Talk:Rajput/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Why shouldn't we remove the Russia Rajput image

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

Given that the authenticity of this image has been questioned so many times on this forum and no satisfactory details could be provided by its proponents, I don't find any good reason for keeping this image in our article. The file description reads Cultivators, Russia Rajpoots, Hindoos, Dehra Dhoon. Being from India, I can say this with complete authority that there isn't any community named Russia Rajput in India. Google and Google books search results in nothing. There is a strong possibility that the people shown in the image are cultivators from Russia with no connection to Rajput caste whatsoever. The motive of putting this image in origin section of this article and Rajputisation article is to push POV that Rajputs are of low origin.

Considering all the issues stated above, I propose to remove the image on grounds of insufficient description, questionable authenticity and WP:NPOV. Shinjoya (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Rajput/Archive_26#Images LukeEmily (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The source for this image is from the a book published in 1868 almost 150years ago I dont understand how can this be used here since most caste editors here are against using raj era sources.The book mentions them as "russia rajputs" something which i've never heard of,this is a testimony to why raj source are so horribly unreliable,if any user wants to keep the image the WP:BURDEN falls upon them to provide some background on what these "Russia Rajputs" are so the Image from this utterly unreliable Raj source could be verified. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Did some digging along with some variations in search as raj era author are notorious for atrocious pronunciation.

These are the results =

• Google- "Russia Rajput"
• Books - "Russia Rajput"
• Google-"Roosia Rajput"
• Books -"Roosia Rajput"

Absolutely nothing of any use.I doubt any one here will be ever able to provide some background on existence of something like "Russia Rajputs".Ratnahastin (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Ratnahastin, There have been enough discussions on this Russia Rajpoot image but no one could provide sufficient information about the said community. So, its better to remove it. Shinjoya (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya i've been through it it doesn't seem like  that discussion arrived at what is considered as "consensus" on wikipedia note that WP:CCC.

Heres a quote from the raj source

The Hill Rajpoot tribes are very nmnerous; the Jullunder Doab alone has upwards of twenty. Their pretensions to the appellation is, however, very doubtful, though every tribe asserts its descent from one or other of the original four Agni Kools, or fire brethren. Those alone are really Rajpoots who are themselves members of a royal class, or are connected with one by marriage.

[1]  In the description of the image whether they are rajputs or not is also doubted by source itself. A utterly unreliable 150years old raj source,makes dubious claims such as naming some unknown hill pastorals who possibly claimed to be "russia"(no such clan in existence.and many people from other caste claim to be rajputs or their descendants but those aren't accepted) rajputs in an interaction and they compiled the image into their report  as "russia rajputs" and source doubts itself that the hill tribes they took a picture of is a rajput. this is worst and most unreliable  source I've seen this month.its suprising that people want to keep this unverified image, source fails WP:HISTRS and too old to be used on an active caste article (WP:AGEMATTERS).Ratnahastin (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Please go through old archived discussion. NitinMlk gave a proper explaination of source. Also LukeEmily, HinduKshatrana were those who added various images from same book and this was chosen. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

i've been through them there doesn't appear to be a consensus note that if you think theres a Consensus as with most things on Wikipedia its never permanent WP:CCC consensus can change. The reasons provided by nitin aren't convincing either since the unreliable raj source itself doubts the authenticity of the rajput status of the hill tribes,and you pointed out that this image was "Chosen" as far i know the only time images were chosen was during voting of images this image was not even part of candidates the ones which ere to be consen democratically (although wikipedia is not democracy) Secondly you've reverted my edits where i removed repetition of the source and sentence as per manual of style aswell may know reasons for reversion? Thanks!.Ratnahastin (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, I understand why you are pushing this image. You have been seen overemphasizing the "low origin" of Rajputs on this talk page discussions. In one comment, you compared Rajputs with Sentinelese people saying that they are also tribal people like Sentilinese. It has been observed that you like to put derogatory images labelling people as Rajputs in this article.

This image titled "Bihari Rajput watching Mallah fishermen" was uploaded as your "own work" on Commons so as to put it in this article and other articles like Rajputisation and Bihari. You removed images of Rajput forts multiple times like 1, 2, 3, 4. Its clear that you selectively remove one kind of images labelling them as "glorifying" and add derogatory images, which is not in line with WP:NPOV.

As far as this "Russia Rajpoot" is concerned, the people shown in the image are Russian cultivators. If not so, we don't have sufficient data to prove that they are Rajputs either. So many times, the users and IPs have raised concerns about this image, but we never have any satisfactory answer. Hence, its better to remove this and get rid of this tiresome activity of investigation and then re-investigation only to find ourselves empty handed. Shinjoya (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shinjoya and Ratnahastin: Lmao funny part is that these group of editors which are Heba Aisha, Lukeemily, Chariotrider 555 backed up by Ravnesfire and co tried their best to distort Rajput history in whatever worst way possible. This article is horrible to read with one sided narrative against the community. They try to present Rajput as mixed up caste of low tribal origin. Guess What ???? Vandal Chariotrider removed legendary Rajput resistance to several muslim invasion on that article, removing name of Rajput rulers and more.

More funny thing is that they also labell other users for using cheap tricks and not giving aceadmic sources but intersting bit here is they just remove everything (even well sourced) as vandalism.

Isn't it very surprising that all 4 of them defend Chariotrider 555 (Luke, Ravnesfire and Heba) on his SPI case despite so many similarities even in recent edit summaries ???? They accused Ratnahastin of poorly filled reports against their group despite the fact that Heba herself filled 2 horrible report against User:Ratnahastin which proved unrelated by CU. Hypocrites. #Fact. 2402:8100:2241:7C27:60AD:4D7E:D839:3EFB (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop your conspiracy theories. Please stop personal attacks. You do not like any statement even if they are from Cambridge and Oxford university scholars unless it glorifies your community. This article has been a "victim" of extensive caste promotion and WP:PUFFERY. Never seen anything like this on wikipedia. Deleting sourced statements is "distortion of history", not the other way round. When editors add sourced statements, it is not called vandalism.LukeEmily (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

To the ip and others : every image and content here has been discussed for months but yet you people are not willing to go through archived discussion.Ravensfire, has never edited this article, ever since we made edits. Just stop your allegations and keep the article in best version, which is an outcome of months of discussion. The source of image is verified and given in discussion. It is from same book, from where a number of other images used on wiki are taken. Also you people are removing sourced content to do your own pov edits. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This comment of NitinMlk has described about source of image. Some clans may not be identified.

British were the one who conducted the last caste census in India, which was done in 1931. And they recorded around 3,000 castes, which were further divided into around 25,000 subcastes.[1] No such caste census happened after that. So there is neither any modern data nor any modern reliable source which lists even all of the present-day castes of India, let alone their subcastes. And, just like other castes, there is no reliable source which lists all Rajput subcastes. That's why we are attributing these pics to their sources and are using them for just representation purpose. Also, note that most of the time the authors of The People of India series couldn't even confirm the clan/subcastes of the subjects, so they didn't even bother to mention them. So, by your logic, we should remove them as they didn't even have those details. The appropriate approach here is to balance things out, e.g. we can add a couple of more pics in the Origins section. So you & others can propose pics of some soldiers, village heads, etc. as they are also mentioned in the section. BTW, read the source again, as this is what he said about the subjects: The class represented, however, has no such exalted pretensions. So you are misrepresenting the source in your quoted text.

Tagging Мастер Шторм, who has also remained a part of discussion in past. He may explain the things. Heba Aisha (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, please stop your usual canvassing. Before the start of this discussion, we knew nothing about this image and now too, what we know is still nothing. We don't know anything about the said name of clan/sub-caste to which those people belong. We can't even confirm that the people belong to India or Russia. When so many people are objecting to keeping it, we need to explain its significance in this article. What special does it add to the article? If we have no explanation, the image must be removed.Shinjoya (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Read up WP:CCC sure some clans may not be identified during those times but google search should bring something right? Some self identifion by some fellas on web? google does the search of entire web. unless you can provide some background on these russias (some hill pastorals whose rajput status was doubted by 150year old source itself),or whether such tribe ever existed til then i believe the image should be removed as its from horriblely unreliable old source with dubious authenticity.Many tribes and people in india claim to be Rajputs or their descendants (for example Kolis,the Bhonsale,the jat rulers of Bharatpur State to claim rajput Origin.)the lead of this article itself states that many clans claim rajput status but it is not universally accepted. So why should some unknown hill pastorals who claimed to be "russia" rajputs 150years ago should be kept?Ratnahastin (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The Unreliable source for this image : people of india series by the Raj officers of EIC ,John Forbes Watson and John William Kaye none these were trained ethnographers note that Raj era ethnography cant be cited either way here see  WP:RAJ and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable? As stated by sitush :

Raj "ethnographers", who were actually gentleman-scholars documenting things as a sideline to their main functions as civil servants of the British Raj. People who go around using colour- and nose-charts to assess the ethnicity of people do not deserve too much attention and, indeed, do not get it except in a historiographical context. "

we cant use this unreliable source on wikipedia one can just visit The People of India#The_People_of_India_(1868–1875) to get the glimpse of what was the purposes of these series. The image should be removed for having dubious authenticity and unreliablityRatnahastin (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This comment of NitinMlk properly explained the source of the image which Shinjoya wants to remove. It is verified.

the first pic is taken from this page of the book which contains all relevant details about it. The first thing which intrigued me was the flowers in their caps, and the page has even details about it: "Like most hill men the Rajpoots are fond of adorning themselves with sprigs of wild flowers" On a different note, the pic is not only an important representation of Rajput cultivators from hill regions of India (and relevant to the "Origin" section of this article) but also a historical image from one of the only two Indian states which have Rajput majority: Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh are the only states in India which have Rajput majority. Rajputs constitute around 35% of the total population at Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh: see here and here.

As far as the second pic is concerned, it is taken this page and its details are at this page, which sums up the pic no. 24 and 25: THE two individuals depicted in these Illustrations are of the Rajpoot tribe, ... The Rajpoot No. 25 is a Marwaree from Jodhpoor, on the western side of India. So the pic in question – i.e. pic no. 25 of the book – is of a Rajput from Jodhpur.

Finally, spellings used by the British used to be often very different from the present day, which makes it a challenge to identify even well-known entities. But that can be easily fixed by changing the caption. In any case, we are using them for representative purpose and are properly attributing to their sources.

Heba Aisha (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The second picture is absolutely unrelated to discussion at hand and the source itself doubts the rajput status of the hill tribe it took a picture of and theres no proof of the existence of roosia russia rajput tribe,please see WP:RAJ when dealing with these sources,and secondly nitin's arguments are basically "if todays uttrakhand has Rajput majority( 30% )then we can use this image from 1860s." And i've read the entire source, If the rajput status of these hill tribes(russias) is doubtful by the source then i dont think any of us has authority to question it,and having this 150year old image from a

Dubious unreliable raj source in the very first section would be giving to much weight to it completely WP:UNDUE. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the fishermen image should be used on wikipedia. About the other image, if there is another image of peasants, it will resolve the debate. In any case, there is a comment from an editor about the image in archive 28 About image: The image in the origin section shows 2 cultivators from the community, and given the Rajputs' peasant and pastoral origin (per sources in the article), the presence of the current image is OK in the "Origins" section. Interestingly, I could not find any opposing comments in the above discussions against the inclusion of the images in which the Rajputs are shown in king–ly attires, prince–ly attires, holding weapons, etc. Any person who has objections to the image of the Rajputs in the cultivator–ly attire should familiarize themselves with WP:NPOV.... Мастер Шторм 04:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC). My suggestion is to get input from Sitush and let him make a final decision.LukeEmily (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, This thread is a fresh discussion on Russia Rajpoot image. Why are you and Heba Aisha copy-pasting comments of other users from archive to this thread? Firstly, Heba Aisha tried to bring Мастер Шторм here by canvassing. When he didn't arrive, you have copy-pasted his entire comment here. Try to bring some scholarly stuff rather than old comments of other users which hardly have any relevance. Its quite evident that both of you are trying hard to save this image from being removed.  Are you saying that anyone can select just any image and add it anywhere on the article? In this case, we need to verify the relevance of the image. Are there any modern scholarly sources that use this image to describe the history of Rajputs? You must answer this. Shinjoya (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

As per WP:CCC

Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances."

We brought new arguments such reliabity of these sources and others, I dont think you can defend this image by copy pasting previously heard arguments.Ratnahastin^talk 01:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, LukeEmily, Ratnahastin, Lets try to wind up this discussion. Many users including admin RegentsPark feel that this "Russia Rajpoot" image is contentious. So, its better that the image be removed. I don't think that we essentially need an image in the Origin section but Heba Aisha and LukeEmily insist on having an image featuring low profile Rajput people so as to put emphasis on their "peasant and pastoral origins". In that case, I suggest that we include the Hill porter image (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Niltoo,_Hill_porter,_Rajpoot,_Dehra_Dhoon_(NYPL_b13409080-1125408).tiff).

It features a Rajput boy from Uttarakhand who works as a milkman. The file caption doesn't have any term like "Russia" which could have questioned its authenticity. The best thing about the image is that we have its in-detail description at Wikisource here. Shinjoya (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Shinjoya for suggesting a way forward. I will wait for input of others. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya this image is also from same dubious 150year old raj source compiled by the officers of EIC the authenticity and reliability of this source is proved above by my comments better keep the origin section without any images,the milkman image is not relevant to origin section in anyway rajputs didn't originated from milkmen.i find it very hypocritical that both heba and luke who take immense pride in having modern anthropological sources to back them up are arguing in favour of this dubious 150year old image compiled by raj officers who were neither trained anthropologists or historians. Ratnahastin^talk 05:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ratnahastin, I am also not in favour of keeping any image in Origin section. But as we can see in this discussion as well as previous discussions which are archived, both Heba Aisha and LukeEmily are adamant on keeping atleast one image in the Origin section. Thats the only reason we still have this dubious Russia image in the article from so many days. They have got a few sources in favor of peasant/pastoral origins and on the basis of them, they want only low-profile Rajputs in the section. Shinjoya (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not in favor of the milkman image as Rajputs did not originate from milkmen. Shinjoya, you need to assume good faith and not cast aspersions. Few sources? 10-15 modern academic sources are few? Never mind. Tell me where I said we need "at least one image" in any recent discussion. My final recommendation is to not use the Russia rajput image as the admin said it is contentious. But please do not use the milkman image as it is incorrect for origin section. There is one image of agriculturist here http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/1400_1499/rajputforts/rajputs/rajputs.html but I don't know how reliable it is. They are Rajputs because the question mark is afer the agriculturist word not the Rajput word. But I dont want to get into a new debate about tis. Perhaps it is best to leave that section without any image. The other editors like Nikhil and others have made their points and probably do not want to belabor their points. I am of the same mindset. I am done with the discussion on the image. Please do not involve me in this image discussion any more. You can remove it, keep it or replace it. I don't care. Good luck.LukeEmily (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, Most of the editors involved in this debate agree to removal of image and to not keep any image in the Origin section. Whats your view now? Shinjoya (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the image should be according to content of the section. Since, that section talks about peasant and pastoral origin of Rajputs. Any image of peasant or pastoral Rajput would suffice. So, if you have problem with the world "Russia" in this image and you want that hill boy image, which is verified, i agree. But, lets first confirm that whether Ratnahastin want a new fort or Rajput ruler's image for that section too. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Heba Aisha LukeEmily, Ratnahastin and me are in favour of not keeping any image in the origin section. Milkman image has the same authenticity issues as mentioned by Ratnahastin. Any image in the origin section is unnecessary and is likely to be considered POV by other editors. So, better thing would be to not have any image at all.Shinjoya (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. LukeEmily has kept himself out and is not in favour of removal. There is no authenticity issue and without any image the article will look like one sided article portraying all Rajput as aristocrats. Which is not true going by content of article. As there are only forts in this articles, which are also WP:UNDUE for a caste article. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Sitush has explained in one of his edit that these British era images can be used. And several caste articles have such images. I don't know, why it is posing a problem for this article only. The description clearly say that they are hill Rajputs. And Yadav, Koli and various caste articles have such images. This is nothing but attempt to push a certain side. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, You say that without an image in Origin section, the article will be left with only fort images. I don't know how can you make such false claims with confidence. I counted and found that there are as many as 10 images in the article and out of them, only 1 is fort. Its not the fault of Rajputs if they were once a ruling class of Hindus. You want to add images to show them as Shudras; thats why you uploaded that fisherman image on commons. But why do you forget that Rajput is classified as a forward caste in all states except Karnataka? Do you think all state governments and central government are fools to not grant them SC reservation? Any image in Origin section would be considered POV only. Neither we want any Shudra image nor a fort image in that section. Shinjoya (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Now you are taking it wrong completely. We have images of cultivator Rajputs also and also of milkman Rajputs. Why shouldn't we diversify it as the origin section itself talk of origin from various socio-economic background. Also, my image is authentic and i have added a lot of authentic image from Bihar, which include landmark and caste groups too. For the view you have garnered that all Rajputs were or are from aristocratic background, i have even provided a media report to show, how they look here. I don't know about their status in Rajasthan, but yes in eastern states, they are from agrarian background as well. Stop the futile discussion as the images of cultivator Rajputs are as authentic as current lead image. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

A deliberate attempt at mislabelling other people as Rajputs is clearly POV. From cultivators, you made them fishermen in your image. Its something like me uploading my own photo and giving it title "Amitabh Bachchan.jpg" and then using it in Amitabh Bachchan article. Sounds ridiculous? So was your image. Interestingly, in another image, you have tried to show Kushwahas as good looking decent people. All these caste based images uploaded by you appear to be POV. Shinjoya (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya, Why don't you talk about various other community like Nishad and Mallah, i uploaded and also the landmark like in Mahua article. I can't choose the setting to take image and i took the image in the situation in which i found them. You are just thinking excessively in order to push your own view. There is no need to remove the current image too as description describe them as Rajput and this is also not taken by me. Also, your view can't be taken as neutral and you are just ruining the hard work of other editors here by removing images and content. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If you have problem with my image, there shouldn't be any problem with these historical image, which are also not liked by you ,as they donot match your personal viewpoint on this caste group. As your comments also represent that you have some affiliations to this caste and in most of your edits in 4 year period, you have edited mostly the pages related to Rajput caste. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED and avoid the removal of content and image, which appearsto to be derogatory to your community Shinjoya. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, Are you still trying to defend the "Russia Rajpoot image" despite knowing that admin RegentsPark called it contentious and LukeEmily too agreed to its removal? You are the only one who is advocating this image and I have already explained the reason why you are pushing the image. From last one year or so, you were asked multiple times by different users to explain the image, but what you had were the comments of other users. The days of this image are over and it will no longer be available on this platform as this discussion will be considered WP:CONSENSUS. Shinjoya (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a democracy we dont need to have agreements of every one as such discussion would never end most have agreed to its removal, including admins.And since most of Heba's comments are either POV logically fallacious strawmans which never addressed the issues raised by me and Shinjoya or WP:ASPERSIONS ,we dont need to respond to Heba's arguments from now on since most are strawmans and red herrings. Ratnahastin^talk 09:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The link i shared from previous talk explains the source and authenticity of image and there is no dispute regarding milkman image. Please stop your personal opinion on what are verifiable and what are not. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ratnahastin again giving wrong policy for wrong case. Even if you two are in favour of removal, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY says that the voting and majority favour shouldn't be criteria to remove the image. What we need is consensus and Shinjoya's personal opinion doesn't matter. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya, RegentsPark hasn't called the reliability of image consensus. You have presented it by breaking it into your own favour. He said it is disputed because someone like me is not in favor of removal and others like you are pushing to remove it to push this article to a non neutral one sided perspective. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ratnahastin, please keep on discussing, you are bound to respond as we need consensus. If you donot respond i will assume WP:SILENCE from your side. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Democracy means voting we aren't voting here  i've raised issues about reliability of the sources and dubiousness of image you haven't addressed them yet instead gave irrelevant strawmans and ASPERSIONS secondly WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS states try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." And The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view

Our arguments are based on wiki Guidelines and reliability of the source your arguments are simply "if you remove this image you are glorifying rajputs, if you remove this image you are pov pushing" These are pov comments and carries no weight at all.

None of your arguments have targeted the issues raised by us you haven't brought anything to the table which proves this 150year old Raj source is reliable or satisfied concerns about dubiousness of the image by proving that theres a clan named russia rajput. Your arguments are strawmans and aspersions only with such an history of disruptive comments i don't you will ever be able to satisfy these issues so to save our time and energy we will not argue and respond to your strawman arguments from now until your comment targets these issues, and since 3 out of 4 have argreed to its removal the Consensus had been built.Ratnahastin^talk 10:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I was mentioned here, but I haven't read this thread yet. From a cursory look at the last two days' comments, I noticed this comment. I don't support the inclusion of the image here in which a few Rajputs are watching fishermen, but I also don't support the bad-faith assumption by Shinjoya that Heba Aisha wants "to add images to show them as Shudras. How does watching fishermen make someone Shudra? BTW, many Rajputs are actually in dire circumstances, e.g. around one-fifth of the Gujarat's Rajputs are landless labourers. They also have marital ties with low-caste tribes. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

References

NitinMlk ok but we never claimed that all rajputs are kings and landlords,or replacement of this image with landlords. its Heba who is accusing putting those words in our mouths. Ratnahastin^talk 01:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that we need an image of Rajputs as peasants or pastoralists to reflect their origin and varied status, but I still don't understand what a Russia Rajput is? Is it a really weird spelling of a Rajput clan? Is it one of those clans that just vanished from the censuses (due to castes changing their identity)? A milkman image is alright for inclusion I guess, but I think this article definitely needs a peasant/pastoral image of Rajputs. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is another image of Rajput agriculturalists which could serve the purpose instead of Russia Rajputs,

Impey1860s

. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@NitinMlk, There are some comments from Heba which prove that she overemphasises on the said low origins of Rajputs. In another ongoing discussion, she supported the repetition of content in the same section for no valid reason, probably because it has the term "Shudra" in it. As far as the fisherman image is concerned, using "own work" from commons isn't banned on this platform but only if other users have no objections pertaining to the accuracy of file description.

@ Chariotrider555, No user has objected to the inclusion of Impey1860s.jpg image. Go ahead and add it but not in origin section. Any image in origin section is likely to create a controversy. I would suggest to add it in the "British colonial period" section as the image belongs to the British era. -Shinjoya (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, I doubt we could find any ~16th century images depicting Rajputs as peasant/pastoralists. The Emergence as a Community Section would also work as it fits the time period as well. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya, after reading this section, I will post a response here or will open a relevant thread about Raj-era pics at WP:INB in a couple of days. I will also check the other section mentioned by you. BTW, generally speaking, leaving behind the Raj-era pics of well-known historical personalities and landmarks, the reliability of every other pic can be questioned, as nearly all pics at the caste-related articles are either from unreliable Raj-era sources or are uploaded by common people. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I will first comment tomorrow at the other section mentioned by user Shinjoya. After that, I guess it will be better to discuss and develop an overall consensus about the Raj-era pics at WP:INB. Otherwise, someone will add some new pic and there will be another edit war in the coming days, as there are many other pics as well. So maybe we can wait for a few days regarding this pic and sort out the 'other section' first. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

NitinMlk, our main concern is this Russia Rajpoot image rather than all Raj era pics. We already have many Raj era pics in this article but the dubiousness of Russia image makes it unauthentic. Shinjoya (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Origin of Rajput

there is wrong information is provide in the origin of rajput please read Book (Kshatriya Rajvansh 📚 Bhag-2 page no-80 )

written by ragunath kali pahadi Practicalpurpose (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on WP:RS and WP:HSC. The content is well sourced from some of the highest quality academic sources.LukeEmily (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Rajputs originated from in Ancient times & the word RAJPUTRA had been mentioned in Ramayana & other ancient texts. It's really wrong statement that RAJPUTS ORIGINATED FROM PEASANT COMMUNITIES Mig21mig21 (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection

Hi. I've temporarily protected this page. The main reasons for protection are (1) it appears that the cluster of castes version is long standing and sourced so this should be discussed for consensus before it is changed; (2) the image appears to be contentious and this should also be discussed; the origins paragraph that was removed appears to be sourced. I suggest that you create three separate threads for each of these and seek consensus. I also suggest that the discussion be confined to content and it would be better to avoid aspersions suggesting that someone is over emphasizing or under emphasizing this or that aspect of a social group. That implies an agenda and you need good evidence before you accuse someone of having an agenda. The protection does not imply that the current version is the right version but is there so that you seek consensus on the talk page for each change. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

RegentsPark, the change to "cluster of castes" definition had been explained well in advance in this thread. The discussion over image is going on and I don't think its proponents have any valid argument. As far as removal of sourced content from origin section is concerned, user Ratnahastin can better explain. Shinjoya (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've only removed repetition of the same sentence and source first see the 1st paragraph of the origin sections and notice the citation numbers:

This is

The origin of the Rajputs has been a much-debated topic among historians. Modern historians agree that Rajputs consisted of mixing of various different social groups including Shudras and tribals.[12][13]

Almost identical to 3rd paragraph :

However, recent research suggests that the Rajputs came from a variety of ethnic and geographical backgrounds[20] as well as from various varnas including Shudras.[12][13]

The same source similar sentences,my removal of the first paragraph was based upon wiki manual of style. read my edit summary aswell this Ratnahastin (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

i'm assuming RegentsPark you're here since heba left a message on your talkpage, Heba Aisha please stop abusing other editors as caste promoters on talkpage of others these are personal attacks and will not be tolerated.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

RegentsPark, Thank you for protecting the page. I did a quick search in the talk pages and looked at the history of Shinjoya's edits for this page. He has been edit warring on this edit in the past too for "cluster of castes" and other issues although he has been reverted by admin.

I found this old thread in the archives when I searched for "Shinjoya". Year 2017, please see Talk:Rajput/Archive_25#"Indian_caste", administrator utcursch has patiently explained Shinjoya why his edits that removed "cluster of castes" were reverted. 2017 Shinjoya's edit war with admin on the same issue: [2] [3] 2018 Shinjoya's same edits again - he removed cluster of castes version: [4] reverted by admin here [5]

Now he has started again. He has done it on other pages too and I believe based on his deletion of sourced content that this pattern shows that he is edit warring until he gets his version to stay. There are many examples of him going and deleting sourced content on this page itself (as well as other pages). Regards, LukeEmily (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no point in bringing in irrelevant edit warring some one did 4years ago, and 4years is a long time previously disruptive editors may reform into good ones in that time,Shinoya has explained and discussed his edits on talkpages this year before removing content.Your argument appears to be a Poisoning the well fallacy.Ratnahastin (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, why are you referring my three year old general edits as edit warring when all the engaged users including admin Utcursch assumed them as good faith edits? At that time, I was convinced with Utcursch but now, I feel the lead line needs some fix. I hardly engage with edit wars and try to sort out issues through edit summaries and talk page.

Secondly, there is no such policy that sourced content cannot be removed. Content can be removed on grounds of unreliable sources, irrelevant content and undue weightage. Its you and Heba Aisha who tend to revert other editors' work back to your preferred versions without proper explanation and caring a very little about WP:OWN, like this, this and this. Shinjoya (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you implying that Cambridge University Press and Oxford University press is unreliable? Are those views not supported by top scholars? You cannot just remove academic sources added by others under the pretext of WP:UNDUE. Did the admin not give you enough citations here: Talk:Rajput/Archive_25#"Indian_caste"? About other edits - Is it a minority view that Shivaji had Kunbi origin? Does anyone say they disagree with Stewart Gordon? There are multiple citations on the same page that agree with him! Coming back to this topic - The point I am making about "cluster of castes" is that you were explained the issue and reverted several times by admin. Without any new point to add, you made the edit again. You did not even involve or tag the admin who reverted you multiple times. That is WP:STONEWALL. Admin gave an explanation on the talk page about the "cluster of castes". Shinjoya, you have removed several sourced edits that you found "not flattering" all across wikipedia using WP:UNDUE. There are so many examples including your edits on the Bhonsale page and Maratha page where you are sanitizing the leading sections (most readers don't read beyond the leading section). Shinjoya, if you continue with the removal of cited material to remove text you do not like, I will be reporting you without further warning. I do not like to do this as I think we should all edit amicably but you will leave me no choice and there is a lot of evidence in your history of removing sourced content.

About summary in the origin section, I have a suggestion. The first line was kept there as a quick summary. The section is too big and as per WP:SUMMARY we can summarise the section for readers who are only giving it a cursory look. If you do not agree with the current version, we can change it to something like : "Modern historians agree that Rajputs are of pastoral or peasant origin and consisted of mixing of various different social groups and various varnas including Shudras and tribals and were created when members from communities such as Mers, Minas, Jats, etc. coalesced together to form the community by a process called Rajputization". All this is well sourced. We cannot sanitize it as we need a neutral POV. As a side note, I want to add that I have no horse in this race and have no agenda for or against any community. I am simply a neutral editor who has done a lot of study on varna mobility(specifically Sanskritization) and its effect on women and children. In fact, I have the book "Social Mobility in the Caste System in India" by Silverberg sitting in my lap right now as I type this. The quality of sources (Oxford, Cambridge etc.) speak for themselves and I do not think that peasant or shudra is derogatory. Shudra is only of ritual significance - other than that it has no meaning in 2021- and has no negative connotation especially to a western person and probably most Indians today do not care about it either. And nothing wrong in being a peasant. There is caste promotion going on many pages, but the promotion happening here is just outrageous.LukeEmily (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Many strawman arguments, how is shivaji even related to this page? Please stay on the articles topic WP:TALK#TOPIC first of all as this section was about recent increase protection level this doesn't mean you can argue about other unrelated articles and half a decade old edit wars here.Hastin^talk 08:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Caste articles are always edited with some POV violation by some editors. The Maratha and Rajput are most vandalised page for the purpose of caste promotion by many editors. There is connection between the two as there is common tendency of linking the two by few editors, who want to glorify their castes. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes, its other away around. In the name of saving caste articles from puffery, some editors get engaged in degradation of castes with derogatory images and removal/addition of specific content which suits their agenda. All editors should strictly follow the WP:NPOV. Shinjoya (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There is an image of Rajput people in the mind of few editors that they can't be layman and all Rajputs are aristocrats and landlords. But, this is not so. In states like Bihar, from where that image is taken, which you consider unverified, the Rajputs and Dom People couldn't be differentiated at many places. The concept of Bihari Rajput being "Pseudo Rajput" is a testimony to this. Let me present a media report and compare Rajputs of Bihar in that report from image i took. If you are bound to glorify them by declaring all of them as royal people, then you are wasting the reliability of encyclopedia. Even if someone belong to some community, he should show all sides of that community, not only brighter side.Heba Aisha (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Now check this media report, here during Bihar election 2020, the Rajput people were interviewed to know their voting pattern. You may find similarity in dressing pattern etc with image i took. I have no intention to deteriorate royal caste, but the caste actually is not royal. A few segment of it is. At present, it is a mixture of people having different socio-economic background and in terms of ethnicity and race, there is no difference in states like Bihar between Rajputs and the Chamar at some places. Heba Aisha (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The double standard is seen from the approach that you editors are not objecting to lead image, which is also a British era image on the ground of WP:RAJ. But, even after giving proper source objecting to that image in which Rajputs are not looking good. Please, change this mentality, 26th amendment to Indian constitution ended the "privy purse" and Mandal Commission was death nail for royality. At present, you may find them serving as vegetable vendors and milk sellers and even doing the job of gaurds in front of Bank ATMs. Please, don't spread misinformation that all Rajputs are landlords and super rich section of Indian society, owing huge wealth and splendor. Heba Aisha (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, The caption of image present in the news article says "A mix of upper caste and Mallah voters in Kermadih village in Kurhani assembly seat, Muzaffarpur. Photo: Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprashasta". Please don't waste time on your Bihari fisherman image now. We don't trust description given by fellow users in their "own work". Otherwise, it would become too easy for POV users to mislabel such images. In any case, that image won't be restored in any of the Wikipedia articles. As far as the current infobox image is concerned, there is no such caption like "Russia Rajpoot" in it. Thats why it doesn't raise eyebrows. Shinjoya (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't be so hurry and don't deviate from the right thing. Just scroll down the news report, you will find specific images of Rajputs as well. Sitting in Baniyan (Hindi word). Heba Aisha (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If you have problem with "Rajput watching fisherman", in that case i can request "the wire", for that "Baniyan wala image"(Hindi word), as it is verified one. Heba Aisha (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha just compared ruling class of north india with untouchable lowest ranking caste Chamar and North sentinelese people who have not had outside contact for 60,000years its clear that Heba has serious POV problem here.Shinjoya i guess you're right in accusing them of caste degradation.Ratnahastin^talk 02:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha with two of your recent comments you have proved that you have zero reasons which abides by wikipedia guidelines or anything to keep this dubious raj image,other than your very strong POV.

.If you are bound to glorify them by declaring all of them as royal people, ...Please, don't spread misinformation that all Rajputs are landlords and super rich section of Indian society, owing huge wealth and splendor.

These accusations and WP:ASPERSIONS you made in these two comments are unfounded nonsensical strawmans , none of us have argued for replacement of this image with royal one or super rich rajput one but you still accused us of caste promotion. These are clear indication of serious lack of WP:GOOD FAITH and WP:NPOV.

My arguments for removing this image is based on guidelines i've never commented on appearance of the subjects of the image, we follow Guidelines on Wikipedia not POVs or unfounded POV opinions of yours. RegentsPark Utcursch,can you please take some action for these these serious POV and castist comments made by Heba.

• (1) -

  Rajputs are not looking good. Please, change this mentality, 26th amendment to Indian constitution ended the "privy purse" and Mandal Commission was death nail for royality. At present, you may find them serving as vegetable vendors and milk sellers and even doing the job of gaurds in front of Bank ATMs.

• (2)-

  theres no difference Rajputs and the Chamar at some places.

• (3)-Comparison of Rajputs an ruling group with almost prehistoric sentinelese tribe

[6] Ratnahastin^talk 05:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please, how is this derogatory??, I have just told about the similarity between the two as i edit caste articles. Do you really know anything about caste and tribe? Sentinelese are "particularly vulnerable tribal groups" from Andaman. They are not found anywhere else. Chamar and Doms are distributed all over north India. Seriously?, and you are editing caste and tribe related articles. See WP:CIR and please gather information regarding castes before editing and giving your views. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And how does the comparison of various caste and tribe means derogatory remarks. I edit various caste articles and know about food habit, culture of all of them. I am not editing this particular caste article only. Read something and then contribute in that area. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And you have yourself showed that you are here with the mindset tht all Rajputs were rulers, which is completely frivolous statement: (3)-Comparison of Rajputs an ruling group with almost prehistoric sentinelese tribe--With this statement you have proved your non neutral view about this caste. I have not removed any content which talk about Rajput empires and their role with Mughals etc but you are trying to remove tht "Shudra" stuff anyhow to show only one viewpoint to label whole caste as rulers. There exist numerous source and practically you also know tht now they follow various professions, which i mentioned above. I don't know about Rajasthan, but yes in eastern part of India, they are involved in variety of occupation (and seriously, this sounds derogatory?). Heba Aisha (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha my edit was well explained for removal of the repetition of the statement in the edit summary and here aswe read up here above and please stop repeating the same thing Ratnahastin^talk 05:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Again neither i or any one objected to the pastoral or occupation before you've brought that irrelevant topic here when we were discussing the image. Ratnahastin^talk 05:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Heba Aisha: Rajput role with mughals ??? Is there history only restricted from Babur's invasion ??? May be group of vandals like you (Heba, Lukeemily, Chatriotrider 555) cut down page of Rajput resistance to few paras but it won't change the fact that Rajputs resisted Islamic invaders from seventh century. (Arabs, Ghazanvids etc). 2402:8100:2162:E6DD:FBB2:5836:A7AB:8B83 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear ip, pardon me for not summarising the history right from Arab invasion and Rajput resistance to it. Also, I failed to mention, proud Rani Hadi, Mokal Singh, Jaita and other warriors. I should have written a long comment to summarise the royal past. From next time, i will try to fulfill your demands. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily and Shinjoya, there is error in some references, example ref52, i don't know, what the problem is.But it need to be corrected. It's showing "sfn error". I guess, edit by Shinjoya has gone wrong at many places. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Rajput role with mughals ??? Is there history only restricted from Babur's invasion ??? May be group of vandals like you (Heba, Lukeemily, Chatriotrider 555) cut down page of Rajput resistance to few paras but it won't change the fact that Rajputs resisted Islamic invaders from seventh century. (Arabs, Ghazanvids etc). 2402:8100:2162:E6DD:FBB2:5836:A7AB:8B83 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC). Can you show me one edit on this page where I have removed any sourced text with WP:RS? I have only added, not removed anything. Neither have the other editors you call "Vandals". It is obvious who is removing sourced text from this and other pages.LukeEmily (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Explaining my edit

Since that thread has been cluttered with many off topic arguments.

Im going to re explain my this edit  I've only removed repetition of the same sentence and source first see the 1st paragraph of the origin sections and notice the similarities and citation numbers: The first statement of the origin section

The origin of the Rajputs has been a much-debated topic among historians. Modern historians agree that Rajputs consisted of mixing of various different social groups including Shudras and tribals.[12][13]

 

Almost identical to 3rd paragraph of same section:

recent research suggests that the Rajputs came from a variety of ethnic and geographical backgrounds[20] as well as from various varnas including Shudras.[12][13]

The same citation numbers similar sentences,my removal of the first paragraph was based upon WP:EPSTYLE#Summary_style

An excessively detailed article is often one that repeats itself or exhibits writing that could be more concise.

as this is obvious repetition. read my edit summary aswell this .does anyone has objection to the removal of repetition? Ratnahastin^talk 07:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed before. Actually, its not repition. Satish chandra summarises the all points discussed later. So removal of sentence is not justified. Please note, all the historians below belong to one and another school of thought viz. marxian, nationalist or others. But, if one is from History background, he must know that Satish Chandra is considered as neutral. Donot fall in any particular school of thought. So, I will request Ratnahastin to keep the statement from Satish Chandra in lead. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha Most of your comment doesnt addresses points made by me, Satish chandra summarises the all points discussed later. "summaries all points"? If thats the case then why only one of his summarision of argument is in the first paragraph? And not others? both paragraphs and citations are ditto copy with a small bit of different wording with same citations, any one can see that.Ratnahastin^talk 13:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

No need to keep the repeated sentences. An average reader reads the content and hardly checks the references. In this case, even references are same. Its meaningless to say the same thing again and again. Shinjoya (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• The first paragraph should contain those sources which are summarising the overall consensus/views of modern scholars about the origin of Rajputs. We can then move on to individual opinions. We already have such a summary by Satish Chandra, and we can add another summary from Jeffrey G Snodgrass. We should give the summary of Satish Chandra without attribution, as it is backed up by a large number of other scholars. That way we can avoid the repetition of similar claims from the other scholars. Snodgrass's summary should be attributed to him, as that's not repeated by multiple other sources.

Note that Snodgrass also mentions the 6th/7th-century claim. So this will also help us to discard the poor, locally published source of a retired wing commander, who is cited for a 6th-century claim! It was added by user Shinjoya. The author himself states that "This is not history in a true sense. It is also not a mere travelogue." Anyway, this is what Snodgrass states:

• Snodgrass, Jeffrey G. (2006). Casting Kings: Bards and Indian Modernity. Oxford University Press. pp. 56−57. ISBN 978-0-19-530775-7.

Some historians suggest that contemporary Rajputs are direct descendants of the Ksatriyas (Warriors) discussed in ancient Vedic religious texts.¹⁹ Such accounts, however, are generally not taken seriously by most contemporary historians. Less ideological histories tell us that Rajputs arose in India’s early medieval period, between the sixth and seventh centuries A.D. At this time, petty chiefs, most likely the leaders of local clans formed from the mixing of indigenous and foreign peoples, who had gained ascendancy over local tribes, began making claims to be Vedic Ksatriyas.²⁰ These claims corresponded with an expansion in Rajasthan’s agrarian economy and local networks of trade, as well as with a rise of proto-state formations.²¹

Now, the first line of the third sentence is repeated because the second paragraph isn't self-explanatory. Alf Hiltebeitel mentions three groups of historians, but he also gives his own analysis about them at the end. On page no. 442, he states that: With such one-track arguments and contrived evidence¹⁴ distributed more or less evenly between these views, one can only retrace some of their authors' more useful steps toward different objectives. The relevant footnote states that "Five types of evidence are prominent: (1) "hard evidence" of biology (head shape, nose, color, height, race); (2) cultural stereotypes (beautiful, ugly; pure, impure; tribal, barbaric, civilized; indigenous, nonindigenous); (3) similar-sounding names (especially Gujar-Khazar); (4) cultural traits (martial practices); (5) Sanskrit etymology, especially to misread and antiquate the Agnivamśa (Asopa 1972, 1976, 1, 11, nn. 3-5) or the "solar and lunar races" (Vaidya 1924, 259-300). Attempts to trace Agnivamśa Rajputs directly from Vedic and epic sources (e.g., Vaidya 1924,7; Asopa 1972, 1976, 21-24) are unconvincing, and Asopa's epic references (1972, 1976, 11) are either far-fetched or unintelligible." I am giving the footnote for those who don't have a preview of the relevant page. Anyway, we must give his analysis of those Raj-era authors because that's why he summarised them in the first place. Once we do this, along with removing the non-scholarly source of the retired wing commander from the second paragraph, there won't be any need to repeat the details of the first paragraph. So basically, this will fix the first three paragraphs of the origin section. Thanks. Pinging the editors who added most of the content of the first three paragraphs: Utcursch & LukeEmily. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 June 2021

Rajput the son of Kshatriya or decendent of Kshatriya. 2409:4063:428C:3EC5:D0E4:AB15:4874:2E4B (talk) 16:42, 13 June 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverted to stable version

I have reverted it to last stable version, when it was examined by Utcursch. Since, I am keeping a tab on this page, according to me this is the perfect version. It is clear that Shinjoya and Ratnahastin, who are topic ban from caste pages had some WP:CIR and WP:COI issue with the said caste. I have gone through that particular discussion on WP:ANI. The other experienced editors in the area like Fowler&fowler, Chariotrider555, Sitush, LukeEmily, NitinMlk are welcomed to do edits, if they found some discrepancies in present version. Thanks. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That was a december 2020 version. I reapplied some of the major edits made till date by several editors after the last stable version by Utcursch. Left out a few minor ones like linking etc. Please add more edits where necessary.LukeEmily (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Check reference 28, 42, 49, 123, 133, 150. Something like error is being flashed there. Please, correct it. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The reference syntax was mixed and hence they were conflicting. Fixed the errors.LukeEmily (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Should we also modify the images as per the last edits before the rollback? For example, we can replace the controversial Russia Rajput image by the Rajput peasants image. And we can remove the Fishermen image as it was removed before.

I personally feel that we should remove the Russia Rajput image - no one has been able to come up with an explanation for the word "Russia" for the past one year. I also feel we should remove the fishermen image. To be clear, I trust Heba when she says that the Fishermen image is of Rajputs. I am sure she must have asked them when she took the image and I feel sure she has uploaded the image in good faith - that is why she feels so strongly about it. But the reason I am not in favor of not using it on wikipedia is because it will open a can of worms for other editors to upload random images and attribute it to castes or communities. That said, I do not feel strongly about images hence I am OK with any decision of the majority. Just gave my 2 cents - that I am in favor of both images being removed(first one replaced). Requesting other editors for input as I am neutral and will go with the majority. Requesting Heba Aisha, Fowler&fowler, Chariotrider555, Sitush, NitinMlk, Kautilya3, Utcursch for their input. Sanjaypal, requesting your input too but not tagging you as you had requested not to be tagged on this page since it is on your watchlist.LukeEmily (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The Rajput agriculturist has a question mark(?) in the description at the source page. That one is more controversial. I am not in favour of removing Russia Rajput. The image you are suggesting is not even verified to be of Rajput peasant as NitinMlk described, when we were discussing it for 2 months. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we remove the Bihari Rajput watching mallah fisherman image

I'm really sorry i havent caught up with the discussion and consensus you have reached on the image.My request may have been answered before so i apologize if i am opening a closed[solved] question again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput#/media/File:Bihari_Rajput_villagers_watching_Mallah_fishermen.jpg it may be valid to upload any images and assign it to castes or communities but here its pretty clear that the image depicts poorly dressed people giving sort of uncivilized and poverty vibes to bihari rajput and it would tains the whole community by that stereotype ,neither it shows any culture or specific attire . also there is no proof of authenticity except uploader testimony they could be anyone they are just 'bihari people watching fishermen'. Just like fort images could lead to caste promotion or good faiths edits such low quality and unauthenticated images appears to be work of bad faith. if several user have issue with it then why cant it be removed or replaced be some better quality authentic image on article of importance like rajput which attracts a lot of user traffic do you have issue if this dubious image gets replaced or removed?LukeEmily, Kautilya3, Utcursch, Sitush, Sanjaypal,Chariotrider555,Fowler&fowlerNobodyfornow (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobodyfornow, I agree with you that this image should not be used on this page.LukeEmily (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

My image is authentic as i have added many other images related to Bihar. But, since many people disagree, you may remove from this particular page. But, I will not agree for non use on wikipedia on any article as it will kill the enterprise of users like us who contribute to commons. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

OK. I agree that it can be used in general. I have edited my previous comment. I believe you that the image is authentic.LukeEmily (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

moving Female Infanticide from Lifestyle to British era

I am proposing that the Female Infanticide be moved out of lifestyle and into the British era section. There is no evidence that Rajputs Rajputs performed infanticide after independence. Although the section does indicate that this is in the British era , I think this section is in the incorrect place and needs to be moved under British era.LukeEmily (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear LukeEmily, I disagree with your proposal because that would imply that female infanticide only happened during British era, not before and not afterwards. I don't think that was the case, and even today, not just amongst Rajputs but in so many regions of India the ratio of females to males in the under five age group is less than 1.0 and at times 0.8 or lower.India today claims female infanticide taking place as recently as 2011 [7].Here is another paper on infanticide in Rajasthan with Rajputs being the chief culprits.[8].That being the case, I propose that we modify the section heading from Rajput Lifestyle to Traditional culture /Traditional lifestyle.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jonathansammy, thank you for the link. It is sad and depressing that infanticide is still taking place. I agree with your proposal: modify the section heading from Rajput Lifestyle to Traditional culture /Traditional lifestyle since it reflects tradition.LukeEmily (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Spacing

Can someone please run a search & replace across the entire article. Replace "> <" (without quotes) with "><". Could also do with adding spaces between > and the next letter, and doing an s&r for double spaces. It is quite difficult to read on mobile, and harder still to edit. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sitush: there was only one nbsp occurrence in a quote and it is removed now.LukeEmily (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and weird. There seem to be quite a few. Maybe it is the way the mobile app works - it still seems to be quite buggy, eg: I get pinged about notifications but then the app says I have none! - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

~ I remember reading the wikipedia article about rajputs a couple years ago and it was nothing like this. I guess some hater is trying to degrade the bravery and history of Rajputs. Know that you can try and bring us down but it won’t change the hard facts!

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

THE HINDU CULTIVATORS IMAGE WHICH IS PRESENT IN THE ORIGIN SECTION OF THE ARTICLE, IS NOT CREDIBLE. HENCE IT SHOULD NOT BE USED ON WIKEPEDIA. THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK, JOHN WATSON, HIMSELF WRITES THAT THE RAJPUT TITLE OF RUSSIA CLAN IS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. PLEASE READ THE PARA UNDER TITLE "No. 119 RAJPOOT CULTIVATORS" HERE : https://books.google.co.in/books?id=uBYaNJaiPUgC&pg=PA18&dq=A+rajpoot+race+known+as+the+Russia+clan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiSqJGCwvXxAhUugdgFHThbAGUQ6AEwAHoECAkQAw#v=onepage&q=A%20rajpoot%20race%20known%20as%20the%20Russia%20clan&f=false .

PLEASE REMOVE THIS IMAGE. 106.210.0.203 (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Melmann 14:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

Rajput comes from Raja Putra which means son of king. This should be in the first paragraph instead of english translations which attempt to speculate on the political-economic attachments to a name. The definition of the name is as above and should be clear as with all other Wikis clarifying cultural words and languages 81.101.133.206 (talk) 10:20, 11 August 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding two sources

The two main source of writers of Satish Chandra and Reena Dube used here to say that Rajputs are miscellaneous groups including Shudras, tribals also talks about Brahmins as another source through which people might have become Rajput. RS6784 (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Just see the complete description from Satish Chandra's book: Historian Satish Chandra states that "Modern historians are more or less agreed that the Rajputs consisted of miscellaneous groups including shudras and tribals. Some were brahmans who took to warfare, and some were from tribes—indigenous or foreign." RS6784 (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear @LukeEmily, please look into it. Similar case is with Reena Dube Source. My point is Brahmin should also be added there. RS6784 (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

RS6784, Yes, I agree, if its sourced. Let me check the Dube source also. We need to fix the second para also. Brahmin is mentioned there.LukeEmily (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Dear LukeEmily, Tanuja Kothiyal work is good but it is based on "Jagas" which aren't considered reliable by other writers. There is one link where writer Zeingler has openly said that Jaga based system is unreliable. No writers have specifically mentioned that Rajput group is formed specifically from a particular group. They have just written variously formed from miscellaneous, shudra, tribal or brahmin. So, I think that Raika, Mer etc part should be relooked at or it should be rephrased as Tanuj Kothiyal says"...." because others haven't named the community. RS6784 (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  Whoever framed that sentence had failed to understand what Kothiyal was arguing. Will edit that part. line. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• RS6784, made both edits as per your request and after verifying sources. The Brahmin origin seems to be fringe at least based on the sources I have seen and have not seen examples yet as we have seen for others. But Brahmin was mentioned in the second paragraph and not explicitly dismissed there(the source actually dismisses it and gives reasons for dismissing the theory). I will try to fix that paragraph now that we moved it up. TrangaBellam , Kothiyal is now quoted verbatim, please can you paraphrase or copy-edit? If her book is unreliable as per Zeigler, we need to also add that Zeigler does not agree with her theory(we had similar issue on Khatri page where Susan Bayly criticizes Puri for glorifying the Khatris who were only traders by tradition). I think what she is saying is that only some members from these tribes amalgamated to form the Rajput community or continued merging into the Rajput community across the centuries. Thanks,LukeEmily (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Kothiyal claim is based on jaga which were being employed by many communities. Zeingler etc says Jaga are unreliable. RS6784 (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I will share the Zeingler source which I read. RS6784 (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear LukeEmily, please go through this source. The writer doesn call Jaga system as well as Khyats as unreliable. So Tanuja Kothiyal reasearch is mostly based on Khyat and Jaga which are considered as absolute source by Zeingler. Any inference being drawn based on it seems far-fetched. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3171564 RS6784 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

are not* ( sorry for typing mistake) RS6784 (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear LukeEmily,

However, these "affinities" do not indicate any direct line of descent from the Kshatriyas in the Vedic era(3500-300BC) and the 17th century Rajputs of the Great Rajput Tradition that began in Rajasthan. /// The source to attest it mentions sixteenth century not seventeenth. RS6784 (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Good catch RS6784 ! I will fix the century and the Vedic era also has a typo. About, Kothiyal, please can you point the appropriate page ? I will look at the other source. The Kothiyal source is WP:HISTRS since it is modern and from Cambridge University Press and by a historian. But we can present opposing views to balance it or reword it based on consensus. Please can you point to the appropriate pages in both sources? I have access to the entire source(in both cases). Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Page no 3. "It talks about Great Rajput Tradition". I think the writer took from Kolff's book. RS6784 (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Page no 440-441, Alf's book RS6784 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

For Kothiyal ( page 265), Is Oxford rule for books on folkloric traditions different or what? Her once source is book named Jat Veer Itihas by some Dalal how can Oxford allow it ? Surprising though. RS6784 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

one* RS6784 (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @LukeEmily Pls just look at Ahir wiki page and compare it with Rajput page. For Ahir wiki page, newspaper sources have been and no correction has been done, even incorrect states have been mentioned. Why is Norman Zeingler source no mentioned there where older kshatriya had perished by 300 BC. Similar unwanted claims are made on Jat, Gujjar etc pages. RS6784 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

not* RS6784 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• LukeEmily, don't waste your efforts until the user actually provides a scholarly source that is criticising Tanuja Kothiyal's work. What they are doing now is known as WP:SYNTHESIS. In fact, I have wasted my time yesterday with their carelessly posted personal views at Talk:Bhati and Talk:Tomar clan. At first, I thought their query was genuine because there was no source in front of them that mentioned Rajputisation of Ahirs, but when I provided an academic source for that purpose, ​they again posted a long, unsourced rant about Ahirs, Bhars, etc. – see here – along with misrepresenting the quoted text from the source. I will post a relevant note on their talk page. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

References

@LukeEmily:Graharipu of Chudasama dynasty was mentioned as Abhira jati's king in Dvashraya Mahakavya, an historical poem written by Hemachandra, a kulguru of Kumarapala (Chaulukya dynasty).

Many historians confirms this.

That's Why chudasama, saravaiya, rayjhada and jadeja who Gahripu's descendand are originally Abhir(Ahir)

This Page is NOT about Rajput community

This page doesn't discuss the etymology of "Rajput" or its other equivalents "Thakur" etc in relation to various Kshatriya clans of North India.

In fact, this page doesnt even discuss Rajput clans, their contributions, architecture, cities established by them.

The Frauds running this page are instead filling it with Rajputisation which is a sociological equivalent of Westernisation, Ashrafisation, Sanskritisation. The latter denote social phenomenon where people unrelated to an entity, start to imitate it with the hope of assimilation. However, a westernised Bengali doesn't become Western. A Julha imitating Pathans doesn't become a Pathan. The same way "rajputised" non-Rajputs donot become Rajputs. However, this page has filled MBC & SC communities like Noniya or Sagar Rajputs in this page, who are still counted as different castes, no matter there pretention. https://m.timesofindia.com/city/patna/state-seeks-st-status-for-noniya-caste/amp_articleshow/76472841.cms

The same is true of "Sagar Rajputs", who aren't counted as rajputs, no matter what. http://scdevelopmentmp.nic.in/Public/Pages/SearchInterCasteMarriageDetails.aspx?did=MjE=

Yadavs ie an umbrella term for Ahirs, Gwalas, Gosis, Kamariyas are a good example of that. Despite chauvinist propaganda & muscle flexing for over a century, they couldn't be accepted by the actual Yaduvanshis who are a Rajput clan.

One can state conclusively that this page, is not at all about Rajput people. Abhishek Parihar121 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Not all editors are interested in politics in India. Editors do not add their personal opinion. The other clans are discussed later. There are only two=three lines about the Noniyas etc. and they are supported by the sources. If you have other sources about them, please make an edit request giving appropriate sources. About Rajputisation, please see the following quotes. Mayaram, Shail (2010). "The Sudra Right to Rule". In Ishita Banerjee-Dube (ed.). Caste in History. Oxford University Press. p. 110. ISBN 978-0-19-806678-1. In their recent work on female infanticide, Bhatnagar, Dube and Bube(2005) distinguish between Rajputization and Sanksritization. Using M.N.Srinivas' and Milton Singer's approach to social mobility as idioms they identify Rajputization as one of the most dynamic modes of upward mobility. As an idiom of political power it 'signifies a highly mobile social process of claiming military-political power and the right to cultivate land as well as the right to rule. Rajputization is unparalleled in traditional Indian society for its inventiveness in ideologies of legitimation and self-invention. This was a claim that was used by persons of all castes all over north India ranging from peasants and lower-caste Sudras to warriors and tribal chiefs and even the local raja who had recently converted to Islam.Ishita Banerjee-Dube (2010). Caste in History. Oxford University Press. p. xxiii. ISBN 978-0-19-806678-1. Rajputization discussed processes through which 'equalitarian, primitive, clan based tribal organization' adjusted itself to the centralized hierarchic, territorial oriented political developments in the course of state formation. This led a 'narrow lineage of single families' to disassociate itself from the main body of their tribe and claim Rajput origin. They not only adopted symbols and practices supposedly representative of the true Kshatriya, but also constructed genealogies that linked them to the primordial and legendary solar and lunar dynasties of kings. Further, it was pointed out that the caste of genealogists and mythographers variously known as Carans, Bhats, Vahivanca Barots, etc., prevalent in Gujarat, Rajasthan and other parts of north India actively provided their patron rulers with genealogies that linked local clans of these chiefs with regional clans and with the Kshatriyas of the Puranas and Mahabharata. Once a ruling group succeeded in establishing its claim to Rajput status, there followed a 'secondary Rajputization' when the tribes tried to 're-associate' with their formal tribal chiefs who had also transformed themselves into Hindu rajas and Rajput Kshatriyas.LukeEmily (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2021 (2)

Abhishek Parihar121 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The Page doesn't distinguish between a Rajput and a "rajputised" non-Rajput. Even as it BANS Rajputs from correcting the Page.

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Weak page

The page refers to many spurious clans and covers very little of the actual rajput community. This article is more concerned with tribes or clans claiming rajput identity than the actual rajput clans such as Chauhans, Bhatis, Sisodias, Rathores, Kachawahas, Tomar/Tanwar etc. The page is perhaps one of the most vandalized pages in Wikipedia. There are too many politically motivated people editing the page and inhibiting it from actually discussing Rajputs.b JodhChauhan (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2021

2405:204:1480:6FEE:0:0:2007:78A4 (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Change its content

 Not done you would need to specify what you want changed, and what you want it changed to. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

hi fellow editors , according to the book "हिंदू जाति का उत्थान और पतन" published in the year 1958 by Rajnikant shastri ,On page no. 28 last paragraph it is written "Rajputs are born from a kstriye father and shudr mother {basically varnshanker} and is described as निर्दय {merciless} and भयानक {Horrible}."

[I don't know why but three books/newspaper are coming as citation which i haven't added . for citation use the link which i have added .]

Citation https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.9920/page/n45/mode/2up?view=theater&q=%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4 Gaurav 3894 (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

[reply|gaurav 3894] i think the right edit should be made because the page looks quite biased Paan Banarasiya (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Making a blanket statement by calling a community of millions "horrible" is quite racist. Also, no context is given for Shastri's inflammatory statement. There are many sources that mention the Rajputs as "brave", "noble minded", "friendly", "welcoming to guests", etc. There are good and bad apples in every community. I do not know why Mr.Shastri has such opinions - he is not reliable, nor the publication. I strongly oppose this edit.LukeEmily (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

A Politically motivated Mischievous Page

There is little doubt that this page itself is heavily vandalised by politically motivated elements.

Instead of discussing the Various Rajput clans, their military contributions, the monuments and architecture, it actually talks of "rajputised" non Rajput OBC castes like Noniya or "Sagar rajputs".

Hence, instead of discussing Chandels, Chauhans, Tomars, Parmars, Pratihars, Kachwahas, Katochs, Dikhits, Gaharwars, Bhatis - we are discussing "Sagar rajputs" "Noniyas".

What a Trash!! Home the people behind this page are identified and tried for Caste-politics. Abhishek Parihar121 (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Many editors are not even Indian and have ZERO interest in Indian politics. FYI, The noniyas etc. have been moved to another section as the sources were not clear if the rest of the Rajput community has accepted them. The chandels, Chauhans, Tomars, Parmars, Pratihars, Kachwahas, Katochs, Dikhits, Gaharwars, Bhatis are also mentioned. Please see the section on Rajput Kingdoms. Besides, these clans have their own pages. Please note that wikipedia is always work in progress. If you find anything that is not accurate (not reliably sourced), please feel to point it out and some editor will take a look. Please assume good faith on the part of the editors as no editors are allowed to write their personal opinions. Please see WP:V. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The page is biased and references are not reliable

The page is totally biased and cites authors who are hardly providing any reference for their writings, it's like they are living in some kind of fanstasies and actually are writing shits about a community about whom they never had any connection or say they even met for once. 42.105.87.36 (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Examples?LukeEmily (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)