Talk:Parmar (clan)

Sikh Parmars

Rajput Sikhs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:28F:2D4B:A5C0:1EE:257:624D (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Clan and Caste

"Caste designators, such as Jat and Rajput, were status-based titles to which any tribe that rose to social prominence could lay a claim, and which could be dismissed by their peers if they declined."

Consider rewording as follows:

Clan designators, such as Jat, Rajput, and Maratha, were attributed to tribes, families, or communities of various origins, which rose in prominence and could lay claim to membership in one of the principal clans of western India. A group's clan status could also be revoked by a consensus of other groups in the clan. Clan formation in India is little understood, and seems to be a function exclusively neither of race, tribe, class, caste, nor of geographic origin. Clan is not to be confused with caste, which is the system of hereditary social rank across all of Hinduism. Membership in a Rajput clan might confer status, but as a separate matter from one's caste, and without the religious connotations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanpettit (talk • contribs) 08:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

I've tried to tidy and structure the article. Please check through for any accuracy that may have been lost in correcting the syntax. Cheers. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Descendants of the Parmar dynasty in Maharashtra.

The royal family of Phaltan, (located in present day Maharashtra), also trace their decent from the Parmar dynasty. The family which settled in Maharashtra in the 12th century has the probable distinction as being the oldest dynasty in Maharashtra. The current surname of the memebers of this family is Naik Nimbalkar. I do not know why but nobody except professional historians even know about that this family was originally part of the Parmar dynasty. The Naik Nimbalkar family is very intimately related to Chatrapati Shivaji, as both his maternal and paternal grandmothers were from this family as well as his daughter was married to a Naik Nimbalkar. The last Adhipati (King) of Phaltan was a very popular ruler and played a prominent part in the post-independence politics of Maharashtra. The current head of the family is also very socially active.

I would welcome any comments/contradictions about this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.47.166.113 (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Get involved in digging out references.

Those of you located in maharashtra are requested to post web-material or photostate copies of material cited in [[1]][[2]]on Thakur Sher Singh Parmar:

The Citations

Gallant Acts-

1. The Article titled "Custom inspector wa shipai yaa doghaani 40-50 taskar palwoon lawley" in Nav Konkan, marathi daily,registration number REGD NO. RTG-15/34, issue number 141, dated first of February, 2005, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, India.

2. Sagar, marathi daily, dated 7th of April, 2005, Ciplun, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, India.

3. DRI-2 Report on Anjarla-Sawani Silver Seizure Case issued vide letter f.no.VIII(CUS)10-1/91/123 dated 3rd of February 1991 by the Superintendent of Customs, Dapoli, Pune Commissionerate.

His role in Sawani-Anjarla Silver Seizure Case- 1. The Article titled "Custom inspector wa shipai yaa doghaani 40-50 taskar palwoon lawley" in Nav Konkan, marathi daily,registration number REGD NO. RTG-15/34, issue number 141, dated the first of February, 2005, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, India.

2. Sagar, marathi daily, dated 7th of April, 2005, Ciplun, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, India.

3. DRI-2 Report on Anjarla-Sawani Silver Seizure Case issued vide letter f.no.VIII(CUS)10-1/91/123 dated 3rd of February 1991 by the Superintendent of Customs, Dapoli, Pune Commissionerate.

4. Certificate dated 4th of November, 1996 issued by S.N.Parwal, the Assistant Commisioner of Customs Division, Dapoli.This certificate says:"...Shri Sher Singh Parmar then Inspector of Customs Harnai Port...booked a seizure case of smuggled silver worth Rs. 2.50 Crores ( Approx. ) displaying exemplary bravery, resourcefulness and boldness on 30-1-1991 at Anjarla - Sawani (Taluka Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri) a remote western Indian Sea-Shore."

5. Confidential Note dated 15th of October,1999 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-IV Division, Pune.

6. Letter f.no.III/Presidential Award/98/Pune dated 12th of November,1999 written to the Chief Commissioner, Pune Customs by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-I Commissionerate, Pune.

Bankot Creek Saved from RDX landings- 1. Confidential Note dated 15th of October,1999 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-IV Division, Pune.

2. Letter f.no.III/Presidential Award/98/Pune dated 12th of November,1999 written to Chief Commissioner, Customs, Pune by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-I Commissionerate, Pune.

Honest and Simple Life- 1. Confidential Note dated 15th of October,1999 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-IV Division, Pune.

2. Letter f.no.III/Presidential Award/98/Pune dated 12th of November,1999 written to the Chief Commissioner, Pune Customs by issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-I Commissionerate, Pune.

3. Diwas-Ratri, Hindi daily, dated 22nd of May, 2000, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

4. Navbharat, Hindi daily, dated 26th of March, 2000, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

Literary Contributions and Dr. Manibhai Desai Rashtraseva Puraskar- 1. Diwas-Ratri, Hindi daily, dated 22nd of May, 2000, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

2. Navbharat, Hindi daily, dated 26th of March, 2000, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

3. Diwas-Ratri, Hindi daily, dated 26th of March, 2000, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

4. Diwas-Ratri, Hindi daily, dated 19th of July, 1999, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

Also , do same for TEJASWANI UDAY PAWAR & Ramesh Pawar

Kushwah 12:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikification and clean-up

Wikification (and clean-up) of this article has been completed. During this, a lot of information was removed that was either written in unencyclopedic prose or that was relevant to another article. The former, related to "Modern history", is retained as an editor's comment, and can be reintroduced with proper copy-editing and balancing for NPOV. The latter, related to the Ponwar article, has been removed from this article entirely. Links and references relating to Sharad Pawar have also been removed, although I'm not sure whether or not he deserves a mention in this article.

Also, in this article, "Paramara" and "Ponwar" are treated as two different clans of possibly similar descent. This is primarily based on the information in the latter article, but I would appreciate some clarification on the exact differences between the two names. Cheers. – Liveste 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Social Status - wrong information..

Low cast Parmaras - the origin can be observed in that the teaching of the learned Parmara kings. When we can see the Masjid erected in period of the King 'Udayaditya'. I have this opinion that when sufis came to Dhar region they might have created impact of equal social status by preaching the Koran. As king himself admired the Dharma, this is quite possible that some of the social elements might have turned to the new dharma teachings and may be converted to Muslim.

Another point is that the Paramara controlled area people might have started some movement in which when they are asked who you are - answer might have been - from Paramara region; finally coming to claim that from Paramara lordship. Result claiming - Paramara clan membership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.57.2 (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslim Panwars/Paramaras

Many clans in west punjab are descended from Panwars. One village called Mori who are all Panwar rajputs. They are well to do and many are abroad and take active milltary service. Some Panwars became zameendars and stopped using title rajput and are called chaudhry but still active in milltary service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.165.55 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Narendra.cca, 30 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} (Dhudhi are a parmar rajput) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.187.213 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC) parmars are not descendants of the Gujjars. Gujjars were shefereds and paramars were the rulers. Please remove all caluses which relates parmars to gujjars.

Narendra.cca (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The information supporting that theory (and note that it is just listed as one of several theories) appears to be very well supported. If you have more information about another theory, we can add that if you have reliable sources and those sources have due weight in the field. Alternatively if you think that the current sources aren't reliable, please explain. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Panhwar, Ponwar?

These three articles seem to be about the same group of people (though the perspective/slant varies by article), under different spellings. Does anyone have a clear objection to merging the other two articles into this one? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Panhwar specifically stated that said group was a Muslim subset of Paramara. Given that once I removed all the non-cited or non-credible/legendary data, there was little info left, I moved what remained over to this article as ==Muslim Paramara== to avoid repetition. Looking to do similar with Ponwar, as a gBooks search[3] seems to indicate tons of resources identifying the two solely as alternate spellings. I note there seems to be some divergence based on religion/clan, but rather than have POV forks all claiming separate views of the same history, better to bring them all together here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I chunked all of Ponwar over here, so it's a big and sloppy merge at this point. The article was just barely similar enough for me to fill assured they're the same thing; it appears there are a dozen ways to spell these people. The article is now in dire need of cleanup, copyedit, and proper references. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.173.227.188, 9 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

94.173.227.188 (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What edit are you requesting? Hit "Edit" on this page, look where it says "Begin request" and type in your request there. Make sure to include a clear source (and if possible) link for your information, as a request without any evidence supporting it is unlikely to be approved. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Raja Bhoj belonged to Abhira dynasty

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=wT-BAAAAMAAJ&q=Raja+bhoj++abhira&dq=Raja+bhoj++abhira&hl=en&ei=kjGHTde4G4jlrAeNr-gr&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA

Raja Bhoj belonged to parmar dynasty of rajputs C2parmar (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Naval Viyogi

Why do we treat as a reliable source someone whose primary field has been as a novelist and short-story writer and who holds an opinion concerning "Brahmanical bias" in Indian history writing? I refer, of course, to Naval Viyogi. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Restructure

In my view and according to my knowledge the Ancient Origins section of Paramara page need major edits because whats written there now is somewhat wrong(about 90%). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.107.37 (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cannot accept your own knowledge but if you can explain what it is that you think is wrong and provide some reliable sources that verify your position then, sure, we can try to seek consensus for change. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Maya Unnithan-Kumar

We need to be very careful in our use of the Maya Unnithan-Kumar source because it seems to be based on a highly localised study and is considering the Girasia community more than it is the Paramar/Parmar subgroup. What this article needs is sources that discuss the Paramars in broad terms rather than in, say, one particular village. - Sitush (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, hence my changes of 09:03, 26 August 2013‎, to show that there are several clans with the 'Parmar' name but, per Hindhu mythology/tradition one Varna. The Girasia are but one of the clans that use the 'Parmar' name. The Muslim Parmars are another (but source citation required for conversion event during the Sultanate)

Also - not sure where the link to 'Ror' came from - changed to 'Chauhan'.

11.20 UTC 26 August 2013 Parmark.

I have just reverted to a "last best version". Subsequent contributions added opinionated statements that were unsourced. From my fairly wide experience of caste articles on Wikipedia, I suspect that they were probably in large part also plain old puffery. I am still unhappy about seeing the Unnithan-Kumar source in there and it seems that I may have a point, per the comments of Parmark. I'm not yet sure what the solution may be but it certainly is not to add unsourced material. Alas, it may be a while before I can do some research on this but I do intend to do so when I can. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

For now I have cited the following web references to Encyclopædia Britannica (assume copyright allows this?):

"Encyclopædia Britannica Online - Agnikula". Retrieved 29 August 2013. "Encyclopædia Britannica Online - Rajput". Retrieved 29 August 2013.

I have made a note of the above links here as, unfortunately every time I make a change, a subsequent editor makes unreferenced, possible puffery changes - and my changes keep getting backed out with theirs - Very Frustrating!! Sitush Please assess each editors' contributions on an individual basis.

I also have an original book on the history of the Paramara, but do not have it to hand. Will quote relevant pages when I get back to it. Parmark (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"See also" section

The "See Also" section currently provides links to 'Ror' and 'Solank' wikipages. The four main Rajput Dynasties (See Encyclopædia Britannica Agnikula link) are Parmara, Pratihara, Chauhan, and Solanki - I suggest the "See also" section be changed to reflect this. Parmark (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Parmars

There are two problems with the current statement on Moslem Parmars : i) There is no source citation, regarding if/when the Moslem Parmar conversions happened. Not disputing this - just want a 'requires citation' statement added ii) The "Moslem Parmars" wikipage redirects back to this Paramara page. Parmark (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Major copyedit

Hi there, just wanted to explain a couple of things so that this article can move forward. People with limited English skills add (in good faith) information at various times and when I see that I try to make sense of it, do a copy edit and then when it can be read, I try to source appropriate references. So, I guess I'm for inclusivity and improvement in the paedia, not against. Having said that, it's clear that I don't have any point of view about Paramaras, just a wish to see an interesting and accurate and helpful and well written article. I agree the current revision that we keep going back to is technically the best, but it is of little interest or inclusivity as it stands. I'll continue to reference whatever is contributed but it might take a little more time. If anyone wants to help then I'm happy to discuss. Kind regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It keeps

See WP:GS/Caste and the logs for this article. This is a very awkward topic area and, basically, no source = no mention. Interesting-ness and accuracy are not mutually exclusive but the latter is a pillar and the former is not. You'll also have to accept that sourcing articles such as this is often fraught with problems; for example, you can forget using practically everything published in the British Raj period and also The People of India. You'll also likely need a thick skin because edit wars, abuse, threats and socking are commonplace. - Sitush (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou, Sitush, very much for replying. I'll keep working on the article, with your advice very much in mind, and I'll make sure the references are solid before adding anything. I'm not sure that I have a thick skin but I'll keep trying to get on as best I can. Thanks again, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. You might find WT:INB useful on occasion. - Sitush (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Agnikul

I have just reverted here. I can only see a snippet view of the cited source but it appears to be quoting British authors from the pre-independence era and those people are not reliable. Can we have some context, please. Are they just quoting or are they agreeing? Is theirs a statement or a speculation? - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources

School books such as this are not reliable sources. In fact, many in that series have the appearance of using material gleaned from Wikipedia at some point in the past. - Sitush (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Branches of Parmars

Hi @Pranay Chopde: Please discuss here regarding the addition and revert of data as you have done at Special:Diff/1176374820 even after a reason for deletion is provided by other Users including me. If you fail to reply within 24-hours, I would have to take this to WP:ANI.. --iMahesh (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The data i have written is true and if there is any error in the data please let me know. I will definitely find its way to improve this . Plus I'm new to Wikipedia so i need your guidance sir . Pranay Chopde (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

All the data you have provided will be termed as Original Research, since you didn't provide any reliable resource. We can't provide Wikipedia as a reference, since Wikipedia itself is a user edited content and termed as Non-reliable. I'm going to revert whatever changes you have made, since they are against Wikipedia policy. You can check your talkpage here, we have placed multiple warning templates and you are almost on the edge of getting banned. Under a thumb rule of Wikipedia, whatever information you are going to add shall be thoroughly wetted and should have a citation with Reliable resources. Cheers and Welcome again to Wikipedia --iMahesh (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Plzz don't revert it back . I will add reliable resources as soon as possible . Pranay Chopde (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You can restore the content, once you find the citations to place. But please note that, nothing should be written on your own. It can only be written by Analyzing and Understanding the content found online. --iMahesh (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, even after I told you to not change the content without proper explanation, you still decided to remove content. Iam going to report this at Adminstrators' Notice Board, sorry. --iMahesh (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@IM3847 This type of abuse of sources etc seems still to be going on, via another editor. Eg: this edit. I am pretty sure even this edit isn't entirely supported by the source - there are numerous different names being bandied around but being an "offshoot", "branch" or "descendant" of some community in the distant past doesn't make the various names synonyms, nor does it mean that they do or did have a similar socio-economic standing throughout.

If they *are* synonyms, then there should not be a separate article for them but rather a redirect to some common article.

So, either way, it is wrong. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

Since the page is moved from Parmar to Parmar (Rajput clan), then there should only be information related to Parmar (Rajput clan). Any other community which is uses Parmar title should not be available on this page and there should be a separate page related to that community. Parihar Piyush (talk) 17:31, 29 October 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. M.Bitton (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose to merge Panwar here. These on the surface appear to be different way to spell the same clan name. If I am wrong, the {{distinguish}} shall be used to avoid the confusion. See also #Merge with Panhwar, Ponwar? above. Викидим (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Because Panwar, Pawar, and Panhawar are all synonyms for the same clan name on the Panwar clan page, only 4 references are theirs, and the 1st and 3rd references on the Panwar page are outdated or unreliable sources of the WP:RAJ era, and the further 2nd reference is from non_reliable Indian news site WP:NEWSORG. 2404:3100:188E:8036:1:0:460:FB35 (talk)
• Question - What about Parmar (Jat clan)? Several of the cited sources there seem to describe it as a self-contained Jat group, but one citation ([4]) says Qanungo forgot that Pawars (Parmar), Tanwars, Bhattis, Johiyas etc. are found in Jats as well as Rajputs, which would suggest there is an overlap in scope between Parmar clans. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)