This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: History B‑class Low‑importance 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). Pakistan B‑class Low‑importance 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Hinduism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism 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.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by diannaa, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on January 20, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles Nepal B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

hi fellow editors , according to the book "हिंदू जाति का उत्थान और पतन" published in the year 1958 by Rajnikant shastri ,On page no. 28 last paragraph it is written "Rajputs are born from a kstriye father and shudr mother {basically varnshanker} and is described as निर्दय {merciless} and भयानक {Horrible}."

my edit request is that this narrative should be added.

[i dont know why but 3 citations are coming below which are not added by me. kindly ignore ]

Citation-https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.9920/page/n45/mode/2up?view=theater&q=%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4 Gaurav 3894 (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I had already started a discussion for the same on the date 10/12/2021 but did not got any response that's why put up an edit request , if I have have to wait then do tell me for how long if no one is replying, Thanks for replying Gaurav 3894 (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Neither the author nor the publisher seems to be reliable. Please find reliable source (neutral scholarly work) by reliable author supporting such claims. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian: who are you to determine this , have you read his other works  ?? BTW it is approved by Central archaeological library and you can also see the stamp on the first page . I request you to please take back your statement that it is not reliable because you are no one to determine this but if you think that this book is unreliable then feel free to start a discussion here WP:RSN but until then my source is completely reliable so please. Gaurav 3894 (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gaurav 3894, please learn how to indent your posts, read WP:INDENT. This is my opinion as an experienced editor and it's not done for me! You may continue with your discussion with other editors and try to arrive at a consensus. An author who generalizes an entire community as 'merciless' and 'Horrible' (as you have mentioned above) cannot be considered as reliable. Again, do note that this is my opinion and I am not going to edit as per your request. You may continue as already mentioned by ScottishFinnishRadish. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav 3894, your source is usable only to the extent that the part you quote is a translation of a verse in the Skanda Purana (that on a cursory reading seems faithful to the original, based on my limited knowledge of Sankrit and Hindi). We cannot use it to call the Rajput castes "merciless" and "terrible"* in Wikipedia's own voice, because the Skanda Purana is a primary source, and Shastri's translation does not add any additional scholarly material. (Click here to learn why we shouldn't use primary sources in the way you want - it is for similar reasons that we do not consider the Bible or the Quran to be reliable sources).

The presence of a stamp on the front page does not indicate "approval" of the contents by any library; it is clearly just a common library stamp that indicates that the book is owned by the library - nothing more. Even if it did, a government library's approval does not necessarily mean a source is reliable. Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 18:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian: thanks for replying , whats the procedure after consensus ??

Once you arrive at a consensus, someone watching the article will surely edit the same. Ekdalian (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ekdalian. I cannot make such edit either.LukeEmily (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI: hi, thanks for replying, I did not intend to use it to call rajputs merciless or cruel .main reason was to use the part about the caste status , hope you now understand Gaurav 3894 (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian: @ScottishFinnishRadish: @Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI: hello , here is another book "Journal of Nepalese Literature, Art, and Culture, Volume 4" which says " The rajputs were born from Kshatriyas and untouchable women " on page 27 . Please also tell is it reliable or i have to find another one ?? thanks and regards Gaurav 3894 (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked to see WP:INDENT, seems like you still didn't understand. Anyway this page has already been bombarded with One sided collection of anti rajput material since last two years. Wikipedia follow not just WP:RS but also WP:NPOV, it is not a dumping point for such non reliable one sided content. Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this page a "dumping point for such non reliable one sided content" and a "collection of anti rajput material"? It is sourced by top-notch scholarly material published by reputable university publishing houses. Chariotrider555 (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is debatable but still, even considering good sources, doesn't mean an article can't be written from one side Pov. And this is what happened with this article. All one sided PoV added without context, without any regard for WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have EC protected the page indefinitely under WP:GSCASTE, since disruptive editing resumed within days of the previous ECP expiring. Frankly, the Protection log of the page makes for sorry reading. That said, I can't vouch for the current version of the page I protected and all are welcome to propose sourced changes to the article. Abecedare (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting the page. I restored the version to just before the protection expired(5th april) and the ip edits started. (To other editors) Please feel free to reapply on the current version any valid changes that were done in the last 5-6 days and are valid. Or propose sourced changes as mentioned by Abecedare. Thank you. LukeEmily (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sajaypal007 and RS6784: Here aftee getting the article ECP protected, LukeEmily as I can see through history of the page removed all my edits backed up by scholarly sources and researches which differed then their original predjuice. They have this habit of taking articles back to their prefered version and keep this article a mess against Rajputs. Can any of you please undo their recent edits where they removed all of my content addition in emergence as community section, history of Rajput kingdoms and in lead where 16th century version is clearly given a lot prefference despite I present over dozen sources for their existence much prior. Please reinstate my edits where I only writtten other side of coin with back up of excellent sources. My edits were cross checked by many senior editors but Luke is well known for removing edits to their prefered version after making a article protected. It's unfair of you too to make this article protected despite no one asked for it to enable our addition and editors pushing for their version through edit summaries which seems in good faith. PS:- Please reinstate all my content addition deleted by them in one flash where I never removed any content but added other prospective as well with sources. 106.78.41.246 (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

106.78, as I said above, you are welcome to propose individual changes you wish to make to the article, gain consensus (using a dispute resolution process, if needed), and have them reflected in the article. Will take more time than your current approach, but the changes are more likely to stick. It will also greatly ease communications, if you sign up for a wikipedia account. Abecedare (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Point out any of my edits where I removed any of existing source or content ??? (Or added content without a source) ? I only made slight modification in lead where 16th century version was pushed in lead despite presenting dozen of sources for earlier existence.

• I presented other side of coin too by quoting 4-5 sources atleast for each claim and expanded their history section, made different paras for history and origin related thesis.

In any case removing such large chunks of date despite many senior editors kept my changes and reviewed them is clear indication of the desire to keep their prefered version. 106.78.41.81 (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ip, i have no objections against any sourced content you added. In fact, I did not even interfere with any additions until I started noticing some ips(maybe not you) deleting sourced content(Susan Bayly, lead etc). Otherwise I would not have even edited this page today. In my edit summary, I clearly said we can add whatever is sourced. Personally, I have no objection(and no time to look at) any edits if Sajaypal or RS6784 adds all of your edits as long as they are sourced. Please do not delete anything sourced without consensus. You said: Luke is well known for removing edits to their prefered version after making a article protected. No , I am always against removal of any sourced content even if I disagree with it personally(only exception being a talk page discussion where an editor justifies the removal of sourced content and others agree). This edit was only for restoring it to a stable version and specifically requested that changes can be reapplied. But your statement makes me feels that you are a banned editor trying to work around a block using your IP. LukeEmily (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: Lets get to point straightway without wasting time and energy here. You claimed you only interfered after noticing deletion of content, Let me elaborate this here, I never ever deleted any content. For lead version, this article pushes for 16th century narrative in lead despite I presented sources which very clearly mention earlier emergence (4 of them added today and research papers from academia.edu (a reputed publishing site). I removed Bayly version there because it was cherry picking of few lines as I pointed out in my earlier edit summary that on pg. 32, She pointed out that:-

These clans were calling themselves Rajput from thirteenth-fourteenth century and "possibly very much earlier

What does this means ?? This very clearly donot means that she denied their earlier existence infact said very much earlier possibly ? It's wrong to take any side in lead and push a specific version of 16th century when other sources differ. So, I presented a neutral lead and editors/readers can themselve decide after going through origin section. That's it. Stop making bad faith accusation too. As for stable version, there are no stable version, Wikipedia is not static anyone can improve it. Just for record, my edits were reviewed by senior editors till yesterday where no one raise any objection even that there was stable version. In short reinstate my edits which you deleted in one edit today and made all my efforts to go in vain.106.78.41.253 (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP please see WP:INDENT and to LukeEmily such generalized purge of content is not healthy for wikipedia, there was hardly any removal of sourced content, it is re-instated, if you want to restore just Bayley's source, there was no need to remove good sourced content. Sajaypal007 (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

106.78, I can only make educated guesses as to which edits to the article were made by "you" (and some of them certainly, and repeatedly, removed sourced content, and not just from the lede). But if you insist those IP's weren't "you", I won't argue otherwise... with your highly dynamic IP, even the three comments in this section can only be linked by presumption. So, again I would recommend getting an account and discussing individual improvements and sources here individually per WP:BRD. Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Dear administraitor let me explain again about those edits for you;

cross check it yourself, so these source was removed as it contradicts itself even in quote added it doesn't say that clearly these identity did not exist in earlier years which makes it WP:Synthesis as well.

which perfectly summed up the article & without preffering any date CE. Our readers can themselve see it in Origin and emergence as community section.

Bottom line is I only requested to renistate my edits not last one Special:MobileDiff/1082210612 but all other which i added from several reliable scholarly sources. Any more doubts dear admin ?? If not please reinstate all my edits which were removed despite another users with pending change reviewer rights confirmed them. 106.66.10.24 (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

106.66, you'll need to discuss the relevance of the Bayly p.44 quote with the other editors active on this page. It would be best to do so in a fresh appropriately-titled section since they are unlikely to spot the issue in this one titled 'EC protection', which is concerned with process rather than content issues. Ditto for the rest of the edits that you wish to reinstate. Abecedare (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

106.66 what is your contention regarding Bayly's source, please elaborate here instead of user talk page. I re-added the source as per LukeEmily's contention. Please discuss your point regarding addition of Bayly's source here. Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since, I was mentioned here I can clearly point out that Ms Bayly on Page 32 exactly says contrary to how she was mentioned here, so there should no issue with the removal of one particular edits. I can see the edits made by one ID here, except removal of S Bayly's one reference, I don't think the ID removed anything which can be counted as controversial edits. The references have been provided for the recents edits here. There is an issue of WP:Undue in this article, as the weightage has been given to what this community was in 700 AD, 1100 AD etc rather than their overall contribution as such. There is something called as WP: Assume Good Faith, the edits made on this page is surely either fixated on 700 AD or 1200 AD etc or directly to 1800 with only negatives pertaining to a community. Thanks and best ! RS6784 (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the Bayly's source and quote provided, I see that Bayly's quote cited in the article is not given on that page number 39, above that she did say opposite of it on Page number 32. Moreover there is no content removal from that para in the article, and the para is backed by like 5-6 citation, so only removal of this contentious citation which is one among many and not removal of content is like trivial matter and should not be made such an issue. I agree for its removal, let's hear from others. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as what I understand Susan Bayly on page 32, has properly quoted that there were people referred with the same term since at the least from minimum thirteenth century onwards. What she says on page 34 is vague statement pertaining to some elites. This got nothing much to do with article on a community. This page isn't talking about any particular elite. The whole idea of quoting vague statement from page 34 of Susan Bayly's book looks like an attempt to confuse readers. I think it should definitely be corrected as per either what she says on page 32 or this should be removed if other better writers similar views are already there. The page cannot have only opinion of certain grp of writers, a clear case of WP:UNDUE because this subject has various possibilities with no outrightly perfect answers. These are all just possibilities. RS6784 (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the removal of such a high quality source. The opinion can be attributed to Bayly. And the content if missing, should be added. Whatever she says on other pages(like 34 etc) can be added it the quote is misleading. RS6784, what is the content on 32? LukeEmily (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page 34 is not directly related to community but a conjecture based statement on some elites in Rajasthan which she herself isn't completely convinced, the tone makes this outrightly clear. This page doesn't deals with one state of Rajasthan. The writer is explicitly mentioned her views on this subject on page 32. A mere vague half hearted statement is not high quality source.  RS6784 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you added the reference and didn't even read the content properly. This is contrary to WP:DGF while editing RS6784 (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RS6784: There is no consensus on when they got modern meaning so I mentioned all scholarly researches here and this probably seems fine to me there is no undue weightage to any as such date.

I agree on their overall history was missing and only serving Mughals was given too much weight that's why I mentioned about their resistance to Arabs and defeats against Mahmmud Ghaznavi or Shahbuddin Ghori. These seems alright to me now but origin section needs some fixing for sure. 106.66.14.255 (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: Well you said I don't agree with removal of such high quality source ? Really ? This source actually supported the other viewpoint on page no. 32 here is the exact wording for same:-

In the arid hill country what is now Rajasthan, located southwest to the Mughal original strongholds in gangetic plain, powerful lords had been calling themselves as Rajputs, a tittle derived from the Sanskrit (rajaputra, king's son), as far back as thirteenth century AD and possibly very much earlier

106.78.41.14 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

106.78.41.14, please also see 33 and 34, page 34 says

The chiefs and warriors whom the Mughals came to honor as Rajput lords in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries may not even have been descendants of Rajasthan’s earlier pre-Mughal elites

. What she is saying is that it is not necessary that the Rajputs chiefs in the 16th century are the descendents of the Rajput elites of the 13th century. Page 33 says that they had memories of earlier chiefs who had used names such as Rajput (name implying lordship) and these new 16th century warriors did the same. Actually, what she is saying is not contentious at all except that the scholars disagree a bit about the time the caste boundaries solidified. For example, see Eaton

In Gujarat, as in Rajasthan, genealogy proved essential for making such claims. To this end, local bards composed ballads or chronicles that presented their patrons as idea warriors who protected Brahmins, cows and vassals, as opposed to the livestock herding chieftains that they actually were, or had once been. As people, who created and preserved the genealogies, local bards therefore played critical roles in brokering for their clients socio-cultural transitions to a claimed Rajput status. A similar thing was happening in the Thar desert region, where from the fourteenth century onwards mobile pastoral groups gradually evolved into landed, sedentary and agrarian clans. Once again, it was bards and poets, patronized by little kings, who transformed a clan's ancestors from celebrated cattle-herders or cattle-rustlers to celebrated protectors of cattle-herding communities. The difference was subtle but critical, since such revised narratives retained an echo of a pastoral nomadic past while repositioning a clan's dynastic founder from pastoralist to non-pastoralist. The term 'Rajput', in short, had become a prestigious title available for adoption by upwardly mobile clan in the process of becoming sedentary. By one mechanism or another, a process of 'Rajputization' occurred in new states that emerged from the turmoil following Timur's invasion in 1398, especially in Gujarat, Malwa and Rajasthan.

. Can we continue discussion tomorrow? I will try to give an analogy. Also there is some discussion on the Prithviraj Chauhan group that you might want to refer too.LukeEmily (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"What she is saying is that it is not necessary that the Rajputs chiefs in the 16th century are the descendents of the Rajput elites of the 13th century. " - that is your own made conclusion, not the writer's conclusion. She isn't exactly saying that part. And this is common sense such a thing is literally not possible, So are we here talking about Kumbha not being related to Sanga and him not related to Pratap? Do you think these writers are such a fool ? She might have made cursory statement for some elites, but she has not mentioned completely as to which one she talks about. Pls come up with better answers, then to some selectively chosen lines to fool editors here. I will have to now see some of your edits on other similar pages. Looks like the editor is not demonstrating WP:DGF and got some issue with others. RS6784 (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: Eaton is already cited in these article and I can't figure how all your points end revolving around on dubious term called Rajputization. Prithviraj Chauhan talk page is a mess a complete mess and you already copied citation from there plus we are not removing any citation apart from Bayly one's where she didn't state what you want her to and this quote nowhere means that Rajput term is anachronism beside the fact your assertion that Mughal era Rajputs were not descended from earlier elites ?? Really, lets explain:-

@Sajaypal007: Didn't here RS6784 put Bayly quote in wrong place ?? If they want to insert that place this quote in next thesis of However there are another scholarly analysis which staged Rajput clan emergence in seventh century because she doesn't support these dubious thesis of anachronism at all infact staged their existence much prior to 13th century. Shouldn't this source with quote move to this part as I suggest ?? 106.66.14.55 (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ip, continuing what we discussed yesterday, she is giving more stress to enrollment in the Mughal army and saying that heredity did not matter. What she is saying is that the 16/17th century chiefs are not necessarily the descendants of the 13th century ones. Both these groups used the same name "Rajput". Please read 32 to 35 and also look at the 3 quotes provided. I think Gordon says similar stuff although I need to check.LukeEmily (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: Do you actually even know what are you saying ?? Or just to keep this dubious source in place just replying for the sake of doing it ?? She is not saying 16th century chiefs were not descedents of 13th century chiefs (or much earlier which you omitted as well). This is quite illogical and stupid to think. All Rajput families that were there in Mughal Era whether Bhattis of Jaisalmer (1190 Ad establishment), Rathores of Marwar (1226 AD establishment), Mewar Family (established in eighth century), Kachwahas of Amber (11th century establishment) had unbroken lineage much before Taimurid dynasty was formed let alone Mughals. She is not talking enrollment in armies either in any case this source no where states that Rajput idenity did not exist infact she said polar opposite of it that These clans were calling themselves as Rajputs from 13th century and very much earlier Was that section really about enrollment in armie chiefs or Rajput kingdoms in general again ? In any case, How Maharana Pratap (16th century) Mughal era king was descended from Bappa Rawal, Khoman, Mathan Singh, Samarsingh or junior Rana branches ?? Was Maldev Rathore not related to Rao Simha or descended from him ? (Simha established Rajput rule in Marwar in 1226 and Maldev was from same family) ?? Was Raja Bharmal another Mughal era king not descended from Dhula Rai/Tejkaran ?? (Dhula Rai founded Kachwaha kingdom in Dhundar region) It's just common sense which is quite uncommon at times. This source is dubious that too quoting it in front of Anachronism theory which she didn't even mentioned PS:- I removed this source after going through all of it, you didn't made any difference to it. I again @Sajaypal007 and RS6784: to give their inputs here. At last, try better replies, you are again replying just for sake of doing it, point out where she said Rajput did not exist prior to a timeline infact said polar opposite staging it to 13th century and again very mucb earlier. 106.66.6.233 (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the conrent of the sources, not me. She is saying they existed. When did I say no? It is known that there were ppl calling themselves Rajputs in 8th century. What am I not understanding? Can you explain why she is saying

Yet the varna archetype of the Kshatriya-like man of prowess did become a key reference point for rulers and their subjects under the Mughals and their immediate successors. The chiefs and warriors whom the Mughals came to honor as Rajput lords in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries may not even have been descendants of Rajasthan’s earlier pre-Mughal elites. What mattered instead was that for both[] these titles and the markers of refined faith and social life which accompanied them , spoke in recognizable terms of exalted blood and ancestry

. Yet you say : She is not saying 16th century chiefs were not descedents of 13th century chiefs (or much earlier which you omitted as well). This is quite illogical and stupid to think.. Maybe I am stupid but can you explain the contradiction in your statement and hers?LukeEmily (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say it is you who is firstly trying to WP:OWN the article and making a fuss out of a vague statement by one writer. Just a simple question to you was Kumbha not forefather of Sanga who in turn was of Pratap ? So how is that theory applicable. No historian will admit with what you say here. You have made the conclusion yourself which writer isn't saying the same exactly as to how you interpreted. If you are two much concerned for WP:NPOV there are better pages which doesn't fullfill it, whereas this one should be WP:OVERKILL, the whole article has been bombarded with only "possibility" based material. RS6784 (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam:, Fowler&fowler, Chariotrider555, pinging you since you were involved in the the article discussions regarding the timeline - Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan#Legacy_section_of_article. I think TB and Fowler&Fowler had explained the anachronism quite well. Please can you review the sources and thecontent made recently by the IP after protection was removed?(these changes were reinstated by Sajaypal). If you find that these changes are OK, then I can drop myself out of this discussion. IP also removed some links to wikipedia pages, which are trivial to add(i will add the links later), but please review the removal of anachronism from the lead section and related changes in the body which were added by probably @Sitush: or @Utcursch:. I believe the IP is a sockpuppet of a banned editor on the Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan#Legacy_section_of_article, given the objection with anachronism and similar use of sources on that page, as well as good familiarity with wiki editing. I am working on other topics and cannot devote much time to Rajput related articles that have constant disruption.LukeEmily (talk)

@LukeEmily: So of all the legtimate reasons you go back again on bad faith accusations. In your recent reply apart from accusations you also breached WP:Canvassing rule by pinging those editors whom you thought will support your edits as you are unable to debate anymore. This is frowned upon on Wikipedia. I find it very hard to believe from your edit history that why you always use content of other talk pages to win a consensus ? Prithviraj talk page is a mess and there was no consesnsus at all from what i can see now there were sources which ably counters Fowler&Fowler POV as well. No, they didn't explain that well on talk page, I can see otherwise though. Just for a second, that talk page was more different mess altogether which has no relation with removing Bayly source either.

For my edits are concerned those are cross checked by several editors now and I can sense you have problem with them since the begining. I gave ample explaination of removing timeline bit, that with over dozen sources contesting 16th century timeline it will clearly be giving more weightage to certain viewpoint which violates WP:UNDUE that too in lead which is summary of content sourced in article body. My all other content were sourced by atleast 4-5 WP:RS, and expansion of history section was needed where all negative points about them are pushed like Gospels.

Lets leave it alone and get back to main issue here about that quote you asked me to counter She is not saying 16th century chiefs were not descedents of 13th century chiefs (or much earlier which you omitted as well) My direct reply will be she countered this very statement on page no.32 itself i.e.

This was page was written in a very negative light and still is, I just added sourced content to best of my ability with quotes to refer to. 106.66.43.214 (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, please learn what appropriate notification isEditors who have made substantial edits to the topic Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics).Editors known for expertise in the field. Editors who have asked to be kept informed before making baseless accusations of canvassing. Wikipedia is not a battle ground and I have nothing personally against any caste, community, race, religion or person on wikipedia. I consider myself extremely neutral to all caste topics. I am interested in varna mobility and its effects on women children and others - my focus is not on any particular caste. Just know that I was the one who added the removed image of that fort and I was the one who agreed with the removal of the Rajput fishermen image from this page and I was the one who defended the community against some really bad edits (search for merciless on this talk page) and I was the one who had originally added hospitality to the page. Do you really think I am not neutral? I did not accuse you of calling me stupid - and I am not stupid - I had research published in a peer reviewed journal ("am stupid" was just a phrase I used jokingly for myself) - other wiki editors are not stupid either. I am not going to waste more time on this. I think the article in not negative at all. In fact, several topics are missing. I will create another section for topics that are missing and you will see that the current status of the article is not negative at all. The article (including treament of women) is part of history - no one is accusing present day Rajputs of anything negative. For example, were Rajputs mostly illiterate in the Raj era(as against Brahmins, etc..)? Yes, they were. Are present day Rajputs illiterate? Of course not - I am sure many are scholars. And I have no interest in politics either. Getting back to the topic, I recommend waiting for a few days to hear from others.LukeEmily (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying that “I made this edit therefore I have no motivation for doing x” has zero relevance. Please refrain from being trivial disputes and silly allegations of bias into this encyclopaedia. Thank you.RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, "you made X edits hence you have some motivation" should have zero relevance also. I have a right to defend myself against personal attacks - especially absurd assumptions. Thank you in anticipation for understanding. Yes, trivial disputes are a waste of time and all of us are busy in real life. Just focus on the content and assume good faith.LukeEmily (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break from S. Asian discourse other than fighting obvious vandalism - apologies but I cannot be of any help. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

np, thanks TB.LukeEmily (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too busy right now to make any substantial edits, I might participate in discussion down the road. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: Aw hell nah; You cleverly ping those editors about whom you are well aware that they can won this consensus for you which you apparently lost.,otherwise are there only these handful of editors who have any knowledge of this topic ? Ofcourse not Yes, Wikipedia or for that matter any enclyopedia must not be treated as a battleground against any caste, relgion, sex etc. But you are as neutral as the enclyopedia is reliable. You are claiming that you added positive aspect of their history despite adding them illiterate, low origin peasant soldiers ?? Adding about their so called mistreatment of women ? Always objecting anything which do not suits your narrative and taking a article back to your prefered version ?? Adding hospitability is nothing which made you a neutral editor, this trait along with valour of Rajputs is even praised by their tyrant enemies so you didn't invent anything out of box which makes you neutral, removing fisherman image makes you neutral ? This thread is now getting into comical territory. Being completely unrelated this article is indeed written in very negative way and I won't even doubt that. You don't need to explain your neutrality your edit history (for which I wasted 2 hours few days back) clearly reflects it. Pots and Kettles. 106.78.41.160 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NPA and this is the last time i will respond to personal attacks. Try to understand this simple fact: The wikipedia page about a community will directly reflect what scholars discuss about the community's history and present. Editors do not do personal research and do not add personal opinions. You cannot blame editors for adding a fact - positive or negative as long as it is sourced. Similarly, no one can accuse editors of promoting someone or some community if the historical facts are positive and well sourced. Everything on wikipedia needs to be sourced. No one is stopping you from adding any sourced material - positive or negative on this page. Assume good faith. Post some glorifying material from an academic and verifiable source here and I will add it myself and also defend it against deletion (assuming it follows wikipedia rules for inclusion). I think the page portrays Rajputs in an "accurate light"(in fact more positive that most western academic sources I have seen - have you read Malvika Kasturi's books?). I do not have time to discuss this any further.LukeEmily (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would request both editors you and User: LukeEmily to keep the discussion polite. Regarding WP:OWN WP:OWNBEHAVIOR on the article I have already pointed it out to the concerned editor about some of his recent actions on certain pages. I think it is needed that editors should keep in mind that nobody owns the article on Wikipedia and skipping edits of other editors ( who provided proper summary to their edits) to restore to some 4 months preferred versions is not the solution to any edit issues and goes contrary to WP:GOODFAITH. Thanks and Best I hope editors can continue their healthy discussion/debate. RS6784 (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There we go @RS6784, Sajaypal007, and LukeEmily: Another neutral editor took this page back to their prefered version again Special:MobileDiff/1083009094 by claiming edit war. This is typical of owning content at enclyopedia by a group of few editors who revert anything which they don't like to their prefered version by dubious edit summaries. FYI, this content which I added apart from being sourced is cross checked and confirmed by all senior editors. Still claiming yourself to be neutral ?? 106.66.42.12 (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the book: " The Vernacularisation of Democracy: Politics, Caste and Religion in India by Ms Lucia Michuletti": she explains how Ahirs were trying to Rajputise ( meaning copying the socio-cultural habits of Rajput community not "becoming part of the community here") and how the process never achieved. She has given full explanation to it. Considering the fact this page deals with other community than Ahirs or any such grps. It becomes important to add these conjecture based materials to other pages of such communities rather than WP: UNDUE this whole page here with just possibilities/ half hearted conjectures. RS6784 (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sons of Krishna: the politics of Yadav community formation in a North Indian town" ( 2002) by Lucia Michuletti- "on page 81, 82" she explicitly quotes Dirk H Kolff and mention how Ahirs and such non-elite grps were trying to copy Rajput culture, traditions etc but weren't part of the community.

So adding a reference to twist words of writers might not be the right approach. RS6784 (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue of WP:REL, as this subject deals with Ahir grps a different community, so not as relevant to this article. Their imitation of socio-cultural of Rajput community is a different topic to be presented on other page. Rest military recruitment in north whether in purab or even other areas in north included both Rajputs and non-Rajputs ( basically various non-elite grps), many of these grps tried to adopt Rajput cultural habits but this got less to do with the community. Scholar Lucia Michuletti has explained all this properly on page no 81, 82 in "Sons of Krishna: the politics of Yadav community formation in a North Indian town" ( 2002). So, to add everything here on this article crosses WP:REL. Thanks and best RS6784 (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating this section. If I understand the quote provided by NitinMlk correctly, some - not all - Ahir's and Brar's got integrated into Rajputs.

Muslim sultans east of Delhi generally relied on intimate alliances with Rajput warlords with their Hindustani peasant infantry, recruited in the east (purab). Rajput chiefs served as brokers. 'Their [the sultan's] overriding interest in recruitment alliances and consensus with Rajput chiefs were expressed, ideologically, in the syncretist, conciliatory idiom that dominated their courts.'³⁸ Rajput warriors converted to Islam without necessarily giving up their way of life. These pre-Mughal Rajputs were not the Rajputs of the seventeenth century Great Tradition but, rather, 'an open status group of warrior-ascetics in search of patronage and marriage'.³⁹ Via a process of Rajputization, peasant castes (like Bhar and Ahir) of eastern Hindustan (purbiya) were integrated into the open status group of warrior ascetics, adopting Rajput values. The warrior hero's death in the battlefield represents the values of kingship.

^[1] Are Kolff and Michuletti saying that this Rajputization was not successful? If a family successfully Rajputises it means it is accepted as Rajput by the society including other Rajputs. It does not mean the entire community to which the family originally belonged is accepted as Rajput. Please can you provide relevant quotes from Kolff since he seems to be the common reference here? Thank you.LukeEmily (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pls read what Lucia Michuletti says on page 81 and 82 in her research work. I would request no WP:OR and WP:Canvassing by tagging your biased choice of editors. Sorry, but you have been continuously try to ping new editors ( don't know if you know them outside of Wikipedia) but this can be counted as meat puppetry. I would request editor to keep it to what you say.

Pls read What Lucia Michuletti says on Page 81 and 82 of her research book sons of Krishna: the politics of Yadav community formation in a North Indian town" ( 2002) by Lucia Michuletti- she is talking Ahirs leading families if they were adopting Rajputising idioms but still not counted as Rajputs as per the same research paper. This puts serious questions mark here with the above assertion of your own.

And FYI Rajputisation doesn't necessarily here deals with formation of Rajput community. This was adopted by non-Rajputs like Jats of Bharatpur, Jatt Sikhs of Patiala, Kolis, Ahirs chieftain of Rewari etc, it basically deals copying the socio-cultural habits of Rajput community. Looks like I will now have to look at the Rajputisation page carefully. I guess that page has also been twisted by certain editors put their own biases. There is more to the topic than just simple theory on how Rajput community came up. RS6784 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing can be inferred from the above lines, it could be the writer meant Ahirs or such groups were adopting the Rajput habits because Lucia Michuletti outrightly contradict the other points and she also talks of leading families of these communities like Rewari Ahir Zamindar family, and others how they had adopted Rajput traditional culture. But none of them were/are counted as part of the Rajput community even as per the same research paper. So, if the leading families of Ahirs or such grps failed it looks highly unlikely the commoner will become part of community. Rest we know Purbiya was Rajput lead mercenaries which included both Rajputs and non Rajputs like Brahmins, Bhumihars ( Military Brahmin) and in some cases others as well. So, a vague cursory statement cannot be used to infer what you say here as that is WP:OR, other references of Lucia Michuletti research paper ( specifically on page 81, 82) where she outrightly quotes Kolff contradicts your points. The point here is of WP:REL it deals with particular community and not with what Ahirs were doing or were adopting values . Lastly, FYI as per Lucia Michuletti's research says Ahirs are itself a collated group of 10-15 communities in last 110 yrs during late 19th century Sanskritisation process, they got formalised as a grp. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On page 82 - "During the eighteenth century, the Ahirs of Ahirwal rose in prominence

and became military clients of what was an Empire in disintegration (Francklin

1803; Malik 1977). More specifically, the Yaduvanshi-Ahirs of Rewari, located in

the district of Mahendragarh (present Haryana state) were able, to a certain extent,

to be included within the emergent ‘Rajputs’ and within what the Mughals

recognised as ‘Rajput aristocracy."- By Lucia Michuletti in the same book. Now, If I use your logic they are Rajput because when I quote as per source it says "to a certain extent, to be included within the emergent Rajputs" . So they technically are your "Rajputised Ahirs" ( top of the Ahir society). But are/were they part of Rajput community? The answer to it is big "NO" even as per the book/research material. It makes highly unlikely to concur what you wrote above. If the best grp of the Ahirs remained as Ahir even after Rajputising itself, then to outrightly infer ranks and file in areas where they were weak joined other community would be WP:OR. This also put serious questions on the term "Rajputisation" that does it necessarily mean only wrt Rajput community or it also deals with the habit of adopting Rajput culture/traditions by other communities like hiring Jagas/Barots etc ( this was done by every groups not only Rajputs in that belt). So the point here comes is of WP:REL as the topic deals with Rajput community and not with what Ahir leadership like the above case were doing to enhance its status. Thanks and Best! RS6784 (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

::Here are the research papers which RS6784 is pointing towards: Ph.D thesis from University of London (2002) Sons of Krishna: The politics of Yadav community formation in a north Indian town Thanks 106.66.42.81 (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has given vast description on Ahir and such non-elite grps. My point is cursory mentions in one para like the above shared by one editor not necessarily give the full context of statements, whereas in case of Lucia Michuletti's paper she is given a decent picture of Ahir society. She has talked about main Ahir families of Rewari and some other such cases and how they had Rajputised themselves but were still part of the Ahir communities example- Rewari. She also did comparison of Ahir leadership with other communities leaders. RS6784 (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the lead section a number of sources have been provided. Don't remove them as they give the summary of the origin.Heba Aisha (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

Pls see the subject of this discussion, don't comment for the sake of commenting here. What will get removed or not will not be decided by only you, it will be based on logical explanation, conclusions and counter references. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove a link to File:Karni mata.jpg from the Rajput#Deities section – the file has been deleted from Commons as Commons' Speedy deletion F3. Derivative work of non-free content (commons:File:Karni mata.jpg). --CiaPan (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felingin (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC) There is not a single proof of this dynasty associated with any shudra rajput you should go and read oficial rajput Wikipedia page were it is clearly mentioned before 14th century Mughal era not a single person on this planet claimed to be rajput after 14th century rajput title gain populary because of Mughal invasion and Hindu shahi khatana were gujjars khatana is a sub clan of Gujjar they ruled as Hindu shahi over Kabul afghanistan and kashmir in Kabul peshwar kashmir Punjab Gujjar are still in majority not rajput in many history books in India Hindu shahi written as gujjar not rajput also checked Google map were the death place of Hindu shahi gujjar ruler jaypal khatam gujjar mentioned with gujjar and khatana do don't spread fake information as Wikipedia is not the last source of information or history so don't play by using fake tricks without sources[reply]

Please learn how to talk on Wikipedia pages, regarding your issue "Gujjars are themselves Shudra" and non-elite tribe compared to Rajput who were landed gentry. Wikipedia, works on WP:RS reference and not on whims of caste çentric people. Please learn as to how to talk on Wiki talk pages. RS6784 (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done Please back up your arguments with appropriate reliable sources and seek consensus for your change. Note also that content changes on a fully protected article are unlikely to be made without unequivocal consensus. (Also, sign your posts at the end rather than at the beginning of your comments)--RegentsPark (comment) 16:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence reads,"In the 18th century, the Rajputs came under influence of the Maratha empire." What does "coming under influence" entails? Clarity is needed here. The payment of chauthaiby the Rajput houses to the Marathas should be mentioned too. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor, there is a problem here, this page doesn't deal with Rajput of one state but it includes Rajput community of many states. The Chauth thing that you talk about might be related to a region not everywhere and not related to Rajputs of Hills, Rajputs of Northern plains etc. So, giving too much weightage may cross WP:UNDUE Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue with citations. The first source, Encyclopædia Britannica, is tertiary. The second source, Naravane, is not reliable for caste issues. The third source by Sarkar does not mention any page numbers.LukeEmily (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in an above section, it was recently discovered that content had been added to the article by the editor editing from IP range 106.66.*.* that misrepresented the source and seemingly made up a quote attributed to Romila Thapar. Despite being given ample opportunity and time, the IP editor has not provided any explanation for how this error/hoax happened, even though they have posted multiple times to this talk page and even edited the article since then. Therefore, as a precautionary move I have removed the bulk of the material added to the article by the IP editor in these four series of edits ([4], [5], [6], [7]) during the past two weeks. Any (ECP confirmed, since the article is protected) editor in good standing is welcome to add back any part of the removed content as long as they have independently verified that the content they are adding back matches what the cited source say and is relevant to the article, i.e., take responsibility for the material. Let me know if there are any questions. Abecedare (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Packer&Tracker: Thank you for taking up the task of reviewing the removed content to see what can be preserved! A quick spot-check though shows that there are still issues with the quotes and citations in your recent edits. For example, here is the quote you re-added compared to the actual quote from Kulke&Rothermund (required deletions and insertions indicated in red and green respectively):

When Harsha shifted the centre of north Indian history to Kannauj in the midst of the Ganga-J–Yamuna dDoab, the tribes living in to the west of this new centre also became more important for further courses of Indian history. They were first and foremost the Rajputs who now emerged into the limelight of Indian history.

The citation is also missing the name of the coauthor of the work, Dietmar Rothermund. The poor grammar of several other quotes you re-added suggests a similar (at best) sloppiness in transcribing the sources. Please carefully go through the once sources once again and ensure that the quotes match the original faithfully (as is required). Hopefully, you will be able to address these issues and another mass reversion will not be needed! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Thank you very much for the praise. I did not looked at grammatical errors but originality of these sources that If quotes are not malafide. I can safely say at the minute that I did a decent job at it.

• Few more explainations; I removed Kaushik Roy source along with Irfan Habib despite they were verifiable. Habib was quoting Rajatragni (which Kapur already quoted) same goes for Roy.
• I also corrected some other parts like Barbara Ramusack ref. mention indication term instead of evidence.

PS:- There are still some minor issues like page no, grammatical errors etc but main issue for mass reversion was quote verification which I tried my best to adress by assuming good faith and being neutral Cheers. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 16:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Packer&Tracker: Misquoting authors by introducing grammatical errors in what they wrote is misrepresentation, and a disservice to both wikipedia readers and the scholars being "quoted". If you (or any other volunteer) are unable or unwilling to fix the citations and quotes to match what the cited sources actually say, I'm afraid the text you re-added will have to be removed again till someone can review it properly. Let me know either way. PS: I'll let the content contributors to this article to weigh-in on the reliability and pertinence of any source being included/excluded. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Don't worry about these issues; I am willing to fix them indeed. Let me have one more cross verification again. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 17:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's okay with me if you need a couple of days for this task as long as it is being looked at. As this message I recently posted on RSN (on a completely unrelated topic) illustrates, errors introduced on wikipedia tend to propagate widely. And source misrepresentation is particularly bad because not only does that introduces errors but wrongfully attributes them to scholars, besmirching their reputation in the process. That's the reason I'm treating the latter as an admin-issue and insisting upon not letting such issues fester irrespective of whether the errors are made in good or bad-faith. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Legitimate concerns Abecedare. I cross checked almost all sources and fixed the glitches in quotation by retrospecting each and every source. It was tedious process but quite fruitful at the end. Not only these content, quotation in general have such petty issues of grammatical errors. Thanks for your time !! Packer&Tracker «Talk» 18:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please Add Meo Khanzada Rajputs of mewat. Raja Hassan Khan Mewati was last ruler of Mewat. He was killed in battle of khawana in 1527. Chaudhary Muhammad Waqas Haroon khan (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: Don't know if you have inserted below lines in the topmost paragraph: "According to modern scholars, almost all Rajputs clans originated from peasant or pastoral communities"- with 5 references. The same lines are added with same set of 5 references ( word to word), in first paragraph ( last lines) of the Origin and Emergence section. It seems this whole article has been made completely messy with overusing of same or similar Citations. If you got no issue I am removing it from the origin section, We can't put same thing on every section of this page. This is case of WP:REPCITE RS6784 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RS6784 Please do not remove the line but duplicate references can be removed if they are present in the body. Lead does not need references. I will clean it up.LukeEmily (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I do the same like removing same references from the lead, will there be a problem ? Just asking? Would request not to act as owner here. RS6784 (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I request the same for WP:OWN. Please get consensus. Anyway, removing citation from lead is fine as per MOS:CITELEAD. I was about to do it myself but got an edit conflict as you had done it already.Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RS6784, Eugenia Vanina (page 140 and the quote is repeated multiple time on the page). We can use sfn correctly to remove the repetition of quote. Thanks.LukeEmily (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now.LukeEmily (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare:, @RegentsPark:, @ScottishFinnishRadish:, and others here, Raj-Era photos was removed on an other article's page directly related to a social group- here [[8]], why shouldn't the same be removed on Rajput, and especially Rajputisation, other communities pages as well. I would request for a clear cut direction on this Raj-Era photos from the senior admins/editors, as on some pages it gets removed and on others certain editors try to reinstate it to suit their pov. RS6784 (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should really be a centralized discussion on this, rather than having it done piecemeal across individual talk pages. A broad site-wide consensus is the remedy for this situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have representative image of the modern communities and we can't accept from the editors as reliability is a big issue. These Raj era photos can be used, not as representative of present state of community but as historical images, showing the past of the communities. I am sure you want to remove cultivator Rajput image but let me tell you, if you are concerned about that image only because it was taken in British period, we need to remove warrior image as well and several other images too which are looking good, so despite being Raj era images no one is concerned about their removal. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor, please do not engage into saying what particularly concerns me. I didn't pointed out what you are imagining here. Regarding your take, sorry to say just recently we had a discussion and you were moving Raj-Era photos on an another community page to a different section using my arguments which I put on a different talk page with you, all this at the same time and you were batting for reinstating an unverified image on that page where we had discussion. Sorry, but this was very odd and this is where my point is editors trying to reinstate images where it suits them. I again repeat just informing you here. RS6784 (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And for reliability issue, I hope you know, again I will have to repeat it that you as an editor had shown lots of interest in adding unverified user image on two pages related to this same social grp. Unfortunately, this was on the same day itself. It is you who pointed out to me that there is similar discussion going on with respect to Raj-Era photo and unverified User added photos on an another article's talk page. After seeing that, I was surprised with the different style discussion of yours on a similar topic. I am just informing you here all this in good faith.RS6784 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that Dehra Dun Image - related to some Russia grp, there is already issue with misleading caption on the image on an another page related to this one. The original image doesn't say they are "Hindu Rajput", it says "Russia Rajpoots" and there is WP:V as well whether it belongs to this particular social group or not. That is an another topic altogether. My point here is regarding one generic guidelines wrt to Raj-Era Images as on some page it gets removed citing valid reasons but on another some editors try to push for reinstating it. RS6784 (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User RS6784 follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, very Bias in sources, you need to follow good faith as well.

My apologies, looks like this did not come out correctly, I have changed it. Thakurgul (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Thakurgul The existing photo is fine and should not be changed Thakurgul 19:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Thakurgul (talk) Thakurgul[reply]

There is no confusion and the Cultivator Rajput image is already discussed a lot in past. I would advice you to go through old discussions here. The source of these Raj era images is a book called "People of India" and editors like Sitush have already stated that these images can be used. Wait for Government of India to conduct a caste sensus and i think further development will provide us representative images of the communities in present context. Till then, we have no alternative to these images as British were the last to conduct caste surveys in India of particular caste groups.There is discussion going on in India at present about whether to conduct a caste sensus or not also .^[1] Heba Aisha (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha:, My point was regarding general guidelines for inserting Raj-Era images to depict social groups on Wikipedia. And for a image that you are more concerned with Please do read WP: CLOSECHALLENGE, such cases can be reviewed as it happened with respect to an unverified image inserted by you on an another page and it got changed due to Admin decisions. Regarding your other points here, I do appreciate it and hope that the "stand" taken by you remains the same on other pages as well. I am well with in my rights to inform you. RS6784 (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you are free to reinstate such images from sources like people of India on other articles untill we have a caste sensus or caste survey conducted by Government of India. The page you pointed out initially after starting this discussion, may also have the image that was removed earlier. I think we have decided about user generated non verifiable images and yes i am with admin and i am not gonna use such images. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was discussion on Raj-Era images wrt community depictions on the same discussion which you had shared with me. If you want again I can share your link here. Please understand, I am correcting it in good faith that any caste surveys of Government Organization doesn't have images depicting communities and in any case, the caste is mostly a thing of past not present. There is no guarantee that such caste affiliations would exist in future. So, let us not go into something over which we don't have control. I think this discussion is going into different direction let us only stay to the subject. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that these images are of historical importance and i know they don't depict any community in their present form. Everything has changed but these images are important as they are used in those sections which talks about the history of origin and talks about past. As per WP:MOSIMAGE too, they fulfill the requirements of the section and the content placed there.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British had issue with pronunciation and as you are pointing towards caption, the caption was changed to cultivator Rajput earlier because of this only. There is no issue left. People of India has images of many communities and it has no alternative as of now. Please note, images are not meant for decoration purpose, it should be helpful for understanding the content of a particular section and the image of Dehradoon Rajputs is suitable there.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I again repeat please stick to the subject of the discussion. Your first comment here that "I want xyz " was a dig at me and definitely crossing the subject line. Regarding, the case that you talk about isn't related to Raj-Era images but is more with WP:V and that is separate topic not related to this subject line. For your information, the caption of image says Russia Rajpoots not Hindu Rajputs. We need to verify the present situation of this particular group. And rest I hope after trying all attempts to insert an unverified user image on one page you must have understood what you or I think here will "not decide". There is a rule WP:V and WP:Burden is with those who want to get it added not with the editor who want to get it removed. I will not respond any further to this. RS6784 (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source book is verifiable and there is no question of WP:V here. The book from where it is sourced has images of various communities and if this is the issue of Raj Era image then i don't know why people are not questioning that "bride" and that "warrior" image. I would repeat that images are not meant for decoration. See WP: MOSIMAGE properly. The caption also writes "Hindoos". Many such caste group images have improper pronunciation (as for example they have written "Chauhan" as Chohan in the description of warrior image), but it doesn't mean that they lack Verifiablity.Let me remind you that it's not a user generated image. Heba Aisha (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since, you are pointing towards that particular comment from admin about a user generated unverifiable image. Why should i or any other editor believe that this image

is also reliable. The people shown here are from Rajput community only. The description says that someone has donated it from their family collection. We have no reason to believe that he is reliable. If this is question of WP:V and WP:BURDEN, this image is more vulnerable as it is not from any caste survey done by any official agency of government. Heba Aisha (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, The origin section talks of farming and pastoral origins hence we need an image depicting that. Instead of the disputed russia rajpoots image, please may I request that this image be used subject to the consensus of other editors.

. The source is clear that they are Rajputs, there is question mark after agriculturists but we can see one of them having an axe and we can always label it "Rajputs(possibly agriculturists)". The image does not look derogatory in any sense. Just simple Indian farmers chatting. One man is not wearing a shirt but that is understandable given the heat in a tropical country and physical work in the field. Others are properly dressed. The photographer in the Russia Rajputs image himself doubts their claim. Hence my suggestion. I am not interested in this image discussion. Even of there is no image for the origin section, I do not mind. Just gave my two cents in the hope that it will resolve this ongoing conflict. However, we cannot have different rules for different pages or that that would not be fair. The Ahir etc image should also be added if this image is added.LukeEmily (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the subject line again, I didn't raised objection wrt particular image here in this discussion until one editor deliberately brought it here. And I would request you to know WP:SQS. I am bit puzzled as to how you and the other editor mostly respond to each other to build opinion and many times revert to each others version of edits. I have already seen a great degree of cooperation during that every attempt to insert an unverified image. I am just informing you as this is very surprising. RS6784 (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RS6784:, Please comprehend what I said. I actually opposed Heba - not supported her -about the Russia Rajput image. We have other disagreements too on other pages like Bhumihars and we hardly edit the same pages - it should be obvious that our interests/opinions are different on many issues. Our pattern of sources are also different, I like only academic sources while many of her sources are journalists (I don't agree with her as I think journalists have political leanings and are not subject to academic standards). These personal attacks from you get tiring after a while and I recommend that you read the links you mentioned yourself. As to the subject line, I remember Sitush writing that Raj era images are fine - they do not have copyright issues - but Raj era British ethnographers are not reliable. If I find his comment, I can point a link to it. I am just informing you as your behavior is very surprising. As for my reply, don't be surprised as this page is on my watch list. Best wishes, LukeEmily (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha: Expected better rationale to an argument. I again repeat please read the subject line and already deviation has happened. RS6784 (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, RS6784, Heba Aisha, and Thakurgul:, Did a search and found a comment from Sitush(I remember seeing another one from him but this makes the same point). Please see his comment on Raj era images. Talk:Nair/Archive_20#Why_not_use_a_better_image_?_I_have_suggestions here

The discussion here might explain the copyright issues. As far as I am concerned, all of the Raj images are ok to use now. However, I'm not sure what is your objection to the current image - not being "good taste" is rather subjective, especially since we are not censored. Use of these ethnographic images is quite common and I note that three articles at Malayalam Wikipedia use this particular one. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't engage into Stonewalling, at the least see the date it says 2012. I am sure those days there won't be a rule for WP:RAJ as well.RS6784 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have objection and Raj images are ok to use and Raj is also a period to be acknowledged. Thanks Thakurgul (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Thakurgul[reply]

Thakurgul and LukeEmily, i am aware of the comments of Sitush on it. LukeEmily, thanks for sharing this comment, i also witnessed his support for such Raj era images on another article, in which he reverted someone's attempt to remove such image. I think most of us are agree to it's use along with Veteran editors in this topic area. Btw,the another image you're showing above is more disputed as the author of that image is more confused about whether they are Rajputs or not.(?) A question mark is there in description. I support Dehradoon Rajput only at least it is clear that they are Rajputs. Heba Aisha(talk) 06:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why do you and Luke respond to each other comments most of the time? Is there some cooperation outside of Wikipedia? I am just asking here. Please do remember there is WP:Tag team, WP:SQS, I have already seen how you both tried to insert an image which was fake. Please be careful! RS6784 (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RS6784, see this [9], don't misinterpret it. Admin has said that they expressed their view as regular editor there and that's not a final descision. Don't remove as discussion is not in the favour of removal. Here, we can see three out of four editors want to keep that and you have not provided any arguments which specifies that it should be removed altogether.Heba Aisha (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, @Heba Aisha:,Please don't misquote dear @Abecedare:, I am putting his lines clearly from the discussion- ::Quick replies:

You are right that the issue of "Russia Rajpoots", "Lodhi Rajputs" being within the scope of the Rajput article would need to be settled before including the respective images. I don't personally know whether the answer to that is 'obviously', 'of course not', or 'it's complicated' and will leave that to discussion among the subject experts. In the meantime though I have struck out my Aside from the previous comment since it was based on a misunderstanding of your actual objection. Why don't you see the comments of Admin there? Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many Rajputs after the defeat in battles had converted to different other castes. Rajput malis are found in marwar and when they lost in battle slowly converted to mali caste. This will be good addition since this is the reverse of rajputisation,

I can expand on this , do start the talk

Life as a Dalit: Views from the Bottom on Caste in India

https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=sRdBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT181&dq=Chauhan+muslim+rajputs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjahbiMl7v3AhWmVN8KHWCNAlwQ6AF6BAgIEAI#v=onepage&q=Chauhan%20muslim%20rajputs&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thakurgul (talk • contribs) 06:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any statistics on the number of Rajputs in the Indian subcontinent? I know that the last caste wise census was in the 1930s but has anyone extrapolated that number to arrive at what the number is today? Also this article is biased towards former Rajput rulers when the vast majority of people claiming to be Rajput are nowhere close to being royal. Also there Marathas who claim to be Rajputs as well as a muslim tribe in Punjab. With Marathas, it is claimed that the genealogies were fabricated; nevertheless this should be included in the article. At present this article reads more like Hindu Rajput Royal houses of Rajasthan, or Rajputs of Rajasthan. The lede states that "The Rajput population and the former Rajput states are found in northern, western, central and eastern India as well as southern and eastern Pakistan. These areas include Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, Eastern Punjab, Western Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Sindh." but the body does not expand on what is in the lede. Comments? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what favourable bias you have found in this article but on the other hand it is exactly opposite to what you say here. Regarding Marathas, they were/are concentrated caste on the other hand Rajput aren't concentrated. Marathas were/are different community and with Marathas it is open shut case of fabrication of genealogies but with Rajput all that is based on "conjectures" ( that is why writers have used may, shall, could etc in many of their works. And for Pakistan/Punjab, Rajput population is there. There is a group called as "Muslim Rajput", and even "Sikh Rajputs" as well. "For your point regarding nowhere close to being royal"- in all region outside of Rajasthan as well Rajputs had Taluqdari estates, or big Zamindari estates. Rajputs in Jammu and Himachal also had princely states. So, I don't know how you inferred it when the community numbers in a state is not big enough. For numbers, we don't have any possible established numbers but it is generally admitted that Rajput population is not big and following pattern similar to Brahmins in a state RS6784 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Dear Jonathansammy, some author had given the demographics but it was obviously incorrect. There is some discussion on it. He said 120 million or something like that - obviously a typo in his book. I agree that the article is biased towards royalty although it was a minority in the community. There is a picture of some Rajput youths attending college but they are hardly representative of the average Rajput - many of who were illiterate during Raj era - let alone go to school or college. The talk page is evidence to the opposition faced by editors who try to add anything to make it WP:NPOV even from scholarly sources. Marathas are not part of the Rajput community nor does the Indian government consider them one - the varna of the two communities is different -i.e Rajputs are (ritually)upper caste. There is academic consensus and the Maratha organizations themselves point to the Kunbi association and there is plenty of modern historic and anthropological evidence. Since there is a separate Maratha caste page, I think we should avoid mixing unrelated communities or we might have to add many such communities on the Rajput page. I agree about the last part, there is hardly any information about Rajputs of other states but wikipedia is work in progress :-). Thanks,LukeEmily (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rajput, 12 million but britannica is not too reliable.LukeEmily (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RS6784:, @LukeEmily: Perhaps "Biased is the wrong word. All I want to say is that the article talks about Rajputs without specifying whether they are from the former Rajputana or other regions of India. We have a few mentions of the Bihari Rajputs and that's all when it comes to regional Rajputs. For infobox we have image of "Chauhan Rajput" who, as the article says, belonged to the Noniyas caste, and started calling themselves Rajput just within last few generations. Although there is a separate article on Rajputisation, I believe that process also merits a section in this article. I don't have the statistics but communities that became Rajput via Rajputisation are probably many times more than those who call themselves "pure" Rajputs. When it comes to demographics, Jaffrelot mentions Rajput population of between 4-8% in different North Indian states.^[1]If we just consider Uttar Pradesh, the number may be more than ten million. Even excluding Rajasthan, the total number may be quite high. I am sure Rajputs from different regions have their own unique culture. Also the article talks more about history than about contemporary Rajputs. Somehow that should be included in the article. Sorry for going on in so many different directions. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this part is misleading needs verification, Ahirs use Yadav since late 19th century, similarly Koeri using Kushwaha, Mallah using Kashyap doesn't make them part of Rajput. Similarly, that Chauhan part I guess is misleading needs further verification, I think it has been said in the context. It might have been used by other community in the same manner. Those would be in their parent community only not here, similar case is of one or two more here. Right now, a lot of things added here needs a thorough re-check. Surname copying was common thing. If you read Lucia Michuletti's work on Ahirs, it would look like Rewari Ahirs are Rajputs on one page but that isn't the case. I think the whole article has been made a mess it needs thorough check and recently I have faced a situation where two editors tried everything to have added a fake user image on the page related to the group. It puts serious question mark on the GOODFAITH part of some who are continuously involved here. The RS6784 (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathansammy:, successful Rajputisation is actually formation of the Rajput communities from other groups and applies to the main stream Rajputs also. If successful, the person actually becomes a mainstream Rajput and knows his clan etc. If partially successful or unsuccessful, it is something like the Noniya Chauhans where they went half the way because the mainstream Rajputs don't accept them. It is not clear if the Noniya Chauhans actually participated in war or as guards. Hence the Rajputs in the first image most probably are Rajputs(accepted by other Rajputs). These three quotes clarify the entire process. They are all direct quotes from academic sources.

1.

Richard Eaton 2019, p. 87, [1]In Gujarat, as in Rajasthan, genealogy proved essential for making such claims. To this end, local bards composed ballads or chronicles that presented their patrons as idea warriors who protected Brahmins, cows and vassals, as opposed to the livestock herding chieftains that they actually were, or had once been. As people, who created and preserved the genealogies, local bards therefore played critical roles in brokering for their clients socio-cultural transitions to a claimed Rajput status. A similar thing was happening in the Thar desert region, where from the fourteenth century onwards mobile pastoral groups gradually evolved into landed, sedentary and agrarian clans. Once again, it was bards and poets, patronized by little kings, who transformed a clan's ancestors from celebrated cattle-herders or cattle-rustlers to celebrated protectors of cattle-herding communities. The difference was subtle but critical, since such revised narratives retained an echo of a pastoral nomadic past while repositioning a clan's dynastic founder from pastoralist to non-pastoralist. The term 'Rajput', in short, had become a prestigious title available for adoption by upwardly mobile clan in the process of becoming sedentary. By one mechanism or another, a process of 'Rajputization' occurred in new states that emerged from the turmoil following Timur's invasion in 1398, especially in Gujarat, Malwa and Rajasthan.

2.

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

3.

Mayaram, Shail (2010). "The Sudra Right to Rule". In Ishita Banerjee-Dube (ed.). Caste in History. Oxford University Press. p. 110. ISBN 978-0-19-806678-1. In their recent work on female infanticide, Bhatnagar, Dube and Bube(2005) distinguish between Rajputization and Sanksritization. Using M.N.Srinivas' and Milton Singer's approach to social mobility as idioms they identify Rajputization as one of the most dynamic modes of upward mobility. As an idiom of political power it 'signifies a highly mobile social process of claiming military-political power and the right to cultivate land as well as the right to rule. Rajputization is unparalleled in traditional Indian society for its inventiveness in ideologies of legitimation and self-invention. This was a claim that was used by persons of all castes all over north India ranging from peasants and lower-caste Sudras to warriors and tribal chiefs and even the local raja who had recently converted to Islam.

.

4.

Early(pg 127/128)Though a good number of the Rajputs belonged to one or the other of the numerous ruling clans that constituted the Rajput polity, the vast majority of the Rajputs were common peasants eking out a bare subsistence from their arid land.

The last quote from Early shows that the article is discussing mostly rulers rather than common Rajputs. I feel based on sources that educationally, occupationally and economically , Maratha(caste) and Rajput(mainstream caste) are quite on the same level but wikipedia pages give a different impression. The quotes clearly specify the formation and acceptance result of Rajputization rather than just the claim(for Noniya Chauhans). I think we have covered Rajputisation although we have not explicitly added a section. I am not sure about population. I think the population is quite high compared to other castes based on reading. Yes, unfortunately, lot of Raj era and contemporary Rajputs info is missing. You may also notice that Karni Sena or other caste organizations are not mentioned. These topics fall more in the politics arena and outside my interest. You are more than welcome to work on the missing information if you have time. We should try to get a "good" rating for this page and make it as complete as possible.LukeEmily (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily:, please read Shail Mayaram comments carefully writer isn't talking about Rajputs, she has not taken name of any one there. Rajputisation as a process not necessarily means entering into Rajput community but is more like imbibing of Rajput social culture by others example is clearly described by Lucia Michuletti in her research paper on Ahirs community in the context of Rewari family and others. if so many people were into Rajput community then why is Rajput population so low. ,Early(pg 127/128)Though a good number of the Rajputs belonged to one or the other of the numerous ruling clans that constituted the Rajput polity, the vast majority of the Rajputs were common peasants eking out a bare subsistence from their arid land- this part is not completely correct, firstly all Rajputs are not in Rajasthan and Punjab/Gangetic plains is not arid. One more reason being a writer has openly written as to how both Rajputs and Brahmins despised farming and used to hire labourers. I will share that reference- it is scathing remark but proves that Rajputs along with Brahmins rarely involved into tilling etc-Susan Bayly wrote:

"By the mid-nineteenth century, influential revenue specialists were reporting that they could tell the caste of a landed man by simply glancing at his crops. In the north, these observers claimed, a field of 'second-rate barley' would belong to a Rajput or Brahman who took pride in shunning the plough and secluding his womenfolk. Such a man was to be blamed for his own decline, fecklessly mortgaging and then selling off his lands to maintain his unproductive dependents. By the same logic, a flourishing field of wheat would belong to a non-twice-born tiller, wheat being a crop requiring skill and enterprise on the part of the cultivator. These, said such commentators as Denzil Ibbetson and E. A. H. Blunt, were the qualities of the non-patrician 'peasant' – the thrifty Jat or canny Kurmi in upper India, .... Similar virtues would be found among the smaller market-gardening populations, these being the people known as Koeris in Hindustan"^[2]

. Regarding Eaton, please understand a thing called as possibility and could, may etc to have be considered here. There is something called as conjectures. Eaton isn't talking about 1900, but way back in a way of possibilities. Lastly, I will request not cherry picking of quotes as I had already punctured the one of Ms Susan Bayly where you were too much fixated with a quote on page 34 where she used may but didn't see page 32 what she said. RS6784 (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I feel based on sources that educationally, occupationally and economically , Maratha(caste) and Rajput(mainstream caste) are quite on the same level but wikipedia pages give a different impression." - your feelings are irrelevant here and facts have to be shared. For your information, after zamindari abolition Rajputs definitely suffered the most post independence under Congress rule. For Marathas and Rajputs comparison, One has population of "32%" as per last data in 1931 in Maharashtra state proving their non-elite status as 32% is very concentrated numbers whereas Rajputs were just 6%-6.5% in Rajasthan and similar or even lower percentage in other bigger states like Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, MP, Bihar etc. I will not respond to this discussion as this is again going into wrong direction not as per subject line by constant selection of quotes or para. I think we all should have only followed the subject line rather than diverting it. Thanks RS6784 (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:trim|1= Please fix a typo in History of Rajput kingdoms:- Prithviraj fled from battlefield but was caught near Sirsa and waa executed by Ghurids Waa is wrong spelling, fix it to Was. 2409:4051:4E92:B625:FF93:CD7C:ADD9:5243 (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]