Talk:Rajput/Archive 28

RfC about deletion of allegedly derogatory words in Origin section
There is a dispute about changes in origin section particularly related to derogatory words used here and also the origin image?
 * The origin of the Rajputs has been a much-debated topic among the historians. Modern historians agree that Rajputs consisted of a mixing of various different social groups including Shudras and tribals.
 * Thus, modern scholars summarise that Rajputs were a "group of open status" since the eighth century, mostly illiterate warriors who claimed to be reincarnates of ancient Indian Kshatriyas – a claim that had no historical basis.

Folks these sentences have been disputed by the litigant Mr. while me and are agreed on keeping present version. The litigant may rise another sentences they are not in agreement with. Thanks Heba Aisha (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Below mentioned are the observations and comments by Мастер Шторм: About terms: Where are the supposed derogatory terms in the above 2 sentences? Anyways, does the person (if any) who has objections to the use of any of the terms in the article not yet aware that Wikipedia is not censored? So, no terms from the article sourced from WP:RS can be removed. About image: The image in the origin section shows 2 cultivators from the community, and given the Rajputs' peasant and pastoral origin (per sources in the article), the presence of the current image is OK in the "Origins" section. Interestingly, I could not find any opposing comments in the above discussions against the inclusion of the images in which the Rajputs are shown in king–ly attires, prince–ly attires, holding weapons, etc. Any person who has objections to the image of the Rajputs in the cultivator–ly attire should familiarize themselves with WP:NPOV. General comment: I am not sure if what I am thinking is correct but I think that this particular RfC request in itself is not only questionable but useless as it is requesting comments which may possibly go against and challenge one of the best policies of Wikipedia (WP:NOTCENSORED) and such comments might not only be simply unproductive but could also possibly further mud the waters here. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of Wikipedia is not censored and I never said I find the terms objectional. I said these terms were added in a judgemental way and to make minority view mainstream. To make it clear it also became disputed under WP:NPOV since most of the sources added are not talking about rajput origin as a detailed subject and made one or two running reference to it, and the opinions of the authors which did talk in detail are not taken included much. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a minority view as modern scholars seem to agree on these points. Secondly these scholars are of international repute, modern and from premier institutions. In fact, the Raj era opinions are minority views and can be shown to be false by several examples. Yet, we mention them and no one has objected. So why should there be objection to modern views? It is not for us to say that the historians are judgmental. As editors we have to show WP:BURDEN when we add a statement- that is satisfied. Personal opinion about a reliable source cannot be used to show that the view of the historian is not correct, please see WP:OR. In one of the discussions in the sections  above there is an attempt to say that the historian is incorrect in his view. The historians have expertise in these fields and there is no question that they satisfy WP:HISTRS. And again, coming back to minority view. To prove that "they were of illiterate origin" is a minority view, there need to be several sources that say "they were of literate origin". There is not even one source that says that. In fact, there are several sources that do say they were not literate - some are not even on the article as it would be over citation. These are not fringe opinions and several authors support them - in fact, almost every modern scholar supports them. And absence of a view does not mean disagreement. For example, just because some regional hindi source does not talk about their literacy does not mean the historian agrees they were literate. Hence, there is no reason to delete any of the content as it satisfies WP:BURDEN and WP:HISTRS.LukeEmily (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No and Yes - The first statement is perfectly fine. It is factual and scholarly. The second statement on the other hand is full of WP:POV, judgemental, contemptuous and full of ridicule: "illiterate warriors", "claimed to be reincarnates" and "no historical basis". What is the connection between illiteracy and warriorhood? How many Rajputs are "illiterate"? What is reincarnation doing here? And as for "no historical basis", frankly every caste makes claims without historical basis. And even the whole country, for example, is celebrating Ayodhya as the birthplace of Rama without any historical basis. There is no need to package up all these disparate issues into one sentence to make up an explicit put-down. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note these("illiterate warriors", "claimed to be reincarnates" and "no historical basis") are quotes by the historians not by wikipedia editors. Making comments about their literacy or claim to Kshatriya status is not judgmental, contemptuous and full of ridicule. That is what historians do anyways. And no one is saying that currently the Rajputs are illiterate. This section is only about origin. According to scholars almost all were illiterate with a few exceptions. I guess if we go down this path of removing contemptuous statements by scholars - we will have to delete everything derogatory from wikipedia simply by claiming that it is contemptuous. As far as connection between literacy and varna, it has been explained by the historians as well as by the previous editor(Kautilya03) himself, and I quote him:If two out of three citations mention the "illiterate" issue, then I don't see a problem. If Ziegler is only dealing with 16th century, that is an issue of course. But NitinMlk has provided an even more definitive source for it. In my own experience, since I deal with the Kashmir conflict a lot, I know that the Dogra Rajputs that ran the princely state were essentially illiterate (had very low levels of education). The founder Gulab Singh was completely illiterate. Probably a lot of the Kashmir problems we have now are a product of this deficiency.The comparison being made with Kshatriyas traditionally being "educated urban elite" is fine, I think. Kshatriyas are after all a dvija caste, and the "second birth" alluded to is that of education. So, theoretically, Kshatriyas are required to be educated, and that is true for all times. Other ruling classes in India were highly educated, irrespective of their caste. See for example Amuktamalyada.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Now here are the sources.
 * 1. Andre Wink, Professor of History specializing on Indian History, University of Wisconsin Madison. ]
 * Quote-1 by Wink: "In short, a process of development occurred which after several centuries culminated in the formation of new groups with the identity of 'Rajputs'. The predecessors of the Rajputs, from about the eighth century, rose to politico-military prominence as an open status group or estate of largely illiterate warriors who wished to consider themselves as the reincarnates of the ancient Indian Kshatriyas. The claim of Kshatriyas was, of course, historically completely unfounded. The Rajputs as well as other autochthonous Indian gentry groups who claimed Kshatriya status by way of putative Rajput descent, differed widely from the classical varna of Kshatriyas which, as depicted in literature, was made of aristocratic, urbanite and educated clans..."


 * Quote 2 by Wink: ...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,


 * 2. Norman Ziegler, Historian, Professor, known for his work on Rajputs.


 * Quote: "Rajputs were, with some exceptions, almost totally illiterate as a caste group"


 * 3.Eugenia Vanina(Historian, Indologist)
 * Quote: Regarding the initial stages of this history and the origin of the Rajput feudal elite, modern research shows that its claims to direct blood links with epic heroes and ancient kshatriyas in general has no historic substantiation. No adequate number of the successors of these epically acclaimed warriors could have been available by the period of seventh-eights centuries AD when the first references to the Rajput clans and their chieftains were made. [...]Almost all Rajput clans originated from the semi-nomadic pastoralists of the Indian north and north-west Thank you.LukeEmily (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have missed the point of what I said above. There is no question that illiteracy should be dealt with, along with a clear enough enunciation of the time period when they were illiterate. But rather comment is about the combined phrase "illiterate warriors" as if they were a special kind of warriors. Only one of your three sources used this phraseology. And, for that matter, Wink doesn't know whether the ancient Kshatriyas were any different, only that they were depicted in literature as educated elite. To repeat what I wrote: There is no need to package up all these disparate issues into one sentence to make up an explicit put-down. We are expected to summarise what the scholars say in our own words. So we can't hide behind the scholars when criticised. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello,. What is "an explicit put-down"? Kindly, define it please. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , "illiterate warrior" is a put-down for a start. "Reincarnate" is also uncalled for. These people only claim to be descendants of ancient Kshatriyas. And, for all we know, that lineage was imparted to them by the more learned people, the Brahmins typically. They didn't make it up themselves. The whole discussion is very bregrudging: "how dare these people get Kshatriya status? They are illiterate nincumpoops. They don't deserve it." For all we know, the scholars themselves may be airing such biased views. I don't know. But I am surprised with the amount of scorn that is being thrown at Rajputs, whereas plenty of other castes don't get any such treatment. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , just listen to yourself, my dear! Just listen to the words that you have just typed above! Out of respect for the work done by you on this talk page and on this article, I would like to first you give you a chance to edit your above comments before I reply to them tomorrow. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I still have a few questions and would be greateful if you could answer them:


 * 1) How do you know that "These people only claim to be descendants of ancient Kshatriyas." and what the scholar academic published is incorrect?
 * 2) You have written above: The whole discussion is very bregrudging: "how dare these people get Kshatriya status? They are illiterate nincumpoops. They don't deserve it.". On this talk page or anywhere, who has used the words mentioned in the quotes by you?
 * 3) You have written above: "For all we know, the scholars themselves may be airing such biased views. I don't know." Since you have used plurals (scholars), can you name a few scholars in the article about which you doubt that they are "airing such biased views"?
 * 4) You said above: "But I am surprised with the amount of scorn that is being thrown at Rajputs, whereas plenty of other castes don't get any such treatment." Is there anything in the article that is not sourced from a WP:RS? Anyways, how did you came to the conclusion that editors (and which ones) are throwing scorn at this community's Wikipedia article?
 * 5) Thank you for giving an example to highlight what you see as "an explicit put-down". Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with please see WP:STICKTOSOURCE.which say: Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. The illiterate warrior..... is a sentence quoted from one of the source and not put by editors.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , STICKTOSOURCE does not mean COPYTHESOURCE. Please read the policy carefully. You are expected to summarise the sources in your own words. So if you can't justify why particular phrasing is being used, except to say so-and-so scholar used it, then you are not using your own words. If they are your own words, you need to be able to justify. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello,. Why are you simply not listing just a couple of WP:RS that backs up your opinion, and get any and all the rightful changes done in the article? It's as simple as that, and I have no doubts that you do understand this. If you list even one solid scholarly source here that contradicts the scholarly views of the academics cited in the article, then no one can really stop you from mentioning that source's views in any section of the article. Can anyone? Of course not, provided that the context must be clear. There is no minimum 'X' number of scholars required rule on Wikipedia to add content. Right? However, since you believe that the views mentioned in article are supported only by a minority of academics and there is a supposed majority which states otherwise, then you should list some of their relevant quotes here rather than making such an interesting claim. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The issues still remains the same....we donot have a single source to state that they were literate and ps: Untouchability is not practiced in India as of now but still Dalit castes like pasi and Paswan are still untouchable on wikipedia. Even i tried to put in my own words(as says) that they were formerly untouchable...the edit were reverted by. See here [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/967258639].So to summarise until we find sources not WP:SPS we need to write what the scholar says.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are talking around the issue, instead of answering it. What is meant by "illiterate warriors"? What is the connection between the two attributes, illiteracy and warriorhood? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Although there are enough sources to proove that the community was largely illiterate and we have no need to present any more. But i have got one more...which focuses on a study done in Champaran during Gandhiji's indigo revolt which goes on to say this (and this also shows connection between illiteracy and warriorhood):



Heba Aisha (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Heba Aisha, I feel the above quote is not necessary. There are multiple sources and even one WP:RS should be enough for illiteracy. Secondly, the ritual status above is only about a particular Champaran. My dear , your heart is in the right place hence I like you and respect you. But to say that the Kshatriya claim of all Rajputs was approved by Brahmins is historically incorrect. Many times the fabrications were by the llocal Rajput castes themselves. The Rajputs in Maharashtra as well as anyone who claimed descent from them had a low ritual status as studies of caste debates in early 19th century Maharashtra will show.  In Maharashtra, if a caste was not a Brahmin, it had to show that (A) a respected Hindu scripture had a mention that they were Kshatriya/Vaisya who somehow escaped from Parshuram to override the Parshuram view in order to  get validation for twice-born claim and (B) that they were regularly following the twice born duties such as studying Vedas - that required literacy as a prerequisite. But let us not get into talk of Maharashtra. 1) As said, there are multiple sources that talk about illiteracy of Rajputs but one should be enough. 2) discrediting the source based on WP:OR or calling the historian biased is a personal opinion hence normally I would not even engage in further discussion in that direction - by citing WP:OR. But since I respect you so much, will make an exception. By showing that a non-Kshatriya origin community was allowed Kshatriya rites- at least in some places, shows the greatness and acceptance of Hindu religion and Brahmins in particular. So these authors are indirectly praising the kindness of Brahmins who did that - they are opposite of biased. Please see Kanhoji_Angre and Dr.Pathak's view as another example.  Secondly, not every claim of every Rajput caste across India was supported by all Brahmins as many of the fabrications continued until independence without Brahmins being involved. About education, the Karnataka government classifies all Rajputs as Other_Backward_Class as mentioned in the article. The comparison with literacy and Kshatriya was justified by you about 10 days ago. Please correct me if I misunderstood you. You said and I quote: If two out of three citations mention the "illiterate" issue, then I don't see a problem. If Ziegler is only dealing with 16th century, that is an issue of course. But NitinMlk has provided an even more definitive source for it. In my own experience, since I deal with the Kashmir conflict a lot, I know that the Dogra Rajputs that ran the princely state were essentially illiterate (had very low levels of education). The founder Gulab Singh was completely illiterate. Probably a lot of the Kashmir problems we have now are a product of this deficiency.The comparison being made with Kshatriyas traditionally being "educated urban elite" is fine, I think. Kshatriyas are after all a dvija caste, and the "second birth" alluded to is that of education. So, theoretically, Kshatriyas are required to be educated, and that is true for all times. Other ruling classes in India were highly educated, irrespective of their caste. See for example Amuktamalyada.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC).  There are several communities - that have been heavily criticized by several historians- There are several castes across wikipedia that have negative content and have taken a beating on wikipedia. I respectfully disagree with you and I feel the Rajput page is full of WP:PUFFERY- showing this large community of millions as some sort of princes and kings when most of them were really farmers with low literacy. It also leaves out details of Sati(minor mention), infanticide(minor mention), opium usage, caste riots in the last 100 years etc and these need to be added to have a neutral view point.  As editors we need to be objective and keep our emotions and personal opinions aside when  we edit an uncensored source like wikipedia. I agree it is unpleasant at times and even offensive but we have to accept academic literature. From what I understand about your objections , I feel you would prefer a rephrase of the historian's quote and not specify the quote itself as part of the text. Please correct me if I misunderstand.  Thank you.LukeEmily (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Since everyone is talking about illiteracy issue. I am gonna start with that, I am gonna refute the point @LukeEmily made copying @NitinMlk's earlier comment, correct me if I am wrong in this. He said that Epics and Puranas talk about Literacy of Lord Krishna and Lord Rama and talk about, similarly there are all evidence for rajput kings to be like cultured and educated. Giving you an example or two 12th century Chahmana king Prithviraj Chauhan, 15th century Sisodia Rana Kumbha were all highly cultured and educated person. About Dvija, Rajput did wear Janeu thread just like kshatriyas but debate on Upanayana Samskara and sacred thread is another topic altogether. My point is denial of kshatriya status based on comparison of literacy level is very much faulty on many level as I pointed out some days ago. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also about claiming the rajput status, there were many who claimed Rajput ancestry like Bhosale Clan of Marathas or Royal dynasty of Bharatpur, even though both of these clans were politically powerful but yet still they weren't considered Rajputs. So claiming doesn't always mean it can be legitimised too. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all this article is not about any Rajput dynasty and its about Rajput community as a whole. And not everyone were kings or royal blood in this caste. There used to be kings from many Shudra caste too. Like Scindia and Holkar but overall community i.e kunbi and Dhangar are backward socio-economically and educationally. Also you are still giving personal opinion and not providing high quality sources which counter these. We are eager to know when you are producing a high quality source to support ur claim????????Heba Aisha (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: one more source which was produced earlier which talks on high level of illiteracy.



Heba Aisha (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , given the present population of Rajputs in India and Pakistan (which is more than the total population of some countries), let's say that the Rajput cluster of castes must have had a very large population even centuries ago. By the process of Rajputization, people of diverse ethnic and geographic background kept on becoming Rajputs, further increasing the population. This article is about all those millions of Rajputs and their ancestors who came from different ethnic and geographical backgrounds, and hence, the sentence in the article uses the words "mostly illiterate", not "absolutely 100% illiterate". Anyways, can you provide any citations that gives an idea of the number of literate Rajput people at specific/particular times in history? This issue might be solved in a day after you do that. and, I would say that if there is a WP:RS that reveals the literacy status of any caste (any number of castes) at any specific/particular times in history, then that information should be added to the caste articles as it would be informative for our readers of caste articles (many of whom are also students). Also, such information is of course not only valuable in studying history, but such a data is also valuable from the view of sociology, and social and cultural anthropology. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

present sources if you want changes not personal opinion or WP:OR. I have access to 1931 census document. Which have a lot of things to say on illiteracy of Rajputs. I don't want its inclusion as source (it is Raj era) but it will give u a fair idea.If you have more interest i can give pdf too. It quotes:




 * I am providing a open access link to archive.org to 1891 census report, so we won't be needed to selectively quote from the source and anyone can look over there. Comparing the literacy of Rajputs with Brahmins and Baniyas whose profession demanded the knowledge of reading and writing will post sketchy picture. @HebaAisha please post the percentage of literacy of the whole population so we can compare it with Rajput literacy to make sense of it. Anyway [|Here] is the link to 1891 Census. On page 216 there is percentage wise data given of each religion's literacy, almost 90% of the male population was illiterate and almost 100% of female population was illiterate. Even if we even out its like 94-95% of the total population which was illiterate. And I must say 15th century literacy rate will certainly be even lower. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Also if I may add, knowledge of vedas doesnt directly mean literacy as vedas were memorised through oral tradition in ancient period and were passed this way from generations to generation before being put to paper in later times. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Plz note we are taking about illiteracy thing in around the period when Rajput formation was taking place and not the literacy of present time. In present time not only Rajput but all communities are in far better position. So in origin section the illiterate thing is justified.....as it talks about then not now. Also socio-economic and caste census donot give knowledge about any particular caste. It categorises caste in General OBC SC ST and then provides data for these groups. So no one can find exact data about a particular community. Can u provide post Raj era source like Andre wink so that we can balance the statement of their literacy by quoting that too.?Heba Aisha (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can provide modern source about their literacy then we can add that to balance the position that was in period of Rajput formation by adding that after the line which is disputed.

Ex-Heba Aisha (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Mr.Sajaypal, Мастер Шторм hit the nail on the head. All we need is a scholarly opinion that opposes Dr.Andre Wink("mostly illiterate") and Dr.Norman Zeigler("illiterate with a few exceptions") so we can add that opinion too to the origin section. I think every other discussion is futile. Please correct me if I am wrong. About Vedas, is there any evidence that these millions or even thousands or even hundreds of Rajputs studied Vedas? Are there any Rajput vedic/Sanskrit or other scholars in the 19th century like Brahmins or other castes. In Ayodhyakanda of Ramayana, Dasharatha tells Lord Rama that he(Dasharatha) has become old and he has a)given gifts(dana to brahmins), b)performed vedic rituals and c)studied vedas - which are Kshatriya ritual duties but now wants Lord Rama to take over. Did the two kings you mention above study Vedas? And even if they did, would these two examples justify that Rajputs were highly literate? Also, Brahmins were highly literate - if Vedas were studied only by oral tradition as they were in vedic times there would be no need for Brahmins to be literate. If you are saying that we can rephrase the text to attribute these so called derogatory phrases to these specific scholars then I agree with you. Also, they can be rephrased to make them less provocative if others agree. Please know that no wikipedia editor has added personal opinions about them being illiterate-it is the historians who are doing that and the only way to balance it is to use other WP:RS to give a different opinion. Our personal opinions do not matter to wikipedia but based on what I have studied about castes and varnas I feel Wink is correct. If a caste called itself Brahmin but historians said they were mostly illiterate and never studied vedas -it would raise eyebrows. A kshatriya was supposed to take second birth and that started with studying. other editors agree. Please search for "Amuktamalyada" on this page. I do not think any editor has any bias against Rajputs and no one is adding personal opinions.
 * Anyway, here is a modern source, if you click on the link(page 278) you will get literacy of all castes in that area including Rajputs. . Thank you. LukeEmily (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

LukeEmily is right and is also saying same thing. make next comments only when it is backed up by a modern scholarly source which opposes the above mentioned scholars.Otherwise there is no meaning of discussion.You may rise second issue as we are on WP:Rfc and its last resort for us to settle everything.Heba Aisha (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @Heba Aisha how is the discussion ended, main point about denial of kshatriya status based on literacy is not even touched. Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also I was replying to @Мастер Шторм when he asked about literacy data of any time period in history. Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Plz elaborate in short and it must be supported by a source.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you would have carefully read the comments by other editors from time to time in response/answer to the points raised by you on this talk page, then you would have realized that you have already received good arguments/answers in response to your concerns. Please listen to other editors more attentively. I had requested you to provide any citations that gives an idea of the number of literate Rajput people at specific/particular times in history. And, if you would have provided one or more (even one) WP:RS that reveals the literacy status of Rajputs at specific/particular times in history which would have said anything new/different from the scholars already cited in the article then we could have summarized the comments from the source(s) and could have added them at a relevant place in the article. At this point of time, I think that I may not have anything new/more to say to you. Also, if you don't mind being advised, may I advise you to please read Gaming the system (kindly take it as a positive advice, please). Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't participate in this so I may ask you to read what point I raised literacy under discussion named "Regarding Origin section" which was being moderated by @Kautilya3. That is very long para if you wish I can copy that here. Also I don't know why you are mentioning to read me the policy WP:Gaming the system, my concerns are genuine and I do not intend to do any such thing. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , before making my first comment in this section, I had gone through all the content in all the sections currently present in this talk page. As I said earlier, seeing the comments by other editors from time to time in response/answer to the points raised by you on this talk page, I think that I may not have anything new/more to add. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

HI  and  plz don't hurl recriminations against each other. We are under Radar of many admins. Also i think community is clear on this that they all want modern source(High quality) post 1947 which presents opposite view to that of wink and other scholars. All the theories which you are presenting amounts to WP:OR and it can't be a basis for any changes as wikipedia can't publish original research. So you are requested to produce source. (PS: in 30 days from the date i filed Rfc the Bot will automatically close it and then an uninvolved admin will write the result on the basis of what majority says. And after that no opportunities.)Heba Aisha (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Heba Aisha, There is no policy about majority opinion. Please see WP:DEMOCRACY. But we can focus only on sources here and keep such discussions to our talk pages. I think we only need to follow the following simple rules of Wikipedia policy for content:
 * 1. Is the source 'X' WP:RS? If no, delete it. If yes, keep it.
 * 2. Does another WP:RS 'Y' oppose X? If yes, then put both Y and X and attribute them in text. For example: "Andre Wink states they were of illiterate origin and Norman Zeigler also states they were mostly illiterate in the c'th century but Dr.ABC disagrees and states they were a highly literate origin caste".
 * For this, in addition to WP:BURDEN and WP:RS , I am quoting Sitush, see "it is fine to show different opinions etc provided that they are from reliable sources." and  You cannot just remove sourced content because you have found a source that says differently. If there is disagreement then we show all sides; if a source is unreliable then it is for you to gain consensus for that before removing it. In this case I believe there is no source that opposes the illiterate origin issue so we do not have to even deal with this scenario of disagreeing sources. In the book "Caste in History" (2008) by Oxford University Press by Ishita Bannerjee (editor) there is the same discussion about pastoral tribals becoming Rajputs over time by fabricating genealogies and she also discusses Rajputization and quotes Kulke and Srinivas and many scholars in the introduction itself. It seems modern scholars all agree about what is in the origin section. I have not found any modern scholar who has a different opinion about origin.
 * To summarize my view: In this case, the sources in the opinion section are reliable as they are academic and by modern scholars. However, we can expand by adding more sources at the appropriate place with different views and rearrange or rephrase existing sources. I do not have anything more to add to the illiterate issue at the moment.LukeEmily (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Its now upon to find opposing source. Otherwise everything is clear.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said ealier, I am copy pasting my earlier comment with slight modification which wasnt discussed because of other issue. I want to make it clear that this point of illiteracy is one among many points about which I raised the objections. Now as the topic was started as illiteracy point I think we are discussing this one first. This point is regarding 5th para of the Origin section which starts with, "Gradually the term Rajput came to denote....". The last line of the para goes like this, "Thus, modern scholars summarise that Rajputs were a group of open status" since the eighth century, mostly illiterate warriors who claimed to be reincarnates of ancient Indian Kshatriyas – a claim that had no historical basis. Moreover, this unfounded Kshatriya status claim showed a sharp contrast to the classical varna of Kshatriyas as depicted in Hindu literature in which Kshatriyas are depicted as an educated and urbanite clan." To make this point very clear, this is not about rajput literacy in general but denial of kshatriya status to the rajputs based on comparison of the literacy of both Rajputs and Kshatriyas. The paragraph is backed by 3 different source.
 * First source of Andre Wink says almost the same thing as quoted on this page. We will come to this later. Second source Brajadulal Chattopadhya doesnt talk about Rajput being illiterate. I read the relevant pages and didnt find the mention of illiterate on that page 59 or even 58 or 60 for that matter. If someone wish I can mail him the copy of the relevant page. Next source of Ziegler says that Rajput with some exception were totally illiterate, he was talking about the period of 16th century. And this source is from footnotes in the end not the actual work per se. Anyway he just mention this when talking about something else not about rajput origin or anything. This source has no relevance here, it looks like, it was just put here to further strengthen the point that rajput were illiterate rather than original point of Andre wink which uses illiteracy of rajputs to compare them with Kshatriyas.
 * Now come to Andre wink again, he is a learned scholar of history but his point of comparing literacy level of Kshatriyas of Epics with Rajputs of medieval period (that is like gap of more than a millenium) seems to be unfounded. Whether they were kshatriyas or not is irrelevant for this argument but the claim that their literacy can be compared and used for denying their kshatriya status is I believe a weak argument at best. In next line he further argue that according to legends Kshatriyas were exterminated by Lord Parshurama. To summarise the argument of Wink doesnt hold water when he compares literacy of Kshatriyas with Rajputs (comparing literacy of different eras) and also the argument that kshatriyas were exterminated not to mention measurement of literacy of those two periods probably varied a lot. Argument of Wink that Parsurama killed all kshatriyas from the face of earth and implied that there were no more kshatriyas remained, hence rajputs can't be kshatriyas is really a laughable argument, more so than comparison of literacy of these groups. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If Brajadulal donot say that that particular source can be removed. But still wink said the same what is written and there is no problem in using footnotes to strengthen the point as i saw them used in several articles(ex i remember in Kushwaha even lead section was derived from footnotes). Also the meaning seems clear it is not necessary that in same section of origin writers can talk about a particular thing.For example in book of satish chandra in section of Mughal persian relationship, Mughal Uzbeg relationship is also discussed and can we dismiss it there? No.....What we need is source and i can point in this article itself numerous such things which are discussed outside the particular heading and just put here from anywhere to make the community glorifying. We have said numerous times....plz present a scholarly source to back up not personal opinion, its killing others time.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Sajaypal007, please correct me if I am wrong but have these points not been addressed by others before? Мастер Шторм, Heba Aisha,, Kautilya and myself as well - multiple times ? I discussed the study of vedas, second birth and others did too.   And the Lord Parashuram story which was used by some in the past to try to suppress some vedic rituals for some castes was overridden by other Hindu scriptures(puranas) that showed exceptions to the same story - not by genealogists who were paid. Do Rajputs have any mention in the Puranas or Hindu scriptures? But I do not want to get into irrelevant discussion about scriptures. I am not understanding your concern. Are you saying Wink is wrong? You had been requested to produce other source about the origin that contradict him. In any case, every modern scholar seems to say they are of non-kshatriya origin (pastoral/peasant), not just Wink and typically peasants or shepherds were not literate. There is nothing degrading in that. Farming is a noble profession. India cannot survive without farmers. There are other papers which talk about some criminal tribes becoming Rajput(See State formation in central India) - that is not even mentioned on this page. I can give quotes from this same page but am tired of repeating the same again and again. Requesting some other editor to explain - perhaps I am unable to communicate properly. Sorry.:-( LukeEmily (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Clear case of derailing and bad faith negotiation. Plz provide source Sajaypal007 not ur personal theory. Plz everyone of us want the same.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Heba Aisha, Chattopadhyaya discusses the tribal and nomadic origins or Rajputs and how they tried to legitimize their new power by claiming to be Kshatriyas. So he seems to be in sync with other scholars. I have the book but not with me at the moment hence only trying to jog my memory. Since the Paragraph states that, we need it as a citation for other sentences but not the sentence in in this discussion. We can be more specific and insert it at the right place instead of at the end of the paragraph.LukeEmily (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am seeing people are editing the page even though page is disputed, for image we had like 2-3 weeks discussion yet @HebaAisha removed a image and added another image without any discussion at all, which is really against the consensus building process. I am a little busy for some days, I will contribute after some time. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That section is not under Rfc plz be aware with rules. Origin is under Rfc and thats a clean image as per commons with no issues. You shouldn't remove on obscure grounds.Heba Aisha (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Noniya are not Rajputs.
Some propagandists like Emily etc have added Noniya group to Rajput community. Below is the link: Noniya is a separate group and is part of EBC not Rajput who are under general category. Noniya are separate backward caste. https://m.timesofindia.com/city/patna/state-seeks-st-status-for-noniya-caste/amp_articleshow/76472841.cms Rana of Bharat (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Below write up needs to be removed.

Scholars also give recent examples of successful assimilations into the Rajput communities by communities not associated with warriorhood even as late as the early 20th century. William Rowe, discusses an example of a Shudra caste - the Noniyas (caste of salt makers)- from Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar that had "become" "Chauhan Rajputs" over three generations in the Raj era. The more wealthy or advanced Noniyas started by forming the Sri Rajput Pacharni Sabha (Rajput Advancement Society) in 1898 and emulating the Rajput lifestyle. They also started wearing of Sacred thread. Rowe states that at a historic meeting of the caste in 1936, every child this Noniya group knew about their Rajput heritage.[51]. Similarly, Donald Attwood and Baviskar give and example of a caste of shepherds who were formerly Shudras successfully changed their status to Rajput in the Raj era and started wearing the Sacred thread. They are now known as Sagar Rajputs. The scholars consider this example as a case among thousands.[52][53 Rana of Bharat (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Noniya are an EBC group not Rajouts, I have shared the links above. Rana of Bharat (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NPA. And you are misunderstanding the text. It is not saying that Noniyas are Rajputs. It is talking about a group of Noniyas who separated from their caste and became Chauhan Rajputs 100 years ago. This is exactly what Ishita Bannerjee describes in the introduction of her book although she does not use the Noniyas as an example as some of her statements like Carans etc. do not apply. The Shegar caste call themselves Rajputs and scholars have said their new name is 'Sagar Rajputs'. We have to follow the sources.

Ishita Banerjee-Dube (2010). Caste in History. Oxford University Press. p. xxiii. ISBN 978-0-19-806678-1. ''Rajputization discussed processes through which 'equalitarian, primitive, clan based tribal organization' adjusted itself to the centralized hierarchic, territorial oriented political developments in the course of state formation. This led a 'narrow lineage of single families' to disassociate itself from the main body of their tribe and claim Rajput origin. They not only adopted symbols and practices supposedly representative of the true Kshatriya, but also constructed genealogies that linked them to the primordial and legendary solar and lunar dynasties of kings. Further, it was pointed out that the caste of genealogists and mythographers variously known as Carans, Bhats, Vahivanca Barots, etc., prevalent in Gujarat, Rajasthan and other parts of north India actively provided their patron rulers with genealogies that linked local clans of these chiefs with regional clans and with the Kshatriyas of the Puranas and Mahabharata. Once a ruling group succeeded in establishing its claim to Rajput status, there followed a 'secondary Rajputization' when the tribes tried to 're-associate' with their formal tribal chiefs who had also transformed themselves into Hindu rajas and Rajput Kshatriyas.''LukeEmily (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Undue weightage and NPOV
Undue weightage has been given to certain points on two sections of the page, marked them with templates, there is the issue of neutrality as well, please discuss Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In Rfc section other editors asked you to produce a source. You skipped and now using another pretext to remove sourced content.However in culture section u can put tag as that is new addition.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you feel it is not WP:NPOV, please provide sources for opposing points of view so we can add them too and show all sides. Please feel free to add more content in the culture section like current marriage customs, festivals after birth, etc. As far as ill-treatment of women is concerned, I request you to read Leigh Minturn's book. The article (female infanticide, etc) is only tip of the iceberg. Also, if there are specific clans that formally banned female infanticide or Sati in British era then we need to mention them as it is praiseworthy and progressive .LukeEmily (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * @HebaAisha in mediation, the mediator also supported my view and made edits accordingly, but you reverted that and questioned his ability to do so and he had to leave. Let's not talk about who did what? Talk about the subject matter? Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * we were talking about the kshatriya status of rajputs based on literacy data, shall we continue? Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please can you continue the discussion by providing a source in the rfc section as requested by other editors for the illiteracy issue? Please note that the section is about origin not status. cc: Мастер Шторм, Heba Aisha,    LukeEmily (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You were asked to provide source but u didn't now another pretext to remove the same thing that was discussed a lot. However in culture and ethos section u are free to rise ur opinion. Heba Aisha (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As I told earlier, I am little busy with other work, hence can't participate actively at wiki. Anyway I am asking at WikiProject of Indian History to get an expert to check the NPOV. Hence please don't remove the template. Thanks. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * sufficiently discussed.Talk page is testimony... You didn't present any source to back changes u want.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I asked on wikiproject, It wasn't sufficiently discussed and even if it did, it doesnt mean it can't be changed. Anyway I am not changing anything and I did least no of edits, i just want template until the problem is addressed. Hopefully someone from wikiproject can help us. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Had to abandon the talks due to time constraint and other works. I will soon be active to contribute and will solve the issue amicably. Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020
2405:201:401A:87B:4D39:EF0D:3AA2:968E (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Bharadwaj is a Bhramin Gotra or caste
 * You need to provider a reliable source for that addition. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

History
You are wrong to believe that you are not responsible for restoring what "has been there long before I joined Wikipedia". You are responsible for all edits you are making. Furthermore, per WP:BRD, you are supposed to justify your rejected edit on talk page. The source refers to a 1924 publication by Vaidya, but you are misrepresenting his conclusions.

What really C.V. Vaidya wrote? He discusses all of the possible scenarios but what he actually believed is different than what you are trying to tell. He writes that: "the Rajputs that they are the representatives of Vedic Kshatriyas it also shows how the now generally accepted legend about Agnikula Rajput families is twisted into a support for the theory of foreign descent started by western scholars have tried 'in our first volume to refute many of these arguments. We have shown, in that volume how Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar's theory that the Gnjars are foreigners (Khizars) who came along with the Huns in the beginning of the fifth century is baseless, inasmuch as it is admitted by even Smith that there is no historical evidence either of native tradition or foreign record to suggest, much less to prove that the Gujars came into India from outside about this time and further because we find that the history of the Khizars proves that they never left their own country."

Analysis of his views by other reliable sources:


 * Vidya Dhar Mahajan concludes that "The theory of foreign origin is not accepted by scholars like C.V. Vaidya and Gauri Shankar Ojha. Their view is that ethnology, tradition and probabilities all point to the conclusion that the Rajputs were pure Aryans and not the descendants of the foreigners."
 * "C . V . Vaidya attempted to prove that Rajputs were fully identical to the Kshatriyas of ancient India, and that only the purest of Kshatriya blood flows in the veins of the Rajputs ." by Rima Hooja
 * "as late as 1924 that C.V. Vaidya came out to refute the theory of foreign origin of Rajput races in strong terms in his work on Early history of the Rajputs."

For what it is worth, the basic view that Vaidya believed that Rajputs are descents of Vedic Indo-Aryans has been already mentioned, the rest of the cherrypicked points are not needed and are definitely WP:UNDUE. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Abhishek0831996, Please do not delete my messages on the talk page. That is a violation. I am reposting it. First of all, you need consensus to remove sourced material - not the other way round. Second, Vaidya himself is WP:UNDUE as per WP:HISTRW as he died about 100 years back and modern research has shown his ridiculous theories about nose shape and Aryan race etc. to be false - these were theories that the racist British like Risley propagated and some Indian writers fell for those. I am surprised that Vaidya is even quoted here. The author who is quoting Vaidya himself is saying that this was nationalistic view so we need to add that otherwise it is cherry picking. Mahajan and others are simply quoting Vaidya's view so quoting him he does not add anything to the discussion. Anyway, I will add more edits from the text later - busy for some time. Please see [] to see reliability of sources. This is the first line: ''To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:
 * Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic''
 * Not a single modern scholar agrees with Vaidya and there are many examples to contradict him in any case. Will add more on talk page in some time. And here's more from the wikipedia page:
 * ''Historians produce material after the fact. Recent scholarship is scholarship which displays the currently acceptable methodological practices, and that refers to other recent material. This constitutes a shifting window of "recentness" that depends on the area of historical studies, and changes in historical scholarship. The only way to judge this is by becoming aware of the higher order debates within a field of history, this can be done by reading the reviews.


 * The main driver for new ideas is the opening of new primary sources, such as archives. Also new historiographical models come into use. They are usually added to old models, but sometimes older models are rejected or abandoned.


 * For example, scholarship before 1990 will not include post-modern or narrativist methodologies. See also historical revisionism.
 * In Holocaust studies, as the Cold War ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, scholars began to gain access to the archives of ::former communist countries, which offered new perspectives''

LukeEmily (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Good to see that you people are discussing but, why are u removing others comment from talk page.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Heba Aisha, I think it was not intentional. Abhishek must have deleted my post accidentally. He must have been editing his post at the same time I was posting mine and there must have been a conflict. Its OK :-) LukeEmily (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes it wasn't intentional. I apologise Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

 * Heba Aisha on a page of such historical importance is would be much better if you use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihari_Rajput#/media/File:Rajput_rebels_from_Bihar,_1857.jpg this image rather then one being used and is sourced by you(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput#/media/File:Bihari_Rajput_villagers_watching_Mallah_fishermen.jpg) which seems to be irrelevant with context of history or caste — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufasa19995 (talk • contribs) 05:34, December 30, 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per the Image Use Policy: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. The historical image is badly damaged and many of the individuals' faces cannot even be seen. As an aside, no one editor is a gatekeeper on an article so edit requests are addressed to the editing community in general rather than a particular editor. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 20:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect number on Rajputs
Rajputs were 12 million as per census in 1931, including all Hindu Muslim Sikhs Rajputs of India Pakistan. They can't be 120 million.

Mr Emily, is writing nonsense on Rajputs Rana of Bharat (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mr. Rana of Bharat, Pran Nath Chopra says they were 120 million in 1982 all over India. Do you have another source that says differently? It does not matter to me personally even if they were 12 million but we have to be accurate. LukeEmily (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

do you know population of India and Pakistan in 1982,and do you think it is logical.Before believing in any source apply some logic.If information is not logical why give it any way and if you are really interested in population numbers than use 1931 census data and growth patters from there. Aishtomar (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Aishtomar, I think you are correct. Population of India in 1980 was approximately 720 million(not exact value). So Population of Rajputs cannot be 120 million because that would mean 1 in every six Indians was Rajput. Obviously a typo in the source and the admin righly marked the statement as dubious. LukeEmily (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)