Talk:Rajput/Archive 24
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Recent edit war
what is necessary for article is already provided. It is related to Rajputs overall not one or two specific houses. There are several authors saying that rajput dynasties arose in 7th century but because of the article being controversial, Britannica Rajput article is cited (which provided for 9th century). write all claims one by one over here and don't mess with article, i will provide you contradictory authorities and answers one by one for all your claims.....and we shall reach to conclusion. Rajput334 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I will comment myself once I've sorted out my internet access issues. I've change the section heading to something more neutral. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have sorted out my access problems but am really not in the mood to deal with this tonight (20:23 here). I'll take a look tomorrow and, please, can both of you not start reverting each other again until then? Even if the present version is "wrong", no-one is going to die during the next few hours because of it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Rajput334,Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rajput. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed by other contributors since beginning. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly remove sourced content. Thank you John811jd (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Etymology
The conclusion is obvious that they were not considered by the original residents to be respectable, to start with. This is because "Raaja" means royal but "Raj" means semen. The progeny of mixed marriages is even now called by that name in India. Local people knows this fact everwhere in India.
Wikipedia or britannica? its a mistake of this user Rajput334 that he is talking about tertiary source rather than secondary. Please have a sense of interpretation of word Wikipedia. if you don't then you probably need to discuss it at talk page,here..
Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia with entries that can be created, added, and edited by anyone. You belong to Rajput caste,so you may try to hide the well known facts. Please dnt.
Wikipedia is not your personal property. Please dont surpass other editors again and again. Thank you
- Please sign your posts and please try to format them - see WP:TPG. I asked you both to stop warring and discuss but instead one of you decided to revert and then discuss. It is not acceptable and I have restored the prior content until we get consensus. I'm not saying that the present version is correct (or even better), merely following our usual procedures. Here are some initial thoughts.
- Firstly, one of the changes was to say
The Rajputs regard themselves as descendants or members of the Kshatriya (Hindu warrior ruling) class.
It is probable that neither of you are aware of this but there has long been a consensus that we do not mention varna in the lead sections of articles. For that reason, the change is not acceptable.
- Firstly, one of the changes was to say
- John Keay has been used as a source, which is not a great idea. He is a popular writer, not a genuine academic. It would be better to use whatever his sources may be rather than cite him directly.
- We should never, ever use Abul Fazl as a source: he is too old, too biassed and is effectively primary. The same applies to Firishta, while ambedkar.org is an advocacy group and is only reliable for its opinions about itself.
Poet and author V. D. Mahajan is honest enough to accept that the word "Rajput" is used to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar
is completely unacceptable. Please read WP:NPOV and please explain why the opinion of a "poet and author" matters for something of a historical nature.
Furthermore, the Rajput relations with Mughal were consolidated by marriage and blood ties; the Akbar's successors, Jahangir and Shah Jahan were sons of Rajput Princesses is therefore not insignifant.
(and probably much of the section in which it is situated) was a copyright violation of the cited source. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT.
The political effect of these alliances was significant. While some Rajput women who entered Akbar's harem converted to Islam, they were generally provided full religious freedom, and their relatives, who continued to remain Hindu, formed a significant part of the nobility and served to articulate the opinions of the majority of the common populace in the imperial court
I can't see where the source supports this statement, and the writing looks suspect also. Where was it copy/pasted from?
- I do not understand
Although the word "Rajput" is supposed to be a corrupted form of the Sanskrit word 'Raajaputra', which means a "scion of the royal blood", the word occurs in the Puranas.
at all. What is the point that we are trying to make? That Rajput predates the Rajput community?
- I do not understand
- -Sitush (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I Agree with Sitush. but i would comment on mentioning varna, alright if there is a consensus not to mention the varna in lead section then we can mention it in first lines of subheading, origins, that *
The Rajputs regard themselves descendants or members of Kshatriya (Hindu warrior ruling) class.
It is necessary because the further reading under sub-heading 'origins' would not make sense to a normal reader otherwise. And one more thing, if Kshatriya is to be removed from lead section, Then the whole line that would then become *The Rajputs regard themselves as descendants or Members of Hindu Warrior ruling class
, implies that perhaps the Rajput people at present just regards themselves as decedents of Rajputs but they are perhaps not regarded by others as such. even if we tag Hindu warrior class to Kshatriya page, it would not be recognized by a normal reader, and the effect will be that which i have told earlier. so, that is why i would suggest that the whole line should be removed from lead section in this case and should be inserted in start of 'origins' sub-heading as, *The Rajputs regard themselves as descendants or Members of Kshatriya (Hindu Warrior ruling) class
. Rajput334 (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I Agree with Sitush. but i would comment on mentioning varna, alright if there is a consensus not to mention the varna in lead section then we can mention it in first lines of subheading, origins, that *
- The lead section used to say "They claim to be descendants of ruling warrior classes of North India." The problem that you raise is a common one for caste articles here, not just ones relating to Rajputs. Most of us (and most sources) find it difficult to believe that every single member of a caste is descended from someone who ruled. Ignoring the mythological origins (Lunar, Solar etc) which we know to be absurd, who was that common ancestor to which every single Rajput is directly related? - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- They find common ancestors in different clans. What about not writing their claim in lead section and rather mentioning this in opening line of sub-heading origins as *
The Rajputs regard themselves as descendants or Members of Kshatriya (Hindu Warrior ruling) class
?. Rajput334 (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- They find common ancestors in different clans. What about not writing their claim in lead section and rather mentioning this in opening line of sub-heading origins as *
- Because it is WP:PUFFERY? - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- But Britannica also uses same words. we have already much criticized these claims in origins sub-heading, then how would it really be a puff ? we can use word claim. Rajput334 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, it is a copyright violation. Secondly, it would be better to find a source that was not tertiary. And thirdly, it completely misrepresents what EB actually says: you cannot take something like that out of context. - Sitush (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Even we take it in context EB is not saying they do not regard themselves as such or do not claim to be so. Rajput334 (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:NPOV. No way are we going to give only half the story here. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Sir,there is no cannection between sanskrit word raaja putra and rajput. The word "Rajput" is used to denote the” illegitimate sons of a king” . Please correct the sentence as.. Rajput (from Sanskrit raja-putra, "illegimate son of a king"[1]) is a member of one of the patrilineal clans of western, central, northern India and current eastern Pakistan. We cant do injustice with truth,sources says this. MORE BOOKS SOURCES-- .[1][2][3] This is because "Raaja" means royal but "Raj" means semen. They have been considered to be the illegitimate children borne of relationships between the ruling raajas and their female slaves.[4] Sir,a half truth article is deceptive. we should not hide truth from the readers.
Rajput rose to prominance during 16th to 19th centuries”, because Rajput came into existence in 16th century. Please cite John Keay books sources. Sir,Gurjara Pratihara dynasty king Mihira Bhoja I (836–885 CE) or Bhoja I was a Gurjar King,whom these rajputs claim to be a rajput! Please click on the link below,even Government Of India knows this. Click on the links below please- delhi.gov.in/DoIT/DoIT_Dsec/ward1-5.xls , Gurjar Samrat Mihir Bhoj Marg near Yamuna River http://in.placelandia.com/map/gurjar-samrat-mihir-bhoj-marg-pandav-nagar-new-delhi-delhi-india.html NH-24 (National Highway no. 24) from Sarai Kale Khan village Road(New Delhi) to Ghazipur Dairy Farm(Delhi) - U.P. Border Road (Ring Road)......Ghaziabad -Hapur bipass....to Moradabad ...named as "Gurjar Samrat Mihir Bhoj Marg".
In Harshcharita by Bhan Bhat, there is a reference that during the reign of Prabhakar Vardhan there were some powerful domains (kingdoms) of Gujjars. 1.These powerful domains (Kingdoms) were of pratihars, Parmars, Solankis, Chawras,Chauhans,Tanwars etc. This book was written sometime in 6th. century. The rajput word in the history appeared after 16th. century. 2. The origin of Rajputs has been there in History papers of Indian Administrative service (IAS) in one of the year during 90s and solved answers were published in the Employment news clearly stating that the earlier feudatories (Samants) of Gurjar Pratihars (a clan of Gurjars) , got freedom and were later called as rajputs irrespective of their original race. More Proof- Rajputs were mostly feudal lords holding the status of the revenue collectors for the Gurjar overlords. (As written in the Indian Civil services solved papers). Rajputs were basically the illegitimate children of the Gurjar-Pratihars, who claim descent from Sooraj (most probably Mihir Bhoj), and hence called themselves soorajvamshi (they could obviously not originate from SUN, though later they created another story of them being fire born or agnivamshi, which made their claim more funny and illogical). (As written by Ferishta books.) Rajput was not used in the Indian writings until the times of Babar (early 16th centuries). Even the famous books such as rajtarangini, kumarpal charita, prithviraj Raso etc. never used the word rajput as a caste or community.
Sir,you pointed out- • John Keay has been used as a source, which is not a great idea. He is a popular writer, not a genuine academic. It would be better to use whatever his sources may be rather than cite him directly. Sir,Rajput word first used by British. According to John Keay, not until the Mughal period, which began in 1526 AD, did the word "Rajput" come to be used of a particular class.[5] It must be added in origin section by citing Sir John Keay sources. Please include his sources. Thank you. • Poet and author V. D. Mahajan is honest enough to accept that the word "Rajput" is used to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar is completely unacceptable. Please read WP:NPOV and please explain why the opinion of a "poet and author" matters for something of a historical nature. Sir, Mahajan Vidya Dhar, "Ancient India", Fifth Edition, Reprint 1972, Chand and Co., New Delhi. p. 550 ff. Please include his sources for this line. • Furthermore, the Rajput relations with Mughal were consolidated by marriage and blood ties; the Akbar's successors, Jahangir and Shah Jahan were sons of Rajput Princesses is therefore not insignifant. (and probably much of the section in which it is situated) was a copyright violation of the cited source. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT. Sir,it may be a copyright violation,but I have provided other sources which are authentic and free from violation. Please cite them.
RidiculousThis is bloody ridiculous. If people cannot understand even the basics of Wikipedia talk page etiquette here, as seems to be the case, then please will they not bother contributing at all. I'm not even responding to any of the mess that is above this section. Take a look at WP:TPG, note how we use headings, note how we indent, note how we sign our posts etc. Complete madness, this is. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
jatt gujjar ahir are all claiming to be kshatriyas. They are claiming rajput tribes and kings as theirs kings and tribes. This is all lies. ask the artisan castes like nai mochi teli lohar tarkhan. They will tell you that rajputs are the real kshatriyas. Are jatts real kshatriyas or ahirs or gujjars real kshatriyas. First decide between yourselves then tell other people. mali saini kohl bhil are also claiming to be kshatriyas as well. Every one is so obsessed with being kshatriya. Every one cannot be kshatriya. Rajputs are the one and only kshatriyas. The reason gujjars are spread all over the north is because they are nomads and graziers. They used to go every where with their cattle and goats and sheeps even as far as afghanistan and bengal as graziers and shepherds and herders but not as rulers.the misinterpretation of the phrase gurjara pratihara has created all this confusion. pratihara were rajput kshatriyas and they lived in a country called gurjaratra or gujrat that is why they were called pratiharas of gujrat. for example the brahmins who served maithila kings came to be called maithil brahmana. The brahmins of kanyakubja came to be called kanyakubja brahmana. The brahmins of gurjaratra came to be called gurjara brahmana. the maithila brahmana kanyakubja brahmana and gurjara brahmana are named after kingdoms or countries they served.There are many towns and regions named after gujjars because the gujjars settled or lived in those towns and areas and not because they ruled there. Try to find out why the district gujrat in pakistan is named after gujjars. There is a gujjar tribe called topa in gujrat district. find out why they are called topa.Rajbaz (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014
Rajpoot noun 1. (Hinduism) one of a Hindu military caste claiming descent from the Kshatriya, the original warrior caste Word Origin
THAKUR RPS (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015
Hi, kindly replace the following line (found under the heading of "origin"): "Aydogdy Kurbanov says that the assimilation was specifically between the Hephthalites, Gurjars, and people from northwestern India, forming the Rajput community." Please replace it with this line: "Several historians, such as W. Crooke [6], V.A. Smith [7], A.F. Rudolf Hoernle [8], Sir. Athelstane Baines [9], Aydogy Kurbanov [10], D.R. Bhandarkar [11], and R.C. Majumdar [12], believe that the Rajputs originated from Gurjaras and Hunas that formed blood alliances with the native rulers of North India." The reasons for this request: The previous statement does not do justice to the fact that a large number of historians trace Rajput origin from the Gurjaras. The readers deserve to know about the several different mainstream historians who take this position. The old statement gives the impression that only a generally unknown Russian historian, called Aydogdy Kurbanov, originates Rajputs from Gurjaras, which is contrary to reality, and thus, deceiving to the readers. I have tried to substantiate my edit with academic references, however, if you find something missing, do contact me, and I will comply with whatever is required. Thanks, and I hope this edit will be implemented as soon as possible, in spirit of keeping the flow of information open and available to all readers. Best regards! --Axtramedium (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC) References
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015
Real History Of RajputAccording to Hindu myths this caste used to exist from Satyug. The truthfull king Raja Harishchandra was a Suryavanshi Rajput. In Treta yug Lord Ram was born in a Raghuvanshi Rajput Family. In dwapar yug Lord Sri Krishna was born in Yaduvanshi Rajput Family. Even in Rigveda the word Kshatriya was used to describe Rajputs. In Kaliyuga the first great Rajput was born as the name Gautama Sidhhartha who later came to be known as Gautam Budhha. Saurabh Singh Gautam (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Rajputs own claimThere's nothing wrong with writing about Rajputs own claim, in fact if it was Britannica wouldn't have done this. The opening lines of origins section should begin this way, Rajputs claim Kshatriya ancestry and this is also a subject of debate. It would also render the origin section more sensible than its existing form Decentscholar (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Take an example, Muslims consider Adam to be their ancestor and all humanity, we wrote this on wikipedia without any academic writing, for this is written in precise words, Muslims believe Adam to be their ancestor, how that really creates undue weight, that's belief or claim of a group of people. may be someone of us do not agree but this is the way they consider it. so It may not be a fact that Adam is ancestor of all humanity, but its a fact that Muslims believe him to be so. The language we use obviously matters, I am asking you to mention it in a very reasonable way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decentscholar (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
TodTod may be very unreliable but Jason Frietag never said he was manifestly biased. what exactly he's saying is that, Tod is extremely important (or essential) to configure the present image of Rajputs. how can we misinterpret these simple words. we're suppose to do literal interpretation of his words! Decentscholar (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Mughals and Marathas@Sitush , Mughals and Marathas must be mentioned in Rajput page. Rajputs had a great history with both of them. Even today, People know Rajputs for their friendship ( Raja Man Singh etc.) and rivalry (Rana Pratap etc.) with Mughals. As far as the Marathas are concerned, two great Maratha leaders had Rajput blood in them- Shivaji ( most probably from father's side) and Mahadaji Shinde (from mother's side) and also notably Maratha-Rajput conflicts. Not a single reference to them in this page, I think, is distortion of history. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC) We have quite enough Maratha pov-pushing on this project as it is. You'll have to come up with some sources. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Edit requestI have an edit request regarding History section. The subheading origins should come after the subheading of Rajput kingdoms, the reason is that former is subject of debate (in other words its uncertain). It seems weird too keep uncertain thing over the certain thing (which is also probably the subject matter of article). 168.235.196.199 (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Well you are probably retaliating Rajputs ;) Because I didn't ask to decorate them. Its just that article seems weird in this way.202.69.11.20 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC) I agree with this edit request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decentscholar (talk • contribs) 12:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Rajput subordination
What we seem to have here is a situation that is all too common for this Hindu/Muslim palaver. It needs to stop, and people need to use the sources properly. The Richards source neither justifies the word "most" nor the word "some". The first is quite simply not said; the latter seems to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the significance, or else a mistake based on original research rather than reading the source itself. The correct word should probably be "many" and the sentence should refer to Akbar also because it seems that things were different a couple of generations earlier. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions and I won't hesitate to call in the admins if the abuses continue. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Rajput Mughal Marriages
Archived DiscussionDo not reignite the issues which have already been discussed and avoid Edit warring please Rajput subordination
What we seem to have here is a situation that is all too common for this Hindu/Muslim palaver. It needs to stop, and people need to use the sources properly. The Richards source neither justifies the word "most" nor the word "some". The first is quite simply not said; the latter seems to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the significance, or else a mistake based on original research rather than reading the source itself. The correct word should probably be "many" and the sentence should refer to Akbar also because it seems that things were different a couple of generations earlier. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions and I won't hesitate to call in the admins if the abuses continue. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Rajput Mughal Marriages
POV effected articleIn the section Rajput kingdoms, it is written that ruling sisodia family of mewar stood apart from other Rajput clans. The editors had written this with a bad intention, because it is very obviously implying that all Rajput clans except sisodias married their daughter to Mughals!! this is indeed POV pushing. furthermore, the biased editor also rebuffs the neutral source of Britannica who use the word 'some' for 'Rajput-Mughal' marriages, but the editor says, 'a number of', so that editor's intention are visible as being full of malice. how ironic it is that the editor sitush also appears to say that there were only 18 Rajput clans out of which 17 married daughters to mughals and 1 clan sisodia stood apart. It is very well known that there were so many clans and still are. I've asked Britannica to further update on this issue. if they do so, I'll use Britannica and other secondary source to undo the biased editor Sitush. and if he or his follower user Mahamsingha tried to edit war this time, I would report them and even dispute resolution process will be initiated. 2A03:2880:3010:6FF5:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Janwar (Rajputs)seems to be a part of broader caste Shrikanthv (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2015
Rajputs rose to prominence from the 9th to 12th century CE. Cite: Encyclopaedia Britannica 04:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC) 188.166.126.54 (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Allied GroupsIf this blog post can be substantiated with other sources, I would suggest that a subsection on allied groups be created, "In addition to being divided into clans, the Rajputs are divided into two categories, the Rajput proper and the Girasia, who are known as Darbar in Saurashtra and Rajput in Kutch. In addition, there are also various allied groups such as the BavanGol , Gujjar , Karadia , Nadoda, Jinkara , Purbiya, Maiya and Khant,and Vantia." [1]JoLindaw (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Rajputs claims Kshatriya status in North IndiaRajputs claims the Kshatriya status in Northern India please add this phrase from the NCERT reference provided here. Only rajputs in North India claims kshatriya status... http://ncert.nic.in/ncerts/textbook/textbook.htm?gess1=1-10 ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invincible Chanakya (talk • contribs) 10:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Sources: Refer page-205, 206, 199, 204, 203, 211, 235, 233, 198, 217, 213, 208 of the book "The Politics of the Urban Poor in Early Twentieth-Century India."[1] Hence Rajputs are not the only claimant. --MahenSingha (Talk) 19:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC) it's relevantplease include this, it is abviously relevant to this article. The historian Pradeep Barua notes that the Mughal invaders had put an end to the outdated trends of Indian warfare, he further suggests that had there not been the cannons of Babar, then Rana Sanga owing to his superior forces could have achieved a victory of historical importance.[1] Moreover, the Mughal empire is often refered to as gunpowder empire which means it had a significant military sucesss because of newly developed firearms.[2] Taoni (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
yes, it is verifiable. I have seen such sources.Taoni (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC) References
Canons and gunpowder may be more relevant to articles on Babur or the foundation of the Mughal empire in India rather than on an article on the Rajput community.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Rajput caste and geographical distrubutionThe article dwells mainly on Rajput rulers and not much on the Rajput caste where traditional occupation can range from being a feudal landlord to being peasant or a soldier. Also there are numerous castes that have plausible or dubious claim to being Rajput. The article does not mention this. Also apart from one line on geographical distribution in the lead, there is nothing on this topic in the body. As the article stands today, it should be renamed Rajput royalty rather than just Rajput. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, leaders are important but that should not be at expense of ignoring history and culture of millions of ordinary Rajputs. I will work on this over the coming months to rectify the situation using reliable sources.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016
In the third section "Spread of the Gahadvalas, Chandels, Tomars, and Chauhans", could you please convert the word 'Chandela' in the second paragraph into a hyperlink, so that their page is accessible directly? The format will look like this, so only a pair of double brackets have to be added: Chandela Thank You Vegtioblade (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
My revertMy revert here is related to copyright violations/close paraphrases, unattributed copy/pastes from other Wikipedia articles, and because the material is grossly undue in an article that is supposed to be about an entire community rather than a few warriors. We have articles for the subjects mentioned and do not need to cover the stuff in such detail here. This is just more of the usual Rajput self-glorification that caused this article to be placed under special sanctions. It needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
TypoUnder the Subdivisions section there is a typo in the line:
Here skakhs should be shakhs. It can be verified by visiting https://books.google.co.in/books?id=7HLrPYOe38gC&pg=PA31&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=shakhs&f=false. 203.122.29.234 (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Rajput politicsThis is a very short article and pretty much a WP:DICDEF. It is easily merged into Rajput. Any self-identified Rajput politicians should be in List of Rajputs, which is also linked from that article. Sitush (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2016
Raja (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Suryavanshi Bargujar Bersal Bisht Channa Chattar Gahlot Jhala Jethwa Kachwaha Khangarot Mandahar Mori Naga Nathawat Pundir Raghuvanshi Rathore Sisodia Pakhral Please add Pakhral in this clan.. thanks i hope you will take serious actions against my umble request
Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2016
203.109.93.197 (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Etymology of the Word Rajputra or RajputThe Cultural and economical studies on Medieval Indian Kingdoms suggest that the word "Rajputra" or "Rajput" was a name of a military position rather than a name of any social group (or "caste" as we call it). "Rajputs" were ranked below "Ranakas" (one who received Land in Grants for an intermediary deal). [5]
Please be specific about the "only one". Was there a mistake in the citation of a book by Romila Thapar?The Real Rana (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC) References
Arts/ArchitectureIs it within the framework of this article to include a section regarding Rajput art and architecture? This possible addition may go under the culture/ethos section. Any thoughts or suggestions? Vagbhata2 (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016
The word Rajput came into existence in 8-9 Centuries but Rajputs were present from the very long time.Kshatriya (also known as warriors ) were also Rajputs who were Kings. Even Lord Rama and Lord Krishna belong to Rajput Clans like Suryavansham and Chandravansham. Please make this changes in your Article. Alarsaking (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016
I want to make some necessary changes into this article.Please grant me permission for same. Alarsaking (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Goththe ancient goth of rajput are Barsar Bhatt Chuhan Rasheed Barsar (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC) moving past theories and into geneticsthere have been genetic studies done of the people of India which show the obvious. why then, still, is there mention of unscientific theories and guesswork about some 'foreign origin' still doing the rounds in the Rajput page?
My recent revertI re-reverted here because:
Clear? - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
lede"continued to dominate many regions of central and northern India until the 20th century"
Mahraur RajputMahraur Rajput are one of the major clan from mewaṛ and Jodhpur who ruled Muzzafarpur district of Bihar. They are immigrants from Rajasthan . Mahraurs are known for their sacrifice,bravery and commitment Raunak singh (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2017
Hello, I would like to make an edition to "religion" label. Would like to change it from "Religion: Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism" to "Religion: Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, and Sikhism." I would like to add Jainism, as I personally am from a family for Rajput Jains from the Chauhan Clan. We speak Marwari at home. Many Marwari Jains like ourselves are of Rajput descent, and thus there are many rajputs who are jains. Here is a link to another wikipedia article that talks about Jainism and Rajputs. Go under the "Jainism" section of this page and will name some famous Rajput rulers who were jains. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Religious_liberalism_in_Rajput_courts EDIT - Page 137 of this book and other pages around that area explain in depth how rajputs are also jains. https://books.google.com/books?id=C8HcBvE8XJ4C&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=Rajput+jains&source=bl&ots=kWdnOQoBxM&sig=NCta3Ymiw4iw8o7L79oLzcIbjvI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHq-_Z4JLTAhVLxWMKHQALBj0Q6AEISzAI#v=onepage&q=Rajput%20jains&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMadhani99 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC) AMadhani99 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2017
Please add maharashtra in states under Rajput. Renowned personalities of Rajput community from Maharashtra are given below 1 Chhatrapati Shivajiraje Bhosale Historic warriors 2 Santaji Ghorpade Historic warriors 4. Fatesinhraje Bhonsale 3 Pratibhatai Patil -:President of India 4 Padmasinh Patil -: MLA 5 Ranajagjitsingh Patil 6 R O Patil MLA 7 Kishorappa Patil MLA Huge population of Rajput community found in maharashtra Nppnsk (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
OBC Status of RajputsI have noticed that although Rajputs are a forward community or caste in India but a few sections among Rajputs are listed under Other Backward sections in few States such as in Delhi and Karnataka: http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/071ace004fc0691e9e8eff2402db5dfd/OBC_LIST.pdf?MOD=AJPERES Please see at S. No. 50, 63 & 64. The list clearly declares the Raya Tanwars (at S. No. 50) (Community of Shri Karan Singh Tanwar, an ex-MLA of BJP a Rajput from south-West Delhi), Rawat Rajputs (at S. NO. 63) and Raikwar (at S No. 64) as OBC. Karnataka State's list of Backward castes: http://backwardclasses.kar.nic.in/PDF/Caste/GB-Caste7.PDF This file has two lists, S No 81 in the second list clearly mentions the name of Rajaput caste as one of the backward castes. There are several other examples where Rajputs are listed as a backward caste or class: in the Central List of OBC's in Andhra Pradesha they are listed at S No. 1 and 5. http://www.obcwelfare.com/Pdf/andhrapradesh.pdf in the Central List of OBC's in Maharashtra State at S No. 184 and 193. http://www.bcmbcmw.tn.gov.in/obc/faq/maharashtra.pdf
As mentioned in the introduction sections of Gurjars and Jats that they are under OBC list in few states, it becomes obvious to insert the similar information in the introduction section of the Rajputs. If, this suggestions is not worth taking into account then it is requested to remove the same from the introduction sections of Gurjars and Jats as it is just an effort to derogate these two communities on the basis of caste. The Real Rana (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2017
Please remove Islam from Religion, Rajputs were never having Islam as religion. Yaduveers (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Ordinary RajputThe article has hardly anything on ordinary Rajputs of today The lede talks about Rajputs being present in different states of India but this is not expanded in the body.There is nothing on their life such such urban / rural, literacy, occupation, adherence to old culture practice etc.There also no mention of Rajput muslims in this article. Most of the article seems to be on history of old Rajput ruling clans.Should there be a separate article on ordinary Rajputs.Please comment.Thanks Jonathansammy (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
|