Talk:Rajput/Archive 25

quality version
The previous version here is based on widely accepted authorities on rajputs. the new version is a personal opinion without any meaningful sources. Reasons should be provided for completely altering a version which was there from years. 8XM (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the prior version has been fairly stable for a long time but I'm not seeing what is personal opinion in the revised version. It appears to be reliably sourced so can you be more specific, please. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all I have not "completely altered" the article: most of my edits were to the origin and history part, which was not adequately sourced. The section began with "The origin of the Rajputs is the subject of debate. Writers such as M. S. Naravane and V. P. Malik believe...". According to Google Scholar, M. S. Naravane's book has been cited by only 3 others: a journal article, a 2016 dissertation by a graduate student, and a Wordpress blog post. V. P. Malik is not even an author of the book -- he has written the foreword for the book. Aydogdy Kurbanov's work is an unpublished thesis from 2010. If you look at the Britannica article history, you will not find any "widely accepted authorities on rajputs" either.

Compare this to sources that I've added:


 * Alf Hiltebeitel's Rethinking India's Oral and Classical Epics: Draupadi among Rajputs, Muslims, and Dalits: Cited by 70
 * Dirk H.A. Kolff's Naukar, Rajput, and Sepoy: Cited by 266
 * B Chattopadhyaya's The making of early medieval India: Cited by 153
 * Catherine B. Asher / Cynthia Talbot's India Before Europe: Cited by 139
 * Peter Jackson's  The Delhi Sultanate: Cited by 150
 * Richard Gabriel Fox's  Kin, Clan, Raja, and Rule: Cited by 137

If you can be specific about which of my additions is "personal opinion without any meaningful sources", I can provide more specific explanations. utcursch &#124; talk 14:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Utcursch You are providing a single source for the assertion that Rajaputra first used in 11th century and that it shortened to Rajput in time of Mughals, (that is this single source, The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Cauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000). you removed earlier sources that said Rajputs emerged in 6th centuey AD. Britannica is holding the similar view. I can give you dozens of authorities which say Rajputs emerged in 6th century, for example, , , .....and there are many more! My Further argument is that not only you are providing a single source but in addition to that all your assertions are based on that source. 8XM (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You're mixing up two different things here:


 * 1) The history of the people called Rajputs and their ancestors.
 * 2) * A number of dynasties that existed before 16th century are now anachronistically described as Rajputs. The article already mentions this. I've no problem if this is also mentioned in the lead.
 * 3) * There is a group of scholars who believe that the Rajputs (or some of the clans that are now called Rajputs) are descendants of Scythians / Hunas / other foreigners who assimilated into the Indian society. These people date the supposed foreign invasions/migrations to 6th century or thereabouts. The article already mentions this 'foreign origin' theory. If you want "6th century" to be added to the this bit, I've no problem with that. In fact, I'll do it shortly.
 * 4) The history of the term "Rajaputra" / "Rajput" and its use to describe a caste or community
 * 5) * In the 6th century (or even 10th century), the term "Rajaputra" or "Rajput" was not used to denote a tribe, ethnic group, race, caste, or grouping of clans (which is what this article is about). There is hardly any controversy about this among modern historians. Multiple sources (not just Cynthia Talbot) cited in the article mention that the term originally indicated a non-hereditary official position, not a caste or ethnic group. Some other sources:
 * 6) ** Irfan Habib: "Both the term Rajput (Raja-putra) as name for the caste, and the sense of the unity of its components appear suddenly in the Persian authorities of the sixteenth century, and must, therefore, have quietly evolved in the preceding period."
 * 7) ** David Ludden: "For instance, the term `Rajput' acquired its modern meaning from the sixteenth century..."
 * 8) * While the dynasties that existed before 16th century are now described as "Rajput", the term "Rajput" is not as old as these dynasties. For example, see:
 * 9) ** Peter Jackson: "Confronting the Ghurid ruler now were a number of major Hindu powers, for which the designation 'Rajput' (not encountered in the Muslim sources before the sixteenth century) is a well-established anachronism."
 * 10) ** Aditya Behl: "The term Rajput is a retrospective invention, as most of the martial literature of resistance to Turkish conquest dates only from the mid-ffiteenth century onward [...] the invention of the Rajput identity can be dated to the sixteenth-century narratives of nostalgia for lost honor and territory"


 * I've updated the article -- let me know if you have any other concerns. utcursch &#124; talk 02:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 8XM, regarding your latest edit: the source (Pradeep Barua) does not state that these kingdoms were calling themselves "Rajput" in the 7th century. As other sources state, that term originated much later. Barua is one of the historians who believe that the Rajputs emerged from Huns and other central Asian invading tribes -- he doesn't state that these tribes called themselves "Rajput" in 7th century. He is simply using the term "Rajput" anachronistically, which, as Peter Jackson states, is an established convention. utcursch &#124; talk 01:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

sorry, what is vam?
. (consensus has long been that we do not mention varn in the lead) (undo | thank)- edit by sitush — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acharya63 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * My typo - varna. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Got it and agree. Will move the encyclopedia Britannica elsewhere.Acharya63 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's already present under the Subdivisions section. Also, we don't need verbatim quotes from a tertiary source like Britannica, when more reliable secondary sources are present in the article. Britannica has allowed public contributions since quite a few years, and people who vet these contributions are not necessarily experts in their fields, unlike the authors of the original Britannica articles (see "Article History" on the Britannica page). utcursch &#124; talk 15:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Utcursch is correct and I have just reverted Acharya63 again. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * okAcharya63 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"Indian caste"
Your version of the lead reads that Rajput is an Indian caste, while the article clearly states that the Rajputs are also native to Pakistan. Also, I'm not sure what part of "clans" doesn't make sense to you. It's a well-known fact that the term Rajput covers a number of patrlineal clans, such as Chauhan (Chahamana), Parmar (Paramara) etc. A number of such clans / communities claim to be Rajputs, but not all such claims are acknowledged universally. The article body contains sources for both these assertions (e.g. in the Rajput). Please see WP:CITELEAD: the lead does not need sources for a summary of the content that is already cited in the article body. utcursch &#124; talk 15:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with you over caste vs Indian caste. But is it really worth mentioning in the lead that various clans claim but they don't fall in this caste? I mean Rajput is a community. They intermarry with their caste people only (in general). It isn't really possible for a clan to become Rajput simply by claiming Rajput status. I mean there are many castes which claim Rajput ancestry like Maratha and Ror. But these are castes and not clans. Whatever efforts they make to claim Kshatriya status, they remain distinct castes.-Shinjoya (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The refs are not talking about Marathas and Rors here, when they refer to contested claims to the Rajput status. They are talking about groups like the Bundelas. If you read the history section, you'll realize that Rajput isn't an ethnic group: various clans became "Rajput" precisely by claiming Rajput status at different times. utcursch &#124; talk 15:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Even this "acquiring Rajput status at different times in history" theory is contested. And I don't think Bundela Rajput status is contested. Rajput is very much a caste/ethnic group. Is it really worth mentioning? I mean there are so many Indian castes. None of the article has such a thing in the very lead. Can't it rather be mentioned in history or classification section? -Shinjoya (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you please present some sources that this theory is contested by modern scholars? (Emphasis on modern: not the likes of James Tod, please). The modern academic sources that I've come across specifically mention that the term "Rajput" covers diverse groups. To quote a couple of books:


 * "Sociologists have provided convincing evidence that the term "Rajput" denotes neither a race nor a stable class formation, nor a stable caste or varna [...] Rather the term Rajput represents an unstable, socially dynamic, and politically volatile idom of social mobility [...] Thus, Rajputization is an idiom of social mobility rather than the description of actual historical groups or social classes, indeed anthropologists have shown how diverse groups and castes claim Rajput status by undergoing the processes of Rajputization."
 * "Scholars have now made clear the fluidity of the term, "Rajput," in Indian history. [...] Kolff demonstrates that the term "Rajput" was used widely throughout northern India and that varoius groups, not previously considered Rajputs, moved into the community called Rajputs. Other scholars have shown the complex process of Rajput identity and the inclusion of various groups within the classification.


 * As for the Rajput status of some clans being disputed, the article body already has a citation, which specifically mentions the Bundelas. Some more sources:


 * "The Rajputs of Rajasthan eventually refused to acknowledge the Rajput identity of warriors who lived farther to the east..."
 * "Here we come across the numerous networks of those so-called spurious Rajputs, such as the Ujjainiyas, Bundelas, and Baghalas"
 * "The Bundelas are universally regarded as spurious Rajputs".


 * You can easily find more sources. Try Google Books searches for "claim to be Rajputs" (1000+ search results), claim to be Rajput" (300+ search results), and "claim Rajput". utcursch &#124; talk 00:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

http://rajputana.htmlplanet.com/scy_raj/scy_raj4.html

As per the above source it can be deduced that the Rajputs are indeed a mixture of various tribes that rose to prominance on were related to those who did. The Real Rana (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. That's not a reliable source. Please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 15:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rajput. 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/20141109235632/http://www.britannica.com/media/full/147427 to http://www.britannica.com/media/full/147427

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) 04:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Descent from Bappa Rawal
Regarding this edit: if Kosambi indeed means "all Rajputs" when he says "the Rajputs", this is not a mainstream view. Please find some mainstream sources (preferably recent ones) which state that all Rajputs claim descent from Bappa Rawal. As the article Guhila dynasty states (with sources), even the Guhilas started claiming descent from Bappa Rawal only in 13th century: Bappa wasn't the actual founder of the dynasty, and the claim has little to do with the origins of the Guhilas, let alone all of the Rajputs. utcursch &#124; talk 17:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is the Kosambi quote in full from page 370 of An Introduction to the study of Indian History:

“...the Rajputs traced their descent from the legendary Bappa Raval (whose coins seem to have been found); and they had a tradition of ancient, former kinship with some Pathan clans who were also military groups living by the sword. They were raiders whenever possible, mercenaries when it paid, but could be peasant cultivators at home. Their military hierarchy, with each man owing fealty to one acknowledged leader, goes back to their tribal and clan origin. The complete political inconsequence is also due to the persistence of a narrow tribal outlook. Their home territory in comparatively barren Rajasthan (already changed beyond recognition wherever the Rajasthan canal has brought its life-giving waters) lay across the important trade-route to the south. The Rajputs, therefore, show us – in an undeveloped stage – the superficial elements that go to make feudalism, but not a supply of labour to cultivate extensive fields. Such captains were well suited for service under kings that had already developed administrative units 84, then 42, and 21 villages, perhaps the last formal stage between the two types of feudalism, from above and below.”

The Origins section represents the views of "Colonial-era writers" and "Indian nationalist historians" both of which are either dated or vague antiquarian views, and not "mainstream", meaning, not in agreement with the views of contemporary historians. So I am not sure why you removed this quote: "According to the Marxist historian D.D. Kosambi, the Rajputs trace their descent from the ruler Bappa Rawal (c.8th century); "they had a tradition of ancient, former kinship with some Pathan clans who were also military groups living by the sword." which clearly states that it is a Marxist view. D.D. Kosambi is more mainstream than all the historians mentioned in this section and he does "state that all Rajputs claim descent from Bappa Rawal"---this Marxist viewpoint must be represented. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Kosambi's book seems to be from 1956? - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And this from 2014 says he was born into a Rajput family, in which case he cannot be the originator. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sitush going by your logic a book published yesterday would be a more valid source than all the other books published before. What contemporary historians are saying about the origin of Rajputs is more in consonance with Kosambi than what the colonial writers and the Indian national writers are saying about it (that Rajputs have descended from Vedic Kshatriyas). So it does not matter what a book published in 2014 about Sadhus says in passing about Bappa Rawal; since the viewpoints of colonial historians and nationalist historians are represented, Kosambi's Marxist viewpoint must also be represented. -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * An Introduction to the study of Indian History is a classic which has been cited 722 times according to google scholar, more than all the texts cited in the Origins section. -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a viewpoint here -- it's a factual mistake that all (or even a majority of the) Rajputs claim descent from Bappa Rawal. They don't -- only the post 13th century Guhila records claim that their dynasty was founded by Bappa Rawal, and even they don't mention Bappa as the earliest known member of his family. They claim that he was born in a royal family, escaped after their kingdom was conquered by enemies, and then founded a new dynasty.

Kosambi's book is not free of errors, according to multiple reviewers (such as those by his friend Daniel H. H. Ingalls in Journal of the American Oriental Society and AL Basham). As Brijen K. Gupta's review points out, Kosambi was not professional historian in 1956 (when he wrote the book) -- he was a mathematician and a teacher at TIFR.

Even if this supposedly claimed descent from Bappa was a "viewpoint", it's not important enough to be mentioned because it is/was not held by other historians. The "dated or vague antiquarian views" that you're referring to have been held by a significant number of historians in the past, which makes them important enough to be mentioned. Their mention in the article isn't cited using the outdated books written by the authors who held these views, rather a modern source that summarizes the debate.

Please present at least a couple of more sources which state that all Rajputs claim descent from Bappa Rawal. utcursch &#124; talk 19:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the preface of Kosambi's book itself mentions that the book is not intended to be a history of India, rather "merely a modern approach to the study of Indian history". And that's exactly what the book is known for - other authors who cite it discuss it more as a unique attempt to apply Marxist theory to the Indian history than as an excellent source of factual information. utcursch &#124; talk 19:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed: Kosambi's book is historiography, not history. There is a significant difference in the meaning of those two terms. - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Madiga
In history madigas ever ruled ????? VrajaRV (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. WP:REFDESK might be a better place if you wish to pursue this line of enquiry. - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018
Chittorgarh Fort was built by Mori(Mauryan) rajput king chittrangad mori. Sumit77312 (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  13:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
Rajput and Rajput-like (Rajputra) castes historically lived in Nepal. See Rajputs of Nepal. 27.34.68.148 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Sam Sailor 16:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

deletion of names of communities mentioned in webpage" Rajput "subheading "Rajput Lifestyle"
i read wikipedia page RAJPUT - under heading RAJPUT LIFESTYLE -in which there was mention of two different communities the jats and gurjars in disreputable terms.to put it verbatim it reads

"Until recent times polygamy was common among Rajputs also concubines were kept freely depending upon economic status of a person, particularly in Rajasthan where there were three class of concubines first were called khawals generally jat and gurjar women they lived in harem and children were treated par with 'pure' Rajputs except few restrictions. The other two classes were called Darogi and Goli.[100][101] "

although sources (books ) have been cited .but it is well known that it is not difficult to pick books with shady or biased writers and to believe their nonsense and putting that on something as illustrious as wikipedia is not prudent in fact the book cited "Handbook on Rajputs"by A.H Bingley calls Rajputs bastards ,born of brahmins (page 28) https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.219902/2015.219902.Hand-Book_djvu.t how can one believe one statement and not believe another from the same book,one cannot quote selectively

again there is another s o called historian Robert Montgomery Martin   in his book Behar (Patna city) and Shahabad (page 159 and 160) calls "rajputs bastards" and "offsprings of persians" https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CumEvq2n5RQC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=bastard+rajputs&source=bl&ots=XgjW7q_lrQ&sig=ACfU3U10kZlNUpv2XzuqAOTfee05xdauAA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlk8ncoIrkAhWK6nMBHWZDByg4ChDoATADegQICBAB

Again vidya dhar mahajan mentions "The word "Rajput" is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar." [Mahajan Vidya Dhar, "Ancient India", Fifth Edition, Reprint 1972, Chand and Co., New Delhi. p. 550 moreover some of them have even called rajputs to be "descended from gurjars" -Niharranjan Ray and Niharranjan Roy Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Vol. 12, No. 2 (1931), pp. 117-122 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41688201?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

these all are ridiculous utterances ,the reason i am mentioning them is that there is enough of bullshit written about everyone and it would be pity if such references are put on a site like wikipedia ,moreover some sensitivity need to be factored in when discussing entire communities whose numbers run in tens of millions of people.further it breeds hatred among communities ,weakens the social fabric .there are enough of this slugfest on many private webpages ,let it remain there. let's not pit one community against another,those who have personal enmity should find other avenues wikipedia is a powerful tool and with power comes responsibility.let us not spread malicious defamatory misinformation i request the admin to remove the names of both the communities mentioned under webpage "Rajput" sub heading 'Rajput lifestyle"

regards --Raakkeesh (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2019
deletion of names of communities "jats and gurjars "mentioned in webpage" Rajput " under subheading "Rajput Lifestyle"

i read wikipedia page RAJPUT - under heading RAJPUT LIFESTYLE -in which there was mention of two different communities the jats and gurjars in disreputable terms.to put it verbatim it reads

"Until recent times polygamy was common among Rajputs also concubines were kept freely depending upon economic status of a person, particularly in Rajasthan where there were three class of concubines first were called khawals generally jat and gurjar women they lived in harem and children were treated par with 'pure' Rajputs except few restrictions. The other two classes were called Darogi and Goli.[100][101] "

although sources (books ) have been cited .but it is well known that it is not difficult to pick books with shady or biased writers and to believe their nonsense and putting that on something as illustrious as wikipedia is not prudent in fact the source cited above i.e the book"Handbook on Rajputs"by A.H Bingley calls Rajputs

"bastards ,born of brahmins" (page 28) https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.219902/2015.219902.Hand-Book_djvu.t how can one believe one statement and not believe another from the same book,one cannot quote selectively

again there is another s o called historian Robert Montgomery Martin in his book Behar (Patna city) and Shahabad (page 159 and 160) calls "rajputs bastards" and "offsprings of persians" https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CumEvq2n5RQC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=bastard+rajputs&source=bl&ots=XgjW7q_lrQ&sig=ACfU3U10kZlNUpv2XzuqAOTfee05xdauAA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlk8ncoIrkAhWK6nMBHWZDByg4ChDoATADegQICBAB

Again vidya dhar mahajan mentions "The word "Rajput" is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar." [Mahajan Vidya Dhar, "Ancient India", Fifth Edition, Reprint 1972, Chand and Co., New Delhi. p. 550 moreover some of them have even called rajputs to be "descended from gurjars" -Niharranjan Ray and Niharranjan Roy Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Vol. 12, No. 2 (1931), pp. 117-122 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41688201?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

these all are ridiculous utterances ,the reason i am mentioning them is that there is enough of bullshit written about everyone and it would be pity if such references are put on a site like wikipedia ,moreover some sensitivity need to be factored in when discussing entire communities whose numbers run in tens of millions of people.further it breeds hatred among communities ,weakens the social fabric .there are enough of this slugfest on many private webpages ,let it remain there. let's not pit one community against another,those who have personal enmity should find other avenues wikipedia is a powerful tool and with power comes responsibility.let us not spread malicious defamatory misinformation i request the admin to remove the names of both the communities mentioned under webpage "Rajput" sub heading 'Rajput lifestyle"

regards Raakkeesh (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. Please obtain a WP:CONSENSUS for these changes before making a request like this.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Rajput Mughal Alliance
+		+	Beginning in 1561, the Mughals actively engaged the Rajputs in warfare and diplomacy. +	Toward the end of the 16th century, the Mughal emperor Akbar entered into a series of alliances with numerous Rajput ruling houses, arranging marriages with Rajput princesses for himself and for his heirs. Mughal-Rajput marriages continued until the early 18th century, bringing many Rajput states into the imperial fold without costly military subjugation. The Rajput practice of giving daughters to the Mughal emperors in return for recognition as nobility and the honour of fighting on behalf of the Empire originated in this arrangement and thus the Mughals were often able to assert their dominance over Rajput chiefs in north India without needing to physically intimidate them. Furthermore, the Rajput relations with Mughal were consolidated by marriage and blood ties; the Akbar's successors, Jahangir and Shah Jahan were sons of Rajput Princesses is therefore not insignifant.

Political Effect of Alliances
The political effect of these alliances was significant. The interaction between Hindu and Muslim nobles in the imperial court resulted in exchange of thoughts and blending of the two cultures. Further, newer generations of the Mughal line represented a merger of Mughal and Rajput blood, thereby strengthening ties between the two. As a result, the Rajputs became the strongest allies of the Mughals, and Rajput soldiers and generals fought for the Mughal army under Akbar, leading it in several campaigns including the conquest of Gujarat in 1572.

Further Reading- 1.	Singh, Nau Nihal (2003). The Royal Gurjars: Their Contribution. Anmol Publications. pp. 329–330. ISBN 978-81-261-1414-6.
 * Kisari Mohan Ganguli, The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa Translated into English Prose, 1883-1896.

More books--

NO link between Vedic Kshatriyas(old Rajas) and medival Rajputs in many cases.

The story of agnikula is not mentioned at all in the original version of the Raso preserved in the Fort Library at Bikaner.

According to the book,a glimpse of medieval Rajasthan by Naravane & Malik the Agnikula theory for Rajputs was invented in 16th century to legitimise the “conversion” of foreign people as pure Kshatriyas.

In the book by Satish Chandra,

In fact, according to a number of scholars, the agnikula clans were originally Gurjaras (or Gurjars) and Chauhan] was prominent clan of the [[Gurjars (or Gujjars). Several scholars including D. B. Bhandarkar, Baij Nath Puri and A. F. Rudolf Hoernle believe that the Pratihara were a branch of Gurjars.  Prithviraj Chauhan,according to several scholars, was a Gurjar.   Historian Sir Jervoise Athelstane Baines states that the Gurjars were forefathers of the Sisodiyas.

, Rajputana was essentially the country of the Gurjars. Historian R. C. Majumdar explained that the region was long known as Gurjaratra (Gurjar nation), early form of Gujarat, before it came to be called Rajputana,later in the Mughal period,16th century.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020
Jassapatti2 (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for edit Jassapatti2 (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. TheImaCow (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Where are the original Harsola copper plate stored or preserved now?
I am from the town near to Harsol, where these copper plates were found but never knew until recently. I want to know where are they now and in what condition. I can probably do some research on that locality and find out more information. Mihir.261 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Mihir.261. What copper plates? I don't see any mentioned in the article Rajput. Did you mean to ask at Talk:Harsola copper plates? Actually, that wouldn't be the best place either; article talkpages are for discussing improvements to the related article, not for general questions. I suggest you ask your question at Reference desk/Humanities. They know (practically) everything. Good luck. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

See list of notables
caste glorification can be seen from list of notables.And possible WP:BLP violation is there as many people listed  are not self recognising themselves as Rajput. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This article is full of glorification. There was not even a whisper of Shudra origin, "Rajputization" and how bones of baby girls were found buried in Hindu Rajput clan homes - as a result of change in varna (google it). This is article is more like a blog written by the Rajput community and less like a neutral article. LukeEmily (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I also think so....thanks for ur edits.Similar things are done by Yadavs.Yesterday someone removed shura origin.I reverted.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2020
{{subst:trim|1=


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 14:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Article is in edit dispute and a User:Showbiz826 removed quote?

 * The page 449 contain the quote that removed.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Pastoral origin
There are many more sources but these are very high quality. There seems to be a consensus among modern scholars about the origin. LukeEmily (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

A: Eugenia Vanina(Historian, Indologist) : Almost all Rajput clans originated from the semi-nomadic pastoralists of the Indian north and north-west

B : David Lorenzen, Daniel Gold "Rajput" was a more ascriptive term, referring to all kinds of Hindus who lived the life of the adventuring warrior, of whom most were of peasant origins

C: Dasharatha SharmaAccording to some scholars, the so-called Agnikula clans, the Pratihāras, Paramāras, Solankis and Chauhāns were originally Gurjaras.so-called Agnikula clans, the Pratihāras, Paramāras, Solankis and Chauhāns were originally Gurjaras (Gurjar is a pastoral group)

D: Andre Wink very probable that fire-born Rajput clans like the Caulukyas, Paramaras, Cahamanas, as well as the Tomaras and others who in the eighth and ninth centuries were subordinate to the Gurjara-Pratiharas, were of similar pastoral origin, that is, that they originally belonged to the mobile, nomadic groups

E: Doris Marion Kling, University of Pennsylvania: Rajput: Pastoral, mobile warrior groups...

F ...these new Rajput aristocracies quickly obliterated their obscure, often pastoral origins in the expanding agricultural society of early medieval North India.As a rising agricultural gentry and ruling elite, the medieval Rajputs differed widely from the urbanized and highly educated classical varna of kshatriyas, at least as they are depicted in the literature. The largely illiterate warrior groups of Rajputs, adopting landholding along with their newly found kshatriya identity and dharmic code, associated...


 * As I wrote in other thread, lets wait for admins and Moderators because matter has been updated to them. Also you have filed complaint too, thats also open. Please let all matter resolve, and let admins say what they want. We should have discuss like this before filing complaints and all but I was the one who was trying everything on talk page and you went on to complain at admin just for two edits. We could have built consensus here if you even engaged in talk page. Now let it go. And see what admins say about this matter. Then we will proceed accordingly. Before that I suggest to all 3 of us to not edit this page and engage ourselves in any edit war. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sajaypal007, if you had not deleted academic citations, I would not have filed complaint. This problem of deleting unpleasant citations is all across wikipedia not just Rajput. I am also waiting for admins. Edit warring is not a good thing and is unnecessary. I had already given previous explanations on talk page. I am not editing the page -only adding citations o talk page. LukeEmily (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sajaypal007 i m also not gonna make any edit be4 admins response.I have just told LukeEmily on his talk page about the same.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Heba Aisha, yes, I am also not making any edits on the main page - waiting for seniors and admins to review the citations and edits. Only editing the talk page. LukeEmily (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the Origins section and don't see any major problems. It is a lot more detailed than it used to be, and some times repetitious, which can be fixed through a copy-editing pass. But the content seems fine., what are the remaining objections you have? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

requesting admin help
User:Sajaypal007 is persistently deleting new academic content to promote the caste. Please help. LukeEmily (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I asked you many times to make consensus on the talk page and in the edit summary as well. Please assume good faith before accusing someone of promoting the caste. Your edits looked like one sided minority view, despite asking so many times, you didnt try to get consensus on the topic before such heavy editing. Please make consensus first then edit. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sajaypal007, if you remove quote added by LukeEmily again in order to erase the reference i will lodge complaint against u.You are maliciously trying to erase origin section for past few days.In ur bid to do so u are remoing high quality sources so that you can delete the section you don't want here.plz stopHeba Aisha (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User:HebaAisha I asked to make consensus on the topic. Which both of you didn't and she kept on adding on content. Assume good faith, I can accuse you guys too for maliciously editing the page but now I wont. I am tagging the mods for the same. They werent reached and she kept on adding more and more one sided view. I only edited two or three times this article, she changed the whole article with one sided view. I am gonna lodge a complaint against her. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Sajaypal007, please do not delete any WP:RS in any case. You cannot delete academic references (books, quotes, journals) even if they are unpleasant. You not only modified the text but also deleted the books - all being from top historians and a top university like UPENN.edu ! I just don't get it. I plan to edit other caste pages too(including some Brahmin pages) - not just Rajput and I can already see that is going to be an uphill task. LukeEmily (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I already told you in the other thread what was wrong with your edits but you didnt reply in that thread and kept on adding more and more. Please refer to that thread. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I m familiar with what u want.You want anyhow to delete Shudra and low origin thing...plz see WP:Notcensored.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I already told you to please dont put your words in my mouth. I already explained in detail on that thread. Please go through that before accusing someone. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No you just came in and deleted three academic sources that were not saying what you wanted to read. That is simply not acceptable. You need to discuss on talk page before you go and blatantly delete academic sources. That is very offensive. I was not adding my personal opinion. I was also adding quotes that most editors do not add. What else do you need? Again, I am a "he" not "she".LukeEmily (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * LukeEmily sign ur comments wher u put sourcesHeba Aisha (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep the discussion related to edit on a single thread. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Administrators cannot rule on article content or sources. You need to begin the dispute resolution process. It is not acceptable to continue this edit war over the sourcing. If it continues, you both may be blocked and/or the page protected from editing until you solve your dispute. Katietalk 12:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Katie, Thank you for the dispute resolution link. Sajaypal007, please let us discuss in the Talk:Rajput if you still have concerns about the academic sources. Let me know what sources you want to remove. If we are unable to resolve in one week, let us use the link that KrakatoaKatie pointed to  - to resolve our dispute. Please let us avoid any personal attacks and only focus on the sources. Thank you.LukeEmily (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * just about everyone here should have gotten a DS warning about India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I honestly think this, and any other page seeing a fair amount of caste-related edit-war should be put under WP:ECP to calm things down.  Look at the history of Prithviraj Chauhan, it's crazy.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are right. I looked at the article and the Rajput caste promotion is going on there too. Basically they have wiped out anything that said he was not a Rajput. . Jadunath Sarkar, a Raj era historian is used but Cythia Talbot's view is dismissed(deleted). This well cited sentence has gone Prithviraj Raso, a legendary text patronized largely by the Rajput courts,[72] portrays Prithviraj as a great hero.[71] Prithviraj's dynasty was classified as one of the Rajput clans in the later period, including in Prithviraj Raso, although the "Rajput" identity did not exist during his time.[73]. Ravensfire, your edit was correct as you had reinstated sources that these promoters had deleted Why did you get angry and revert your own edit? Is it OK if I edit that page back to your version? LukeEmily (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Admin Katie  this is not a new problem.see this  and this  almost every caste page has this type of discussion about changing classification in varna status and they accuse other editors of letting down the community.See the link here caste man of particular community are arguing with a senior editor for the same.Just like Here.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Dasharatha Sharma's view
On balance, I agree with this deletion. When Dasharatha Sharma is saying, "according to some scholars", we can't change it to "according to Dasharatha Sharma". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * but rest thing are ok or not??Heba Aisha (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, I agree we cannot say according to Dasharatha Sharma. I dont have any problem with this changeLukeEmily (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3 That was the exact reason I gave for its removal in edit summary. But it was reverted nonetheless. I will discuss all the point I think are erroneous. Give me a little bit of time because there have been lot of editing. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3, Heba Aisha he is misrepresenting the facts. please check this edit  by Sajaypal007. It said According to modern scholars, almost all Rajputs clans originated from peasant or pastoral origin and according to some scholars, some clans were originally Gurjars. Dasharatha Sharma was not mentioned in the text only in the citation. So that edit was correct in lede and he reverted it nevertheless. I think we should reinstate the source section but use the highlighted statement above because it does not say that it is Sharma's view. LukeEmily (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like that has been reinstated. So, there is no need to discuss it any further.
 * The issue with Dasharatha Sharma is that not enough was known at that time. Moreover, the origin of the Gurjara-Pratiharas is still disputed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping resolve this Kautilya3 LukeEmily (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3 Another thing I removed was a line that said some rajput clans were originally Gurjars again the reference of the line were sharma and wink. It was nentioned in Origin section of this page. Sharma we already discussed and for wink you can see his quote which is mentioned in citation, I copy it here " ...and it is very probable that the other fire-born Rajput clans like the Caulukyas, Paramaras, Cahamanas, as well as the Tomaras and others who in the eighth and ninth centuries were subordinate to the Gurjara-Pratiharas, were of similar pastoral origin, that is, that they originally belonged to the mobile, nomadic groups..." He says similar pastoral groups means they were also pastoral groups like Gurjara-Pratiharas not that they themselves were Gurjara-Pratiharas.


 * So I removed that one line and gave the reason as above but it was also reverted, not only reverted but after reverting this editor also added this line to Lead, earlier it was only in origin section which I removed. I don't know why he did that after reverting. Also that editor added 2-3 more reference (like Vanina, daniel gold and kling) to that line none of those reference says that some clans of rajputs were gurajara. Please look into this as well.


 * @LukeEmily Glad that you mentioned this. Also I didnt remove it from the lead, it wasnt in the lead in the first place, I removed it from Origin section and you reverted my edit and also added this in lead. This removal you are mentioning in lead was done after you added it on both section. Please show the original i.e. first edit. I removed from origin section and you added it in both origin and lead. Then I removed from both places and you reverted both. So it was not there in the lead at all. It was only in origin. Anyway I am talking about its mention in citation. There is no mention of Gurjara in any citations except Wink and for wink I explained it. Sajaypal007 (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sajaypal007, I think the origin is fine now as Kautilya3 mentioned in previous section. Please also see quotes in the previous section. LukeEmily (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 As I mentioned earlier out of 4-5 citations only citation that mentioned Gurjara word is Wink and Sharma. And I already pointed out what was wrong with both "wink says similar pastoral" and sharma says "according to some scholars". Its not correct to add that line about gurjara origin just based on guesses. Also @LukeEmily can you provide the whole para of Dashrath Sharma so everyone can read that because I believe he never said about gurjara. Also The Gurjara Pratihara origin is separate debate and scholars do not agree with each other on that. I believe adding Gurjara origin for some clan doesnt make any sense just based on facts available.Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem with the "Gurjara" word is that, by the time of Gurjara-Pratiharas, it came to mean all the people of Gurjaradesa, not necessarily the nomadic tribes. That was the main point of Dasharatha Sharma. Not all scholars are cognizant of this issue. So it is best to leave out all mention of "Gurjara" from this page. It is not important. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Thats what I wanted to convey.Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3. OK with me. I dont mind either way. If you want to remove the Gurjara word I am OK as the pastoral origin is already mentioned. But I think we should keep the Wink reference (but remove the word) as it does use the word nomadic etc. Heba Aisha, what is your opinion? (BTW, you can you : to indent your text)LukeEmily (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * One in the origin was left so I removed that too alongwith another CV Vaidya's unnecessary Gurjara reference. Failed to give edit summary though. I hope you are aware.Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * sure Sajaypal007, thanks for the edit. LukeEmily (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have also made edits related to movement of images according to section and gave edit summary too.You all can see there.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Also i would like to highlight: "we have no alternative to the words like very low origin and these words have been used in the context of caste hierarchy only as it is done on pages related to other backward communities.So removing it implies we should remove that from all caste articles.If you all want that then bring out the consensus of other caste editors so that in future they donot bother our removal of low origin low categorized and untouchable words from all caste articles as there is no social stratification on wikipedia that these words should be used only in lower caste articles.Also the high and low categorization in our society is solely on the basis of occupational background not on the basis of race or economic status And since Rajput clan emerged from peasant and pastoral background we should have no issues in using that words for their origin.Since i m less active on wiki thats y putting my view in advance.Heba Aisha (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)"

"In the process of stratification that developed within the Gurjara stock some families attained political dominance and became ruling lineage."
 * Kautilya3The Government of India i think is teaching false history to children in IGNOU...The block 3 unit 10 of 8th-15th century book says:


 * What does it mean??Heba Aisha (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * we are smart enough to write a new history which suits us.Btw i have no dispute in whatever u are saying.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know. I can't say without looking at everything they have written. Note that, if I interpret "Gurjara stock" as all the people of Gurjaradesa, then it is pretty much a content-free generic statement. It says something significant only if we interpret "Gurjara stock" as made up of nomadic tribes who had been encroaching into the settled society, and capturing power wherever they could. If so, the Chavda dynasty ruler of Bhinmal that Xuanzang encountered must have been of "Gurjara stock" himself. If not, how would you explain the fact the country was called "Gurjara" (ku-che-lo) at that time? It is one thing to postulate generic social processes that were at play. And quite another to connect it with all the concrete facts we know from the historical record. Treating "Gurjaras" as pastoral nomads leads to all kinds of difficulties. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with LukeEmily and Kautilya.My proposal is that the gallery section should be decorative like that of Gurjar article.I have just placed the images there.If you want u can edit it and make size of images akin to Gurjar article.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with LukeEmily and Kautilya.My proposal is that the gallery section should be decorative like that of Gurjar article.I have just placed the images there.If you want u can edit it and make size of images akin to Gurjar article.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @HebaAisha for gallery and other things can you make a separate discussion page because this about origin and all. It will get unnecessarily crowded because of many different discussion. Thanks in advance. Sajaypal007 (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ok ur next suggestions and let me clear.This is something personal.Bro don't take it negatively that something bad has been brought here.See check all articles related to caste.None of the caste is left where there is not any confusion in varna status.And let me tell i belong to Pasmanda community. Wikipedia even don't have article on that😀.I think this is the only caste{Rajput} where there is so much content to tell the world about their rich tradition of past.But we as neutral editor should place all view point.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * HELLO..to all of u here.YOU ARE discussing about editing this page and talking about GURJARA.IN GURJARA article it is written that gurjara mixed with hepthalite to become RAJPUT.SEE IT.Shubhamkoeri (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ferishta and Tod
Kautilya3, WP:Primary can be used when supported by other reliable sources. Earlier Sajaypal removed a note of ferishta as it was sourced directly from his book.But there is restriction on use of Raj era sources.But i can see Todd who is unreliable and the stanza also say that is here with his glorifying words in the form of quote.so either we should add ferishta along with tod or to remove tod as well.Sajaypal007,  what do u think?Heba Aisha (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have removed the quotation for Tod as being WP:UNDUE. Since the text itself is saying that he was biased, why are we displaying biased content from an amateur commentator?
 * As for Ferishta, I would need to see the content. (Do you know how to make WP:Diffs?) But I suspect that would also fall afoul of the same problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No i m new to wikipedia joined in this lockdown so not have idea about a lot of thing.only know about core rules.I think may help.Heba Aisha (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ferishta's statement was a very extreme one and wouldn't be liked by others.Provided that all medieval historian had their own limitation.While bernier will always criticise india comparing it to europe.Barani and ferishta will be biased towards Hindus and Shams siraj afif would have problems related to chronology.I m thinking whether to talk about ferishta's account or not.Sajaypal and others may give suggestions.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, Sajaypal007, Heba Aisha, I think given the modern research, we know that Ferishta's statement is not historically accurate. Also the book was only a translation of a very old source not a modern view. I do not believe in censorship but modern research clearly contradicts that statement. In my opinion, we can ignore Ferishta and not mention him at all. It is likely he made that statement because he was baised against Hinduism. Just my personal opinionLukeEmily (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We assume that the books written in distant past are not written for us. Only trained historians can attempt to extract valid information from them. We should not attempt it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree . BTW, was the diff that Heba was referring to (I think). I agree with both Sajaypal007 and Kautilya3. The source is too old, it is not for us, and should not be used. We do not even use sources that are more than 70-80 years old. My humble request: Please do not add Ferishta's statement - let some modern historian interpret it for us.LukeEmily (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * AgreedSajaypal007 (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Source "19 a" of Talbot doesnt mention the line after which it is cited? Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok don't add ferishta i also agreeHeba Aisha (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * source 13 is not Talbot Sajaypal Heba Aisha (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ohh sorry I meant "19" 19a to be specific.corrected.

Regarding repetition of same line
Heba Aisha As we discussed in other thread, the same line is getting repeated in origin section. Last line of first para and first line of 3rd para they both have same sources as well. Except Talbot's source which doesnt even mention what is written in that line. My suggestion is to remove the redundancy and get one line removed. If we remove last line of first para which I believe was added quite recently in this controversy and major edits. That way the para will be in chronological order too, because if remove the other line then chronology would break. From British period to modern period.Kautilya3 Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC) For example the line says...they include various group including shudra and tribals. Let us know. So i support to Keep.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * According to me this is not repetition.As the line which u want to remove summarises all the theories regarding origin in one go and it should be at top for readers to get the idea quickly.
 * Chahman were tribals who became chauhan.'''Similarly chandela are of Bhar or Gond origin according to Upinder Singh and many others like VA Smith.
 * I have read about someone in Rashtrakuta dynasty, that he used to be brahmin earlier but performed a ritual called Hiranyagarbha (donation) (golden womb) to become kshatriya and assimilated into Rajputs.
 * Regarding Shudra status various Shudra caste claim to be Rajput.Lodhi (caste) and Rajput Mali and many others.
 * Some of them were descendants of Huna also as we can see in this article itself.So that particular line is adequate for the top.


 * Heba Aisha, Sajaypal007, Kautilya3 I don't have any opinion on this issue. Other editors can decide. I am moving on to other articles. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sajaypal007LukeEmily i m hating this article  now and i pray this discussion to be over soon.I have no interest in his particular caste.And trust me i also want to move away from here but i m seeing an entirely unacceptable thing that even though high quality sources are given some have problem in first line which includes shudra status i guess the next demands will be the lines which contain varna samkara and then those of illiterate warrior.Actually in the name of improving the article people are here to anyhow remove sourced things even sources are high quality. I m tired of saying them to see Wp:UncensoredHeba Aisha (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion has become futile because of caste boosterism
In name of improving the article the castemen are active in removing all the things they found inappropriate despite of it being sourced.I m tired of discussion now as new users come on and all just have the same purpose i.e glorification as they have problem with the line that have Shudra term and also i am sure they will also have problems with other words like varna shankar.Only reason is that they don't like .I am moving to other articles as i had not joined wikipedia to woo just one particular caste as many people are doing in name of editing historical topics but i m and will remain opposed to the removal of origin image and according to me origin section is also fine right now.Everyone who earlier participated moved from here i guess just because of stiff resistance from casteist and personal attack by creating redirect to our accounts and trolling.This is what user:LukeEmily》 and me both of us faced. So if edits are done in future to glorify the caste by removing terms castemen find inappropriate you can see reversion from my side.(Not quickly but they're not gonna remain here forever as wikipedia is a living entity and subject to change) Heba Aisha (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy edits bye all.Inviting others who were involved earlier to continue discussion if they wish.-

Moving to other articles Heba Aisha (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Heba Aisha, That is one of the reasons I am moving to other articles too for now to cool down. Will revisit later. But I think senior editors are getting aware of what is going on. See this warning from User:Sitush - . Yesterday, just a few minutes after I supported the image in the discussion above, my talk page was hacked by some "LukeSmily" (now banned). My talk page was getting redirected to his page.User:Ravensfire also noticed a problem on the Prithviraj_Chauhan page where users were removing this statement : "although the Prithviraj's dynasty was classified as one of the Rajput clans in the later period, including in Prithviraj Raso, although the "Rajput" identity did not exist during his time.[73](from Cythia Talbot). See WP:DISPUTE LukeEmily (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * well i have explained that caste boosterism and personal attacks by making fake accounts of name similar to ours is not gonna work.This page is not gonna remain stable if sourced content is removed by the people who want to keep only what they like.Also both and  are deliberately avoiding comments of Heba Aisha (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * don't scare of hackers.. i have faced them 5 times u can report on WP:UAA.they take action quicklyHeba Aisha (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Heba Aisha I think this is a complex issue, as you mention there is caste boosterism , but also attempts of disruptive editing to remove things that do not conform to traditional relegious narratives ( like saying people from shudra varna also formed part of an upper caste ). More importantly there are also attempts to humiliate other castes, this I believe is a very serious issue , as it is done to reinforce toxic caste narratives to humiliate a particular caste ,this sometimes is done quite blatantly and sometimes by citing selectively , giving a false impression of what was actually intended to be said by an author. I am no expert at Wikipedia editing and made the mistake of engaging in edit wars, but now I have come to an understanding that ultimately things will move in the correct direction, if not now then later. The disruptive editors in this case should clearly be blocked. But I am not aware how that would be done. But hope people who can, become aware. Meethamonkey (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)