Talk:Rajput/Archive 31

According to Hindu scriptures Rajputs are Shudra
According to Hindu scriptures Rajputs are Shudra

According to Brahma Vaivarta Purana क्षत्रात्करणकन्यायां राजपुत्रो बभूव ह ।। राजपुत्र्यां तु करणादागरीति प्रकीर्तितः।।  1/10/110

सद्य क्षत्रिय बीजेन राजपुत्रस्य योषितः भूव तीवरश्चैव पतितो जारदोषतः।। ९९।। (ब्रह्मवैवर्तपुराणम्/खण्डः प्रथम (ब्रह्मखण्डः)/अध्यायः १०/श्लोकः ९९ भावार्थ:-क्षत्रिय के बीज (वीर्य )से राजपुत्र की स्त्री में तीवर (धींवर) उत्पन्न हुआ। वह भी व्याभिचार दोष के कारण पतित कहलाया। with the union of Kshatriya men and Karan kanya(girls) Rajput was born.

According to Skanda Purana]

शूद्रायां क्षत्रियादुग्रः क्रूरकर्मा प्रजायते।।४७।। शस्त्रविद्यासु कुशल: संग्रामकुशलो भवेत्। तया वृत्त्या स जीवेद्यो शूद्रधर्मा प्रजायते।।४८।। रजपूत इति ख्यातो युद्धकर्मविशारदः।

Skanda purana's Sahyadri khanda's 26th cahpter says that Rajputs are born from Shudra women by Kshatriya father.

पराशर स्मृति

वैश्यादंबष्ठ कन्यायां राजपुत्र प्रजायते

अमरकोष

मूर्धाभिषिक्तो राजन्यो क्षत्रियो बाहुजो विराट्। राजा राट् पार्थिवक्ष्मा भृन्नृपभूपमहीक्षित:।। (संस्कृत अमरकोष)

अर्थात:-मूर्धाभिषिक्त,राजन्य, बाहुज, क्षत्रिय,विराट्,राजा,राट्,पार्थिव, क्ष्माभृत्, नृप, भूप,और महिक्षित ये क्षत्रिय शब्द के पर्यायवाची हैं। इसमें 'राजपूत' शब्द या तदर्थक कोई अन्य शब्द नहीं आया है।

शब्दकल्पद्रुम

( वर्णसङ्करभेदे (रजपुत) वैश्यादम्बष्ठकन्यायां राजपुत्रस्य सम्भवः इति पराशरः स्मृति ।

अर्थात:- वैश्य पुरुष के द्वारा अम्बष्ठ कन्या में राजपूत उत्पन्न होता है। — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.13.182 (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Puranas are considered Primary sources hence we cannot use them in the articles directly for such opinions. But it is unlikely that Rajput "as a caste" is mentioned in the Puranas. In any case, Wikipedia articles rely on secondary sources. Please see this link. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, if Rajputs are Shudras, then where have Kshatriyas vanished. If Rajputs are "Shudras" then why have they been the only equivalent of Kshatriyas in recorded history. If Rajputs are "Shudras", then why have the Brahmin, Jain, Buddhist & even Turkic works called them Kshatriyas. Why do rajputs' own Inscriptions call themselves Kshatriyas. Abhishek Parihar121 (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * hello LukeEmily Check this. According to Skanda Purana, Rajputs were born from Kshatriya men on Untouchable Women. Read it over here and here. This sources are not good enough?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1C1E:F78E:CBE:F47E:A591:4445 (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2021
hi fellow editors, according to the book "हिंदू जाति का उत्थान और पतन" published in the year 1958 by Rajnikant shastri ,On page no. 28 last paragraph it is written "Rajputs are born from a kstriye father and shudr mother {basically varnshanker} and is described as निर्दय {merciless} and भयानक {Horrible}."

my edit request is that this narrative should be added.

[i dont know why but 3 citations are coming below which are not added by me. kindly ignore ]

Citation-https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.9920/page/n45/mode/2up?view=theater&q=%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4 Gaurav 3894 (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I had already started a discussion for the same on the date 10/12/2021 but did not got any response that's why put up an edit request, if I have have to wait then do tell me for how long if no one is replying, Thanks for replying Gaurav 3894 (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌. Neither the author nor the publisher seems to be reliable. Please find reliable source (neutral scholarly work) by reliable author supporting such claims. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

who are you to determine this, have you read his other works ?? BTW it is approved by Central archaeological library and you can also see the stamp on the first page. I request you to please take back your statement that it is not reliable because you are no one to determine this but if you think that this book is unreliable then feel free to start a discussion here WP:RSN but until then my source is completely reliable so please. Gaurav 3894 (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Gaurav 3894, please learn how to indent your posts, read WP:INDENT. This is my opinion as an experienced editor and it's not done for me! You may continue with your discussion with other editors and try to arrive at a consensus. An author who generalizes an entire community as 'merciless' and 'Horrible' (as you have mentioned above) cannot be considered as reliable. Again, do note that this is my opinion and I am not going to edit as per your request. You may continue as already mentioned by ScottishFinnishRadish. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , your source is usable only to the extent that the part you quote is a translation of a verse in the Skanda Purana (that on a cursory reading seems faithful to the original, based on my limited knowledge of Sankrit and Hindi). We cannot use it to call the Rajput castes "merciless" and "terrible"* in Wikipedia's own voice, because the Skanda Purana is a primary source, and Shastri's translation does not add any additional scholarly material. (Click here to learn why we shouldn't use primary sources in the way you want - it is for similar reasons that we do not consider the Bible or the Quran to be reliable sources).
 * The presence of a stamp on the front page does not indicate "approval" of the contents by any library; it is clearly just a common library stamp that indicates that the book is owned by the library - nothing more. Even if it did, a government library's approval does not necessarily mean a source is reliable. Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/c ) 18:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks for replying, whats the procedure after consensus ??


 * Once you arrive at a consensus, someone watching the article will surely edit the same. Ekdalian (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . I cannot make such edit either.LukeEmily (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

hi, thanks for replying, I did not intend to use it to call rajputs merciless or cruel .main reason was to use the part about the caste status, hope you now understand Gaurav 3894 (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

hello, here is another book "Journal of Nepalese Literature, Art, and Culture, Volume 4" which says " The rajputs were born from Kshatriyas and untouchable women " on page 27. Please also tell is it reliable or i have to find another one ?? thanks and regards Gaurav 3894 (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You were asked to see WP:INDENT, seems like you still didn't understand. Anyway this page has already been bombarded with One sided collection of anti rajput material since last two years. Wikipedia follow not just WP:RS but also WP:NPOV, it is not a dumping point for such non reliable one sided content. Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How exactly is this page a "dumping point for such non reliable one sided content" and a "collection of anti rajput material"? It is sourced by top-notch scholarly material published by reputable university publishing houses. Chariotrider555 (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is debatable but still, even considering good sources, doesn't mean an article can't be written from one side Pov. And this is what happened with this article. All one sided PoV added without context, without any regard for WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
Please remove a link to File:Karni mata.jpg from the Rajput section – the file has been deleted from Commons as Commons' Speedy deletion F3. Derivative work of non-free content. --CiaPan (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 April 2022
Felingin (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC) There is not a single proof of this dynasty associated with any shudra rajput you should go and read oficial rajput Wikipedia page were it is clearly mentioned before 14th century Mughal era not a single person on this planet claimed to be rajput after 14th century rajput title gain populary because of Mughal invasion and Hindu shahi khatana were gujjars khatana is a sub clan of Gujjar they ruled as Hindu shahi over Kabul afghanistan and kashmir in Kabul peshwar kashmir Punjab Gujjar are still in majority not rajput in many history books in India Hindu shahi written as gujjar not rajput also checked Google map were the death place of Hindu shahi gujjar ruler jaypal khatam gujjar mentioned with gujjar and khatana do don't spread fake information as Wikipedia is not the last source of information or history so don't play by using fake tricks without sources


 * Please learn how to talk on Wikipedia pages, regarding your issue "Gujjars are themselves Shudra" and non-elite tribe compared to Rajput who were landed gentry. Wikipedia, works on WP:RS reference and not  on whims of caste çentric people. Please learn as to how to talk on Wiki talk pages. RS6784 (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please back up your arguments with appropriate reliable sources and seek consensus for your change. Note also that content changes on a fully protected article are unlikely to be made without unequivocal consensus. (Also, sign your posts at the end rather than at the beginning of your comments)--RegentsPark (comment) 16:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Rajput and the Maratha empire
The sentence reads,"In the 18th century, the Rajputs came under influence of the Maratha empire." What does "coming under influence" entails? Clarity is needed here. The payment of chauthaiby the Rajput houses  to the Marathas should be mentioned too. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Editor, there is a problem here, this page doesn't deal with Rajput of one state but it includes Rajput community of many states. The Chauth thing that you talk about might be related to a region not everywhere and not related to Rajputs of Hills, Rajputs of Northern plains etc. So, giving too much weightage may cross WP:UNDUE Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an issue with citations. The first source, Encyclopædia Britannica, is tertiary. The second source, Naravane, is not reliable for caste issues. The third source by Sarkar does not mention any page numbers.LukeEmily (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Please Add Meo Khanzada Rajputs of mewat. Raja Hassan Khan mewati was last ruler of mewat.he was killed in battle of khawana in 1527.
Please Add Meo Khanzada Rajputs of mewat. Raja Hassan Khan Mewati was last ruler of Mewat. He was killed in battle of khawana in 1527. Chaudhary Muhammad Waqas Haroon khan (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of content that needs to be checked against the sources
As discussed in an above section, it was recently discovered that content had been added to the article by the editor editing from IP range 106.66.*.* that misrepresented the source and seemingly made up a quote attributed to Romila Thapar. Despite being given ample opportunity and time, the IP editor has not provided any explanation for how this error/hoax happened, even though they have posted multiple times to this talk page and even edited the article since then. Therefore, as a precautionary move I have removed the bulk of the material added to the article by the IP editor in these four series of edits during the past two weeks. Any (ECP confirmed, since the article is protected) editor in good standing is welcome to add back any part of the removed content as long as they have independently verified that the content they are adding back matches what the cited source say and is relevant to the article, i.e., take responsibility for the material. Let me know if there are any questions. Abecedare (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking up the task of reviewing the removed content to see what can be preserved! A quick spot-check though shows that there are still issues with the quotes and citations in your recent edits. For example, here is the quote you re-added compared to the actual quote from Kulke&Rothermund (required deletions and insertions indicated in red and green respectively):

"When Harsha shifted the centre of north Indian history to Kanauj in the midst of the Ganga–Yamuna Doab, the tribes living to the west of this new centre also became more important for further course of Indian history. They were first and foremost the Rajputs who now emerged into the limelight of history."


 * The citation is also missing the name of the coauthor of the work, Dietmar Rothermund. The poor grammar of several other quotes you re-added suggests a similar (at best) sloppiness in transcribing the sources. Please carefully go through the once sources once again and ensure that the quotes match the original faithfully (as is required). Hopefully, you will be able to address these issues and another mass reversion will not be needed! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the praise. I did not looked at grammatical errors but originality of these sources that If quotes are not malafide. I can safely say at the minute that I did a decent job at it.
 * Few more explainations; I removed Kaushik Roy source along with Irfan Habib despite they were verifiable. Habib was quoting Rajatragni (which Kapur already quoted) same goes for Roy.
 * I also corrected some other parts like Barbara Ramusack ref. mention indication term instead of evidence.
 * PS:- There are still some minor issues like page no, grammatical errors etc but main issue for mass reversion was quote verification which I tried my best to adress by assuming good faith and being neutral Cheers. Packer&Tracker   «Talk»  16:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Misquoting authors by introducing grammatical errors in what they wrote is misrepresentation, and a disservice to both wikipedia readers and the scholars being "quoted". If you (or any other volunteer) are unable or unwilling to fix the citations and quotes to match what the cited sources actually say, I'm afraid the text you re-added will have to be removed again till someone can review it properly. Let me know either way. PS: I'll let the content contributors to this article to weigh-in on the reliability and pertinence of any source being included/excluded. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about these issues; I am willing to fix them indeed. Let me have one more cross verification again. Packer&Tracker   «Talk»  17:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's okay with me if you need a couple of days for this task as long as it is being looked at. As this message I recently posted on RSN (on a completely unrelated topic) illustrates, errors introduced on wikipedia tend to propagate widely. And source misrepresentation is particularly bad because not only does that introduces errors but wrongfully attributes them to scholars, besmirching their reputation in the process. That's the reason I'm treating the latter as an admin-issue and insisting upon not letting such issues fester irrespective of whether the errors are made in good or bad-faith. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Legitimate concerns Abecedare. I cross checked almost all sources and fixed the glitches in quotation by retrospecting each and every source. It was tedious process but quite fruitful at the end. Not only these content, quotation in general have such petty issues of grammatical errors. Thanks for your time !! Packer&Tracker  «Talk»  18:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Repetition of same lines twice in the article with same 5 references
Don't know if you have inserted below lines in the topmost paragraph: "According to modern scholars, almost all Rajputs clans originated from peasant or pastoral communities"- with 5 references. The same lines are added with same set of 5 references ( word to word), in first paragraph ( last lines) of the Origin and Emergence section. It seems this whole article has been made completely messy with overusing of same or similar Citations. If you got no issue I am removing it from the origin section, We can't put same thing on every section of this page. This is case of WP:REPCITE RS6784 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * RS6784 Please do not remove the line but duplicate references can be removed if they are present in the body. Lead does not need references. I will clean it up.LukeEmily (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If I do the same like removing same references from the lead, will there be a problem ? Just asking? Would request not to act as owner here. RS6784 (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I request the same for WP:OWN. Please get consensus. Anyway, removing citation from lead is fine as per MOS:CITELEAD. I was about to do it myself but got an edit conflict as you had done it already.Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * RS6784, Eugenia Vanina (page 140 and the quote is repeated multiple time on the page). We can use sfn correctly to remove the repetition of quote. Thanks.LukeEmily (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed now.LukeEmily (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

EC protection
I have EC protected the page indefinitely under WP:GSCASTE, since disruptive editing resumed within days of the previous ECP expiring. Frankly, the Protection log of the page makes for sorry reading. That said, I can't vouch for the current version of the page I protected and all are welcome to propose sourced changes to the article. Abecedare (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for protecting the page. I restored the version to just before the protection expired(5th april) and the ip edits started. (To other editors) Please feel free to reapply on the current version any valid changes that were done in the last 5-6 days and are valid. Or propose sourced changes as mentioned by Abecedare. Thank you. LukeEmily (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Here aftee getting the article ECP protected, LukeEmily as I can see through history of the page removed all my edits backed up by scholarly sources and researches which differed then their original predjuice. They have this habit of taking articles back to their prefered version and keep this article a mess against Rajputs. Can any of you please undo their recent edits where they removed all of my content addition in emergence as community section, history of Rajput kingdoms and in lead where 16th century version is clearly given a lot prefference despite I present over dozen sources for their existence much prior. Please reinstate my edits where I only writtten other side of coin with back up of excellent sources. My edits were cross checked by many senior editors but Luke is well known for removing edits to their prefered version after making a article protected. It's unfair of you too to make this article protected despite no one asked for it to enable our addition and editors pushing for their version through edit summaries which seems in good faith. PS:- Please reinstate all my content addition deleted by them in one flash where I never removed any content but added other prospective as well with sources. 106.78.41.246 (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 106.78, as I said above, you are welcome to propose individual changes you wish to make to the article, gain consensus (using a dispute resolution process, if needed), and have them reflected in the article. Will take more time than your current approach, but the changes are more likely to stick. It will also greatly ease communications, if you sign up for a wikipedia account. Abecedare (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Point out any of my edits where I removed any of existing source or content ??? (Or added content without a source) ? I only made slight modification in lead where 16th century version was pushed in lead despite presenting dozen of sources for earlier existence.
 * I presented other side of coin too by quoting 4-5 sources atleast for each claim and expanded their history section, made different paras for history and origin related thesis.

In any case removing such large chunks of date despite many senior editors kept my changes and reviewed them is clear indication of the desire to keep their prefered version. 106.78.41.81 (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ip, i have no objections against any sourced content you added. In fact, I did not even interfere with any additions until I started noticing some ips(maybe not you) deleting sourced content(Susan Bayly, lead etc). Otherwise I would not have even edited this page today. In my edit summary, I clearly said we can add whatever is sourced. Personally, I have no objection(and no time to look at) any edits if Sajaypal or RS6784 adds all of your edits as long as they are sourced. Please do not delete anything sourced without consensus. You said: Luke is well known for removing edits to their prefered version after making a article protected. No, I am always against removal of any sourced content even if I disagree with it personally(only exception being a talk page discussion where an editor justifies the removal of sourced content and others agree). This edit was only for restoring it to a stable version and specifically requested that changes can be reapplied. But your statement makes me feels that you are a banned editor trying to work around a block using your IP. LukeEmily (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Lets get to point straightway without wasting time and energy here. You claimed you only interfered after noticing deletion of content, Let me elaborate this here, I never ever deleted any content. For lead version, this article pushes for 16th century narrative in lead despite I presented sources which very clearly mention earlier emergence (4 of them added today and research papers from academia.edu (a reputed publishing site). I removed Bayly version there because it was cherry picking of few lines as I pointed out in my earlier edit summary that on pg. 32, She pointed out that:- What does this means ?? This very clearly donot means that she denied their earlier existence infact said very much earlier possibly ? It's wrong to take any side in lead and push a specific version of 16th century when other sources differ. So, I presented a neutral lead and editors/readers can themselve decide after going through origin section. That's it. Stop making bad faith accusation too. As for stable version, there are no stable version, Wikipedia is not static anyone can improve it. Just for record, my edits were reviewed by senior editors till yesterday where no one raise any objection even that there was stable version. In short reinstate my edits which you deleted in one edit today and made all my efforts to go in vain.106.78.41.253 (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * IP please see WP:INDENT and to such generalized purge of content is not healthy for wikipedia, there was hardly any removal of sourced content, it is re-instated, if you want to restore just Bayley's source, there was no need to remove good sourced content. Sajaypal007 (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 106.78, I can only make educated guesses as to which edits to the article were made by "you" (and some of them certainly, and repeatedly, removed sourced content, and not just from the lede). But if you insist those IP's weren't "you", I won't argue otherwise... with your highly dynamic IP, even the three comments in this section can only be linked by presumption. So, again I would recommend getting an account and discussing individual improvements and sources here individually per WP:BRD. Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear administraitor let me explain again about those edits for you; This particular source of author Bayly is cherry picked from few lines of her or contradictary statements exist in her own book for the same, take a look at page no. 32 for this where she wrote that cross check it yourself, so these source was removed as it contradicts itself even in quote added it doesn't say that clearly these identity did not exist in earlier years which makes it WP:Synthesis as well. which perfectly summed up the article & without preffering any date CE. Our readers can themselve see it in Origin and emergence as community section.
 * Firstly, these edit Special:MobileDiff/1081748412, although I explained this in earlier reply and even in that edit summary, let me explain it again for you that:-
 * Here dear Special:MobileDiff/1082222482 you pointed out to same diff. again which I explained twice now. Since you brought lead in between, Let me clear one more time again that it will be very WP:Undue to prefer/push 16th century emergence in lead although I clearly presented around two dozen source for earlier existence as well that's the reason I removed that line and maintain the lead like
 * At last Sir Special:MobileDiff/1082210612 on these diff., it was not from me but from other IP range like and I don't support that removal neither I am arguing for it.

Bottom line is I only requested to renistate my edits not last one Special:MobileDiff/1082210612 but all other which i added from several reliable scholarly sources. Any more doubts dear admin ?? If not please reinstate all my edits which were removed despite another users with pending change reviewer rights confirmed them. 106.66.10.24 (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 106.66, you'll need to discuss the relevance of the Bayly p.44 quote with the other editors active on this page. It would be best to do so in a fresh appropriately-titled section since they are unlikely to spot the issue in this one titled 'EC protection', which is concerned with process rather than content issues. Ditto for the rest of the edits that you wish to reinstate. Abecedare (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 106.66 what is your contention regarding Bayly's source, please elaborate here instead of user talk page. I re-added the source as per LukeEmily's contention. Please discuss your point regarding addition of Bayly's source here. Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Since, I was mentioned here I can clearly point out that Ms Bayly on Page 32 exactly says contrary to how she was mentioned here, so there should no issue with the removal of one particular edits. I can see the edits made by one ID here, except removal of S Bayly's one reference, I don't think the ID removed anything which can be counted as controversial edits. The references have been provided for the recents edits here. There is an issue of WP:Undue in this article, as the weightage has been given to what this community was in 700 AD, 1100 AD etc rather than their overall contribution as such. There is something called as WP: Assume Good Faith, the edits made on this page is surely either fixated on 700 AD or 1200 AD etc or directly to 1800 with only negatives pertaining to a community. Thanks and best ! RS6784 (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * After seeing the Bayly's source and quote provided, I see that Bayly's quote cited in the article is not given on that page number 39, above that she did say opposite of it on Page number 32. Moreover there is no content removal from that para in the article, and the para is backed by like 5-6 citation, so only removal of this contentious citation which is one among many and not removal of content is like trivial matter and should not be made such an issue. I agree for its removal, let's hear from others. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as what I understand Susan Bayly on page 32, has properly quoted that there were people referred with the same term since at the least from minimum thirteenth century onwards. What she says on page 34 is vague statement pertaining to some elites. This got nothing much to do with article on a community. This page isn't talking about any particular elite. The whole idea of quoting vague statement from page 34 of Susan Bayly's book looks like an attempt to confuse readers. I think it should definitely be corrected as per either what she says on page 32 or this should be removed if other better writers similar views are already there. The page cannot have only opinion of certain grp of writers, a clear case of WP:UNDUE because this subject has various possibilities with no outrightly perfect answers. These are all just possibilities. RS6784 (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with the removal of such a high quality source. The opinion can be attributed to Bayly. And the content if missing, should be added. Whatever she says on other pages(like 34 etc) can be added it the quote is misleading. RS6784, what is the content on 32? LukeEmily (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The page 34 is not directly related to community but a conjecture based statement on some elites in Rajasthan which she herself isn't completely convinced, the tone makes this outrightly clear. This page doesn't deals with one state of Rajasthan. The writer is explicitly mentioned her views on this subject on page 32. A mere vague half hearted statement is not high quality source. ￼ RS6784 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like you added the reference and didn't even read the content properly. This is contrary to WP:DGF while editing RS6784 (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus on when they got modern meaning so I mentioned all scholarly researches here and this probably seems fine to me there is no undue weightage to any as such date.

I agree on their overall history was missing and only serving Mughals was given too much weight that's why I mentioned about their resistance to Arabs and defeats against Mahmmud Ghaznavi or Shahbuddin Ghori. These seems alright to me now but origin section needs some fixing for sure. 106.66.14.255 (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Well you said I don't agree with removal of such high quality source ? Really ? This source actually supported the other viewpoint on page no. 32 here is the exact wording for same:-

106.78.41.14 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 106.78.41.14, please also see 33 and 34, page 34 says . What she is saying is that it is not necessary that the Rajputs chiefs in the 16th century are the descendents of the Rajput elites of the 13th century. Page 33 says that they had memories of earlier chiefs who had used names such as Rajput (name implying lordship) and these new 16th century warriors did the same. Actually, what she is saying is not contentious at all except that the scholars disagree a bit about the time the caste boundaries solidified. For example, see Eaton . Can we continue discussion tomorrow? I will try to give an analogy. Also there is some discussion on the Prithviraj Chauhan group that you might want to refer too.LukeEmily (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "What she is saying is that it is not necessary that the Rajputs chiefs in the 16th century are the descendents of the Rajput elites of the 13th century. " - that is your own made conclusion, not the writer's conclusion. She isn't exactly saying that part. And this is common sense such a thing is literally not possible, So are we here talking about Kumbha not being related to Sanga and him not related to Pratap? Do you think these writers are such a fool ? She might have made cursory statement for some elites, but she has not mentioned completely as to which one she talks about. Pls come up with better answers, then to some selectively chosen lines to fool editors here. I will have to now see some of your edits on other similar pages. Looks like the editor is not demonstrating WP:DGF and got some issue with others. RS6784 (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Eaton is already cited in these article and I can't figure how all your points end revolving around on dubious term called Rajputization. Prithviraj Chauhan talk page is a mess a complete mess and you already copied citation from there plus we are not removing any citation apart from Bayly one's where she didn't state what you want her to and this quote nowhere means that Rajput term is anachronism beside the fact your assertion that Mughal era Rajputs were not descended from earlier elites ?? Really, lets explain:- So you are asserting he was not descended from earlier Kachwaha Kings ?? Prithviraj Kachwaha ?? He fought against Babur with Rana Sanga ? Pajjwan dev fought with Prithviraj Chauhan against Muhmmad Ghuri ? Amber family lineage started from 11th century atleast and has unbroken direct descendancy there as well till Mughal or even till India's independence. As mentioned it's extremely stupid to say 16th century Rajputs were not descended from earlier Rajput clans. Mewar family ?? They had unbroken lineage as well from 8th century till 1947 as well ?? Chauhans were ruling from 7th century till sacking of Ranthambore 1301. 106.66.14.28 (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Mughal allaince with Amber Kachwaha family is well known to all, so they call them Rajputs or honour them Rajputs from Bharmal generation (first to submitt to Jallaudin Akbar)

I noticed you edited Bayaly quotes but please if you want to insert that place this quote in next thesis of However there are another scholarly analysis which staged Rajput clan emergence in seventh century because she doesn't support these dubious thesis of anachronism. If we want to keep this source at all because it misguide the readers who dont verify quotes that much. 106.66.14.28 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Didn't here RS6784 put Bayly quote in wrong place ?? If they want to insert that place this quote in next thesis of However there are another scholarly analysis which staged Rajput clan emergence in seventh century because she doesn't support these dubious thesis of anachronism at all infact staged their existence much prior to 13th century. Shouldn't this source with quote move to this part as I suggest ?? 106.66.14.55 (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Ip, continuing what we discussed yesterday, she is giving more stress to enrollment in the Mughal army and saying that heredity did not matter. What she is saying is that the 16/17th century chiefs are not necessarily the descendants of the 13th century ones. Both these groups used the same name "Rajput". Please read 32 to 35 and also look at the 3 quotes provided. I think Gordon says similar stuff although I need to check.LukeEmily (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you actually even know what are you saying ?? Or just to keep this dubious source in place just replying for the sake of doing it ?? She is not saying 16th century chiefs were not descedents of 13th century chiefs (or much earlier which you omitted as well). This is quite illogical and stupid to think. All Rajput families that were there in Mughal Era whether Bhattis of Jaisalmer (1190 Ad establishment), Rathores of Marwar (1226 AD establishment), Mewar Family (established in eighth century), Kachwahas of Amber (11th century establishment) had unbroken lineage much before Taimurid dynasty was formed let alone Mughals. She is not talking enrollment in armies either in any case this source no where states that Rajput idenity did not exist infact she said polar opposite of it that These clans were calling themselves as Rajputs from 13th century and very much earlier Was that section really about enrollment in armie chiefs or Rajput kingdoms in general again ? In any case, How Maharana Pratap (16th century) Mughal era king was descended from Bappa Rawal, Khoman, Mathan Singh, Samarsingh or junior Rana branches ?? Was Maldev Rathore not related to Rao Simha or descended from him ? (Simha established Rajput rule in Marwar in 1226 and Maldev was from same family) ?? Was Raja Bharmal another Mughal era king not descended from Dhula Rai/Tejkaran ?? (Dhula Rai founded Kachwaha kingdom in Dhundar region) It's just common sense which is quite uncommon at times. This source is dubious that too quoting it in front of Anachronism theory which she didn't even mentioned PS:- I removed this source after going through all of it, you didn't made any difference to it. I again to give their inputs here. At last, try better replies, you are again replying just for sake of doing it, point out where she said Rajput did not exist prior to a timeline infact said polar opposite staging it to 13th century and again very mucb earlier. 106.66.6.233 (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Focus on the conrent of the sources, not me. She is saying they existed. When did I say no? It is known that there were ppl calling themselves Rajputs in 8th century. What am I not understanding? Can you explain why she is saying . Yet you say : She is not saying 16th century chiefs were not descedents of 13th century chiefs (or much earlier which you omitted as well). This is quite illogical and stupid to think.. Maybe I am stupid but can you explain the contradiction in your statement and hers?LukeEmily (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say it is you who is firstly trying to WP:OWN the article and making a fuss out of a vague statement by one writer. Just a simple question to you was Kumbha not forefather of Sanga who in turn was of Pratap ? So how is that theory applicable. No historian will admit with what you say here. You have made the conclusion yourself which writer isn't saying the same exactly as to how you interpreted. If you are two much concerned for WP:NPOV there are better pages which doesn't fullfill it, whereas this one should be WP:OVERKILL, the whole article has been bombarded with only "possibility" based material. RS6784 (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , pinging you since you were involved in the the article discussions regarding the timeline - Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan. I think TB and had explained the anachronism quite well. Please can you review the sources and  thecontent made recently by the IP after protection was removed?(these changes were reinstated by Sajaypal). If you find that these changes are OK, then I can drop myself out of this discussion. IP also removed some links to wikipedia pages, which are trivial to add(i will add the links later), but please review the removal of anachronism from the lead section and related changes in the body which were added by probably  or . I believe the IP is a sockpuppet of a banned editor on the Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan, given the objection with anachronism and similar use of sources on that page, as well as good familiarity with wiki editing. I am working on other topics and cannot devote much time to Rajput related articles that have constant disruption.LukeEmily (talk)

So of all the legtimate reasons you go back again on bad faith accusations. In your recent reply apart from accusations you also breached WP:Canvassing rule by pinging those editors whom you thought will support your edits as you are unable to debate anymore. This is frowned upon on Wikipedia. I find it very hard to believe from your edit history that why you always use content of other talk pages to win a consensus ? Prithviraj talk page is a mess and there was no consesnsus at all from what i can see now there were sources which ably counters Fowler&Fowler POV as well. No, they didn't explain that well on talk page, I can see otherwise though. Just for a second, that talk page was more different mess altogether which has no relation with removing Bayly source either.

For my edits are concerned those are cross checked by several editors now and I can sense you have problem with them since the begining. I gave ample explaination of removing timeline bit, that with over dozen sources contesting 16th century timeline it will clearly be giving more weightage to certain viewpoint which violates WP:UNDUE that too in lead which is summary of content sourced in article body. My all other content were sourced by atleast 4-5 WP:RS, and expansion of history section was needed where all negative points about them are pushed like Gospels.

Lets leave it alone and get back to main issue here about that quote you asked me to counter She is not saying 16th century chiefs were not descedents of 13th century chiefs (or much earlier which you omitted as well) My direct reply will be she countered this very statement on page no.32 itself i.e.

You asked me to counter that sixteenth century Rajput kings were not descended from previous ones ? I posted a long reply in last thread giving ref. to Rana Pratap geneology with Mewar family etc. I am quite bored to discuss on such trivial matter. Please reply how Rana Pratap was not descended from Rana Hammir ? Maldev not from Rao Simha ? Bharmal not from Dhula rai ? Since, all these were so called Mughal era kings who descended indeed from pre mughal elites infact going way back in 12th century and even 8th century for some of them (like Mewar family)

As you claimed, I don't have time to edit Rajput articles, nobody is that free to waste time hours and hours on any site that too with certain predujuice. Neither, I said you are stupid, I don't know you so I can not make anything of youm

This was page was written in a very negative light and still is, I just added sourced content to best of my ability with quotes to refer to. 106.66.43.214 (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * First, please learn what appropriate notification isEditors who have made substantial edits to the topic Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics).Editors known for expertise in the field. Editors who have asked to be kept informed before making baseless accusations of canvassing. Wikipedia is not a battle ground and I have nothing personally against any caste, community, race, religion or person on wikipedia. I consider myself extremely neutral to all caste topics. I am interested in varna mobility and its effects on women children and others - my focus is not on any particular caste. Just know that I was the one who added the removed image of that fort and I was the one who agreed with the removal of the Rajput fishermen image from this page and I was the one who defended the community against some really bad edits (search for merciless on this talk page) and I was the one who had originally added hospitality to the page. Do you really think I am not neutral? I did not accuse you of calling me stupid - and I am not stupid - I had research published in a peer reviewed journal ("am stupid" was just a phrase I used jokingly for myself) - other wiki editors are not stupid either. I am not going to waste more time on this. I think the article in not negative at all. In fact, several topics are missing. I will create another section for topics that are missing and you will see that the current status of the article is not negative at all.  The article (including treament of women) is part of history - no one is accusing present day Rajputs of anything negative. For example, were Rajputs mostly illiterate in the Raj era(as against Brahmins, etc..)? Yes, they were. Are present day Rajputs illiterate? Of course not - I am sure many are scholars.  And I have no interest in politics either. Getting back to the topic, I recommend waiting for a few days to hear from others.LukeEmily (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Saying that “I made this edit therefore I have no motivation for doing x” has zero relevance. Please refrain from being trivial disputes and silly allegations of bias into this encyclopaedia. Thank you.RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, "you made X edits hence you have some motivation" should have zero relevance also. I have a right to defend myself against personal attacks - especially absurd assumptions. Thank you in anticipation for understanding. Yes, trivial disputes are a waste of time and all of us are busy in real life. Just focus on the content and assume good faith.LukeEmily (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Taking a break from S. Asian discourse other than fighting obvious vandalism - apologies but I cannot be of any help. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * np, thanks TB.LukeEmily (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Too busy right now to make any substantial edits, I might participate in discussion down the road. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Aw hell nah; You cleverly ping those editors about whom you are well aware that they can won this consensus for you which you apparently lost.,otherwise are there only these handful of editors who have any knowledge of this topic ? Ofcourse not Yes, Wikipedia or for that matter any enclyopedia must not be treated as a battleground against any caste, relgion, sex etc. But you are as neutral as the enclyopedia is reliable. You are claiming that you added positive aspect of their history despite adding them illiterate, low origin peasant soldiers ?? Adding about their so called mistreatment of women ? Always objecting anything which do not suits your narrative and taking a article back to your prefered version ?? Adding hospitability is nothing which made you a neutral editor, this trait along with valour of Rajputs is even praised by their tyrant enemies so you didn't invent anything out of box which makes you neutral, removing fisherman image makes you neutral ? This thread is now getting into comical territory. Being completely unrelated this article is indeed written in very negative way and I won't even doubt that. You don't need to explain your neutrality your edit history (for which I wasted 2 hours few days back) clearly reflects it. Pots and Kettles. 106.78.41.160 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NPA and this is the last time i will respond to personal attacks. Try to understand this simple fact: ''The wikipedia page about a community will directly reflect what scholars discuss about the community's history and present. Editors do not do personal research and do not add personal opinions. You cannot blame editors for adding a fact - positive or negative as long as it is sourced. Similarly, no one can accuse editors of promoting someone or some community if the historical facts are positive and well sourced. Everything on wikipedia needs to be sourced. No one is stopping you from adding any sourced material - positive or negative on this page. Assume good faith. Post some glorifying material from an academic and verifiable source here and I will add it myself and also defend it against deletion (assuming it follows wikipedia rules for inclusion). I think the page portrays Rajputs in an "accurate light"(in fact more positive that most western academic sources I have seen - have you read Malvika Kasturi's books?). I do not have time to discuss this any further.LukeEmily (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Would request both editors you and User: LukeEmily to keep the discussion polite. Regarding WP:OWN WP:OWNBEHAVIOR on the article I have already pointed it out to the concerned editor about some of his recent actions on certain pages. I think it is needed that editors should keep in mind that nobody owns the article on Wikipedia and skipping edits of other editors ( who provided proper summary to their edits) to restore to some 4 months preferred versions is not the solution to any edit issues and goes contrary to WP:GOODFAITH. Thanks and Best I hope editors can continue their healthy discussion/debate. RS6784 (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There we go Another neutral editor took this page back to their prefered version again Special:MobileDiff/1083009094 by claiming edit war. This is typical of owning content at enclyopedia by a group of few editors who revert anything which they don't like to their prefered version by dubious edit summaries. FYI, this content which I added apart from being sourced is cross checked and confirmed by all senior editors. Still claiming yourself to be neutral ?? 106.66.42.12 (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Imbibing of social culture of other communities is not equal to being part of community
In the book: " The Vernacularisation of Democracy: Politics, Caste and Religion in India by Ms Lucia Michuletti": she explains how Ahirs were trying to Rajputise ( meaning copying the socio-cultural habits of Rajput community not "becoming part of the community here") and how the process never achieved. She has given full explanation to it. Considering the fact this page deals with other community than Ahirs or any such grps. It becomes important to add these conjecture based materials to other pages of such communities rather than WP: UNDUE this whole page here with just possibilities/ half hearted conjectures. RS6784 (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Sons of Krishna: the politics of Yadav community formation in a North Indian town" ( 2002) by Lucia Michuletti- "on page 81, 82" she explicitly quotes Dirk H Kolff and mention how Ahirs and such non-elite grps were trying to copy Rajput culture, traditions etc but weren't part of the community.

So adding a reference to twist words of writers might not be the right approach. RS6784 (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There is an issue of WP:REL, as this subject deals with Ahir grps a different community, so not as relevant to this article. Their imitation of socio-cultural of Rajput community is a different topic to be presented on other page. Rest military recruitment in north whether in purab or even other areas in north included both Rajputs and non-Rajputs ( basically various non-elite grps), many of these grps tried to adopt Rajput cultural habits but this got less to do with the community. Scholar Lucia Michuletti has explained all this properly on page no 81, 82 in "Sons of Krishna: the politics of Yadav community formation in a North Indian town" ( 2002). So, to add everything here on this article crosses WP:REL. Thanks and best RS6784 (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for creating this section. If I understand the quote provided by NitinMlk correctly, some - not all - Ahir's and Brar's got integrated into Rajputs. Are Kolff and Michuletti saying that this Rajputization was not successful? If a family successfully Rajputises it means it is accepted as Rajput by the society including other Rajputs. It does not mean the entire community to which the family originally belonged is accepted as Rajput. Please can you provide relevant quotes from Kolff since he seems to be the common reference here? Thank you.LukeEmily (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pls read what Lucia Michuletti says on page 81 and 82 in her research work. I would request no WP:OR and WP:Canvassing by tagging your biased choice of editors. Sorry, but you have been continuously try to ping new editors ( don't know if you know them outside of Wikipedia) but this can be counted as meat puppetry. I would request editor to keep it to what you say.
 * Pls read What Lucia Michuletti says on Page 81 and 82 of her research book sons of Krishna: the politics of Yadav community formation in a North Indian town" ( 2002) by Lucia Michuletti- she is talking Ahirs leading families if they were adopting Rajputising idioms but still not counted as Rajputs as per the same research paper. This puts serious questions mark here with the above assertion of your own.
 * And FYI Rajputisation doesn't necessarily here deals with formation of Rajput community. This was adopted by non-Rajputs like Jats of Bharatpur, Jatt Sikhs of Patiala, Kolis, Ahirs chieftain of Rewari etc, it basically deals copying the socio-cultural habits of Rajput community. Looks like I will now have to look at the Rajputisation￼ page carefully. I guess that page has also been twisted by certain editors put their own biases. There is more to the topic than just simple theory on how Rajput community came up. RS6784 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No such thing can be inferred from the above lines, it could be the writer meant Ahirs or such groups were adopting the Rajput habits because Lucia Michuletti outrightly contradict the other points and she also talks of leading families of these communities like Rewari Ahir Zamindar family, and others how they had adopted Rajput traditional culture. But none of them were/are counted as part of the Rajput community even as per the same research paper. So, if the leading families of Ahirs or such grps failed it looks highly unlikely the commoner will become part of community. Rest we know Purbiya was Rajput lead mercenaries which included both Rajputs and non Rajputs like Brahmins, Bhumihars ( Military Brahmin) and in some cases others as well. So, a vague cursory statement cannot be used to infer what you say here as that is WP:OR, other references of Lucia Michuletti research paper ( specifically on page 81, 82) where she outrightly quotes Kolff contradicts your points. The point here is of WP:REL it deals with particular community and not with what Ahirs were doing or were adopting values . Lastly, FYI as per Lucia Michuletti's research says Ahirs are itself a collated group of 10-15 communities in last 110 yrs during late 19th century Sanskritisation process, they got formalised as a grp. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On page 82 - "During the eighteenth century, the Ahirs of Ahirwal rose in prominence
 * and became military clients of what was an Empire in disintegration (Francklin
 * 1803; Malik 1977). More specifically, the Yaduvanshi-Ahirs of Rewari, located in
 * the district of Mahendragarh (present Haryana state) were able, to a certain extent,
 * to be included within the emergent ‘Rajputs’ and within what the Mughals
 * recognised as ‘Rajput aristocracy."- By Lucia Michuletti in the same book. Now, If I use your logic they are Rajput because when I quote as per source it says "to a certain extent, to be included within the emergent Rajputs" . So they technically are your "Rajputised Ahirs" ( top of the Ahir society). But are/were they part of Rajput community? The answer to it is big "NO" even as per the book/research material. It makes highly unlikely to concur what you wrote above. If the best grp of the Ahirs remained as Ahir even after Rajputising itself, then to outrightly infer ranks and file in areas where they were weak joined other community would be WP:OR. This also put serious questions on the term "Rajputisation" that does it necessarily mean only wrt Rajput community or it also deals with the habit of adopting Rajput culture/traditions by other communities like hiring Jagas/Barots etc ( this was done by every groups not only Rajputs in that belt). So the point here comes is of WP:REL as the topic deals with Rajput community and not with what Ahir leadership like the above case were doing to enhance its status. Thanks and Best! RS6784 (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sons of Krishna: The politics of Yadav community formation in a north Indian town Thanks 106.66.42.81 (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It has given vast description on Ahir and such non-elite grps. My point is cursory mentions in one para like the above shared by one editor not necessarily give the full context of statements, whereas in case of Lucia Michuletti's paper she is given a decent picture of Ahir society. She has talked about main Ahir families of Rewari and some other such cases and how they had Rajputised themselves but were still part of the Ahir communities example- Rewari. She also did comparison of Ahir leadership with other communities leaders. RS6784 (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

For the lead section a number of sources have been provided. Don't remove them as they give the summary of the origin.Heba Aisha (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Pls see the subject of this discussion, don't comment for the sake of commenting here. What will get removed or not will not be decided by only you, it will be based on logical explanation, conclusions and counter references. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 April 2022
Please change "a refrence to thr sultans" to "a reference to the sultans" - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed the back end of the quote but the front end is still a mess and I don't have access to it. Could you see if you can find the original quote?--RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

She further mentioned about three ruling clans (Delhi region in fottnotes) i.e. Tomars, Chahamanas & Sakas (two of them were recognised as Rajput clans while last being reference to the Sultan) Thanks and best. 106.66.14.70 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The part that I fixed per Arjayay's request was incorrectly transcribed. The first part is also likely incorrect since I don't see a historian of Thapar's caliber making basic grammatical mistakes in number agreement as in "But in long stretch of historical time, group moves in and out of existence and group names changes very drastically". I assume that the correct version is: "But in long stretch es of historical time, group s move s in and out of existence and group names change s very drastically.". But we need the original to be sure. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have access to the book and the whole front end of the quote, and parts of the last sentence, seem to be made up! The actual text on pp.999-1000 says (diacritics and internal references excluded):
 * "It [a Sanskrit inscription of AD 1276] records the building of a baoli and a dharmasala in Palam (just outside Delhi) by Uddhara from Ucca in the Multan district. The inscription, composed by Pandit Yogesvara, dated in the vikram samvat 1333, begins with a salutation to Siva and Ganapati. It then refers to the rulers of Delhi and as the Tomaras, Chauhanas and Sakas, the earlier two having been recognised Rajput dynasties and the last being a reference to the Sultans."

- Thapar, Romila, Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History, OUP, 2000


 * I browsed through the adjoining pages and didn't find any relevant analog of the first half the quote; since the book is >1000 pages long and quote-manufacturing is a serious accusation, I am happy to be disabused on this by being provided the correct page number. The "quote" was added in this edit by the editor editing from the 106.** range. Unless a plausible explanation for this error/hoax is forthcoming, all related material will need to be reverted till it is independently verified. Abecedare (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Noticed some discussion here Sockpuppet_investigations/Showbiz826 about 106.*. The new content is mostly from this discussion Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan and the edits made(in the current form) here were opposed by several very competent editors.  Some sources are valid but Talbot is quite modern(2016) compared to others but in the current page her view is contradicted by "older" views(as if older views are more relevant). As one editor noted on that talk page, White Horserider, it is easy to see the state of knowledge about the subject is rapidly progressing and the conclusions are being revised. It is not proper to state the older scholarly views as facts in this situation. Moreover, they should not appear in the lead. Since this is a page on Prithviraj Chauhan, not on Rajputs per se, spending excessive spae on that issue here is also UNDUE. Those discussions can go in the Rajputs page. Here, just a footnote would suffice, and Chattopadhyaya can be taken to summarise all the old views. (No need to cite dozens of them.) Cynthia Talbot and [Bednar] can be cited for the current views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC). The current page, as edited by 106* does exactly the opposite. At the very least, even if the sources provided by 106* are retained, the order is incorrect and "anachronistic" was also removed from the lead section. If the quotes are made up, it is more serious than edit warring. The protection template was removed on 7th April here : [] and the edits by 106.* started after that. Please can it be reverted to a stable version before edits by 106* started and then each source can be discussed and added in the right place one by one after independent verification. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * your current stand on this is quite opposite to your edit history on this page, I think you and one more editor Heba Aisha (whom you again pinged for this discussion) aggressively without any discussion added content after content in this very article for last couple of years, and now when someone added counter view of it, you want every addition to be discussed before being added. I think if discussio has to be taken place, the page is to be restored to stable version of July 2020 before these aggressive editings and then each source can be added after discussion. Regarding newer work getting prevailed over even a couple of decades old scholarly work, do tell, what new discovery and new material has been unearthed to completely shatter old views. These are equally important specially, if someone wrote 10 years later than other guy, it doesn't always mean that earlier guy's work is inferior. Your WP:OWN behaviour is quite evident, when you are repeatedly trying to take to the version to last desired version of yours and accusing others of having biased views. Sajaypal007 (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , the reason should be obvious. This stand is based on the statement made by an editor that this quote was hoax. An editor can add a quote in good faith without understanding the context around it. But if the quote itself is hoax, then every statement written by 106.* becomes suspect. If the quote is not hoax, it is a content dispute that can be discussed separately. The content added in 2020 was discussed over months, quotes were verifiable and you were asked to present opposite content that you were not able to. The discussion went on for months and several editors were involved. This is literally WP:STONEWALL. LukeEmily (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merely pointing out hypocrisy of an editor is stonewalling now. And as much you wanted to include opposite view, this is exactly what is added now, so how is it problematic when yours was not. Sajaypal007 (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:STONEWALL is when one editors continuously pings other editor and that particular editor restores the edit to preferred version of the first editor on multiple pages. Please at the least go through rules before accusing others. RS6784 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring to WP:STONEWALL in the context of changing the content back to july 2020 as the content has gone numerous discussions for months with plenty of editors involved in 2020. I have already defended myself about why it is not hypocrisy since the content was easily verifiable in the 2020 case. Also, please check WP:APPNOTE and note that I have not been involved in any form of canvassing. All my edits are done in good faith without any bias for or against any community. If you are still not convinced after reading WP:APPNOTE about canvassing, please report me to admins pointing to my edits. Such frivolous accusations keep us away from the discussion of the topic at hand. Please focus on the content not on the motive of editors. There is no one stopping you from adding anything that is WP:V.LukeEmily (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * First and last I am not accusing anyone here on this discussion page and I do have read WP:APPNOTE but if an editor continuously tags only selected editors and it seems this case isn't restricted to only on one page than there are definitely certain questions. The point here is WP: STONEWALL, and even WP:OWN an article to let it remain to a preferred versions by some people through any step. I again make it clear I am not accusing anyone here but sharing simple information regarding rules here and wrt your good faith edits, that will always be open to new edit as per rules of Wikipedia. Nobody owns any article on Wikipedia. Thanks and Best￼ RS6784 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

To the editor Abecedare who claimed of hoaxing and accuse me of making up content this quote is not a self made synthesis by me, it perhaps may be from other pages where writter made a quick reference to Rajput clan structure tight knitting. This is same case with Bayly's sussain reference as well where her half hearted quote is used. In any case, I added over 20,000 words and all content is verified by reliable authors even in History of Rajput kingdom section of article as well the content addition were from learned academics. You along with Heba Aisha have been despartely trying to take this article back to your desired version by even claiming it as stable version. There is nothing called stable version that ever exists Wikipedia can be improved on regular basis. Next for Talbot, her views are presented in ample amount in all sections of article but so must be views of other scholars who backed their content with reaearches and evaluation as serious as her or even more. If around 20 sources denotes Rajput emergence as a community far earlier then Talbot then no way any version should be pushed in lead by overduing it. In case I am looking back again on Thapar work since I have acess to most of the books to point about exact page numbers, I am giving editors few more sources to play with here.


 * First from Kaushik Roy,, a Cambridge university press source:-


 * One more from Salma Ahmed Faroqui a professor of history Third one is from Salma Ahmed Farooqui (2011), associate professor of history at Maulana Azad National Urdu University who too staged existence of Rajputs as an early medieval phenomena


 * Since some of them even objected use of term for Rajput by Persian authors here it's another one for them as well from Marck Jason Gilbert (2017) who wrote about Taraori Battles and quoted Hasan Nizami who too mentioned about Rajput s in his work but omiits the defeat of Ghurids in First Battle of Tarain

I have even more sources on my hand that claimed early emergence of Rajputs and none of them is cherry picked like the editor himself/herself did that for Baylaly Sussain reference, Since controversy around Thapar work is going around let me add one more renowned work of her where she talked about Rajput clans:-

In chapter 2 she talks about , I pointed out Thapar's work since that OUP citation was claimed to be made up although since its 1000 + pages book it will requure time to reacess me but sure she did talk about their emergence by 12th century may be quoting Chattopadhyay work not sure. 106.66.6.112 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Here again, to do verifications of some other quotes as well to not get bad rent of hoaxing, in another work of Dr. Upinder not where she quoted Nandini Sinha kapur herself (other one):- A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century a excellent work on page number 567, she mentioned this again:-

so on and then she mentioned about different Rajput clans in details:- Parmaras, Chaulkyas, Chahamanas etc. Anything more ?? 106.66.6.24 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 106.66, I'll wait for you to provide page numbers from the Thapar book from which the quote cited here was taken, or an explanation for why those words were attributed to her. As to the content issue regarding the origins of the Rajput identity, that can continue to be discussed in the previous two section among the content-contributors to this article and is irrelevant to the potential conduct-issue of source-misrepresentation raised in this section. Abecedare (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

But it's been years I last read this 2000 edition book and it's over 1000 pages will require a careful reading again, At the moment, I am quite busy in personal life and will remain for few days (For preparation oof my sister marriage on 23 April, 2022), Please give me time till 24 April or so and I will mention about it in detail. (including Thapar's book from 1994 or so) and we will discuss competency of this source. 106.66.43.81 (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 106.*, I will not discuss more on content in this section except point you to by TB that explains the subtleties - before and after the 16th century they have different meanings. Personal and family  life always comes first. Best wishes to your sister and her fiance. Please take your time as the admin has given you more time. For now, relax and enjoy the time with your family.LukeEmily (talk)

I already asked for some time due to personal reasons but you pinged me here too by giving reference to a talk page which is irrelevant here and is a complete mess. To read this editor part I have to dug down deep in that discussion which is quite unlikely given the state of that page and time shortage I had till a week or so. Morever, I can get basic thing here is that He/She are pointing towards usage of Bedner, Talbot and Kolff thesis and their assertion on emergence of Rajput clan structure. Please read this section again, Kolff and Bednar along with Talbot are already given too much importance here. Further, she pointed towards Habib work from 2002, where he added usage of term by Muslim chronicles (which ia debatble itself) Thus, this book of Habib from 2008 mentioned this quote with no fabrication. Plus, Habib again used this quote (100% sure) in his 2011/2012/2013 book on page 67 or so..I will add full quote and possibly PDF too.. At last I can see they hints toward Dr. Upinder Singh work, I don't know about OUP source, Dr. Singh made a brief reference there to Nandini Sinha Kapur work..,They called for chaper no. and name of author.. I add her renowned famous work from 2008 where they mentioned that at page 568 or therebouts (100% sure again) then went on to talk about premier Rajput clans of medieval period..

At last..,I can't dug deep down for 5 days atleast till 24 April. Thanks for best wishes though. 106.66.42.50 (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I said in my previous post: . Not sure how else to say that you can take more time to reply. No urgency. Please reply after 24th. Best,LukeEmily (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 106.66: This edit was not a good idea. I am not talking about the edit's content (which I haven't evaluated) but the fact that you were asked for an explanation of your previous edit to the article that seemed to misrepresent a source and asked for some time to attend to real-life matters. That is understandable but if you use that time to edit the article instead during the short window where it was inadvertently unprotected, that seems like gaming the system and it becomes more difficult to assume good faith. If you have time to edit wikipedia, please answer the above queries before moving onto other topics. Abecedare (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Mr Admin., I am stil very exhausted and don't have ample time to join a long debate till a further weak or so, Plus I did not ask for this gap in bad faith; Personal issues are far more important then editing Wikipedia which isn't even secondary. I just made a quick edit here because User:Packer&Tracker removed content like LukeEmily does; so I quickly added content which is more verificable. I still don't have time (till atleast a week or so) to re acess page by page a over 1000 pages book (Most of my pdfs dont have page numbers either) Hope your cooperate in mean time with regards to my short wiki break. 106.66.42.160 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not falling for that again. As a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBIPA, consider yourself topic-banned from this article and talkpage; the page-restriction can be appealed at WP:AN or WP:AE. If you do find the page number for the Thapar quote please let me know on my user talkpage and we can reexamine your participation in this article/talkpage but until then, we are done here.  I'll let the other regulars on this page help with the needed verification and cleanup. Abecedare (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2022
{{subst:trim|1= Please fix a typo in History of Rajput kingdoms:- Prithviraj fled from battlefield but was caught near Sirsa and waa executed by Ghurids Waa is wrong spelling, fix it to Was. 2409:4051:4E92:B625:FF93:CD7C:ADD9:5243 (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * {{done}} ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)