 4th reference in article. KoliMarathaKolhapure (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Apni edit to dowara se revert kro bhai KoliMarathaKolhapure (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@KoliMarathaKolhapure:, what is the meaning of "Apni edit to dowara se revert kro bhai"?. If you have sources, you can add Gavli and Kolis . But the first line is how the maratha caste originated. If you have sources that show that Koli families converted to Maratha clans, please feel free to add them. But Gordon does not say so. However, other sources might be added if they support your statement. If you have sources, then there is no objection from me.LukeEmily (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This page is protected i cannot edit KoliMarathaKolhapure (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

User:KoliMarathaKolhapure has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Wikishovel (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Koli, Lohar aren't Maratha !

These two cast including Sutar are not Maratha, some deliberately trying to mislead readers, the misinfo should be removed ASAP. Tesla car owner (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire article seems misleading and biased. Someone has taken this on, as their full time job. 2604:2D80:AA88:9600:1C88:8F6:4030:1C9C (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong misleading information

This entire Wikipedia page is misleading, filled with wrong information. Maratha is from Kshtriya category, and Upper caste since ages. And they were mostly wealthy landowners, farmers. It seems intentionally wrong information is published based on some random internet resources. Not all internet sources are reliable. Also according to later wedic classes occupation wise discrimination crated based on occupations. Original Hindu sanskruti treats all humans equally. Kindly stop misleading information. Good SmiSV (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:TALK#USE. Talk page should not be used as a forum. Bring WP:HISTRS compliant reliable sources here, then we can have a discussion and WP:CONSENSUS. There are many editors who are scholars or have in depth knowledge in history. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

not necessary all editors are scholars are and with good intention, they might have their own casteism view. We don’t refer internet for truth there are many books, here anyone can edit anything as per their wish and fake proofs. James lane had also written a book with his perspective with wrong information, later that book was banned. For further proof please speak with Kolhapur Sambhahi Raje Chhatrapati , UdayanRaje Bhosale, don’t write wrong information here lowering importance of Maratha caste. Maratha is kshatriy caste nit lower caste. If possible we will bring attention of sambhaji Raje here on such pages. SmiSV (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles belong to Wikipedia, not to any person, caste or ethnicity. So I'd suggest you follow WP:TALK#USE. "If possible we will bring attention of sambhaji Raje here on such pages" ← Is it a legal threat? Refrain from making such comments, as it may get you banned. Wikipedia is a collaborating project, so abide by the guidelines, policies and discuss your points backed by WP:HISTRS sources, so that we may reach a WP:CONSENSUS here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The editors views are pretty biased, and the entire article is focused on showcasing the brahmin as the sufferers. Notice how he respectfully identifies some brahmin random poet, while downplaying the Maratha caste. You can notice the editors bias, showing his support for this rudimentary system. And his petty responses to the earlier comments. I am sure this idiot supports the demon who Killed Mahatma Gandhi. 2604:2D80:AA88:9600:F11A:B553:A8AB:A654 (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Just look at his other edits/ modifications and you’ll get familiar with his agenda 😄

flyindfotberserk 2604:2D80:AA88:9600:1C88:8F6:4030:1C9C (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@SmiSV True. the whole Wikipedia has been hijacked by disgruntled Brahmin right wingers desperate to prove they're one up on the progressive and liberal Marathas. Wikipedia has become a political tool nowadays. 103.186.19.184 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)