Jump to content

Talk:Rajputisation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 117.228.89.184 (talk) at 09:48, 23 October 2021 (→‎Rajputization of Chudasama dynasty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Improving article

Improved ur article.hope it was helpful. Heba Aisha (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily the bibliography u added is not used as refrence in article.The article still rely upon the sources used earlier only and they are just kept here without any use.If you want to keep it here use it along with the points for which they are placed here.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding nonsense source of other communities to malign a particular grp is not a job of Wikipedia. Nonia samaj and Daroga are different to Rajput group
Noniya comes under OBC. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha. Please do not revert and remove my sources with whom I made a edit. The sources which I have used are more genuine and worthwhile and 110 years old. I can understand you are great contributer but please without going through my sources and supporting your deeds is unfair. Do not be frogs of well! The ocean is very big.
I have posted a new discuss ion go through its contents refute my claims then do whatsoever you wish to do. Aishtomar (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lord editors,have you lost your human nature so you described 'opium' consuming, alcoholic, practises, polygamy and all the evils as defining characteristics of Rajputs in comparing between Sanskritisation and Rajputisation. Which author had told you that all Rajputs are or were Opium consumers, alcoholic, polygamous,you are portraying a whole community by using a poor-personal source. Would you will accept 'Hammira mahakavya' and ' Prithviraj Raso' as purely historical if not then how can you say Rajput as 'Opium consumers' and ' alcoholic' just by citing source which suits your personal agenda.
I am going to make edits with full sources and if you dare; refute my claims on 'academic grounds' not on your 'reverting capacities'.

With Great Hope That you people will Understand. Aishtomar (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing says that older sources are more "genuine". We depend on modern historical scholarship to explain the historical facts. See WP:HISTRS. Older sources are in fact considered inferior. Knowledge progresses with time.
As for the "evils" that have been covered, I am sure ample WP:RS have been provided. Please read them, and come back if the content is misrepresenting them in any way. Voicing personal opinions will not get you anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This concept is not widely accepted concept and needs balancing

Providing contrast to this concept of Koyal Shivaji

[1] Encyclopedia Britannica describes Rajput origins as "The Rajputs’ origins seem to date from a great breakup of Indian society in the northern and northwestern Indian subcontinent under the impact of the Hephthalites (White Huns) and associated tribes from the mid-5th century CE onward. Following the breakup of the Gupta empire (late 6th century), invading groups were probably integrated within the existing society, with the present pattern of northwestern Indian society being the result. Tribal leaders and nobles were accepted as Kshatriyas, the second order of the Hindus, while their followers entered the fourth (Shudra, or cultivating) order to form the basis of tribal castes, such as the Jats, the Gujars, and the Ahirs." Ref.


Hi @LukeEmily:. Can you please elaborate which part of WP:RS does book by C S Varma violate? Also, how about Encyclopedia Britannica, is that also not acceptable?

You have been explained this by several editors. Please see User:Sitush/Common#CasteAFDs for Varma. Britannica is a tertiary source and not a scholarly academic source - it is often edited online by editors not expert in the subject matter - it is no match for Oxford and Cambridge sources or peer reviewed journals - see the wikipedia page on it for comments about it. Please read WP:HISTRS in detail. Please can you sign your comments on talk page? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ C.S.Varma (B.A.) (1904). Kshtriyas and Would be Kshtriyas. The Rajputs, who are present day representation of Kshatriyas of old, are strong in body and stout of heart; and have from time to time immemorial been noted for their martial spirit and chivalrous instincts...

Rajputization vs Rajputisation

User:Hemant Dabral, @Fylindfotberserk:, Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555, I did not follow the change from 'z' to 's'.[[1]] I did a search in google books and did not find any instance of "Rajputisation" but found plenty of hits for "rajputization". Indian, British American and even German(Herman Kulke) use the word with a z not s. Should this be changed back to Rajputization?LukeEmily (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and some sources do indeed call it Rajputisation. Since we have to use Indian English, I think it would be fine to leave it as Rajputisation, as Wikipedia uses Sanskritisation, Indianisation, Indo-Aryanisation, Tamilisation, Pakistanisation, etc. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Chariotrider555, LE its not a big issue.Some of the latest addition also have 's'.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeEmily: It has lot to do with MOS:ENGVAR, in this case Commonwealth/Indian/South Asian English. 'Organization' → 'Organisation' for example. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chariotrider555, Heba Aisha, Fylindfotberserk ! LukeEmily (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bihari Rajputs as Pseudo Rajputs Issue

Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555, Hello and regards, this is in reference to the image posted on the article which says "Bihari Rajputs who are also designated as Pseudo Rajputs by their western counterparts", as far as I know, this is not the common practice or notion as for eg. Raja Kameshwar Singh of Shakarpura, Bihar was married to the esteemed house of Maharaja Kanthad Wala of Bilkha (Gujrat), then there were several Thikanas (Zamindaris) of Purabiya Rajputs in Mewar, the noblest house among Rajputs in west India, So i Would like to seek a clarification for this, which superceeds the common on-ground realities before removing this. RegardsBhojpal1234 (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia publishes only already written source by scholars which are written by editors in their own way.What you know about kameswar singh and his status is considered as WP:OR, which are not allowed to be written on wiki.The source regarding pseudo Rajput is present there with preview.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image of The Rajpoot cultivators from Dehradun

Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555, I saw this image as the first image of the Rajputisation page, at first I am amazed as I have never seen this image and have never read about this in my life, me doing a PHD on Rajput history, should have been aware of it though, had it been a real rajput clan, so I would request you to provide the source from where it is taken and context of it. There are many communities who have sufficed the Rajput title after them like the Lodis who started calling themselves as Lodi rajputs, but they aren't considered to be the real rajputs in society, providing an article for your reference (https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/The-flight-of-the-backward-castes/article11640693.ece), so I want two things from the administrators here: 1. Source which says these are Rajputs. 2. The relevance of this photo as the face of Rajput community of India, because this is not how they ar viewed, so unless someone wants to deliberately demean a community, I see no relevance of this photo to be projected as the face of Rajput community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhojpal1234 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the talk page of Rajput article about the source of the image. Already extensive discussion about it has been done there and specially the comment of NitinMlk explains the whole thing clearly.Also, the source is written in footnoteHeba Aisha (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing called Rajputisation.

Later I will add content Alexander the Kshatriya (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Kshatriya, there are pretty extensive sources that disagree with your unsourced viewpoint. Please read Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Ravensfire (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wrong history it's all gujjar shudra history all caste are shudra only brahman and rajput pure blood

it's wrong history plzz delete this page Historicallychiefs (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I present a strong example of Rajputisation here.

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

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

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

Here I will refer you to the History of Sindh Volume II by the historian Mirza Kalich Beg. Study this then see what kind of Fictional story is run by Jadejas with help of Barots.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.229.98.17 (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Henry Miers Elliott exposed them ? You haven't provided anything. Last what I have read Lohana and Bhatia were mercantile communities.

Well CV Vaidya calls Rajputs as Aryans, similar case with Henry Miers Elliott. Please do read, and Barot was employed by everyone. RS6784 (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear (User:RS6784), First of all, I want to ask question, why you remove those links which I have mentioned here. Now again I am putting these source here. don't remove it. Hinguladri khanda(Up-purana of Skanda purana) Lohana were descend of Rathore.[1]

Second link: Book of H. M. Elliot Page 362. Lohana had two branches, Lakha and Samma[3]

Third Link: Book C. V. Vaidya clearly mentioned on page 189 that Samma were Lohanas.[4]

Forth Link: History Of Sindh Volume II By Mirza Kalichbeg, Page 28: Chapter - Sindh tribes descendand of Arab[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.89.184 (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove above links

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation for removal of Bundelas

I removed section titled "Rajputisation of Bundelas" here. Though I explained my edit thoroughly, but still I am re-explaining the matter here. The inclusion of Bundela in the article is due to misinterpretation of the term "Rajputisation". It means the upliftment of Shudra people to Rajputs. The section dedicated to Bundelas doesn't discuss anything like that. The source doesn't contain term "Rajputisation" or anything remotely close to that. It simply says that the Rajputs of Rajasthan ignored the Rajput status of Bundelas in Bundelkhand. There is no such thing that Rajputs of Rajasthan have some authority to decide the Rajput status of people. They simply regarded themselves superior to Bundelas due to their history of resisting Islamic invasions from west. The section completely fails WP:REL and hence should be removed. Shinjoya (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"explains" versus "is"

In the lead we have "Rajputisation (or Rajputization) explains the process by which such diverse communities coalesced into the Rajput community." Then in the first section of the body we have "Rajputisation is the study of formation of the community over the centuries." This seems wrong: surely Rajputisation is the process in question, not the study of the process? Like, if I'm a sociologist writing about how the Rajput identity coalesced, I'm not engaged in Rajputisation, am I? --JBL (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2021 to fix a typo

On the last paragraph of the section Formation, change the typo "supporters.They" to "supporters. They" CodeMyGame Wiki (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thank you, @CodeMyGame Wiki. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 03:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of insensitive image of Bihari Rajput

Dear admin

I don't know who has added the image, but it is very insensitive. Not even the source of the image says that these guys are Rajputs of that state. It looks like personal image has been to score political point. This looks like a case of promoting hate based and very agenda driven addition. Kindly please look into it and remove that photo. RS6784 (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajputization of Chudasama dynasty

Graharipu of Chudasama dynasty was mentioned as Abhira jati's king in Dvashraya Mahakavya, an historical poem written by Hemachandra, a kulguru of Kumarapala (Chaulukya dynasty).[2]

Many historians confirms this.[3][4]

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

  1. ^ Mishra, Pandith Jwala Prasadji (1970). Jatibhaskar-satymarg. p. 207.
  2. ^ Suri, Hemchandra (1983). Dvyasraya Mahakavyam -1 page 172-173 (in pra). Shri Jain Swetambar Moortipoojaka Sangh Manafara (Kutch).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  3. ^ Sen, Sailendra Nath (1999). Ancient Indian History and Civilization. New Age International. ISBN 978-81-224-1198-0.
  4. ^ Division, Publications. THE GAZETTEER OF INDIA Volume 2. Publications Division Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. ISBN 978-81-230-2265-9.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajputisation&oldid=1051408257"