Talk:Rajput/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

caste glorification and POV page

This page has been written as a blog and is used for caste glorification. I can assure you that the academic consensus is quite different. This was an illiterate community (with a few gaining political power), mostly comprising of illiterate peasant soldiers. Someone from this community has been intentionally leaving out modern research and only projecting Indian nationalist theories that have been debunked for at least a century. Requesting a neutral admin to look into this page. The very fact that there was not even a whisper of the word "shudra" or "rajputization" on this page proves my allegation. The opening section portrays them as one would portray the family of Queen Elizabeth. Ridiculous.LukeEmily (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• @LukeEmily:, Bro i have seen ur edits here.The Andre wink source u used is good but other editors may find SUNY press as doubtful source.I m afraid that they can take it as an excuse to reverts all ur edits.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have seen these kinds of activities by senior editors.who if found some sources doubtful revert others also which are genuine and the editiors are blocked.So, write whatever you get from good books like Cambridge University Press you used.Btw u are competent editor but please keep this in mind and don't give others an excuse.best wishesHeba Aisha (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Btw to all other editiors....I support Luke to some extent as the sources which talks about "vrana sankara" status of Rajputs is published by Oxford University Press.And its the best as we know.So don't revert all edits altogether.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Heba Aisha. All sources I have used are top quality. David_Lorenzen is professor of history, specializing in south asian history. Rashmi Dube is also a professor. In any case, the quotes are supported by multiple sources. Rajputization and female infanticide is a discussion found in many books. SUNY stands for State University of New York and hence is an academic publication.LukeEmily (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok.... Then....now none will have problem.keep going.....there is a surprise for u on ur talk pageHeba Aisha (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Wikimaster2107, please stop deleting edits made by other editors. It is not easy work. We work for free and most of us could not care less about the caste system present in the hindu religion. Wikipedia is governed by US laws and is not censored. LukeEmily (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

my specialization is caste mobility and have fixed the origin section to the best of my ability. Did not look at the other sections about culture etc. as I do not have expertise there but will do so if time permits. I suspect that those sections are also possibly glorified by cherry picking. A single mention of infanticide without talking about the actual horror observed by British officials?

LukeEmily (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Both of these user are maliciously editing the pages with selective sources. For example for all the medieval history you only find one source by Ferishta because he wrote negatively. Why cant you provide other medieval sources. On other hand Ferishta's writing have been known to be biased. Still you selective choose ferishta's work which was perhaps one of the many medieval work. It is apparent from this thread that the users hold bias against the Rajput because they are talking like female infanticide defined rajputs. Yes there were female infanticides in rajputs and many other communities but what does it have to with origins of rajput. This doesnt define Rajput community for rhe matter any community. These practices doesnt define the community. One user was shocked to not see any content about shudras. Boththese user massively added many such obscurity in between all these edits. From cursory reading it looks like it was all done with malicious intent because almost everything added are probably considered derogatory by people at large. I am not saying dont add scholarly work but selective adding of such works shows the bias of the users. One user Heba Aisha on another Talk page was saying we shouldnt add such controversial statement because it will invite repetitive vandalization. What about here then. @Utcursch and Sitush: Please look into this. Both of these are new accounts.Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• See my edits on Kumbha of Mewar and Lekhapaddhati these are also Rajput related topic.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Further if anything is added which is fully sourced..wht is so offensive here.If you glance through my contribution you will know that my contribution is not limited to one area only.But seeing ur contribution i found u edit particularly Rajput related articles and from glorification point of view.I had told u that on Battle of Maonda and Mandholi that i am here because an ip requested me to look into disruption(see my talk page) otherwise i had no intention to reduce the significance of ur victory.Keep going i have no issues with u. Heba Aisha (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Btw, another ip is making edits on Battle of Maonda and Mandholi and i have no care for that as you ppl don't want to keep it an Encyclopedia.The three of u were engaged in caste wars on that while one was blocked on my request to admin and now the fourth one.Keep going .Heba Aisha (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't care for that IP either. I only said abt writing in line with source. Also I read history in Rajasthan, so I have knowledge about Rajasthan history, how can I edit other subject pages about which I have little knowledge. I try to improve articles related to Rajasthani history not Rajput history. I wasnt engaged in any caste war, you keep saying that even though I pointed it out once. I asked you to not remove Jadunath sarkar's work. You removed it nonetheless. You changed the whole article, I didnt make even a single change except once where I pointed out your mistake. Significance of your victory? Why you are repetitively saying like that when I only asked to write what was in the source. Nonetheless this page is not about that. Its about what happened on this page. I am talking about selectively taking of sources. Besides wikipedia need secondary sources. Translation of Ferishta's work shouldnt be considered as source, it was written in Medieval times. Provide good secondary sources for your claims and also caste based works of colonial era are not considered reliable. Keep that in mind too. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• This article (and related) is an tough/interesting one to watch. There's a lot of good sources, but also a lot of bad ones that keep getting brought up. I know that sources from the British Raj era need careful examination. Some of them take a rather large amount of liberty with reality. User:Sitush/CasteSources is an excellent resource to help with reviewing sources. Ravensfire (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• The mention of Varna sankara in the article is taken from Parita Mukta's work which is about Meera bai not about Origin of Rajputs. She is probably not even a historian, she didn't write any history books let alone regarding Rajput origin. Her work is heavily marxist bias and it has been called out by Heidi Pauwels in his/her review of Parita's work. Beside why does her work even have a say in rajput origin when tallest historians like Dashratha Sharma, Jai Narayan Asopa, D.R. Bhandarkar had written on the subject extensively. In the talk page that one editor already mentioned Parita's work before anything, you can see the bias of that user. This whole mass editing was done with malicious intent, as visible from talk page. That's not how wikipedia works. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ravensfire, thank you for pointing to that page User:Sitush/CasteSources. I just checked and all sources in the origin section are now very scholarly, academic and reliable. Please feel free to review. Mr.Sanjaypal, you seem to be supporting bad British era sources but not modern academic ones. Your edit history does show that you find anything unpleasant written about the Rajputs as offensive and hence wrong - even if it is supported by multiple academic sources. FYI, Bhandarkar died in 1926. Vaidya is from the Raj era and supports racial theories - he talks about ""best aryan nose of Gurjars(a pastoral tribe)". He is not reliable. I feel There is tremendous caste promotion of castes of large population (Rajputs and Marathas) going on wikipedia. Just because users are adding content that is accurate/scholarly/academic but does not support caste glorification, it does not mean it is malicious. Calling someone malicious for adding WP:RS is a personal attack as you are attacking the editor's honesty and character - let alone insulting their hard work. Are all the modern western and Indian historians and scholars quoted in this article malicious too? The reason female infanticide was mentioned in the origin was because the nature of origin of Rajputs was directly responsible for it. You can research it a bit yourself - I have not added details to main page as they are too sick to even read. In any case, no where is it said that only Rajputs did it - in fact Jats also did it. Rajput clans had to do it due to the side effect of Sanksritization. The Shudra component is well documented by several academic sources/historians with examples. None of the sources in the origin section are non-academic. I have not reviewed other sections on this page. Rajput and Maratha caste related pages seem to be the most glorified and inaccurate pages on wikipedia - probably because they have a lot of members to work on them and have numerous active caste organizations across the country that numerically smaller castes do not have. Until I changed it, Maratha rulers were absurdly referred to as Maratha Emperors on wikipedia - [[1]]. Rajputs and Maratha related pages are so inaccurate due to glorification that they are annoying to even read. There are large number of modern academic sources that support the nomadic/tribal/shudra origin of Rajputs. In fact, Gordon in his book equates the maratha caste origin with the Rajput origin. Hermann Kulke's book gives very specific examples of this form of Sanskritization and how people who were not Rajputs became Rajputs a few decades later. Every source added is not only academic but is high quality (Cambridge university, Oxford University etc.). Are all these scholars malicious too? - David Lorenzen, Daniel Gold[2], Andre Wink[3], Dasharatha_Sharma, Parita Mukta (Oxford university press), Stewart Gordon (Cambridge University press), Burton Stein, etc. The "varna sankara" mixed caste origin is also mentioned in multiple citations. Philip Ziegler and historian Satish Chandra also support the varna samkara(but chandra does not use that phrase - Zieglar uses that phrase). And even if we hypothetically completely ignore these 3 sources(chandra, Zieglar, Parita) talking about varna samkara, numerous other sources mentioned above do support this view - in fact modern scholars are more explicit and use words like Shudra that Dr.Parita Mukta does not use.

I do not have any knowledge,, interest or expertise about the other pages you are talking about (Rajput battles against Jats etc.), please discuss those issues with the appropriate editors on that talk page.

I am requesting advice from admins and scholars like User:Sitush. Too many Rajput and Maratha caste promoters on wikipedia who seem to be attacking editors , reverting academic and scholarly content that does not suit their narrative. Please see my comments about Rajput page above. Instead of contributing to wikipedia I am wasting time preventing vandalism of academic sources and defending scholarly sources. If anything is from good modern sources and supported by multiple sources that are WP:RS why do these people come and revert them? LukeEmily (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Mr. Sanjaypal...just because any source donot glorify about the Rajput caste doesn't mean that they are malicious.As you can see from LukeEmily statement that 😑oxford University Press and SUNY press that state University of new york are quality sources and we have no better option than them.You have no problem in using col. Tod statement which talks about Glory of Rajputs but as Sitush also considers him biased.Similarly if someone will read Jadunath Sarkar statement he will know in a minute that he has written it in one sided view .Most probably to suit the ambitions of Rajputs.Western scholars are better here as they are free from all sort of favouritism that indian scholars(some of them) possses.Your edit history itself tells that you are here to write only about glorifying statements about Rajputs.While you can see my contribution has been in variety of areas.This page was actually biased earlier lest LukeEmily edited it because the sources were carefully picked which talks about kshatriya origin of rajputs and Agnikula myth was featuring in the article rather than views of aforementioned scholars.Do u really think that 4 dynasty of rajputs emerged from sacrificial fire.Even racially there is very less difference between Gurjars and Rajput of western India.while most of the eastern Rajputs are racially similar to peasant castes of the region.But sources which contained these statements were kept apart and only those sources which talk about kshatriya origin were placed for the purpose of glorification.WP:POV policy violation.I have talked with Sitush and he is also concerned about the same.Heba Aisha (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Also most of our medieval historian's historiography is challanged bacause the wrote as per demands of patron.Amir khusrau, barani; ferishta no one fully wrote neutally but their works are the sources of our history and from careful reading only we have derived wht we study now.So no issues in using ferishta: but we can change the sentence like According to ferishta rather than removing the whole content.see WP:Notcensored...i am sympathetical to urs feelings.Its natural everyone who belongs to a particular community has affiliation towards it and its the human nature.I know You are now antagonised but this trend of using WP:Puffery in article will make our work difficult as all communities will do same.LukeEmily didn't removed the sentence which claim kshatriya origin of rajputshe just added view of other scholars who believe in Shudra origin and made this article neutral.Also he didn't created anything himself.These words like very low origin and Shudra are mentioned by historians which he mentioned.That particular thing was hidden intentionally by Rajput editors.So now its in a good state.Heba Aisha (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• @LukeEmily when did I support British era sources? I am talking about the new additions that have been made. Again I shall clarify about my edit history. Its about Rajasthan history not rajput history. I didnt even mentioned CV Vaidya, why are you talking about him. Academic sources should also be related to the subject matter. An academic source which talks about spirituality of Meera bai and her ideas, she make a single reference about this varna sankara, her whole book is about something else altogether. that source can't have say on wiki about the subject which she never wrote about. In fact I can only find that she wrote only two books other one is also not related to history. She doesnt look like a historian at all. This page has nothing to do with marathas, wont comment on that. You are saying about Philip Ziegler that he wrote and used the very same word varna sankara but you didnt cite that source on the para. There is only one source of Parita Mukta that says that exact word, and about her work I already told you. @Heba Aisha when did I talk about glorification? Also I didnt support Todd's work did I? I dont want to discuss that page here but you keep on adding that here. So in Jadunath Sarkar's work, You are saying he is so biased that towards Rajputs that its totally apparent in his work. I am hundred percent sure that you never read Sarkar's work. He had scathingly attacked rajputs many a times. I never heard someone say he was biased towards Rajputs. His history of Jaipur was not published by Jaipur Royal family because they felt that it showed them in bad light, biasness? The exact para which I included in that article was taken from his magisterial work Fall of the mughal empire, not from history of Jaipur. About my edit history I already told twice above. Not talking about your contributions at all, why are you repeating it again. Its not what I believe or not about Agnikula myth, Its what scholars say about those myths. About medieval sources, if we add the sources just by saying according to this or according to that then we are back again at the same debate, everyone will add Raj era and other primary sources and simply write according to him/her before it. You are talking personal, feelings and all. What feelings have to do with this. Hidden intentionally by Rajput editors? And who will those be? I have seen both of your talk conversation on talk page of LukeEmily and you were saying that mention of ferishta was removed but we need to add some modern scholar's work which mentions that. So you are already set on agenda that what to add and then you are searching for the scholarly work on that. If this is not malicious intent than what is. You already drew a line and now trying to add dots over it instead of joining the dots. On the top of this thread one of LukeEmily says this was an illiterate community, generalizing the whole community and painting everyone in the same light, show me the scholarly work that says that rajput community was an illiterate community, if not then that says about your intention. Another thing you both were talking on LukeEmily talk page about that sharing emails to discuss this subject. Now why do you want to discuss those over email and not in the talk page itself? Is there anything you guys want to to hide or discuss something about the subject which can't be discussed over talk page because that is public. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sajaypal007, I did not say Jadunath Sarkar was baised towards Rajputs on any page talk. About Ferishta, as I said on my talk page to Heba Aisha, I did not know about his opinion until I read it on Wikipedia. I think Heba was only asking me if I knew any source because her content was deleted by another editor as it predates colonial era. I replied that I did not. I have not used sources like L.M.Khanna (Indian Social Justice). Khanna's attack on Rajput origins and culture is really awful. But I do not think he is a scholar so I did not use his books. This shows my intentions are in good faith. About private communication with Heba, I have still not linked an email to my account. So every communication with her is on the talk pages. I think we cannot post anything that is copyrighted (page scans etc.) on talk page and I am guessing that is why she asked for my email. Please do not doubt my intentions. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page - or here if the questions pertain the Rajput community. Regards, LukeEmily (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• See LukeEmily has added quote from all sources whether it is about illiterate community or Shudra status.Its clearly visible and all sources as of now are written by scholars of the subject.Like mentioned above.Go through article....."""quotes are added so that readers will see it without any difficulty.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• And i have problem with the raj era source of Tod which is written in form of quote for glorification.If this is in the form of quote why can't we use ferishta as opinion of medieval historian also matters.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• For example see Andre wink says this:André Wink (2002). Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7Th-11th Centuries. BRILL. p. 282. ISBN 0-391-04173-8. In short, a process of development occurred which after several centuries culminated in the formation of new groups with the identity of 'Rajputs'. The predecessors of the Rajputs, from about the eighth century, rose to politico-military prominence as an open status group or estate of largely illiterate warriors who wished to consider themselves as the reincarnates of the ancient Indian Kshatriyas. The claim of Kshatriyas was, of course, historically completely unfounded. The Rajputs as well as other autochthonous Indian gentry groups who claimed Kshatriya status by way of putative Rajput descent, differed widely from the classical varna of Kshatriyas which, as depicted in literature, was made of aristocratic, urbanite and educated clans...
• This scholar also talks about low origin and quote is added for ease of readers.Now if you don't like it its ur problem we don't do WP:puffery》》Burton Stein (2004). David N. Lorenzen (ed.). Religious Movements in South Asia, 600-1800. Oxford University Press. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-19-566448-5. When the rank of persons was in theory rigorously ascribed according to the purity of the birth-group, the political units of India were probably ruled most often by men of very low birth. This generalization applies to south indian warriors and may be equally applicable for many clans of Rajputs in northern India.The capacity of both ancient and medieval Indian society to ascribe to its actual rulers , frequently men of low social origins , a " clean " or " Kshatriya " rank may afford one of the explanations for the durability and longevity of the unique civilization of India
• And Stewart Gordon also talks of rajputization:Stewart Gordon (1 February 2007). The Marathas 1600-1818. Cambridge University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-521-03316-9. Eventually, kinship and marriage restrictions defined this Rajput group as different from other elements in the society of Rajasthan. The hypergamous marriage pattern typical of Rajputs tacitly acknowledged that it was a somewhat open caste category; by successful service in a state army and translating this service into grants and power at the local level, a family might become Rajput. The process required changes in dress, eating patterns, the patronage of local shrines closer to the "great tradition", and an end to widow remarriage. A hypergamous marriage with an acknowledged (but possibly impoverished) Rajput family would follow and with continued success in service the family would indeed become Rajput. All this is well documented in relations between Rajputs and tribals...
• Satish Chandra also says they include shudra too:Satish Chandra (2008). Social Change and Development in Medieval Indian History. Har-Anand Publications. p. 44. Modern historians are more or less agreed that the Rajputs consisted of miscellaneous groups including shudras and tribals
• Daniel Gold (1 January 1995). David N. Lorenzen (ed.). Bhakti Religion in North India: Community Identity and Political Action. SUNY Press. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-7914-2025-6. Paid employment in military service as Dirk H.A.Kolff has recently demonstrated, was an important means of livelihood for the peasants of certain areas of late medieval north India...In earlier centuries, says Kolff, "Rajput" was a more ascriptive term, referring to all kinds of Hindus who lived the life of the adventuring warrior, of whom most were of peasant origins

THIS source also talks of low peasant origin The problem u are facing is there on all caste article. People want to delete the Shudra origin...this thing i witnessed in various caste article.But ....this is sourced so it is needed here ....we don't want myth of origin but scholars opinion.And above sources are high quality sources.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• when did I say anything about shudra origin. You keep putting words in my mouth. I didnt say such things. I read the whole Origin of rajput para and no Todd is not cited in origin at all. I came here after I saw heavy edit on origin section hence we are talking about the origin debate, the thread is also about it. If there is mentiin of Todd in the article in other paras not related to origin remove them if you wish to. But there isnt any in Origin para. All you gave is about shudra origin and peasant origin while I was talking about Varna sankara. While I am talking about it, You are saying something else. And neither of these sources say that this was an illiterate community. You also didnt address many of my points but lets first Administrators see this before making this thread unnecessarily long.Sajaypal007 (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Brother sajaypal...the first source Andre wink....says that..quote is given there.I have made edits to several caste articles where anyhow they removed shudra term.example-Koeri and Yadav and i have added image to as much as 20 of caste articles from commons.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

<Personal attack redacted>.Proud One 999 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• What mess has been made here on origin page, first I didnt say of adding irrelevant content I said about adding source. The whole para is made as a mess with every line unrelated to the last. Above on it most source added are originally written on some topic which has nothing to do with origin of the rajputs. Papers related to Bhakti tradition, Female infanticide, Meera bai's spirituality and what not. Why not add the sources which are written about the origin itself. Please do not make mess of the whole article. @LukeEmily is adding any paper that has even one line about rajput which says something about shudra or low origin. Why add so many paras from only one side of the views. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please help improve the article by making it unbiased and providing both side of the claims with equal weightage as observed by the scholar of the subject. Please do not add the sources of the book or paper which have only a little knowledge about the subject and made only passing reference. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• LukeEmily You are adding and deleting content without making consensus on the topic in talk page. This is not the correct approach. Its what you added in the first place due to which this controversy erupted. Please get consensus before making changes on the page. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Sitush: please look into the matter this one user @LukeEmily is editing aggressively and only giving one side of the view. The whole section of origin is changed to something else. Mods need to address this. She is not ready to make consensus here in talk page and created a pile of mess by adding every article she could find little mention whether it is related to the origin of rajput or not is not kept in mind. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: please look into the sources and recent edits in the lede section. Sanjaypal007 deleted quotes and references. Sajaypal007 is deleting academic references. I have tried my best to engage with him before on the talk pages before but calls me malicious and questions good faith edits that do not promote his community. Sajaypal007, BTW, I am a "he" not a "she".LukeEmily (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I too have tagged him twice. You are only providing one sided view and not participating in the consensus building. Heavily edited the article despite I asked for Mod's attention. You should have waited for them to notice but you still editing and that too without participating in talk page. I was not aware of your gender. I addressed you as she because of your username not intentionally. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Caste glorification is bad, but caste derogation is much worse. So I am surprised to see terms such as "low origin" being used above. A term like "lower caste" is often used, but it just means that it is lower in the caste hierarchy, which in itself is archaic. Neither do we know, in actual fact, how far such a hierarchy existed in practice. If Burton Stein says most of India was ruled people of "very low birth", it points to the possibility that the whole idea of a "low birth" might be a modern concoction retrofitted into a jaundiced view of the medieval society. So let us not throw around terms like "low" and "high" willy nilly. Saying "peasant origin" or "pastoral origin" is quite enough.

Let us also keep in mind that many of these pastoral communities had tribal organisations which were self-contained, outside the pale of the sedantary society, and those people who turned into Rajputs might have even been "warriors" within their own communities, and the "Kshatriyahood" that was imparted to them could have been a concession made in recognition of their actual occupations and capabilities. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, There is no derogation - it is only neutral point of view by presenting all sides based on academic sources. Sorry to read that the perception was different. If I am reading it carefully, the low birth is quoted by Srinivas who did his PhD on Sanskritization - it does not mean the people were of low birth - literally. It is in terms on varna only. It is talking about ritual system only. Shivaji is one example. He was low in the ritual sense (shudra) but not a low birth person in other ways. I have seen words like Shudras and other words used on other pages and this page had somehow managed to avoid it. For example, Chandal(untouchable caste) is used on the Jat page. Stein is explaining that varna mobility is in fact a good thing and indirectly he is praising Hinduism. So it is not derogatory. I am simply quoting what the sources say. There is no attempt to either glorify or add anything derogatory. However, although I disagree with censorship, in good faith, I will "censor" that academic quote I added to clarify that he is talking about varna system only. @Sitush:, I thought wikipedia is uncensored. Burton Stein is a respected historian and there are multiple sources. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: this is not the case as once i removed Untouchable term from pasi caste sitush told me that no see WP:Uncensored.And as we all know now untouchablity is not there even if source support editor use.so we shouldnt care about this article too.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Also before LukeEmily edited this article was full of myth of origin only and only one line mentioned about peasant origin.But i am reading for years the common origin of caste like Gurjar Ahir and Rajput further LukeEmily didn't removed the sources which connect them to Brahmin and Kshatriya.so this article is now following WP:Pov guidelines.we should move away from our castes.Also i have been defending various other caste articles where ppl tried to remove Shudra status.So why do we care about this page only.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: thats y we need a foreigner who is knowledgeable in this area to decide our dispute.Every caste page has such words like "low origin" etc etc but we just not want that things here only.It seems like on wikipedia also we are defending caste system where some of the caste categorized as upper caste shouldnot be derogated while others can be.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• I m also trolled for supporting Sitush edits which he made on Kayastha article to denote them as Shudra by a guy who seems to belong to same caste.Until now admins have blocked 5 accounts of that guy.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Further editors of other caste may doubt our neutrality as i m witnessing ppl from various backward communities who have become conscious of their caste editing caste page heavily.Almost changing all content to make it comparable to the castes like Rajput and Brahmin because all bad things about these castes are concealed in order to show heavenly origin as editors of these castes are most active ppl on wikipedia.This will make our work difficult clearing up glorification attempt only while i decided to write many articles of my own. editors like me will be reduced to the status of vandalism fighter only.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Idiots like Luke Emily,

Nonia are not Rajput community. Remove them from that page. https://m.timesofindia.com/city/patna/state-seeks-st-status-for-noniya-caste/amp_articleshow/76472841.cms Rana of Bharat (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Rajputs are the modern representation of ancient kshatriyas said by William Crooke one of the most neutral historian. This view is widely accepted by govt.of India. One who think we are Shudra, foreigner or Appeared only in few century back Then answer me Rajputs have ancient clans also like yaudhey,Katoch,nimi,nikumbha,Kaushik, somvanshi,bhati and many more u can't read that on fingers.Agnikula myth is just a fraud.The problem with anti Rajputs is that they are putting here All those origin theory like origin from brahmin,gujar,Jat,ahir,shudra,foreigner,mix etc all are alread have been rejected by scholors like ojha and many more.

Anti Rajputs like Luke family who gets fund from Sangh and breaking India forces won't tell you about those Fictional historians whose assumption base theory have been countered already.Then why we need to read or write that baseless theory even here? Why not kshatriya origin should be here?

The agenda is simple these gattar chhap taking revenge with us.

These shudras want to be kshatriya by degrading Rajputs.

Ahir clans like Fatak,dauwa, gamela etc claims origin from Rajput father and ahirin concubine.Many of Jat clans too,you can check websites of Jat royal houses. Now come to the gujar origin of Rajputs.You guys are seems too be stupid.Gujar clans like chahuhan,bhati,nagar are Rajput product by gujarin women. There are many more.i recommend you read gazatters.

Now come to the brahmin origin of Rajputs.This is totally depend on gotra basically.You stupid people thinks gotra are same like brahmin so that Rajput were brahmin.But reality is that our gotra is Comes From guru side. If a family changes his rajpurohit then he adopt gotra of that new family guru.This fact prooves by the fact that Within a particular Rajput clan like chahuhan,rathore etc have different Gotras.Ojha ji countered this theory of brahmin origin of rajputs.Now tell me which historian countered Ojha? if not then why we need to put that bakawaas here? oh I forgot you braking India forces wanna Civil war by vandalizing Rajput history.

now come to the last one that is shudra origin of Rajputs.

Many of different Rajput clans exist in different shudra community that doesn't mean we rose from that community.

It's mean Rajput kept several concubines from those pastoralist castes hence newly born baby got Mixed with those shudra by taking mother caste and Clan,gotra of Father. This was a well known practice in later days also.

second reason of shudra caste having Rajput clans is that they not practised kshatriya rules accordingly and hence throw out from caste.

One guy was saying in talk that Rajputs and Gujar of North West are similar while that of eastern part are like shudra pastoralist. oh Really concubines product of Rajput?

First of all you fool wiki editor have to give attention about Gujar of Delhi NCR and Rajasthan. Gauchars of ncr are fair skinned while those of Rajasthan like Aaadivasis.

But as we know you and yours Fiction/Assumption base historians won't qoute it.Because you jhandu Wanna apply only all propaganda against Rajputs only and here are giving lectures.

Rajputs fought against Hunas also.Torman clearly Mentions his opponents as Rajputra in khura stone incription.But what your Fictional historians did is that they declared Rajput origin from huns.without a single evidence.

they wrote hool as hun.While hool is a Rajput clan but Hun is still a gauchar clan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.198.160.220 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see Template:Reply_to so the users you address get notified. Please stop your conspiracy theories - I can assure you that your allegations about me are wrong. And there is nothing fictional about modern academic sources. Editors work in good faith and simply use WP:RS sources and paraphrase the text. There is no attempt to write anything negative nor do we have any propaganda. And being a farmer or pastoral is not negative. No job is inferior and no job is superior. The intent is simply to write what the scholars state without doing original research. If you have modern scholars with differing opinions or the opinions you give, please give the sources so they can be added. For what it is worth, the fabrication of Kshatriya genealogies as well as the word tribal was in the article long before I started editing. Brahmin origin theory as well as the Kshatriya origin theory is countered by the very source that has been used to describe these theories in the article. You are right about that. For your other statements, please give the sources to admins so they can edit the page and add your text.LukeEmily (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Few questions

Rajput is not a widely used term, although, academicians and in media Rajput is used frequently but in reality if you will go to any place except Rajasthan most people would unable to tell you about Rajputs. Some of them, the educated ones, have known it only by books, even if you will ask a 'so called ' Rajput that are you a Rajput? it is doubtful that he will be able to tell you unless he had read history books or told by Some community organization,. I know that individual research is not accepted in Wikipedia, therefore for reference anyone can read - William Crookes book (Tribes and castes of northwestern India ) . I also know that in Wikipedia clonial Era sources are apprehended, but the above source is not subjective or speculative , the book has been written through Research and census data. Aishtomar (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Therefore topics such as 'Rajputization' , 'origin of Rajputs' does not holds much weight in itself, instead it should be called Kshatriyasation, . It is mentioned in the article that, Pratihars, Chahmans,Parmars, Chandelas, Guhilots, Gahadwal etc were anachronistically listed as Rajputs, which is controversial statement. Consider For an Example:- earlier Indian people knew nothing about term Hindu or Hinduism or India etc but we always use term Hinduism,and India for religion and country of Ancient India. Aishtomar (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Moreover the first Paragraph is without source and speculative, not all historians agree that rajputs originated from shudras. The wikepedia article of 'Nagvanshi Dynasty' itself contradicts your theory, it says Nagvanshi dynasty is today called Rajput or Kshatriya whose kingdom started in 76 CE, similarlily you can find Katoch dynasty of Himachal Pradesh. There kingdom is continuing since first century. Now at least mention all these points. Aishtomar (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The people of Oudh and surrounding areas have from centuries acknowledged that Chauhanas,Pratihars,Tomaras, Bais, Gautams etc are Kshatriyas,(may be true or not) at least you can mention this point, which could be found in Mughal sources and Nawab of Oudh sources but since wikepedia requires academic sources a source has been given below. Aishtomar (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This article for portraying a negative point uses a non-academic source of Satish Chandra which is not published by any academic Institution, also Rashmi dube's source has been used out of context. Aishtomar (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, all the sources in origin section are by scholars or historians and very high quality latest academic publications. Everyone is free to contribute to this page - they only have to make an edit request with admin if they do not have permissions to edit. There are about 15-20 academic sources for Rajput community formation/origin. They all converge on pastoral origin or non-Kshatriya origin. Please can you give academic sources and quotes for the other points you mentioned? There is no intent to write anything negative about any community. Editors only follow academic sources and do not write their personal views. Multiple and differing views from high quality sources are acceptable. Please provide sources so those views you mention can be added. Thanks.LukeEmily (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagvanshis_of_Chotanagpur#cite_note-2

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangra_State#cite_note-1

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ayYbAvECXQwC&pg=PA350&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Aishtomar (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2021

182.64.184.92 (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a recent disruptive editing on the page, especially in the first para

 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. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2021

{{subst:trim|1=

hello wikipedia community please remove these "illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar" this is a most degrotary remark to the subcontinent most ancient and renown community the sources are based on a author called farishta and the writers of moderen times have found eror in the authors writing for eg the frishta mentioned the war with sasanian nusherwan and the sisodia the first eror is that the sisodia was not present at that time the orignal name of clan was ghuilot the ruler name was prataph chand ghuilot the second eror is that author mention the title rana use as a title by defeated monarch but the jehangir mention in his memoir that the rana of mewar is exalted our all rajas of hind and colonel james tod also mention this in his annal and antiquities of rajputana that all the monarch of india look up to the ranas of mewar beacuse of his undisputed claim to the throne of solar race the same race which ruled egypt whith its pharos

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, please try to use punctuation. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Strong example of fabrication of pedigree(Genealogy) for Rajputization process

Strong example of fabrication of pedigree(Genealogy) for Rajputization process

I present a strong example of Rajputisation here.

If we look at Jadeja's genealogy, they have shown in their genealogy that Buddha is the ancestor of Rama and Krishna is Rama's descendant. That's why it is Proved that the genealogy is fabricated.

If you study history and read the Chachnama and If you read the historian C. V. Vaidya, you will come to know that Jadeja has mixed the genealogy of Lohana and Bhatia dynasties. Historian Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya and Historian Henry Miers Elliot exposed them.

They are the ones who try to prove themselves as Kshatriyas by accusing others of not being Kshatriyas. Like brass has to shine more to sell than gold.

Here I will refer you to the History of Sindh Volume II by the historian Mirza Kalich Beg. Study this then see what kind of Fictional story is run by Jadejas with help of Barots.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.229.58.141 (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing is going to come of this unless you make a clear proposal as outlined in WP:ER. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

Rajputs doesn't means illegitimate son of Kshatriyas 2405:204:A50E:37FB:0:0:16E0:C0A4 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2021 (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.Chariotrider555 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Removed the claim since they were quite weak sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

GURJARA PRATIHARAS

Modern day Rajputs are the Real descendants of Gurajara Pratihars.The kings of gurjara pratihara ruled in the areas of modern Gujarat,thats why they were given the status of Gurjara Pratihara.The most successful king of gurjara pratihaara was Raja Mihir bhoj who belonged to Rajputana User 091234 (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

according to Indian RIGVEDA which is more than 4000 year old information ved (book) hinduism have 4 varna second varna name is kshtriye which is also known as RAJANYA in that RIGVEDA book . RAJANYA means son of King ( raja = king ,nya = son) and the word rajput have same meaning of son of King . RAJANYA and rajput is the same word and RAJANYA means kshtriye so according to RIGVEDA which is more older and primary source which is 100 percent true. 2402:8100:3943:A77F:FEBA:5242:8BCA:A19D (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=TGzbPNdtJGsC&pg=PA148 according to this link Purusha Sukta uses the term rajanya, not Kshatriya, it is considered the first instance in the extant Vedic texts where four social classes are mentioned for the first time together.[5] Usage of the term Rajanya possibly indicates the 'kinsmen of the Rajan' (i.e., kinsmen of the ruler) had emerged as a distinct social group then,[5] such that by the end of the Vedic period, the term rajanya was replaced by Kshatriya; where rajanya stresses kinship with the Rajan and Kshatriya denotes power over a specific domain.[5] The term rajanya unlike the word Kshatriya essentially denoted the status within a lineage. Whereas Kshatra, means "ruling; one of the ruling order. This is a wikipedia theory of kshtriye . In one theory wikipedia prove kshtriye as a rajanya ( rajanya means son of King raja = king nya = son) rajanya and rajput are same word . Rajput are the real kshtriye according to rig veda and purusha sukta 2402:8100:3943:A77F:FEBA:5242:8BCA:A19D (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You haven't provided any source for connecting Rajanya with Rajput. That is only WP:OR.

Also, please don't open any more edit requests. You can continue the discussion in the same thread. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2021 (2)

Rajput people are known as RAJANYA which means son of King ( both rajanya and rajput have same meaning ) in purusksha sutra according to Wikipedia page of kshtriye they describe kshtriye another name rajanya. Rig veda is only a primary source which provide true information . Another modern historians are providing wrong information because they donot match the primary source which is RIG VEDA . According to rig ved there are 4 varna first one is bhrahmin second is kshtriye which is also known as RAJANYA in purusha sutra of rig veda . I donot know why wikipedia handle having paid clicks to wrong information . There is primary source which is RIG veda then why are you using modern historians and not telling about the primary source . I check complete page you cannot mention anywhere about rig veda or kshtriye rajput or kshtriye rajanya Harmanjatt 00 (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

RAJPUT

Rajput is a community of India User 091234 (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

According to first and only primary source of Indian casteism and varna system is RIG VEDA . Rig veda 10 mandal purusha sutra describe kshtriye as a rajanya which means rajput . For more information who can read Rig veda . I donot know why wikipedia handle providing secondary information . Secondary information is not allways true . Secondary information is more manipulative and wrong . Secondary information doesnot match the primary source of information which is GIVEN IN RIG VEDA Harmanjatt 00 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Rajput Translation

The Cited sources(two of them belong to same author) says 'In some parts of Rajasthan the term Rajput was used for illegitimate sons of chief' About which is already mentioned in origin section,but when you place it along with translation,you convey that the term Rajput is synonymous to bastard(illegitimate sons of kings) which is false . Rajput is corruption of word 'Rajputra' Raj=king ,putra =son, this is its only translation. Refer => The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Cauhan and the Indian Past,Cynthia Talbot 2015, p. 119. or https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332986060_Rajput_Dynasty or https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Cattle_and_the_Stick/wT-BAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=rajput+son+of+a+king&dq=rajput+son+of+a+king&printsec=frontcover

or here pick any document at google scholar https://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=rajput+translation all of them gives only one translation. The term was used to for people of varying ranks(a horse trooper,but it does not mean that it translate into that) and birth(mentioned in origin section) but its does not mean that it translate into that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewar11111 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 7 March 2021 (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. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Asartea: The Request is the change the 1st line of the 1st para of article=> Rajput (from Sanskrit raja-putra, "son of a king" or "illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar") TO Rajput (from Sanskrit raja-putra, "son of a king") as it was few days ago i.e without the or part. I have provided valid resources above(please do check) , The word Rajput is only translated to 'son of a king' even thats what mentioned in the cited source, the cited source does not say that 'Rajput from Sanskrit raja-putra means illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar' it says that 'In some parts of Rajasthan the term Rajput was also used for illegitimate sons of chief'(which is explained in origin section) would be helpful if also someone active on this topic like @LukeEmily: give a look at this Mewar11111 (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mewar11111: agree, the 1st line of the article literally convey that the term Rajput is synonymous to bastard(illegitimate sons of kings) which term from 'Raja-putra' imply 'illegitimate' ? the cited source wanted to convey that in some parts of Rajasthan the term Rajput was sometimes used for illegitimate sons of kshatriya chief *NOT THAT* the term Rajput(Rajaputra) also means illegitimate sons of chief please recheck the recent edit @Asartea:, @HinduKshatrana: ,@LukeEmily:, or @Heba Aisha: MuslimKhstrana (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Vidya Dhar Mahajan states that this meaning of 'Rajput' is confined to just some parts of Rajasthan rather than it being the universal meaning. He mentioned this claim in his multiple books and here's a link to one such book which at least I have a full-page preview: [5]. He states that "The word 'Rajput' is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar".

The same claim is also mentioned in a footnote of the page no. 52 of this book, which attributes the details to Ishwari Prasad: "The word Rajput, in common parlance, in certain States of Rajputana, is used to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or jagirdar. (Ishwari Prasad, History of Mediaeval India, p. 25). But it doesn't seem to get support from the other scholars. So, at best, it should only be mentioned in the article's body with attribution to Vidya Dhar Mahajan. As far as I know, Utcursch is the most prolific editor of the Rajput/Gurjar-related articles. So he may want to give his opinion here. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Rajput doesnot means raja putra . Rajput means son of land ( raj = land ,put= son) who protects the people of their land from outsiders is known as rajput because rajput ,kshtriye and RAJANYA have same meaning which have been written in rig veda Harmanjatt 00 (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Give this page to someone with Rajput knowledge

Wow. This must be the worst edited page on Rajputs I have ever read. So much false information and so much actual information that has been left out. The editor needs to go to museums and to india to see the history. By the sounds of it, these 'modern scholars' that the editor relys are not very knowledgeable or seem very biased. In india there are sanskrit books which go back centuries with a huge amount of information. They still add to these books today. You will not get better information than from them. This wikipedia page is laughable. You can not re-write history by providing false information. Someone else needs to be in charge of this page and have a good look into it. People of india know what Rajputs have done for the country.

Maybe watch deadliest warrior. Just to get the first bit of insight and go from there. And then build on your knowledge

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. This article fits that policy. A television show is not a reliable source. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What is "Russia Rajput"???

Why is something that has very little information about/name which is unheard of in the lead? 117.198.125.56 (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

That is my concern too, but some editors like @HebaAisha are adamant on keeping this very image for no apparent reason. There are thousand other photos which are verified yet He/she chose this and won't let anyone replace this. Due to time constraint i am unable to participate for the time being. Anyone else also feel that there are issues with this article please start the discussion, i can contribute as much the time permits. Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The reasons for keeping this image were explained well and in great detail both by NitinMlk and Мастер_Шторм. As per Kautilya3's suggestion, I have removed the word "Russia". I earnestly request that we should not restart the same discussion again and again after every couple of months unless there are some brand new points to be added or new evidence has come to light. Heba Aisha, pinging you as Mr.Sajaypal mentioned you in the discussion.LukeEmily (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC).

Already discussed a lot and we gave Sajaypal a lot of explanation that is available in above sections.Also RFc closed and he didn't bring any alternative to the contentious issue. Now no need of disruption. The length of discussion specifies everything and no counter source of same quality presented by Sajaypal. If disruption begins I would like to go to Admins. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The other guy asked about it and I replied to him, if he has something to contribute he surely can, its not like this is the final form of the article and it can't be changed. I too wanted to contribute to the discussion and improving the article but for some time I am not able to dedicate much time to wikipedia. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

yes change 106.78.76.165 (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hindu Rajput cultivators from Dehra Dhoon from The People of India by Watson and Kaye.

I see the insertion of this image as a yet another effort from some users with malicious motive to degrade the community. It has been intentionally put in the origin section to put extra emphasis on "low origins" of the community. The description of the image itself questions its authenticity. It reads "Cultivators, Russia Rajpoots, Hindoos, Dehra Dhoon". The word "Russia" might mean that the people shown in the image are actually some cultivators from Russia. Otherwise, there is no such Rajput clan or surname named Russia if we check the Raj era sources or the contemporary ones. Our article itself says that many communities lay claim on Rajput identity but not every claim is universally accepted. So, another possibility is that the people shown in the image are from some Dalit community which claims Rajput or Kshatriya origin but its claim isn't accepted in the larger Hindu society. Despite being in questions so many times, the image continues to enjoy suport of some well-experienced editors, which is a bit surprising to me. Shinjoya (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Addition of items removed on the basis of discussion in past.

Shinjoya, plz see this edit [6], the things you are adding were removed in past by senior editors on the basis of consensus. This is a page related to a community and image should represent them only. The forts are on the pages of Rajput empires. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

If the images were deleted in past, it doesn't mean they should not be added at present. Please share the said consensus regarding these images. Firstly, there was no such Rajput empire which you are talking about. They were distributed in the form of small kingdoms. There is relevance of "Rajput kingdoms" in this page related to the community. Thats why we have a section. And the section is large enough to accomodate images. Rajput architecture is an important aspect which needs to be depicted. I don't find any valid reason for not having the said images. Another image, I added was of Rajput regiment's march in Republic day parade. We have a section "martial race"; so there is no reason to not have that image as the Rajput regiment was formed on the basis of British martial race theory. Shinjoya (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Rajput regiment could be kept, but we have discussed a lot in past about present set of images. The forts are at Jaipur state and other articles, they are not needed here as it is a caste article and Rajput people are not rulers only, they have peasant pastoral origin. Since, I agree with Sitush views that these are just glorifying and need not be here.Heba Aisha (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I consider repeating again and again that they have pastoral origins as pov pushing as their pastoral origin is not universally accepted. Secondly, how does their said pastoral origin mean that the image of forts shall not be added? A majority of princely states in North India at the time of British belonged to Rajputs. Thats the reason we have a large section of Rajput kingdoms in this article as well as an article Rajput kingdoms. These Rajput kingdoms were known for their architecture. The article is incomplete without depiction of Rajput architecture and two mere images of forts should not be an issue. Shinjoya (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, very high quality sources are there, as you can see. A lot of discussion had been there on it that has been archived on talk page. Go through talk page history to read that. [7], one example is this. The comparativel sources which talk the other ideas of origin are not so sound as compared to the sources used to cite peasant and pastoral origin. Infact, we waited for months for Sajaypal007 to present sources which could challange the viewpoint on origin presented by these oxford and other high quality publisher. But he wasn't able to present more than some Rajasthan university books, which are in no way comparable to these.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Please check atleast Archive21 to 28, then you will have fair idea about multiple editor's views. We are not going to do that again and again.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I went to see whether the page on Indian Muslims had an image of the Taj Mahal. It did. Not surprising.

But please note carefully how the caption is worded. If somebody claimed "Taj Mahal was built by Muslims", it would have been rejected just the same way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, please keep the caste pages for community related pics only. We have Jaipur article and those Hawa Mahal are fit there only. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I am getting your point. The wording with the fort images should be fixed. Instead of saying "Taj Mahal was built by Indian Muslims", we can say "Taj Mahal was built by Muslim rulers of India". Same way, instead of saying "xyz fort was built by Rajputs", we may say "xyz fort was built Rajput rulers of Jaipur/Bikaner". Shinjoya (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the Taj Mahal wording is that it was built by "the Mughal emperor Shahjahan". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Similarly, a strong population of millions of Rajputs all over india are not of rulers only. Very few of them ruled XYZ states. Most of the people of Rajput community were part time troopers and peasant pastoralist as we can read from reliable sources here. Let the forts reserved for the rulers or state page only, not the caste page. You can add Hawa Mahal on the article of Jai Singh and in similar way other forts to their respective ruler's page.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, I checked all archives from 21 to 28, and couldn't find a single discussion over keeping or removing the images of forts. These images were present in the article from times immemorial due to their relevance. Their presence was never objected by any user. One day, Sitush removed them. I re-added the images and now all of sudden, it has become an issue. I wish to say that sometimes, even Sitush can be wrong. Shinjoya (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, we don't see the need of it as I and Kautilya explained above. I would repeat keep the caste article for community related pic only.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The Taj Mahal (and other notable buildings) are included on the Indian Muslims page because of the notability of Indo-Islamic architecture. Indo-Islamic architecture is significantly notable in regards to the history of Indian architecture. While Rajput architecture is notable enough to warrant a subsection on the Architecture of India page, it is clearly not as notable as Indo-Islamic architecture. While one could make a similar argument that the majority of Indian Muslims were not rulers with palaces or tombs and thus those images do not deserve a place on Indian Muslims, I believe it is rather the notability of that style of architecture by that particular group of people that warrants its inclusion. Now, Indo-Islamic architecture has a decently sized article, and so Indian Muslims has a subsection on it. Rajput architecture only has a subsection on Architecture of India, so at most I would only have a sentence about Rajput architecture. Now images are meant to supplement written content, and with only a sentence on Rajput architecture I doubt we would need an image of a Rajput fort. Additionally, we already have an image of a royal Rajput procession for the Rajput Kingdoms section, and I think images of people are much better than buildings for a caste article. Sorry if it sounds convoluted, but that's just my take on the situation. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Chariotrider555, are you saying that the Rajput architecture isn't notable? Just because we don't have a dedicated article on Rajput architecture, it doesn't become any less notable. We do have articles like Architecture of Rajasthan, List of palaces in Rajasthan and Hill Forts of Rajasthan which feature mainly the Rajput architecture. There are as many as 10 UNESCO world heritage sites in Rajasthan, 9 of them were built by Rajput rulers. So, I disagree with you on the notability point. Then you said that we should not include monuments in articles of social groups. Then the same should have applied to Indian Muslims which is not the case. We can't have two policies for two different communities. Shinjoya (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Already a lot of images are there. It would propel other caste to put buildings of their respective notable caste members here. Example: Bhumihar may put their zamindari's hawelis and Kayastha may put Ziradei ancestral home of Rajendra Prasad. I agree with Chariotrider, we don't need forts here. Keep caste article for caste only.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I see Indian Muslims and Rajputs as roughly equivalent as communities. What is good for the hound is good for hare. If anybody thinks religions are "legitimate" as identities and castes are not, that is just the British brainwashing we have been subjected to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, if there exist large sections for "Bhumihar kingdoms" and "Kayastha kingdoms" in their respective caste articles then such images can be placed but thats not the case, I guess. Rajendra Prasad's argument doesn't make any sense as I am not asking to put V.P. Singh's haveli in this article. A few fort images in the "Rajput kingdoms" section can be placed because they were built by Rajput kingdoms, their architecture is notable and we have enough space to accommodate them. Shinjoya (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, since we have a section called "Rajput kingdoms", using a fort or palace to illustrate them seems perfectly fine. But only one. And, let us keep the current elephant procession image. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

End this discussion with one fort only. Too many means glorifying, which need to be avoided. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Shinjoya (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bihari Rajput villagers watching Mallah fishermen.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Reference No 118: probably a fabricated quote

I came across the Reference no 118 of article. The quote provided with citation reads: "The term Rajput denotes a cluster of castes that are accorded Kshatriya status in the varna system." On opening the reference link, proper preview is not available. When we search the quote on google books, we get nothing. Thats why I feel that the quote is fabricated and the source doesn't say what we are made to see. Therefore, I propose to delete this source from our references. Shinjoya (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Reference 116 is not exactly same, wat you're pointing to. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Its Reference No 118 now. I am talking about the very first reference which appears in the Subdivisions section. Shinjoya (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I clicked on it and I got a limited preview which showed the quote. Google Books also has the quote if you search it up. Its legit. [8][9]Chariotrider555 (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Chariotrider555, Got it. Thanks. Shinjoya (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Why do we need a section on "Diet"?

We have a sub-section over Diet in the "Culture and ethos" section. Lets see what this sub-section reads: During the British rule their love for pork, i.e. wild boar, was also well known and the British identified them as a group based on this.

I don't understand the relevance of this sub-section but Heba Aisha says that it is relevant. The article's name is "Rajput" rather than "Rajputs under British". We don't need to put everything from the Raj sources without looking into context. In today's era, anyone can eat anything. We can't stereotype a community over diet. Rajput is a large caste with presence in entire North and Central India as well as Pakistan. Their diet is supposed to change considering varying local cuisines. Statements like "Rajputs love pork" sound absurd. A handful number of Rajputs are Muslims. Can we say the same thing about them? Definitely no. For the sake of argument, if we consider the content for describing Rajput diet under British, we have to go deeply into the cited sources. The first source doesn't say anything like that. On reading the second source, we find that the statement may be valid only for Rajput kings of Rajputana rather than the general Rajput population. Considering all the issues stated above, I propose to remove the sub-section from the article. Shinjoya (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This is covered by two high quality sources. And its relevant. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3, would you like to share your views? Shinjoya (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya has a point. If there is a section called "diet", we would expect to see a some reasonable coverage of all that there is to say about diet, not just one tidbit which seems to be in the past. (Also the quotation of the first citation is clearly not relevant to what is being said here.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If you people have other sources which cover the variety of diet they eat, plz expand by using it. I can explain the diet section by saying that many tribes of India like Great Andamanese and others are known for their love towards specific foodstuffs in the similar way. For a caste and tribe article, these things are important. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I went to see Sentinelese tribe article and found this:

They likely use bows and arrows to hunt terrestrial wildlife and more rudimentary methods to catch local seafood, such as mud crabs and molluscan shells. They are believed to eat a lot of molluscs, given the abundance of roasted shells found in their settlements.

It doesn't mean that they eat only this thing. As they are Particularly vulnerable tribal group, government has started a minimum basic income programme and in a documentary of Rajya Sabha TV, i came to know that they are now becoming fond of alcoholic drinks also, due to frequent contact with outside society as a part of inclusion drive by government. This stuff of "pork" may not be relevant in present context, but since a lot of Rajput clans were tribe earlier, it may represent an important food habit like above example. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, why are you comparing this article with Sentinelese. Sentinelese is an isolated protected tribe of 100 individuals which is found on a single Andaman island while Rajput is arguably the second largest Indian caste found across as many as a dozen states of India and Pakistan. Their diet would obviously be much more diverse than that of Sentinelese. This Rajput is the only caste related article which has a distinct section for diet. Articles like Brahmin, Jat, Bhumihar, Kayastha, Gurjar, Khatri has no such thing, simply because it doesn't make any sense. Shinjoya (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya, Heba Aisha, Kautilya3 , hope you all are doing well and staying safe in the covid situation. Since the sources and text is relevant to the article but the section only discusses a certain time period, my suggestion is to remove the section "Diet" completely and move the single statement to British era section. What do you all think of this? Alternatively, if that is not acceptable to all, we can add a template to request the expansion of the section by other editors. Castes do have diet sections - see Saraswat, Chitpawan, Kashmiri Pandit. It basically depends on whether sources find it important enough to mention.LukeEmily (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was in fact going to be my suggestion. If it is something in the past, it should be moved to the history seciton somewhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya, Heba Aisha, if you both agree, I will remove the section and move the line to some appropriate section as Kautilya3 also suggests the same. Please confirm.LukeEmily (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I agree with your proposal. The content from the diet section should be moved to some suitable place in British period section. Shinjoya (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I too agree. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

References

First line of lead should be fixed

The first lead line of our article reads :

Rajput (from Sanskrit raja-putra, "son of a king") is a large multi-component cluster of castes, kin bodies, and local groups, sharing social status and ideology of genealogical descent originating from the Indian subcontinent.

I feel that its a clear violation of MOS:FIRST which says that the very first line of an article should be written in simple English and it should be easy to understand for nonspecialist readers. For caste articles, the first line should define the modern-day community rather than an in-depth historical description.

Firstly, our lead line wrongly defines Rajput as a group of castes rather than a single caste. The present status of the community is of a single caste rather than a group of castes. A noteworthy point here is that Rajputs practice caste endogamy and clan exogamy. It is quite possible that in past, various different castes got mixed to form the Rajput community, but at present, its pretty much a single caste. On one hand, we have one source (Lawrence A. Babb) which says that Rajput is a cluster of castes. On the other hand, we have dozens of sources which identify Rajput as a single caste. The Indian government too treats Rajput as a single caste. Then, why are we preferring the version of Lawrence A. Babb for the first line? Its WP: UNDUE.

Secondly, the rest part of the lead line uses complex terms like "multi-component", "kin bodies" and "social ideology of genealogical descent." Now again, these are difficult terms for a regular reader. A non-Indian with no idea of "Rajput" would rather get confused after reading the lead line. Hence, I would like to propose a simple new first line for lead :

Rajput (from Sanskrit raja-putra, "son of a king") is a caste found predominantly in India and Pakistan.

Shinjoya (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

References