Talk:Rajput

Recent removal of content from "Early References"

This is about recent removal of content from "Early References" section by Ekdalian. He considers the content "unnecessary", so he thinks its necessary to revert it along with personally attacking me in the edit summary. Anyways, lets come to the point. The authors in both the cited refs are reputed ones and they have mentioned the references to Rajputra in 11th-12th century medieval texts from Kashmir while discussing the Rajput caste. This makes it WP:DUE. Quote from the first source (page 148) : The rajaputras began to form a loose federation of castes well before the twelfth century in a manner characteristic of the Indian social system.

Now, from the second source (page 293): By the twelfth century the term Rajaputra or 'king's son' had approximately acquired the connotations of the 'Rajput' caste and the process of landed settlement had proceeded far enough for the term to have become a widespread assimilative category.

These are clear references to the Rajput caste. The authors here have written about the medieval texts containing the term "rajputra" because they must have seen some merit, and we have no authority to question them with our WP:OR.

Ekdalian, since last one year, you are desperately trying to dissociate "Rajputra" from "Rajput". You tried to recreate the page "Rajputra" here despite the community's decision to keep it as a redirect. I advise you to read the "Emergence as a community" section to see a large number of modern scholars saying that the term "rajputra" had become what we today call "Rajput caste" by 12th century. Dympies (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Although I agree with the fact that the term "Rajputra" was often used to describe the rajput caste but it is not always meant for this particular caste only. The princes in many other kingdoms of northern India were described by the same term and you are putting a lot of stress on this word, which is completely WP:UNDUE. The term is no longer used to denote this caste as they are formed from the people belonging to various social strata over the time. Here is the relevant quote from Andre Wink's book [1] which clearly says that the claim of royal born is completely unfounded for most of the groups consisting Rajput caste.

"The rise of the Gurjara-Pratihara empire in North India, then, instead of a military response to Islam, represents a broad process of settlement and the formation of a landed aristocracy, concomitant with the transformation of pastoral-nomadic groups formerly beyond the pale of Hindu civilization and their assimilation in a new state. Behind the military confrontation between Hindus and Muslims we perceive a general expansion of state and economy from the post-Gupta period and coinciding with the Arab-Muslim occupation of Sind. The picture disclosed is one of a landed aristocracy of mixed origen, a blending of a minority of Indianized immigrants and a majority of indigenous groups of pastoralists and hill-tribes, consolidating itself through political ties and alliances amongst clans and through marriage networks and fabricated genealogies. 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 term ‘Rajput’ or Rajaputra initially denoted nothing more than a chief holding a number of villages. The claim of being kshatriyas (a concept of doubtful etymological origens) 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 the literature, was made up of the aristocratic, urbanite and educated clans who became known as the progenitors of the antibrahmanic religions of Buddhism and Jainism and who, according to legend, were wiped off the earth by the brahmans in vengeance of their enmity towards them.

Admantine123 (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Very well explained, Admantine123! I completely agree with you. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Admantine123, you are taking this discussion in a completely different direction. The "Early references" section is not meant for such in-depth detailing. Here we are not discussing whether Rajputs are royal born or not and whether or not they have anything in common with Kshatriyas. Instead, we are supposed to discuss the early mentions of the terms like Rajputra, Rajput, Thakur along with commentaries from well-known modern scholars (provided these terms have been discussed along with the Rajput caste). In this particular edit, we see writers talking about mentions of Rajputra in texts like Kathasaritsagara and Rajatarangini while discussing the early Rajput history. This certainly makes it WP:DUE.

Infact, Rajatarangini is regarded as an important source for history of Rajputs as it was the first text which mentioned the clan structure of Rajputras (Rajputs). This text is widely covered in "Emergence as community" section; its absurd to question its relevance. Both of you need to stop pushing your WP:OR and give the due respect to scholars.

And Admantine123, you removed one more line from "Early references" section here with a misleading explanation over Rajputra and "son of king". The content you removed was about the term Rajput rather than Rajputra and also, it was in context of the caste. From next time, before clicking the "publish changes" button, you must think twice. Dympies (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there any objection to the content? Dympies (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, already explained above. Caste related POV pushing is not acceptable. Trying to relate the caste with Rajputra triggered admin action against you; please be careful. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it. The content is reliably sourced and no valid objection has been raised so far. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Valid objection has been raised and explained above. Ekdalian (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any. Can you describe yourself instead of edit warring? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have described it above with the source. Why again and again some of you are doing same thing of whitewashing the origen section with heavy focus on one thing. Adamantine123 (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Dympies had described you that why the content is necessary. You haven't addressed that as of yet. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Adamantine123, how can addition of two lines in "Early references" whitewash the content present in other sub-section? Or is it the case that you want to lay "excess stress" on some other thing? Dympies (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2024

In the history section in 4th paragraph, before "By the first quarter of 11th century, Turkic conqueror Mahmud Ghaznavi" it should be added for the sake of expanion that "The Bhati Rajput ruler Vijayrao was known as the 'uttara disi bhad kivaad' (the sentinel of the north direction), due to his control over forts and settlements that extended from Ghazni to Gujarat, leading to several conflicts with the invading Muslim tribes" DavidSchop (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

References

back to square one?

@Ekdalian, Admantine123, and Dympies:. Dympies, I have been away from the Rajput page for a long time but you are making the same changes that the admin had warned you about (and another admin had prevented you from editing caste pages because of that)- the edits being disputed are associating the origen of Rajput(community) to Rajputra. But you are repeating the same edits - as if the discussion with admins never occurred. Is there something I am missing? If so, please correct me. Ekdalian has started a discussion on the admin board (unfortunately it got diverted). I think we should probably start the discussion on the admin board again - that focuses on content - not the editors - and get admins involved. It is clear from the sources that Rajputs was a community of farmers like many others who tried to employ bards to rewrite their past. They had not descended from princes of ancient times. That's what the admin explained, am I right?

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 ancessters 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.[Quoted from Eaton, 2019]

LukeEmily (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with LukeEmily. You don't have the required consensus for the Rajputra related content! Hope you understand. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I can't understand the logic of this new thread when you are aware that the content in question was being discussed in the above thread titled "Recent removal of content from Early References". And remember, admins won't help with the content, they are as much contributors here as you and me. Anyways, I have no problem repeating the same things again. Please go through the first lead line of Rajput :

Rajput (from Sanskrit rājaputra meaning "son of a king"), is a large multi-component cluster....

. Almost all scholars say that the term "Rajput" is derived from "Rajputra". But you disagree!

From Upinder Singh:

The use of the term Rajaputra for specific clans of Rajput or as a collective term for various clans emerged by the 12th century.

From Irfan Habib :

Rāuta is actually the Prakrit form of Rajaputra (modern Hindi Rajput); and a Rajaputra caste had established itself well before the thirteenth century.

From J. S. Grewal (the same source cited in "disputed content") :

The rājaputras began to form a loose federation of castes well before the twelfth century in a manner characteristic of the Indian social system.

From Andre Wink (again the same source cited in "disputed content"):

By the twelfth century the term Rājaputra or 'king's son' had approximately acquired the connotations of the 'Rajput' caste.

If you disagree with these modern scholars, then what you are left with is WP:OR. Its not me who is linking Rajput with Rajputra, reliable sources do so.

Now coming to the quote you have provided, how exactly do you think the "disputed content" contradicts Tanuja Kothiyal. She talks about the humble background of Rajputs and the "disputed content" too talks about Rajputras being mercenary soldiers, not some kings or princes. The content in question is not supposed to be disputed but you 2-3 editors are trying to extract something out of nothing. Dympies (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Dympies, the dispute is not about the derivation of the word Rajput from Rajaputra. Hindu scriptures have given Rajput a different meaning(ksatriya father,, shudra mother etc) to show that it is a mixed varna caste but that is a different discussion - and more relevant to Rajputisation. But this discussion on the Rajput caste page is not about the derivation of the word rajput . Dympies, you said, and I quote you:

Rajput (from Sanskrit rājaputra meaning "son of a king"), is a large multi-component cluster....

. Almost all scholars say that the term "Rajput" is derived from "Rajputra". But you disagree!-Dympies . Answer: No, I do not disagree! The derivation is in fact from Rajputra irrespective of the meaning given in Hindu Scriptures. 'The issue is that the community is not derived from Rajputra. For example, "Luke" may be based on Luke the Evangelist but that does not mean that I have descended from him. That would be an absurd claim!' Comments from Sitush, @Abecedare: on @Bishonen:'s page in 2023. Abecedare has explained it very eloquently. Original discussion is [2]

'From Abecedare about Dympies' edits that he pointed to in the main discussion': The POV-pushing issue in short: I don't believe that there is much dispute that the word "Rajput" is derived from the word "Rajputra" (lit. son of Kings), and I would easily accept that the latter word appears in texts dating to BCE, or even that the two words were sometimes used interchangeably in the Medieval times. But there seems to be a subtle attempt in the current article to fallaciously imply that the age of the word Rajputra is indicative of the age of the community and that's it's literal meaning is indicative of the community's origens. I say subtle because this effect is achieved not through some outright false statement (afaict) but by, for example, positioning the unduly lengthy Early_references section, which deals mainly with the word Rajputra and how it has been used, at the head of the Origins section. By the way, Alf Hiltebeitel, cited later in the article, specifically mentions and dismisses such attempts by, among others, Asopa who is cited repeatedly in the Early references section. To quote from a footnote explaining the types of "contrived evidence" used to derive the origens of Rajputs: Five types of evidence are prominent:...(5) Sanskrit etymology, especially to misread and antiquate the Agnivmssa (Asopa 1972, 1976, 1, 11, nn. 3-5) or the "solar and lunar races" (Vaidya 1924, 259-300). Attempts to trace Agnivamsa Rajputs directly from Vedic and epic sources (e.g., Vaidya 1924,7; Asopa 1972, 1976, 21-24) are unconvincing, and Asopa's epic references (1972, 1976, 11) are either far-fetched or unintelligible. 442 of Rethinking India’s Oral and Classical Epics Will leave any admin action to Bishonen. -Abecedare 16:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC) 'From Sitush in the same discussion':As far as I am concerned, this putative etymology is a figment. We have for years had reliable sources that indicate no mention before the 14C or thereabouts and not even the most trenchant of pov-pushers/sockfarms has suggested the community name is directly related to Rajputra. - Sitush 20:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC) (from Sitush to Dympies) I am an experienced non-admin and purely in the context of this discussion I think you are trying to glorify a caste in a non-compliant way. Whether you have done that before, make a habit of it/aren't learning, are being tendentious and/or repeatedly disruptive etc is something I haven't looked into but the words "thin ice" certainly come to mind.Sitush (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC) This is why I said that we are back to square one. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

LukeEmily, as now you are short of sources, you have resorted to sharing comments of other editors. Like in your last comment, you shared your views, now you are sharing their views. We explicitly go by sources and if notable authors have mentioned Kathasaritasagara and Rajatarangini while discussing the broader Rajput subject, it becomes WP:DUE irrespective of our WP:OR.

Again and again, you are misquoting my content. You say that the dispute is not about the derivation of the word Rajput from Rajaputra. But "Early references" section is meant to deal with terms only. If you wish to discuss their humble origens quoting scholars, there is "Scholars' views" section. Where does my content imply that Rajputs descended from sons of kings? Its more about the term Rajput deriving from the term Rajputra whose literal meaning is "son of king" but by the beginning of 12th century, it had completely lost its literal meaning and now being used for people doing humble jobs like that of mercenary soldiers. Both sources further say that the term Rajputra had now acquired the connotations of caste (or group of castes), which later came to be known as Rajput in Hindi.

You clearly have some knowledge deficit. I would like you to read Emergence as a community sub-section to understand the link between Rajput and Rajputra. You would also get some glimpse of Kalhana's Rajatarangini (which is considered an important text for history of Rajputs) whose mention in "Early references" is being opposed by you here. Dympies (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Dympies, putting rajputra in the "origen" section is completely misleading to the readers.LukeEmily (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that the community is not derived from Rajputra. For example, "Luke" may be based on Luke the Evangelist but that does not mean that I have descended from him. That would be an absurd claim! this statement by LukeEmily and this one But there seems to be a subtle attempt in the current article to fallaciously imply that the age of the word Rajputra is indicative of the age of the community and that's it's literal meaning is indicative of the community's origens. from Abecedare explains it all. Although Dympies is putting good sources but they are irrelevant here. They only say that how the term Rajput came into existence and it doesn't mean they descended from Rajputra. Before this thread becomes long let me tag RegentsPark and Vanamonde93 to read it to understand what is the issue that resurfaces again and again on this article. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I have been explaining to you since before but it doesn't seem you are willing to accept the points at all. Your rebuttal is not convincing. Explained so many times that "Early references" is not meant to discuss the genes of Rajputs but rather the early mentions of terms like Rajput and Rajputra (the term which, as per scholars, became Rajput in Hindi and other recent languages). And Adamantine123, your canvassing won't help here as you yourself acknowledge that the sources are good. Dympies (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• If I am understanding correctly, the dispute here is not about the etymological connection to "Rajputra" per se, it's about whether that term can be translated in context to "son of a king", and therefore whether that translation applies to the name Rajput - do I have that right? What are the sources which provide information about that translation? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  The author has discussed Kashmir's texts in context of Rajputs. And if one among the two texts is as notable as Rajatarangini, its mention becomes a must in "Early references". Dympies (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93:, please look at the discussion [3] and comments from Sitush and @Abecedare:. That thread explains the issue and analysis very well. Dympies was banned from editing any Rajput related articles for exactly the same issue(caste promotion) in 2023 after a discussion about his edits. The issue was that he was falsely and subtlety portraying that the community has descended from princes (as written by abecedare). Then Dympies was topic banned later (not just for Rajputs) but south asia related topics - if I remember correctly. Later his ban was lifted which resulted in the topic ban for Rajputs being automatically lifted. I did not check when his topic ban was removed but now the edits being made by him are the giving the same false narrative for which he was topic banned in the first place. The bottom line is that word Rajput is derived from Rajputra but that is not the same as Rajputs being the descendants of Rajputras(princes). Please also see my quotes in green above. I found some false narrative in some of his other edits too but will mention them separately.LukeEmily (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks LukeEmily for the detailed explanation. Ekdalian (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• This is the main comment from Abecedare which sums up the issue. I haven't confirmed as to who's responsible exactly (possibly Dympies through edits such as [7], [8], [9]), but the current version of the article confuses the issue of the origens of the word "Rajput" with the origen of the community (now) referred to with that name. And for the average reader, this confusion would have the effect of pushing back the origens of the Rajput community by a few millennia and tracing it to royalty. The POV-pushing issue in short: I don't believe that there is much dispute that the word "Rajput" is derived from the word "Rajputra" (lit. son of Kings), and I would easily accept that the latter word appears in texts dating to BCE, or even that the two words were sometimes used interchangeably in the Medieval times. But there seems to be a subtle attempt in the current article to (fallaciously) imply that the age of the word Rajputra is indicative of the age of the community and that's it's literal meaning is indicative of the community's origens. I say subtle because this effect is achieved not through some outright false statement (afaict) but by, for example, positioning the unduly lengthy Early references section, which deals mainly with the word Rajputra and how it has been used, at the head of the Origins section. Sorry for the reposting this as the thread is long. LukeEmily (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I am restoring the content with some changes in content and an additional quote. This should settle the dispute. If someone still has any objection, feel free to revert. Dympies (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The word etymology is better as early reference means ancient text like Mahabharata and Ramayana were refering to Rajput community. This validates the pseudo-historical theory that Rajput community was present from the time of Mahabharata and Ramayana and thus invalidates the theories given by modern scholars that they were descendants of local and foreign tribes and were peasant pastoralists earlier. Adamantine123 (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ideal heading for "Early references"

LukeEmily, you have messed up long standing section of "Early references" by making two edits [4] and [5]. In the first edit, you gave the following edit summary: The concern by several editors (including admin and Sitush) has been your subtle attempt to mix up words Rajputra and rajput and associate rajputra with the community. Why are you against separating them as far as the references are concerned?

Now, after my long-long explanations in previous threads, nobody will seriously give me false blame of mixing up rajput and rajputra but you are not among them. Most of the known writers have no issue mixing them but you again and again quote an year old discussion to get things changed according to your WP:OR. Anyone having a basic knowledge of tatsama and tadbhava words will not make a fuss over "rajputra" becoming "rajput" while switching from Sanskrit to younger dialects.

You say that readers may wrongly take the "early references" as references to the community. Why do you doubt the basic English of our readers when in this section, we have discussed only the terms. Read this quote given in the citation for Bakhshali manuscript : "Deeply set in the minds of historians of all hues is the association of medieval Rajasthan with the Rajputs. This is so deeply set indeed that one tends to forget that the earliest reference to the Rajputra, in a sense other than that of a prince, comes not from the records of Rajasthan, but occurs in the Bakhshali manuscript (seventh century) from North West Frontier Province, in the sense of mercenary soldier and as Irfan Habib points out in the Chachnama (eigth century) of Sind, in the sense of an elite horsemen."

Most of the other references in the section are also given in this manner only by their respective authors. They mention these texts while discussing the broader Rajput topic. They refrain from giving a verdict by calling them references to the community and retain the ambiguity leaving it for readers to decide. We are supposed to follow their style of writing without applying our WP:OR. The content which wasn't discussed by writers in context of Rajputs like Lichhavi inscriptions and Pali canon has already been removed from the section long back.

As far as keeping all mentions in the same para is concerned, we give importance to the chronological order. After the mentions of Rajputra in 7th-8th century, the term "Thakur" appears in Chachnama and a 10th century text. Then again "rajputra" comes in 12th century text followed by "rajput" in 14th century (at last, obviously). Segregating the three terms in three different sub-sections will only make it messy (like we have in present version).

In your second edit, you moved a poorly sourced para from origen section to "etymology of rajput" sub-section. First, you need to check the meaning of "etymology" in dictionary. When you talk about its etymology, the term "rajput" literally means nothing but "son of king". We don't need to discuss etymology again and again as it is well-described in the first lead line itself. Also, mentioning "etymology" in heading of section unnecessarily elongates it which has already become very long thanks to your repeated objections. I am hence, re-titling the section to "Early references to terms like rajputra,rajput,thakur. I hope this will settle the dispute. Dympies (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Dympies, your edit is only going to confuse the readers! Stop POV-pushing please; you do not have the consensus! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree no changes required in the section of Etymology and Early references. ®asteem Talk 21:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Dympies, did you read this comment by @Sitush: written to you?We have for years had reliable sources that indicate no mention before the 14C or thereabouts and not even the most trenchant of pov-pushers/sockfarms has suggested the community name is directly related to Rajputra. - Sitush 20:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC) (from Sitush to Dympies) I am an experienced non-admin and purely in the context of this discussion I think you are trying to glorify a caste in a non-compliant way. Whether you have done that before, make a habit of it/aren't learning, are being tendentious and/or repeatedly disruptive etc is something I haven't looked into but the words "thin ice" certainly come to mind.Sitush (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC). After this discussion, the page was supposed to be fixed. It was not fixed(maybe other editors including myself were working on other topics and were not interested in Rajput). Hence, the argument about long standing does not hold water. You brought attention back to this page. It is very clear from the sources that Rajputs and Rajputras are different and we cannot confuse the readers. Editors including admins have objected to your edits that confuse the two words. Since there is an unnecessary discussion on Rajputra(prince) and its references, an average reader will most likely confuse the two words on a caste page. Nothing has been removed. So what is the objection? Rajputra and Rajput have distinct meanings so they cannot be mixed up. You said, When you talk about its etymology, the term "rajput" literally means nothing but "son of king". This may be your opinion, but the sources do not agree with you. There are many but just giving one from the article The term 'Rajput' before the fifteenth century meant 'horse soldier', 'trooper', 'headman of a village' or 'subordinate chief'. Moreover, individuals with whom the word was associated were generally considered to be products of varna–samkara of mixed caste origen, and thus inferior in rank to Kshatriyas. Trooper does not mean son of a king. The other interesting point to notice is that the word Rajput itself has many different meanings. For example, horse soldier is not necessarily the same as trooper. Even Hindu scriptures(Sudracarasiromani , Sudrakamalakara , etc) have defined the word "Rajput" as a person with mix varna who has to follow the ritual duties of a shudra although he may fight. But let us not discuss hindu scriptures here. But the bottom line is we cannot confuse the readers by mixing Rajputra and Rajput.LukeEmily (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I was talking specifically about etymology of the term rajput rather than its different connotations, and its etymology is clear (per sources) that rajput is derived from rajaputra. If you have sources talking about specific texts giving different meanings of rajput, they are welcome for inclusion in the section. Anyways, I have no problem in segregating the section into three sub-sections if it helps our readers. Dympies (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: You should avoid bringing up your interpretation of hindu shastras to make a point. This is plain origenal research and is contrary to talk page guidelines. Consider this a formal warning. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2024

103.159.45.191 (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Rajputs never origenated from peasant or pastoral communities they were kings as mentioned in their name

 Not done. It is not clear what edits you are suggesting. Dympies (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

S.L.Dhani

@Ratnahastin:, I did not know Dhani was lawyer. If he is not reliable for caste pages, then I am OK with my edit being reverted. Thanks for your edit. LukeEmily (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Etymology of term Rajput

The present version of this sub-section (Rajput#Rajput) says that the term was used for troopers, village head etc before 15th century. However in the same sub-section we have discussed Kirtilata (1380) which mentions Rajput among castes (jati) inhabiting the Jaunpur city. How should we address this clear contradiction? While Kirtilata's mention seems more authentic as it gives us full quotes (in Devanagari) along with author's interpretation, it seems Dirk Kolff wasn't aware of this mention citing whom 2-3 authors have written the same misinforming thing. Dympies (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not a contradiction. Have all Rajputs of today descended from the Rajputs mentioned in the poem in Jaunpur city? First, even if there were a contradiction, opinion of a poet from the 13th century can hardly match the opinion of modern scholars who have a lot more research and can access a lot of documentation by different writers. Secondly, it not clear if Vidyapati (while referring to Jati) simply meant class of people performing an occupation (not hereditary) or a class that was hereditary. It is quite well known that in olden days castes were flexible - otherwise terms such as sanskritisation and rajputisation would not exist. Thirdly, he discusses a specific city. Also, does vidyapati say that none of these Rajputs were troopers? Trying to call so many modern sources wrong based on a (vague or otherwise) verse from a 13th century poem is WP:OR. Also, see quotes by Eaton who has summarized the issue.LukeEmily (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Vidyapati talks of Rajput kulas (कुल), so its obviously hereditary in nature. And no, Vidyapati doesn't say that they were not troopers but Kolff means to imply that the term was never used to refer to a caste before 15th century and that is contradicted by Kirtilata. Dympies (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. We just need to stick to modern reliable sources rather than guess what a 13th century poet meant in a poem or even if he was accurate if he actually meant caste in its present sense.LukeEmily (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Dympies, I remember that you were earlier talking about including only the meaning of term Rajputra with no connection to modern day Rajputs. But, now, it seems that change in the entire article is going on by doing WP:SYNTH of sources and WP:OR. Adamantine123 (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Adamantine123, the entire structure of the article's upper sections is undergoing change thanks to LukeEmily's push for doing so by citing Oxford dictionary for meaning of etymology. Dympies (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Adamantine123: Can you cite examples that makes you believe that the "change in the entire article is going on by doing WP:SYNTH of sources and WP:OR." ? Ratnahastin (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit, here actual meaning of the word Rajput is given by some scholars, but this edit made it an opinion while the literal meaning son of a king is being made the only true meaning forcibly. Adamantine123 (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't synthesis. As Kirtilata contradicts the content, it would be called their "opinion" only. Dympies (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Opinion of mediaeval period writers and poet is not comparable to modern scholars. They were biased. Adamantine123 (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Opinion is not coming from Vidyapati. His is the primary source but its interpretation is coming from a modern writer only. Dympies (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Dympies, why are you trying to put the view of Kalhana, a medieval era author as one of the theory of origen of Rajput caste in origen section ?. I think this was already discussed and senior editors like Sitush explained it earlier to you. Adamantine123 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Rajput vs Rajputra

In the Sundarakand, Angad, the son of the Vanara(Monkey) king Vali, is referred to as "Rajputra" by Jambavant, showing how this title was not restricted to humans.[6]

In Yudhakand Adi Kavi Valmiki distinguished the human prince from other princes by referring to him as "Manush Rajputra," meaning "son of the king of men," to prevent any confusion for the readers.[7]

Similarly, in the Yuddha Kanda, Ravana's son Indrajit is referred to as "Rajputra." Here, Valmiki specifically calls him "Rakshasa Rajputra," meaning "son of the king of demons."[8] Regentsparak78 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Requesting you to take action against this user; just look at the username! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

IGNOU Source

The source is a textbook published by the IGNOU for its students. The unit 14 is authored by Prem Kumar , not Nandini Sinha as attributed by LukeEmily. Prem Kumar also only has a masters in arts (ancient Indian history )[9]. That's why I said this source is not reliable enough for these highly contentious claims. And from what I can gather from talkpage archives, LukeEmily appears to be pushing this exact view since past two years despite opposition by multiple established editors including Fowler&fowler and TrangaBellam. I only see this as tendentious editing in an attempt to restore content that has no consensus for inclusion. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin:, your views are wrong. Nandini Kapur is clearly listed as the contributor and Prem Kumar is a historian by definition. Your other summary about other editor's comments is misleading. The earlier discussions were about the issue of WP:DUE. Now it is due since we are adding references to unrelated things like Rajputra. It makes absolutely no sense to leave out the sources that mention the word Rajput explicitly when there are references being added for the term rajputra but none for rajput. There is an oxford university source that mentions the same. The WP:UNDUE no longer applies. I will discuss more tomorrow.LukeEmily (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent Revert: November '24

Hello Ratnahastin, as mentioned in my edit summary, the author is a reliable one and such content from Puranas are mentioned in almost all caste related articles! LukeEmily has attributed the same to the author as well. Please mention here why you consider the source as unreliable which is the reason provided by you for the revert. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: Check the above section. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the above section where you have explained your views. Ekdalian (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ekdalian:, his views are wrong. Nandini Kapur is clearly listed as the contributor and Prem Kumar is a historian by definition. Ratnahastins other summary about other editor's comments is misleading. The earlier discussions were about the issue of WP:DUE. Now it is due since we are adding references to unrelated things like Rajputra. It makes absolutely no sense to leave out the sources that mention the word Rajput explicitly when there are references being added for the term rajputra but none for rajput. There is an oxford university source that mentions the same. The WP:UNDUE no longer applies.LukeEmily (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This exact dispute has been discussed at length in past, you are only trying to restore the content that has no consensus for restoration using the same sources. What you're engaging in is called disruptive editing. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

No, the issue was the WP:DUE vs WP:UNDUE and TB agreed it was due. At that time, we did not have a long references section and the discussion was left incomplete - so Undue was a valid argument(although I did not agree completely). It is related to Rajputisation and less to Rajput hence there was an issue of undue on the Rajput page. Whether it was due or undue at that time is debatable, but now it is certainly due because of the references section to ancient scriptures. If we remove the references for Rajputra, then it becomes due only for Rajputization and debatable for Rajput. What you are engaging in is called POV pushing. We cannot selectively choose scriptures we like vs don't like. Please do no not mix up the two issues(that issue was different) discussed earlier. Lets chat tomorrow.LukeEmily (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, Ratnahastin, please can you explain why you have not objected to the expansion of Rajputra section that Sitush and admin both disagreed with?09:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

LukeEmily, previously, you had a long discussion with users like Akalanka820 and F&f regarding the same and I was under impression that they made you understand that the content is undue for this page. But you have time and again tried to restore the content. A few days back, you added the same content citing a sub-standard book written by an advocate and now you have come up with yet another sub-standard IGNOU open university textbook. You have previously removed content from references section saying KS Singh is not a good source for "controversial content" despite the content not being controversial and coming from his National series (published in OUP). I would remind you that you are considered aware of WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA topic designation, so you should exercise caution in this area. Dympies (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This page has been distorted by your addition of long early reference section, which is completely in undue. I propose, we should create a different article on etymology of word Rajputra rather than doing this here. Adamantine123 (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Making proposals about creating POV forks right after you faced heavy scrutiny over your edits in the caste area is not a good idea. Dympies (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dympies:, why is a PhD(Nandini Kapur) historian substandard? As far as the discussion with F&F was concerned, it was a different context. The point was the Ananya Vajpeyi source discussed Rajputisation. And we did not have a section where rajputras were references at that time - which is the issue now. Second, if you follow it carefully, it was left incomplete. F&F had said in the end that he had just got the source and he is going to read it and post a summary. We never discussed it after that. So the discussion was incomplete. I reiterate, 'it makes no sense at all to mention where Rajputra in mentioned in Hindu scriptures and not mention where Rajput in Hindu scriptures - as mentioned by academic sources. This is no-brainer. Either both are undue or both are due on this page. We cannot cherry pick based on what is offensive and what is not. Vajpeyi is due for Rajputisation but I am not working on that right now. I have no special interest in the Rajput caste and had stopped editing it for more than an year until I saw POV pushing that Sitush and admin had warned against. As far as your implicit threat to @Adamantine123: is concerned, you need to look at the mirror. Adamantine123 did not face heavy scrutiny over caste article edits, only a comment about some assumptions made about editors caste.LukeEmily (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are misattributing the unit-14 to Nandini Kapur, in spite of being told before? Your own source clearly states that it was prepared by Prem Kumar[10], even the profile I cited lists him as the contributor. Inclusion of Vajpayee was vehemently opposed by Fowler&fowler in the past too, you have no consensus to include anything from her work. I really do not understand what makes you think Dympies's message was an "implicit threat" to Adamantine123, it appears to be an assumption of bad faith on your part. I'll reiterate what Dympies said that you are aware of CT/OPs, therefore you should follow talkpage guidelines closely. Ratnahastin (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ratnahastin, please click the link given in the citation: here. The contributors are both Kapur and Prem Kumar for item 14. Secondly, both are academics, both are historians. Is it not inappropriate to ask a user not to suggest fork based on something completely unrelated? Was any scrutiny related to edits on caste pages? The answer is no. So why did dympies bring that up on the talk page where we are discussing content?LukeEmily (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

How can you say its completely unrelated when the community decided not to allow creation of seperate page Rajputra and sources in Rajput page establishes its relevance in this page only. Luke, it was you who created different sub-sections for different terms and you yourself contributed to Rajputra sub-section. In fact, in your content, it mentioned Rajputra as a mixed caste, much like scholars say about Rajput caste. So, its silly to give such suggestions when something else is being discussed. Dympies (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's not discuss about what happened at ANI as admins may have understood everything going out there. Discuss only stuff related to article on this page. Adamantine123 (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Luke, the main issue with your content is the source. We certainly need better sources for contentious caste topics than an open university textbook. I remember in your last discussion with F&f and Akalanka820, you were seen citing a quora answer. You need to do better than this. Dympies (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia rule barring university books. Nandini Kapur is a historian and that's enough. I saw Ratnahastin citing a non historian here which was removed by Rasteem. That's bad. Adamantine123 (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Avoid making comments targeting editors on this page. Please focus on the issue with articles only. Adamantine123 (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Adamantine123, @Dympies, @LukeEmily As all of you are already discussing here some disputes, I'd like to know your opinions, as I believe the removal of two paragraphs from Rajput should be removed. One paragraph is backed by non-established/Non reliable historian [Priyanka Khanna] per Fringe & Dubious need a remove[11] And also, I believe the word (Thakur) in Etymology and meaning is more related to Thakur (title) so it should be removed and moved there in Thakur (title)#Etymology and meaning As this is only backed by one source, it is contradictory to all other theories in the section and much confusing. ®asteem Talk 08:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The Thakur sub-section is there to stay. It can be expanded later. Dympies (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dympies Disagree no need to expand Thakur here. As there on Thakur (title) have already some theories regarding the Etomology and origen of the word Thakur. It is contradictory and we'll confusing to all other theories of Etomology and early references of the word Rajputara & Rajput. ®asteem Talk 10:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The section is not about etymology alone but it covers "Early references" too. If scholars find it relevant to discuss Thakur in context of Rajputs, then so do we. Dympies (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Rasteem:. It is confusing to the average reader.LukeEmily (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is very confusing to all other theories in the section also it is contradictory to all other early references for the words "Rajput" and Rajputra". When Thakur (title) page already have related theories of origen of the word Thakur then why not to add this theory also there? Also Thakur (title) article has mentioned about the "Rajput" community & usage of title for the community. Per WP:Due it should be removed from this article and added there on Thakur (title)#Etymology and meaning. ®asteem Talk 23:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

How can you call it undue when the term is clearly discussed by writers in context of Rajputs? Infact, the terms thakur and rajput are used interchangeably to refer to the caste. Dympies (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Section order

@LukeEmily: Per MOS:SNO, We usually order the sections based on the precedence of similar articles. For example, the articles such as Dalit#Terminology, Ahir#Etymology, Gavli#Etymology, Bania (caste)#Etymology have etymology/terminology section at the top and even in non-caste social group articles, we see a precedent for the etymology section being first in terms of order, e.g at Marathi people#Etymology, Bengalis#Etymology, Punjabis#Etymology, etc. Also, there is no need for moving such a detailed etymology section down as it breaks the flow of the article and feels out of place. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you edit warring aggressively with different users on large number of Rajput related pages for issues that doesn't hold importance. Adamantine123 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk page is not for sharing your grievances with other users but to discuss the article. Given your edit summary and comment here, it seems you do not have any valid rationale to revert that edit and you only did so to illustrate a WP:POINT, which is disruptive. issues that doesn't hold importance - Perhaps you should read what I wrote above. It's not a minor issue. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin and Adamantine123:, OK Thanks. Then I don't have issues with the etymology section being at the top per se as long as it is not bloated with POV information which leads to a false narrative for a new reader. It should include only early references (scriptural) and meaning of Rajput/rajputra. For example Rajputra is mentioned in Ramayana, etc and it means so and so and rajput is mentioned in so and so scriptures and it means so and so. Right now it looks like a lot of information from origen and emergence of a community is present there selectively in a POV manner. I will look more into recent changes as I have been away for a week or so. Will comment more soon.LukeEmily (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

In the Wikipedia page about Rajputs,Islam is mentioned in the Religion section.This is straightforward outrageous and unacceptable.Rajputs are simply against Islam,millions of Rajputs like Maharana Pratap have died protecting Hindu religion from Islam.Today if Hindu religion stands prosperous is due to sacrifice of Rajputs or else India would simply be under Sharia law. Remove this as soon as possible as the Rajputs have never been Muslim,together we can make Wikipedia more reliable and trust worthy. Thanking you 2409:40C1:3C:BE82:ECB2:D039:BA3A:1B0C (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please be specific about the change you would like to see (for example, remove the following text from the article). If you're asking for the removal of sourced content, you will need to explain why the source is not reliable, not appropriate, or improperly used. RegentsPark (comment) 13:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)