Talk:Rajputs of Nepal

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 26 May 2019 by reviewer Zanhe (talk · contribs).

Nepal

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Battle of Ligligkot.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) This article makes many references to the term 'Rajput' without demonstrating appropriate historical data to support the author's claims. 2) The author/contributor conflates the dynastic periods in Nepali history without critically analysing the different origins and ethnic backgrounds of the personnages. Their argument seems to be that the different Indo-Aryan dynasties that have ruled Nepal for the past 1500 years are related lineage-wise to today's Khas-Gorkha upper castes that claim 'Rajput' origins. This argument is not supported by any historical data on Nepal. Second, it takes the Indian title of 'Rajput' at face value without critically examining its usages in history. 3) The author/contributor has used a biased political position in a discussion on the 'Nepali' language and had deleted an addition of mine that critically analysed the biased position. My change on the page was to show that the language that we today know as Nepali was known in Nepal till the end of the 19th century as 'Khas kura/Gorkha bhasa/Parbatiya'. In their comment on my addition, they called the addition as 'Newari POV', which is an erroneous and biased claim since we have historical evidence from the early 20th century of the Rana government of Nepal declaring the Gorkha language as 'Nepali' at the behest of Gorkhali intellectuals in India.^[1] 4) The writer confuses between basic sociological concepts like class and caste. ANM (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that attempt of Identity theft has been made on this article without sufficient data backed by historical facts. @Ratnahastin Sir please tag relevant editors for healthy discussion 5o reach constructive conclusion. As a common knowledge, Rajputs are not Kshatriyas, neither Licchavis nor Mallas were undisputedly Rajputs but in this article all of them are connected to rajputs while attempt to prove Rajputs as Kshatriyas. People discussed in this article i.e. Chetris Thakkuris Chathariyas are not officialy called Rajputs in Nepal neither they connect themselves to any such Identity. Rajput in Nepal is only used by Madheshis which is clearly mentioned at the end of this article. Gokuishere (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of article is Rajputs in Nepal, you are attempting to hijack it by renaming the article and changing all mentions of them with Khasas. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did that because there is no other way. Just match the information in Infobox with what is written in article. Infobox correctly mentions 40k population of Rajput in Nepal with their Bhojpuri language which matches only with last section "Terai Madheshi" rajputs. Chhetris alone have more than million population and this article claimed Chhetris Thakkuris Chathariyas etc as Rajputs which is identity theft. If not move then remove all content mentioning about history of Nepali Khas Kshatriyas leaving last section which talks about Rajputs who are called Madheshi in Nepal. Gokuishere (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For more Info read Kshetris Shresthas Thakuri and Khas people whose identity theft is attempted on this article. Hope you wont misuse RV function unnecessarily unless you support POV being pushed here. Gokuishere (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the text, successive dynasties of Nepal need to be rendered in their proper chronological order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swanbau (talk • contribs) 12:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Onta, Pratyoush. 1999. "The Career of Bhanubhakta as a History of Nepali National Culture, 1940-1999." Studies in Nepal History and Society4(1): 65-136.

Removing appropriation and identity stealing

On this talk page, there are already 2 users who wrote against this act of identity stealing and appropriation with baseless POV. Neither Licchavis were Rajputs, neithef chhetris, thapas, shreshthas are. Then why is the history of these castes is mentioned here when these Khasa castes have their entire seperate article and identity. Until there are some unbiased editors who come up with good arguments that why content about chhetris thakuris shreshthas licchavis etc should be included here, i am now removing it. 5.255.88.64 (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see these groups have made claims to Rajput status and have identified as such in past, I don't buy your argument that an "identity theft" is going on here when these groups have explicitly described themselves as such in past. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is same as some Rajputs describing them as Kshatriyas so they should be accepted as such. What a joke and mental gymnast you are doing here to push your POV on Rajput caste. Go to article of same castes whose identity you are trying to appropriate and you will find how those claims are disputed and lack any factual backing. Same article mentions how only Madheshi rajputs are considered as rajputs while Khasa Kshatriyas aren't. Just prove me here how Rajput = Kshatriya as being portrayed in this article and also how Licchavis were Rajputs. When did Lichavis claim to be rajputs? Stop lying for Your POV 5.255.88.64 (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Onta, Pratyoush. 1999. "The Career of Bhanubhakta as a History of Nepali National Culture, 1940-1999." Studies in Nepal History and Society4(1): 65-136.

[1]