Talk:Sisodia dynasty

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

India: Rajasthan / History Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rajasthan (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nepal Low‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Origin

Sisodia are Guhila,mere a offshort of guhila dynasty,son of Rahup with Rana hammir bring Sisodia to prominence, Why is Article giving space to Persian origin It's cringy a sassain in 7a.d linking Sisodia of 14 a.d isn't that should be removed? Or then link directly guhila dynasty not alone sisodia,it's very misleading baseless and wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:1285:41CB:5D51:6157:47F1:9605 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RAJPUT BHOSLE.........

The Bhosle is a Rajput Kshatriya Maratha clan.In 1836 Mr. Enthoven states, the Sesodia Rāna 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.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20668/20668-h/20668-h.htm#d0e6680

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lYSd-3yL9h0C&pg=PA475&lpg=PA475&dq=Khanvilkars&source=bl&ots=aClmCh04PN&sig=KA43BfJit8CPfFJXDrFxPbsHVXk&hl=en&ei=TBzOSdfmDqWK6APiwPTXAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Rajput#Shivaji

            sonu 08:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsinghdevre (talk • contribs)  
          sonu 09:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsinghdevre (talk • contribs) [reply]

Do the Sisodia of Rajasthan accept the Bhosle claim ? Jonathansammy (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

Why are we showing a painting of Maharana Prathap Singh in the infobox when he appears not to be mentioned at all in the article. What is his significance? - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

This article contains a mixture of date formats - AD, CE, AH, VS etc - and it is confusing. I'd rather standardise on CE or AD than use the Hindu calendar, primarily because the vast majority of en-Wikipedia readers are likely to be unfamiliar with the Hindu system. However, I recognise that this article concerns an Indian topic and although most India topics do appear to use AD/CE, there may be a good case for converting everything to one of the Hindu calendars. I would appreciate some thoughts regarding this issue and I'd also appreciate some help in converting the dates to whatever standard format is determined by consensus. Thanks., - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Semi-protection

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cannolis (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhonsle

Someone just added this, which has obviously been copied from some other article without attribution. I'm not convinced that such a long section is justified here when the origin of the Bhonsles is, as the section says, contested. We already link to the Bhonsle article in the See also section of this article - do we need say any more here? - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prinsep removal

Someone has just removed this and I agree, even though I do not know any of the detail that they mention in their edit summary. My agreement is because James Prinsep died in 1840 and sources from that era are not considered reliable for use on Wikipedia, eg: see WP:HISTRS. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursch did I misunderstand something about that source? Looks like you have just reinstated it. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush I replaced Prinsep with a better source. utcursch | talk 15:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a sidenote, this article should probably be moved to Sisodia dynasty, and there should be a separate article on the Sisodia clan. utcursch | talk 16:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Thought I must have missed something! I have no objection to splitting the article. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clan / dynasty / surname

Much of the content in this article is about the Sisodia dynasty of Mewar, and is not applicable to the wider Sisodia clan in general. It should be split into Sisodia dynasty and Sisodia clan. Plus, Sisodia (surname) can list people who bear the surname "Sisodia". utcursch | talk 23:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing merge with Kingdom of Mewar

Currently, except the lead which suggests that this page is about the clan of Sisodiyas, there is nothing about this page that is different from the information mentioned on Kingdom of Mewar. So a merge is inevitable. Redirect this page to the Kingdom of Mewar or the List of Ranas of Mewar.
Pinging active editors in the topic @Packer&Tracker, @Utcursch @Sajaypal007 >>> Extorc.talk 05:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is meant to be about the clan, although nearly all of the content is about the dynasty (and someone has changed "Sisodia is a Rajput clan..." to "Sisodia is a Rajput dynasty..." in the lead.

As I have mentioned in the past (see above), the content about the dynasty should be moved to a separate article (Kingdom of Mewar is a good choice). This article should be limited to content about the clan, with one-line mention of the dynasty. I'd say a stub is better than a redirect, since Sisodia clan not exactly synonymous with the Mewar dynasty. utcursch | talk 06:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a stub would be a good move. >>> Extorc.talk 09:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with utcursch, content similar to Kingdom of Mewar should be minimized but both pages have distinct identity, should not be merged. Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Extorc; Apologies for the delay. I am occupied with the Central Asian historical pieces of late which were in a bad shape, so moved on a bit from Indian topics. I agree with Utkarshraj Atmaram here; Sisodias are not only related to the Mewar family offcourse. Notwithstanding, this article largely talks about only Mewar family which as Extorc pointed out is already given enough weightage on other articles like Kingdom of Mewar. My suggestion in this regard would not be for a merge, but a separate brief article about the clan which might includes some modern represntatives of the clan as well and not necessarily only the Mewar family history. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]