Talk:Rajput/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Shudra

A user keeps insisting that Rajputs are of the shudra varna. They may be right, but it is not what the sources which presently in use appear to say. Consequently, two things would need to happen:

1. the shudra point would need reliable sources to support it (of which none have been provided so far); and
2. if [1] is sorted out then we would need to show both points of view ... unless the argument is also that the present sources are not reliable.

I am once again reverting on the grounds that the shudra claim is unsourced & the alternate does at least have citations etc. Feel free to discuss. I would strongly urge that the shudra claim is not reinstated without such discussion. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

Someone recently added "There are 36 royal clans in India who are considered as Rajput."

I removed it. I am pretty sure that we have had this discussion before but in any event I cannot spot a mention of 36 anything on the cited Upendra Singh page & cannot see the relevant pages of Richard Fox. Since the former is a little concerning & it is not unknown for this article to have "fake" references added, I think it is better to remove until someone can provide copies of the Fox stuff. Please note that wording is everything in this context: what Rajputs believed and what is known are very different things. - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why removing Prithviraj Chauhan from the Article

It is said that there is separate article on him that is why removed, but his addition with separate para is must since he is known as one of the bravest Rajput Warrior in India. Even there had been many movies and short episodes being made on his life and struggle. One such is Dharti Ka Veer Yodha Prithviraj Chauhan, so separate para with bit of information seems OK and must, further discussion is welcome.123.237.156.183 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the Rajput community, whereas the other is about the individual. Furthermore, your edits were an unattributed copy/paste from the other article, which is not how we do things here. Then, you talk of one paragraph above but you actually added five ... and his name already appears in three. Finally, the sourcing was poor despite the content being a copy/paste. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, lets remove the other parts and information related to Prithviraj and create a separate para or two being given the consideration that his appearance in Rajput and in general the Indian History is of great significance which relates to even the political history of Indian Independence when these Rajput princely states in Central and Northern India got engulfed with Indian democracy.123.238.25.182 (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, because creating a separate "para or two" could easily become undue weight. Let's just keep the historical synopsis going, although it needs some dramatic improvement. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Saini

I have been dealing with pov-pushing - by what I assume to be members of the Saini community - across a wide range of articles and a prolonged period. The bone of contention tends to be that of Rajput status. When I leave a "Saini are Rajput" statement in place somewhere due to 3RR or whatever, other editors come in and remove it (ie: they do the same as I would have done). The reason is simple: there was an ancient tribe called the Surasaini/Shoorsaini and the modern claims of Rajput status for the Saini are based on that tribe ... but nobody yet has produced a decent source that connects the ancient group with the modern group and, as such, we should not be showing Sainis as Rajput in this or any other article. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ref. 1:

"The Muhammadan invasions drove a wedge through the Rajput principalities of the eastern Punjab. Some of the Rajput clans fled to the deserts of Rajputana in the south, others overcame the petty chiefs of Himalayan districts and established themselves there. A few adventurers came to terms with the invaders and obtained from them grants of land. The Sainis trace their origin to a Rajput clan who came from their original home near Muttra [sic] on Jumna, south of Delhi, in defence of the Hindus against the first Muhammadan invasions"

Hugh Kennedy Trevaskis, Rajput clan movements- The land of the five rivers..., pp 99-100

Note: The Rajput clan named above is Saini or Shoorsaini (Shoorsen is the ancient name of a Yadava kingdom with capital in Mathura. This also explains the origin of the word 'Saini' from a Yadava tribe.

Yadava Rajput descent & synonymity of terms Saini and Shoorsaini

The Yadava Rajput descent is also corroborated by the following source :

Ref. 2:

"Before the formation of Bharatpur state the capital of Sinsinwars was at Sinsini. Sinsini earlier was known as 'Shoor saini' and its inhabitants were known as 'Saur Sen'. The influence of Saur Sen people can be judged from the fact that the dialect of the entire north India at one time was known as 'Saursaini'. Shoor Sain people were Chandra Vanshi kshatriyas. Lord Krishna was also born in vrishni branch of Chandravansh. A group of Yadavas was follower of Shiv and Vedic God in Sindh. Some inscriptions and coins of these people have been found in 'Mohenjo Daro'. ' Shiv Shani Sevi' words have been found engraved on one inscription. Yajur Veda mentions 'Shinay Swah'. 'Sini Isar' was found on one gold coin. Atharva Veda mentions 'Sinwali' for Sini God. The above group of Yadavas came back from Sindh to Brij area and occupied Bayana in Bharatpur district. After some struggle the 'Balai' inhabitants were forced by Shodeo and Saini rulers to move out of Brij land and thus they occupied large areas"

Source: Encyclopaedia Indica: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Volume 100, pp 119 - 120, SS Sashi, Anmol Publications, 1996/ Alternate Secondary Source: http://www.bharatpuronline.com/history.html

Ref. 3:

"It is said about Balaram-Hercules that he came as a stranger to Greece from outside. (In my opinion he was Bhim of Harikula and Col. Tod also holds the same view). Yaduvanshis ruled here. 'Yehudi' is the distortion of 'Yadu'. In the land in which Saini Yaduvanshis settled, it was called 'Sinai'."

Note: the same page of this work Yadava King Shoorsen or Soor Sen is also described as originator of Saini Yaduvanshi clan.

Source: Ghazni to Jaiselmer (Pre-medieval History of the Bhatis), pp 42 , Hari Singh Bhati, Publisher: Hari Singh Bhati, 1998, Printers: Sankhala Printers, Bikaner

Please note that the classification Sainis as an agricultural Rajput group is based on the following citations which are highly authoritative (both authors being cited by Enyclopedia Britannica and published in peer-reviewed journals). They are being quoted below in full. The expurgated part can be found in full in Rajput Mali article:

Ref. 4:

"The process began after the fall of Prithvi Raj Chauhan (the last Hindu emperor of India) in Vikram Samvat 1249 (1192 AD). When the Rajput soldiers of his army fell against Sahabbudin Ghori and the empires of Ajmer and Delhi were destroyed , some of the Rajputs became captives and could see no way of saving themselves except embracing Islam and they became known as Ghori Pathans. Some of the Rajputs were let off on the recommendations of a Royal gardner who represented the captive Rajputs as Malis. Others left carrying arms out of fear and took shelter in other communities....Famines and Wars have been great shifters and as a result of them this community which was mainly agricultural was attracted to other areas with better facilities of cultivation and grazing. They in the course of centuries, gradually migrated to parts of Punjab in the nortn and Malwa, Gujrat and Maharashtra country in the south. In the Punjab in the sub-mountainous region the community came to be known as 'Saini . It maintained Rajput character despite migration. ' Source: Castes and Tribes of Rajasthan, pp 107-108,Sukhvir Singh Gahlot, Banshi Dhar, Jain Brothers, 1989

The first one unambiguously provides proof that:

1) Sainis are a tribe of Rajput descent who took up agriculture after Muslim invasion to avoid conversion; 2) The agricultural community, which came out of Rajputs and was known as "Sainis" , maitained its Rajput character in Punjab. (this could only mean that they continued militancy and maintained their tribal consanguinity despite being in agriculture). 3) Sainis of Punjab , although sharing a similar historical narrative, are distinct from Rajput Mali community, which is found in Rajputana and other part of country. Please note that even this latter community despite having taken up agriculture continued to be classified as a subcategory within Rajputs (see Marwar state census 1891). Even if Sainis are clubbed with this group for argument sake, the Rajput descent still remains incontrovertible (Note: the source is clear that Sainis have never been known with 'Mali' descriptive in Punjab and have maintained their Rajput character. There are other references available in this respect too that the two groups are distinct and do not intermarry despite having a Rajput ancenstry).

Further there are other sources from other scholars: Rockyintown (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Your first two are not acceptable because they involve synthesis of information. What we really need is a source that says, quite simply, "The term Saini is synonymous with Shoorsaini". I'll check out the rest of your stuff later - perhaps there is something suitable in there. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Further References:

5) A few adventurers came to terms with the invaders and obtained from them grants of land. The Sainis trace their origin to a Rajput clan who came from their original home near Muttra [sic] on Jumna, south of Delhi, in defence of the Hindus against the first Muhammadan invasions.." The land of the five rivers; an economic history of the Punjab from the earliest times to the year of grace 1890, p 100, Hugh Kennedy Trevaskis, [London] Oxford University press, 1928

6) "It is said about Balaram-Hercules that he came as a stranger to Greece from outside. (In my opinion he was Bhim of Harikula and Col. Tod also holds the same view). Yaduvanshis ruled here. 'Yehudi' is the distortion of 'Yadu'. In the land in which Saini Yaduvanshis settled, it was called 'Sinai'." Ghazni to Jaiselmer (Pre-medieval History of the Bhatis), p 42, Hari Singh Bhati, Publisher: Hari Singh Bhati, 1998, Printers: Sankhala Printers, Bikaner

Please note that Trevaskis clearly states Sainis have originated from Rajput clan from Mathura which was the seat of Surasenas. He treats this claim as implicitly true because he mentions it in reference to the movement of Rajput clans in the aftermath of Turk invasions and at no point doubts veracity of the account . So this is as well established as the claim of any other clan tracing origin from ancient lineage. Further, this is not the only reliable and third party source, which links them to Surasenas. Hari Singh Bhati clearly mentions them as Saini Yaduvanshis. Both Trevaskis and Bhati are [citable sources] and Gahlot and Sashi (again reliable sources and mentioned in reference 4) clearly mention Saini as Rajput descent clan and Yaduvanshi Ksahtriya clan respectively. Rockyintown (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What Trevaskis says is not that Sainis originate from the Rajput clan but that they believe themselves to have done so. That is a very different thing and is precisely the problem that I have been trying to deal with here. James Tod is unreliable as a source, and since Bhati approves of him that infers the latter may also be unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

what evidence you have that sainis are not rajput — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.181 (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh? The burden is not on me to prove a negative. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

i think rockyintown provided enough evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.181 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You are entitled to that opinion but if you enter the info based on those sources then you are likely to be contributing in a manner that is contrary to policy. What the Sainis believe themselves to be and how they are perceived generally are very different things, and the fact that numerous people keep removing the reference to Sainis in this article (and the reference to them being Rajputs in other articles) suggests that yours is a minority position. It is certainly a controversial one and you will need excellent sources. I think that I have said before that there is a similar issue regarding the relationship between the modern day Yadav community and the ancient Yadava one and this, quite rightly, has caused a situation where there are two articles. The same should probably apply to Saini and Shoorsaini. - Sitush (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please bear in mind also that the lists in this article are not inclusive lists but rather exemplary ones. It is not the case that we are listing all of the Rajput communities. That being so, adding Saini is not even "necessary" in the context of how this article has been structured. I did not create that structure, by the way: it predates my involvement by quite some time. - Sitush (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I should note that there has been a recent change in policy with regard to Indian caste/community articles. I am not going to post the full wording here because there is an ongoing query regarding where it should be used, but there is a notice that people probably should read at Template:Uw-castewarning. The bit that matters is the initial section, before the blue-coloured stuff. The policy explained there stands, regardless of where it might be appropriate to insert that particular notice. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, I'm a little confused on Source 1. It says (according to Rockyintown), "The Sainis trace their origin to a Rajput clan". That seems to me to be a direct claim that Sainis believe themselves to be Rajputs. That, of course, doesn't verify that they are, but it does verify their own belief. You said it's synthesis, but I don't see how. Also, Source 4 seems to say, "Some of the Rajputs were...In the Punjab in the sub-mountainous region the community came to be known as 'Saini . It maintained Rajput character despite migration." Doesn't that state that they Saini originated from the Rajput? Note that I'm making no judge on the quality of the sources, as that's beyond my research ability at the moment. Why don't these together verify enough to be included here? Or are you asserting that the Saini in these passages are not the Saini described at Saini? Or am I simply too tired right now and not understanding something even more obvious? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

SS Gahlot is a very reliable peer-reviewed historian . He is also cited on Encyclopedia Britanica . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.132.217 (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The difficulty is that most of the groups listed appear not merely to believe that they are Rajputs but in fact are Rajputs & are recognised as such by their peers. The long-running Saini issue, which I think predates my time here, seems to have its basis in the fact that the Saini situation originates in their own belief that they are descended from Shoorsainis/Surasena, and that is disputed. As with Yadav/Yadava, there is an element of overlap in choice of the term used. I'll see if I can dig it out from the depths of my memory: somewhere, in a decent source, it specifically says that Saini is a relatively new term/group. Anyway, since the battling here is entirely over their inclusion in a list of examples of Rajput communities, excluding them avoids the problem in this instance. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sainis are a backward class:

• In Himachal: http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Pdf/Himachalpradesh/Himachal%20Pradesh%20Vol-1/9.pdf
• In Haryana: http://www.socialjusticehry.nic.in/list_bc.htm
• In Punjab: (1) http://ncbc.nic.in/Pdf/punjab.pdf (2)and http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090221/punjab.htm#9

I am a Rajput from Hoshiarpur area in Punjab, which is where most of these Sainis are from, and I can tell you that they are a low caste and our biradari does not marry them. If somebody does, they instantly become an outcaste. --rajput666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput666 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Saini is not backward in Punjab: http://www.punjabnewspaper.com/wordpress/2009/03/01/punjab-government-backtracks-on-decision-on-saini-community. Further Gurnam Singh Commission had recommended backward status for the entire Rajput coomunity of Haryana. Backward or forward caste status cannot be used to determine the claims of ancestry. Indian social order has been fluid despite the attempts of the British rulers to show it as static. Many of the present caste categories are unscholarly constructions of the colonial era. --99.233.132.217 (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Some Sainis, that is your own people, claim that Saini IS a backward caste in Punjab (and Haryana/Himachal), as I am sure you read the proponents for classifying the as such were Sainis themselves. Regardless, I could careless for whether Sainis are backward or forward, low or high, etc. My only contention is that you're classifying them erroneously as Rajputs and that's not going to happen. I have grown up with Sainis and I know dozens of them (possibly more than you), and many are my friends. Having said that, they are NOT Rajputs and we (including Sainis) all know that. You are not going to be allowed to use the Wikipedia to construct your own history as you deem fit. Each time you twist somebody's line or cite some fictitious, or otherwise unqualified, source to promote some nonsense, I will be there to set it right. In the end, all I can say to you is that "be proud of being a saini!"

-- an actual rajput. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput666 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

An "actual Rajput" is a contruction of English era who even reconstructed Ranghars as "Muslim Rajput" . So hold your horses . The term Rajput for British was loosely a term for land owner. Unfortunately your personal observations do not qualify as reliable sources here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.132.217 (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, writing a few words on Wikipedia by copying lines from less than authoritative sources (some of which actually don't exist, but you cite anyways) does not make you a scholar. As for me, my people were Rajputs before the British came and we are still Rajputs, after they have left. By the way, which Rajput community intermarries with your so called Saini "rajput" bradari? How many Rathores, Bhattis, Chauhans, etc. do you have in your family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput666 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to join the issue beyond discussion of sources. This is not soapbox or discussion forum. Multiple sources have been cited by others already including Genetic studies that indicate Rajput affinity of Sainis. Rose and Ibbetson are not reliable sources . So don' t try to quote them. SS Gahlot' s citation below is a clincher . He is a leading historian and a Rajput himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.132.217 (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

For every source like Gahlot, I will provide two that say otherwise. Rose & Ibbetson are only two of MANY that I cited. I am sure I can find dozens more. You may think it's easy to delete my edits, but it won't be after I file a formal complaint. After which, I can see the Saini page being locked in a state where ALL views would have to be considered. I am sure having listed as a backward class (Are the state government sites not valid either?), or something similar, won't look good on your community. So I sincerely propose that you drop the line or two where you say Sainis are Rajputs. You can continue to claim lineage to Shoorsaini or some other famous ancient personality, put yourselves in Kashatriya varna, etc., it does not matter to me. Sainis calling themselves Rajputs is a lie and I promise you that it won't stay in place without the other side being noted in equal light. --Rajput666 (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC) rajput

Dr. Sukhvir Singh Gahlot is a peer-reviewed and internationally published scholar. Encylopedia Britanica also uses his citations on the history and social issues of Rajathan. Further, he is a Rajput himself. If he says that Sainis originated from Rajput and maintained their Rajput character in Punjab , then that is a view that must be given due credence and weight. Ultimately, on wikipedia quality of sources is much more important than their number. All of your personal observations and sources are zilch if they cannot pass wp:rs test. Your personal observation are not citable even if it they are true (which is highly doubtable since you exhibit such a strong pov and caste vendetta ) Unfortunately, even a source like Col. Tod is questioned on wikipedia on very good grounds and discredited sources like Ibbetson and Rose, and any work derived from their work, are totally out of bounds as independent citations. As far as backward/forward issue is concerned, Saini is still a forward caste in Punjab (reference cited already) and OBC status is being demanded by Rajputs of Rajasthan. If this demand is met tommorow, will the Rajputs of Rajasthan cease to be Rajputs overnight? This is a totally flawed view and would require violaion of [wp:synthesis]] in any case to be cited in any form whatsoever. You can actually refer to Gurnam Singh Commission Report of Haryana state where Rajputs have been officially deemed fit to be included in backward caste list. As already pointed out this argument cannot be used to ascertain the claim of ancestry. Thanks--99.233.132.217 (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sainis along with other Rajput clans of Punjab such as Mahtons, Kambohs etc are of Rajput origin. Please visit this link http://www.sikhcastes.com/saini-sikh-subcastes and read each and every line carefully. I think the information which is provided in this link will remove all your doubts regarding Sainis as Rajputs. Fact is fact. Thanks! Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garry Singh Girn (talk • contribs) 11:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong place. Please stop pasting this message left, right and centre. The issue is being discussed at WP:DRN. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Chandravanshi etc groups

We have articles for the various dynasties - Solar, Lunar etc - and there is no need to list more community names in the sections contained here in this article. Indeed, if we were to do so then they would ultimately swamp the article with trivia. The main dynasty articles etc are linked to from this one & if people want more info then all they have to do is click on the link.

The lists here are purely by way of example and indeed the phrasing of the sections indicates that. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

about Ahirs, Jats and Yadavs

Unsourced content about Ahirs and Jats has been removed by me. The article is about Rajputs, not about Jats and Ahirs. So its irrelevant to keep that material here. Jats and Ahirs can't be said as Dalits (shudras). They were never included in the scheduled caste list. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SubQuad (talk • contribs) 14:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Raja ravi varma oil painting 134 rajput soldier.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Raja ravi varma oil painting 134 rajput soldier.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Raja ravi varma oil painting 134 rajput soldier.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Precedence

I have on three occasions in the last 24 hours had to revert contributions relating to "precedence". The last of these was here. Although the contributor has supplied a different source each time that they have made the changes, on no occasion could I reconcile the sources to the statement. Please can we resolve this issue here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The Early History of India By Vincent A. Smith.On page 322:Clans or families which succeded in winning chieftainship were admitted readily into frame of Hindu polity as Kshatriyas...........The rank and file of the strangers became Gujars and other castes, ranking lower than the Rajputs in the scale of precedence. Farther to the south, various indigenous, or 'aboriginal', tribes and clans underwent the same process..

PS:VA smith was the principal advocate of this theory, See.RagardsMkrestin (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not surprised that someone such as Smith or Risley would propose such a theory. What do modern academics think? This is one of those dreadful articles that relies far too much on sweeping statements contained in Encyclopaedia Britannica and, believe me, just because the url contains "EBchecked" is no statement of great worth. While Smith is vague ("lower precedence") and EB is specific ("shudra"), it would be good to find some modern secondary sources, especially given that Smith was almost certainly a scientific racist and EB is a tertiary source. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you any idea what scholarly credentials M. S. Naravane has (if any). Their book is currently cited in the Origins section but it is published by APH, which is not a good sign. I tried to view the rear cover for a potted bio of the person but there is nothing available there. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Cyclopedia

Why, oh why, are we using Edward Balfour's 1885 Cyclopedia as a source? Eg: for "They claim to be descendants of ruling Hindu warrior classes of North India." - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone got objections to Gupta & Bakshi?

I propose to use Gupta, R. K.; Bakshi, S. R., eds. (2008). Studies In Indian History: Rajasthan Through The Ages: The Heritage Of Rajputs. Vol. 1. Sarup & Sons. ISBN 9788176258418. as a source for this article. The editors appear to be academic historians and this volume (part of a five volume set) has been cited in journals, eg: this one. It is also shown in university course reading lists. I would not usually ask, as this seems to be a no-brainer, but given the contentiousness of matters Rajput, has anyone got objections to its use? - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Tod,s Scythic Rhetoric

Tod,s Annals are full of Scythic rhetoric.I do not agree with his Scythic rhetoric. Through his Scythic rhetoric he has created doubts about Rajput origins.Apart from his Scythic rhetoric, his Annals are the best source of information about Rajput history and origins.I always turn a blind eye to his Scythic rhetoric.His Annals need to be re-written by weeding out his Scythic rhetoric.He was obsessed with Scythian rhetoric.He probably could not swallow the fact that Rajputs were the most ancient ruling family in the whole wide world, going back thousands of years.Rajbaz (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

James Tod is not a reliable source but his opinion can sometimes be of use, if only to deflect attempts to cite him by those who do not appreciate the unreliability of the guy. The article makes it clear that Tod's opinion etc is poor. I have no idea, therefore, to what all your "Scythic rhetoric" concerns relate. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Rajputs are being discriminated against.Some people are bending over backwards to prove foreign and indigineous origin of Rajputs.Anything but Vedic Aryan.I have gone through the Jewish article.It is very informative and to the point and written in a chronological order.After reading the article the reader feels satisfied and understands fully what a Jew is or is not.Primary sources have been used for the Jewish article.The patriarchs Abraham. Isaaq and Jacob have been mentioned.Primary sources have been used for this article.Without primary sources the Jews do not have a history or identity. The dates have also been mentioned.

My suggestion is that if you honestly want to improve the Rajput article then you must make use of the primary sources and mention the Rajput patriarchs Brahma,Atri,Marichi, Indu, Manu, Ikshvaku,Yayati, Raghu, Bharat, Ram and Krishan.The date for the patriarch Brahma is roughly 7th millenium B.C.In the Indika, Megasthine says that at the time of Alexander 6451 years and 3 months were given since the Rajput rule started in the Indian Subcontinent.The patriarchs and the dates have been mentioned in the Jewish article using primary sources. Rajput article should be treated like the Jewish article without any discrimination.Tod,s Annals, Megasthines Indika,Xuan Zang and puranas should be used to write the Rajput article.Non-Rajputs should not allowed to edit this article because their views are biased and only want to write something bad about Rajputs.

Thank you for the above link you provided.I found the Heritage of Rajputs very useful.the Rajaputras have been mentioned on page 73.Rajaputras have also been mentioned on Gupta ruler Jivitagupta,s inscriptions.Bhatika calendar has been mentioned on page 129.He must be the ancestor of the Bhatti Rajputs.I made a suggestion about using genetics but it was deleted.Rajbaz (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hang on. You said first that Tod is no good but now that we should use him? I am not too convinced of your logic with "Non-Rajputs should not allowed to edit this article because their views are biased and only want to write something bad about Rajputs" either. What makes you think that Rajputs will not be biassed, given that they most definitely would have a conflict of interest? I am not a Rajput; I am not even of Indian origin; and I couldn't care less what we say the Rajputs, provided that what we say complies with our policies. WP:PRIMARY explains the ins and outs of primary source usage, and WP:OSE presents a view as to why it really doesn't matter what any other article says.

I'll take it that you are amenable to using the Heritage source mentioned by me in the thread immediately above. I will leave it a few more days but if there are no serious objections following that, I'll use it. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As a Rajput, i am confused. I am having identity crisis.Who am i?. Am i Aryan, am i foreign or am i indigineous and tribal?. You are not a Rajput, that is why you don,t care what people say what Rajputs are.I am a Rajput, member of a roughly 100 million strong Rajput nation.I do care what you put up on this article about my ancestral origins.If your ancestors were european but some people on Wiki said that your ancestors were African, Asian,American Indian, Australian, Chinese or Japanies then you will feel confused, bitter and angry about it.Especially, if these views were speculations without any concrete proof. Tod has failed to name any foreign Rajput ancestors.He could have named Alexander the Greek, Gondophres the Parthian,Kadphises the Scythian, Kanishka the Kushan, Toramana and Mihirakula the Huns as Rajput ancestors.He failed to prove his point.He found the Rajputs strong willed with martial spirit and the rest of the Indians timid. This is what made him think that Rajputs might be foreign.

I am in favour of using Tod except his foreign rhetoric.If you can keep your views balanced by mentioning vedic Aryans as Rajput ancestors, naming them and giving dates then i am happy.You can mention foreign and indigineous origin and assimilation in a separate paragraph.These will be mere speculations.I am not in favour of using the heritage source because it is a commentary or rather a criticism of Tod and his Annals.There is nothing new except mention of some new copper plates.Gupta and Bakshi have twisted the copper plates because they are non-Rajputs.A Rajput will exaggerate but non-Rajput will twist the facts around.If you can keep the balance then i will be happy.Rajbaz (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please note:

“ Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable. ”

इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 16:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be no surprise if the Heritage source fails to see Tod in a good light. That is by far the most common modern academic perception of him and, indeed, from my own researches for the James Tod article, it seems that it is pretty much only the Rajputs themselves who nowadays rate him at all. No surprises there, then. - Sitush (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow you to write something that damages the reputation of a "living people".Rajputs are a living people.You cannot write fanciful stories about Rajput origins based on non verifiable speculations.Wikipedia does allow the editors to sum up the primary sources.Old testament is a primary source.Without old testament the Jews do not have a history at all.Old testament has been used to write the Jewish article.The Purana texts contain the history of Rajputs.Without Purana texts the Rajputs do not have a history.Rigveda is qouted a lot about Aryan history.Rigveda is a book of hymns to Aryan Gods.It contains prayers to Gods and praises of Gods.It does not contain history.The Purana texts are historical documents.They contain chronological history of Rajput Aryan tribes, kings and Chandervanshi and Surajvanshi royal families.These Purana texts should be used to summarise the Rajput article.Rajbaz (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Rajputs are typicle Aryas.Whenever i read Tod,s Annals, it takes me back to the days of Vedas, Mahabharta and Ramayana.Vedic Aryans fighting for land, cattle, property, power and glory, and setting up kingdoms and empires, and Rajputs fighting for the same in the middle ages.

I have read your article on Tod. You have over criticised him.It is satirical.Tod did a great job by introducing Rajputs to the western world.Following his example other people wrote about Pathans, Jats and Marhattas.Our modern hero is David Frawley. Frawley has proved pre-harappan origin of vedas and vedic Aryans.Frawley deserves PHd. in vedic studies.

In the 7th century, Xuan Zang has mentioned Kshatriyas being a distinct caste.He has also mentioned some Kshatriya rulers along with some Vaishya and Shudra rulers.during the period from Mauryas to Huns, the Vedic Kshatriyas lost paramount power but they did not completely disappear.They kept on ruling small states and recruiting in the armies of Vaishyas and Mlechhas, just like Rajputs during the muslim and British periods.In the 6th and 7th centuries the Vedic Aryan Kshatriyas got a chance to assert themselves.This was a Vedic aryan Kshatriya renaissance with a new name Rajput.Rajbaz (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

RAJPUT EMPLOYMENT AGENCY OR RAJPUTS AS EMPLOYERS.

There should be a section on this article about how rajputs used to provide employment to non-Rajput castes.The "heritage of Rajputs" can be used for this purpose along with "The Rajputs of Saurashtra",.Rajbaz (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Veneration of Tod??

Famous historians will always have critics and Tod is no exception....but how have you come to the conclusion that Rajputs venerate Tod?? For past 2 centuries Tod was the only consolidated and organised source of information on Rajputs. Naturally a lot of British and other parties refered to his work for various practical purposes. My view is to remove the phrase "venerated by the Rajputs" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.227.153 (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you suggest an alternative phrase? I accept that the extant one may over-egg the pudding but the problem is that Tod has been used extensively by Rajputs here who wish to assert hopelessly inappropriate statements. If we are to include Tod's opinion at all then it does need to be put into some sort of context and the statement as it exists was the outcome of discussion. Furthermore, that he is venerated is sourced to his only major biographer - a person who received hospitality from and was encouraged in his researches by titular heads of the Rajput community. - Sitush (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sitush: Before the current revisionist fervour, other than a couple of British critics of Tod, can you mention any other historian whether Indian or foreign or any other Indian community social/political/research/academic group attacking Tod? Tod or the veneration of Tod is not the subject of this article nor is the so called veneration of Tod a distinctive identity of a Rajput. Basically it is a not very relevent and misleading phrase that would not do credit to the laudable drive to clean up the Wikipedia. Even if some Rajputs here seem to venerate Tod, that would hardly justify mention of veneration of Tod as having anything to do specifically with Rajputs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.251.92 (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It is sourced. See WP:V. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

My recent edit in origin section

I have removed John Keay's content here. The article has a separate section on rajput kingdoms of 8th-11th centuries. A source giving date of 1526 shouldn't be considered reliable and hence it shouldn't be here in this article.

Works like Prithviraj Raso written by Chand Bardai in 12th century mentions Rajput as a tribe. So John Keay's book shudn't be considered credible at all.-Tyhgrewskl (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated it. Keay is a much more recent source that Bardai and we do prefer such sources. If you are correct in your interpretation of Bardai (which we would consider to be a primary source then presumably there are plenty of modern sources that refute Keay. I have also removed the category that you added: Category:Social groups of Rajasthan is a subcategory of Category:Social groups of India - there is no need to show both. Finally, I have moved this section from the top of the page to the bottom because new threads should always be so place. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I added Category:Social groups of India because Rajput is not a regional group of Rajasthan. It is found in all over India especially North India as well as Gujarat. Infact there are many Muslim Rajputs in Pakistan also. I think the user SpacemanSpiff removed the Category:Social groups of India because he thinks that Rajput is a regional caste of Rajasthan. But its is a misconception. Highest density of Rajputs is in Himachal Pradesh which is far away from Rajasthan. So it should be categorized as 'Social group of India'.

As far as John Keay source is concerned, my objection was that there exists a section of Rajput kingdoms in 8th century, then why shud we consider John Keay credible enough to use his work as source ? 1526 date for Rajput itself seems ridiculous. When there are several hundreds of sources to say that Rajput group existed much before the Mughal period, then why should we use John Keay's book in "Origin" section ? -Tyhgrewskl (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if there is an English language comprehension issue here? Keay does not say that the Rajputs emerged in 1526 - he says that the name became used to represent a coherent group around that time. There is no contradiction with the 8th century section. I'll try to make things a bit more clear later today.

As far as categories go, you'll have to provide some reliable sources and you should perhaps be aware that there are numerous regional categories that can be added if those sources are found. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts, having read John Keay, I agree that he is not reliable. He is a journalist who has written popular histories and thus has no great academic authority. My apologies. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 November 2012

User:Rao Asghar is continously doing vandalism in this article by adding Urdu script in the beginning. User:Sitush reverted him several times, but he is continously doing that. Someone please remove those scripts from the beginning of the article as this article is about Rajput, a Hindu caste.

81.177.144.176 (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and done per WP:INDICSCRIPT. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger from Muslim Rajput

I believe Rajput should have Muslim and Hindu categories, as it is a surname. It does not make sense to divide or exclude a group of people with the name because they are Muslim. The entire history of the last name needs to be included. Please discuss. Parsh (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it likely that most people would treat Rajput as a caste first and a surname second. Whether the two articles should be merged on the grounds of caste is, of course, an entirely different issue. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there is of course nothing to stop you creating Rajput (surname). - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting. Most friends I have with the last name are agnostic or atheist. How do you distinguish between whether a name is viewed as a caste or or surname? Parsh (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Doing a search using Google might be a good start. Try searching "rajput surname" and the "rajput caste" (without the quotes). Here, I get 270,000 for the first and 1,590,000 for the second. It it far from being a perfect measurement but it is a start. And, by the way, our article is not necessarily confined to how the term is used today, so your point about how your atheist/agnostic friends may see it is probably of little relevance. Anyway, let's see what other people think - I'm sure you will get quite an audience! - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, by that logic, a google search for "rajput last name" brings up 1,420,000, so adding that to surname would make it more common. I would like to see what referenced sources come up as you are right, the plural of anecdote is not anecdata. We must maintain encyclopedic standards. If it is the distinction that is made between caste and surname that is maintaining a separate Muslim Rajput, then I need to see the logical metrics behind the decision. Parsh (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I did say that it was not perfect. The real problem is that you get duplicate results, not discrete ones. I see your 1,420,000 + 260,000, and raise you: "rajput community" = 2,790,000 + the aforementioned 1,590,000. See what I mean? It is by no means a perfect measure. OTOH, if you can prove to me that more books/journals discuss it as a name than as a caste then I will be truly astonished. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a complex point. I think when it comes to contentious subjects, the internet has a tendency to fall into diminishing return. Let's see what others say. Parsh (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, regarding our Google search poker, aren't people with a certain last name part of a community? ie. your search probably pulled up people that referred to it as a last name and a caste. :) More importantly and more appropriately, even if the article is Rajput (caste), it still should have its Muslim component included, for reasons I described below. Parsh (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, because you can never verify that any particular last name is 'only used by one community. There are, for example, plenty of people called Nair in Scotland who have absolutely no connection to Nair. This issue is touched upon at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. - Sitush (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, I defer as this is not my field of expertise. Thanks for entertaining the suggestion.Parsh (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2012

Rajputs also got converted to Jainism. NishitDhakar (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you will need to provide a reliable source for this. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes

User:NeiiNine has been making changes that, in my opinion, are not in keeping with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy and are not properly sourced as per WP:RS. I have reverted twice, and User:Ohnoitsjamie has reverted once - and I have explained the problem at User talk:NeiiNine. I invite NeiiNine to discuss the desired changes here, so we can get a consensus on whether they are acceptable or not, and ask that the edit warring stop. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello its me NeiiNine. I have tried to reference my changes. So you can verify it now, I think so. I am new and unaware of ow to refer edits. And concerning consensus the changes I made are as follows: One include the participation of Rajput warriors in the British Indian army during the British empire period. It is a well documented fact, and I have given the reference from a reputed historian's book.

hello its kg rajputs were the ilagitimate sons of gurjars and even prthviraj chouhan was from gurjar stock .gurjars are the ancestor of rajputs see here http://www.scribd.com/doc/37781766/Prithviraj-Chauhan and http://rajputras.blogspot.in/2011/02/prathviraj-chauhan.html https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/prithviraj-chauhan/isbn/978-613-3-57580-6 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=fight+of+peshawar+jai+pal+khatana&source=bl&ots=REbDOrP69R&sig=FGOTPSBkGXMhh_vdtlqXiNpJBFI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xlDSUqfvDoaOrQel_oGQCQ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=fight%20of%20peshawar%20jai%20pal%20khatana&f=false

The other one is on an American TV show depicting the Rajput, perhaps for the first time, in the western Meda. I have placed the reference of the episode from its wikipedia article (of this shows episode). It is important to write this part because it is the only western attention the Rajput warriors, have received.I did not specify the Indian TV rajput depictions as there are too many and it is right now not possible for me to find a list of each. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeiiNine (talk • contribs) 14:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a good start, now please wait for someone to come along who works on this topic and see how the discussion goes. (Also, you should sign your talk page comments by adding "~~~~" to the end, which will be replaced by your name and the time - that way you don't have to say things like "its me NeiiNine") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Prof. Ferguson is a poor choice for military history because his specialism is economic history, his Empire book is basically a coffee-table, generalised overview tied-in to his TV series, the book received a lot of criticism, and the man himself is a known contrarian. More specifically, I cannot find anywhere in the book where he mentions Rajputs in the context that is shown in this article, nor indeed many of the other statements made. What he says seems to say is

When it had to fight - Burma in the 1820s, in Sind in 1843, in the Punjab in the 1840s - the Indian Army was rarely beaten. Its only significant nineteenth-century reverses were in Afghanistan, where in 1839 all but one man of an occupying army of 17,000 had been wiped out. Yet eight out of ten of those who served in the Indian Army were sepoys, drawn from the country's traditional warrior castes. British troops - who were in fact very often Irish - were a small minority, albeit often militarily crucial.

You should also note that his narrative concerning the army (which was not the British Indian Army, as we say) seems to stop with the 1857 sepoy mutiny. Just about the only mention of Rajput in the entire book is

Unable to muster enough manpower from its English staff, the East India Company began to raise its own regiments from among the subcontinent's warrior castes - Telugu peasants in the south, Kunbis in the west and Rajputs and Brahmins from the central Ganges valley - equipping them with European weapons and subordinating them to English officers. In theory, this was simply the company's security division, intended to protect its assets in times of war. In practice, it was a private army ...

I have other issues also, in particular that the Ferguson content is undue weight in the lead section in its current form. I'm not too happy with the TV series thing either: it seems to be a trivial mock-up type of programme and the statement that the Rajputs were "made famous" by it is original research and, in my opinion, plain wrong: they have had much coverage in the west prior to that pathetic TV series, as can be seen just be doing a search of Google Books. - Sitush (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

User:NeiiNine Unfortunately you seem to have decided to even refute valid claims from historians at will in order to have this article the way you want. I can have better and more adequately Popular section references, but even this you will remove. Why? Why can there be no article discussing the presence of Rajputs in popular culture? - Especially if I can have it properly referenced? You seem to have hijacked this article and wants to do with it whatever you want. This is unfair. Wikipedia is NOT your property, and if there are valid references you have NO RIGHT to remove these parts and have an article the way you want. I am busy with my semester but plan to have severe action taken againts you once I am done for the semester. —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you imagine how many entries there would be for, say, London in popular culture if everything were to be listed? Find some decent bits of popular culture and I would have no problem with them being added ... but a puffed-up piece of nonsense shown on a defunct TV program doesn't really fit the bill. Let's face it, the reason for wanting to include this particular item is because it "bigs up" the Rajput warrior image: that is was a totally unrealistic representation (one reason why the series was cancelled, IIRC, was that it became derided) seems not to matter. Surely there are better items that could be included in such a section? I've no idea what "severe action" you intend to pursue but suggest that you make yourself familiar with WP:NLT before you embark on whatever course it may be, just to be on the safe side. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

% of rajput in india

can any one tells total strength of rajput in india — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.134.152 (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, your question is unclear--what does "strength" mean? Second, this really isn't the place to ask; article talk pages are only for discussions about improving the article, not a place to find general answers. If you can more precisely ask, you could try at the WP:Reference desk. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Vaidya and Mahajan

There is a sentence in the Rajput#Origins section: "However, some scholars, such as C. V. Vaidya and Gauri Shankar Ojha do not accept these assimilation theories" [Reference: Mahajan, Vidya Dhar (1968). Ancient India. S. Chand. p. 551. Retrieved 2012-01-26.]. I contest the inclusion of the sentence not because I have a view-point over the subject but because of the cited sources involved. I shall explain ! My Dear Friends, firstly, I contest the reliability of Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya as a recognizable reliable source. I have reason to do so if We have a look at His writings. I will write down some part of the work from His book History of Mediaeval Hindu India (full text) which have not only been challenged but refuted by a hefty proportion of the present day history scholars.

Friends, if We go by the hypothesis (or theories ?) of Vaidya, then the Hindu deity Krishna was born in a Jat family. And, unlike many other fringe theorists who suggests that Jats are direct descendants of the Yadavas following the economic and political crisis after the Mahabharata war, Vaidya goes several steps further to claim that the Yadava scion Krishna was instead a Jat (and not even the first one of the Jat (dynaty ?), He believed the Hindu deity Krishna's father was a Jat. He further claims that the Jats were the very first Aryans to overrun at the borders of Ancient India, which was however also claimed wholly or partly by the Britons like Ernest Binfield Havell, William Crooke and Herbert Hope Risley, but the present day modern scholars do not stand with that theory.

Also, if the reference "Mahajan, Vidya Dhar (1968). Ancient India. S. Chand. p. 551. Retrieved 2012-01-26." is said to be opposing the assimilation theory of the origin of Rajput people, and providing the reference of Vaidya for the belief, but very firstly, We should refrain from citing a source that claim to take notes from Vaidya's books (if the claim is concrete, then other reliable sources could be easily found and cited), so, Mahajan's doesn't seem to be an extra-ordinary scholar ! Also, in the above mentioned book, Vaidya, has written,

1. "....many Vaisya families distinguished themselves on the battlefield and it seems that the modern Bais Rajputs of Oudh may be looked upon as the descendants of some of the heroic Vaisya families of mediaeval India though they derive their descent from the mythical Salivahana king of Paithan in the south."
2. " ....a Rajput may be a Jat of the ancient faith."

I have had a look at one (above mentioned) of His books, and it seems to Me that Vaidya didn't viewed Rajput as a unique caste (or race), rather it appears that He may have never concretely objected to the idea of assimilation as Mahajan claims ! Can anyone put more light over the issue and concern ? Does any User have objection to the removal of the sentence because of the cited sources ? Thanks !! ← Abstruce 10:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if We get a look at WP Article Gaurishankar Hirachand Ojha, We can realize that He passed away in 1947 (1863–1947), which means all of His work most probably came from British Raj period, that means He is not a recent modern scholar. We should refrain from citing Him separately also, and if the claim holds real weight, then other reliable sources could be easily cited in the article. Does any User have objection to the removal of the sentence because of the cited sources ? We can always reinstate it, but by having it backed up by modern scholars ! Thanks !! ← Abstruce 08:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems, no objections ! It's so soothing to see that everyone understood the points made ! One can always reinstate it, but by having it backed up by modern scholars ! Thanks !! ← Abstruce 02:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

% Rajput Diet

I would like to add a section on Rajput Diet. I have full references to books and with links to Google books. However, I do not know how to add to the existing references, and hence had to undo my attempts. Do I add references first, or do I just create the new sub-section with text and cite the sources as I go along so that the references will be automatically created? Please Help. --Parmark (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

We usually use "citation templates" to add sources; these are templates that go inside reference tags, placed just after the information you want to cite You can read details at WP:CITET, but the truth is it's quite a complex thing to get started with; I'd be happy to help here. If you can provide full info on this talk page (book title, author, publisher, year of publication, and a page number for the specific info you want to site) then I could put it into the right format for you. Once you see the format a few times, it becomes pretty easy to do it yourself. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I read the links and managed to work it out. I have also ordered a physical copy of the Anthropological Survey of India covering Rajasthan and will add this reference once I have confirmed the content (Google books does not show the relevant pages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmark (talk • contribs) 08:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that you do have to be very careful about how you use ASI reports; sometimes they simply report what primary sources say without making commentary on them. In that case, their material isn't always good enough for WP articles. But, often times it is, so thanks for ordering those and I hope they'll help here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the section on Rajput diet should be removed. Diet is a personal matter. We can't say on the basis of these sources, that most Rajputs are non-vegetarian or like pork, especially for a Hindu social group. Vegetarianism in a popular among all the Hindu upper castes and its not confined to Brahmins. This kind of section is an example of over-generalization. -Owsert (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2014

The mention of Jats, Yadavs into Shudra is wrong. In fact Rajputs were created from Aadvasi untouchables initially, while Jaats has been in ruling power for centuries in India, but unfortunately remained low for around 600 years. According to historians in Gujarat, Rajputra is a name used mainly for those sons who were born out of herd of women by Jat/Yadav/Gurjar kings. The main prices were called Rajkumar and not Rajput. AryanSingh7 (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: You have made no edit request in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ", so it is unclear what you want added.
More importantly, you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

Sainthwar (also known as Saithwar, Mall etc) community people are found in majority at Gorakhpur, Deoria, Maharajganj and Kushinagar districts; while at few places in Basti and Natthapur Pargana of Mau {earlier Azamgadh}districts of UttarPradesh and at some places in western parts of Bihar state of India. They are also scattered in Kapilvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi and Chitwan districts of terai belt of Nepal. Historically these places are known as “Land of Buddha and initial Buddhism” as Buddha was born here, got enlightenment, preached to masses and finally got his Mahaparinirvana in this area. During Buddha period, this land was ruled by ancient republic Kshatriya clans like Malla, Maurya, Shakya, and Koliya whose all young kshatriya adults were known as “Rajkumara (Prince) and all elders or family heads were known as “Raja (King)”. Lord Buddha was born in Shakya Kshatriya clan in 564 BC and took his Mahaparinirvana at Kusinara, one of the twin capitals of Malla Kshatriya republic.

Sainthwar community people are one of the ancient communities of this area and it is a group of many kshatriya clans belonging to Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi and Nagvanshi sects. The word “Sainthwar” is said to be deformed version of “Santhawar / Santhavara”. “Santhavara” is a combination of “Santha (pali)” or “Sanstha (Sanskrit)” and “Vara ”. The word “Santha / Sanstha” means Group and “Vara” is a Sanskrit word which means “Nobles / great or of Exalted rank”. Thus the community name means “Group of Nobles (Raja)”. The community claims to be of purest breed of Kshatriya and their name itself suggesting that they represents Kshatriyas of ancient Gana-sangha like Malla, Maurya, Koliya and Sakyas whose all adult members were known as Raja or Rajkumara {Nobles}

Maverickgaurav (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Why source for Forward caste status of Rajput

I am being asked again and again to give a source for forward caste status of Rajput, which is a pretty obvious fact. Forward caste means a caste with no caste reservation in any state of India. Its a well-known fact that Rajput is a forward caste with upper-most status in the Indian society, only next to the Brahmins. I can bring many sources in support of Rajput being a forward caste, but the problem is that Sitush would reject them saying they are referring to only one state/region. Sitush can check official lists of OBCs, SCs and STs. Nowhere, in the list, you will find Rajput. That simply means that its a forward caste.-Owsert (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to provide a source because the claim has been challenged and our policies require reliably published sources to be provided before challenged content can be restored to the article. What you may believe is "obvious" is irrelevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no official list of FCs and the lists of OBCs etc change frequently, exist in different forms at state and national level, are inconsistent and ambiguous, and so on. They are a very good example of why we should not use primary sources and have been discussed extensively in that context across a pretty wide swathe of articles, at WP:AFD and so on. The classification is not that important anyway. Well, not unless the allegedly FC-categorised Rajputs are actually seeking to be reclassified as OBC, as I believe some Brahmin groups have tried. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@ TheRedPenOfDoom

I can provide sources like these : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc, but what can I do if someone rejects them again and again? What I can do is that I can suggest Sitush to check the union lists of OBCs in all the 28 states of India.

@ Sitush

I don't know about Rajputs and Brahmins asking for OBC status. Even if there are frequent changes in the OBC lists, I don't see any possibility for Rajput/Brahmin in that list in the near future. Moreover,it doesn't matter here. What matters here is their current status. And their current status is definitely FC and I can bring a bunch of sources in support of this. -Owsert (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained the issues but I'll add one more: this article is actually a bit screwed up because Rajput is more a title than a caste. Thus, as in some of your latest links, the specific point being referred to is group that falls under the general classification of "Rajput". Rather like Yadavs, there isn't really a caste as such. Or, at least, that is the opinion of modern academics such as Susan Bayly. You won't find "Rajput" in a list because it would be listed as a sub-community. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what Susan Bayly says. According to the the present article, Rajput is a caste. And it is a caste without reservation. So it should be definitely classified as an FC in the infobox. I have given you sources and can provide more, if needed. -Owsert (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

122.177.6.225 (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)kllo

 Done No request made. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2014

59.178.132.43 (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

                 INVITATION
      VEER KUNWAR SINGH VIJAYOTSAV SAMAROH

veer kunwar singh foundation new delhi cordially invites you on the occassion of VEER KUNWAR SINGH VIJAYOTSAV SAMAROH, dated on 23 april 2014,wednesday,4pm at speaker hall, constitution club,rafi marg (near parliament of india-between kendriya sachiwalay and patel chowk metro station), NEW DELHI.

                 Regards-NIRMAL KUMAR SINGH
                                    PRESIDENT

VEER KUNWAR SINGH FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI ADDRESS-A 42 VIKAS VIHAR dharma chowk KAKROLLA ROAD,DWARKA NEW DELHI pin 110078 (Redacted)

                  www.veerkunwarsingh.com

 Not done - not done, no request made. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2014

Regarding origins of the Rajputs.

The following are unreferenced, and should either be noted as uncited, or deleted.

• "Rajputs rose to prominence during the 6th to 12th centuries. "
• "Leaders and nobles from among the invaders were assimilated into the Kshatriya ritual rank in the Hindu varna system, while others who followed and supported them — such as the Ahirs, Gurjars and Jats - were ranked as Shudra."
• "The internal conflicts which existed among the Rajput communities were significant in enabling the Mughal invaders to achieve control over them" (which internal conflicts? when? where are they documented?)

Also, I suggest the peasant origin of Rajput clans be mentioned, and the time period of the solidification of the term as a 'caste' identity. Researched by many academics.

Suggested addition: 'Rajput (from Sanskrit raja-putra, "son of a king") is a community, which many patrilineal clans of peasant origins came to be identified with largely during the sixteenth and seventeenth century Mughal India, originally a term used for superior social status[1][2][3][4]. Rajput clans can be found in the western, central, and northern parts of the Indian subcontinent.

References:

[1] "Gradually professional specialization was offering these people ethnic identities, Rajput being one of them, as social mobility from peasant to Rajput became a frequent occurrence during this period.", [2] "It was by sixteenth-seventeenth century the Rajputs came to be organized into about twenty major clans, with their chiefs gradually establishing their centralized control." From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, pg. 31. Śekhara Bandyopādhyāẏa

[3] "Being a Rajput then meant not being a member of a closed descent-group: one of the "thirty-six races of Rajputs" (referring to Tod) that continue to be heralded in Western India. In earlier centuries, says Kolff, "Rajput" was a more ascriptive term, referring to all kinds of Hindus who lived the life of the adventuring warrior, of whom most were of peasant origins."

Bhakti Religion in North India: Community Identity and Political Action - David N. Lorenzen; quoting from: Naukar, Rajput, and Sepoy: The Ethnohistory of the Military Labour Market in Hindustan, By Dirk H. A. Kolff

[4] "The term 'Rajput' originally indicated a superior social status rather than an ethnic group, and in fact some of the Rajputs are probably by origin Jats." Al- Hind: The slave kings and the Islamic conquest. 2, Volume 1 By André Wink

CaptainGSingh (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. - Arjayay (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Vaidya and Ojha

Please refer to earlier talk section on the same matter by Abstruce. My point is that there is no such policy on WP that non-modern scholars can't even be mentioned. And I think British Raj can't be considered 'mediaval'. They are quite modern as well. The assimilation theory can't be referred as universal. The contrary view of other historians also needs to be mentioned. -Yertsams (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Yertsams, Thank You for Your query regarding the above mentioned issues. My only concern here is to delete the unreliable sorces from over 66-75 years back. You say, "no consensus had reached then. see talk page."(Talk:Rajput/Archive 23#Vaidya and Mahajan) Well, if no other Wikipedian who had a look at this talk page didn't disagreed what I wrote, and came up with no counter-arguments, then it wasn't My fault. I can assure You that a number of Wikipedian who are respected for their education on the subject of history, do visits this talk page. You can still come up with Your arguments to counter mine (Talk:Rajput/Archive 23#Vaidya and Mahajan), and get the sources instated undisputedly (of-course, We would and do need participation from other Wikipedians as well to reach the final word). You may want to visit WP:RS/N. As far as the use of British sources from the colonial era (pre-1947) are concerned, I would request Sitush to comment here, as the gentleman has addressed this issue several times (and hold immense education in the subject), and could post some weighty comments and may provide You with some links from the past posts to make You more aware on the reasons that why We normally don't use colonial era (pre-1947) British sources. Yes, the contrary views can well be mentioned as per WP:Balance, but the question is that can You cite reliable sources (WP:WHYCITE) from the late 20^th and 21^st century to challenge the assimilation theories (while a source like Aydogdy Kurbanov is already cited in support of the assimilation theory) !? I respectfully advise You to re-read WP:OR and WP:Synthesis before posting comments. Let's reach a final word, let's look forward to some happy participation the discussion on the reliability of Vaidya, Mahajan and Ojha. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 11:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, assimilation theory is not universal. Its obvious that some scholars think that Hindu society is not that flexible that different castes can assimilate to form another caste. Such contrary views have always been present. And we should be broad minded and respect other views as well. -Yertsams (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Yertsams, please kindly note that it is not Your opinion and beliefs that can get the sources instated undisputedly, but concrete arguments in favor of the credibility and reliability of the cited Sources which must undisputedly satisfy the WP:IRS. I had already posted My arguments against the cited Sources (Talk:Rajput/Archive 23#Vaidya and Mahajan). And Dear, I doubt that We may have to remove the sentence in opposition to the assimilation theory from this WP Article if You cannot cite reliable sources from the late 20^th and 21^st century to challenge the assimilation theories (while a source like Aydogdy Kurbanov is already cited in support of the assimilation theory) only and only in case You are not able to produce concrete arguments in favor of the reliability of the cited sources (in the light of WP:IRS). However, if We don't have enough participation in this ongoing discussion, We may have to move to WP:RS/N to reach the final word, but We will certainly resolve this issue. Again, I kindly request You to post at least one reliable source in opposition to the assimilation theory from the 21^st century if You may discover any !! Sincerely, ← Abstruce 14:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, Abstruce is correct here. Find something more recent: the concept of sanskritisation is pretty much the standard and there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of post-WW2 sources that stress the fission/fusion/assimilation scenario, whereas I can't think of a single reliable source that comes out explicitly in opposition to it. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I complete misread the information, sorry. I still think that we need modern sources, though. Historiography etc has moved on and I'm not even sure that the assimilation theory pre-dated the supposed lack of acceptance by Vaidya/Mahajan etc. That is, did those people really say that the assimilation theory is wrong or did they just propose a theory that was different to the one that is commonly accepted today? - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes My Friend Sitush, We do need modern sources. And, just only in case You have misread what I AM trying to point out, I repeat that I have been saying that Vaidya and Ojha does not met WP:RELIABLE, in fact, I believe that Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya is undoubtedly a WP:PUS.

Dear Yertsams, not only Your are unable to provide a reliable source (from late 20^th or 21^st century) that comes out explicitly in opposition to the assimilation theory, but You are also even unable to provide any counter arguments in favor of Vadiya and Ojha. So Dear, You may not be able to get the Sources or the statement re-instated. Anyways, have You read what Mahajan has written in His book while referring to Vaidya and Ojha, if yes, can You please kindly post the excerpts from His book for Sitush, You, Me, and others fellows. We would be very grateful to You . Sincerely, ← Abstruce 14:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the assimilation theory because in the past 1300 years there is no evidence of assimilation of arabs ghaznavis ghorids khiljis taghluqs lodhis suris mughals portuguees french dutch british sikhs jatts and marathas. after akbar all the mughal kings were half caste but they were still not accepted as kshatriyas or rajputs. the previous invaders from alexander to huns all became budhists because in hinduism there is "exit but no entry". So, the question of assimilation does not even arise.It is just an hypothesis or a theory without any proof. All these invaders probably or definitely got assimilated into shudras or untouchables.Rajbaz (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable theories deserve a mention if reliably sourced. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: Prevalence of Female Foeticide and Infanticide among Rajputs

Please add a new section under section 3 titled "3.3 Female Foeticide and Infanticide among Rajputs" and include the following text:

One of the earliest records of female infanticide in India points to a clan of Rajputs in Uttar Pradesh, the discovery of which is credited to Jonathan Duncan, a British official posted in Northern India. Subsequent to this, the British Raj passed the Infanticide Regulation Act of 1870 to curb, among other variations, the widespread incidence of neonaticide (the killing of a baby within the first 24 hours of birth).

In Rajput families, “doodh pilana” is a common ritual reserved for newborn girls. Parents immerse the helpless child in a tub of milk until she chokes to death.

[source: "Sociology of Female Foeticide and infanticide. Where Does the Law Stand.", Passages to India. Literary and Socio-Political Perspectives on Gender Concepts in India, Gender Forum, Issue 38, 2012, at pages 2, 3, author: Bir Pal Singh.] Onecaste (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of mentioning about female foeticide and infanticide among rajputs. How about "prevalence of abortion of unborn babies and mercy killing in modern world".Rajbaz (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This whole article needs to be re-worked and re-written using recent sources such as the study noted above regarding problem of female infanticide among Indian groups such as Rajputs. The practice still continues in these groups and provides context to the mistreatment of women in India. Most of the article contains laughable claims about Rajput "superiority" over their fellow Indians when in fact most of the Indian groups are part of the same genetic pool.

Onecaste (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@onecaste what is the point of talking only about rajput caste. All communities in the world have some problems. How about talking about abortion in the modern world. If you work in an office you are answerable to your superiors or bosses. Superiority and inferiority exists in the modern world too. Why talk about rajputs only. In an office environment genetics are irrelavant.Rajputs are superior because they are traditionally the ruling, landowning and warrior class of indian subcontinent.Rajbaz (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Since this article is about rajputs, the discussion regarding prevalence of female foeticide and infanticide in that community is properly included in this article. It will give a truer context to practices prevalent in rajput households. The status of rajputs differs from region to region in India. In Punjab, for example, the Jats are the dominant economic and political class while other groups such as brahmins and rajputs are openly mocked and looked down upon. Onecaste (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a problem adding something along the lines proposed above. Foeticide is known to have been (some say still is) a practice particularly prevalent among certain groups. That said, I can't see the source and am a bit wary of adding such stuff without access. I realise that WP:AGF applies but can anyone else see it? - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@onecaste if you are a jat then you have no right to comment on this rajput article. because your views will be biased and won,t be neutral. In punjab and haryana provinces jats practice female abortion and due to shortage of females in jat community, jats are buying brides from the eastern provinces. recently a politician has offered to provide free brides for the jat community if elected. it is all over the news. Being dominant in economics and politics does not make one high caste and making mockery of someone does not make them low caste. making mockery of someone is a mean thing itself.i think female infanticide was prevalent among all indian communities as abortion is prevalent among modern world communities.female abortion is quite common in modern india.Rajbaz (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rajbaz: that is complete nonsense and completely inappropriate. EVERY editor has a right to comment on EVERY topic. (until their actions have proven they are incapable of discussing in a civilized manner and a community consensus elects to impose a topic ban.) Note that discrimination of a an editor because of their background and demanding that because of their background they do not edit WOULD itself be considered as evidence that YOU should be banned from editing and speaking about a topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@the red pen of doom, of course anyone can edit this page as long as their comments are balanced and neutral. If all you are going to do is mock someone look down on someone and make fun of someone then it is not acceptable.I think female foeticide and infanticide have been blown out of proportion. If it was so prevalent then hardly any rajputs would have been left. rajputs are ten percent of population of india. The infanticide does not seem to have had any adverse impact on numerical strength of rajput community.Rajbaz (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no dominance by any community in India today. Democracy and numbers decide political outcomes but the system is so sophisticated that there is no dominance of any group for e.g Sikh Jutts in Punjab have their match in the Mazhabi Sikhs. It is a very immature statement to say brahmins and rajputs are mocked at. Of course certain Khalistani Sikhs have in the long past been openly critical of Hindu Brahminic practices. Both brahmin and rajput communities have been at the apex of the Hindu society and in today's political scenario there are at times temptations to propagate caste aspirational superiority to collect one's own caste flock together especially when they are in large numbers in an area. This tendency is strongest in politicians who seek support from their erstwhile 'socially perceived to be low' brethren. One latest example of such a politician is Mayawati who mocked Brahmins, Thakurs and Banias to collect her own Chamar flock. But she is a shrewd and sensible lady who today has a large number of Brahmins and others supporting her. I also see there is talk of ascribing female Foeticide to specific castes. Earlier, with Brahmins & Rajputs as social leaders, it was natural for all other groups to follow their practices. Today, this practice is almost dead except that new technologies in sex prediction are leading to lower female births due to general preference for males in the North. Particularly in Haryana the female to male sex ratio is very low.182.64.145.35 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Jason Freitag is not saying what is written in this article

Jason Freitag is rather telling the military quality of Rajputs as told by many authors, i have studied the book but could not find that if he is saying that tod is biased! who wrote this on article? Its just irony, he is not saying this. 119.158.7.174 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You must have misread the book in some way. See James Tod. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion

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 asserted independence after the fall of last Pratihar King Rajyapal, who was defeated by Ghazni. It raise another doubt that how the Pratihar kingdom, which successfully checked the advance of Arabic invaders for more than 300 years, was defeated by Ghazni (who was nowhere near the strength of Arabic Invaders). . 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 . Most of the Rajputs were the pedigree of Gurjars, which is clear with the adoption of their clan names such as Chauhans, Tomars and Parmars etc. . 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. Rajput was used as a military position in the administration records of Gurjar-Pratihars. . Rajputs were dissatisfied and annoyed with the Gurjars due to their negligence and not offering them any kingdom, even after their being the children of those Gurjar overlords.

The sudden rise of various small Rajput Kingdoms immediately after the fall of Gurjar-Pratihars states that they were installed to the thrones (raising their status from revenue collecting feudatories to Rajas) by Ghazni. Thet tributary Vassal status of these states again proved this point.

They continued this practice at the time of Mughals and [[Britishers] as well. They were installed to the thrones of various Riyasata and Taluks, given higher psots in army, a regiment of their own etc. Eventually, they became socially very powerful and rich. They changed the historical records (with the help of bribed Brahmin scholars and Bhats) to prove them as the real kings during medieval age. But they could not change the Turkish, Iranian, Arabic and Chinese records. And today most of the historians have realized what the truth is and most of the Indian records (altered by Rajputs) is not considered authentic by any international historian. I Hope it helps. Thank You.

Rajput means prince. It is a respectable title. That is why harshvardhna in the 7th century preferred to call himself simply rajput rather tham raja or maharaja. This is what chinese scholar xuan zang says. chandarvanshi and surajvanshi rajputs have been in [power since 10000 years. there was no sudden rise. where is the evidence for the sudden rise. caste is impenetrable. since ancient times rajputs have been called rajanyas kashatryas and rajaputras. nowadays rajputs are famously known as thakurs.The word gujjar is corruption of gaochar. Gao means cow and char means graze, means cowgrazers.Even today gujjars are known as graziers. Gurjara pratihara means pratiharas of gujrat. gurjara stands for gujrat. pratiharas were rajputs from gujrat.Rajbaz (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@sitush Brahma is ancestor of all rajputs.Brahma had 2 sons, Atri and Marichi.Atri,s son was Samundra, Samundra,s son was Som Indu or Chandar.Chandarvanshi rajputs are descended from Som Indu or Chandar. Chandar has 3 names, all means moon.This is the origin of lunar dynasty. Brahma,s other son was Marichi, Marichi,s son was Kashyap, Kashyap,s son was Vivashvant or Suriya. Surajvanshi rajputs are descended from Vivashvant or Surya or suraj. Vivashvant Surya or Suraj means sun. This is the origin of sun dynasty. @Sitush Rajputs are the one and only kshatriyas. No one else is a kshatriya. The vanshvalis are not "status legitimising texts". They are official histories. I know it is very hard to swallow this fact that rajputs have kept their family trees for the past 10000 years. It is mind blowing and mind boggling and unbeleivable. But facts are facts, hard facts. It is a criminal offence to deny facts. i demand to see some rajput family trees on this article. After reading rajput family trees let the readers decide what they want to beleive. Whether the readers want to beleive the rajput point of view from the primary sources and the official rajput histories or whether the readers want to beleive the non-rajput nonsense. I want both points of views represented. All rajputs can trace their ancestories back to hundreds of generations and thousands of years. Why deny the facts. Let the readers decide who they want to beleive. Remember, rajputs are the one and only kashatriys. Their are no other kashatriyas except Rajputs.It is a hard fact.The names can change from rajanya ro kshatriya and from kshatrya to rajput and from rajput to thakur. But the vanshvalis or family trees don,t change. they remain the same. The guptas are still regarded as vaishyas. They were never accepted as kshatryas. The guptas were never able to make forged vanshvalis. Although they had the power to do it. You see caste is impenetrable. If it was possible guptas would have penetrated it. Stop beleiving in modern nonsense. Beleive in the rajput vanshvalis or family trees. They are official histories written by hereditary and official rajput historians the bhaats and charans.Rajbaz (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Rajbaj, Are we fools??

It’s a criminal offence to mislead readers. Sources clearly says Rajput are illegimate children of kshatriya. Please refer sources given above. Read their books again. for you all books authors are criminals because because they have the courage to say truth.

Even you knows the truth but It takes strength and courage to admit the truth.

Hiding truth is an offence committed by editors like you..

Editors like you are spreading more misinformation by stealing Gurjars history and presenting it as theirs.

“”Wikipedia has been now sabotaged for this propaganda and they are presenting themselves as only kshatriya(funny) and they have locked the wiki articles on gurjars after posting their delibrate conspired theoreical crap such as Gurjar came from cental asia and are foreigners ;that is, they are smacking their history on others . you people claim every other caste Raaja or kshatriya king as yours,such a deceiving nature!””

|}