Talk:Tomar (Rajput clan)

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted two hate posts. AshLin (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The list of Tomar/Tanwar personalities has many non-notable personalities. A week's notice is being provided before I vet the list using notability criteria of WP. AshLin (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC).Reply

It has been found that Sarun Mata Temple is not-notable lacking online information to verify notability. I do not exactly if this is really much notable. Could someone please respond quickly here. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 03:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article is obviously not about a single dynasty (the article talks about multiple kingdoms, various non-royal modern Tomars and describes the group as "it includes Rajputs, Gurjars and Jats of northern India"). So, I'm moving this from Tomara dynasty to Tomara (clan). utcursch | talk 05:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to add that Tomar is found amongst the Jat community too. Infact, this clan is considered one of the largest in western UP. Quotes below should assist this being add to the argument.

'Jat khap villages are dominated by Jats of the same clan, and Gurjar khap villages, by Gurjars of the same clan. The two major clans of Jats, namely, Tomar and Baliyan, populate the area (Muzaffarnagar, Baghpat and Meerut districts) where ...' Sociological bulletin, Volume 53, Indian Sociological Society., 2004 (link: books.google.co.uk/books?ei=8DAqUNm9I6if0QXGo4HAAg&id=gIXZAAAAMAAJ&q=tomar#search_anchor)

'The third, the Salaklain khap of the Tomar Jats, held the notional chaurasi or eighty-four villages known as the Chaurasi Des' The peasant armed: the Indian revolt of 1857, Eric Stokes, Christopher Alan Bayly (link: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=I0FuAAAAMAAJ&q=tomar#search_anchor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JagNatha (talk • contribs) 11:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Vikramaditya is the prince of Pramara dynasty not Tomara dynasty. Please check your sources. And dont use word like Brahminical religion. That is a bit downsense. You can say Hinduism in your sense. 14.99.182.28 (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have cut the section for now and dumped it below. I've not even bothered checking the British Raj sources that were used, precisely because they are Raj sources. If anyone wants to contest then they'll have to find something more recent to support the claim and to support the peacockery. The content read:

==Vikramaditya== [[Vikramaditya]], king of Ujjain in Malwa, drove out Scythian invaders in 56 BC. The [[Vikram Samrat]] calendar was founded in 57 BC to honor his achievements. He was a liberal ruler, a patron of learning, encouraged art. He was a follower of the Brahmanical religion, a worshipper of Siva and Vishnu. He is claimed to be a prince of the Tomara dynasty.<ref>Edward Balfour, The cyclopædia of India and of eastern and southern Asia, Volume 3, page 1015</ref><ref>''Essays on Indian Antiquities, Historic, Numismatic, and Palæographic, of the Late James Prinsep'' by James Prinsep, Edward Thomas, Henry Thoby Prinsep, Publ. J.Murray, 1858, p157</ref> - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

In my view and many others books written and produced during british raj by their people and later ones are mostly garbage.They dont know nothing about our culture.They just want to undermine everything about our culture and show their racial superiority.(No offense) 14.99.10.194 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

No offence taken. That is the consensus & I think I was one of the first to suggest this was the case across a wide range of caste articles. That I am a Brit does not mean I am incapable of being neutral. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Although the of Gird is situated in Madhya Pradesh, it has been historically considered a part of North India and not Central India so I believe it should be changed to North India.Suijai (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

If it is in Madhya Pradesh then we should stick with that. The source doesn't mention the Gird region by name and anyone who doesn't know where MP is can always click on the link. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The region was not historically part of Madhya Pradesh but instead North India and Rajputana, I see no reason why North India couldn't be used. Also what was the reason for removing the Rajputana reference?Suijai (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

What was the need to remove Tyagi's source about the distribution of Tomars in North India? It is well known that Tomars inhabit those areas. I think Sitush is allowing his own subjective bias to ruin this article. If he has such great sources then he should add his own information himself.Suijai (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Find another source, please. See User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Like I have said before, it is well known that Tomar's inhabit those areas, however I think you have an agenda here. If you have such great knowledge then please provide me some sources. Suijai (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have no agenda bar that of complying with Wikipedia's policies. If things are well-known then it should be possible to provide reliable sources, as you have now done for some stuff. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

59.91.180.32 (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC) The Tomar Rajput descended from Pandavas of Mahabharata. They ruled in Delhi from around 736CE - 1115CE and also in Gwalior (1438-1486) and Rajasthan.Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Surnames can be changed, and with sanskritization many groups of some castes took rajput surnames. It doesnt make them belong to tomar Clan which was Rajput. If today some group from a different castes takes tomar surname, will that be added in the list too? Is this page about the tomar surname or Bhati clan? Because if it page for the surname then dont include the history of tomar in it. Because surname change doesnt change their history of people. If it the page about historical and present rajput tomar clan then either give the reference for the history of jat tomar or gujjar tomar that talks about their history not caste survey report of british india which only shows the surname bhati. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sajaypal007, now I have noticed that you have basically posted the same comment at multiple articles. So I won't repeat my comment, as I have already responded to you at Talk:Bhati. But here is another quote from an academic source which mentions that the founder of the Tomaras of Gwalior was actually a Jat:

• Bangha, Imre (2014). "Early Hindi Epic Poetry in Gwalior". In Orsini, Francesca; Sheikh, Samira (eds.). After Timur Left: Culture and Circulation in Fifteenth-Century North India. Oxford University Press. p. 367. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199450664.003.0013. ISBN 978-0-19-945066-4.

Fifteenth-century Gwalior
Gwalior was more or less continuously under the control of the Delhi Sultanate since 1233, and appears to have been a firm base of Sultanate rule in the fourteenth century.³ In 1394 the Tomar (Jat) chieftain Virsingh Dev gained control over Gwalior and for most of the next century the Tomars, who seem to have been subsidiaries of Firuz Shah Tughluq, fought to keep control over the city and its fort, rebuffing or briefly submitting to attacks and raids by the Sayyid rulers and Bahlul Lodi of Delhi, the Sharqis of Jaunpur and the Khalji Sultans of Malwa.⁴ Gwalior in many ways is comparable to the hill fortresses held by chieftains described in Chapter 8. The Tomar kingdom reached its zenith under Man Singh (1486–1517), who successfully repelled constant attacks from Sikandar Lodi in the early sixteenth century.⁵ After Man Singh’s death, Ibrahim Lodi finally was able to annex Gwalior in 1518, installing Man Singh’s son Vikram as the fief-holder of Shamsabad.⁶ The history of independent Gwalior during the Sultanate period, therefore, stretches over hardly more than the fifteenth century.

- NitinMlk (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Have you matched it with other source ? It is openly written as Tomar Rajput. Jats aren't even found in MP RS6784 (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

RS6784, have you read the above discussion properly? The above quote is about the founder of the Tomaras of Gwalior, i.e. Virsingh, who is described as a Tomar Jat in the above academic source. He gained control over Gwalior in the late 14th century when 'Rajput' was an open category. I will quote the relevant sources at Talk:Bhati, as you have raised a relevant query there. Tomaras of Gwalior are obviously Rajputs. BTW, Jats are found in M.P. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Tomar is clan ruling in Delhi at 736 AD. Don't share obscure source, there is proper mention of Cynthia Talbot how Jaats were on banks on Indus in Sindh in 700 AD when Tomars were ruling at Delhi. So how can Tomar be from Jaat ? This kind of shoddy reasearch harms even decent source. Rajput was a open category but it looks like only brahmin could achieve it. Atleast there is open proof of Brahmin thing which even follows Hindu Manusmriti, rest we can't be completely sure. RS6784 (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The jats found in MP are mostly recent migrants of last 40 yrs. Jaat community wasn't even in present day India when Tomars were ruling at Delhi. Yes they were at the banks of Indus on Sindh. RS6784 (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Originally pastoralists in the lower Indus river-valley of Sindh, Jats migrated north into the Punjab region in late medieval times by the thirteenth century,[6] and subsequently into the Delhi Territory, northeastern Rajputana, and the western Gangetic Plain" as per wiki This tribe had not reached Punjab in 1300s. So how could they be Tomar who were ruling over Delhi in 736 AD ? Do you want to know the real reason? There are various tribes like Salakyan, Chabuk, Khutela who are using Tomar in 1880s. There are words of ethnographers of those days. All that claim is based on Jagas and very funny connection with Rajput community, these Jagas are considered unreliable by reputed writers. RS6784 (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

It can't be like one thing mentioned on Rajput page and other things very different on Jaat, Gujar, Ahir page RS6784 (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Tomar (also called/spelled Tomara, Tomer, Tanwar, Toor and Taur) is a clan, some members of which ruled parts of North India at different times. People belonging to the Tomara clan are found among the Rajputs,[1] Ahir,[11] Jats[2] and Gurjars[3] of northern India. 47.9.78.205 (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

  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. Seagull123 Φ 09:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Several typos and historically inaccurate facts 2409:4063:6C07:3CBA:BB16:2E0A:5142:2BEF (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Tomar is a huge clan. Tomars are also Jats. Tomars in harayan and the 84 villages of Tomars in West UP are of Jat Tomar. But they are written as rajput here which is leading to misinformation hence i ask you people to edit it. Manu tomar99 (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Like khutail,shira,toor,tanwar 87.196.80.192 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

117.198.64.165 (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
84 villages of Tomar are in Baghpat District AloneReply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Mohitnagar96 (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please don't mention any caste in those clans which are creating conflict between 2 or 3 castes so take responsible action on every page related to these types of information Mohitnagar96 (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

please do not mention any caste because tomar is a surname which is used by many castes in india and it creates conflict between communities did you understand what I am trying to say. Mohitnagar96 (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

2407:D000:B:F5C4:78DF:4721:A3E7:E019 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Another variant of Tomar is Toor. Please add it to enhance readability.

  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) 16:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply