Jump to content

Talk:Rajput

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aishtomar (talk | contribs) at 13:43, 12 January 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

caste glorification and POV page

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

  • I have seen these kinds of activities by senior editors.who if found some sources doubtful revert others also which are genuine and the editiors are blocked.So, write whatever you get from good books like Cambridge University Press you used.Btw u are competent editor but please keep this in mind and don't give others an excuse.best wishesHeba Aisha (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw to all other editiors....I support Luke to some extent as the sources which talks about "vrana sankara" status of Rajputs is published by Oxford University Press.And its the best as we know.So don't revert all edits altogether.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Heba Aisha. All sources I have used are top quality. David_Lorenzen is professor of history, specializing in south asian history. Rashmi Dube is also a professor. In any case, the quotes are supported by multiple sources. Rajputization and female infanticide is a discussion found in many books. SUNY stands for State University of New York and hence is an academic publication.LukeEmily (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

LukeEmily (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these user are maliciously editing the pages with selective sources. For example for all the medieval history you only find one source by Ferishta because he wrote negatively. Why cant you provide other medieval sources. On other hand Ferishta's writing have been known to be biased. Still you selective choose ferishta's work which was perhaps one of the many medieval work. It is apparent from this thread that the users hold bias against the Rajput because they are talking like female infanticide defined rajputs. Yes there were female infanticides in rajputs and many other communities but what does it have to with origins of rajput. This doesnt define Rajput community for rhe matter any community. These practices doesnt define the community. One user was shocked to not see any content about shudras. Boththese user massively added many such obscurity in between all these edits. From cursory reading it looks like it was all done with malicious intent because almost everything added are probably considered derogatory by people at large. I am not saying dont add scholarly work but selective adding of such works shows the bias of the users. One user Heba Aisha on another Talk page was saying we shouldnt add such controversial statement because it will invite repetitive vandalization. What about here then. @Utcursch and Sitush: Please look into this. Both of these are new accounts.Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care for that IP either. I only said abt writing in line with source. Also I read history in Rajasthan, so I have knowledge about Rajasthan history, how can I edit other subject pages about which I have little knowledge. I try to improve articles related to Rajasthani history not Rajput history. I wasnt engaged in any caste war, you keep saying that even though I pointed it out once. I asked you to not remove Jadunath sarkar's work. You removed it nonetheless. You changed the whole article, I didnt make even a single change except once where I pointed out your mistake. Significance of your victory? Why you are repetitively saying like that when I only asked to write what was in the source. Nonetheless this page is not about that. Its about what happened on this page. I am talking about selectively taking of sources. Besides wikipedia need secondary sources. Translation of Ferishta's work shouldnt be considered as source, it was written in Medieval times. Provide good secondary sources for your claims and also caste based works of colonial era are not considered reliable. Keep that in mind too. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article (and related) is an tough/interesting one to watch. There's a lot of good sources, but also a lot of bad ones that keep getting brought up. I know that sources from the British Raj era need careful examination. Some of them take a rather large amount of liberty with reality. User:Sitush/CasteSources is an excellent resource to help with reviewing sources. Ravensfire (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of Varna sankara in the article is taken from Parita Mukta's work which is about Meera bai not about Origin of Rajputs. She is probably not even a historian, she didn't write any history books let alone regarding Rajput origin. Her work is heavily marxist bias and it has been called out by Heidi Pauwels in his/her review of Parita's work. Beside why does her work even have a say in rajput origin when tallest historians like Dashratha Sharma, Jai Narayan Asopa, D.R. Bhandarkar had written on the subject extensively. In the talk page that one editor already mentioned Parita's work before anything, you can see the bias of that user. This whole mass editing was done with malicious intent, as visible from talk page. That's not how wikipedia works. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ravensfire, thank you for pointing to that page User:Sitush/CasteSources. I just checked and all sources in the origin section are now very scholarly, academic and reliable. Please feel free to review. Mr.Sanjaypal, you seem to be supporting bad British era sources but not modern academic ones. Your edit history does show that you find anything unpleasant written about the Rajputs as offensive and hence wrong - even if it is supported by multiple academic sources. FYI, Bhandarkar died in 1926. Vaidya is from the Raj era and supports racial theories - he talks about ""best aryan nose of Gurjars(a pastoral tribe)". He is not reliable. I feel There is tremendous caste promotion of castes of large population (Rajputs and Marathas) going on wikipedia. Just because users are adding content that is accurate/scholarly/academic but does not support caste glorification, it does not mean it is malicious. Calling someone malicious for adding WP:RS is a personal attack as you are attacking the editor's honesty and character - let alone insulting their hard work. Are all the modern western and Indian historians and scholars quoted in this article malicious too? The reason female infanticide was mentioned in the origin was because the nature of origin of Rajputs was directly responsible for it. You can research it a bit yourself - I have not added details to main page as they are too sick to even read. In any case, no where is it said that only Rajputs did it - in fact Jats also did it. Rajput clans had to do it due to the side effect of Sanksritization. The Shudra component is well documented by several academic sources/historians with examples. None of the sources in the origin section are non-academic. I have not reviewed other sections on this page. Rajput and Maratha caste related pages seem to be the most glorified and inaccurate pages on wikipedia - probably because they have a lot of members to work on them and have numerous active caste organizations across the country that numerically smaller castes do not have. Until I changed it, Maratha rulers were absurdly referred to as Maratha Emperors on wikipedia - [[1]]. Rajputs and Maratha related pages are so inaccurate due to glorification that they are annoying to even read. There are large number of modern academic sources that support the nomadic/tribal/shudra origin of Rajputs. In fact, Gordon in his book equates the maratha caste origin with the Rajput origin. Hermann Kulke's book gives very specific examples of this form of Sanskritization and how people who were not Rajputs became Rajputs a few decades later. Every source added is not only academic but is high quality (Cambridge university, Oxford University etc.). Are all these scholars malicious too? - David Lorenzen, Daniel Gold[2], Andre Wink[3], Dasharatha_Sharma, Parita Mukta (Oxford university press), Stewart Gordon (Cambridge University press), Burton Stein, etc. The "varna sankara" mixed caste origin is also mentioned in multiple citations. Philip Ziegler and historian Satish Chandra also support the varna samkara(but chandra does not use that phrase - Zieglar uses that phrase). And even if we hypothetically completely ignore these 3 sources(chandra, Zieglar, Parita) talking about varna samkara, numerous other sources mentioned above do support this view - in fact modern scholars are more explicit and use words like Shudra that Dr.Parita Mukta does not use.
I do not have any knowledge,, interest or expertise about the other pages you are talking about (Rajput battles against Jats etc.), please discuss those issues with the appropriate editors on that talk page.
I am requesting advice from admins and scholars like User:Sitush. Too many Rajput and Maratha caste promoters on wikipedia who seem to be attacking editors , reverting academic and scholarly content that does not suit their narrative. Please see my comments about Rajput page above. Instead of contributing to wikipedia I am wasting time preventing vandalism of academic sources and defending scholarly sources. If anything is from good modern sources and supported by multiple sources that are WP:RS why do these people come and revert them? LukeEmily (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Sanjaypal...just because any source donot glorify about the Rajput caste doesn't mean that they are malicious.As you can see from LukeEmily statement that 😑oxford University Press and SUNY press that state University of new york are quality sources and we have no better option than them.You have no problem in using col. Tod statement which talks about Glory of Rajputs but as Sitush also considers him biased.Similarly if someone will read Jadunath Sarkar statement he will know in a minute that he has written it in one sided view .Most probably to suit the ambitions of Rajputs.Western scholars are better here as they are free from all sort of favouritism that indian scholars(some of them) possses.Your edit history itself tells that you are here to write only about glorifying statements about Rajputs.While you can see my contribution has been in variety of areas.This page was actually biased earlier lest LukeEmily edited it because the sources were carefully picked which talks about kshatriya origin of rajputs and Agnikula myth was featuring in the article rather than views of aforementioned scholars.Do u really think that 4 dynasty of rajputs emerged from sacrificial fire.Even racially there is very less difference between Gurjars and Rajput of western India.while most of the eastern Rajputs are racially similar to peasant castes of the region.But sources which contained these statements were kept apart and only those sources which talk about kshatriya origin were placed for the purpose of glorification.WP:POV policy violation.I have talked with Sitush and he is also concerned about the same.Heba Aisha (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also most of our medieval historian's historiography is challanged bacause the wrote as per demands of patron.Amir khusrau, barani; ferishta no one fully wrote neutally but their works are the sources of our history and from careful reading only we have derived wht we study now.So no issues in using ferishta: but we can change the sentence like According to ferishta rather than removing the whole content.see WP:Notcensored...i am sympathetical to urs feelings.Its natural everyone who belongs to a particular community has affiliation towards it and its the human nature.I know You are now antagonised but this trend of using WP:Puffery in article will make our work difficult as all communities will do same.LukeEmily didn't removed the sentence which claim kshatriya origin of rajputshe just added view of other scholars who believe in Shudra origin and made this article neutral.Also he didn't created anything himself.These words like very low origin and Shudra are mentioned by historians which he mentioned.That particular thing was hidden intentionally by Rajput editors.So now its in a good state.Heba Aisha (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LukeEmily when did I support British era sources? I am talking about the new additions that have been made. Again I shall clarify about my edit history. Its about Rajasthan history not rajput history. I didnt even mentioned CV Vaidya, why are you talking about him. Academic sources should also be related to the subject matter. An academic source which talks about spirituality of Meera bai and her ideas, she make a single reference about this varna sankara, her whole book is about something else altogether. that source can't have say on wiki about the subject which she never wrote about. In fact I can only find that she wrote only two books other one is also not related to history. She doesnt look like a historian at all. This page has nothing to do with marathas, wont comment on that. You are saying about Philip Ziegler that he wrote and used the very same word varna sankara but you didnt cite that source on the para. There is only one source of Parita Mukta that says that exact word, and about her work I already told you. @Heba Aisha when did I talk about glorification? Also I didnt support Todd's work did I? I dont want to discuss that page here but you keep on adding that here. So in Jadunath Sarkar's work, You are saying he is so biased that towards Rajputs that its totally apparent in his work. I am hundred percent sure that you never read Sarkar's work. He had scathingly attacked rajputs many a times. I never heard someone say he was biased towards Rajputs. His history of Jaipur was not published by Jaipur Royal family because they felt that it showed them in bad light, biasness? The exact para which I included in that article was taken from his magisterial work Fall of the mughal empire, not from history of Jaipur. About my edit history I already told twice above. Not talking about your contributions at all, why are you repeating it again. Its not what I believe or not about Agnikula myth, Its what scholars say about those myths. About medieval sources, if we add the sources just by saying according to this or according to that then we are back again at the same debate, everyone will add Raj era and other primary sources and simply write according to him/her before it. You are talking personal, feelings and all. What feelings have to do with this. Hidden intentionally by Rajput editors? And who will those be? I have seen both of your talk conversation on talk page of LukeEmily and you were saying that mention of ferishta was removed but we need to add some modern scholar's work which mentions that. So you are already set on agenda that what to add and then you are searching for the scholarly work on that. If this is not malicious intent than what is. You already drew a line and now trying to add dots over it instead of joining the dots. On the top of this thread one of LukeEmily says this was an illiterate community, generalizing the whole community and painting everyone in the same light, show me the scholarly work that says that rajput community was an illiterate community, if not then that says about your intention. Another thing you both were talking on LukeEmily talk page about that sharing emails to discuss this subject. Now why do you want to discuss those over email and not in the talk page itself? Is there anything you guys want to to hide or discuss something about the subject which can't be discussed over talk page because that is public. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sajaypal007, I did not say Jadunath Sarkar was baised towards Rajputs on any page talk. About Ferishta, as I said on my talk page to Heba Aisha, I did not know about his opinion until I read it on Wikipedia. I think Heba was only asking me if I knew any source because her content was deleted by another editor as it predates colonial era. I replied that I did not. I have not used sources like L.M.Khanna (Indian Social Justice). Khanna's attack on Rajput origins and culture is really awful. But I do not think he is a scholar so I did not use his books. This shows my intentions are in good faith. About private communication with Heba, I have still not linked an email to my account. So every communication with her is on the talk pages. I think we cannot post anything that is copyrighted (page scans etc.) on talk page and I am guessing that is why she asked for my email. Please do not doubt my intentions. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page - or here if the questions pertain the Rajput community. Regards, LukeEmily (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See LukeEmily has added quote from all sources whether it is about illiterate community or Shudra status.Its clearly visible and all sources as of now are written by scholars of the subject.Like mentioned above.Go through article....."""quotes are added so that readers will see it without any difficulty.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And i have problem with the raj era source of Tod which is written in form of quote for glorification.If this is in the form of quote why can't we use ferishta as opinion of medieval historian also matters.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example see Andre wink says this:André Wink (2002). Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7Th-11th Centuries. BRILL. p. 282. ISBN 0-391-04173-8. In short, a process of development occurred which after several centuries culminated in the formation of new groups with the identity of 'Rajputs'. The predecessors of the Rajputs, from about the eighth century, rose to politico-military prominence as an open status group or estate of largely illiterate warriors who wished to consider themselves as the reincarnates of the ancient Indian Kshatriyas. The claim of Kshatriyas was, of course, historically completely unfounded. The Rajputs as well as other autochthonous Indian gentry groups who claimed Kshatriya status by way of putative Rajput descent, differed widely from the classical varna of Kshatriyas which, as depicted in literature, was made of aristocratic, urbanite and educated clans...
  • This scholar also talks about low origin and quote is added for ease of readers.Now if you don't like it its ur problem we don't do WP:puffery》》Burton Stein (2004). David N. Lorenzen (ed.). Religious Movements in South Asia, 600-1800. Oxford University Press. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-19-566448-5. When the rank of persons was in theory rigorously ascribed according to the purity of the birth-group, the political units of India were probably ruled most often by men of very low birth. This generalization applies to south indian warriors and may be equally applicable for many clans of Rajputs in northern India.The capacity of both ancient and medieval Indian society to ascribe to its actual rulers , frequently men of low social origins , a " clean " or " Kshatriya " rank may afford one of the explanations for the durability and longevity of the unique civilization of India
  • And Stewart Gordon also talks of rajputization:Stewart Gordon (1 February 2007). The Marathas 1600-1818. Cambridge University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-521-03316-9. Eventually, kinship and marriage restrictions defined this Rajput group as different from other elements in the society of Rajasthan. The hypergamous marriage pattern typical of Rajputs tacitly acknowledged that it was a somewhat open caste category; by successful service in a state army and translating this service into grants and power at the local level, a family might become Rajput. The process required changes in dress, eating patterns, the patronage of local shrines closer to the "great tradition", and an end to widow remarriage. A hypergamous marriage with an acknowledged (but possibly impoverished) Rajput family would follow and with continued success in service the family would indeed become Rajput. All this is well documented in relations between Rajputs and tribals...
  • Satish Chandra also says they include shudra too:Satish Chandra (2008). Social Change and Development in Medieval Indian History. Har-Anand Publications. p. 44. Modern historians are more or less agreed that the Rajputs consisted of miscellaneous groups including shudras and tribals
  • Daniel Gold (1 January 1995). David N. Lorenzen (ed.). Bhakti Religion in North India: Community Identity and Political Action. SUNY Press. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-7914-2025-6. Paid employment in military service as Dirk H.A.Kolff has recently demonstrated, was an important means of livelihood for the peasants of certain areas of late medieval north India...In earlier centuries, says Kolff, "Rajput" was a more ascriptive term, referring to all kinds of Hindus who lived the life of the adventuring warrior, of whom most were of peasant origins

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

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

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

  • What mess has been made here on origin page, first I didnt say of adding irrelevant content I said about adding source. The whole para is made as a mess with every line unrelated to the last. Above on it most source added are originally written on some topic which has nothing to do with origin of the rajputs. Papers related to Bhakti tradition, Female infanticide, Meera bai's spirituality and what not. Why not add the sources which are written about the origin itself. Please do not make mess of the whole article. @LukeEmily is adding any paper that has even one line about rajput which says something about shudra or low origin. Why add so many paras from only one side of the views. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please help improve the article by making it unbiased and providing both side of the claims with equal weightage as observed by the scholar of the subject. Please do not add the sources of the book or paper which have only a little knowledge about the subject and made only passing reference. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • LukeEmily You are adding and deleting content without making consensus on the topic in talk page. This is not the correct approach. Its what you added in the first place due to which this controversy erupted. Please get consensus before making changes on the page. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sitush: please look into the matter this one user @LukeEmily is editing aggressively and only giving one side of the view. The whole section of origin is changed to something else. Mods need to address this. She is not ready to make consensus here in talk page and created a pile of mess by adding every article she could find little mention whether it is related to the origin of rajput or not is not kept in mind. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: please look into the sources and recent edits in the lede section. Sanjaypal007 deleted quotes and references. Sajaypal007 is deleting academic references. I have tried my best to engage with him before on the talk pages before but calls me malicious and questions good faith edits that do not promote his community. Sajaypal007, BTW, I am a "he" not a "she".LukeEmily (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I too have tagged him twice. You are only providing one sided view and not participating in the consensus building. Heavily edited the article despite I asked for Mod's attention. You should have waited for them to notice but you still editing and that too without participating in talk page. I was not aware of your gender. I addressed you as she because of your username not intentionally. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Caste glorification is bad, but caste derogation is much worse. So I am surprised to see terms such as "low origin" being used above. A term like "lower caste" is often used, but it just means that it is lower in the caste hierarchy, which in itself is archaic. Neither do we know, in actual fact, how far such a hierarchy existed in practice. If Burton Stein says most of India was ruled people of "very low birth", it points to the possibility that the whole idea of a "low birth" might be a modern concoction retrofitted into a jaundiced view of the medieval society. So let us not throw around terms like "low" and "high" willy nilly. Saying "peasant origin" or "pastoral origin" is quite enough.
Let us also keep in mind that many of these pastoral communities had tribal organisations which were self-contained, outside the pale of the sedantary society, and those people who turned into Rajputs might have even been "warriors" within their own communities, and the "Kshatriyahood" that was imparted to them could have been a concession made in recognition of their actual occupations and capabilities. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, There is no derogation - it is only neutral point of view by presenting all sides based on academic sources. Sorry to read that the perception was different. If I am reading it carefully, the low birth is quoted by Srinivas who did his PhD on Sanskritization - it does not mean the people were of low birth - literally. It is in terms on varna only. It is talking about ritual system only. Shivaji is one example. He was low in the ritual sense (shudra) but not a low birth person in other ways. I have seen words like Shudras and other words used on other pages and this page had somehow managed to avoid it. For example, Chandal(untouchable caste) is used on the Jat page. Stein is explaining that varna mobility is in fact a good thing and indirectly he is praising Hinduism. So it is not derogatory. I am simply quoting what the sources say. There is no attempt to either glorify or add anything derogatory. However, although I disagree with censorship, in good faith, I will "censor" that academic quote I added to clarify that he is talking about varna system only. @Sitush:, I thought wikipedia is uncensored. Burton Stein is a respected historian and there are multiple sources. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Also before LukeEmily edited this article was full of myth of origin only and only one line mentioned about peasant origin.But i am reading for years the common origin of caste like Gurjar Ahir and Rajput further LukeEmily didn't removed the sources which connect them to Brahmin and Kshatriya.so this article is now following WP:Pov guidelines.we should move away from our castes.Also i have been defending various other caste articles where ppl tried to remove Shudra status.So why do we care about this page only.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kautilya3: thats y we need a foreigner who is knowledgeable in this area to decide our dispute.Every caste page has such words like "low origin" etc etc but we just not want that things here only.It seems like on wikipedia also we are defending caste system where some of the caste categorized as upper caste shouldnot be derogated while others can be.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further editors of other caste may doubt our neutrality as i m witnessing ppl from various backward communities who have become conscious of their caste editing caste page heavily.Almost changing all content to make it comparable to the castes like Rajput and Brahmin because all bad things about these castes are concealed in order to show heavenly origin as editors of these castes are most active ppl on wikipedia.This will make our work difficult clearing up glorification attempt only while i decided to write many articles of my own. editors like me will be reduced to the status of vandalism fighter only.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idiots like Luke Emily,

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

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

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

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

These shudras want to be kshatriya by degrading Rajputs.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Undue weightage and NPOV

Undue weightage has been given to certain points on two sections of the page, marked them with templates, there is the issue of neutrality as well, please discuss Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Rfc section other editors asked you to produce a source. You skipped and now using another pretext to remove sourced content.However in culture section u can put tag as that is new addition.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel it is not WP:NPOV, please provide sources for opposing points of view so we can add them too and show all sides. Please feel free to add more content in the culture section like current marriage customs, festivals after birth, etc. As far as ill-treatment of women is concerned, I request you to read Leigh Minturn's book. The article (female infanticide, etc) is only tip of the iceberg. Also, if there are specific clans that formally banned female infanticide or Sati in British era then we need to mention them as it is praiseworthy and progressive .LukeEmily (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HebaAisha in mediation, the mediator also supported my view and made edits accordingly, but you reverted that and questioned his ability to do so and he had to leave. Let's not talk about who did what? Talk about the subject matter? Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we were talking about the kshatriya status of rajputs based on literacy data, shall we continue? Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you continue the discussion by providing a source in the rfc section as requested by other editors for the illiteracy issue? Please note that the section is about origin not status. cc: Мастер Шторм , Heba Aisha, NitinMlk LukeEmily (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sajaypal007 You were asked to provide source but u didn't now another pretext to remove the same thing that was discussed a lot. However in culture and ethos section u are free to rise ur opinion. Heba Aisha (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I told earlier, I am little busy with other work, hence can't participate actively at wiki. Anyway I am asking at WikiProject of Indian History to get an expert to check the NPOV. Hence please don't remove the template. Thanks. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sufficiently discussed.Talk page is testimony... You didn't present any source to back changes u want.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I asked on wikiproject, It wasn't sufficiently discussed and even if it did, it doesnt mean it can't be changed. Anyway I am not changing anything and I did least no of edits, i just want template until the problem is addressed. Hopefully someone from wikiproject can help us. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Had to abandon the talks due to time constraint and other works. I will soon be active to contribute and will solve the issue amicably. Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Russia Rajput"???

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

That is my concern too, but some editors like @HebaAisha are adamant on keeping this very image for no apparent reason. There are thousand other photos which are verified yet He/she chose this and won't let anyone replace this. Due to time constraint i am unable to participate for the time being. Anyone else also feel that there are issues with this article please start the discussion, i can contribute as much the time permits. Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for keeping this image were explained well and in great detail both by NitinMlk and Мастер_Шторм. As per Kautilya3's suggestion, I have removed the word "Russia". I earnestly request that we should not restart the same discussion again and again after every couple of months unless there are some brand new points to be added or new evidence has come to light. Heba Aisha, pinging you as Mr.Sajaypal mentioned you in the discussion.LukeEmily (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Already discussed a lot and we gave Sajaypal a lot of explanation that is available in above sections.Also RFc closed and he didn't bring any alternative to the contentious issue. Now no need of disruption. The length of discussion specifies everything and no counter source of same quality presented by Sajaypal. If disruption begins I would like to go to Admins. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other guy asked about it and I replied to him, if he has something to contribute he surely can, its not like this is the final form of the article and it can't be changed. I too wanted to contribute to the discussion and improving the article but for some time I am not able to dedicate much time to wikipedia. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noniya are not Rajputs.

Some propagandists like Emily etc have added Noniya group to Rajput community. Below is the link: Noniya is a separate group and is part of EBC not Rajput who are under general category. Noniya are separate backward caste. https://m.timesofindia.com/city/patna/state-seeks-st-status-for-noniya-caste/amp_articleshow/76472841.cms Rana of Bharat (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Below write up needs to be removed.

Scholars also give recent examples of successful assimilations into the Rajput communities by communities not associated with warriorhood even as late as the early 20th century. William Rowe, discusses an example of a Shudra caste - the Noniyas (caste of salt makers)- from Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar that had "become" "Chauhan Rajputs" over three generations in the Raj era. The more wealthy or advanced Noniyas started by forming the Sri Rajput Pacharni Sabha (Rajput Advancement Society) in 1898 and emulating the Rajput lifestyle. They also started wearing of Sacred thread. Rowe states that at a historic meeting of the caste in 1936, every child this Noniya group knew about their Rajput heritage.[51]. Similarly, Donald Attwood and Baviskar give and example of a caste of shepherds who were formerly Shudras successfully changed their status to Rajput in the Raj era and started wearing the Sacred thread. They are now known as Sagar Rajputs. The scholars consider this example as a case among thousands.[52][53 Rana of Bharat (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noniya are an EBC group not Rajouts, I have shared the links above. Rana of Bharat (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NPA. And you are misunderstanding the text. It is not saying that Noniyas are Rajputs. It is talking about a group of Noniyas who separated from their caste and became Chauhan Rajputs 100 years ago. This is exactly what Ishita Bannerjee describes in the introduction of her book although she does not use the Noniyas as an example as some of her statements like Carans etc. do not apply. The Shegar caste call themselves Rajputs and scholars have said their new name is 'Sagar Rajputs'. We have to follow the sources.

Ishita Banerjee-Dube (2010). Caste in History. Oxford University Press. p. xxiii. ISBN 978-0-19-806678-1. Rajputization discussed processes through which 'equalitarian, primitive, clan based tribal organization' adjusted itself to the centralized hierarchic, territorial oriented political developments in the course of state formation. This led a 'narrow lineage of single families' to disassociate itself from the main body of their tribe and claim Rajput origin. They not only adopted symbols and practices supposedly representative of the true Kshatriya, but also constructed genealogies that linked them to the primordial and legendary solar and lunar dynasties of kings. Further, it was pointed out that the caste of genealogists and mythographers variously known as Carans, Bhats, Vahivanca Barots, etc., prevalent in Gujarat, Rajasthan and other parts of north India actively provided their patron rulers with genealogies that linked local clans of these chiefs with regional clans and with the Kshatriyas of the Puranas and Mahabharata. Once a ruling group succeeded in establishing its claim to Rajput status, there followed a 'secondary Rajputization' when the tribes tried to 're-associate' with their formal tribal chiefs who had also transformed themselves into Hindu rajas and Rajput Kshatriyas.LukeEmily (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect number on Rajputs

Rajputs were 12 million as per census in 1931, including all Hindu Muslim Sikhs Rajputs of India Pakistan. They can't be 120 million.

Mr Emily, is writing nonsense on Rajputs Rana of Bharat (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Rana of Bharat , Pran Nath Chopra says they were 120 million in 1982 all over India. Do you have another source that says differently? It does not matter to me personally even if they were 12 million but we have to be accurate. LukeEmily (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

do you know population of India and Pakistan in 1982,and do you think it is logical.Before believing in any source apply some logic.If information is not logical why give it any way and if you are really interested in population numbers than use 1931 census data and growth patters from there. Aishtomar (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aishtomar , I think you are correct. Population of India in 1980 was approximately 720 million(not exact value). So Population of Rajputs cannot be 120 million because that would mean 1 in every six Indians was Rajput. Obviously a typo in the source and the admin righly marked the statement as dubious. LukeEmily (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

@LukeEmily: You are wrong to believe that you are not responsible for restoring what "has been there long before I joined Wikipedia". You are responsible for all edits you are making. Furthermore, per WP:BRD, you are supposed to justify your rejected edit on talk page. The source refers to a 1924 publication by Vaidya, but you are misrepresenting his conclusions.

What really C.V. Vaidya wrote? He discusses all of the possible scenarios but what he actually believed is different than what you are trying to tell. He writes that: "the Rajputs that they are the representatives of Vedic Kshatriyas it also shows how the now generally accepted legend about Agnikula Rajput families is twisted into a support for the theory of foreign descent started by western scholars have tried 'in our first volume to refute many of these arguments. We have shown, in that volume how Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar's theory that the Gnjars are foreigners (Khizars) who came along with the Huns in the beginning of the fifth century is baseless, inasmuch as it is admitted by even Smith that there is no historical evidence either of native tradition or foreign record to suggest, much less to prove that the Gujars came into India from outside about this time and further because we find that the history of the Khizars proves that they never left their own country."

Analysis of his views by other reliable sources:

Vidya Dhar Mahajan concludes that "The theory of foreign origin is not accepted by scholars like C.V. Vaidya and Gauri Shankar Ojha. Their view is that ethnology, tradition and probabilities all point to the conclusion that the Rajputs were pure Aryans and not the descendants of the foreigners."[4]
"C . V . Vaidya attempted to prove that Rajputs were fully identical to the Kshatriyas of ancient India , and that only the purest of Kshatriya blood flows in the veins of the Rajputs ."[5] by Rima Hooja
"as late as 1924 that C.V. Vaidya came out to refute the theory of foreign origin of Rajput races in strong terms in his work on Early history of the Rajputs."[6]

For what it is worth, the basic view that Vaidya believed that Rajputs are descents of Vedic Indo-Aryans has been already mentioned, the rest of the cherrypicked points are not needed and are definitely WP:UNDUE. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996, Please do not delete my messages on the talk page. That is a violation. I am reposting it. First of all, you need consensus to remove sourced material - not the other way round. Second, Vaidya himself is WP:UNDUE as per WP:HISTRW as he died about 100 years back and modern research has shown his ridiculous theories about nose shape and Aryan race etc. to be false - these were theories that the racist British like Risley propagated and some Indian writers fell for those. I am surprised that Vaidya is even quoted here. The author who is quoting Vaidya himself is saying that this was nationalistic view so we need to add that otherwise it is cherry picking. Mahajan and others are simply quoting Vaidya's view so quoting him he does not add anything to the discussion. Anyway, I will add more edits from the text later - busy for some time. Please see [[7]] to see reliability of sources. This is the first line: To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:
Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
Not a single modern scholar agrees with Vaidya and there are many examples to contradict him in any case. Will add more on talk page in some time. And here's more from the wikipedia page:
Historians produce material after the fact. Recent scholarship is scholarship which displays the currently acceptable methodological practices, and that refers to other recent material. This constitutes a shifting window of "recentness" that depends on the area of historical studies, and changes in historical scholarship. The only way to judge this is by becoming aware of the higher order debates within a field of history, this can be done by reading the reviews.
The main driver for new ideas is the opening of new primary sources, such as archives. Also new historiographical models come into use. They are usually added to old models, but sometimes older models are rejected or abandoned.
For example, scholarship before 1990 will not include post-modern or narrativist methodologies. See also historical revisionism.
In Holocaust studies, as the Cold War ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, scholars began to gain access to the archives of ::former communist countries, which offered new perspectives

LukeEmily (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Good to see that you people are discussing but Abhishek0831996, why are u removing others comment from talk page.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, I think it was not intentional. Abhishek must have deleted my post accidentally. He must have been editing his post at the same time I was posting mine and there must have been a conflict. Its OK :-) LukeEmily (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it wasn't intentional. I apologise Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020

2405:201:401A:87B:4D39:EF0D:3AA2:968E (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bharadwaj is a Bhramin Gotra or caste

You need to provider a reliable source for that addition. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

Heba Aisha on a page of such historical importance is would be much better if you use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihari_Rajput#/media/File:Rajput_rebels_from_Bihar,_1857.jpg this image rather then one being used and is sourced by you(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput#/media/File:Bihari_Rajput_villagers_watching_Mallah_fishermen.jpg) which seems to be irrelevant with context of history or caste— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufasa19995 (talk • contribs) 05:34, December 30, 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: Per the Image Use Policy: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. The historical image is badly damaged and many of the individuals' faces cannot even be seen. As an aside, no one editor is a gatekeeper on an article so edit requests are addressed to the editing community in general rather than a particular editor. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Few questions

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&oldid=999892828"