Talk:Raikat

This is annoying. There are no obvious sources for this article (not notable) and no references from other articles (orphan). So by normal standards it qualifies for deletion. On the other hand, it is the story of a clearly important family over a long period of time, with interesting episodes. Seems a shame to drop it. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm . . . behind every old, wealthy family there are bound to be interesting stories, as well as behind lots of less wealthy families. Colorful ≠ notable, IMHO. Bongomatic (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sort of agree. Notable means "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That does not seem to be true for this one. But "If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources.". I may take a shot at finding experts. Will flag the article, anyway.

Compare with Adrian McPherson, Bruce McPherson, Conor McPherson, Dallas McPherson, Ewan McPherson etc. There are many references to these people, perhaps largely because they are contemporary and live in developed countries. If the Raikut article is accurate (admittedly no proof), Darpa Dev Raikut was highly notable in 1770s Bengal. I suppose notability fades over time ... Aymatth2 (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * O.k. - The problem was the usual erratic transcription into Roman script. The Raikuts are not notable, but the Raikats are - plenty of refs, links to other articles etc. I will clean up the article Aymatth2 (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

October 23 Changes Discussion
See User talk:Raikut Aymatth2 (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Jalpaiguri RajbariGate.jpg
The image File:Jalpaiguri RajbariGate.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Chhatradhari raja
You have removed duely cited texts here. The citations references two authors—Shin and Nath. You have provided no citation for this summary deletion other than a cryptic edit summary that says: "This is legend read Sheikh 2012 p270". Sheikh 2012 Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 2012, Vol. 73 (2012), pp. 249-254 does not have page 270. Even if it did, why should we prefer Sheikh over Shin (2021) and Nath (1989)? Pinging and  for visibility. Chaipau (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry my bad, it was in page no. 250. Shin (2021) just repeats Nath (1989). Sheikh (2012) has clarified really well!
 * It is evident from the Rajopakhyana (Rajavamsavali) that Biswa Singha became the king on a divine throne and an umbrella a sceptre of divine origin being used at the investiture. The divine origin theory propounded by the Brahmins for the founder of the Koch dynasty evinces a factious connection of the Koches with some mythological figures while they were hinduised
 * That is a legend in the Rajavamsavali created by the Brahmins. I suggest we remove that line! Homogenie (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sheikh here talks about the divine origin propunded by the Brahmins, which is a different issue. Where does Sheikh claim that the Raikat did not hold the royal umbrella?  Chaipau (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I see (link) the quote that supports the content → Sisya Singha held the umbrella during Biswa Singha's coronation and was made the Raikat ? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * this is the quote that was deleted—"In the coronation ceremony, the raikot, also known as chatradhari raja, one holding the royal umbrella for the king, played a more important role than brahmins (Nath 1989: 29-32). (Shin 2021). Chaipau (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here It is evident from the Rajopakhyana (Rajavamsavali) that Biswa Singha became the king on a divine throne and an umbrella a sceptre of divine origin being used at the investiture. The divine origin theory propounded by the Brahmins
 * All of that story is a myth, dont see why this should be added Homogenie (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "The umbrella is of divine origin" does not mean the umbrella did not exist. Sheikh nowhere says that the coronation did not take place.  Neither does Shin nor Nath.  All - Sheikha, Shin, and Nath - have not said that the coronation was a myth.  Chaipau (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole of the story was a myth, it was part of samkritisation, he has cleared it out. Nowhere in the source it is accepted the umbrella scene is true! this should not exist Homogenie (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Shin and Nath clearly discuss that the coronation took place - both of them claim that the Raikat played a bigger role than the priest. And so do everyone else. Sheikh too says that throne and umbrella that was used had the myth of divine origin associated with them. How could the Brahmins create a myth of divine origin if the object itself is absent? Further down the paragraph Sheikh describes how Sanskritization was a state policy. Chaipau (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The whole story of divine umbrella is taken from Rajavamsali which was created, it was not a true event! It was a process of sankritization Homogenie (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we have gone over the evidence here. Could you please have a look?  Sheikh has at no point said that the coronation did not happen—just that the document claimed the throne and umbrella were of divine origin.  Shin and Nath too mention the incident of the Raikat holding the umbrella and give that as an evidence that the Hindu priest had a lower role to play than was expected in such a ceremony.  Chaipau (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless some scholar says that the event never occurred, I don't think it should be removed if sourced properly. How a simple thing like coronation is problematic is beyond me? If some part in the ceremony process is being deemed as divine, mention it with attribution, simple. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * precisely. This objection is beyond me too.  Thanks.  Chaipau (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)