Talk:List of Rajput dynasties and states

Gurjaras and Pratiharas
Should Gurjaras and Pratiharas be listed on this page? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 all their decendants are found among modern day rajputs Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

See this highly Referenced reliable post by a historian from this website  Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)  Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Rajput dynasties and states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307204736/http://www.sasnet.lu.se/EASASpapers/23McLeod.pdf to http://www.sasnet.lu.se/EASASpapers/23McLeod.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of Views of CV Vaidya, GH Ojha and Yogendra Mishra
Hi user: Chariotrider555, I saw that you reverted my edits on Rajput dynasties page, I had already mentioned in the edit that I am providing sources in the next edit, still you did not wait for me to add references and deleted my edit, I have already included both the view points as a conflict resolution by ravensfire, and added sources of esteemed historians like CV Vaidya, GH Ojha & Yogendra Mishra who lived and worked in India, unlike foreign authors who based their hypothesis without even visiting the contemporary sources, In historical discussions contemporary sources are valued much more than secondary sources, never mind I have added the references. This page is less about rajput origins and more about rajput dynasties, lets not make it a battle ground for that. Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhojpal1234 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Structure of the article
The article is about list of rajput dynasties that ruled this subcontinent, the view of authors can't be considered that Rajput identity came later, specially of Talbot as her assertion is flawed at first instance, she says Rajput identity came in 15th century, while we have contemporary evidences, concreted by historians like CV Vaidya and Yogendra Mishra. So either include their views or remove the following, as according to government of India, period of 6-12th century is considered Rajput period. The term "Rajput" has been used as an anachronistic designation for several Hindu dynasties that confronted the Ghaznavid and Ghurid invaders during the 11th and 12th centuries. Although the Rajput identity did not exist at this time, these lineages were classified as aristocratic Rajput clans in the later times. User: Ravensfire User:LukeEmily (Link of the Union Public service Commision of India Notes on Rajput period: https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/the-rajputs/)
 * Bhojpal1234, the Byju's website you are showing up here is a tertiary source and for most of the time they copy our content. So, we don't need their notes to update our articles. Regarding the sources you used and made your own conclusions to arrive at a particular designation for this particular caste group. This is wat we call WP:SYNTH of sources.As for example, before being reverted by Revensfire, the source you used to put your narrative here says this:
 * So, according to this particular author he is trying to establish that whether Hindu Shahi dynasty was of Kshatriya origin or Brahman origin and without any proper explaination of the origin of Rajputs makes a generalised statement. However, in the article Rajput, a number of notable authors have described the origin of Rajputs from various varna and groups. Of course, CV Vaidya is mentioned there also and his thought of them being Kshatriya is properly mentioned, so are other views which talks about shudras becoming Rajputs with time. As per my view any dynasty whose origin is obscure shouldn't be kept here. As for example for Hindu Shahi we have contradictory views of different authors on Brahmin and Rajput origin.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So, according to this particular author he is trying to establish that whether Hindu Shahi dynasty was of Kshatriya origin or Brahman origin and without any proper explaination of the origin of Rajputs makes a generalised statement. However, in the article Rajput, a number of notable authors have described the origin of Rajputs from various varna and groups. Of course, CV Vaidya is mentioned there also and his thought of them being Kshatriya is properly mentioned, so are other views which talks about shudras becoming Rajputs with time. As per my view any dynasty whose origin is obscure shouldn't be kept here. As for example for Hindu Shahi we have contradictory views of different authors on Brahmin and Rajput origin.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Bhojpal1234, Vaidya's theories have been dismissed by the very source that mentioned him in your citation. And as per wikipedia standards he is not considered reliable - he died in 1939 - and he believed in racist British theories (Aryan invaders etc.). LukeEmily (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Here are some quotes from the book:

A)The main Indian to promote foreign origins was Bhandarkar(1911), whom Vaidya criticized for his "pickwickian method"(1924, 35) while nonetheless accepting an "Aryan invasion" himself to explain the solar and lunar "races" as "two hordes of Aryan invaders" whole "colonization" of India occured at different times(7, 276). For Vaidya, Gujars "are not foreigners but are anthropometrically Aryans with the best Aryan noses and are historically the Vaisyas."

B)These author's[Singh, Vaidya] motives for affirming, in singh's words, "an unbroken continuity of marital ideals from the Ramayana and Mahabharatha down to the present age and therefor the Rajput age", and genuine solar origins behind fabricated fire origins are transparently anticolonialistic and nationalist.

C)441.But the affinities[mentioned by vaidya] do not point to an unbroken continuity between an ancient "epic period" in the Vedic past(3500-3000 BC according to Vaidya) and the great Rajput tradition that begins in sixteenth century Rajasthan. Rather, they raise the question of similaries between the epics (and especially the Mahabharata's) allusions to vedic vratya warbands and lifestyles of earlier medieval "low status Rajput" clans.

D)3.In thinking of the historical relation between classical epics and Rajput culture, I have found C.V.Vaidya a clever pathfinder. Although his historiography is often hopeless

E)Attempts to trace Agnivamsha Rajputs directly from Vedic and epic sources (e.g Vaidya 1924, 7;Asopa 1972,1976,21-24) are unconvincing, and Asopa's epic references are either far-fetched and unintelligible.

LukeEmily what does him believing in this aryan invasion or whatever has to do with this discussion Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)  Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pseudo Nihilist, I am giving the quotes from the book to show that the very source that is used to cite him finds him unrelaible. The aryan invasion theory has been debunked as one example. Please see WP:HISTRH and WP:HISTRW. LukeEmily (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the edits done by that sockpuppet are fairly good citing many prominent historians of india so can I add some of the material from it like the Rajput rising to prominence after Harsha we can also keep the other view point of the historians who believe term Rajput was anarchronologically to describe Kshatriya monarchies  Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It will make the article more neutral and resolve the dispute as both parties want to keep their edits Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you want to do that, you must bring the question up first to the main Rajput page, so that more editors can engage in this discussion. The edits you are proposing have to do with the origin of the Rajputs, which has been heavily debated in Talk:Rajput. I would recommend you first read the discussions that have previously taken place there so you are up to date on the consensus of the origin of the Rajputs and are familiar with the various sources. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Pseudo Nihilist, the sources do not say what you are claiming about "Kshatriya" Monarchies. That is WP:OR. For example, if you were to add the following statement from the sock "The Rajput Rose into Prominence after death of Emperor Harsha in 647 A.D. The period between Seventh to Twelfth Century saw Rise of Various Rajput clans in India who dominated much of Northern and Western India from 649 A.D till their defeat in Second Battle of Tarain in 1192 A.D", it would not really change anything since these authors do not state that calling them Rajput simply means that they were called Rajput "anachronistically" is incorrect. I have gone through more than 20 modern academic sources on Sanskritization and Rajputs and all seem to converge on peasant/pastoral origin. The current statement is "The term "Rajput" has been used as an anachronistic designation for several Hindu dynasties that confronted the Ghaznavid and Ghurid invaders during the 11th and 12th centuries. " and the socks statement is " The Rajput Rose into Prominence after death of Emperor Harsha in 647 A.D. The period between Seventh to Twelfth Century saw Rise of Various Rajput clans in India who dominated much of Northern and Western India from 649 A.D till their defeat in Second Battle of Tarain in 1192 A.D". They do not contradict each other. It simply means that these authors are following the anachronistic convention. To contradict, a scholar would have to explicitly say that the statement that the anachronistic statement is incorrect. Also, if you read the section on "emergence as a community" the hereditary differing view is already given. Not sure if I am able to explain myself correctly. Also this statement:"Weber however explained this downgrading of their status by the fact that they represented a threat to the cultural and intellectual monopoly of the Brahmans, as they[Kshatriyas] were also extremely cultured and educated in the art of administration. In about the eight century the Rajput thus began to perform the functions that had formerly belonged to the Kshatriya, assuming their social and economic position and substituting them as the new warrior class. Ancient illiterate merceneries, the Rajput did not represent a threat to the Brahmininc monopoly and were more inclined to accept the Brahmans' superiority, thus contributing to the so called Hindu restoration" . My point is that ruling and Kshatriya are different things. LukeEmily (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

yes what's i was trying to say. As both the parties dont contradict each other. And sources from both side are of high quality.

So can i add this statement with references from both sides and resolve this dispute.

"after death of Emperor Harsha in 647 A.D. The period between Seventh to Twelfth Century saw Rise of many tribes and clans from varied social backgrounds in India who dominated much of Northern india. these tribes and clans of varied social backgrounds were anachronisticaly described as "rajputs"." Feel free to discuss anything more you want to add or improve. Thank you Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Pseudo Nihilist, that goes back to the issue about origin. Also, is this statement even accurate? For example, does it take into account that a Gurjara-Pratihara_dynasty dynasty(for example) or others were not anachronistically designated as Rajput? Thirdly, do we have quotes from the sources that the sock used? This article is a list and not about origin.LukeEmily (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021
Change This: The term "Rajput" has been used as an anachronistic designation for several Hindu dynasties that confronted the Ghaznavid and Ghurid invaders during the 11th and 12th centuries. Although the Rajput identity did not exist at this time, these lineages were classified as aristocratic Rajput clans in the later times.
 * Early medieval dynasties

To That: The term "Rajput" has been used as an anachronistic designation for several Hindu dynasties that ruled Indian subcontinennt since last 5000 years. Although the Rajput identity existed since vedic age (According to an ancient inscriptions found in India ,Link : https://jasbirjammu.wordpress.com/), Later the word was used to distinguish the pure genetic clans (direct lineage) of Ancient vedic kshatriyas. DrSachinSharma (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Early medieval dynasties
 * ❌. Not a reliable source (WP:SELFPUB). ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2021
Ajaska7 (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Gamph was a small state of India, ruled by chudasama Rajputs. There are 52 Estates of Chudasama Rajputs in the Dhandhuka area which all are the Bhayats of former Gamph state.



The estates are:

Gamph, Gorasu, Bhadiad, Kadipur, Dholera, Jaska, Pipli, Kharad, Sandhida, Bavalyari, Cher, Wadhela, Aniyari (Bhimji), Sangasar, Hebatpur, Tagdi, Polarpur, Zinzer, Vagad, Parabadi, Rojka, Kothadiya, Pipariya, Bahadi, Timbala, Shahpur, Devgana, Kamiala, Ambli, Fatehpur, Khamidana, Pipal, Akru, Unchadi, Malpara, Salasar, Bhalgamda, Ankevalia, Otaria, Panchi.

These Rajputs are descended from the old Rah Dynasty of Junagadh.
 * ❌. Needs more WP:RS. You also need to attribute to Bhal region per WP:COPYWITHIN. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 11:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2021
Hello Wikipedia community...I want to request a change here to thi article..This has been the case with this article in last 2 months where several disruption occurs by many annonymous and regular users..

However, recently a user Chariotrider 555 removed a large chunk of date on this article which was verified by admin Regentspark before addding ECP protection..They cleverly omitted 10 high quality sources and revert it back to their preffered version as can be seen 'here' they also had a tendency to remove large chunk of content as can be seen 'here' again which is a negative way...,,,

I request anyone with ECP protection to move back the page to 'these revision edited by RegentsPark it contained 10 scholary source about early origin of Rajputs... also the edit war was started on 5 September as can be seen 'here' therefore it can be reverted to this version by 'verified by admin Meno25' too But please restore this large chunk content which is removed by this persistent vandal. Thank you. 103.206.51.172 (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC) 103.206.51.172 (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would note that the change mentioned by the IP was done by a sockpuppet of a serial sock-master who aggressively pushing a specific POV contrary to WP:NPOV. To say there is any consensus for the change is false.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding recent removal of the content
I couldnt finish the edit summary and button was pressed, anyway here it is, as I was saying, I am fully aware of the discussion at talk page of Prithviraj Chauhan, I myself contributed to it and it might be confusing for you but I am well aware of the subject. The discussion was neither concluded nor fully related to the subject at hand. If you wish to do such a major change on this page, please discuss here beforehand before engaging in an edit war.Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sajaypal007, why is it unrelated to the subject at hand? Not sure why you have removed all the references that specifically talk about Rajput clans being a later designation. Multiple editors have reverted the version that you have here. I dont know what you mean by edit war - I had not edited this page for 3 months before the edit you reverted. Please assume good faith. I said it was confusing to me (at first but not anymore). Your current version as it stands is inconsistent with the Rajput page. Many of the clans on the page were not Rajput given that the designation is anachronistic.LukeEmily (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * you still made one sided changes even though the discussion was open? Anyway unlike the first time, you didn't remove the content, so we agree halfway though. Regarding Rajput existence before 16th century, I think many Indian authors mention Rajput identity existing way before that and you only added one view. In my opinion copy pasting same material from Rajput page to other pages is not the correct way to edit other pages. You have to see the relevance of the content for that page. Besides its not like the word Rajput is the only word which has been anachronistically used if its even been used that way, there are many others too like see India, was not the word used for the country before some time yet we have all the history pages since prehistoric times naming India Prehistory or Ancient Indian history. We don't see people going over all India related pages and copy pasting same content like how India is anachronistically used while the word was not used before and all this. Even on the Prithviraj Chauhan talk page, @utcursch agreed for removal of such line that the word was anachrnostically used and rajput identity didn't exist before so and so. I hope you understand this.Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, please see Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan/Archive_2. Here is a quote from utcursch No one is contesting the fact that Prithviraj Chauhan has been described as a Rajput by later writers (including modern historians): we are talking about the nuance that he did not identify as a "Rajput", and that word did not exist as the identity of a social/ethic/caste group during his lifetime. utcursch and from Alivardi.However, I think it's worth noting that the question here isn't whether a Rajput identity existed at that point, but rather whether what we now consider to be the Rajput identity existed and what it meant. The text referenced in the article, The Last Hindu Emperor · Prithviraj Chauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000 by Cynthia Talbot, cited a number of reputable historians when discussing this issue:I believe the Rāso contributed to the consolidation of an aristocratic Rajput identity beginning in the late sixteenth century. What the term Rajput meant prior to the Mughal period is a contentious issue, for scholars disagree about how far back we can trace the existence of the Rajputs as a community… Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya suggests that rājaputra was applied to a larger group of high-ranking men who also bore titles such as rāuta, rāvala, and rānaka… In contrast, Michael Bednar's examination of inscriptions from western and central India during the eleventh through fourteenth centuries indicates that thakkura, rāuta, and rājaputra were titles of rank that generally denoted official positions and were often not passed on from father to son. Chattopadhyaya may therefore, be somewhat premature in his assertion that Rajput identity existed in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries… Arguing in a different vein than Chattopadhyaya, Dirk H. A. Kolff claims that the label Rajput had previously denoted an open status identity that any successful warrior could acquire. During the Mughal period, however, the Rajputs closed ranks to form an aristocratic class whose membership was strictly circumscribed by birth… In any case, Rajput was not a term that figured in Indo-Persian texts prior to the sixteenth century, according to Peter Jackson, supporting the view that there was some change in the meaning of the term… As Rajput chiefs were increasingly co-opted into the Mughal system, a sharper line was drawn between them and the other, less elite, fighting men of India. One way of doing this was through acknowledging the kshatriya status of Rajputs… The repeated conflation of Rajput with kshatriya hat can be witnessed in Prthvīrāj Rāso is thus part of a larger early modern trend of stressing the elite nature of Rajputs. I think the analogy with India is not correct. The difference is that no one knows for sure what castes or communities these early clans belonged to. For India, we know that despite what they are called they have heritage of the Indian subcontinent. These early so called Rajput clans could have been Jat, Gurjar or some community that does not even exist today. We don't know. Prior to the Mughals the Rajput identity existed but they were mercenaries who called themselves Rajputs. Not clans as in today's sense. What the sources are saying is that the Hindu clans of unknown heritage were anachronistically designated Rajputs (even by historians). That is precisely why Bayly writes that their descendants may not be the Rajputs of  the Mughal era because of the fabrication of genealogy. Rajputs literally worshipped Akbar, leading to alliances and it was during Akbar's time that lot of Rajputization happened in Orissa(as one example).  During the Muslim era, a lot of Pastoral/peasant groups due to political situation became Rajputs. They had to explain their origin by dismissing the pastoral origins so the only way was to fabricate it linking it to older dynasties. Thus, the older dynasties had to be declared rajput dynasties. This is what multiple sources seem to imply. It does not matter to me personally whether they were Rajput or not or when the Rajput clans originated(16th century or 6th century). My concern is only with the inconsistency of this page and the Rajput page. We should keep them consistent or it will be confusing to readers. You have read [] but I am linking it for the benefit of others.LukeEmily (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Its not like in the 16th century all new dynasties came and took the part of earlier dynasties that too of same name. See take for example, Sisodias of Mewar, they are ruling since early 14th century, and did so till British times, whether there is earlier record of them being rajput doesn't change the fact that it is one continuous dynasty. Just like Mughals, who never called themselves as Mughals, ye even earliest of Mughal monarch i.e. Babur is called Mughal by every historian out there and no says or not on wikipedia we are mentioning this no Babur was not mughal, he was Chaghatai or Timurid or any other dynast.Sajaypal007 (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please can you comment on Talbot's quote above as well as Susan Bayly's quote? Do you disagree with them? 14th century was also Mughal era. I did not imply that *all* were formed in the 16th century - the example was Orissa. For example Richard Eaton 2019, p. 87, [1]In Gujarat, as in Rajasthan, genealogy proved essential for making such claims. To this end, local bards composed ballads or chronicles that presented their patrons as idea warriors who protected Brahmins, cows and vassals, as opposed to the livestock herding chieftains that they actually were, or had once been. As people, who created and preserved the genealogies, local bards therefore played critical roles in brokering for their clients socio-cultural transitions to a claimed Rajput status. A similar thing was happening in the Thar desert region, where from the '''fourteenth century onwards mobile pastoral groups gradually evolved into landed, sedentary and agrarian clans. Once again, it was bards and poets, patronized by little kings, who transformed a clan's ancestors from celebrated cattle-herders or cattle-rustlers to celebrated protectors of cattle-herding communities. The difference was subtle but critical, since such revised narratives retained an echo of a pastoral nomadic past while repositioning a clan's dynastic founder from pastoralist to non-pastoralist. The term 'Rajput', in short, had become a prestigious title available for adoption by upwardly mobile clan in the process of becoming sedentary. By one mechanism or another, a process of 'Rajputization' occurred in new states that emerged from the turmoil following Timur's invasion in 1398, especially in Gujarat, Malwa and Rajasthan.LukeEmily (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am assuming you are sociology student, and has low knowledge of History. You are saying 14th century was mughal era, seriously? I thought you understood the subject as you claimed. Anyway please read more about history of medieval India before making such glaring mistakes, its a suggestion not any criticism. Anyway coming to the topic, I don't know which historian you quoted but cattle raiding and saving cattles and fighting for cattles is the main theme of Rigveda, the earliest work of Vedic People. If some historian using this to make rajput a new entity then I am afraid he is going quite the opposite and kind of proving their relation with Vedic Kshatriyas. Vedic literature is filled with cattle related conflict same as rajputs as you shown here.Sajaypal007 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My qualifications are irrelevant so I will not respond but thank you for your suggestion. It is well known that Babur founded the Mughal empire in the early 1500s(16th century). Richard Eaton is talking about Timur's invasion at the end of the 14th century when Rajputization might have started. Here is another source from the Talk page of the community. Schwerin, Kerrin Griifin (2005). "The Cow-saving Muslim Saint: Elite and Folk Representations of a Tomb Cult in Oudh". In Hasan, Mushirul; Roy, Asim (eds.). Living Together Separately Cultural India in History and Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-19-566921-3. Muslim sultans east of Delhi generally relied on intimate alliances with Rajput warlords with their Hindustani peasant infantry, recruited in the east (purab). Rajput chiefs served as brokers. 'Their [the sultan's] overriding interest in recruitment alliances and consensus with Rajput chiefs were expressed, ideologically, in the syncretist, conciliatory idiom that dominated their courts.'38 Rajput warriors converted to Islam without necessarily giving up their way of life. These pre-Mughal Rajputs were not the Rajputs of the seventeenth century Great Tradition but, rather, 'an open status group of warrior-ascetics in search of patronage and marriage'.39 Via a process of Rajputization, peasant castes (like Bhar and Ahir) of eastern Hindustan (purbiya) were integrated into the open status group of warrior ascetics, adopting Rajput values. The warrior hero's death in the battlefield represents the values of kingship.. Yes, I am aware of the cattle raids in Vedic literature but Alf Hiltebeitel has already commented on the Vedic Vratya warbands. As mentioned before, several scholarly editors like Utcursh, Trangabellum, Fowler&fowler have pointed out the anachronistic designation for clans. It really does not matter to me personally as long as wikipedia is consistent(7th or 16th century). But based on the sources the senior editors have pointed out (like Talbot) - anachronistic seems to be more appropriate. Is there any issue with the current version? All sources are present.LukeEmily (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Timur's invasion has no relevance to Rajput lineages, just because Mughals connected themselves with Timur doesn't mean we can say that Mughal empire started in 14th century. In that way Timur also claimed descendence from Chenghiz Khan through marriage, doesn't mean we will now say Timurid empire started in first half of 13th century or mughal started at that time. Anyway, if you now changing it back to 14th century then here I am stating that all the clans mentioned in this page right now originated well before 14th century, if you can just provide me mention of one clan mentioned here that was not there in 14th century, I will stop this discussion right now.Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you should also look at the sources provided by the ip below, so we can grasp the other side more clearly. Since it is better explained by the sources, I myself will get some to add soon.Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Since that Ip is a sock, we should continue our discussion. As I was saying this is dynasty and states related page and no dynasty mentioned on the page can be said to be originated after 14th century.Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , my apologies for the late reply. Sure, we can discuss. But please note that as per WP:NPOV, we need show all views. I went through the history of this page to see when "anachronistic" was first added. It was added by Utcursch in 2017, please see this edit. If the source supporting Utcursch's edit was just one and non-academic, it could have been dismissed as WP:FRINGE. But several sources support what Utcursch  added in 2017. Cynthia Talbot is a very well know scholar and she is supported by many other scholars. Even one strong academic source like Talbot is enough for the anachronistic opinion to not be classified as fringe. In this case, there are many. Anyway, you mentioned that you would look at some other sources.LukeEmily (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about a couple of days of late reply. The thing is he added only a line to give broader perspective. You adding whole para that has little relevance here. Its like you are copy pasting content from Rajput to here without context or relevance. Its not rajput page this page is for dynasties. Except the list, more than half of the content is your addition i.e. about rajput identity and when it came to be and all. You added that on Rajputization where it was atleast somewhat relevant, you also added at Rajput page and almost made it WP:OVERKILL filling it with almost everything you could find about rajput identity or anything related to that without seeing WP:NPOV issue. Now you are adding the same content here too. Its not the page about rajput identity. Its for Dynasties and as i said before which you didn't address, none of these dynasties even arose later than 14th century. So how are these relevant here.Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * However, the term "Rajput" has been used as an anachronistic designation for Hindu dynasties before the 16th century because the Rajput identity for a lineage did not exist before this time, and these lineages were classified as aristocratic Rajput clans in the later times. Thus, the term "Rajput" does not occur in Muslim sources before the 16th century and in the words of Susan Bayly : "The chiefs and warriors whom the Mughals came to honour as Rajput lords in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries may not even have been descendants of Rajasthan’s earlier pre-Mughal. The one in bold was added by Utcursch. The one with 10 sources (the para before this is not my addition). I have added only 2 lines that are shown in italics here - and I have added citations. What parts were you proposing to remove?LukeEmily (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Rajputs rose to political prominence after the large empires of ancient India broke into smaller ones. The Rajputs became prominent in the early medieval period in about seventh century and dominated in regions now known as Rajasthan, Delhi, Haryana, Western Gangetic plains and Bundelkhand. This is the version that the numerous socks as well as you have added. It is not my addition on this page. Please check the history - someone copied it from the Rajput page. In fact, in Utcursch's version, there were only two lines on this page that mentioned anachonism.LukeEmily (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I didn't add anything. I merely reverted two edits of chariotrider who was trying to remove the content on some weak ground. And I removed them after I waited for him on discussion page for a couple of days and he ignored it. Anyway as I said if you want to keep, you can keep a line about rajput identity although I do not agree with it but after Sitush' addition you are adding more on the same topic which has little to do with actual topic in hand.Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong...,,,the sources you added doesn not talk about Rajput designation being anchronistic infact several of them mentioned that Rajput term became more consistent sixteenth century onwards and this is very disputed as several or most well known scholar staged emergence of Rajput clans to seventh century itself...I can provide four more sources for the same but it will definately make this article looks terrible and would cause WP:Overkill for sure..

Just for the fact that you added on the article that Muslim chronicles doesn't refer to rulers as Rajput pre sixteenth century is also unproven....I am adding two sources which clearly mentioned twlevth cetury ruler Prithviraj Chauhan referred to as Rajput. Here are these sources...


 * Here is from Marc Jason Gilbert who mentioned that Hasan Nizami call Prithviraja-III as a Rajput Another one from Upinder Singh who quoted Minhaj-i siraj.

The current content added seems to push the second narrative more....This is a list article why not just present list and not all these things 106.78.51.224 (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * How Kachwahas of Amber a 11th century Rajput clan suddenly becames Rajput in 16th century ?? One more source from Salma Ahmed Farooqui (2011), associate professor of history at Maulana Azad National Urdu University who too staged existence of Rajputs as an early medieval phenomena In the early medieval period, the Rajputs belonging to north India were floating around restlessly looking for a home before finally settling down in the Rajputana ( mostly today's Rajasthan ) 106.78.51.224 (talk)"

The concern about incosistency is sonewhat correct but there is no reason to add any of these view point here as this is list not a origin article. 106.78.51.224 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Why you both are cleverly ignoring quality sources present by me which clearly mentioned that in Muslim annals term Rajput was used for 12th century ruler. Your notion of inconsistency is at best a poor cru because one content of Wikipedia can not be used as cover up for other. There are 11 sources all from reputed scholars about seventh century origin while this sources only mentioned that the structure became more rigid post Mughal era which is very disputed at best here is another source for early origin claim from Indrani Chatterjee established". Another one from Burton Stein who explained on basis of Sanskrit inscription that The Rajput claim as a community were recorded in Sanskrit inscriptions that consituted as well as recorded in Rajasthan during the seventh century, when Rajputs begins to make themselves lords of various localities Here is another one from Professor Peter Robb (2011) who explained that From around 1000 ce notable among these regional powers were various Rajput dynasties in the west and north

As I said why not remove all these and mentions only list ??? Anyway Mr. Luke none of this editors oppose this content addition apart from you on this page. Rajputization is different thing all together. 106.66.40.135 (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of Rajput term and clans existing in early medieval India, by the way I myself will collect the source for this point, to add to the discussion.Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, I am not the only one opposing. Please see comments on Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan by , TrangaBellam, etc.. Also, I am not ignoring you - just quoting all opinions. Let us wait for Sajaypal's additions. BTW, TB has given a link to Bednar's paper that Dr.Talbot refers to in her quote. Also, see Utcursh's quote above. Many senior and scholarly editors involved in the discussion in the past disagree with you and Sajaypal. I have no horse in this race and it does not matter to me either way. As an editor, my only concern is that we follow Wikipedia rules to stick to the sources. In general, we cannot remove so many relevant reliable sources. It will be hard to justify this. I doubt if other editors will agree with you given that there are so many academic sources opposing your view.LukeEmily (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily: "These early so called Rajput clans could have been Jat, Gurjar or some community that does not even exist today." Secondly as per wiki page of Jats, it is written they were in Sindh and started moving over to this part very late. I have observed that it is you who has edited the page "Rajputisation". Do you understand the whole concept what these writers are saying? It is not only for Rajput but looks like as editor your obsession is mostly with respect to one community. It also says that Jat, Gujars are those who attempted to change themselves but didn't succeeded. In similar manner they talk about Rajput clans as well like they formed their community based on it. So, when the other two attempted to try for social mobility and were not successful then how come these clans are related to them. And FYI, there are Rajput clan like Bhati who has been ruling over Jaisalmer since 10th century without break as mentioned on one of their page, not only this clan even the Gohil/ Guhila in Gujarat are older ones, similar case with many others. The are various sources, some of it shared above by the other editors also point to what I am saying here. All clans would not suddenly come into prominence in 16th century or 14th century. A lot of them existed before this period including Bhatis etc. Most of the writers point is that the clans were getting added or bunched together based on alignments till 16th century in case of Rajputs and they connected themselves to the Vedic God. Many like Burton Stein, Kolff, Kulke etc are not saying that these clans were not Rajput, Cynthia and some others etc are taking a different perspective but they have quoted the other writers viewpoint. The first set of writers like Kulke, Stein, Kolff have just talked about "the tight knitting for this community might have happened late" and if you read more into it, they make larger point that community/caste system was lax in those days which is applicable to all the communities. A number of writers have talked about other categories like Brahmins, Bhumihars, Jats, Ahirs etc in the similar manner, that these weren't fixed. So to cherry pick few lines to make an article of your own on Wikipedia is not the right way to present all these aspects to the readers.

Lastly, this is not related to the history of dynasties but matter of sociological debates/discussion by sociologists, a lot of it is based on speculation which the writers themselves cannot prove it. The question here is do we have to only present views of sociologists or those who are writers of history as well. I have removed your lines of highlighting only one Susan Bayly, same was not done for the other writers viewpoint. Pls add it on the community page "origin", but regurgitating the same point on all the pages ( based on sociologist theories) looks like a case of malafide intention. RS6784 (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that in earlier centuries the Rajput term was not hereditary. Later it became hereditary. I think other editors need to get involved. I have seen your mass deletions on the Bhati page and am wondering why admins are being so soft. I work on all communities especially where Sanskritization was involved. I don't have any special interest in Rajput history - my interest lies mostly in varna change only(Sanskritization/Rajputization etc.) and Rajput varna change is one of the most discussed and documented by historians. I don't have anything against Rajputs or any other community as you are suggesting. In fact, I was the one who added "bravery" in the origin section of Rajput. I was also the one to add hospitability section on Rajput page(later some senior editor objected to it hence it was removed).LukeEmily (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that other editors need to get involved? Please be aware of wikipedia policy on WP:CANVASS. Also both of you please avoid personal remarks on each other, WP:APR.Sajaypal007 (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you view the adding of lines of rajput identity on this page and for that matter on Rajput page where it has been made as WP:POV issue in my opinion.Sajaypal007 (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * . Please do not make assumptions about me doing WP:CANVASS. Please see WP:APPNOTE on the WP:CANVASS page. Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) is not canvassing and considered appropriate and editors on Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan have participated in this discussion. In many cases, I am simply quoting these editors. Anyway, as far as the topic is concerned my issue is this: (1)You mentioned you were going to look for some sources (that contradicted Talbot and Bednar). We can add them if you have them. (2)We need to be consistent across wikipedia. We cannot have this page contradicting the Rajput page (this page is only about clans not the term Rajput as applied to individuals). Either Rajput page needs to be fixed for clans or this page needs to be fixed. Personally, I agree with Utcursch, TB, Fowler &Fowler etc. based on the sources they have quoted.LukeEmily (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just asked if you are aware of WP:CANVASS because of your comment, no assuming or presuming. As you are aware, I am also against the one sided narrative put on Rajput page but anyway you keep on repeating @utcursch's name but you are also aware that he agreed for removal of Rajput identity line from Prithviraj Chauhan. See the notability issue and as also mention by many that Chattopadhaya also use 12th century and not 16th century. Many scholars differ that too on solification of term Rajput as identity. And besides the page is also not about it.Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily you are deliberately using other editors to garner the consensus and at same time arguing you don't have any interset in Rajput history 'MobileDiff/1057196563' On other note you are consistently poking U|Utcursch as a mean to win the consensus despite the fact that he himself omitted Although Rajput idenitity did not exist during his time bit from Prithviraja-III talk page which you are using as a scape answer in all your replies 'MobileDiff/1057196563' As for Fowler&fowler bit got a slap on his back by senior editor on that talk page 'Special:MobileDiff/1030061831' largely for dismissing the scholars they disagree with. Bednar's thesis used by Tablot's are not end all and be all especially on Rajput history that itself is very controversial and glorious in same manner. Most of the scholars prominent medievalists staged Rajput emergence as Early medieval phenomena and when their structure became rigid is entirely different thing. Just to let you know Peter Jackson who stated Rajput as an anachronism himself reffered to B.D Chattopadhyay work. (who said Rajput identity became hereditary 12th century onwards) Who really cares at end of the day about Wikipedia articles really as you state as it's leftiest bias is very well known. You are irritating in a sense that you avoid about 15 odd reliable historic sources from reputed scholars and sticking with the fact that there are no sources.

I am letting yourself to play with some more sources here are they:-

Here is from Eugenia Vanina who stated that.


 * Another one from Barbara N.Ramasuak who asserted that


 * Another one here from Satish Chandra a well known historian of medieval times asserted that


 * One more from Romila Thapar explained that

PS:- In any case you should also read Prof. Nandini Sinha Kapoor work about origin of Rajputs. Sometimes it requires months to establish a consensus in any way maintain civility. 42.105.138.231 (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Replying to your question, I checked the Susan Bayly's book and found that the content added from her book has been cherry picked to mislead the readers. Reasons: On Page 32 of the book last line of the para she openly says " these clans were calling themselves Rajput from thirteenth-fourteenth century and "possibly very much earlier" ", you may easily verify it here . Now, considering the fact this particular page deals with Rajput dynasties & princely states and not with theories of origin of this community or how the overall caste system was formed, I think there should be no issue in mentioning the general history related to the various dynasties/princely states of this community many of them included those who signed instrument of accession with Govt of India. It looks quite amazing that issue is being created on the same dynasties with which Govt of India signed Instrument of accession like Jaisalmer, few others whose continuous background easily go over 1000 yrs and even before that period. A lot of the other dynasties like Chauhans of Ajmer, Pratiharas of Kannauj, Gahadvalas were just contemporary of Kings of Jaisalmer, Mewar etc ( many of them were close relatives). A lot of the some other writers have talked about Dirk H Kolff's book who gave vivid description of overall fluidity in the communities including this particular community. He also writes about the Great Rajput Tradition of 16th century wrt Western Rajputs and how Eastern Rajputs or Rajputs of other areas were mostly not part of such a tradition but this doesn't meant that they weren't/aren't part of the community. His basic point was Western Regions also had similar Rajput system like of Eastern Region before 16th century. He isn't saying that they weren't Rajput before this period. All of his points deals with fluidity in the communities and on one of the pages he admitted that it is difficult to corroborate everything. I just gave a short summary of it.RS6784 (talk) RS6784 (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * True, cherrypicking of the sources from one part of a book without reading it in its entirety sometime do produce such issues. do see his points. Also as you said and since this is a dynasty page, its not like any clan or dynasty which was carrying on since earlier suddenly got disappeared and a new dynasty took its place. And as i already mentioned earlier that Mughals were not called mughals in earlier times but dynasty which was called mughals later was the same dynasty and no one is writing paras on paras like what is written on Rajput page that how Babur was not mughal or early mughals were some different entity and adding such things on any wikipedia article that is related to mughals.Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Bayly is saying on page 32 that the arms bearing retainers had been calling themselves Rajput from the 13th century. She talks about clans in the previous sentence but does not give the timeline. Also, what is the explanation for her quote :"The chiefs and warriors whom the Mughals came to honour as Rajput lords in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries may not even have been descendants of Rajasthan’s earlier pre-Mughal elites".  Talbot is saying"What the term Rajput meant prior to the Mughal period is a contentious issue, for scholars disagree about how far back we can trace the existence of the Rajputs as a community. and concurs with Kolff’s assertion that “since the late sixteenth century, something like a new Rajput Great Tradition emerged which could recognise little else than unilineal kin bodies as the elements of which genuine Rajput history ought to be made up" [.....] However, Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya suggests that rājaputra was applied to a larger group of high-ranking men who also bore titles such asrāuta, rāvala, and rānaka. His study of inscriptions primarily from Rajasthan led Chattopadhyaya to the opinion that "by the twelfth century the term rājaputra had come to acquire the later connotation of the term ‘Rajput’," who were associated with fortified settlements and the division of land among kin, among other features. Chattopadhyaya also believes that "an element of heredity" was involved in the transmission of the title by 1300 or thereabouts.In contrast, Michael Bednar’s examination of inscriptions from western and central India during the eleventh through fourteenth centuries indicates that thakkura, rāuta, and rājaputra were titles of rank that generally denoted official positions and were often not passed on from father to son. Chattopadhyaya may, therefore, be somewhat premature in his assertion that Rajput identity existed in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, if one understands “Rajput” to designate a clan-based community with a distinctive warrior ethos, rather than a term denoting individual political rank..  For the Dirk H Kolff's book, can you list the page numbers? I may be able to get access the book. Also, please see Bednar's thesis that Talbot refers too [here. (note: I copied the quotes from the [[Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan]] made by other editors). Anyway, if any source disagrees with Talbot, we should add its view too , that part I agree with you Sajaypal .LukeEmily (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sajaypal, quotes provided on Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan from Irfan Habib and Eugenia Vanina support the view that Rajput as a caste existed before the 13th century. The other quotes about some warriors calling themselves rajput posted by the sock are not relevant IMO because they are talking about the rajput title (which does not imply a caste). As an analogy, there might have been people calling themselves "Baidya"(doctors) in Bengal much earlier but the Baidya caste was formed much later. However, only by looking at the quotes (I currently do not have full access to the sources) by Irfan Habib and Eugenia Vanina, they support that Rajput as a caste probably existed before 13th century. There is some discussion about these two sources on Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan and I am not yet clear why the senior editors rejected them - but will look more into the discussion. For WP:NPOV we have to add all views.LukeEmily (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said if some source disagree with Talbot we should add that as well. I am in fact since start saying that its adding unrelevant things to the article and then adding their counter point is not how an article should look. This article is about clans and dynasties, you have added long paras on Rajput and Rajputization pages on similar lines. This is not the page to copy paste content from those pages. As I was saying it is clans and dynasties page, please provide which of the clans mentioned here was founded or started and we can add their small history as well because its about those clan and dynasties. Regarding debate of when Rajput as a caste developed is a issue of Rajput and Rajputization pages. I will probably as soon as I get some free time will discuss this matter extensively on both Rajput and Rajputization pages as I believe there are multiple issues on those pages.Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You said : Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said if some source disagree with Talbot we should add that as well.. Did you not use the word "cherrypicking"? The opposite of cherrypicking is presenting all sides - WP:NPOV. Anyway, it does not matter. I will scratch out that line where I "put words in your mouth" - but my statement was in good faith. Is Dr.Talbot's view irrelevant to this page? If that is the case, we should discuss. Can you give a summary of the text you want on this page? Were the later Rajputs the descendants of the earlier clans(in that case it is simply a name change like "India" and is irrelevant)?LukeEmily (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Lets leave the personal remarks and focus on the matter at hand. I believe the lines of rajput origin and forming of community is not necessary on this page at all. So I am in support of not keeping it. Yes, I don't know on what basis Bayly doubted the descendance of clans and claimed that they probably werent descendants of pre mughal clans. All the clans and dynasties which existed before coming of mughals remained as such even during mughal period and most even outlived the mughals. Just give me the name of the dynasty which changed during mughal rule and kept the older name so historian like Bayly can cast doubt. Its a known fact I don't know how can someone doubt it. Let me read Bayly's work in detail so can try to make sense of her guess.Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Sounds good about the personal remarks. Yes, the origin in irrelevant to this page but what about clans? If I understand correctly, the Rajput term existed since the 7/8th century but was a title some warriors used. Hence it meant something different earlier and got its current meaning later. And later it became hereditary. The exact timeline is disputed. In my opinion, Irfan Habib and Eugenia Vanina quotes show that they do not agree with Talbot's timeline. But I do not have these sources to see the complete context.LukeEmily (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

These clans even if we consider the point of meaning of Rajput in earlier times was different yet the clan remained the same. That was my original point that even if we consider name change clan was still called Rajput even during later times. Like how Mughals are still called mughals despite originally never been called mughals in their history.Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources that support the unbroken continuity? Bayly and some others disagree.LukeEmily (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You won't find a written record that this specific dynasty was a continuous and unbroken one unless there is some ground for discussion. All major dynasties of Rajasthan during the time of British rule like Kachhwahas of Dhundhar, Rathores of Marwar and Sisodias of Mewar were continuous since long before arrival of mughals in India. You will rarely find someone mentioning Mughals as continuous dynasty because it is quite obvious and isn't stated otherwise by anyone. Coming to Bayly, she herself is not so confident in saying this as she stated "might have been". And moreover Susan Bayly isn't a historian but an anthropologist. There isn't an iota of doubt regarding the continuity of major Rajput dynasties. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Sajaypal007, the Pratiharas, the Chahamanas (of Shakambhari, Nadol and Jalor), the Tomaras, the Chaulukyas, the Paramaras, the Gahadavalas, and the Chandelas were all dynasties that went extinct prior to the 16th century. Rajput oral traditions state that later Rajput clans somehow originated from these dynasties, but these tend to be fictitious genealogies that are fabricated by bards. The comparision with the Mughals would be inaccurate, as the Mughal dynasty didn't collapse and then hundreds of years later have clans claiming descent from them and calling them by some identity that they didn't ascribe to. User: Heba Aisha, what do you think? Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Chauhans existed well after 12th century and established their new branch in Ranthambore..You are copying your sources from Luke who is copying it all from Prithviraj Chauhan talk page where itself more editors are prone to removing that dubious line. Behal Aditya work (that too in footnotes) along with Peasent Norbody work themself refers to D.H.A Kolff so its obvious case of duplicating and Kolff never mentioned that these dynasties were not Rajput which you are deliberately wanted it to look like. As pointed out well by he speaks mostly about fluidity in the communities and on one of the pages he admitted that it is difficult to corroborate everything. What about dynasties of Amber ??? Mewar ??? Rathores ??? They were close relatives of Chauhans of Sambhar and adjoining areas. Even Norbert Peabody source is not claiming what you want them to. It's also unfair to deliberately ping editors who have edited in your style to win a consensus. None of you actually explain how many reliable sources were there for existence of clan well before seventh century. Pots and Kettle. 106.66.40.216 (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Chauhans existed well after 12th century and established their new branch in Ranthambore..You are copying your sources from Luke who is copying it all from Prithviraj Chauhan talk page where itself more editors are prone to removing that dubious line. Behal Aditya work (that too in footnotes) along with Peasent Norbody work themself refers to D.H.A Kolff so its obvious case of duplicating and Kolff never mentioned that these dynasties were not Rajput which you are deliberately wanted it to look like. As pointed out well by he speaks mostly about fluidity in the communities and on one of the pages he admitted that it is difficult to corroborate everything. What about dynasties of Amber ??? Mewar ??? Rathores ??? They were close relatives of Chauhans of Sambhar and adjoining areas. Even Norbert Peabody source is not claiming what you want them to. It's also unfair to deliberately ping editors who have edited in your style to win a consensus. None of you actually explain how many reliable sources were there for existence of clan well before seventh century. Pots and Kettle. 106.66.40.216 (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Two of the sources mentioned by you are taking citation from Kolff whose book was mainly centered on Bundelas which came to central stage rather late. 3rd one Norman Ziegler also wrote about Rathores a relatively later entrant to history of Rajasthan.Also pointed out by person above me, Kolff himself does not say that dynasties were not Rajputs as you are trying to claim. Neither you quoted exact line of Norman Zeigler where he states what you claimed. All historians who specifically wrote about Chahamanas,  Tomaras, Chaulukyas etc are clearly mentioned as Rajput dynasties by those historians. None said they weren't rajput or their descendants weren't Rajput. Regarding Chahamanas, all Chahamana dynasties, you didn't mention one more dynasty Chahamanas of Abu-Chandravati, and all these 4 dynasties were brotherly dynasties, all descended from Shakambhari Chauhan, and the Chahamanas of Abu-Chandravati remained till British times as ruler of that area. And please be aware with WP:CANVASS before tagging other editors. As earlier also observed, you yourself do not engage in discussion and try to tag other editors to get your favourapproved by the editors who earlier had similar views. You did similar activity on Rajput page. You also started edit warring on this page some days ago when invited for discussion, you didn't partake and @LukeEmily engaged in the discussion. You did the same thing for third time on Chahamanas of Shakambhari, again when I invited you for discussion, you left without discussing. On this discussion too, with tagging other editors who held similar views as yours on Rajput page, you are again doing this. It is apparent that you are not here to participate in discussion but just want your edit to get published. Chandelas Chahamanas Chahamanas Regarding Chandelas and Chahamanas these both sources are taken from their relevant pages where I was active myself, the historians who specifically wrote about the particular dynasty themselves wrote Rajputs for them. For others will provide sources in next few days. Sajaypal007 (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do agree here, this is a classic case of cherrypicking few lines to put your own perspectives. If this is what editors here have to do then such things are available with respect to many communities. The important fact is missing here that most writers are pointing to what is called fluidity in the system ( not only for one community, this was true for all of the society). Interesting part is they haven't presented any exact proofs and it is all based on conjectures, possibilities and assumptions which may or may not have any ground basis. The quotes from one of the above present source itself says "circumstantial". Ofcourse a fluid system will create such kind of impression in the minds of writers, the point here is all of it has already been added on the page of the community in one section area : "various theories and possibilities" on the page Rajput. This page as the topic suggests is with dynasties, princely states, estates etc related to it which includes many of them who signed signed instrument of accession with Govt of India. I don't think the above part being discussed is clearly related to "this page", the theories of sociologists is present on Origin & theories section on Rajput page, so this is not issue of WP:NPOV. In my opinion, it is case of WP:OVERKILL by regurgitating the same things from particular brand of writers by some editors on every page and the intention of it is definitely not in good faith. I don't see the obsession by these same lots on other pages like Brahmin, and many other communities . A lot of writers have have also talked about that Brahmin community was not static a simple example : here page 180, there are many more. If their point is regarding WP:NPOV then I think this page is much more under the rule when compared to articles on Gurjar, Ahir and others pages related to them. I think the vocal editors here should concentrate on the references provided on those pages, because many of them definitely don't come underWP:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS6784 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only this, as i stated earlier all specialists mentioned the dynasties as rajputs without mincing words. To continue and add more clans here is what Historian Dr SR Sharma, who is professor in Delhi University wrote in her book "Origin and Rise of the Imperial Pratiharas of Rajasthan", "It was but natural that the distinctive status held by the Pratihara lineage, as the first and foremost Rajput lineage to establish a place in history,....". This book is specific study of history of the Praiharas.
 * Here is what Historian BD Chattopadhyaya who is retd Professor from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and did his doctorate from Oxford he clearly wrote Chahamanas and Chaulukyas alongwith Guhilas as Rajput dynasties. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * About Chandelas, here is Dr R.K. Dikshit in his specific book on Chandelas i.e. Candellas of Jejakbhukti wrote, "Chandellas were a branch of lunar sept of the Rajputs. Dr Dikshit has served as Head of Departement of "Ancient Indian History and Archaeology" in Lucknow University. He has also been Dean of Arts faculty at the same University. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * As opposed to Dr.Dikshit, Abhinav Press(1977), this modern(2004) University of California Press is linking them with Gonds. A signal of a different kind came from the chandella dynasty. These kings narrated a complex origin myth liked to the Lunar line in their inscriptions but their origin was also associated with the Gond tribes of central India. It is said they initially worshipped a rock, Maniya Deo, installed in their earliest capital at Maloba. Through the processes of acquiring Rajput status and subscribing to Sanscritic culture, which involved devotion to Puranic deities . I think we should probably need history experts to resolve conflicts.LukeEmily (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, Dr Dikshit has served as Head of Departement of "Ancient Indian History and Archaeology" in Lucknow University. He has also been Dean of Arts faculty at the same University. And he wrote specifically about Chandellas. He is best we have about Chandella history. And he himself analysed the Gond claim and discarded this quite old Colonial era claim. Most of the work of colonial British historians on castes were based on now discarded racist theories, this was similar case given by them without any logic or basis. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning the professor's credentials but his theory is not accepted by many later scholars. Also, please see WP:HISTRH - recent scholarship. Although a 1977 book is acceptable for wikipedia, it is not a peer reviewed University Press book. I checked the latest opinion on the clan by a few modern authors.LukeEmily (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Why you guys stopped discussion on this topic from last two months ? Current version doesn't seems too nuanced as it clearly favour second view that too by cherry picking sources. 2409:4051:2D8B:57DF:F84C:AD14:3B7E:E6E5 (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2022
111.223.26.16 (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Nishen from Bihar and Rajasthan
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

A Misleading Article
This article quotes unqualified historians from the West and states that "Hindu dynasties" were called Rajput. If so, why wasnt Dahir, or Brahmin kings identified as Rajputs? There were so many Hindu dynasties that didn't become Rajput, because Rajput refers to Kshariya clans. An example of Bad Politics. ZorawarOfKahlur (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of Rajput clans and dynasties of Uttar Pradesh into List of Rajput dynasties and states
List of Rajput dynasties and states KshatranaHindu (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

ECP per discretionary sanctions per WP:GS/CASTE
Noting that this page is protected as a community-authorised discretionary sanction per WP:GS/CASTE. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 14:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Unable to edit this article
I was going to fix the grammar in one sentence of this article (which was obviously written by a non-native speaker of English), but I was unable to do so because it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Locked because of WP:GS/CASTE which will probably not go away any time soon. Feel free to use Edit Request Wizard/Protected to ask for the specific changes you wish to make. Xan747 (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Jadaun Rajputs
Kindly add Jadaun Rajputs, rulers of Braj also. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Kindly add Jadaun Rajputs, rulers of Braj also. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Surely you know better by now. Xan747 (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2023
add jadon rajputs in karauli and sabalgarh Divyanshindia1407 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2023
Please add ujjainiya pramar of Bihar Kundan A Singh (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2023 (2)
Please add Kalchuri Dynasty There are three kalchuri Dynasty Please add all three Dynasty Kundan A Singh (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Surasena of Mathura should also be in the list of those ruling Rajput dynasties of the Indian Subcontinent
Kingdom ofSurasena, Under the Rule of Shurasena aka ShoorSaini ancestor of Modern day Saini's. He was the Father of Vasudeva, and the Grandfather of The Hindu God Krishna. He ruled over the present-day Braj region in Uttar Pradesh, with Mathura as its capital city. SikkaSingh (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)