Talk:Rajput clans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Proposed merge with 36 royal races[edit]

CONSENSUS:
Consensus is to oppose the merge as article is not about the same clans. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2015 (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.

These articles seem to be about the same clans הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. One major problem is that there is no academic consensus regarding what constitute the 36 royal races. Indeed, I'm not even sure that it is a term often used nowadays by academics, although it was a favourite of pseudo-academics such as James Tod, who is not reliable. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Valid or not, isn't the concept referred to the same? Many of the clan names match, at first glance. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As per Sitush's argument. Also, merging 36 royal races with Rajput clans will give a impression that all of the listed clans are direct descendants of Rajputs, which itself would be seriously controversial and contentious, as it is being put forward by many academicians that Rajputs are also from one of the later wave of inward migration to India. Besides, it reads 36 royal races, not 36 Rajput races ?! Tod's list is not the only one, and the Article says that 36 royal races#Kumarapala Prabandha list included Mauryas as well. Mauryas were different, they were not of Rajput descent. I think We should avoid the merge. Sincerely, ← Abstruce 18:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • 36 royal races is not related only to the Rajputs. There are names of clans from North India as well as few Eastern parts. This gives a view of author's classification, however, such a list was not followed as a universal rule for royal clans. This discussion should be closed and the tag should be removed from the related page. Without proper evidence, this page should not even exist. Abhishek Pujari (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2014 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2014[edit]

There are some other Rajput goth that are not mentioned in your article . These are sabra(sabbra), sapra (sappra) , basra (bassra)and may be some other also exist. and one thing more Rajput use a title (Rana or Chaudhary) and at last name the word khan used. Mohammad Mohsin Sarfraz (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2015[edit]

Chauhan.ryn (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. the Jogi lineage, YOG descent from Chauhan, the Hindu YOGA or in English it is known as Yoga Dynasty;
Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Rajputs -A Hindu Kshatriya (My recent reverts)[edit]

Rajputs is a well known Hindu caste for the ages and it certainly does not matter that Some Rajputs have become Muslim, Christian or some other religion later with the time. Here the article shows the Hindu mythological origin of the word Rajput and not about what they became now or will become in future. Also note that some user is continuously modifying the sourced contents of the page which is illegal and against policies. Please refer the given source no.1 on page 139, it is clearly stated that "Rajput is a group of castes following Hindu rituals" and the same is further confirmed on pages 61-62 of the second source.--MahenSingha (Talk) 21:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Where do the sources say they are a "community of Hindus"?
It does matter that some Rajputs have become Muslims, because it falsifies the lead sentence.
Please keep religion out of the discussion when discussing social groups. Or, if you do, provide a complete picture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mahensingha: As explained, not all Rajput clans are Hindu. Several entire clans are Muslim, Sikhs etc. who follow the Rajput customs. Therefore I would recommend appropriating the lead as it is not entirely true. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
[1] these are Rajput clans and they Hindus. There maybe some clans adhering some other religions, but that is not supported by reliable sources or official data and it is not possible to have articles about those clans. Capitals00 (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, in that case, find some decent sources and use the words they use. The lead sentence as it stands now is completely wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the lead sentence is wrong at present. It is, however, something of a semantics issue and it is one that has bothered me for a long time because usually in these situations "clan" seems to be assumed to mean "gotra", which I think is solely a Hindu concept. Hence, for many articles relating to Muslims in Pakistan we refer to "tribe", and for Sikhs we often refer to "misl". I may be missing something here but this seems like a bigger issue with the lead than just mentioning other religions. It may actually need to be resolved at a higher level of community involvement than this talk page because it affects hundreds of articles. Aside from defining scope, it affects whether or not we even have separate articles for the Hindu and Muslim variants of numerous communities (many of which, by the way, are little more than pov forks). - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually the concept of gotra isn't exclusive to Hindus, it has been retained amongst Muslim communities as well [2]. In Urdu, gotra is usually pronounced got. Mar4d (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. That's why I said "I think" - wasn't 100% sure. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)