::Hmmm, I doubt we could find any ~16th century images depicting Rajputs as peasant/pastoralists. The Emergence as a Community Section would also work as it fits the time period as well. [[User:Chariotrider555|Chariotrider555]] ([[User talk:Chariotrider555|talk]]) 03:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
::Hmmm, I doubt we could find any ~16th century images depicting Rajputs as peasant/pastoralists. The Emergence as a Community Section would also work as it fits the time period as well. [[User:Chariotrider555|Chariotrider555]] ([[User talk:Chariotrider555|talk]]) 03:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
::Shinjoya, after reading this section, I will post a response here or will open a relevant thread about Raj-era pics at [[WP:INB]] in a couple of days. I will also check [[Talk:Rajput#Explaining_my_edit|the other section]] mentioned by you. BTW, generally speaking, leaving behind the Raj-era pics of well-known historical personalities and landmarks, the reliability of every other pic can be questioned, as nearly all pics at the caste-related articles are either from unreliable Raj-era sources or are uploaded by common people. - [[User:NitinMlk|NitinMlk]] ([[User talk:NitinMlk|talk]]) 17:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
::Shinjoya, after reading this section, I will post a response here or will open a relevant thread about Raj-era pics at [[WP:INB]] in a couple of days. I will also check [[Talk:Rajput#Explaining_my_edit|the other section]] mentioned by you. BTW, generally speaking, leaving behind the Raj-era pics of well-known historical personalities and landmarks, the reliability of every other pic can be questioned, as nearly all pics at the caste-related articles are either from unreliable Raj-era sources or are uploaded by common people. - [[User:NitinMlk|NitinMlk]] ([[User talk:NitinMlk|talk]]) 17:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
:::I will first comment tomorrow at [[Talk:Rajput#Explaining_my_edit|the other section]] mentioned by user Shinjoya. After that, I guess it will be better to discuss and develop an overall consensus about the Raj-era pics at [[WP:INB]]. Otherwise, someone will add some new pic and there will be another edit war in the coming days, as there are many other pics as well. So maybe we can wait for a few days regarding this pic and sort out the 'other section' first. Thanks. - [[User:NitinMlk|NitinMlk]] ([[User talk:NitinMlk|talk]]) 18:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
== Origin of Rajput ==
== Origin of Rajput ==
Revision as of 18:52, 8 June 2021
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
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
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
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
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
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
Why is something that has very little information about/name which is unheard of in the lead? 117.198.125.56 (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is my concern too, but some editors like @HebaAisha are adamant on keeping this very image for no apparent reason. There are thousand other photos which are verified yet He/she chose this and won't let anyone replace this. Due to time constraint i am unable to participate for the time being. Anyone else also feel that there are issues with this article please start the discussion, i can contribute as much the time permits. Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for keeping this image were explained well and in great detail both by NitinMlk and Мастер_Шторм. As per Kautilya3's suggestion, I have removed the word "Russia". I earnestly request that we should not restart the same discussion again and again after every couple of months unless there are some brand new points to be added or new evidence has come to light. Heba Aisha, pinging you as Mr.Sajaypal mentioned you in the discussion.LukeEmily (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Already discussed a lot and we gave Sajaypal a lot of explanation that is available in above sections.Also RFc closed and he didn't bring any alternative to the contentious issue. Now no need of disruption. The length of discussion specifies everything and no counter source of same quality presented by Sajaypal. If disruption begins I would like to go to Admins. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other guy asked about it and I replied to him, if he has something to contribute he surely can, its not like this is the final form of the article and it can't be changed. I too wanted to contribute to the discussion and improving the article but for some time I am not able to dedicate much time to wikipedia. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes change 106.78.76.165 (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu Rajput cultivators from Dehra Dhoon from The People of India by Watson and Kaye.
I see the insertion of this image as a yet another effort from some users with malicious motive to degrade the community. It has been intentionally put in the origin section to put extra emphasis on "low origins" of the community. The description of the image itself questions its authenticity. It reads "Cultivators, Russia Rajpoots, Hindoos, Dehra Dhoon". The word "Russia" might mean that the people shown in the image are actually some cultivators from Russia. Otherwise, there is no such Rajput clan or surname named Russia if we check the Raj era sources or the contemporary ones. Our article itself says that many communities lay claim on Rajput identity but not every claim is universally accepted. So, another possibility is that the people shown in the image are from some Dalit community which claims Rajput or Kshatriya origin but its claim isn't accepted in the larger Hindu society. Despite being in questions so many times, the image continues to enjoy suport of some well-experienced editors, which is a bit surprising to me. Shinjoya (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
or here pick any document at google scholar https://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=rajput+translation
all of them gives only one translation.
The term was used to for people of varying ranks(a horse trooper,but it does not mean that it translate into that) and birth(mentioned in origin section) but its does not mean that it translate into that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewar11111 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AsarteaTalk|Contribs 15:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Asartea: The Request is the change the 1st line of the 1st para of article=> Rajput (from Sanskrit raja-putra, "son of a king" or "illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar") TO Rajput (from Sanskrit raja-putra, "son of a king") as it was few days ago i.e without the or part. I have provided valid resources above(please do check) , The word Rajput is only translated to 'son of a king' even thats what mentioned in the cited source, the cited source does not say that 'Rajput from Sanskrit raja-putra means illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar' it says that 'In some parts of Rajasthan the term Rajput was also used for illegitimate sons of chief'(which is explained in origin section) would be helpful if also someone active on this topic like @LukeEmily: give a look at this Mewar11111 (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mewar11111: agree, the 1st line of the article literally convey that the term Rajput is synonymous to bastard(illegitimate sons of kings) which term from 'Raja-putra' imply 'illegitimate' ? the cited source wanted to convey that in some parts of Rajasthan the term Rajput was sometimes used for illegitimate sons of kshatriya chief *NOT THAT* the term Rajput(Rajaputra) also means illegitimate sons of chief please recheck the recent edit @Asartea:, @HinduKshatrana: ,@LukeEmily:, or @Heba Aisha:MuslimKhstrana (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vidya Dhar Mahajan states that this meaning of 'Rajput' is confined to just some parts of Rajasthan rather than it being the universal meaning. He mentioned this claim in his multiple books and here's a link to one such book which at least I have a full-page preview: [1]. He states that "The word 'Rajput' is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar".
The same claim is also mentioned in a footnote of the page no. 52 of this book, which attributes the details to Ishwari Prasad: "The word Rajput, in common parlance, in certain States of Rajputana, is used to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or jagirdar. (Ishwari Prasad, History of Mediaeval India, p. 25). But it doesn't seem to get support from the other scholars. So, at best, it should only be mentioned in the article's body with attribution to Vidya Dhar Mahajan. As far as I know, Utcursch is the most prolific editor of the Rajput/Gurjar-related articles. So he may want to give his opinion here. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rajput doesnot means raja putra . Rajput means son of land ( raj = land ,put= son) who protects the people of their land from outsiders is known as rajput because rajput ,kshtriye and RAJANYA have same meaning which have been written in rig veda Harmanjatt 00 (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong example of fabrication of pedigree(Genealogy) for Rajputization process
Strong example of fabrication of pedigree(Genealogy) for Rajputization process
I present a strong example of Rajputisation here.
If we look at Jadeja's genealogy, they have shown in their genealogy that Buddha is the ancestor of Rama and Krishna is Rama's descendant. That's why it is Proved that the genealogy is fabricated.
If you study history and read the Chachnama and If you read the historian C. V. Vaidya, you will come to know that Jadeja has mixed the genealogy of Lohana and Bhatia dynasties. Historian Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya and Historian Henry Miers Elliot exposed them.
They are the ones who try to prove themselves as Kshatriyas by accusing others of not being Kshatriyas. Like brass has to shine more to sell than gold.
Here I will refer you to the History of Sindh Volume II by the historian Mirza Kalich Beg. Study this then see what kind of Fictional story is run by Jadejas with help of Barots.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.229.58.141 (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is going to come of this unless you make a clear proposal as outlined in WP:ER. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2021
Rajputs doesn't means illegitimate son of Kshatriyas 2405:204:A50E:37FB:0:0:16E0:C0A4 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Chariotrider555 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed the claim since they were quite weak sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RAJPUT
Rajput is a community of India User 091234 (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to first and only primary source of Indian casteism and varna system is RIG VEDA . Rig veda 10 mandal purusha sutra describe kshtriye as a rajanya which means rajput . For more information who can read Rig veda . I donot know why wikipedia handle providing secondary information . Secondary information is not allways true . Secondary information is more manipulative and wrong . Secondary information doesnot match the primary source of information which is GIVEN IN RIG VEDA Harmanjatt 00 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GURJARA PRATIHARAS
Modern day Rajputs are the Real descendants of Gurajara Pratihars.The kings of gurjara pratihara ruled in the areas of modern Gujarat,thats why they were given the status of Gurjara Pratihara.The most successful king of gurjara pratihaara was Raja Mihir bhoj who belonged to Rajputana User 091234 (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2021
according to Indian RIGVEDA which is more than 4000 year old information ved (book) hinduism have 4 varna second varna name is kshtriye which is also known as RAJANYA in that RIGVEDA book . RAJANYA means son of King ( raja = king ,nya = son) and the word rajput have same meaning of son of King . RAJANYA and rajput is the same word and RAJANYA means kshtriye so according to RIGVEDA which is more older and primary source which is 100 percent true. 2402:8100:3943:A77F:FEBA:5242:8BCA:A19D (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://books.google.com/books?id=TGzbPNdtJGsC&pg=PA148 according to this link Purusha Sukta uses the term rajanya, not Kshatriya, it is considered the first instance in the extant Vedic texts where four social classes are mentioned for the first time together.[5] Usage of the term Rajanya possibly indicates the 'kinsmen of the Rajan' (i.e., kinsmen of the ruler) had emerged as a distinct social group then,[5] such that by the end of the Vedic period, the term rajanya was replaced by Kshatriya; where rajanya stresses kinship with the Rajan and Kshatriya denotes power over a specific domain.[5] The term rajanya unlike the word Kshatriya essentially denoted the status within a lineage. Whereas Kshatra, means "ruling; one of the ruling order. This is a wikipedia theory of kshtriye . In one theory wikipedia prove kshtriye as a rajanya ( rajanya means son of King raja = king nya = son) rajanya and rajput are same word . Rajput are the real kshtriye according to rig veda and purusha sukta 2402:8100:3943:A77F:FEBA:5242:8BCA:A19D (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided any source for connecting Rajanya with Rajput. That is only WP:OR.
Also, please don't open any more edit requests. You can continue the discussion in the same thread. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2021 (2)
Rajput people are known as RAJANYA which means son of King ( both rajanya and rajput have same meaning ) in purusksha sutra according to Wikipedia page of kshtriye they describe kshtriye another name rajanya. Rig veda is only a primary source which provide true information . Another modern historians are providing wrong information because they donot match the primary source which is RIG VEDA . According to rig ved there are 4 varna first one is bhrahmin second is kshtriye which is also known as RAJANYA in purusha sutra of rig veda . I donot know why wikipedia handle having paid clicks to wrong information . There is primary source which is RIG veda then why are you using modern historians and not telling about the primary source . I check complete page you cannot mention anywhere about rig veda or kshtriye rajput or kshtriye rajanya Harmanjatt 00 (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. This must be the worst edited page on Rajputs I have ever read. So much false information and so much actual information that has been left out. The editor needs to go to museums and to india to see the history. By the sounds of it, these 'modern scholars' that the editor relys are not very knowledgeable or seem very biased.
In india there are sanskrit books which go back centuries with a huge amount of information. They still add to these books today. You will not get better information than from them.
This wikipedia page is laughable. You can not re-write history by providing false information. Someone else needs to be in charge of this page and have a good look into it. People of india know what Rajputs have done for the country.
Maybe watch deadliest warrior. Just to get the first bit of insight and go from there. And then build on your knowledge
Addition of items removed on the basis of discussion in past.
Shinjoya, plz see this edit [3], the things you are adding were removed in past by senior editors on the basis of consensus. This is a page related to a community and image should represent them only. The forts are on the pages of Rajput empires. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the images were deleted in past, it doesn't mean they should not be added at present. Please share the said consensus regarding these images. Firstly, there was no such Rajput empire which you are talking about. They were distributed in the form of small kingdoms. There is relevance of "Rajput kingdoms" in this page related to the community. Thats why we have a section. And the section is large enough to accomodate images. Rajput architecture is an important aspect which needs to be depicted. I don't find any valid reason for not having the said images. Another image, I added was of Rajput regiment's march in Republic day parade. We have a section "martial race"; so there is no reason to not have that image as the Rajput regiment was formed on the basis of British martial race theory. Shinjoya (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rajput regiment could be kept, but we have discussed a lot in past about present set of images. The forts are at Jaipur state and other articles, they are not needed here as it is a caste article and Rajput people are not rulers only, they have peasant pastoral origin. Since, I agree with Sitush views that these are just glorifying and need not be here.Heba Aisha (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I consider repeating again and again that they have pastoral origins as pov pushing as their pastoral origin is not universally accepted. Secondly, how does their said pastoral origin mean that the image of forts shall not be added? A majority of princely states in North India at the time of British belonged to Rajputs. Thats the reason we have a large section of Rajput kingdoms in this article as well as an article Rajput kingdoms. These Rajput kingdoms were known for their architecture. The article is incomplete without depiction of Rajput architecture and two mere images of forts should not be an issue. Shinjoya (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, very high quality sources are there, as you can see. A lot of discussion had been there on it that has been archived on talk page. Go through talk page history to read that. [4], one example is this. The comparativel sources which talk the other ideas of origin are not so sound as compared to the sources used to cite peasant and pastoral origin. Infact, we waited for months for Sajaypal007 to present sources which could challange the viewpoint on origin presented by these oxford and other high quality publisher. But he wasn't able to present more than some Rajasthan university books, which are in no way comparable to these.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please check atleast Archive21 to 28, then you will have fair idea about multiple editor's views. We are not going to do that again and again.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went to see whether the page on Indian Muslims had an image of the Taj Mahal. It did. Not surprising.
But please note carefully how the caption is worded. If somebody claimed "Taj Mahal was built by Muslims", it would have been rejected just the same way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, please keep the caste pages for community related pics only. We have Jaipur article and those Hawa Mahal are fit there only. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, I am getting your point. The wording with the fort images should be fixed. Instead of saying "Taj Mahal was built by Indian Muslims", we can say "Taj Mahal was built by Muslim rulers of India". Same way, instead of saying "xyz fort was built by Rajputs", we may say "xyz fort was built Rajput rulers of Jaipur/Bikaner". Shinjoya (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Taj Mahal wording is that it was built by "the Mughal emperor Shahjahan". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, a strong population of millions of Rajputs all over india are not of rulers only. Very few of them ruled XYZ states. Most of the people of Rajput community were part time troopers and peasant pastoralist as we can read from reliable sources here. Let the forts reserved for the rulers or state page only, not the caste page. You can add Hawa Mahal on the article of Jai Singh and in similar way other forts to their respective ruler's page.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha, I checked all archives from 21 to 28, and couldn't find a single discussion over keeping or removing the images of forts. These images were present in the article from times immemorial due to their relevance. Their presence was never objected by any user. One day, Sitush removed them. I re-added the images and now all of sudden, it has become an issue. I wish to say that sometimes, even Sitush can be wrong. Shinjoya (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we don't see the need of it as I and Kautilya explained above. I would repeat keep the caste article for community related pic only.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Taj Mahal (and other notable buildings) are included on the Indian Muslims page because of the notability of Indo-Islamic architecture. Indo-Islamic architecture is significantly notable in regards to the history of Indian architecture. While Rajput architecture is notable enough to warrant a subsection on the Architecture of India page, it is clearly not as notable as Indo-Islamic architecture. While one could make a similar argument that the majority of Indian Muslims were not rulers with palaces or tombs and thus those images do not deserve a place on Indian Muslims, I believe it is rather the notability of that style of architecture by that particular group of people that warrants its inclusion. Now, Indo-Islamic architecture has a decently sized article, and so Indian Muslims has a subsection on it. Rajput architecture only has a subsection on Architecture of India, so at most I would only have a sentence about Rajput architecture. Now images are meant to supplement written content, and with only a sentence on Rajput architecture I doubt we would need an image of a Rajput fort. Additionally, we already have an image of a royal Rajput procession for the Rajput Kingdoms section, and I think images of people are much better than buildings for a caste article. Sorry if it sounds convoluted, but that's just my take on the situation. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chariotrider555, are you saying that the Rajput architecture isn't notable? Just because we don't have a dedicated article on Rajput architecture, it doesn't become any less notable. We do have articles like Architecture of Rajasthan, List of palaces in Rajasthan and Hill Forts of Rajasthan which feature mainly the Rajput architecture. There are as many as 10 UNESCO world heritage sites in Rajasthan, 9 of them were built by Rajput rulers. So, I disagree with you on the notability point. Then you said that we should not include monuments in articles of social groups. Then the same should have applied to Indian Muslims which is not the case. We can't have two policies for two different communities. Shinjoya (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Already a lot of images are there. It would propel other caste to put buildings of their respective notable caste members here. Example: Bhumihar may put their zamindari's hawelis and Kayastha may put Ziradei ancestral home of Rajendra Prasad. I agree with Chariotrider, we don't need forts here. Keep caste article for caste only.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see Indian Muslims and Rajputs as roughly equivalent as communities. What is good for the hound is good for hare. If anybody thinks religions are "legitimate" as identities and castes are not, that is just the British brainwashing we have been subjected to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha, if there exist large sections for "Bhumihar kingdoms" and "Kayastha kingdoms" in their respective caste articles then such images can be placed but thats not the case, I guess. Rajendra Prasad's argument doesn't make any sense as I am not asking to put V.P. Singh's haveli in this article. A few fort images in the "Rajput kingdoms" section can be placed because they were built by Rajput kingdoms, their architecture is notable and we have enough space to accommodate them. Shinjoya (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, since we have a section called "Rajput kingdoms", using a fort or palace to illustrate them seems perfectly fine. But only one. And, let us keep the current elephant procession image. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
End this discussion with one fort only. Too many means glorifying, which need to be avoided. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I came across the Reference no 118 of article.[1] The quote provided with citation reads: "The term Rajput denotes a cluster of castes that are accorded Kshatriya status in the varna system." On opening the reference link, proper preview is not available. When we search the quote on google books, we get nothing. Thats why I feel that the quote is fabricated and the source doesn't say what we are made to see. Therefore, I propose to delete this source from our references. Shinjoya (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 116 is not exactly same, wat you're pointing to. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its Reference No 118 now. I am talking about the very first reference which appears in the Subdivisions section. Shinjoya (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked on it and I got a limited preview which showed the quote. Google Books also has the quote if you search it up. Its legit. [5][6]Chariotrider555 (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have a sub-section over Diet in the "Culture and ethos" section. Lets see what this sub-section reads: During the British rule their love for pork, i.e. wild boar, was also well known and the British identified them as a group based on this.[1][2]
I don't understand the relevance of this sub-section but Heba Aisha says that it is relevant. The article's name is "Rajput" rather than "Rajputs under British". We don't need to put everything from the Raj sources without looking into context. In today's era, anyone can eat anything. We can't stereotype a community over diet. Rajput is a large caste with presence in entire North and Central India as well as Pakistan. Their diet is supposed to change considering varying local cuisines. Statements like "Rajputs love pork" sound absurd. A handful number of Rajputs are Muslims. Can we say the same thing about them? Definitely no. For the sake of argument, if we consider the content for describing Rajput diet under British, we have to go deeply into the cited sources. The first source doesn't say anything like that. On reading the second source, we find that the statement may be valid only for Rajput kings of Rajputana rather than the general Rajput population. Considering all the issues stated above, I propose to remove the sub-section from the article. Shinjoya (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is covered by two high quality sources. And its relevant. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shinjoya has a point. If there is a section called "diet", we would expect to see a some reasonable coverage of all that there is to say about diet, not just one tidbit which seems to be in the past. (Also the quotation of the first citation is clearly not relevant to what is being said here.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you people have other sources which cover the variety of diet they eat, plz expand by using it. I can explain the diet section by saying that many tribes of India like Great Andamanese and others are known for their love towards specific foodstuffs in the similar way. For a caste and tribe article, these things are important. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went to see Sentinelese tribe article and found this:
They likely use bows and arrows to hunt terrestrial wildlife and more rudimentary methods to catch local seafood, such as mud crabs and molluscan shells. They are believed to eat a lot of molluscs, given the abundance of roasted shells found in their settlements.
It doesn't mean that they eat only this thing. As they are Particularly vulnerable tribal group, government has started a minimum basic income programme and in a documentary of Rajya Sabha TV, i came to know that they are now becoming fond of alcoholic drinks also, due to frequent contact with outside society as a part of inclusion drive by government. This stuff of "pork" may not be relevant in present context, but since a lot of Rajput clans were tribe earlier, it may represent an important food habit like above example. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha, why are you comparing this article with Sentinelese. Sentinelese is an isolated protected tribe of 100 individuals which is found on a single Andaman island while Rajput is arguably the second largest Indian caste found across as many as a dozen states of India and Pakistan. Their diet would obviously be much more diverse than that of Sentinelese. This Rajput is the only caste related article which has a distinct section for diet. Articles like Brahmin, Jat, Bhumihar, Kayastha, Gurjar, Khatri has no such thing, simply because it doesn't make any sense. Shinjoya (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shinjoya, Heba Aisha, Kautilya3 , hope you all are doing well and staying safe in the covid situation. Since the sources and text is relevant to the article but the section only discusses a certain time period, my suggestion is to remove the section "Diet" completely and move the single statement to British era section. What do you all think of this? Alternatively, if that is not acceptable to all, we can add a template to request the expansion of the section by other editors. Castes do have diet sections - see Saraswat, Chitpawan, Kashmiri Pandit. It basically depends on whether sources find it important enough to mention.LukeEmily (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was in fact going to be my suggestion. If it is something in the past, it should be moved to the history seciton somewhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shinjoya, Heba Aisha, if you both agree, I will remove the section and move the line to some appropriate section as Kautilya3 also suggests the same. Please confirm.LukeEmily (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LukeEmily, I agree with your proposal. The content from the diet section should be moved to some suitable place in British period section. Shinjoya (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^Lindsey Harlan (1992). Religion and Rajput Women: The Ethic of Protection in Contemporary Narratives. University of California Press. p. 158. ISBN 9780520073395. Many women do not like their husbands to drink much alcohol; they consider alcoholism a problem in their community particularly because Rajput drinking is sanctioned by tradition.
Rajput (from Sanskritraja-putra, "son of a king") is a large multi-component cluster of castes, kin bodies, and local groups, sharing social status and ideology of genealogical descent originating from the Indian subcontinent.
I feel that its a clear violation of MOS:FIRST which says that the very first line of an article should be written in simple English and it should be easy to understand for nonspecialist readers. For caste articles, the first line should define the modern-day community rather than an in-depth historical description.
Firstly, our lead line wrongly defines Rajput as a group of castes rather than a single caste. The present status of the community is of a single caste rather than a group of castes. A noteworthy point here is that Rajputs practice caste endogamy and clan exogamy. It is quite possible that in past, various different castes got mixed to form the Rajput community, but at present, its pretty much a single caste. On one hand, we have one source (Lawrence A. Babb) which says that Rajput is a cluster of castes.[1] On the other hand, we have dozens of sources which identify Rajput as a single caste. The Indian government too treats Rajput as a single caste. Then, why are we preferring the version of Lawrence A. Babb for the first line? Its WP: UNDUE.
Secondly, the rest part of the lead line uses complex terms like "multi-component", "kin bodies" and "social ideology of genealogical descent." Now again, these are difficult terms for a regular reader. A non-Indian with no idea of "Rajput" would rather get confused after reading the lead line. Hence, I would like to propose a simple new first line for lead :
Rajput (from Sanskritraja-putra, "son of a king") is a caste found predominantly in India and Pakistan.
Hindu Rajput cultivators from Dehra Dhoon from The People of India by Watson and Kaye.
Given that the authenticity of this image has been questioned so many times on this forum and no satisfactory details could be provided by its proponents, I don't find any good reason for keeping this image in our article. The file description reads Cultivators, Russia Rajpoots, Hindoos, Dehra Dhoon. Being from India, I can say this with complete authority that there isn't any community named Russia Rajput in India. Google and Google books search results in nothing. There is a strong possibility that the people shown in the image are cultivators from Russia with no connection to Rajput caste whatsoever. The motive of putting this image in origin section of this article and Rajputisation article is to push POV that Rajputs are of low origin.
Considering all the issues stated above, I propose to remove the image on grounds of insufficient description, questionable authenticity and WP:NPOV. Shinjoya (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source for this image is from the a book published in 1868 almost 150years ago I dont understand how can this be used here since most caste editors here are against using raj era sources.The book mentions them as "russia rajputs" something which i've never heard of,this is a testimony to why raj source are so horribly unreliable,if any user wants to keep the image the WP:BURDEN falls upon them to provide some background on what these "Russia Rajputs" are so the Image from this utterly unreliable Raj source could be verified. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did some digging along with some variations in search as raj era author are notorious for atrocious pronunciation.
Absolutely nothing of any use.I doubt any one here will be ever able to provide some background on existence of something like "Russia Rajputs".Ratnahastin (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ratnahastin, There have been enough discussions on this Russia Rajpoot image but no one could provide sufficient information about the said community. So, its better to remove it. Shinjoya (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shinjoya i've been through it it doesn't seem like that discussion arrived at what is considered as "consensus" on wikipedia note that WP:CCC.
Heres a quote from the raj source
The Hill Rajpoot tribes are very nmnerous; the Jullunder Doab alone has upwards of twenty. Their pretensions to the appellation is, however, very doubtful, though every tribe asserts its descent from one or other of the original four Agni Kools, or fire brethren. Those alone are really Rajpoots who are themselves members of a royal class, or are connected with one by marriage.
[7] In the description of the image whether they are rajputs or not is also doubted by source itself. A utterly unreliable 150years old raj source,makes dubious claims such as naming some unknown hill pastorals who possibly claimed to be "russia"(no such clan in existence.and many people from other caste claim to be rajputs or their descendants but those aren't accepted) rajputs in an interaction and they compiled the image into their report as "russia rajputs" and source doubts itself that the hill tribes they took a picture of is a rajput. this is worst and most unreliable source I've seen this month.its suprising that people want to keep this unverified image, source fails WP:HISTRS and too old to be used on an active caste article (WP:AGEMATTERS).Ratnahastin (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please go through old archived discussion. NitinMlk gave a proper explaination of source. Also LukeEmily, HinduKshatrana were those who added various images from same book and this was chosen. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i've been through them there doesn't appear to be a consensus note that if you think theres a Consensus as with most things on Wikipedia its never permanent WP:CCC consensus can change. The reasons provided by nitin aren't convincing either since the unreliable raj source itself doubts the authenticity of the rajput status of the hill tribes,and you pointed out that this image was "Chosen" as far i know the only time images were chosen was during voting of images this image was not even part of candidates the ones which ere to be consen democratically (although wikipedia is not democracy) Secondly you've reverted my edits where i removed repetition of the source and sentence as per manual of style aswell may know reasons for reversion? Thanks!.Ratnahastin (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha, I understand why you are pushing this image. You have been seen overemphasizing the "low origin" of Rajputs on this talk page discussions. In one comment, you compared Rajputs with Sentinelese people saying that they are also tribal people like Sentilinese. It has been observed that you like to put derogatory images labelling people as Rajputs in this article. This image titled "Bihari Rajput watching Mallah fishermen" was uploaded as your "own work" on Commons so as to put it in this article and other articles like Rajputisation and Bihari. You removed images of Rajput forts multiple times like 1, 2, 3, 4. Its clear that you selectively remove one kind of images labelling them as "glorifying" and add derogatory images, which is not in line with WP:NPOV.
As far as this "Russia Rajpoot" is concerned, the people shown in the image are Russian cultivators. If not so, we don't have sufficient data to prove that they are Rajputs either. So many times, the users and IPs have raised concerns about this image, but we never have any satisfactory answer. Hence, its better to remove this and get rid of this tiresome activity of investigation and then re-investigation only to find ourselves empty handed. Shinjoya (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinjoya and Ratnahastin: Lmao funny part is that these group of editors which are Heba Aisha, Lukeemily, Chariotrider 555 backed up by Ravnesfire and co tried their best to distort Rajput history in whatever worst way possible. This article is horrible to read with one sided narrative against the community. They try to present Rajput as mixed up caste of low tribal origin. Guess What ???? Vandal Chariotrider removed legendary Rajput resistance to several muslim invasion on that article, removing name of Rajput rulers and more.
More funny thing is that they also labell other users for using cheap tricks and not giving aceadmic sources but intersting bit here is they just remove everything (even well sourced) as vandalism.
Isn't it very surprising that all 4 of them defend Chariotrider 555 (Luke, Ravnesfire and Heba) on his SPI case despite so many similarities even in recent edit summaries ???? They accused Ratnahastin of poorly filled reports against their group despite the fact that Heba herself filled 2 horrible report against User:Ratnahastin which proved unrelated by CU. Hypocrites. #Fact. 2402:8100:2241:7C27:60AD:4D7E:D839:3EFB (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop your conspiracy theories. Please stop personal attacks. You do not like any statement even if they are from Cambridge and Oxford university scholars unless it glorifies your community. This article has been a "victim" of extensive caste promotion and WP:PUFFERY. Never seen anything like this on wikipedia. Deleting sourced statements is "distortion of history", not the other way round. When editors add sourced statements, it is not called vandalism.LukeEmily (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the ip and others : every image and content here has been discussed for months but yet you people are not willing to go through archived discussion.Ravensfire, has never edited this article, ever since we made edits. Just stop your allegations and keep the article in best version, which is an outcome of months of discussion. The source of image is verified and given in discussion. It is from same book, from where a number of other images used on wiki are taken. Also you people are removing sourced content to do your own pov edits. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comment of NitinMlk has described about source of image.
Some clans may not be identified.
British were the one who conducted the last caste census in India, which was done in 1931. And they recorded around 3,000 castes, which were further divided into around 25,000 subcastes.[1] No such caste census happened after that. So there is neither any modern data nor any modern reliable source which lists even all of the present-day castes of India, let alone their subcastes. And, just like other castes, there is no reliable source which lists all Rajput subcastes. That's why we are attributing these pics to their sources and are using them for just representation purpose. Also, note that most of the time the authors of The People of India series couldn't even confirm the clan/subcastes of the subjects, so they didn't even bother to mention them. So, by your logic, we should remove them as they didn't even have those details.
The appropriate approach here is to balance things out, e.g. we can add a couple of more pics in the Origins section. So you & others can propose pics of some soldiers, village heads, etc. as they are also mentioned in the section. BTW, read the source again, as this is what he said about the subjects: The class represented, however, has no such exalted pretensions. So you are misrepresenting the source in your quoted text.
Tagging Мастер Шторм, who has also remained a part of discussion in past. He may explain the things. Heba Aisha (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha, please stop your usual canvassing. Before the start of this discussion, we knew nothing about this image and now too, what we know is still nothing. We don't know anything about the said name of clan/sub-caste to which those people belong. We can't even confirm that the people belong to India or Russia. When so many people are objecting to keeping it, we need to explain its significance in this article. What special does it add to the article? If we have no explanation, the image must be removed.Shinjoya (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read up WP:CCC sure some clans may not be identified during those times but google search should bring something right? Some self identifion by some fellas on web? google does the search of entire web. unless you can provide some background on these russias (some hill pastorals whose rajput status was doubted by 150year old source itself),or whether such tribe ever existed til then i believe the image should be removed as its from horriblely unreliable old source with dubious authenticity.Many tribes and people in india claim to be Rajputs or their descendants (for example Kolis,the Bhonsale,the jat rulers of Bharatpur State to claim rajput Origin.)the lead of this article itself states that many clans claim rajput status but it is not universally accepted. So why should some unknown hill pastorals who claimed to be "russia" rajputs 150years ago should be kept?Ratnahastin (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Raj "ethnographers", who were actually gentleman-scholars documenting things as a sideline to their main functions as civil servants of the British Raj. People who go around using colour- and nose-charts to assess the ethnicity of people do not deserve too much attention and, indeed, do not get it except in a historiographical context. "
we cant use this unreliable source on wikipedia one can just visit The People of India#The_People_of_India_(1868–1875) to get the glimpse of what was the purposes of these series. The image should be removed for having dubious authenticity and unreliablityRatnahastin (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comment of NitinMlk properly explained the source of the image which Shinjoya wants to remove. It is verified.
the first pic is taken from this page of the book which contains all relevant details about it. The first thing which intrigued me was the flowers in their caps, and the page has even details about it: "Like most hill men the Rajpoots are fond of adorning themselves with sprigs of wild flowers" On a different note, the pic is not only an important representation of Rajput cultivators from hill regions of India (and relevant to the "Origin" section of this article) but also a historical image from one of the only two Indian states which have Rajput majority: Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh are the only states in India which have Rajput majority. Rajputs constitute around 35% of the total population at Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh: see here and here.
As far as the second pic is concerned, it is taken this page and its details are at this page, which sums up the pic no. 24 and 25: THE two individuals depicted in these Illustrations are of the Rajpoot tribe, ... The Rajpoot No. 25 is a Marwaree from Jodhpoor, on the western side of India. So the pic in question – i.e. pic no. 25 of the book – is of a Rajput from Jodhpur.
Finally, spellings used by the British used to be often very different from the present day, which makes it a challenge to identify even well-known entities. But that can be easily fixed by changing the caption. In any case, we are using them for representative purpose and are properly attributing to their sources.
The second picture is absolutely unrelated to discussion at hand and the source itself doubts the rajput status of the hill tribe it took a picture of and theres no proof of the existence of roosia russia rajput tribe,please see WP:RAJ when dealing with these sources,and secondly nitin's arguments are basically "if todays uttrakhand has Rajput majority( 30% )then we can use this image from 1860s." And i've read the entire source, If the rajput status of these hill tribes(russias) is doubtful by the source then i dont think any of us has authority to question it,and having this 150year old image from a
Dubious unreliable raj source in the very first section would be giving to much weight to it completely WP:UNDUE. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the fishermen image should be used on wikipedia. About the other image, if there is another image of peasants, it will resolve the debate. In any case, there is a comment from an editor about the image in archive 28 About image: The image in the origin section shows 2 cultivators from the community, and given the Rajputs' peasant and pastoral origin (per sources in the article), the presence of the current image is OK in the "Origins" section. Interestingly, I could not find any opposing comments in the above discussions against the inclusion of the images in which the Rajputs are shown in king–ly attires, prince–ly attires, holding weapons, etc. Any person who has objections to the image of the Rajputs in the cultivator–ly attire should familiarize themselves with WP:NPOV.... Мастер Шторм 04:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC). My suggestion is to get input from Sitush and let him make a final decision.LukeEmily (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LukeEmily, This thread is a fresh discussion on Russia Rajpoot image. Why are you and Heba Aisha copy-pasting comments of other users from archive to this thread? Firstly, Heba Aisha tried to bring Мастер Шторм here by canvassing. When he didn't arrive, you have copy-pasted his entire comment here. Try to bring some scholarly stuff rather than old comments of other users which hardly have any relevance. Its quite evident that both of you are trying hard to save this image from being removed. Are you saying that anyone can select just any image and add it anywhere on the article? In this case, we need to verify the relevance of the image. Are there any modern scholarly sources that use this image to describe the history of Rajputs? You must answer this. Shinjoya (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances."
We brought new arguments such reliabity of these sources and others, I dont think you can defend this image by copy pasting previously heard arguments.Ratnahastintalk 01:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It features a Rajput boy from Uttarakhand who works as a milkman. The file caption doesn't have any term like "Russia" which could have questioned its authenticity. The best thing about the image is that we have its in-detail description at Wikisource here. Shinjoya (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shinjoya for suggesting a way forward. I will wait for input of others. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shinjoya this image is also from same dubious 150year old raj source compiled by the officers of EIC the authenticity and reliability of this source is proved above by my comments better keep the origin section without any images,the milkman image is not relevant to origin section in anyway rajputs didn't originated from milkmen.i find it very hypocritical that both heba and luke who take immense pride in having modern anthropological sources to back them up are arguing in favour of this dubious 150year old image compiled by raj officers who were neither trained anthropologists or historians. Ratnahastintalk 05:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ratnahastin, I am also not in favour of keeping any image in Origin section. But as we can see in this discussion as well as previous discussions which are archived, both Heba Aisha and LukeEmily are adamant on keeping atleast one image in the Origin section. Thats the only reason we still have this dubious Russia image in the article from so many days. They have got a few sources in favor of peasant/pastoral origins and on the basis of them, they want only low-profile Rajputs in the section. Shinjoya (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in favor of the milkman image as Rajputs did not originate from milkmen. Shinjoya, you need to assume good faith and not cast aspersions. Few sources? 10-15 modern academic sources are few? Never mind. Tell me where I said we need "at least one image" in any recent discussion. My final recommendation is to not use the Russia rajput image as the admin said it is contentious. But please do not use the milkman image as it is incorrect for origin section. There is one image of agriculturist here http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/1400_1499/rajputforts/rajputs/rajputs.html but I don't know how reliable it is. They are Rajputs because the question mark is afer the agriculturist word not the Rajput word. But I dont want to get into a new debate about tis. Perhaps it is best to leave that section without any image. The other editors like Nikhil and others have made their points and probably do not want to belabor their points. I am of the same mindset. I am done with the discussion on the image. Please do not involve me in this image discussion any more. You can remove it, keep it or replace it. I don't care. Good luck.LukeEmily (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha, Most of the editors involved in this debate agree to removal of image and to not keep any image in the Origin section. Whats your view now? Shinjoya (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the image should be according to content of the section. Since, that section talks about peasant and pastoral origin of Rajputs. Any image of peasant or pastoral Rajput would suffice. So, if you have problem with the world "Russia" in this image and you want that hill boy image, which is verified, i agree. But, lets first confirm that whether Ratnahastin want a new fort or Rajput ruler's image for that section too. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heba Aisha LukeEmily, Ratnahastin and me are in favour of not keeping any image in the origin section. Milkman image has the same authenticity issues as mentioned by Ratnahastin. Any image in the origin section is unnecessary and is likely to be considered POV by other editors. So, better thing would be to not have any image at all.Shinjoya (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this. LukeEmily has kept himself out and is not in favour of removal. There is no authenticity issue and without any image the article will look like one sided article portraying all Rajput as aristocrats. Which is not true going by content of article. As there are only forts in this articles, which are also WP:UNDUE for a caste article. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush has explained in one of his edit that these British era images can be used. And several caste articles have such images. I don't know, why it is posing a problem for this article only. The description clearly say that they are hill Rajputs. And Yadav, Koli and various caste articles have such images. This is nothing but attempt to push a certain side. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha, You say that without an image in Origin section, the article will be left with only fort images. I don't know how can you make such false claims with confidence. I counted and found that there are as many as 10 images in the article and out of them, only 1 is fort. Its not the fault of Rajputs if they were once a ruling class of Hindus. You want to add images to show them as Shudras; thats why you uploaded that fisherman image on commons. But why do you forget that Rajput is classified as a forward caste in all states except Karnataka? Do you think all state governments and central government are fools to not grant them SC reservation? Any image in Origin section would be considered POV only. Neither we want any Shudra image nor a fort image in that section. Shinjoya (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are taking it wrong completely. We have images of cultivator Rajputs also and also of milkman Rajputs. Why shouldn't we diversify it as the origin section itself talk of origin from various socio-economic background. Also, my image is authentic and i have added a lot of authentic image from Bihar, which include landmark and caste groups too. For the view you have garnered that all Rajputs were or are from aristocratic background, i have even provided a media report to show, how they look here. I don't know about their status in Rajasthan, but yes in eastern states, they are from agrarian background as well. Stop the futile discussion as the images of cultivator Rajputs are as authentic as current lead image. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A deliberate attempt at mislabelling other people as Rajputs is clearly POV. From cultivators, you made them fishermen in your image. Its something like me uploading my own photo and giving it title "Amitabh Bachchan.jpg" and then using it in Amitabh Bachchan article. Sounds ridiculous? So was your image. Interestingly, in another image, you have tried to show Kushwahas as good looking decent people. All these caste based images uploaded by you appear to be POV. Shinjoya (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shinjoya, Why don't you talk about various other community like Nishad and Mallah, i uploaded and also the landmark like in Mahua article. I can't choose the setting to take image and i took the image in the situation in which i found them. You are just thinking excessively in order to push your own view. There is no need to remove the current image too as description describe them as Rajput and this is also not taken by me. Also, your view can't be taken as neutral and you are just ruining the hard work of other editors here by removing images and content. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have problem with my image, there shouldn't be any problem with these historical image, which are also not liked by you ,as they donot match your personal viewpoint on this caste group. As your comments also represent that you have some affiliations to this caste and in most of your edits in 4 year period, you have edited mostly the pages related to Rajput caste. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED and avoid the removal of content and image, which appearsto to be derogatory to your community Shinjoya. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha, Are you still trying to defend the "Russia Rajpoot image" despite knowing that admin RegentsPark called it contentious and LukeEmily too agreed to its removal? You are the only one who is advocating this image and I have already explained the reason why you are pushing the image. From last one year or so, you were asked multiple times by different users to explain the image, but what you had were the comments of other users. The days of this image are over and it will no longer be available on this platform as this discussion will be considered WP:CONSENSUS. Shinjoya (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia is not a democracy we dont need to have agreements of every one as such discussion would never end most have agreed to its removal, including admins.And since most of Heba's comments are either POV logically fallacious strawmans which never addressed the issues raised by me and Shinjoya or WP:ASPERSIONS ,we dont need to respond to Heba's arguments from now on since most are strawmans and red herrings. Ratnahastintalk 09:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The link i shared from previous talk explains the source and authenticity of image and there is no dispute regarding milkman image. Please stop your personal opinion on what are verifiable and what are not. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ratnahastin again giving wrong policy for wrong case. Even if you two are in favour of removal, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY says that the voting and majority favour shouldn't be criteria to remove the image. What we need is consensus and Shinjoya's personal opinion doesn't matter. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shinjoya, RegentsPark hasn't called the reliability of image consensus. You have presented it by breaking it into your own favour. He said it is disputed because someone like me is not in favor of removal and others like you are pushing to remove it to push this article to a non neutral one sided perspective. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ratnahastin, please keep on discussing, you are bound to respond as we need consensus. If you donot respond i will assume WP:SILENCE from your side. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Democracy means voting we aren't voting here i've raised issues about reliability of the sources and dubiousness of image you haven't addressed them yet instead gave irrelevant strawmans and ASPERSIONS secondly WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS states try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." And The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view
Our arguments are based on wiki Guidelines and reliability of the source your arguments are simply "if you remove this image you are glorifying rajputs, if you remove this image you are pov pushing"
These are pov comments and carries no weight at all.
None of your arguments have targeted the issues raised by us you haven't brought anything to the table which proves this 150year old Raj source is reliable or satisfied concerns about dubiousness of the image by proving that theres a clan named russia rajput. Your arguments are strawmans and aspersions only with such an history of disruptive comments i don't you will ever be able to satisfy these issues so to save our time and energy we will not argue and respond to your strawman arguments from now until your comment targets these issues, and since 3 out of 4 have argreed to its removal the Consensus had been built.Ratnahastintalk 10:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was mentioned here, but I haven't read this thread yet. From a cursory look at the last two days' comments, I noticed this comment. I don't support the inclusion of the image here in which a few Rajputs are watching fishermen, but I also don't support the bad-faith assumption by Shinjoya that Heba Aisha wants "to add images to show them as Shudras. How does watching fishermen make someone Shudra? BTW, many Rajputs are actually in dire circumstances, e.g. around one-fifth of the Gujarat's Rajputs are landless labourers. They also have marital ties with low-caste tribes.[1] - NitinMlk (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Oommen, T. K. (2008). "Contemporary Gujarat: A Socio-political Profile". Reconciliation in Post-Godhra Gujarat: The Role of Civil Society. Pearson Longman. p. 21. ISBN 978-8-13-171546-8. Though the Rajputs, traditionally rulers and army men, occupy a high caste status, a majority of them are not well-off. Nearly a fifth are landless labourers. Moreover, they have marital ties with Kolis and other tribes considered low in the caste hierarchy.
NitinMlk ok but we never claimed that all rajputs are kings and landlords,or replacement of this image with landlords. its Heba who is accusing putting those words in our mouths. Ratnahastintalk 01:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we need an image of Rajputs as peasants or pastoralists to reflect their origin and varied status, but I still don't understand what a Russia Rajput is? Is it a really weird spelling of a Rajput clan? Is it one of those clans that just vanished from the censuses (due to castes changing their identity)? A milkman image is alright for inclusion I guess, but I think this article definitely needs a peasant/pastoral image of Rajputs. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another image of Rajput agriculturalists which could serve the purpose instead of Russia Rajputs, Impey1860s. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NitinMlk, There are some comments from Heba which prove that she overemphasises on the said low origins of Rajputs. In another ongoing discussion, she supported the repetition of content in the same section for no valid reason, probably because it has the term "Shudra" in it. As far as the fisherman image is concerned, using "own work" from commons isn't banned on this platform but only if other users have no objections pertaining to the accuracy of file description.
@ Chariotrider555, No user has objected to the inclusion of Impey1860s.jpg image. Go ahead and add it but not in origin section. Any image in origin section is likely to create a controversy. I would suggest to add it in the "British colonial period" section as the image belongs to the British era. -Shinjoya (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I doubt we could find any ~16th century images depicting Rajputs as peasant/pastoralists. The Emergence as a Community Section would also work as it fits the time period as well. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shinjoya, after reading this section, I will post a response here or will open a relevant thread about Raj-era pics at WP:INB in a couple of days. I will also check the other section mentioned by you. BTW, generally speaking, leaving behind the Raj-era pics of well-known historical personalities and landmarks, the reliability of every other pic can be questioned, as nearly all pics at the caste-related articles are either from unreliable Raj-era sources or are uploaded by common people. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will first comment tomorrow at the other section mentioned by user Shinjoya. After that, I guess it will be better to discuss and develop an overall consensus about the Raj-era pics at WP:INB. Otherwise, someone will add some new pic and there will be another edit war in the coming days, as there are many other pics as well. So maybe we can wait for a few days regarding this pic and sort out the 'other section' first. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Origin of Rajput
there is wrong information is provide in the origin of rajput please read Book
(Kshatriya Rajvansh 📚 Bhag-2
page no-80 )
Wikipedia relies on WP:RS and WP:HSC. The content is well sourced from some of the highest quality academic sources.LukeEmily (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Protection
Hi. I've temporarily protected this page. The main reasons for protection are (1) it appears that the cluster of castes version is long standing and sourced so this should be discussed for consensus before it is changed; (2) the image appears to be contentious and this should also be discussed; the origins paragraph that was removed appears to be sourced. I suggest that you create three separate threads for each of these and seek consensus. I also suggest that the discussion be confined to content and it would be better to avoid aspersions suggesting that someone is over emphasizing or under emphasizing this or that aspect of a social group. That implies an agenda and you need good evidence before you accuse someone of having an agenda. The protection does not imply that the current version is the right version but is there so that you seek consensus on the talk page for each change. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark, the change to "cluster of castes" definition had been explained well in advance in this thread. The discussion over image is going on and I don't think its proponents have any valid argument. As far as removal of sourced content from origin section is concerned, user Ratnahastin can better explain. Shinjoya (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've only removed repetition of the same sentence and source first see the 1st paragraph of the origin sections and notice the citation numbers:
This is
The origin of the Rajputs has been a much-debated topic among historians. Modern historians agree that Rajputs consisted of mixing of various different social groups including Shudras and tribals.[12][13]
Almost identical to 3rd paragraph :
However, recent research suggests that the Rajputs came from a variety of ethnic and geographical backgrounds[20] as well as from various varnas including Shudras.[12][13]
The same source similar sentences,my removal of the first paragraph was based upon wiki manual of style. read my edit summary aswell this Ratnahastin (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i'm assuming RegentsPark you're here since heba left a message on your talkpage, Heba Aisha please stop abusing other editors as caste promoters on talkpage of others these are personal attacks and will not be tolerated.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark, Thank you for protecting the page. I did a quick search in the talk pages and looked at the history of Shinjoya's edits for this page. He has been edit warring on this edit in the past too for "cluster of castes" and other issues although he has been reverted by admin.
I found this old thread in the archives when I searched for "Shinjoya".
Year 2017, please see Talk:Rajput/Archive_25#"Indian_caste", administrator utcursch has patiently explained Shinjoya why his edits that removed "cluster of castes" were reverted.
2017 Shinjoya's edit war with admin on the same issue:
[8][9]
2018 Shinjoya's same edits again - he removed cluster of castes version:
[10]
reverted by admin here [11]
Now he has started again. He has done it on other pages too and I believe based on his deletion of sourced content that this pattern shows that he is edit warring until he gets his version to stay. There are many examples of him going and deleting sourced content on this page itself (as well as other pages). Regards, LukeEmily (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in bringing in irrelevant edit warring some one did 4years ago, and 4years is a long time previously disruptive editors may reform into good ones in that time,Shinoya has explained and discussed his edits on talkpages this year before removing content.Your argument appears to be a Poisoning the well fallacy.Ratnahastin (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LukeEmily, why are you referring my three year old general edits as edit warring when all the engaged users including admin Utcursch assumed them as good faith edits? At that time, I was convinced with Utcursch but now, I feel the lead line needs some fix. I hardly engage with edit wars and try to sort out issues through edit summaries and talk page.
Secondly, there is no such policy that sourced content cannot be removed. Content can be removed on grounds of unreliable sources, irrelevant content and undue weightage. Its you and Heba Aisha who tend to revert other editors' work back to your preferred versions without proper explanation and caring a very little about WP:OWN, like this, this and this. Shinjoya (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that Cambridge University Press and Oxford University press is unreliable? Are those views not supported by top scholars? You cannot just remove academic sources added by others under the pretext of WP:UNDUE. Did the admin not give you enough citations here: Talk:Rajput/Archive_25#"Indian_caste"? About other edits - Is it a minority view that Shivaji had Kunbi origin? Does anyone say they disagree with Stewart Gordon? There are multiple citations on the same page that agree with him! Coming back to this topic - The point I am making about "cluster of castes" is that you were explained the issue and reverted several times by admin. Without any new point to add, you made the edit again. You did not even involve or tag the admin who reverted you multiple times. That is WP:STONEWALL. Admin gave an explanation on the talk page about the "cluster of castes". Shinjoya, you have removed several sourced edits that you found "not flattering" all across wikipedia using WP:UNDUE. There are so many examples including your edits on the Bhonsale page and Maratha page where you are sanitizing the leading sections (most readers don't read beyond the leading section). Shinjoya, if you continue with the removal of cited material to remove text you do not like, I will be reporting you without further warning. I do not like to do this as I think we should all edit amicably but you will leave me no choice and there is a lot of evidence in your history of removing sourced content.
About summary in the origin section, I have a suggestion. The first line was kept there as a quick summary. The section is too big and as per WP:SUMMARY we can summarise the section for readers who are only giving it a cursory look. If you do not agree with the current version, we can change it to something like : "Modern historians agree that Rajputs are of pastoral or peasant origin and consisted of mixing of various different social groups and various varnas including Shudras and tribals and were created when members from communities such as Mers, Minas, Jats, etc. coalesced together to form the community by a process called Rajputization". All this is well sourced. We cannot sanitize it as we need a neutral POV. As a side note, I want to add that I have no horse in this race and have no agenda for or against any community. I am simply a neutral editor who has done a lot of study on varna mobility(specifically Sanskritization) and its effect on women and children. In fact, I have the book "Social Mobility in the Caste System in India" by Silverberg sitting in my lap right now as I type this. The quality of sources (Oxford, Cambridge etc.) speak for themselves and I do not think that peasant or shudra is derogatory. Shudra is only of ritual significance - other than that it has no meaning in 2021- and has no negative connotation especially to a western person and probably most Indians today do not care about it either. And nothing wrong in being a peasant. There is caste promotion going on many pages, but the promotion happening here is just outrageous.LukeEmily (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many strawman arguments, how is shivaji even related to this page? Please stay on the articles topic WP:TALK#TOPIC first of all as this section was about recent increase protection level this doesn't mean you can argue about other unrelated articles and half a decade old edit wars here.Hastintalk 08:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Caste articles are always edited with some POV violation by some editors. The Maratha and Rajput are most vandalised page for the purpose of caste promotion by many editors. There is connection between the two as there is common tendency of linking the two by few editors, who want to glorify their castes. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, its other away around. In the name of saving caste articles from puffery, some editors get engaged in degradation of castes with derogatory images and removal/addition of specific content which suits their agenda. All editors should strictly follow the WP:NPOV. Shinjoya (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an image of Rajput people in the mind of few editors that they can't be layman and all Rajputs are aristocrats and landlords. But, this is not so. In states like Bihar, from where that image is taken, which you consider unverified, the Rajputs and Dom People couldn't be differentiated at many places. The concept of Bihari Rajput being "Pseudo Rajput" is a testimony to this. Let me present a media report and compare Rajputs of Bihar in that report from image i took. If you are bound to glorify them by declaring all of them as royal people, then you are wasting the reliability of encyclopedia. Even if someone belong to some community, he should show all sides of that community, not only brighter side.Heba Aisha (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now check this media report, here during Bihar election 2020, the Rajput people were interviewed to know their voting pattern. You may find similarity in dressing pattern etc with image i took. I have no intention to deteriorate royal caste, but the caste actually is not royal. A few segment of it is. At present, it is a mixture of people having different socio-economic background and in terms of ethnicity and race, there is no difference in states like Bihar between Rajputs and the Chamar at some places. Heba Aisha (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The double standard is seen from the approach that you editors are not objecting to lead image, which is also a British era image on the ground of WP:RAJ. But, even after giving proper source objecting to that image in which Rajputs are not looking good. Please, change this mentality, 26th amendment to Indian constitution ended the "privy purse" and Mandal Commission was death nail for royality. At present, you may find them serving as vegetable vendors and milk sellers and even doing the job of gaurds in front of Bank ATMs. Please, don't spread misinformation that all Rajputs are landlords and super rich section of Indian society, owing huge wealth and splendor. Heba Aisha (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha, The caption of image present in the news article says "A mix of upper caste and Mallah voters in Kermadih village in Kurhani assembly seat, Muzaffarpur. Photo: Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprashasta". Please don't waste time on your Bihari fisherman image now. We don't trust description given by fellow users in their "own work". Otherwise, it would become too easy for POV users to mislabel such images. In any case, that image won't be restored in any of the Wikipedia articles. As far as the current infobox image is concerned, there is no such caption like "Russia Rajpoot" in it. Thats why it doesn't raise eyebrows. Shinjoya (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so hurry and don't deviate from the right thing. Just scroll down the news report, you will find specific images of Rajputs as well. Sitting in Baniyan (Hindi word). Heba Aisha (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have problem with "Rajput watching fisherman", in that case i can request "the wire", for that "Baniyan wala image"(Hindi word), as it is verified one. Heba Aisha (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha just compared ruling class of north india with untouchable lowest ranking caste Chamar and North sentinelese people who have not had outside contact for 60,000years its clear that Heba has serious POV problem here.Shinjoya i guess you're right in accusing them of caste degradation.Ratnahastintalk 02:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha with two of your recent comments you have proved that you have zero reasons which abides by wikipedia guidelines or anything to keep this dubious raj image,other than your very strong POV.
.If you are bound to glorify them by declaring all of them as royal people, ...Please, don't spread misinformation that all Rajputs are landlords and super rich section of Indian society, owing huge wealth and splendor.
These accusations and WP:ASPERSIONS you made in these two comments are unfounded nonsensical strawmans , none of us have argued for replacement of this image with royal one or super rich rajput one but you still accused us of caste promotion. These are clear indication of serious lack of WP:GOOD FAITH and WP:NPOV.
My arguments for removing this image is based on guidelines i've never commented on appearance of the subjects of the image, we follow Guidelines on Wikipedia not POVs or unfounded POV opinions of yours. RegentsParkUtcursch,can you please take some action for these these serious POV and castist comments made by Heba.
(1) -
Rajputs are not looking good. Please, change this mentality, 26th amendment to Indian constitution ended the "privy purse" and Mandal Commission was death nail for royality. At present, you may find them serving as vegetable vendors and milk sellers and even doing the job of gaurds in front of Bank ATMs.
(2)-
theres no difference Rajputs and the Chamar at some places.
(3)-Comparison of Rajputs an ruling group with almost prehistoric sentinelese tribe
Please, how is this derogatory??, I have just told about the similarity between the two as i edit caste articles. Do you really know anything about caste and tribe? Sentinelese are "particularly vulnerable tribal groups" from Andaman. They are not found anywhere else. Chamar and Doms are distributed all over north India. Seriously?, and you are editing caste and tribe related articles. See WP:CIR and please gather information regarding castes before editing and giving your views. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And how does the comparison of various caste and tribe means derogatory remarks. I edit various caste articles and know about food habit, culture of all of them. I am not editing this particular caste article only. Read something and then contribute in that area. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And you have yourself showed that you are here with the mindset tht all Rajputs were rulers, which is completely frivolous statement: (3)-Comparison of Rajputs an ruling group with almost prehistoric sentinelese tribe--With this statement you have proved your non neutral view about this caste. I have not removed any content which talk about Rajput empires and their role with Mughals etc but you are trying to remove tht "Shudra" stuff anyhow to show only one viewpoint to label whole caste as rulers. There exist numerous source and practically you also know tht now they follow various professions, which i mentioned above. I don't know about Rajasthan, but yes in eastern part of India, they are involved in variety of occupation (and seriously, this sounds derogatory?). Heba Aisha (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha my edit was well explained for removal of the repetition of the statement in the edit summary and here aswe read up here above and please stop repeating the same thing Ratnahastintalk 05:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again neither i or any one objected to the pastoral or occupation before you've brought that irrelevant topic here when we were discussing the image. Ratnahastintalk 05:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heba Aisha: Rajput role with mughals ??? Is there history only restricted from Babur's invasion ??? May be group of vandals like you (Heba, Lukeemily, Chatriotrider 555) cut down page of Rajput resistance to few paras but it won't change the fact that Rajputs resisted Islamic invaders from seventh century. (Arabs, Ghazanvids etc). 2402:8100:2162:E6DD:FBB2:5836:A7AB:8B83 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ip, pardon me for not summarising the history right from Arab invasion and Rajput resistance to it. Also, I failed to mention, proud Rani Hadi, Mokal Singh, Jaita and other warriors. I should have written a long comment to summarise the royal past. From next time, i will try to fulfill your demands. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LukeEmily and Shinjoya, there is error in some references, example ref52, i don't know, what the problem is.But it need to be corrected. It's showing "sfn error". I guess, edit by Shinjoya has gone wrong at many places. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rajput role with mughals ??? Is there history only restricted from Babur's invasion ??? May be group of vandals like you (Heba, Lukeemily, Chatriotrider 555) cut down page of Rajput resistance to few paras but it won't change the fact that Rajputs resisted Islamic invaders from seventh century. (Arabs, Ghazanvids etc). 2402:8100:2162:E6DD:FBB2:5836:A7AB:8B83 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC). Can you show me one edit on this page where I have removed any sourced text with WP:RS? I have only added, not removed anything. Neither have the other editors you call "Vandals". It is obvious who is removing sourced text from this and other pages.LukeEmily (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining my edit
Since that thread has been cluttered with many off topic arguments.
Im going to re explain my this edit I've only removed repetition of the same sentence and source first see the 1st paragraph of the origin sections and notice the similarities and citation numbers:
The first statement of the origin section
The origin of the Rajputs has been a much-debated topic among historians. Modern historians agree that Rajputs consisted of mixing of various different social groups including Shudras and tribals.[12][13]
Almost identical to 3rd paragraph of same section:
recent research suggests that the Rajputs came from a variety of ethnic and geographical backgrounds[20] as well as from various varnas including Shudras.[12][13]
The same citation numbers similar sentences,my removal of the first paragraph was based upon WP:EPSTYLE#Summary_style
An excessively detailed article is often one that repeats itself or exhibits writing that could be more concise.
as this is obvious repetition. read my edit summary aswell this .does anyone has objection to the removal of repetition? Ratnahastintalk 07:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed before. Actually, its not repition. Satish chandra summarises the all points discussed later. So removal of sentence is not justified. Please note, all the historians below belong to one and another school of thought viz. marxian, nationalist or others. But, if one is from History background, he must know that Satish Chandra is considered as neutral. Donot fall in any particular school of thought. So, I will request Ratnahastin to keep the statement from Satish Chandra in lead. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heba Aisha Most of your comment doesnt addresses points made by me, Satish chandra summarises the all points discussed later. "summaries all points"? If thats the case then why only one of his summarision of argument is in the first paragraph? And not others? both paragraphs and citations are ditto copy with a small bit of different wording with same citations, any one can see that.Ratnahastintalk 13:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need to keep the repeated sentences. An average reader reads the content and hardly checks the references. In this case, even references are same. Its meaningless to say the same thing again and again. Shinjoya (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
