Talk:Patil (title)

Untitled
I just want to add one more thing.

Patil was the title given to a person who was granted a territory of land, in certain regions probable 3-4 towns in maharashtra by Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj or Maratha kings. The granted territory is usually referred to as the Patilki or Inamki or Watan of the person. The patil was in effect the ruler of the territory. He was having responsibility of rule and regulation in his territory.

The same term called Deshmukhi was the Inaam of Muslim rulers Nizam's or Aadil's.Also Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj also gave deshmukhi's.

Patil and Patel ?
Is there any connection with Patil and Patel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syam Kumar (talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

i think it should also be mentioned that the word Patil in armenian means snowflake and is used as a name(female)! For example my name is Patil! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.62.160.58 (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My reply is 7 years too late. I did some searching and you are correct, Ms.Patil :-) Acharya63 (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I am basically a Patil originating from Maharashtra but my forefathers adopted Patel as their surname due to their conversion to Islam. In ancient days, we had the same duties as a Patil. Nazimpatel67 (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You have to provide reliable sources supporting new additions to the article. Your argument like "I'm a Patil but forefathers adopted Patel" is not admissible in Wikipedia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

if I show you my family tree Nazimpatel67 (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not how Wikipedia works. I've already posted you some links on how we work here in the welcome message. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Split proposal
None of the people listed in the "Notable people" section seem to be Patils by profession. I propose that this article be split into Patil (title) and Patil (surname), just like Inamdar (feudal title) and Inamdar (surname). Any objections? utcursch &#124; talk 21:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems a good idea to me. - Sitush (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * utcursch, this is a really good idea. Thanks - Acharya63 (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have separated out the two. Hope it looks OK now. Acharya63 (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

recent edit by Savitr1915
Hi Savitr1915 ,

I am still not able to see the part in the sources that supports this edit : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patil_(title)&diff=846616500&oldid=846613051

Secondly, research conducted by Iravati Karve as well as Damle post-independence(as late as 1963) shows the literacy as follows (see Monograph Series - Volume 24 - Page 12, Deccan College Post-graduate and Research Institute - 1963). This literacy rate is for "heads of households only"(so the actual literacy rate was much lower): Maratha-close to 50%, Kunbi/Mali-close to 10%,, Dhangar-0%, Bhoi- close to 5%, CKP-close to 100%, Brahmin-close to 90%, Kolis-15%, Katkaris-0%. Here 0% obviously means that it is very low and close to zero (not that all are illiterate). In short, no caste was 100% literate. So I do not understand how this edit mentioned above can assume that all Brahmin Patils were literate. The sources do not say that. Naturally, the likelihood is much higher given that Brahmin literacy was very high compared to other castes that occupied the Patil post. But is there anything that prevented an illiterate Brahmin from being a Patil? Not really, because literacy was not a requirement for the post. The references you added show that some Brahmins were Patils too. But they do not support the statement "Patil were mostly illiterate with exception of Brahmin Patils". Unless I am missing something.

Although I believe this claim personally( at least partially - because there were many literate castes- not just brahmins ) - it is not cited in any of the sources. Also, the two other traditionally literate communities of maharashtra(prabhus, Saraswats)- do they have the Patil surname too? I do not know for sure, but if they do then again we are synthesizing. There were muslim Patils too as well as Jain patils. Perhaps most of them were literate. Who knows? I think we are doing pure WP:SYNTH here. My suggestion is to leave it as "Patils were mostly illiterate with some exceptions" because that is the only fact that the sources say about literacy. The sources do not differentiate between caste/religion as far as the literacy of the Patils is concerned. In fact, all the three sources that talk about the literacy of Patils have no mention of caste at all. So we should leave it out also. Please correct me if I missed something.Acharya63 (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

caste literacy vs Patil literacy
Hi Savitr1917, caste literacy may or may not not have anything to do with Patil literacy - connecting the two is pure synthesis. Unless the Patils were chosen randomly(uniform sampling) from a caste. But what if mostly the illiterates from a literate caste were chosen- with exceptions? You have provided a 1910 table that distinguishes between literacy of castes. It is only a partial table. First of all, it is Raj era data. See a table below that existed on the deshastha brahmin page(Raj era data although Omvedt says that the pattern(ranking) was clear but numerical values are not reliable). Secondly, Saraswats and Sonars call themselves brahmin but most sources consider them distinct(non-brahmins). As you can see, Brahmins did not necessarily have the highest literacy. This is a very common misconception. This ranking is also reflected in post independence studies by Karve. See previous section - only difference is the numbers. Some muslim groups might have had very high literacy. So did some Jain groups. So citing such caste tables for literacy of Patils is pure synthesis.

Male literacy rates were much higher than males and females together, but showed the same pattern. The literacy rates in english also showed the same pattern.

In 1911, Prabhu  and Parsi (not mentioned in the table for 1911 above) communities  were percentage-wise the best-educated communities. However, these communities were numerically small, hence Marathi Brahmins dominated the schools and colleges of Bombay and Poona.

Dear Acharya63,

Patil watan like any other watan could be purchased and the holder was not necessarily appointed by the king or the deshmukh of that pargana. Many wealthy literate families like Vinchurkar and Tulshibagwale had multiple Patilkis which they had purchased (given in the original references). Tulshibagwale is known to have settled the famous Tulshibag of Pune and Vinchurkar worked alongside the Peshwa. I can find you more such examples. This implies that Patilki holders which came from Brahmin caste were generally literate. There is no evidence of any Prabhu or Sarasvat holding Patilki.

The bottom line is that you cannot separate Patilki literacy from caste literacy, as Patil illiteracy is caste derived as the watan was dominated by a particular caste. This was more apparent when Shahu of kolhapur abolished Kulkarni watan. Subsequent introduction of Talati office led to mass migration of Brahmins from villages to cities, brahmins who owned Patilki had traditionally held Kulkarni watan along with it. All such families suddenly disappeared from villages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savitr1915 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Savitr1915, Sorry for being late to respond. I agree with your logic. However, unless there is clear citation for it, other wikipedia editors will generally remove it with WP:SYNTH (even if I don't object personally). In the current form, with it gives us some time to look for good sources. Since the Kulkarni vatans required literacy, if you have a citation for "brahmins who owned Patilki had traditionally held Kulkarni watan along with it", I think it would be a good thing to add as it will prove that these Brahmin Patils were certainly literate. Also, adding Vinchurkar(deshastha) family is a good example(as it shows the exception). As as long as we don't generalize it and reflect the sources accurately, no editors will object. I was recently reading a paper by Nalini Pandit(Caste and Class in Maharashtra) where she has stated that in 17th century Maharashtra, only castes that had "formal education" were Brahmins, Saraswats/CKPs although she does not talk about literacy rates. But this means Brahmin Patils would most probably have had formal education too. The only issue that remains is finding a good citation. Researchers often combine two sources to reach a conclusion not supported by either source directly. But on wikipedia, we are not allowed to do that. I have not had much chance to go to the University library for the last few weeks, but when I do, will try to find some good sources for Brahmin Patils. It should not be too hard to find. Google books (unfortunately) hide a lot of details. Regards,Acharya63 (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Acharya63,

I did some reading at my university library and found that Vitthal Sadashiv Dani, the founder of the Vinchurkar family left his home and situated himself in Madhe village, where he became a disciple of saint Amritswami. Also the Dani family originally held the Kulkarni watan at Saswad. More references of learned Patils: The Patilki of village Naigaon of Pargana Nasik was with Wasudev Dixit Kher who was a Brahmin and educated in Vedas and Dharmashastras. Another unusual example of concurrently held Patilki and Kularniki is: "The Patil of Pakhare in Tarf Gangapur. committed a decoity in the house of the Kulkarni, and killed him and his nephew. Half of the Patilki watan with the right of seniority was therefore transferred to the son of the diseased. No fine was levied from imposed on the Patil in consideration of his poverty. I believe this should be enough to establish that almost all the Brahmins who held Patilki were literate.


 * Hi Savitr1915,
 * I personally have no objections. These are good examples showing exceptions for Brahmin Patils. My only concern is that generalization of specific examples will be reverted by other editors as it will be No_original_research. If you check the history carefully, the edits about "traditionally literate castes" was reverted by some other senior editor (Winged Blades of Godric)- not me. You can also talk to him/her directly. Please see this edit : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patil_(title)&diff=847861548&oldid=847859069 . If I understand correctly, you are probably concerned that a deshastha Patil family should not be seen as being historically illiterate. My suggestion is to show these exceptions as they are. With this approach no one will  revert your changes and these exceptions will prove your point even if you do not write the conclusion yourself. As an example you can write something like:
 * There were exceptions to the Patils being illiterate. For example, the Deshastha Vinchurkar family, ...[other examples] "
 * But please make sure you cite examples only of non-Raj era sources. Just my 2 cents.
 * Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric please go through the above discussion instead of commenting un-scholarly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savitr1915 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023
NaWaB8 (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. NotAGenious (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)