This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Are there any statistics on the number of Rajputs in the Indian subcontinent? I know that the last caste wise census was in the 1930s but has anyone extrapolated that number to arrive at what the number is today? Also this article is biased towards former Rajput rulers when the vast majority of people claiming to be Rajput are nowhere close to being royal. Also there Marathas who claim to be Rajputs as well as a muslim tribe in Punjab. With Marathas, it is claimed that the genealogies were fabricated; nevertheless this should be included in the article. At present this article reads more like Hindu Rajput Royal houses of Rajasthan, or Rajputs of Rajasthan. The lede states that "The Rajput population and the former Rajput states are found in northern, western, central and eastern India as well as southern and eastern Pakistan. These areas include Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, Eastern Punjab, Western Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Sindh." but the body does not expand on what is in the lede. Comments? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what favourable bias you have found in this article but on the other hand it is exactly opposite to what you say here. Regarding Marathas, they were/are concentrated caste on the other hand Rajput aren't concentrated. Marathas were/are different community and with Marathas it is open shut case of fabrication of genealogies but with Rajput all that is based on "conjectures" ( that is why writers have used may, shall, could etc in many of their works. And for Pakistan/Punjab, Rajput population is there. There is a group called as "Muslim Rajput", and even "Sikh Rajputs" as well. "For your point regarding nowhere close to being royal"- in all region outside of Rajasthan as well Rajputs had Taluqdari estates, or big Zamindari estates. Rajputs in Jammu and Himachal also had princely states. So, I don't know how you inferred it when the community numbers in a state is not big enough. For numbers, we don't have any possible established numbers but it is generally admitted that Rajput population is not big and following pattern similar to Brahmins in a state RS6784 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Dear Jonathansammy, some author had given the demographics but it was obviously incorrect. There is some discussion on it. He said 120 million or something like that - obviously a typo in his book. I agree that the article is biased towards royalty although it was a minority in the community. There is a picture of some Rajput youths attending college but they are hardly representative of the average Rajput - many of who were illiterate during Raj era - let alone go to school or college. The talk page is evidence to the opposition faced by editors who try to add anything to make it WP:NPOV even from scholarly sources. Marathas are not part of the Rajput community nor does the Indian government consider them one - the varna of the two communities is different -i.e Rajputs are (ritually)upper caste. There is academic consensus and the Maratha organizations themselves point to the Kunbi association and there is plenty of modern historic and anthropological evidence. Since there is a separate Maratha caste page, I think we should avoid mixing unrelated communities or we might have to add many such communities on the Rajput page. I agree about the last part, there is hardly any information about Rajputs of other states but wikipedia is work in progress :-). Thanks,LukeEmily (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@RS6784:, @LukeEmily: Perhaps "Biased is the wrong word. All I want to say is that the article talks about Rajputs without specifying whether they are from the former Rajputana or other regions of India. We have a few mentions of the Bihari Rajputs and that's all when it comes to regional Rajputs. For infobox we have image of "Chauhan Rajput" who, as the article says, belonged to the Noniyas caste, and started calling themselves Rajput just within last few generations. Although there is a separate article on Rajputisation, I believe that process also merits a section in this article. I don't have the statistics but communities that became Rajput via Rajputisation are probably many times more than those who call themselves "pure" Rajputs. When it comes to demographics, Jaffrelot mentions Rajput population of between 4-8% in different North Indian states.[1]If we just consider Uttar Pradesh, the number may be more than ten million. Even excluding Rajasthan, the total number may be quite high. I am sure Rajputs from different regions have their own unique culture. Also the article talks more about history than about contemporary Rajputs. Somehow that should be included in the article. Sorry for going on in so many different directions. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I think this part is misleading needs verification, Ahirs use Yadav since late 19th century, similarly Koeri using Kushwaha, Mallah using Kashyap doesn't make them part of Rajput. Similarly, that Chauhan part I guess is misleading needs further verification, I think it has been said in the context. It might have been used by other community in the same manner. Those would be in their parent community only not here, similar case is of one or two more here. Right now, a lot of things added here needs a thorough re-check. Surname copying was common thing. If you read Lucia Michuletti's work on Ahirs, it would look like Rewari Ahirs are Rajputs on one page but that isn't the case. I think the whole article has been made a mess it needs thorough check and recently I have faced a situation where two editors tried everything to have added a fake user image on the page related to the group. It puts serious question mark on the GOODFAITH part of some who are continuously involved here. The RS6784 (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jonathansammy:, successful Rajputisation is actually formation of the Rajput communities from other groups and applies to the main stream Rajputs also. If successful, the person actually becomes a mainstream Rajput and knows his clan etc. If partially successful or unsuccessful, it is something like the Noniya Chauhans where they went half the way because the mainstream Rajputs don't accept them. It is not clear if the Noniya Chauhans actually participated in war or as guards. Hence the Rajputs in the first image most probably are Rajputs(accepted by other Rajputs). These three quotes clarify the entire process. They are all direct quotes from academic sources.
1.
Richard Eaton 2019, p. 87, [1]In Gujarat, as in Rajasthan, genealogy proved essential for making such claims. To this end, local bards composed ballads or chronicles that presented their patrons as idea warriors who protected Brahmins, cows and vassals, as opposed to the livestock herding chieftains that they actually were, or had once been. As people, who created and preserved the genealogies, local bards therefore played critical roles in brokering for their clients socio-cultural transitions to a claimed Rajput status. A similar thing was happening in the Thar desert region, where from the fourteenth century onwards mobile pastoral groups gradually evolved into landed, sedentary and agrarian clans. Once again, it was bards and poets, patronized by little kings, who transformed a clan's ancestors from celebrated cattle-herders or cattle-rustlers to celebrated protectors of cattle-herding communities. The difference was subtle but critical, since such revised narratives retained an echo of a pastoral nomadic past while repositioning a clan's dynastic founder from pastoralist to non-pastoralist. The term 'Rajput', in short, had become a prestigious title available for adoption by upwardly mobile clan in the process of becoming sedentary. By one mechanism or another, a process of 'Rajputization' occurred in new states that emerged from the turmoil following Timur's invasion in 1398, especially in Gujarat, Malwa and Rajasthan.
2.
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.
3.
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.
.
4.
Early(pg 127/128)Though a good number of the Rajputs belonged to one or the other of the numerous ruling clans that constituted the Rajput polity, the vast majority of the Rajputs were common peasants eking out a bare subsistence from their arid land.
The last quote from Early shows that the article is discussing mostly rulers rather than common Rajputs. I feel based on sources that educationally, occupationally and economically , Maratha(caste) and Rajput(mainstream caste) are quite on the same level but wikipedia pages give a different impression. The quotes clearly specify the formation and acceptance result of Rajputization rather than just the claim(for Noniya Chauhans). I think we have covered Rajputisation although we have not explicitly added a section. I am not sure about population. I think the population is quite high compared to other castes based on reading. Yes, unfortunately, lot of Raj era and contemporary Rajputs info is missing. You may also notice that Karni Sena or other caste organizations are not mentioned. These topics fall more in the politics arena and outside my interest. You are more than welcome to work on the missing information if you have time. We should try to get a "good" rating for this page and make it as complete as possible.LukeEmily (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@LukeEmily:, please read Shail Mayaram comments carefully writer isn't talking about Rajputs, she has not taken name of any one there. Rajputisation as a process not necessarily means entering into Rajput community but is more like imbibing of Rajput social culture by others example is clearly described by Lucia Michuletti in her research paper on Ahirs community in the context of Rewari family and others. if so many people were into Rajput community then why is Rajput population so low. ,Early(pg 127/128)Though a good number of the Rajputs belonged to one or the other of the numerous ruling clans that constituted the Rajput polity, the vast majority of the Rajputs were common peasants eking out a bare subsistence from their arid land- this part is not completely correct, firstly all Rajputs are not in Rajasthan and Punjab/Gangetic plains is not arid. One more reason being a writer has openly written as to how both Rajputs and Brahmins despised farming and used to hire labourers. I will share that reference- it is scathing remark but proves that Rajputs along with Brahmins rarely involved into tilling etc-Susan Bayly wrote:
"By the mid-nineteenth century, influential revenue specialists were reporting that they could tell the caste of a landed man by simply glancing at his crops. In the north, these observers claimed, a field of 'second-rate barley' would belong to a Rajput or Brahman who took pride in shunning the plough and secluding his womenfolk. Such a man was to be blamed for his own decline, fecklessly mortgaging and then selling off his lands to maintain his unproductive dependents. By the same logic, a flourishing field of wheat would belong to a non-twice-born tiller, wheat being a crop requiring skill and enterprise on the part of the cultivator. These, said such commentators as Denzil Ibbetson and E. A. H. Blunt, were the qualities of the non-patrician 'peasant' – the thrifty Jat or canny Kurmi in upper India, .... Similar virtues would be found among the smaller market-gardening populations, these being the people known as Koeris in Hindustan"[2]
. Regarding Eaton, please understand a thing called as possibility and could, may etc to have be considered here. There is something called as conjectures. Eaton isn't talking about 1900, but way back in a way of possibilities. Lastly, I will request not cherry picking of quotes as I had already punctured the one of Ms Susan Bayly where you were too much fixated with a quote on page 34 where she used may but didn't see page 32 what she said. RS6784 (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
"I feel based on sources that educationally, occupationally and economically , Maratha(caste) and Rajput(mainstream caste) are quite on the same level but wikipedia pages give a different impression." - your feelings are irrelevant here and facts have to be shared. For your information, after zamindari abolition Rajputs definitely suffered the most post independence under Congress rule. For Marathas and Rajputs comparison, One has population of "32%" as per last data in 1931 in Maharashtra state proving their non-elite status as 32% is very concentrated numbers whereas Rajputs were just 6%-6.5% in Rajasthan and similar or even lower percentage in other bigger states like Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, MP, Bihar etc. I will not respond to this discussion as this is again going into wrong direction not as per subject line by constant selection of quotes or para. I think we all should have only followed the subject line rather than diverting it. Thanks RS6784 (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Given that this article was already EC-protected all involved in the recent reverts are too experienced to have an excuse for such actions or for trying to communicate through edit-summaries. You all know better! Let the ongoing discussions on this page reach a consensus before implementing a change. I'd also point the editors to twoprevious related discussions so that they can read them through and avoid repetition. If they are unable to reach a consensus among themselves, they should consider a a dispute resolution process.
Administrator note The article is back down to WP:ECP-protection but do not restore/remove the above-mentioned or any other images (ie, change the status quo from the current version with regards to the images) till the respective discussions have reached a consensus; if needed or desired, I can formulate this as a page restriction. Other improvements can continue to be made to the article while following WP:BRD. Abecedare (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Removal of Mayo College image
Consensus to exclude the image from the Rajput article since, at present, it cannot be positively established that the individuals seen belong to the community. Abecedare (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
, The caption of this image donot say anything about, who these people are ? I can't see mention of word Rajput here. Why it was here for so long. The caption just say that it's one of the batch of Mayo College, it mentions File:Monitors Mayo College Ajmer.jpg. (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Heba Aisha: I have now searched for user generated on other community article as well. I hope that should also be removed. I will have to take it up now. RS6784 (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Go ahead. But, it should be image of community only, the landmarks which are Verifiable shouldn't be removed. This is about representation of people from that comunity only. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
yesterday, when I was given the link of discussion, I found a user image on Koeri image and there could be more such cases. I have removed it now. Similar thing can only also be said about Mayo image as the names of those people are mentioned on that photo pointing out which community they belong to. RS6784 (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Name donot says anything. We are discussing Rajputisation and Sanskritisation here. All community use any surname as we all know. You have yourself admitted in another thread that many communities are using Rajput surnames which donot make them Rajputs. Here I think this part is misleading needs verification, Ahirs use Yadav since late 19th century, similarly Koeri using Kushwaha, Mallah using Kashyap doesn't make them part of Rajput., these are your words. It is possible that these people shown are Gurjars or Jats, who are using Rajput surnames. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Heba Aisha: The names of people are written on the photograph, it can be verified which community they belong to. RS6784 (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean by name, if you are talking about "Singh" surname, i can present a number of sources which refer that this is used by many communities.This is not an evidence of being Rajput. This image lack WP:V.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
if they are notable figures related to some families can be verified, not as difficult. RS6784 (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
, As we have seen that user generated images from various pages are removed as of now it is possible that some of them might be genuine images. What is your view on this. I want all issue related to user generated images fixed at one place. Not only about this article but about other articles as well. But, if we keep this, there might be a case where some user in future bring their version of image of a community with proof that they belong to a particular community. We don't know whether they are doing this in WP: Goodfaith or not. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear @Heba Aisha:, in my view the above images definitely doesn't fall under user generated one as it is a very old image from Mayo college with names of the people written on the photograph, definitely not of this generation. The verification of the people in the photographs can be checked ( if we want to) as their names are there and some might have been notables of their period. This is a slight different issue than what should be classed as User generated image. User generated image is editor's own clicked photographs, those in my opinion should never be used to depict social groups especially in context of India as it can leave out space for violation of WP:DGF, WP:Goodfaith. There is already lots of friction in the Indian society due to many reasons. Even user generated images which might look like normal image can be construed as breaking simple rules of verification wrt community identity. Thanks RS6784 (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear RS6784, but that doesn't imply that these people are Rajputs only. I went through the page of Mayo college and saw that their insignia contains the symbol of Bhil tribes as well. It is possible that they inducted other communities too. I have also been associated with History for long, and don't know if you are aware or not but the Bhil Soldiers of the army of Maharana Pratap also used the same surnames as those of Rajputs. They were treated in equal manner and one of the general from Bhil community was "Rao Punja". The surnames like Rana, Rao and Rawat itself donot determine the caste.Heba Aisha (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Please understand what I said here, regarding Rana Punja it is different topic he was probably not a Bhil but had Bhils in auxiliaries. This is not the subject line. I request you to stick to the subject line. Let us not deviate here, the names of these people are written on photographs, if they were decent notable enough in their generation then it can be verified. Gandhi is used by many caste, but we know Mahatma Gandhi was from Bania caste. Please understand individual identification is not difficult here in this case. I again repeat let us not deviate. RS6784 (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I again repeat I didn't contested your removal of this image. Did I ? but if someone in future or any other editor who might object then you are liable to answer their queries. That is not my issue. I didn't disputed your removal but my one point stands this is not a user generated image and the names of people are there on photograph it can be verified. I don't know why this particular discussion on talk page was created. RS6784 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, i would clarify them in future. One thing i want to tell, there used to be some rules codified by a senior editor called Sitush. There he had mentioned that although we know that Amitabh Bachchan is from Kayastha community if we don't have proof regarding that, we can't write on Wikipedia that he is from that community. The caption only mention Mayo college and an old editor, who is not active nowadays had brought it here and mentioned in description that Mayo College was established to educate Rajputs. Even the description on commons is not Verifiable. And, i already clarified you that surname can't be used for verification as from pages of other caste too we can see that "Singh" is used by many communities, as for example Bhumihar(mentioned there itself). Heba Aisha (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Singh is used by many community like Jat, rajput, Gujar zamindars and Gond Rajas use Singh too. one of the names in photo is Kherud Din Khurshed Jah could be Nawab. The photo could be from any community.
the names of individual are mentioned there, it can easily be verified as to who they are especially if these are notables. Lets imagine, if Jawaharlal Nehru was written can we not verify his community? I didn't even talked about surnames, another deviation I am seeing here. RS6784 (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The names don't mention anything about them being Rajput. It is easily visible that nothing in description and even in caption is the proof of these people belonging to Rajput caste. It shouldn't be used in such case as it is totally unverifiable. Btw,Thakurgul, try to post links in the way i did.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
A name of notable is enough to verify its antecedents. I am repeating this for the nth time. I have given you examples of Mahatma Gandhi, Lala Lajpat Rai etc or any such personality or even decent notable enough, if any name is mentioned on photographs and in case they were decent notables it can be verified. I think you missed my previous comments here. Thanks RS6784 (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
No, this is what we call WP:OR and description also donot say anything. No mention of Word Rajput in caption. Different people can have same name. A dubious image with the caption "Mayo College" donot proove anything. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
please read WP:OR again, I just talked about verification if the names are there, that can be done and that is not any WP:OR. RS6784 (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Note: @RS6784:, if you believe that evidence (per WP:CASTEID) can be found to establish the caste of the individuals in the photograph, please do so. Simply repeating that it can hypothetically be done gets to be tendentious. Abecedare (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
For that verification part, it will take time but as of now, I am not contesting the removal of Mayo College photo. From my side this particular case is done. RS6784 (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Unless there are objections, I'll close this section of the discussion in 24h and note the current consensus to not include this image in the article. Abecedare (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal new section - Rajput Malis
Many Rajputs after the defeat in battles had converted to different other castes. Rajput malis are found in marwar and when they lost in battle slowly converted to mali caste. This will be good addition since this is the reverse of rajputisation,
I can expand on this , do start the talk
Life as a Dalit: Views from the Bottom on Caste in India
@Abecedare:, @RegentsPark:, @ScottishFinnishRadish:, and others here, Raj-Era photos was removed on an other article's page directly related to a social group- here [[2]], why shouldn't the same be removed on Rajput, and especially Rajputisation, other communities pages as well. I would request for a clear cut direction on this Raj-Era photos from the senior admins/editors, as on some pages it gets removed and on others certain editors try to reinstate it to suit their pov. RS6784 (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
There should really be a centralized discussion on this, rather than having it done piecemeal across individual talk pages. A broad site-wide consensus is the remedy for this situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
We do not have representative image of the modern communities and we can't accept from the editors as reliability is a big issue. These Raj era photos can be used, not as representative of present state of community but as historical images, showing the past of the communities. I am sure you want to remove cultivator Rajput image but let me tell you, if you are concerned about that image only because it was taken in British period, we need to remove warrior image as well and several other images too which are looking good, so despite being Raj era images no one is concerned about their removal. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Dear Editor, please do not engage into saying what particularly concerns me. I didn't pointed out what you are imagining here. Regarding your take, sorry to say just recently we had a discussion and you were moving Raj-Era photos on an another community page to a different section using my arguments which I put on a different talk page with you, all this at the same time and you were batting for reinstating an unverified image on that page where we had discussion. Sorry, but this was very odd and this is where my point is editors trying to reinstate images where it suits them. I again repeat just informing you here. RS6784 (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
And for reliability issue, I hope you know, again I will have to repeat it that you as an editor had shown lots of interest in adding unverified user image on two pages related to this same social grp. Unfortunately, this was on the same day itself. It is you who pointed out to me that there is similar discussion going on with respect to Raj-Era photo and unverified User added photos on an another article's talk page. After seeing that, I was surprised with the different style discussion of yours on a similar topic. I am just informing you here all this in good faith.RS6784 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding that Dehra Dun Image - related to some Russia grp, there is already issue with misleading caption on the image on an another page related to this one. The original image doesn't say they are "Hindu Rajput", it says "Russia Rajpoots" and there is WP:V as well whether it belongs to this particular social group or not. That is an another topic altogether. My point here is regarding one generic guidelines wrt to Raj-Era Images as on some page it gets removed citing valid reasons but on another some editors try to push for reinstating it.RS6784 (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
User RS6784 follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, very Bias in sources, you need to follow good faith as well.
My apologies, looks like this did not come out correctly, I have changed it. Thakurgul (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Thakurgul
The existing photo is fine and should not be changed Thakurgul 19:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Thakurgul (talk) Thakurgul blocked sock RS6784 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
There is no confusion and the Cultivator Rajput image is already discussed a lot in past. I would advice you to go through old discussions here. The source of these Raj era images is a book called "People of India" and editors like Sitush have already stated that these images can be used. Wait for Government of India to conduct a caste sensus and i think further development will provide us representative images of the communities in present context. Till then, we have no alternative to these images as British were the last to conduct caste surveys in India of particular caste groups.There is discussion going on in India at present about whether to conduct a caste sensus or not also .[1]Heba Aisha (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Heba Aisha:, My point was regarding general guidelines for inserting Raj-Era images to depict social groups on Wikipedia. And for a image that you are more concerned with Please do read WP: CLOSECHALLENGE, such cases can be reviewed as it happened with respect to an unverified image inserted by you on an another page and it got changed due to Admin decisions. Regarding your other points here, I do appreciate it and hope that the "stand" taken by you remains the same on other pages as well. I am well with in my rights to inform you. RS6784 (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure, you are free to reinstate such images from sources like people of India on other articles untill we have a caste sensus or caste survey conducted by Government of India. The page you pointed out initially after starting this discussion, may also have the image that was removed earlier. I think we have decided about user generated non verifiable images and yes i am with admin and i am not gonna use such images. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
There was discussion on Raj-Era images wrt community depictions on the same discussion which you had shared with me. If you want again I can share your link here. Please understand, I am correcting it in good faith that any caste surveys of Government Organization doesn't have images depicting communities and in any case, the caste is mostly a thing of past not present. There is no guarantee that such caste affiliations would exist in future. So, let us not go into something over which we don't have control. I think this discussion is going into different direction let us only stay to the subject. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I am saying that these images are of historical importance and i know they don't depict any community in their present form. Everything has changed but these images are important as they are used in those sections which talks about the history of origin and talks about past. As per WP:MOSIMAGE too, they fulfill the requirements of the section and the content placed there.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
British had issue with pronunciation and as you are pointing towards caption, the caption was changed to cultivator Rajput earlier because of this only. There is no issue left. People of India has images of many communities and it has no alternative as of now. Please note, images are not meant for decoration purpose, it should be helpful for understanding the content of a particular section and the image of Dehradoon Rajputs is suitable there.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I again repeat please stick to the subject of the discussion. Your first comment here that "I want xyz " was a dig at me and definitely crossing the subject line. Regarding, the case that you talk about isn't related to Raj-Era images but is more with WP:V and that is separate topic not related to this subject line. For your information, the caption of image says Russia Rajpoots not Hindu Rajputs. We need to verify the present situation of this particular group. And rest I hope after trying all attempts to insert an unverified user image on one page you must have understood what you or I think here will "not decide". There is a rule WP:V and WP:Burden is with those who want to get it added not with the editor who want to get it removed. I will not respond any further to this. RS6784 (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The source book is verifiable and there is no question of WP:V here. The book from where it is sourced has images of various communities and if this is the issue of Raj Era image then i don't know why people are not questioning that "bride" and that "warrior" image. I would repeat that images are not meant for decoration. See WP: MOSIMAGE properly. The caption also writes "Hindoos". Many such caste group images have improper pronunciation (as for example they have written "Chauhan" as Chohan in the description of warrior image), but it doesn't mean that they lack Verifiablity.Let me remind you that it's not a user generated image. Heba Aisha (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Since, you are pointing towards that particular comment from admin about a user generated unverifiable image. Why should i or any other editor believe that this image is also reliable. The people shown here are from Rajput community only. The description says that someone has donated it from their family collection. We have no reason to believe that he is reliable. If this is question of WP:V and WP:BURDEN, this image is more vulnerable as it is not from any caste survey done by any official agency of government. Heba Aisha (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear all, The origin section talks of farming and pastoral origins hence we need an image depicting that. Instead of the disputed russia rajpoots image, please may I request that this image be used subject to the consensus of other editors. . The source is clear that they are Rajputs, there is question mark after agriculturists but we can see one of them having an axe and we can always label it "Rajputs(possibly agriculturists)". The image does not look derogatory in any sense. Just simple Indian farmers chatting. One man is not wearing a shirt but that is understandable given the heat in a tropical country and physical work in the field. Others are properly dressed. The photographer in the Russia Rajputs image himself doubts their claim. Hence my suggestion. I am not interested in this image discussion. Even of there is no image for the origin section, I do not mind. Just gave my two cents in the hope that it will resolve this ongoing conflict. However, we cannot have different rules for different pages or that that would not be fair. The Ahir etc image should also be added if this image is added.LukeEmily (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Please read the subject line again, I didn't raised objection wrt particular image here in this discussion until one editor deliberately brought it here. And I would request you to know WP:SQS. I am bit puzzled as to how you and the other editor mostly respond to each other to build opinion and many times revert to each others version of edits. I have already seen a great degree of cooperation during that every attempt to insert an unverified image. I am just informing you as this is very surprising. RS6784 (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@RS6784:, Please comprehend what I said. I actually opposed Heba - not supported her -about the Russia Rajput image. We have other disagreements too on other pages like Bhumihars and we hardly edit the same pages - it should be obvious that our interests/opinions are different on many issues. Our pattern of sources are also different, I like only academic sources while many of her sources are journalists (I don't agree with her as I think journalists have political leanings and are not subject to academic standards). These personal attacks from you get tiring after a while and I recommend that you read the links you mentioned yourself. As to the subject line, I remember Sitush writing that Raj era images are fine - they do not have copyright issues - but Raj era British ethnographers are not reliable. If I find his comment, I can point a link to it. I am just informing you as your behavior is very surprising. As for my reply, don't be surprised as this page is on my watch list. Best wishes, LukeEmily (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Heba Aisha: Expected better rationale to an argument. I again repeat please read the subject line and already deviation has happened. RS6784 (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion here might explain the copyright issues. As far as I am concerned, all of the Raj images are ok to use now. However, I'm not sure what is your objection to the current image - not being "good taste" is rather subjective, especially since we are not censored. Use of these ethnographic images is quite common and I note that three articles at Malayalam Wikipedia use this particular one. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Please don't engage into Stonewalling, at the least see the date it says 2012. I am sure those days there won't be a rule for WP:RAJ as well.RS6784 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I do not have objection and Raj images are ok to use and Raj is also a period to be acknowledged. Thanks Thakurgul (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Thakurgul blocked sock RS6784 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Thakurgul and LukeEmily, i am aware of the comments of Sitush on it. LukeEmily, thanks for sharing this comment, i also witnessed his support for such Raj era images on another article, in which he reverted someone's attempt to remove such image. I think most of us are agree to it's use along with Veteran editors in this topic area. Btw,the another image you're showing above is more disputed as the author of that image is more confused about whether they are Rajputs or not.(?) A question mark is there in description. I support Dehradoon Rajput only at least it is clear that they are Rajputs. Heba Aisha(talk) 06:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, why do you and Luke respond to each other comments most of the time? Is there some cooperation outside of Wikipedia? I am just asking here. Please do remember there is WP:Tag team, WP:SQS, I have already seen how you both tried to insert an image which was fake. Please be careful! RS6784 (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
RS6784, see this [3], don't misinterpret it. Admin has said that they expressed their view as regular editor there and that's not a final descision. Don't remove as discussion is not in the favour of removal. Here, we can see three out of four editors want to keep that and you have not provided any arguments which specifies that it should be removed altogether.Heba Aisha (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear, @Heba Aisha:,Please don't misquote dear @Abecedare:, I am putting his lines clearly from the discussion- ::Quick replies:
You are right that the issue of "Russia Rajpoots", "Lodhi Rajputs" being within the scope of the Rajput article would need to be settled before including the respective images. I don't personally know whether the answer to that is 'obviously', 'of course not', or 'it's complicated' and will leave that to discussion among the subject experts. In the meantime though I have struck out my Aside from the previous comment since it was based on a misunderstanding of your actual objection. Why don't you see the comments of Admin there? Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I support using Dehradoon Rajput as well, Raj images can be used Thakurgul (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)blocked sock RS6784 (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, I would request you to know that discussion on Raj-Era and this Russia thing is different. Russia case is about WP:V of the group like in which community they belong to and it needs to be demonstrated by those who want to add it. Lodh community called themselves as Lodh Rajputs that doesn't make them part of the Rajput community. Similar cases were wrt other groups a simple glance of Census records can easily explain it like how some grp in last 140-160 yrs have changed their names like Ahirs using Yadavs, Koeri using Kushwaha etc as a part of process called Sanskritisation to have some kind Neo past for kshatriya or Rajput like status, by replacing kushwaha kshatriya or Yadav kshatriya etc to their original community names. For using of Raj Era as the original subject line was before the diversion, my point was for having same general guidelines across all pages because it gets removed on some pages and gets reinstated on other pages. RS6784 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
[4]I know it gets confusing sometimes but my opinion at Talk:Koeri, expressed in my role as a regular editor, is just that, and unless and until a project/community-wide consensus for appropriate use of the Raj-era images is established, the issue will need to be discussed at the individual talkpages. (Aside: it is also not useful to label these Raj-era images as "fake"; they often satisfy verifiability and the argument against their inclusion is more nuanced than that.), here they have clarified that these issues will be settled on individual talk page and regarding the use of Raj era images we can't remove them and stop putting them altogether unless community wide consensus on no use is established.Heba Aisha (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
LukeEmily, i can see the fragmented discussion is making thing worse. A particular user is removing several images and placing others using their own judgement. See edit on Koeri, Mallah. Please, create a discussion thread on "noticeboard for India related topics". There we can settle the issue of all images altogether, which are Raj Era image and have some spelling or verifiablity issue. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The issue with respect to Russia and Koeri and is different. Koeri case is of spelling, Russia case is about verifiability of that group in Rajput community. Don't try to deviate here RS6784 (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that part was expunged later by the Admin. You can see the discussion link again. It all happened due to initial miscommunication from my end where it got interpreted like I was calling out Raj Era image as fake. I am not questioning Raj Era images and only asked for general guidelines across all pages. Secondly, for Russia group, I have explained how it was about WP:V like what is the situation of this grps. And on this part I think even Admin had agreed that this needs verification. We cannot add X community photos to Y to satisfy our egos, I have already given examples of non-Rajputs using Rajput names, surnames in last 160-170 yrs. So, we need to get the information on the status of these Russia people. If we don't have the exact details, then sorry the image fails to meet WP:V wrt to this page. RS6784 (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
RS6784, but you removed Russia Rajput image saying that this should be removed unless discussion over it is completed that this group is a part or Rajput caste or not? As you compared it with discussion on Lodh Rajput. Do you agree that these people are also some community attempting Sanskritisation.? Heba Aisha (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Lodh community is a separate group not Rajput but they have styled themselves as Lodh Kshatriyas or Lodh Rajputs for last 170 yrs. I think you might be having great knowledge on Indian politics, so I hope you know Mr Kalyan Singh former CM of Uttar Pradesh who belonged to the Lodh community or what you call as Lodh Rajput. As far as what I know, he was not part of the Rajput community. I think similar case has to be of this Russia grp. I removed it because here the case is WP:V of the community whether it belongs to this community or not. RS6784 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC) 
You guessed it right. I don't claim that i have great knowledge but yes, many sources i use on articles as references are actually available here with me in hard copy format. Let me name you one more Lodh Uma Bharti, you might be aware. Even Sakshi Maharaj is also from same community. Yes, there is attempt by many communities in past to rise up in social ladder but Rajputisation is a different thing from Sanskritisation. In Sanskritisation the communities generally claim Kshatriya or Brahmin status. Even Rajputs claim of Kshatriya origin is contested. Because, we can see from articles and sources used there that they have been formed as a community out of various social groups.In Rajputisation, we consider the cases where some communities, which were lower castes or tribes have been successfully assimilated as Rajputs (may be they are not accepted within the community or given the status or second class citizens). These includes Daroga (people born out of lower caste mothers and Rajput fathers). Regarding "Dehradoon Rajput", since they were surveyed by Britishers, they must be from some community that were successfully assimilated into Rajput caste by then.Heba Aisha (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Wanna clear one more thing, there isn't any attempt of castes like Yadav,Kurmi and Koeri of becoming Rajput according to my reading on them. What they claim is Kshatriya status, similar to Rajputs. I usually try to remove such connection wherever I saw new editors from one such community are deliberately trying to connect them with Rajputs.I as editor have never tried to forge the two and always tried to use sources to show what is correct and what isn't.I have also written Chunda Sisodia article and had plans to do more. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Not really, in Uttar Pradesh Rajputs have been written as Kshatriya alternatively or vice versa in older records. So this is not true. The communities like Ahir copying Yadav, Koeri copying Kushwaha etc is a process of Sanskritisation which in turn is connected to Rajputisation. Please read Lucia Michuletti's book on Ahirs, she has clearly demonstrated it very well about the attempts by Rewari family which led to adoption of Yadav surname in Ahirs and calls it Rajputisation specifically. Rajputisation includes also a process where non Rajputs try to make kshatriya past alternatively it has been called kshatriyization. For your info when Lodh write Lodh Rajputs they don't want to be part of other community as such but have Kshatriya/Rajput like status or even past of their own, in their world view they imagine two words same. Chhatrapati Shivaji making Sisodia relationship was not for being a Rajput but for Kshatriya past, but all that didnt made them kshatriya or Rajputs.Most writers call it same. Many noted writers like Hermann Kulke etc have called it same except one odd case. Rest no deviation- I will not respond to such things now as they are part of other discussion. RS6784 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Rajputs or Kshatriya don't claim kshatriya status, they are kshatriya themselves, in many regions Rajputs have been written as alternatively Kshatriya only or vice versa. For Ahir case please read Lucia Michuletti's work. This is quite laughable that on pages of many of these low castes groups word Kshatriya has been pasted like point proving which needs corrections and is matter of another discussion, I will not bring it up here. Again I request no deviation. Regarding the subject line for Raj-Era images I just asked for guidelines and regarding this Russia thing the verifiability of this grp with respect to page lies with those who want to add it here.RS6784 (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree with RS6784, not only people of india caste based pictures are little problematic specially given history of racism in early caste based works of colonial history but one of the strongest point is even the book itself says their Rajput connection is doubtful and above that this image has been proposed for removal by others before. I think this image has no place on this article. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Good point about many of these colonial-era pictures being remnants of Scientific racism. It may have a place on this article but an adequate background should also be given. RuudVanClerk (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Many castes adopted rajput name for sanskritization, doesnt mean they were Rajput just like many caste changed their name and added kshatriya before or after caste name. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Will not comment on varna discussion but as far as the Russia Rajputs are concerned, if the photographer himself is doubting their caste then we surely cannot use this image. My vote is to not use the Russia Rajput image.LukeEmily (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I would appreciate the above points LukeEmily, I will only stick to the case. My point was wrt WP:V of the Russia group with respect to the Rajput community where I think it misses, so this is why I asked or took a step for its removal in WP: Goodfaith. From my side, I will not put any more comments on this topic. I have already shared my take on it. On Raj-Era images it would be helpful if there is some guidelines because it gets removed on one page and added on the other. Thanks RS6784 (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
As per user Sajaypal, i think he is doubting all Raj era images. Do they mean that there is issue with all images from "people of India"?.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
RS6784, Rajputs or Kshatriya don't claim kshatriya status, they are kshatriya themselves, also this seems to be a prejudiced statement. The article has numerous sources which points that they are mixture of Shudra and tribals. It is possible that communities like Chamar are also a part of this caste group as we have sources on Sanskritisation and Rajputisation and i am doubtful that your next step would be editing according to a particular author's view, whom you are naming above. We need diverse opinion and as various sources points out here. Rajputs claim of Kshatriya origin is doubtful.We have also sources which say that some foreign tribes also became a part of this community. I think Russia Rajput belong to one such group.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
What you think or do not think doesn't matter, factually the book from which image is taken is himself doubting their connection with rajput, wiki works on facts not opinions of editors which will amount to WP:OR. Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Definitely image of rajput cultivator or agriculturalist can be loaded into article.
Page 272 [7]Thakurgul (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC) blocked sock RS6784 (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
If so many are in Rajputs then why Rajput population is very low, this itself punctures the above take. Please look at basic census data to see how many groups had tried such things. I don't understand if Shivaji and Bharatpur royal after all stunt couldn't get counted themselves in Rajputs and here we are being told XYZ commoners became part of this grp that too recently. I would again request no deviation from the topic for which we discussed here. This response of yours can be counted as personal attack- " i am doubtful that your next step would be editing according to a particular author's view," Even after instructions from the Admin you are coming up such things is definitely not a good response. If you have anything substantial to add wrt topic then respond otherwise don't response with accusations. PLEASE STICK TO THE TOPICRS6784 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Raj images are fine, also rajput cultivator is major group in rajput
Romila Thapar describes rajput cultivators revolved against sultan in 1357 [8]
Thakurgul, yes agree with you. This article and it's content itself say that this community is a mixture of various social group from different background. Shudra, "Malechha" are all part of this group and hence to suit the content as per WP: MOSIMAGE, we need different images not only those images which seems to be included for WP:puffery.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Heba Aisha This article has puffery and should include various social group images Thakurgul (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)blocked sock RS6784 (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Heba Aisha, I would request you again to remain stick to the topic of verifiability of this image, rather than making unrelated comments here. I would request dear Abecedare to please take notes of these deviation from the topic of verifiability of this image, it is simple case of WP:V which even the photographer of the image openly says that he isn't sure. From my side, I have put up my arguments here, I will not comment further and I think it will lead to deviation. RS6784 (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion is getting repetitious with several editors (particularly @RS6784, Thakurgul, and Heba Aisha:) all having expressed their views, without apparently convincing the other(s). Since simply restating those positions is unlikely to be beneficial, I suggest (1) approaching WP:DRN for a mediated discussion, (2) starting a formal WP:RFC, or (3) dropping the issue and accepting the status quo.Abecedare (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
RfC about inclusion of removed photo of "Russia Rajputs in origin section
An image with caption "Russia Rajput" which according to description shows "cultivators from Rajput caste" was removed on the ground that these people don't belong to the Rajput caste.[10] Shouldn't we include it as the origin section only talk about formation of community from Shudra and tribals and the image is from an authentic book called "people of India" (the only available source containing image of many Hindu communities ? Heba Aisha (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Polling
oppose - Please understand the meaning of conjectures, no writer can be 100% sure with what was the case of particular community 1000 yrs ago. The origin section also talks about other possibilities and not only one track. Whatever these writers have said, they have opined on the situation of 1000-1500 yrs back not on late British era. And for this image, as pointed out by one editor in last discussion the photographer isn't "sure" about their background, that is enough to put WP:V of this photo with respect to this article. So, this image cannot be added. RS6784 (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose: oppose re-adding of the said image. This [11] is the source of the photograph, where detailed description of the photograph is also given, which goes like this:
These peasants are residents of Jumnootri, or the source of the Jumna, and belong by caste to a Rajpoot race known as the Russia clan. They are Hindoos, and worship Ram and Buwarie especially. They feed on anything they can get except ox flesh, but chiefly on goats, which they eat after sacrifice. Both the subjects are, as will be seen, young men; both have very dark eyes and complexion. They are dressed in the usual dirty-white blanket vestment of their class and black trowsers. The Hill Rajpoot tribes are very numerous; 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., so author itself is doubting their claim. Nonetheless as I consider myself somewhat informed on Rajput history, and as I never heard about Russia Rajput except when it was added on this article, I also did a google book search which doesnt seem to give anything at all [12]. All the editors also supported its removal in the discussion except the person who RfC it. In my opinion this photograph isn't suitable for this page. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose: Oppose inclusion of this image as per WP:V. The photographer/writer himself is not sure of their claim so we cannot override the writer's opinion. Second, not sure what "Russia" stands for here. The "russia" word will surely confuse an international reader if we include this image. Hence it is better to not include this image on any caste related page IMHO. It may be OK for inclusion for articles on "Hindu hill tribes" etc. as long as we don't mention their caste.LukeEmily (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Support the inclusion of image as it has been removed on contentious ground. The sources point out that this is an image of Rajput people[13] and the argument that no post Raj era sources are available for the image is applicable to other images as well like Oomuts of Nursinghpur. The drive to remove this particular image is an example of WP:Puffery or most specifically User:Sitush/Common#Royalpuffery.Heba Aisha (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
You are the one who RfCed this, is person RfCing eligible for vote ? Sajaypal007 (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. The RfC is neutral and a vote is vote. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I was under impression that since RfC nominator's language wasn't neutral and was in such a way as to support inclusion so I presumed his/her vote is moot. Sajaypal007 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
support the inclusion of cultivators from Rajput caste, Rajput is a group of many different groups like jat, gurjar, bhils, tribes, agriculturalists who all climbed the social ladder. Image is appropriate to Rajput background. Based on WP:WEIGHT, the image can be added. Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion If Wikipedia were to resolve issues through voting on them, editors would be tempted to also use voting with respect to article content. This might undermine Wikipedia policies on verifiability, notability, and the neutral point of viewThakurgul (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)blocked sock RS6784 (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Support the inclusion of image since rajput come from low level peasant and rajput formed in 14 century before they are low level peasantsShifaAayat (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose as obscure and verification issues. --Seggallion (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user
Discussion
In reply to LuKeEmily's !vote. Abecedare (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
But, there are numerous clans of Rajputs and no one can be sure about all those clans. Another image which i can see from here is about Oomuts of Nursinghpur, which is probably from the same source and on doing some searches i found that that particular clan is a part of Rajput caste is also known to us from British Raj era sources only.[14] I don't know why we are ready to remove on image from some ground which equally applies to the other images as well. Also, i would request Sajaypal007 and others to express the view over the fact that if the image of Russia Rajput is removed from this article on the ground which they mentioned, is it applies to Rajputisation article too, from where the same image had been removed by RS6784. Please note, Rajputisation is about various communities claiming rajput status and the images used there may not be the image of only those clans which are actually part of Rajput caste. Why RS6784 removed the same image from that article[15], despite the fact that it satisfied MOS:LEADIMAGE.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Heba Aisha, request for no WP:POINT here. Please make your points wrt to this case as per subject line and regarding the other page Rajputisation, to include this image there we will need to change "Shortdesc" and even a lot of content of that article. The point is WP:V of the image wrt to this article and considering the fact the photographer doubt the veracity of it, I think it is appropriate that it cannot be included here, so oppose. I have already expressed my points, will request for no loose talk please. RS6784 (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
There is no issue of WP:POINT here, all these articles are linked and we may discuss the connected matters so that right thing is put at right place. I agree that the author of the image being discussed here is doubting their claim but that's true for other clans as well, in such a scenario, why we are being partial ?. Also please see WP:BFN, the argument which you and Sajaypal007 has given can be made applicable to this page only, not the Rajputisation. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
please specify WP:V regarding Russia group where are they now ? If you cannot, then it is very simple it fails WP:V, the onus of verification is with the editor who is interested in adding it. RS6784 (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
These peasants are residents of Jumnootri, or the source of the Jumna, and belong by caste to a Rajpoot race known as the Russia clan. They are Hindoos, and worship Ram and Buwarie especially. They feed on anything they can get except ox flesh, but chiefly on goats, which they eat after sacrifice. Both the subjects are, as will be seen, young men; both have very dark eyes and complexion. They are dressed in the usual dirty-white blanket vestment of their class and black trowsers. The Hill Rajpoot tribes are very numerous; 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., this excerpt from the source pointed by Sajaypal007, itself clarifies that they are one of the community like Daroga which despite not being accept by the community are part of Rajput caste. Oomuts have same issues, hence if we are including them we have no reason to remove the Russia Rajputs, please note a large number of Rajput clan has still doubtful status . Heba Aisha (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello dear admin Abecedare , i know this is a fair and neutral attempt by you to solve this issue soon. But, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY has something different to say. Just because majority of people involved here are in the favour of removal, should we consider voting here. Shouldn't we wait for "third parties" to express their views. I mean people other than Sajaypal, RS6784 and others. Heba Aisha (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Heba Aisha: While the RFC is organized in terms of Polling and Discussion, as is common, the eventual consensus will be determined based on the arguments presented and not simply the number of people supporting/opposing; see WP:NOTVOTE. By the way, you and Thakurgul can too add your preference + (concise) reasoning in the Polling section above. Abecedare (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I support the addition of cultivators from Rajput caste, Rajput is a group of many different backgrounds like jat, gurjar,,,. good to add the cultivators from Rajput caste. Keep this discussion open so that many others can write opinion. Can we put the image back to get this conversation from other users Thakurgul (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)blocked sock RS6784 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Based on WP:WEIGHT, the image can be added. Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. based on this we can add cultivators from Rajput caste image. Thakurgul (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC) blocked sock RS6784 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
RS6784, LukeEmily, Sajaypal007 This section needs to be updated. The "EWS reservation" should be mentioned there. The section just talks about their drive to get reservation, now they are having it under recent constitutional amendment act. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Heba Aisha EWS is not community specific, it cannot be only mentioned here then such a thing will require detailing on pages of every social group of India , and yes the section needs changes to remove some "biases", Rajputs in all states of India don't get reservation except in Karnataka where they are negligible. Unfortunately, it has been presented that they get affirmative action based on community. On such drive for reservation, many attempts are also put in by other communities specifically Brahmins or some others but I don't find any mention of it on pages related to those communities. Sorry to say, but a lot of things have been added with some bias and it can happen, but we all must remember WP:NPOV works both ways no glorification and also no demonisation. RS6784 (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
OBC is also not community specific but we mention it on the pages of all of those 2000+ castes that are a part of it. If Rajputs are part of the socio-economic group who are receiving it, there should be mention of it. Anyone can mention on Brahmin article too. Similarly, i can also say that "lower caste" is not community specific, so not mention them on any particular caste related article, specially in lead as lead should be neutral and should contain summary of whole article as per MOS:LEAD.Regarding bias, you are becoming sensitive with respect to this community, after the World war Russians raped German women, now any article mentioning that must be unfair according to you as it demonises Russians and World War 3 can be avoided by removing all the content related to such atrocities. See WP:UNCENSORED. You contradict yourself and use policies when they suits you. I don't want to engage in further arguments, but consider WP:NPOV yourself and don't think that everything that is written against Rajput caste is WP:UNDUE. Lol. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
OBC is open community specific, sorry to say but this is misleading , for OBC you need to have caste certificate. Please be updated before responding otherwise it is wastage of time. For your other points, after fake user image controversy and unfortunately I checked it was you who uploaded fake user image on wikicommons wrt this social group, in such a scenario please do remember WP:AGF, WP:DGF and even WP:NPOV become important. Rather than commenting on others, it is better to look at your own conduct. I again repeat dont engage into accusations after recent instructions. Regarding other points, highlighting certain issues are not like becoming sensitive. For comparison with Germans etc, this is a page on Social group and not on events, so definitely a poor attempt similar to doing wrong comparison of EWS and OBC here. I have gone through WP:CENSORED, it is definitely not applicable here. For WP:UNDUE, it is important in context but this is not the subject line of it. I again request don't make personal attacks on this article's talk page. RS6784 (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
So, can any person belonging to OBC and SC category too claim reservation under EWS criteria. Lol. Please, maintain WP:NPOV. The crux is that, whether Rajput are enjoying benefits of reservation or not and in recent years we have seen that EWS cutoff for many government jobs are lower than even Schedule caste. Rajput are having it and so do other communities like Brahmins. But, i don't see such disruption on Brahmin caste page as they are written in a neutral way adhering to WP:NPOV. These Rajput caste related pages are problematic as it suffers from generic problem of caste glorification. I can give several examples.
The editors will mention that they are feudal elite, but will try to remove all such content where they have perpetrated discrimination against lower caste. Example: pinching of breast was removed from Bihari Rajput, despite being supported by sources from United Nations.[16]
Similarly, having a prejudice that they(Rajput) are running country is also a violation of WP:NPOV.
Also admins are neutral people and WP:Canvassing is not the best way to get the things done here. You should be neutral with respect to your caste as well. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Amazing, why some policies are not applicable here and others are applicable here. I think i need the forums where neutral third parties are involved in order to deal with this. As, this is becoming complex. A neutral outsider (out of India) will identify paradoxes your arguments possess. 'Also these are not personal attacks, so don't accuse, these are disagreement, which is natural. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Any kind of particular incident are related to events, mention them in a separate page related to historical events. Such kind of violent related incidents are connected to many social group not only to one. There is already a page on caste related violence. For the lower caste part, it needs to be mentioned on some communities as many of such groups are trying to show themselves as something else in last 100 yrs otherwise to their reality. FYI, my background is immaterial to the subject line, I don't want to say this here but I don't belong to this group. There is no mention of any affirmative action related thing on the Brahmin community pages. It is exactly opposite to what you say, newspaper reference are being used for other communities on many pages which I have encountered but here even genuine references gets removed. I don't want to extend this further'. I request you to stick to the subject line and stop making any other remarks unrelated to the subject line. On the conduct part, it would be better to look at your own . I can point out a lot of them but that is not the subject line, I have made my points above. I request for the last time whenever you tag me please remain only to the subject line of that discussion and no personal attacks like you did after tagging me. RS6784 (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Is it correct to show that world is still stuck in mediaeval period. The reality is what today is. Last 100 years are the reflection of reality and everything before that, was past. That should be studied just for the purpose of getting and insights into the history, not for making them appear as the event of present period. Please don't accuse of personal attacks ever. I am aware of WP:NPA and have clarified that these are disagreements. I am sticking to topic only, "affirmative action and political representation" are all related things.
You mentioned that they have second highest MLAs in Bihar. This is just a view on the basis of minor reading. In Bihar, all political parties either ruling side or opposition are dominated by OBCs, Rajput are humbled in Bihar politics. They have no say literally. In the next generation leaders also you may find Yadav, Paswan but not a single leader from this caste is a mainstream political figure. The Bhartiya Janta Party, whom they vote is also dominated by Yadav and Banias. JDU has already been identified with domination of two specific caste groups. (High quality sources are available on it all written by people like Christophe Jaffrelot)
In Uttar Pradesh, yes, they have CM Candidate, but that person is above caste. And caste like Kurmi and Yadav also have significant number of legislators.
In Rajasthan too Mali is CM and community like Jat and Gujjar are fairly represented.
Their political subordination in recent period (100 years) should be mentioned. This got transformed into economic subordination and need to provide them reservation. These are not WP:OR, read Rise of plebeians. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Rise of Plebeians also mention how Rajputs have regained politically in last 30 yrs. This is not the subject line, and as I mentioned this is democracy. And please remember to stick a particular topic. For UP, you are wrong Rajputs have the second highest legislators this time around and for thirty years they had the highest, just read this [[17]], even in Bihar, they have more MLAs than their percentage and more than Kurmi etc, Yadavs ( consisting of many groups) are more but their numbers are 3 times more as well. Lastly, status don't change in India as such and a poor Brahmin is higher in social hierarchy than let's say a rich Kurmi or Chamars. I again repeat, stick to the subject line and no deviation, I will now not respond to any of your such unrelated replies. RS6784 (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
EWS is not community or caste specific, while OBC is. Also every caste member of castes in OBC is mentioned as OBC. Not the case with EWS where there is income criteria, the name itself Economically Weaker Section (EWS) says the same. Only those who are considered economically weaker come under EWS not every General Caste members. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Also please keep discussion limited to the subject at hand, I see too many tangent discussions unrelated to Affirmative action, same thing happened in the earlier discussion on this talk as well. It can make a third person seeing the discussion quite confusing. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Arguments are not valid as in OBC also same income ceiling is there. Are you people aware ? 8 Lakh p.a is the same in both cases. Even if some Rajput get it, it deserves a mention atleast with the fact that it's applicable but with ceiling. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The answer to your arguments are very simple: Do you have the official list of EWS specifying communities like it is for OBCs ? If yes then we can add here, otherwise it will be misleading because the notifications doesn't says so that a particular social group is being given. In OBC reservation, communities are recorded in the list making it clearly caste centric. RS6784 (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
In short, OBC Person having more than 8 Lakh income is still OBC, General category person with more than 8 Lakh income is not in EWS. Got the difference? Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Many rajput are OBC, rawat, lodhi, ravan are some of the many rajput in OBC getting benefits and reservation due to social backwardity ShifaAayat (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Such claims require WP:RS to be added. Content on wikipedia is subject to WP:V.LukeEmily (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@ShifaAayat: For your kind information, being Rajput and claiming Rajput ancestry are two different things, there are many castes in India who claim Rajput or Kshatriya ancestory (read Rajputisation/Sanskritisation), even Maratha family of Shivaji is not an exception in this case. Now, regarding Lodhi, Ravana Rajput, Kirar,Lonia, etc. These communities call themselves Rajput, which is not accepted by the Rajput community, and marriages don't take place between the two, hence they're separate community. For more information, go to those linked pages and read about them. Iamritwikaryan (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2022
This edit request to Rajput has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Can anyone plzzz make few changes for me here:- i.e.
1. Please add CE, in these statement for better lookout
In 1191, Prithviraj Chauhan of Ajmer led a coalition of Rajput kings and defeated Ghurid forces near Taraori
Not done: We don't generally specify calendar eras, see MOS:ERA and the links to article "Muhammad of Ghor" is already present in the previous sentence if you'll look closely. Thanks. Baggaet (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Prithviraj Chauhan
I have read about our Valiant king Prithviraj Chauhan 3. So the mentioned content says that ' Prithviraj fled from the battle and was killed by the Ghurids '.
Prithviraj Chauhan is our inspiration. Please edit this text , because he has not fled from the battlefield. The Folk Tales in Rajasthan about Prithviraj Chauhan, still tells us the braveness of our great ruler. And the truth is that Prithviraj Chauhan had bravely killed the Muhammad Ghori.
So we cannot see our great ruler being humiliated by this kind of text.
So please remove this content. 122.162.145.193 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2022
This edit request to Rajput has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Mukesh Rajwal (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Rajwal is also belonging form the rajput caste but Wikipedia doesn't mention
Rajwal is a rajput caste Mukesh Rajwal (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Not done Please indicate what and where you would like to see a change and please provide a reliable source that supports that new information. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I am still not understanding why you want to promote fringe views of C. V. Vaidya unrelated to this subject. This page is not about Indo-Aryans and Dravidians, but Rajputs. If you want any reduction on views of Vaidya you can go for it but adding anything that is WP:UNDUE is not fine. I also think that we should remove dating of "3500 - 3000 BCE" for Vedic period because it is inaccurate even if it is being attributed to Vaidya. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 15:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Aman Kumar Goel, sure. Will provide the quote. The point being made is that Vaidya did not think of them as another race - rather all Indians were Aryans. Vaidya is considered very inaccurate and unreliable and as I mentioned in the summary he considered Dravidians as those who ate human flesh. I will provide quotes shortly. He specifically mentioned Rajput solar and lunar clans as aryan invaders.It is not undue as he is specifically discussing Rajputs here as the invaders.LukeEmily (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
You shouldn't be re-adding if you can't produce the quote to confirm the content.
You seem to be claiming that "Hiltebeitel does not think it is undue" as if we got an editor named "Hiltebeitel" here. Do you understand WP:UNDUE is a wikipedia policy than a scholarly standard? You also claim that this content existed for a long time when you are the one who added it. It doesn't matter what far-fetched connection Vaidya was making, it is all beyond WP:FRINGE today. You are supposed to minimize fringe claims as much as possible instead of providing them more weight. Take a look at WP:RAJ that why we are supposed to avoid providing any weight to raj-era writers. It is not even a special case that Hiltebeitel debunked those proposals because thousands of writers have debunked the theories of those times.
Now that you know these policies, I think it is now better to restore the paragraph before the edit you made here with a proper starter that "Three theories that were originated during British Raj era and early writers for Rajput origin are dismissed today." Though I wouldn't oppose if you want to remove it all together. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 15:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Aman Kumar Goel, Exactly, these theories have been debunked. Aryan invasion was a colonial theory and has no historical basis. On pg 440 The main Indian to promote foreign origins was Bhandarkar, whom Vaidya criticized for his "Pickwikian method" while nonetheless accepting and "Aryan invasion" himself to explain the solar and lunar races as two hordes of Aryan invaders who colonization of India. About his ridiculous theory on cannibalism see [1]LukeEmily (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
@LukeEmily: Fine, but you have to select either option:
1) Restore this earlier version of the paragraph about the "British colonial-era writers characterised..." with a starter that "The three prominent theories that were originated during British Raj era and early writers for Rajput origin are dismissed today." It is because we need to give minimum weight to debunked proposals.
2) Remove the paragraph entirely because these proposals have no significance since 1960s and it is not surprising that Hiltebeitel debunked those proposals because thousands of writers have debunked the theories of those times. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 17:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Aman Kumar Goel, I agree with you. (2) sounds good. (2) looks better since we discuss 3 theories and then in the end call them "hopeless". Alternatively, that entire paragraph can be a footnote for those who are interested. The vedic aryan reference by Vaidya is misleading because he did not believe in the Aryan migration - he is not talking of the Indo-Aryans who might have actually migrated 1500 – c. 500 BCE as described in Vedic_period . He is talking of the Aryans of the epics (Draupadi etc.) and specifically says they were "invaders". Basically he propagated the British colonial theory that has been discarded. Witzel says the British wanted to justify their colonial rule and found the Aryan invasion theory useful. The Aryan invaders according to Vaidya are not the same as the migrants as he says there were two invasions- and during the invasions the Aryans could not bring enough women with them so had to marry the local dravidian women. That is different from the migration of the groups that might have really occured later. LukeEmily (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Administrator note The article is back down to WP:ECP-protection but do not restore/remove the above-mentioned or any other images (ie, change the status quo from the current version with regards to the images) till the respective discussions have reached a consensus; if needed or desired, I can formulate this as a page restriction. Other improvements can continue to be made to the article while following WP:BRD. Abecedare (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done: We don't generally specify calendar eras, see MOS:ERA and the links to article "Muhammad of Ghor" is already present in the previous sentence if you'll look closely. Thanks. Baggaet (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Done Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 09:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Not done Please indicate what and where you would like to see a change and please provide a reliable source that supports that new information. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}