Talk:Rathore dynasty

Copyvio

ImpuMozhi: Please provide the URL from which the information in the copyvio was copied from. Otherwise you will have to revert. --BWD ^(talk) 03:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitive proof was provided. --BWD ^(talk) 04:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lt Gen Thakur Nathusingh Rathore

He ensured that an Indian person was heading the Indian army by opposing the then Prime Minister Nehru who wanted a british officer to head "Independent" India's Army. He turned down the offer to become the First chief of Army of Independent India in favour of his senior Gen Cariappa out of respect for seniority. He had been recommended by outgoing british chief for the job and also by the then Defense minister Baldev Singh because of his exemplary record in the army. The current chief of Army VK Singh in his book talks at length about his exceptional courage, professionalism, Patriotism and military strategic talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.215.181 (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Rathores ofRajasthan

There are well over a hundred thousand Rathores (or Rathurs) in Kashmir, and thousands of Kashmiri Rathores (or Rathurs) who migrated to Punjab or UP in past couple of centuries. Does someone have more details about them? How did they get to Kashmir? Are they all one group? Is the origin of Kashmiri Rathores (or Rathurs) seperate from Siyaji (the grandson of Jaichand)? What role did Jahangir's invasion of Kashmir play in the migration of Rajhastani Rathores to Kashmir?

Here is what I found about Kashmiri Rathores so far. I have been researching on Rathers of kashmir a lot and have made some very different conclusions and what i previously knew, so i want to put information on my comment with the correct information:

Kashmiri Rather is most likely not related to the rathore in india and pakistan. Rather in kashmiri means a warrior and rather in kashmir according to many families were descends of raiutpala and not related to Rathores of india and Pakistan. He was in service to the one of the rulers mentioned in Rajatarangini during the Loharas. Where as the rajput goths mentions Rathore of some rai chand. Sheikh nasserduin rather is not supported by many and khuhami seems to have made a mistake in his history.

Kashmiri Rathers are Rajputs. They used to be hindu, but now many of them are muslim. Sir Walter Lawrence has written in his book, Valley of Kashmir, that Rathurs are also one of those Shaikhs who converted from hindu Khashatris to islam. Chhatri, Khatri, and Khashatri are actually names of the same tribe, and they come from the preminent and marshall hindu race of Rajputs.

A book about Rajput tribes was published a few years ago by the name of, Rajput Gotain (Rajput Clans). It is written on page 15 of this book that "Janjua and Rathore are from the same family. These tribes are from the descendants of Jadu-Bansi Rajputs, which moved towards the salt mountain range after the death of Krishan Ji." Then on page 19 of the same book it is written that "The Rathores once conquered Bikaner and made the Bhattis run towards the plains of Punjab." Then on page 24 of the same book it is written that among the Rathores, Raja Mal Rathore was a very well known ruler. In the year 980 A.D. he emigrated from Jodhpur or Kannauj and established the settlement of Malot near Jhelum. One of Mal Rathore's sons was Joda, from whose name the word Janjua is derived. At one time the Janjua tribe ruled almost all the area near the Salt Mountains. But then a time came when the Gakhars came from the north and the Awans came from the west to push them out.

(note:With respect, I have researched this point and found this reference to be incorrect. Raja Mal's other sons, also founded Janjua clans in their areas, hence Janjua cannot be derived from Raja Joda. Also Raja Mal, though mentioned in the book as a Rathor prince, this is a phronetic mistake, as in Punjab, RaTHOR and THOAR are very similar sounding (the latter being ofcourse Tuar Rajputs), hence the named connection appears to wrongly attribute him to the Rathor. This is further confirmed since the Janjuas claim descent also from chandravanshi prince Arjun Pandava is compared successfully to the Tuar clan who also claims chandravanshi Arjun descent.)

In the same book on page 31 it is written that "This tribe (Rathore) is one of 36 Royal lines. It is from the Suraj-Bansi Rajputs. It's ancient head quarters was Kanauj. From there they spread to Marwara, Bikaner, and other locations."

The writer of Taareekh Gulshane Kashmir {History of the Garden of Kashmir} has also said that Raothur is a distorted form of the name Rathore, and has written that these people are Chhatri Rajputs.

Taareekh Kabeer Kashmir, on page 293, mentions a Khwaja Haider Raitore. It is written that he "was the student of Mullah Habib Mir Adal (during the reign of Alamgir a.k.a. Aurangzeb, Mughal Emperor from 1658-1707 A.D.). Khwaja Haider Raitore benefited from the knowledge of many of the islamic scholars of India during his travels through India." Khwaja Haider is mentioned as Raitore instead of Rathur in this history, but it is in reality a distorted form of Rathore.

Taareekh Hassan, while mentioning the tribes of Shaikhs, or the land owning segment of society, writes that these Kashmiri Rajput tribes (Magray, Daangar, Naatak, Tanteray, Daar, Butt, Lone, and Rathur) have been soldiers, and made up the bulk of the armies, during the time of the ancient Kashmiri hindu rajas.

The census of 1911 A.D. shows that the population of Rathores in Jammu and Kashmir was 33,951 people. Of these Rathores, 2,545 lived in the province of Jammu, and only 126 lived in frontier districts. The rest of the 31,280 Rathores lived in the valley of Kashmir proper. After 20 years, in 1931 A.D. their population in the state was 39,725 persons. Of these Rathores, 17,960 were women, and 21,725 were men. Meaning that in 20 years, the population of Rathores increased by 5,774 people in the state.

The conditions that forced muslims and pandits of various tribes to migrate to Punjab, Delhi, or Lucknow during the reign of the Sikhs and Pathaans, were the same conditions that forced These people (Rathores) to emigrate from their country (Kashmir). This tribe, along with other refugee Kashmiri tribes, thought it best to go with the times and search for better opportunities elsewhere. (In exile), due to higher education, trade, and employment, Rathores occupy high positions and are well off. A few prominent families are mentioned in chapter 5.

In Kashmir, the greater part of the Raothur tribe is found in villages, and know no other trade except agriculture.

From originally khuhamis history and copied by later authors:

A Rathore family which migrated from Kashmir to Punjab and bought agricultural land near Gujranwala in 1930. After the payment was made, some government official refused to transfer the deed in the Rathore's name. The official's claim was that the Kashmiri migrants are not farmers, and this land is designated for purely agricultural purposes. The Rathore family sued the government official in court and made the argument that Rathores are Kashmiri Rajputs who know only farming, therefore there is no chance of the family being anything else other than farmers. The tax collector and other officials claimed that the plaintiff is pretending to be a Rathore just to gain possession of the land, and in fact he is just a Kashmiri migrant, as listed in official tax papers. When the plaintiff brought 11 witnesses and much older documents proving his ethnicity, the case was decided in his favor. The judge wrote in his decision that since the plaintiff has proved he is a Kashmiri Rathore, there can be no question in his claim to being a farmer, and the land must be transfered in his name.

Note: This is about our family. My great grandfather and his family bought land near Gujranwala ( village name uppall and taphai)and had to go to Court for getting it alloted in their name. As before that Kashmiris settlers were considered non kashtkars. Our elders were known as Chaudries. My grand father's name ' Ch Muhammed Kharaitullah' mentioned in Fauq's book. But with all lands sold we dont use chaudry any more although other in our family still use that prefix. Nazar Rauf Rathore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazarrathore (talk • contribs) 11:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Most Kashmiri Rathores who migrated to Punjab and adopted agriculture as their profession are now called Chaudhry. The term Chaudhry is used in central and northern Punjab to refer to a large land owner or village chief. These migrants no longer use the Rathore name, and have completely melted into their adopted culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.91.224 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read this in our family tree book that our great grand fathers migrated from Baramula afetr Kashmir was sold for one hundred and seventy five thousand rupees in 1856 under Amritsar Treaty and settled in a Mora Burj,a village near Rawalpindi.Most of them started agriculture but their progeny got well educated and opted for other fields.Still few families of Rathores are living there in Mora Burj and there mean of living is agriculture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erathore (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rathore/Rao Genealogy

That is one ugly table, and it doesn't seem to work. Have you considered making a graphic instead? pablo_hablo. 11:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC) "SHSHDARA ,BABERPUR GAV [DELHI]

                              KASHI RAM RATHOUR (JODHA RATHOUR) 

[(Present ROYAL in new delhi,SHAHDARA,VILLAGE BABBERPUR) LAL SINGH RATHOUR JIA CHAND RATHOUR JIA SINGH RATHOUR GOURAV RATHOUR PRATAP RSINGH RATHOUR SANDEEP RATHOUR

PRADEEP RATHOUR       RUDRANSH RATHOUR                               AKSHAT RATHOUR                              JOGANDER SINGH RATHOUR
HARSHIT RATHOUR       PAHALWAN AMAN RATHOUR                          ANKIT RATHOUR                                  
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.97.57 (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC) 

Lists of names

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

lohana and rathore

(As of 1947) EXTRACTS - As Published in “History of Hindus in Sind"

Author: Diwan Bherumal Mahirchand Advani

Published:   1946-1947

Translated and updated wherever possible by:

Narain Sobhraj Kimatrai

LOHANA: - Arorvanshi. Nukh: - Asarpota, Panditpota, Jobanota, Popat, Chhug, Thakral, Chhabria, Sejpal, Somaiya, Karya, Katar (Khatar), Mamotia, and Dhodheja etc

Mr. Anthovan states that according to the folklore, Lohana are Rathod Rajputs (Khatri). Raja Jaichand of Kanoj (Kanya Kabaj) tormented them and they could do nothing. They prayed to their Deity who told them that the following morning they should walk a mile or two in a certain direction till they reached an Iron Fort.

The Deity instructed the Rathods to take refuge in the Fort for sixteen days and leave thereafter. The Rathods would then be able to defeat their enemy. The Iron Fort would vanish on the twenty-first day and they were told to then construct a new Fort at that site. Having taken refuge in the Iron Fort, the Rathods changed their name to Lohana (Loha = Iron and Na = Of) and named all their Forts starting with Lo or La viz. Loh Gadah and Lahore. The Lohanas thereafter migrated to Multan and Sind. In the 13th century, some of them went to Kutch.

In the year 1194, Mohd. Ghori invaded and defeated Kanoj’s Raja Jaichand and murdered thousands of Hindus. The Lohanas and other Hindus out of fright and fear started serving the Muslim Masters. The author, Diwan Bherumal M. Advani, in his volume has opined that this was the start of Muslim domination in Sind.

The Lohana, though Khatri (warriors), thus transformed to Vaishas (traders). ACCORDING TO DEVOTEE OF GODESS HINGLAJMATA:jaichand rathod called ghori,he send treasure to ghori but 84 sardar of jaichand stole treasure to prevent ghori,they went to hinglajgadh,ma hinglaj send them to lohargadh after death of jaichand they came to marvar all are called marvadi loharana,lohana.lohana were also in prithirajs army.[[1]] census of india 1961[[2]] [[3]]rathore caste is founded by lohana.Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

lohana and rathore

(As of 1947) EXTRACTS - As Published in “History of Hindus in Sind"

Author: Diwan Bherumal Mahirchand Advani

Published:   1946-1947

Translated and updated wherever possible by:

Narain Sobhraj Kimatrai

LOHANA: - Arorvanshi. Nukh: - Asarpota, Panditpota, Jobanota, Popat, Chhug, Thakral, Chhabria, Sejpal, Somaiya, Karya, Katar (Khatar), Mamotia, and Dhodheja etc

Mr. Anthovan states that according to the folklore, Lohana are Rathod Rajputs (Khatri). Raja Jaichand of Kanoj (Kanya Kabaj) tormented them and they could do nothing. They prayed to their Deity who told them that the following morning they should walk a mile or two in a certain direction till they reached an Iron Fort.

The Deity instructed the Rathods to take refuge in the Fort for sixteen days and leave thereafter. The Rathods would then be able to defeat their enemy. The Iron Fort would vanish on the twenty-first day and they were told to then construct a new Fort at that site. Having taken refuge in the Iron Fort, the Rathods changed their name to Lohana (Loha = Iron and Na = Of) and named all their Forts starting with Lo or La viz. Loh Gadah and Lahore. The Lohanas thereafter migrated to Multan and Sind. In the 13th century, some of them went to Kutch.

In the year 1194, Mohd. Ghori invaded and defeated Kanoj’s Raja Jaichand and murdered thousands of Hindus. The Lohanas and other Hindus out of fright and fear started serving the Muslim Masters. The author, Diwan Bherumal M. Advani, in his volume has opined that this was the start of Muslim domination in Sind.

The Lohana, though Khatri (warriors), thus transformed to Vaishas (traders). ACCORDING TO DEVOTEE OF GODESS HINGLAJMATA:jaichand rathod called ghori,he send treasure to ghori but 84 sardar of jaichand stole treasure to prevent ghori,they went to hinglajgadh,ma hinglaj send them to lohargadh after death of jaichand they came to marvar all are called marvadi loharana,lohana.lohana were also in prithirajs army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.47.117.53 (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

References

CE

....done. Bddmagic (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Recover old info

Cant we put the old info that was first posted??because this article is completely empty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.97.205 (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

We may only include information which is [[WP:|verifiable]] in reliable sources. It is always better to have no information than to have information that we can't verify. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Pronounciation of name

I also asked this question at Talk:Rowdy_Rathore#Pronounciation_of_name

When many Indian languages are transcribed into roman letters, the letter H is used to strengthen a consonant (e.g. Buddha vs Budda; Thali vs Tali; Abhishek vs Abishek; etc). That leads to an ambiguity here: is this pronounced,

• as "rat-ORE," with a hard T,
• as "wrath-ORE," with a the TH-fricative?
• I assume it's not pronounced "rat-whore..."

Thanks, 128.112.139.195 (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It is pronounced "Ra-Thor".--Dayumdropper (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Article needs to be fleshed out

Come on, surely someone knows a lot more about this topic than is present on the article? I'm interested in the etymology of the name 'Rathore' and the demographics of people known to have this name. In particular I'm trying to find out about Muslims with the name 'Rathore' but have been able to locate very little online. Any pointers? --Dayumdropper (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't about "knowing more", it's that people don't have reliable sources to verify what they think they know. It's very important that we only add verifiable info to Wikipedia articles; and the truth is that reliable sources on names are very hard to come by. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's precisely why I didn't add what extra info I do know on this and other topics. I do not have the means to verify them. Tell me, is there such low existance of verifiable sources on Indian names? Not that I promote them, but sources in previous iterations of this article did feature information cited by various online sources. These were mainly from Indians. Yet when a British historian publishing a book through Oxford writes a dubious opinion on say, an esoteric community or tradition in Arabia, it is presented as near fact? That's just sad. --Dayumdropper (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, something published by Oxford already goes a long way towards being more than a dubious opinion, but, of course, it varies. Online sources are required to meet WP:RS the same as print sources; the vast majority don't, since the vast majority don't have an editorial team with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is the quick nutshell summary of WP:RS. As to them being written by Indians, that makes them no better or worse in any way; being a member of a group does not make one more likely to produce reliable information about that group. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Rathore are of Sindhi origin

RAthore are of Sindhi origin--Jogi don (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Really? Do you have a reliable source for that? - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Dhadhal branche of rathore clan

Dhadhal(hindi:धाधल) is a branche of rathore.it was founded by dhadhal ji rathore(son of kalu ji rathore of jodhpur state).this clan is found in Kathiyawar rigion.-Jayveerwala (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of a citation

I have discussed about a certain citation that is being used. However there is no proper mention of Koli's being called Rathores. The rest can be seen as explained by utcursch.

Hi, I have tried reverting several attempts of this user on the "Rathore" article. He is using a religious book as a reference and the book itself talks more about the intermarrying of Koli's and Rajputs rather than calling them Koli's. Can you check once. Thanks.

Gutriel (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

@Gutriel: The source seems to be fine, since it's a scholarly book published by Oxford University Press. But you're right - the book doesn't state that Rathore is a clan of Koli people - it talks of certain Koli sub-groups that claim Rajput descent, and states that one of the so-called "Rajput Koli Thakordas" are the Rathods of Ghanti and Vaghpur. These people presumably claim descent from Rathod Rajputs. utcursch | talk 14:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Gutriel (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on here. Has Gutriel copied the above from the talk page of Utcursch? And am I right in thinking this means we should remove the statement about Kolis? - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I am still waiting for someone to explain. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the statement has already been removed. utcursch | talk 19:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry Claims

The ancestry claims should be retained on the page, as it is a central part of Rajput identity. Rajput means descendants of a king, so the page should mention who the Rathores claim to descend from. However, it should also include the historical validity of such claims to prevent caste promotion.Chariotrider555 (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

;Nonsense where does your sources specifically mention rathores? If not then dont copy paste this text in everysingle clan page all Rajputs are now sameSungpeshwe9 (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The links you are sharing are not based on old records or of any historians. Also, using all historians in the said post is incorrect as there is no academic consensus on the topic. Many writers differ on it. Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I recenly add about Rathores having same geneolgy which Lord Rama but was removed with poor excuse that its Original Reasearch,How on earth it was Original Reasearch i quote this From Jadunath Sarkar Book A History of Jaipur in Case anyone doubts this as Pro Rajput or Something like that This book was not allowed to be published by House of Amber saying it attack Rajputs Anyway U are habitually attacker of Rajput page removing Rajput from every early medieval ruler page and Wiki promotes u as People like u are hijacking Other articles. Also Rathores were in Pali region way back in 9th century And this is work of Gopinath Sharma not original reasearch.2401:4900:40A8:53F:7F8B:752F:4F1C:9FE4 (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

:::Exactly Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The book that you're citing (Jadunath Sarkar, revised by Raghubir Sinh) does not support your additions. You're suggesting that Sarkar finds support for the Rathore genealogical claims in the Puranas. But Sarkar actually suggests that these fabricated claims are based on the Puranas. The book is about the Kachhwa kings of Jaipur (who claim descent from Rama and his ancestors), and mentions the Rathores in a footnote: "These early genealogies up to Rama and a few of his descendants including Atithi are based on the lists and details given in the Puranas, and except for minor differences of names, they are the same relating to the Kachhawas, the Rathors and the Guhilots of Mewad and Dungarpur." utcursch | talk 17:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Sungpeshwe9, Here are the quotes : page 20-21: The minstrels and family priests who stand for the College of Heralds among the Hindus, have supplied the house of Jaipur with a genealogical

tree which fearlessly goes back even further than Rama, to the very creator Brahma, the first member of the Hindu Trinity.[note 1]In the sixty-third generation from the creator was born the god-man Rama, the husband of the tragic heroine Sita and the conquerer of the demon-king of Ceylon. page 28: note 1:These early genealogies up to Rama and a few of his descendents including Atithi are based on the lists and details given in the Puranas, and except for minor differences of names, they are the same relating to the Kachhawas, the Rathors and Guhilots of Mewad and Dungarpur.

Explanation:

1)The source says that the minstrels supplied lists to trace the house of Jaipur to not only Rama but to Brahma. 2)They based it on the lists given in the Puranas. 3)The Kacchhawas, Rathors and Guhilots of Mewad and Dungarpur have similar lists. 4)Nowwhere does the historian say that the Puranas mention the Rathores or historians support the minstrels. You are using WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2021

[copy of article text removed] Drhansbaweja (talk) 18:32, 4 April 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. @Drhansbaweja: Please do not just copy the whole article with the changes you want. That makes it very difficult to judge what you are actually requesting. Instead, ask precisely what you thing needs to be changed, as per the instructions for edit requests. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Revert by Heba Aisha

user:Heba Aisha user: Kautilya3 please see my edit i've removed the information as per wikipedia guidelines Heba reverted it by giving dubious edit summary "vandalism" can you please explain how is that vandalism? Removing content which against guidelines is vandalism? Sources no where mentions rathores as low caste or even rathoes themselves trying to connect rathores with these sources to conclude something not said in source itself is WP:SYNTH and purely WP:UNDUE WP:OR my removal was based on Wikipedia guidelines please conform according to them. @user:Heba Aisha please state the reason if they are as per guidelines then that content will be kept if not then i will remove them thanks.Sikandar khan67 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted sourced content as well as the pp-sock template.

If you want to contest sourced content, you need to first do it here and obtain WP:CONSENSUS of all the involved editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aisha you still haven't provided the reason for reverting Sikandar khan67 (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Ravensfire if you want consensus then please feel free to discuss here the reverter u:Heba Aisha gave false summaries such as "vandalism" and hasn't responded on talkpage since a week and you haven't too it appears you both are trying to distract me by reverting but not responding to my arguments. Sikandar khan67 (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Show consensus FOR your change. It's not there. There are ways forward here, and they are outlined on WP:DR. Asking for a third opinion, opening an RFC or dispute resolution. You've personalized this dispute from the beginning (and that's strongly discouraged, see WP:TALKNO). Yeah, you don't like them and they probably don't like you. Guess what, it doesn't matter. You BOTH are editors here and have to work together towards consensus. You are editing in a HIGHLY contentious area fraught with caste POV pushing that ignores historic reality. There are specific sanction on articles in there area for a very good reason. Ravensfire (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

If we look at the citations the first citation[4] is about  , irrelevant groups like Dravidian Munda tribals,and gurjars hunas, trying to legitimatise their rule by fabricating their genealogies  to rajputs so they can rajputize themselves. Its not even related to Rathores the article so irrelevant.and other sources states how "Rajputs" are illiterate no where rathores are mentioned. This is clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Since you both Heba Raven have reverted me so you obviously  dispute my edit  so can you state why do you think this WP:SYNTHESIS  of mostly irrelevant citations who do not address the article in question is worth keeping?Sikandar khan67 (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Since these same citations and same text have been mass copy pasted by User:Chariotrider555 on, "Rathore"," Bhati,"Lalotra,","Rajput clans" "Hada Chauhan",Jethwa pages im tagging you here if you can provide a reason why these are worthy of keeping on these ABOVE PAGES despite them being in clear violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and which makes connecting these above clans with groups(gurjar,Scythians,Munda ) mentioned in citation of shivaji koyal completely WP:OR on the part of adder, and all other sources are about *Rajputs* being illiterate.(note:im not arguing in favour of *all* rajput clans but these few clans mentioned above so the common argument by you guys that these apply to all rajput clans doesn't work anymore tbh that's not even an argument but misrepresentation and deliberate misinterpretation of citation of shivaji koyal ,a pure Fallacy.) Sikandar khan67 (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

user:Heba Aisha Stopped readding and edit warring with disputed[5][6] material without discussing here this is a violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Ratnahastin here. The first reference doesn't state anything about Rathores or even Rajputs in general. i Its actually about the Mundas trying to Rajputise themselves which becomes obvious from the title of the journal itself ie "Emergence of Kingship, Rajputization and a New Economic Arrangement in Mundaland". And 2nd reference is essentially a large wall of text describing how Rajputs are illiterate so they can't be Kshatriyas. A fallacious analogy; what does kshatriyahood has to do with "literacy"? Here literacy is in modern sense which completely differs from literacy in ancient times so the andre winks source is not only irrelevant to Rathores or their origins but also logically fallacious.  3rd reference states "Rajputs are illiterate".  4rd reference is also about illiteracy. So much non-sense and undue weightage to the literacy aspect of the entire group and a very poor attempt at WP: SYNTHESIS. Please remove. Shinjoya (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

user:Heba Aisha, Shinjoya, Rajputization as well as the other adjectives applies to all Rajputs as it describes how the Rajput community was formed. No source will ever name each clan by name as it is unnecessary. Please see discussion here: Talk:Jadeja#Not_all_characteristics_of_Rajput_automatically_apply_to_Jadeja. When absurd claims such as decent from Rama or Krishna are made, the giving the other opinion of modern scholars becomes mandatory.LukeEmily (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, The article is titled "Rathore" rather than "Rajput". The said fabricated descent from Solar and Lunar dynasties are well discussed in Rajput and Rajputization. The line regarding illiteracy fails WP:REL as it doesn't mention Rathore. If we don't have sources with a specific mention of Rathore, such content should be avoided. Shinjoya (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily The only citation which states about Rajputization is of shivaji koyal which you have been interpreting and mis representing. Read up here [7] He states that how munda dravidian tribals sought to legitimise themselves when they acquired power through Fabricating genealogy to Rajput or kshatriya rulers to Rajputise themselves :

1.6 The origin of kingship and the process of state formation in Mundaland promoted Rajputization and Rajputization in turn helped in state formation

1.7 So far as the steps involved in the process of rajputization are concerned the following may be identified. 2. The enticed Brahmins then somehow *discovered' that the said tribal chief was a Rajput and declared him to be so. His lineage was traced back to some important kshatriya dynasty of the past.

1. The budding tribal Raja invited Brahmins to his place to help establish a court and gave them land and gifts.

2. The enticed Brahmins then somehow *discovered' that the said tribal chief was a Rajput and declared him to be so. His lineage was traced back to some important kshatriya dynasty of the past. 3. The tribal Raja once legitimized as a Rajput or a kshatriya separated himself from his fellow tribesmen because supposedly he was not of their blood. 5. With the growth of his economic and political power the Raja entered into marriage aliances with Rajput families. He sought such type of marriage alliances for his sons & daughters. He was interested in infusing Rajput blood into his family.

1.10 The emergence of kingship amongst the Mundas ard its Rajputi- zation exposed the said society to certain strains which adversely affected it.

Its about Rajputization of Munda tribals, anyone can make that out. Anyway Shivaji koyals Journal is about mundaland not on rajputs and none of these citations even mention rathores so fails WP:REL.Ratnahastin^talk 03:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I have observed that it was you who created the article Rajputisation. Now, you are trying to promote your article by adding it to the articles of all Rajput clans without caring for the content of cited references.Rajputisation is a very detailed article. Still, there isn't a single mention of Rathore in that article. Also, in the citations which are being used to support the disputed line in this article, Rathore isn't mentioned. This implies that the usage of the term in this article doesn't make any sense and the disputed line should be removed. Shinjoya (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya, I do not think that I added Rajputization to this article, so that allegation of promotion is baseless. In fact, I have not even added the Koyal article. I reply mostly on western sources (or at least Indian authors published in OUP or equivalent) as they are more neutral. Many sources discuss Rajputization. Rathore are a Rajput clan, so the source does not have to mention them. A medical book about Human physiology will not need to mention "Indian", "whites", etc.(unless something is specific to that race) explicitly for it to be applicable to them since Indians are Humans. Similarly, every scholar who writes about Rajputization does not need to mention every clan explicitly. We know that there was nothing like Rajput caste in the Vedic era. Mention of Rajputization would probably not be necessary on this page if the page did not mention some fabricated decent.LukeEmily (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, We should remove the said sentence and rather try to find something relevant to Rathore. Its clearly visible that the terms like illiterate and Rajputisation have been added but sources don't mention Rathore . We can't do WP:SYNTHESIS if the sources don't mention the subject. Shinjoya (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily since you've stated that Mention of Rajputization would probably not be necessary on this page if the page did not mention some fabricated decent you've agreed that this text is not suitable so i think i can remove them now as per WP:CONSENSUS.RatnaHastin^talk 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The Rathores are Rajputs, and since they like all Rajputs make a fabricated claim to an ancient(mythical?) Kshatriya solar (or lunar, fire, rishi) dynasty, the well sourced statement must be retained that the claim is false. We don't need "illiterate" in the statement as the previous sentence never claims they were educated, but the statement still stands that Rajputs fabricated their descend from the ancient Kshatriyas, and as Rathores are Rajputs the statement is needed. Here is another source for it. For example, if a tribe said that they actually descend from aliens, the well sourced statement must be stated afterwards that all humans actually descend from earlier primates and that the tribe fabricated their descent from aliens. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

With the opposing comments from Chariotrider555 and LukeEmily, it seems that we are far away from WP:Consensus yet. So, I have restored the last undistorted version by Ravensfire. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, Chariotrider555, Are you really against my last version as said by Heba Aisha? I just tried to neutralize the thing a bit. Ratnahastin was asking for complete removal of sentence while in your last comments, you two had agreed that terms like Rajputisation and illiterate may be removed. I also removed those references which were of no significance after removing these two terms. Lets try to conclude this rather than hanging around here for so long. Shinjoya (talk)

I only agree that "illiterate" should be removed. The phrase "in a process called Rajputization" should be retained, as it is through that process that a Rajput caste begins claiming their genealogy from Kshatriyas. However, the source that states the Rathores claimed to be Kshatriya seems to be too old for a caste article as it dates to the British Raj, and it doesn't seem to be a scholarly work as well. I would then suggest we could remove both the poorly sourced claim to Kshatriya status as well as the statement that such descent was fabricated by Rajputs. Unless someone can find a reliable source for the Rathore kshatriya claim, I believe we should delete the entire paragraph all together, as the original claim is currently supported by unsuitable sources, and if that claim is not well sourced and deserves to be deleted, then the counterstatement doesn't need to exist either for the time being (until someone finds a reliable source stating the Rathores claim to be descendends of the Suryavansha). Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

thanks for agreeing im removing this synthesis including their claims to mythical (imaginary) dynasties from the pages that i have listed above since you were the one who added them on all pages.RatnaHastin^talk 13:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

i have removed the source which states their origins from mythical dynasties from the pages i mentioned above since on almost all pages these claims to mythological dynasties were supported by raj sources and since counter source is about mundas as explained above i have removed them on basis of WP:SYNTH and WP:V WP:RAJ.please dont reinstate them without discussing.RatnaHastin^talk 13:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021

In Rathore states please include Seraikela state as it was founded by Raja Bikram Singh from Jodhpur in 1620 who came Puri, Odisha to make a pilgrimage to Jagannath temple. The information regarding Seraikela being a Rathore dynasty is available in rajput.com. 2409:4064:2E93:2D28:0:0:4CA:3509 (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 DoneRatnaHastin^talk 06:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Rathore is an important branch of the Rajput caste. They are popular for their rule in Marwar region of Rajasthan. Wikieditor1008 (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverted to stable version

There has been edit war between Ratnahastin, Shinjoya and White Horserider over this page. They all have been banned or blocked. So, I have reverted it to last best version. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop this damnatio memoriae (or whatever) you are executing. I do not think the articles are improving. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The origin you have added, is that Bardic history? If so, it is not very clear, especially in the later sections. How did the descedents of the ruler get involved in pastoral cattle raids, a known trait of "cattle rustlers" later? So was the earlier history fabricated? Also, please can you add page numbers? The Rathores do claim origin from Lord Rama (Solar dynasty), fabricated by the bards and the basic definition of Rajputization.LukeEmily (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot to write and fine-tune. See now.

I will add page-numbers.

Obviously, they did not descend from Sun or Moon or whatever. Did they really descend from the Gahadavalas? Very likely, no. But, we cannot be certain. The details will be clarified in notes. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You said : Did they really descend from the Gahadavalas? Very likely, no. But, we cannot be certain.. Well, "Niyogi, Roma (1959). The History of the Gāhaḍavāla Dynasty" , a source and its contents that you blanked out said these claims were doubtful and were bardic chronicles. See this version. The descent from Rama claim is mentioned by Sarkar. Pinging some other editors who have been involved in the previous talk sections Chariotrider555, Ravensfire, user: Kautilya3, utcursch, Sitush, Heba Aisha: I am not sure what is going on with TrangaBellam's edits. Please take a look if you have time.LukeEmily (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

There are far better sources to use than Niogi or Sarkar, who are about a century old. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

True , but they are still WP:RS (and 1960 Niogi was a PhD) - any contradictions with new sources can be shown appropriately. My concern is that the new sources are silent on some of the points - that is natural because no source is expected to cover all issues. For issues that are *not* contradicted by new sources, there is no need to blank out old sources. Anyway, waiting for your other edits as discussed earlier. Even if a new source contradicts, we have to show all sides of all WP:RS (for example "old sources mention this but new sources oppose it by mentioning that")..Generally there is no point in removing any WP:RS. I will wait for your other edits before editing anything.LukeEmily (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

What do you want to add from Sarkar or Niyogi? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You have not bothered to reply here. Yet, you have warned me at my talk-page to not remove sourced content from this page. I assume that you will be now explaining the "sourced content" that I removed from this version to produce this version.

I am interested to know why you are so keen in mentioning the aspect of illiteracy, using articles which engages in generic commentary on Rajputs and aren't concerned with Rathores. Interestingly, one of the author's (N. Ziegler) specialist publications paint a far nuanced picture in this regard. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not interested in mentioning literacy or illiteracy. Do I really need to point each and every "sourced content" that was deleted given that it is available in the history of the page? ANyway, please see all text that was sourced from Sarkar and Niyogi here. BTW, does not generic commentary of Rajputs apply to a Rajput clan when the claim is descent from Solar dynasty etc.? I will go through Ziegler's paper. Also, can you add page numbers please?LukeEmily (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The factoids sourced to Niyogi were :

The Rathores also claim to be descendants of the 11th century Gahadavala dynasty of Varanasi. Please see the first, second and third paragraph of the Claims section, which incorporates far more details using far recent sources.

The Rathores of Jodhpur State claimed to be descendants of Jayachandra. Ditto

These claims are sourced through bardic chronicles. Ditto

These claims are of later origin, and their historical veracity is doubtful. Ditto

According to Prithviraj Raso, Rathore was an epithet of Jayachandra (Jaichand) Absent, to expand upon later. So your net objection is that I removed this single line? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Need to use this source. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The previous version makes it clear that the bardic version is not authentic. In this version, while they are called ahistoric in the third paragraph , the reorganization makes it difficult for a reader unfamiliar with Bardic fabrication to realize she is reading fabricated history until she comes to the third para. Thats like telling a story as if it is true only to reveal much later that it was false. Also, waiting for page numbers.LukeEmily (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021

Rathores are a Suryavanshi Rajput clan. The clan traces its lineage back to Rama, the mythical hero of the Hindu epic Ramayana and through him back to the sun god Surya himself. Which is why the Rathores also call themselves Suryavanshi or family of the sun. The Rathores hail from the Marwar region of western Rajasthan and inhabit in the Idar state of Gujarat and also in Chhapra & Muzaffarpur district of Bihar in a very small number. 2409:4052:4E97:F858:BBB0:9DD1:1125:9A06 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 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) 16:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2023

Ompatel.001 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST : In this article, in the column of Sub clans, MANDLOT must be added as they are also one of the subclans of Rathore.

History about MANDLOT RATHORES : It can be prooved using this researched book named https://archive.org/details/hindutribescaste03sher/page/n43/mode/2up?q=Mandlot in the year 1918 in Library of Princeton.The mandlot clan of rathores later on came to Gujarat's Unjha and established UMAPURAM.

 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. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Rathore dynasty

The name of the page should be changed to Rathore dynasty. The change is necessary to avoid confusion as this page is about the dynasty and not the modern surname. Ranadhira (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)