Talk:History of Rajputs

The term Rajput came in existence in seventh century. The earlier history of period prior to this needs to be expanded. burdak 02:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Origin of Rajput
The term Rajput came in existence in seventh century. The earlier history of period prior to this needs to be expanded with proper references. Thakur Deshraj is one of the prominent Historians from Rajasthan. He has mentioned about Rajputs in his book on Jat history page 113-114, w.r.t Imperial Gazetteer of India Vol 2 (page 307-308),
 * "Then between the 7th and 8th centuries the old racial divisions passed away and a new division came in founded upon status and function....
 * The rise of Rajputs determined the whole political history of time. They made their first appearance in 8-9th centuries; most of the greatest clans took possession of their seats between 800 and 850 AD. ... Their origin is a subject of much dispute." (Imperial Gazetteer of India Vol 2 p.308))

When Rajput word was not created and was not in use prior to 9th century how they are related with Rama or Pandawas. We need proper references.burdak (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

how it enter in muslim history
tell us about how this cast came in muslim history, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.29.99 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

JASYAL RAJPUT
HUSNAN RAFIQUE JASYAL RAJPUT BHIMBER AK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.175.66.9 (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

JASYAL RAJPUT
WAQAS RAFIQUE JASYAL RAJPUT BHIMBER AK PAKISTAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.175.66.9 (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Propose sweeping deletions and cleanup
This article has become nigh-unintelligible, packed with lists and charts with no context. It has nearly no chronological order or consecutive development, large sections appear to be WP:SYNTHESIS arguing cases with huge blocks from one or two authors. It appears that a handful of major contributors have text-dumped in a bunch of data (raising some Copyright issues). Furhter the formatting and tone are way off WP standard, lots of sections start out "this section is about", there are random claims of authorship scattered in the actual text, several different referencing formats used, and generally just poor layout. I propose to make some massive chops throughout, removing those sections which are not properly referenced, have poor tone, or do not provide clear context. From the remaining decent material I'd like to get some chronological order and context to it, and go from there. Before I make sweeping changes, does anyone have any particular objections or concerns? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm mainly doing minor cleanup and removing obvious OR or unhelpful lists at the moment. But I'd like to propose the following major changes:


 * Rajput origins and Ancestral Scythic Race are huge, poorly formatter, oddly referenced, and appear to be substantially OR. If somehow they're decent and I'm just missing it, they should be summarised here and the rest incorporated in Origin of Rajputs if it's good material. The content, however, looks way too much like it's arguing a case for a given viewpoint, rather than just reporting on established scholarship, and looks more like a (not terribly intelligible) essay by a single contributor; whole sections are literally entitled "Scythic Origin of the Rajput Race by Mulchand Chauhan", and quite possibly copyvios of rajputana.htmlplanet.com/scy_raj/scy_raj.html.


 * Early dynasties appears to be largely cut-and-paste from individual clan articles. In some cases it's blatantly obvious, as there was a "[6]" where someone cut-and-pasted without bringing the footnote over too.  Rather than re-iterate all the details of clan X or Y, perhaps just a link saying "For history by clan, see individual clans at Rajput clans" ?  There's some okay content in there, but the goal should be to summarise it in a few paragraphs, in chronological order, to give an overall impression for how the Rajput founded and ruled a series of kingdoms between 600AD and the arrival of the Mughals.


 * The section Rajput resistance to Muslim invasions an onward is decently written, but chronically under-footnoted. For the time being, I'm fine doing a basic cleanup there and then just working to add footnotes over time, plus links to any main articles for individual sections.


 * MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

many rajputs kinf of rajasthan were yaduvanshi ahirs
As per James Todd there were rajput kings in Rajasthan belongs to Yaduvanshi Ahir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.71.160 (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Further clean up
Following on from the work of MatthewVanitas, referred to above, I am likely to massively prune this article unless someone can at least turn into proper citations, per WP:CITE, some of the items mentioned in the Sources sections. The article may be correct but it is impossible for the reader to be sure. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent cleanup by Sitush
User:Sitush recently cleaned blanked the article's section : Rajput resistance to Muslim invasions. The section is present since the very beginning of the article. The article remains incomplete without this section. So, unreferenced tags shud remain there, but the section shud be restored. I will try to provide references as well. SubQuad (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have moved this thread to the end of this page, for chronological reasons. Please note that if you reinstate anything that is unsourced then I will remove it again. The content has been dire for far too long and I gave plenty of notice of what the likely outcome would be unless someone could get to grips with the issues. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposing merge

 * Since this article is rapidly approaching Stub status, might it not be time to simply merge it into Rajput, redirect-and-salt? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)