Talk:Bhonsle (clan)/Archive 1

KUNBI BHOSLE
The Bhosle is a Kshatriya Kunbi Maratha clan.In 1836 Mr. Enthoven states, the Sisodia Rana of Udaipur, the head of the purest Rājpūt house, was satisfied from inquiries conducted by an agent that the Bhonslas and certain other families had a right to be recognised as Rājpūts. Colonel Tod states that Sivaji was descended from a Rājpūt prince Sujunsi, who was expelled from Mewār to avoid a dispute about the succession about A.D. 1300. Sivaji is shown as 13th in descent from Sujunsi.

Chhatrapati ("Chhatrapati= Chief, head or King of Kshatriyas") Shivaji Maharaj, representing the protection he bestowed on his people) on June 6, 1674 at the Raigad fort, and given the title Kshatriya Kulavantas Sinhasanadheeshwar Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Pandit Ganga Bhatt, a renown Brahmin from Varanasi, officially presided over the ceremony declaring that Shivaji's ancestor's were truly Kshatriyas who descended from the solar line of the Ranas of Mewar. The actual date of Shivaji's birth was under controversy but now settled on date as 19 February 1627. Shivaji's grandfather Maloji Bhonsle claimed descent from the Sisodia clan of Rajputs. - sonu 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsinghdevre (talk • contribs)
 * Rajput

This is not complete information PATEL PARTHKUMAR SATISHKUMAR (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

BHOSLE OR BHOSLA ARE SISODIYA RANA'S OF MEWAR
BHOSLE IS A RANA SISODIYA CLAN .......BHOSLA REPRESENT THE RANA OF MEWAR........ IS A SISODIYA CLAN. LINERAGE IS OF FROM SISODIYA RANA CLAN FROM MEWAR......

sonu 08:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsinghdevre (talk • contribs)
 * 
 * 
 * Rajput

Its wrong information PATEL PARTHKUMAR SATISHKUMAR (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Article needs improving
I tagged this article as needing to be wikified. The lead section is OK but the rest is poorly laid out and may include non-notable info.

Some of the external links may provide suitable info to expand the article, but I did not check whether they are WP:Reliable sources. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Biased views
This article was biased it seems that one writer is given importance over other, their seems to be no verifiable evidence of shivaji shudra origin, History is not defined by writing books but by evidence that too from reliable sources, to write things like this "maharastra brahmin refused to coronate shivaji" is completely fake this is opinion of one of the historian who thinks that shivaji was shudra but this is not a fact because it is not supported by evidence the book composed by legendary marathi poet jayaram belongs much earlier to shivaji coronation and it describes him as sisodia rajput. I am yet to see any single piece of evidence to support the shudra origin.

Just like evidence of rajpoot origin is posted plz post evidence which proves shudra origin.ASHOKBINDUSARA (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

SOURCES AND SCHOLARS BOTH ARE DIVIDED ON ORIGIN
as a maratha myself and a history student i would like to point that dont write this "local brahmins doubted his ksahtriya origin, and he called a brahmin from all the way from varanasi" this is completely false and fabricated statement which was written by anti-rajput historian Jadunath sarkar(whose date as well as many facts related to shivaji have been rejected by most historians further he dont know marathi).

When one of the most powerful Hindu warrior wants to coronate himself will he think about "LOCAL BRAHMINS" i really doubt that Kings used to summon the best of brahmins for good omen as more famous and reknowned the brahmin is it increases the prestige of King itself. Further when local brahmins doubted his kshatriya ancestry he chose the best brahmin from "VARANASI WHICH IS UNDISPUTED CENTRE OF HINDUISM" it sounds so fake that shivaji consulted a brahmin from varanasi after being rejected by local brahmins.

Similarly he can "BUY BEST BRAHMINS OF VARANASI BUT COULD NOT BUY LOCAL BRAHMINS" these points seriously led us to question the this very theory now the source which "SPREAD THIS FABRICATION THAT SHIVAJI WAS REJECTED BY LOCAL BRAHMINS" is a gift of "91 QALMI BAKHAR" a work of 1760s which anti-rajput origin scholars try to show as around 1680-1690 even though neither the writer was known to shivaji and nor any other early text refer to this work.

Now the reason "THIS 1760S work is the first work from any circle which speaks of SHIVAJI AS SHUDRA AND NOT SESODIA RAJPUTS" this has been rejected by neutral historian on very sound ground. "THE WRITER OF THIS BAKHAR KNEW THAT BY 1750-1760 MARATHA EMPIRE HAS ACHIEVED WHAT NO HINDU EMPIRE WAS ABLE TO ACHIEVE AND THIS MARATHA MOVEMENT WAS GIFT OF SHIVAJI MAHARAJ BHOSLE HENCE THE AUTHOR WAS IN FULL KNOWLEDGE AND HENCE TO CLAIM CREDIT FOR SHUDRA HE MADE SHIVAJI A SHUDRA ".

On contrary Shahji Bhosle letter to sultan adil shah in 1641 AD when shivaji was only 11 years old he mentioned himself as "RAJPUT" and caution that he will not bear any insult as he is a sesodia rajput.

Similarly these discussions fall flat with the discovery of "PERSIAN FIRMANS OR SANADS" the Firmans clearly remove all the dust from the history of the ancestors of this legendary warrior Shivaji Bhosle. Same old crying that these firmans are spurious are similar to allegations of "VINOD KAMBLI THAT 1996 SEMI FINAL WAS FIXED HE THINK SO BECAUSE THAT LOSS AFFECTED HIM IT COST HIM HIS PLACE IN THE TEAM" similarly the so called "JADUNATH SARKAR WHO CLAIM 91 KALMI BAKHAR TO BE WORK OF 1680S even though it has so many errors that its impossible that a man writing about shivaji so near to his living era will commit so many mistakes further it mentions Peshwa Daftar and Names of Raja Pratapsinji Bhosle of Tanjore which clearly proves that this work belong to post 1750AD and not 1680-1690. This man will now try to raise doubt on firmans further firmans were released in 1931 that is more than 80 years before and at that time "SHIVAJI ANTI-RAJPUT ORIGIN SCHOLARS" took the challenge to unearth the truth what happened to that.

Therefore dont try to impress the innocent readers that "LOCAL BRAHMINS DOUBTED HIS ANCESTRY" this is fabrication of "JADUNATH SARKAR" on the basis of 1750-1760 work 91-qalmi bakhar which is too late work to be considered.

Contemporary books such as sabhasad bakhar written by shivaji minister krishnaji sabhasad clearly mentions Bhosle as Sesode Bhosle.122.161.116.167 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Bhonsle link to sisodia has no basis
According to below books Bhonsle link to sisodia is madeup and has no basis.

The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Economy By Chetan Ghate

https://books.google.com/books?id=kPYXpHSVbywC&pg=PA197&dq=Bhonsle+Shudras&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwA2oVChMI6PfAsZnwyAIVAddjCh2eKwm_#v=onepage&q=Bhonsle%20Shudras&f=false

Journal of Historical Research, Volume 34 / Department of History, Ranchi University., 1994 https://books.google.com/books?id=wA9DAAAAYAAJ&q=Bhonsle+Shudras&dq=Bhonsle+Shudras&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBGoVChMI6PfAsZnwyAIVAddjCh2eKwm_

From Bharata to India: The Rape of Chrysee By M. K. Agarwal

https://books.google.com/books?id=X3AvEjZtWxsC&pg=PA187&dq=Bhonsle+Shudras&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBmoVChMI6PfAsZnwyAIVAddjCh2eKwm_#v=onepage&q=Bhonsle%20Shudras&f=false

Sangitha rani111 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111


 * That is probably true. However, the article doesn't say that they are of Sisodia origin. It says that they claimed Sisodia origin, which is a fact - and one important enough to be mentioned. The article also states that scholars such as Jadunath Sarkar consider this a fabrication. You can expand that part by adding content from the above references.
 * By the way, From Bharata to India... by M. K. Agarwal is not a reliable source at all. It's a self-published book full of fringe theories and pseudo-history. utcursch &#124; talk 02:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

branches of kunbi
bhonsle branced out from kunbi Maharashtra and update it as neccessary


 * What is the source of this image? utcursch &#124; talk 21:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Bhonsle, Bhosle or Bhosale
A quick Google scholar showed the following:
 * Bhonsle = 7,000 hits
 * Bhosle -= 13,000 hits
 * Bhosele = 30,000 hits

This clearly shows that the preferred spelling is Bhosale. Please comment.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an oversimplification. You will need to collocate it with something like "Maratha" to weed out the false positives. Based on such a check, Bhonsle is the preferred spelling on Scholar and Books. And anecdotally, in my experience reading RS on Maratha history, Bhonsle is the preferred spelling.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Most people with this name in Maharashtra spell it Bhosale rather than Bhonsle.You can check by going on Indian telephone directory.Even the current claimant to Shivaji's title of Chhatrapati spells it Bhosale (see Udayanraje Bhosale).Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet I see Udayanraje Bhonsle and Udayan Raje Bhosle as well … I'm happy to just rely on the RS spelling of Bhonsle used for Shivaji and his descendants.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You are right.His entry in the Loksabha Members' directory also spells it Bhonsle.That is as official as it gets in my opinion! No more discussion on this topic from me. Bhonsle it is.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Bhonsale Origin
Onkuchia whose credibility are you talking about sharad pawar above GS SARDESAI the greates marathi historian who admits only to rajput origin... here

The Bhosles are 'most probably' Rajputs but definately not kunbi

The Kshatriya origin of the family of Shivaji has been proved from the sanads. A few other contemporary evidences may be mentioned here:

1. Shiva Bharat I. 41-42; II. 59; XXIV. 74. Maloji and

Shahji are described as belonging to the Solar dynasty.

2. Parnal Partatgrahan Akhyan gives Sisodia as the family

of Shivaji.

3. Sabkasad (P. 82): Pure Kshatriya Sisodia family of the

north.

4. B/iu&han's Shivaraj: Maloji is born of the best Kshattriya

Solar family of the Sisodias. 5-6 couplets.

5. Shahji calls himself a Rajput in a letter addressed

to the King of Bijapur. Doc. 710 in P. S. S.

6. Bhundhela Memoirs, Scott's History of the Dekkan, p. 4:-

Sisodia Rajputs.

7. Khafi Khan: Descended from the Ranas of Chittor.

8. RamchandrapanC* Royal Edict: Describes Shivaji as an

ornament of the Kshattriyas.

9. Radha-Madhav-Vilas Champui This book was written by

Jayaram between 1654-58 and its testimony is most trustworthy.

190 SHIVA ji THE GREAT

Shahji Bhosla descended from Sisodia Rajputs-pp. 257, 268, 269, 270. That he belongs to the solar dynasty, is mentioned on pages 267, 269.

10. Gaurishankar-Ojhai in his History of Rajputana Vol. II,

514 on the basis of Rajput sources traces the Bhosles to the Sisodias

11. An English letter: O f 28th November 1659 describes Sevagy

" a great Rashpoote." Shivaji Vol. I. P. 54; Nos. 20, 24 of P. S. S.

12. An English letter, of 10th December 1659: Rashpootes

are differentiated from other Hindus. Shivaji Vol. I. P. 51.

13. Tod's Rajasthan Vol. I. gives the geneological tree of

Shivaji wherein Ajeysi or Ajayasinha is the founder of this new branch. ( Pp. 225, 288. Madras Edition 1873).

14. RusseVs Castes and Tribes of C. P. Vol. IV. P. 200:

11 In 1836 Mr. Enthoven states the Sesodia Rana of Udepur, the head of the purest Rajput houses, was satisfied from the inquiries conducted by an agent that the Bhonsles and certain other families had a right to be recognized as Rajputs. "

15. A letter of the Maharana of Udepur:

This result of the enquiry is to be had in the two letters published in the Sidhanta Vijaya by Mr. Dongre. There is a letter from the Maharana of Udepur and another from the Royal Priest Amreshwar of Udepur to Maharaj Shri Pratapsinha of Satara. Therein it is said that " you are our near kindred. No difference regarding matters of that and this place is to be kept in mind. Originally we are one."

THE BHOSALES ARE RAJPUTS 191

16. Historical Sketch of the Native States of India byCol. G.B.

Malleson ( 1875 ). Pp. 254-255: "According to Maratha tradition Shivaji claimed descent from that branch of the Royal Family of Udaipur, which reigned in Dongarpur. One of the disinherited sons of the thirteenth ruler of that family left his father's house for Bijapur, entered the services of the king of that place, and was recompensed for his services by the grant of the district of Mudhol comprising eighty-four villages and the title of Raja. This man who was called Sujunshi had four sons, from the youngest of whom, Sugaji, Sivaji claims to be directly descended. "

17. Historical Sketch of the Princes of India by Clunes. P. 130:

" One of the latter, named Sujansee, came to the Deccan and entered the service of the king of Bijapur, who conferred upon him the district of Moodhul comprising 84 villages with the title of Rajah. Sujunsee had four sons; Bajee Raja, in whose line descended the Mudholkar Estate; the second died without family; from Wolubsye is Ghorpuray of Kapsi; Sugajee, theyoungest, had a son named Bhosajee, from whom are derived all the Bhonslays. 1 He had ten sons, the eldest settled at Deoolgaor, near Patus, the Patel of which Maloojee Raja, was an active partisan under the king of Ahmednagar, and had a jahageer conferred upon him,

1. Even the very name ' Bhosla' is indicative of the origin of the dynasty, as it is an abbreviation of Bhaswatkula on the authority of the 'Shahendra Vilasam, and Sangita Saramritam. In an other couplet he is described as a descendant ol Rama and his successors. The Sahitya Manjnsha tells us that Shivaji belong- ed to the Kaushika gotra. Maloji is called an ornament of the Solar race in the San&ta Makraiida ( Shivaji Nibandhavali I, p. 33). Bhosla can be a deriva- tion ot 'Bhaswatkula' on the analogy of Deva-Kula= Devula, the 't' being dropped as in PratipadaPadwa. Then Bhasa- ula Bhasola= Bhosala.

192 SHIVAJI THE GREAT

which descended to his son Shahajee, afterwards a principal Maratha leader, under the Bijapoor dynasty. He acquired, in the Jahagir, nearly the whole of what now forms the Collectorship of Poona, together with the part of the territory now under Satara and it was in these valleys that his son, Shivaji, matured his plan of Hindu independent sovereignty."

There are many inaccuracies in this account, yet the central fact of Shivaji's Rajput origin is undisputed.

Kunbi hoslaya is entirely frabricated by kannada historian for them even founder of Vijaynagar were Hoslaya Read more here--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shivaji/Archive_3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakta11 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

_____________

You're wrong. G.S Sardesai has in fact clearly said in his book that Sisodia origin of Shivaji has not been authentically proved. Shiva Bharat doesn't mention any Sisodia or Rajput clan. The claim of Shiva Bharata is rejected by scholars as it also says that Shivaji wore sacred thread since his childhood, which is certainly far from the historical truth. Sabhasad Bakhar was written after Shivaji's death. So it can't be considered as a proof of Sisodia origin. It just repeats what was claimed during the time of coronation. There are various meanings of Kshatriya and Rajput (derived from Rajaputra - son of a king) — you may refer Wikipedia's Rajputs article to know the transition of the meaning of Rajput word. There's absolutely no evidence of Shahji calling himself a descendant of Sisodias. Tod's works are based on the genealogies coined in Rajasthan after the coronation of Shivaji. Radha Madhava Vilasa Champu calls Shivaji Rajaputra not a descendant of Sisodia Rajputs. But again like I said there were many rulers in medieval India that claimed the origin from Kshatriya caste for prestigious purposes. The approach of history has always been sceptical about these claim as they had no historical proofs. Moreover Surendra Nath Sen has rejected the Sisodia theory citing temple inscription of Math. (Refer Siva Chhatrapati, Being a Translation of Sabhasad Bakhar with Extracts from Chitnis and Sivadigvijaya). Please stop dictating what is fabricated or what is not... Onkuchia (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Onkuchia (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There seem to be a lot of primary sources and unreliable Raj era stuff etc in that long list above. I admit to not reading every word of it because it is fairly ridiculous to post such a huge amount of text in one hit. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

---

@Shakta11 That copy-past passage is the view of Bal Krishna (1932) whose narrative is highly motivational and biased in favor of Sisodia theory. We need neutral sources like the ones cited before your edit war. There are a lot of inaccuracies. For instance, Bal Krishna claims Sabhasad Bakhar is a contemporary text and it is the proof of Shivaji being a sisodia rajput while it is well known that Sabhasad Bakhar was written after Shivaji's death. Did you even care to check the references? Where did you find Sharad Pawar's views? You tried to vandalize Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568) before now you are doing the same with this article.

Bhonsles or ancestors of Shivaji were traditionally regarded as low caste originated from Deccani tiller-plainsmen. This was the very reason why the right of sacred thread was opposed. That is a fact accepted by all modern scholars (not a theory) while Sisodia and Hoysala origins are theories. Your claim that Sisodia origin is undisputed is not accepted by modern scholars. Even Rao Bahadur and G.S. Sardesai says in "Indian Historical Records Commission Proceedings Of Meetings Vol Xv" that in the eyes of competent historians, Hoysala origin seems more probable than Sisodia orign but accepts that the origin of Shivaji is practically unknown to the history. Kindly stop engaging in edit wars. Do not remove other scholar's views just because you do not agree with them. You are not supposed to engage in Vandalism. 

British era's Tod is known for making dubious interpretations about Rajput clan. Tod's works have been rejected by modern scholars. Refer this Onkuchia (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC) ---


 * Disruptive editing and deletions What should be done with this? Onkuchia (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing, deletions, Vandalism
Please look into this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhonsle&diff=845369412&oldid=845361202&diffmode=source

The user Shakta11 is repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing and deletions of reliable sources in pursuit of a certain point. The quality of the article has been greatly damaged. The user has deliberately removed the authentic statements of credible historians. The user is trying to control the narrative by removing the verified contents that do not agree with his views. (For instance, the removal of credible view that the authenticity of firmans is disputed.)

This user tried to vandalize Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568) before. Now he's doing the same with this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shakta11#February_2018 Kindly revert the article to its recent consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhonsle&oldid=845361202 Onkuchia (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC) ____

We need your help. Kindly look into this.

Onkuchia (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yet to take a look at the entire content that was added/removed, but Shakta11's deletion of the Susan Bayly reference seems unwarranted. Shakta11's comment above doesn't explain this removal, and like Sitush has pointed out, it includes sources that are not compliant with WP:HISTRS. utcursch &#124; talk 16:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that some sources are dubious, the content is nowhere to be found in the sources attached. Most of the statements are copy-pasted from blogs such as Marathachronicles. We can see that there's novel of synthesis in the last passage. Picking up some blog statements and then ascribing them to different sources and generating a new unsourced content. (One of the sources cited actually holds the exact opposite view. Historian Audrey Truschke says Shivaji's state propaganda recovered his Sisodia lineage). It's my opinion that the minority view has been given undue weight here over widely held view in academia. Onkuchia (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

origin of bhosale
If bhosale are kunbi, then why you people are fighting the court case against marathas , even you are ready to them in OBC category .Further peshwas were chitpavanas , later know as koknstha brahmin  and these peshwas used to salute these shudra kings !!!! idiots, dont cite jadunath Sarkar or R C dhere , answer these questions if you are a truthful scholar , regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.34 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandal User LukeEmily
This week old profile has been systemically vandalising Maratha related pages (Bhonsles, Nikumbhas and Kanhoji Angre) using banal reasons such as "cleanup" for vandalising long-standing, attested versions of the pages to the rawer, vaguer, version as suitable to their own PoV.

Kanhoji Angre page was vandalised utilizing a century old source of Surendranath Sen, and the primary sources mentioned within.

For highly sourced, formatted and attested Bhonsle page, no explanations are offered except for "cleanup". This is a malicious profile seeking to obfuscate Maratha pages. Already Maratha (Caste) page opening has been vandalised using some Steward Gordon's hypothesis, and random "scholars" who hold a certain PoV.

Requesting Admins to maintain a clear oversight on quality of source and the narrative pushing going on by these BAMCEF Sub-Altern historiographer IT Cells, and ensure integrity is maintained.2409:4040:E98:1115:0:0:E489:A0A (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please promote your silly caste system somewhere else. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your community. Kindly do not remove top quality academic citations. You have been removing quality sources in order to push your narrative for a long time and it has to stop. You have been warned and reverted multiple times by admins.LukeEmily (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I have evidence that you are propagating banal Agri-Koli IT Cell propaganda. Your profile is just a 8 day old spammer profile likely operating off some ghetto in Konkan. The admins can verify this. Also you are hypocrite when you accuse others of promoting any "community" since I have evidence by reverse searching your spam in Google. You have come here with a battleground mentality, and deserve to be banned without fail.

Reproducing my arguement against your profile:

Kanhoji Angre page was brutally subjected to false propaganda by using a synthesis of Surendranath Sen's source and various other modern Sub-Altern books. A modern acclaimed Scholar Rene Barendse was sidelined for the sake of "Surendranath Sen" (an author who published his work in 1928) just because he has primary sources which support you agenda-driven obfuscation spree.

Current User ID of this Vandal Editor is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LukeEmily&action=view

I request the senior Wikipedia Editors to look into this.

An Update into the Bilge spammed by this agenda-driven editor, the banal content propagated by this Editor has been directly copy-pasted from this Agri-Koli caste alliance chauvinist Facebook page where their assembled IT Cells are trained to vandalise Maratha pages systemically with the prepared sources:

https://www.facebook.com/HinduMarathaAgri/posts/318056121612093

It is a sincere request to the gullible Admins who are ignorant of Indian caste propaganda politics, to become more aware and ensure they do not spread misinformation. 2409:4040:E97:EBD0:0:0:E409:8F09 (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There may have been issues with what did but the bigger issues surround the gradual deterioration of this article as people have removed the neutrality in order to portray a glorious past relating to Shivaji which they feel is certain to be correct. In fact, the certainty is not there in sources and WP:NPOV says we have to reflect that. Furthermore, we have an article for Shivaji and there is no need to repeat reams of it in this article, which is about the Bhonsles and not him. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You can edit and add in the arguements from the other side's (sub-altern) perspective. What is already there in Shivaji Page can be removed by you.2409:4040:E97:EBD0:0:0:E409:8F09 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please stop now. The only things that will come of you repeatedly reverting to the puffed-up version is (a) you will be blocked and/or (b) the article will be protected so you and other anonymous people cannot edit it. Best just to discuss at this stage but please do so without throwing around ludicrous claims of "vandalism" etc - see WP:NPA.
 * AS for your latest question above, I cannot even parse it, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

=
============================================================================================================================

2409:4040:E97:EBD0:0:0:E409:8F09, Please can you stop insulting me by calling me "vandal etc"? I had added these sources and Sitush has explained that this page is not about Shivaji. So its fine - I will not add them here. But FYI, your narrative is contradicted by several Indian and western academics- please see below. Please apologize for your name calling. It is not vandalism to quote valid sources.

1. Jaffrelot: '''His theory, which is based on scant historical evidence, doubtless echoed this episode in Maharashtra's history,whereas in fact Shivaji, a Maratha-Kunbi, was a Shudra. Nevertheless, he had won power and so expected the Brahmins to confirm his new status by writing for him an adequate genealogy. This process recalls that of Sanskritization, but sociologists refer to such emulation of Ksatriyas by Shudras as 'Kshatriyatization' and describe it as a variant of Sanskritization'''

2. Shabnum Tejani(Historian at University of London): Shivaji's prowess in battle, his lower caste origins

3. Abraham Eraly (Professor of History in Madras): '''The early history of the marathas is obscure, but they were predominantly of the sudra(peasant) class, though later, after they gained a political role in the Deccan, they claimed to be Kshatriyas(warriors) and dressed themselves up with pedigrees of appopriate grandeur, with the Bhosles specifically claiming descent from the Sidodia's of Mewar. The fact however is that the marathas were not even a distinct caste, but essentially a status group, made up of individual families from different Maharashtrian castes'''

4. Department of Modern Indian History(Journal of Indian History): '''The Bhonsles were popularly known to be neither Kshatriyas nor of any other twice - born caste, but mere tillers of the soil , as Shivaji ' s great grandfather was still remembered to have been. How could an upstart spring from such a Shudra ( plebian ) stock aspire to the rights and honours due to a Kshatriya ?'''

Best regards, LukeEmily (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Being an Indian i could also tell the anxiety of some communities to do this.In present times many movies has been released and history books used by Government of India have written a lot about matrimonial alliance between Rajputs and Muslim invaders.Thus to erase the bitter memory of past they are in the process of making relevant anti islamic rulers, their ancestors & Shivaji is the first choice.But, i have full faith on awareness of users like  and others.They could deal with these vandal forces.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I m an outsider but i think i should comment here as i have read a lot about bhonsles in past.The Ip which is trying to connect bhonsles to Rajputs is driven by propaganda.As in IGNOU M.A course books as well as in writings of various scholars bhonsles are said to have originated from Kunbi caste.The present version of article also says this.Now if anyone of u is interested, please check the google and website of Indian Rajputs.com here you can see a deliberate attempt by these people to conncet all historical personalities and empires of past to themselves.Even in Youtube videos they calim Maurya and Scindhia dynasty to have rajput origin, which is nothing but a way to glorify the caste.The IP represents the same ideology and may be harmful for WP:POV and can further exacerbate other articles related to Marathas.

Hey idiots, do you know anything about marathas
Do you think that chalukyas, rashtrakutas , satvahans , kalachuri ,nikumbh who built such massive structures ajantha , ellora , elephanta and so on , they will vanish entirley from the land of maharashtra , use common sense , at the time of shivaji hindus were running from pillar to pillar , dont forget it , dont cite foregin scholars here , do you know about Aindrabhishek ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.232.78 (talk)
 * The above have nothing to do with the Maratha caste. Please read Gordon. Maratha caste was formed from local peasant groups after the 15th century and the caste formation continued into the early 20th.LukeEmily (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Usage of term Kunbi in lead
, you recently readded the Kunbi origin of Bhonsles in the lead para. Usage of term "Kunbi" in lead para is essentially POV. I have the same concern which I shared regarding undue weightage to Stewart Gordon's statement in the very lead of Maratha. We can still have the content in origin section. Please read WP: Cherrypicking. If you insist on using the Kunbi term in lead, then nothing will stop other users from stating the said Sisodia origins in the lead para. Shinjoya (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No it is not cherrypicking as the historians are very clear of facts vs claim. The lede in Maratha also needs to be fixed. You are effectively removing Kunbi references to Maratha on multiple pages from the lede. There is no harm in Stating the sisodia claim although we need to mention it is a claim and not a fact agreed by modern historians. I can add it myself.LukeEmily (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , in this edit, the content added by you states that shivaji was a peasant which is an occupation and doesn't mentions Kunbis, so that qddition was WP:OR and the other sources you have added are about shivaji's coronation, from this edit of yours it appears you seem to take Sitush comments as authority but sitush himself removed Special:Diff/968951416 alot of information related to shivaji and his coronation from this page last year since this article is about bhosales not shivaji, so i think it goes against sitush's comment when you added source which was about shivaji,and not bhosales RatnaHastin talk 15:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The source clearly mentions that Shivaji is the founder of the Bhonsale dynasty and was a Kunbi. The founder of the Bhosle dynasty, the great Shivaji, was a Kunbi. Sitush is a very senior and exemplary editor. Peasant can be of any caste. Kunbis had peasantry as the default profession. We need fixing of the Maratha page also.LukeEmily (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , Which caste in India isn't involved in peasantry? Jats Kurmis, Patidars are also predominantly peasants. So, should we replace the term peasant with Jat, Kurmi or Patidar? The point you are not getting is that Marathas themselves are predominantly peasants but it would certainly be a POV if you start replacing the term "Maratha" with "Kunbi" everywhere just because both castes are majorly involved in peasantry. Origin is a very sensitive matter and we should avoid it in the lead of caste articles as it may invite edit warring. Shinjoya (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * We are not replacing kunbi with peasants. All Kunbis were peasants but all peasants were not Kunbi. However, the Kunbi origin of marathas is well known. We are only following the sources. Let me separate the two sources to make it clear.LukeEmily (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * and, I have done a few edits, which I suppose are valid, justified and as per our ongoing discussion. If you have any issues, explain your concern here rather than reverting. Shinjoya (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Shivaji
This is an article about Bhonsles, not Shivaji. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, the book you removed has Ananya Vajpeyi's pioneer essay in the regard which indeed discusses Rajputisation. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * What information do you wish to add to my version? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Why do you delete sources, quotes and then ask this question? Please add sourced content that you removed. I am finding your edits troublesome and you seem to be removing quotes that mention Shudra just like Shinjoya was doing.LukeEmily (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please add sourced content that you removed. - Examples.
 * you seem to be removing quotes that mention Shudra - (Ctrl + F)ing "Shudra"/"Sudra" on your version produces nothing. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is implied. Anyway, I will add them.LukeEmily (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Now I suppose that you support using sources like this or this for writing an article on a clan/caste? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. I don't support them. I am talking about other sources. Wait for me to add quotes that you deleted.LukeEmily (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, your main issue with me is that I deleted 2 "quotes"? One of which is way too big and probably violates the author's copyright. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, why are you adding verification-quotes rather than content? Quotes exist to verify citations and are not content, by themselves. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a reason these quotes that you deleted existed for years if not months. The content is controversial and there have been editors who have deleted content based on "quotes not available". We also need to make sure there is no WP:SYNTH. There is no need to remove them.Quotes exist to verify citations and are not content, by themselves> hmmm...I think you meant the other way round?LukeEmily (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add as many quotes as you like. Bye. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, the part about Dhere was wrong. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the entire article including notes before taking the bull-in-a-chinashop approach. You are duplicating lines, word-by-word or otherwise. I have merged your additions to the existing note.TrangaBellam (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with my trim of Jaffrelot's line, please discuss over here. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Inserting removed content is not called bull-in-a-chinashop . Ironically, removing sourced content, might be. In any case, you may want to focus on the edit content rather than make ad hominem attacks on fellow editors. Putting anything controversial in footnotes is not the answer. Read the article. You have removed every mention of modern scholars agreeing with the Brahmins about the shudra status. The article, as it now stands, seems to hold the brahmins of the time responsible for being so orthodox. But the truth is far more nuanced than that as most scholars agree that he *was* a shudra being a Kunbi. "Fabrication" does not imply shudra origin. Jaffrelot, Sarkar, Keay, etc.. are clear as day when they use the word shudra. I did not understand why you think Ambedkar and Jaffrelot were misrepresented. Ambedkar came up with some absurd theory that Jaffrelot dismisses. Also, a lot of content by Dhere was deleted, as from others. Why not simply correct it if you think it is incorrect? why delete it or add it it in footnotes? Footnotes are used to provide explanation, especially where a reader might be confused, they are not used as an excuse to hide controversial or mainstream content. Lastly, I am sure you know that PhD theses have to be defended and an unpublished PhD thesis is a low quality source at best. It is not necessary when high quality peer reviewed papers are available.LukeEmily (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keay states nothing about Sudras. You keep on seeing some conspiracy on my part to hide that they were Shudras but none of the versions you revert to, had the word in them. I have incorporated the word for the first time along with some necessary rejoinder from Vajpeyi.
 * It is news to me that that D. Vendell, a post-doctoral research fellow at University of Exeter, failed to defend his thesis. It is equally surprising that the university-records confirming a successful defense are forged.
 * What is the "controversial" content that is being "hidden" in footnotes? Kruijtzer is usually brilliant in engaging with VOC Archives but he is not very reliable, here. I will draft a detailed note, once I have some time. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is indeed true that the Brahmins of the time were being so orthodox. Their primary opposition was grounded upon two "myths": (1) no "true Kshatriya" had survived in the post-Parshuram era and (2) no "true Kshatriya" can be born after the Nandas. That Shivaji did not have certain rites were of a secondary nature. The rejection of right to recite Vedas comes from the CKP category, foregrounded in the Parshuram myth. Madhav Deshpande does a brilliant dissection of these issues over Vajpeyi's problem with the uncritical usage of "Sudras" stems from a similar ground.And there you have got the context of Kruijtzer. Who is still wrong about the precise facts. See Sebhalkar, 1974. Maybe, adding any and all information that can be gleaned from random sources without understanding their proper context is not a good idea. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you misunderstood my points. I did not imply Vendell failed to defend his thesis nor did I say that the univ records are forged. I was saying that Shivaji's ancestry was forged by Balaji Avji and Gaga Bhatt. And PhD thesis are generally only marginal sources unless they are published. That's all. I know Madhav Deshpande, and his analysis is good but the Parshuram myth was quashed by other Puranas and scriptures (this is well described in the study of gramanyas by historians in other papers). In case of ckp, other than the parshuram myth, it was pratilom marriage that was an issue (they were considered progenies of a Brahmin woman (high caste woman) and a Kshatriya man(relatively lower caste) ). Other castes such as daivadnya Brahmins, etc. were able to overturn the so called myths based on other scriptures. Shivaji did not have that option to overturn such myths. The caste system in Maharashtra is strictly based on Hindu scriptures. But that is not the point. Let us assume that the parshuram myth did not exist at all. Would that automatically make Shivaji a Kshatriya ? Some authors do point to the myth but others like Sarkar make it clear that it is the peasant (shudra) origin that was an issue. When we have multiple reliable sources, we have to give all opinions. If another WP:RS disagrees with a previous WP:RS, we have to state both opinions and say A says this but B says this. LukeEmily (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your bone of contention was definitely not that Shivaji's ancestry was forged by Balaji Avji and Gaga Bhatt. That would also be quite strange, since my version takes the same stance. I do neither see where Vendell makes any different point.
 * The caste system in Maharashtra is strictly based on Hindu scriptures. Wrong and absolutely ahistorical. See Vajpeyi and Deshpande. (Literally all recent scholarship on castes reject this stereotypical view.)
 * Let us assume that the parshuram myth did not exist at all. Would that automatically make Shivaji a Kshatriya? Probably no. Somehow or the other, Brahmins would have found other ways to obstruct. I am reminded of Johannes Bronkhorst's work.
 * Some authors do point to the myth but others like Sarkar make it clear. Sarkar wrote his books about a hundred years back and Eraly is a pop-historian. Vajpeyi and Deshpande are the most recent academic scholarship. WP:HISTRS is applicable. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Some brilliant comments over
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

To DO

 * Dhere.
 * Rajeev Raghavan.
 * Prachi D. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Dhere
Which source mentions that He [Balip] was born in Soratpur in 1190. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, LukeEmily, you are back to quoting scholars without understanding them. I want you to re-read Even though the Bhosales did not rear cattle and did not lead or rule the Gaulis of Maharashtra exclusively and directly, their markedly Saiva and nomadic (or at least itinerant) profile does make Gauli, or at least Gauli-like origins seem feasible. again. What does this intend to impress upon a reader? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the full quote Even though the Bhosales did not rear cattle and did not lead or rule the Gaulis of Maharashtra exclusively and directly, their markedly Saiva and nomadic (or at least itinerant) profile does make Gauli, or at least Gauli like origins seem feasible. From pastoralist big men to warlords on horseback is not an impossible distance to cover in two to three centuries. Certainly many other non-Muslim ruling lineages in the medieval Deccan, from the Y"adavas and Hoysa_las, through the dynasts of Vijayanagara, to the Nayakas who came after Shivaji, have all been known to have pastoral or tribal origins. Is it so inconceivable that the Marathas should fall into a pattern with their immediate predecessors and successors in peninsular India?
 * Later, in the conclusion : However, it is not the case that these narratives can be dismissed as either unverifiable theories, or outright fabrications. Instead, both stories point to a historical process that does seem to account for and to accommodate a figure like Shivaji. This is the process of tribal communities (like those who went on to be Rajput) as well as pastoral nomadic communities (like the Gauli) gradually becoming sedentary and developing an agricultural economy. With sedentarization and agriculture came a certain relationship to the land, which, over time, yielded territorially based power, at least for some families in the community. Once these powerful families had begun to evolve state-like polities, they developed a concern with status that, in medieval times, was best secured through participation in hegemonic forms of ritual practice, and subscription to their attendant ideology (both the practice and the ideology being mediated by Sanskrit texts and their brahmana exponents). Hence the desire to enter the varna system, to claim kshhatriya status, to perform royal rituals... Is she not arguing for the possibility of Gavli origin or am I misunderstanding? ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't the Gavli mention missing from the page?LukeEmily (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ping, apart from the above comment that Gavli is missing , why are you using unpublished POV Phd thesis on wiki?LukeEmily (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * By Gauli origin, she means a pastoral-nomadic origin as proposed by Dhere. Nothing more. When did the Gauli evolve as a class?
 * PhD thesis are allowed to be used as sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Gavli will be mentioned but from Dhere. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Will reply soon..not ignoring this..LukeEmily (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

whitewashing
I feel this page is being whitewashed by selectively cherry picking points from a single source and deleting quotes that do not suit a narrative. If a source is used, all views(positive and negative) from that source need to be added to avoid WP:POV. Requesting other editors to look into this. Also, see WP:SYNTH. LukeEmily (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you have some other proposals than adding "quotes" (to references) and random tidbits from random sources, I am all ears. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You said: I am all ears. Seems funny, given that you seem to be ignoring and deleting quotes. You are not even representing the given sources correctly.LukeEmily (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not even representing the given sources correctly., some examples. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

idiot
If bhosales are kunbi, then why you people opposed OBC Status to marathas , can u explain it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.30.178.44 (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

removal of content
a user had recently removed a large portion of the article as "unsourced"

there are clearly citations linked for the majority of the article where they are needed.

please explain why these sections are being labeled as such? 2600:8806:403:5100:9489:DD76:422B:A20F (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Many of the sources are low quality and very old. Bhonsle clan is very prominent has been subjected to a lot of new research in the last 50 years and there is a lot of new modern 21st century academic literature available. Nationalist historians, by definition, are biased. Also, you have to understand that this has been a page subjected to edit wars and the current version has been carefully curated by Trangabellum. Please discuss before making such a large edit.LukeEmily (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the sources are not nationalist sources. many of these sources are reliable publications used in several other articles on Wikipedia
 * Stewart Gordon (1993). The Marathas 1600-1818.
 * Kurup, Ayyappan Madhava (1986). Continuity and Change in a Little Community
 * Jeremy Black (2012). War in the Eighteenth-Century World.
 * the date of the sources doesn't matter as the information used in the sources is still valid as it is used on many other maratha-related articles on wikipedia.
 * if certain lines are outdated, please give me examples.
 * the information in the article is neutrally written. it is simply the members of the dynasty, and the kingdoms/empires which they ruled
 * the previous version was insufficient since it only mentioned the name of the clan and its origins. not its members, history, the kingdoms they ruled. Many other wikipedia articles about predominant royal houses mention this
 * such as
 * House of Bourbon
 * House of Habsburg
 * House of Yamato
 * these is no reason why this article shouldn't contain this information. 2600:8806:403:5100:79B3:ADEB:C3E7:2496 (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are the Bhonsles British royalty? Vaidya is considered nationalist and is highly unreliable. He believed all Indians were Aryans. His contemporary as well as modern historians discredited him. You have used other sources that are not reliable. Please use Gordon, Black etc. and add your edits one by one. Cunha(1900) is also unreliable. Please use academic publications or publications since a lot of material is available.LukeEmily (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Bhonsles are a royal house. I never said they are British. in other articles about Maratha Emperors, this article is linked in the "royal house" category of the infobox so it should be structured as a Royal House article.
 * never did it say in the saticle that all people with the surname honosole are royalty
 * Both of those sources are used on other articles on wikipedia. even if they are unreliable, these are different sources that agree with the statement.
 * the statement
 * The House of Bhonsle was founded in 1576 by Maloji Bhosale, a predominant general or sardar of Malik Ambar of the Ahmadnagar Sultanate. In 1595 or 1599, Maloji was given the title of raja by Bahadur Nizam Shah, the ruler of the Ahmadnagar Sultanate. He was later granted was given the jagir of Pune, Elur (Verul), Derhadi, Kannarad and Supe. He was also given control over the first of the Shivneri and Chakan. These positions were inherited by his sons Shahaji and Sharifji, who were named after a Muslim Sufi Shah Sharif
 * is a fact as it is supported by records and historians such as Vendell and Gordon.
 * if some lines are false please give me examples
 * my edit was written in a natural point of view so WP:PUFFERY does not apply. all information is generally accepted by historians such as gordon and Vendell.
 * previously you didn't reply for a few days so I reverted the article back. 2600:8806:403:5100:3506:FC4:36DC:DCBF (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The onus of inclusion lies on you. This is not the page to have detailed information on each ruling lineage. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * this page is linked on the "dynasty" section of infoboxes of Maratha rulers. most other dynasty pages include lineages. 2600:8806:403:5100:B8EF:9F40:6690:9BE7 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, so they know you replied to them.LukeEmily (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @TrangaBellam
 * why are my edits being reverted without any discussion in talk? 2600:8806:403:5100:F194:53F4:CAEA:CD86 (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: i am not LukeEmilykimakabhosda. this is a different user who reverted my edits back. I have no affiliation with this user.

Move
@LukeEmily Please explain your edits.


 * 1) RAJ There are certainly are violations of that in this article, especially content added by IPs. However, we can just remove these sources and corresponding sentences rather than blanking out sections.
 * 2) Verifiability same reason as mentioned above.
 * 3) UNDUE please explain further.

SKAG123 (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , the article is not about the Maratha empire nor about Shivaji's relatives. It is about the Bhonsale last name and clan and that is why the name was "Bhonsale".  First of all, Bhonsale is not royalty. Not all Bhonsale's are Shivaji's descendents. Are all marathas from the Bhonsale clan or Bhonsale last name royalty? Which ones are?  What you are doing here is clear caste promotion. Many of the sources used for promotion are WP:RAJ and lot of the content is unsourced and irrelevant. The changes had been reverted twice to bring it to 's version by TB and myself.  also reverted such changes. Yet, some IPs and other possible sockpuppets have been making these similar changes and it seems no one is watching these changes for the last few months. The tiller reference has been cleverly removed from lead. "invented origins" section has also been clevery renamed.Trangabellum had fixed it here and some IP reverted it again. You changed the name here from Bhonsale to "house of Bhosale" here despite multiple editors objecting to it earlier. Again, are all Bhosales royalty and decendants or Shivaji? Were all of them royalty even during Shivaji's time? Administrator  protected it here due to the multiple disruptions by IPs here. Yet, you added this big change:  here -  essentially the content is the same as the "disruptions" by the "IP" and other multiple accounts that the admin tried to protect from. Have you been using multiple accounts to edit this page? Your edits are suspiciously similar to the IPs (whom you referring to in the third person) as well as  who were involved in caste promotion. The order of sections also has been changed.LukeEmily (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with LukeEmily. There are many people in Maharashtra with Bhonsale last name or who belong to Bhonsale clan. Bhonsale is, as far as i know, is a common surname found in Kunbi population of Maharashtra.-Admantine123 (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems there is a misunderstanding. I originally thought this article was about The Bhonsale dynasty and not the caste. Perhaps adding Bhonsle (caste) or Bhonsle (Maratha Clan) would make it clearer. I have not been using other accounts. I reverted mass removal of the constant assuming it was blanking ( There has been various IPs adding and removing contant) and also assuming this article was about the dynasty. SKAG123 (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)