Talk:Rajput/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Rajputs' religion

What is with the multiple religions of Rajputs? Does not reflect contemporary thinking in India as stated by Syncthia Tablot (article below) that the Rajput class is an affiliation that is considered exclusively Hindu in India today.

I request editors with extended confirmed access level to remove other dishonouring religious titles attributed to the holy Rajput clans.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/abs/becoming-turk-the-rajput-way-conversion-and-identity-in-an-indian-warrior-narrative/F9EDE99DF1B26C05B7E053EFADD5DFA9 Fayninja (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not exclusive to Hindu, there are enough more articles on the topic. There are followers of Islam, Sikhism etc in the community. While one writer abstract has its own point, others different references are very clear about it here in this book- [[3]] and many other references. Akalanka820 (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can claim a Rajput heritage but understand the role of the tile. They are Kshatriyas, protectors of Dharma. If you are not willing to remove false assertions by other religious groups at least write "Hindu but also claimed amongst some Muslims and Sikhs". If you have ears to the ground, you will come to know that Hindu Rajputs reject them completely as a hoax and are prohibited to marry them.

I am sorry I can't stop laughing, Muslim Rajputs, what's gonna be next, Sunni Catholic? Fayninja (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

What you and me think is irrelevant? Sunni- Catholic is poor comparison, while Sunni or Catholic are sect of respective faith, this is a community and community can have followers of any religion. There are Muslim Jats, Muslim Gujjars, Muslim Tyagis( Tagas) etc for every community similar case for them. There are enough references for Muslim Rajputs, Sikh Rajputs, and yes recently Govt of Punjab was offering benefits to Sikh Rajputs which they denied due to whatever reasons. Who are we to speak for what they think? There are combined organization of Hindu-Sikh Rajputs in Punjab standing for Sikh Rajputs as this article suggests here:[[4]], it is better not to engage into time wasting discussion. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I will get back to you soon, exams going on right now. You are correct that without proper research and sources my words have no weight. Fayninja (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Maratha domination

For much of the 1700s, marathas collected Chauthai/tribute from the Rajput rulers.The wikipedia section called "Later" [5] should really be called Maratha domination, Marathi era etc. Comments please.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I had raised objection to the content on that section yesterday on above section and now I think it will require more scrutinizing. I would like to see what sources say before we think about rewording the section, especially the first paragraph. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, only Scindia and Holkars were involved AFAIK. And not all Rajput states were involved. Also, the quote from Bingley "destroyed the power of the Marathas", which war was that? I think we need to dig deeper in the timeline first. If I remember correctly, the British went back and forth on their decision to support the Rajputs. Hence the two sections look like repetitions but are not. But let us dig deeper. I might have misread. I am OK with your title (as long no one has any objections) and we dig a litle deeper in the sources as Aman Kumar Goel suggests. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, Scindia and Holkars were the major powers of Maratha Confederacy in northern India.The Gaikwad and the Peshwa ruled Gujarat where all the petty kingdoms who paid chauthai them professed to be of Rajput lineage.With the second Anglo-Maratha war of 1802, the East india company got the upper hand in Rajputana but until then Maratha powers dominated the Rajputs. . I hope this helps. Best regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, looks fine to me. We should mention all four - Brahmin Peshwas, Gaikwad, Scindia and Holkars. In that case, Maratha domination or Marathi era look OK to me. Probably "Marathi era" is better because many make the mistake of confusing Maratha empire(which is composed of many castes in adminstration and military) with the Maratha caste. On that note, various Rajputs(while serving the Mughals) fought against Shivaji much earlier. Shivaji's name is conspicuously missing from the page.LukeEmily (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I prefer "Maratha". Until recently all Hindu people from Maharashtra were called Maratha, regardless of caste, and that word should be reclaimed by all Maharashtrians once again, but I understand that is a separate debate. Even Tilak called his English newspaper Mahratta.Later,I believe it was brahmins who distanced themselves from the word Maratha. BTW, neither Holkar (Dhangar), or Shinde (Kunbi Maratha) were of Maratha (caste).Same may be true of Gaikwad as well but I am not sure. I hope this helps.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I don't know in what section you would put relations between Shivaji and the Rajput chieftains in Mughal service.It is already mentioned in the article that the Rajputs were loyal servants of the Mughals, and so a separate section on Shivaji probably isn't necessary. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, I meant this quote from Eugenia Vanina :

Jai Singh, a Rajput prince, was appointed head of the Mughal punitive forces against Shivaji: this fact, estimated by nineteenth and twntieth centuries nationalist writers as 'treason'(a Hindu prince leading a Mughal army against his co-believers), caused no negative reaction amont Jai Singh's Hindu contemporaries, both in north and in Maharashtra. Without any indignation did Kavindra Paramananda list numerous Rajput clans whose warriors fought against Shivaji under the Mughal banners.

Do we need to mention somewhere that "several Rajput clans fought against a fellow Hindu Shivaji under the Muslim banner but it was not viewed negatively because it was more political than religious"? I don't think that the Rajput insults to Shivaji and the Marathi Brahmins - calling them "niggardly", "beggarly", "bilious" etc. (as mentioned by Vanina) should be added here as this article is not about Shivaji or the Marathi Brahmins. Incidentally, Vajpeyi also mentions(pg 252)

"When Shivaji’s audience with Aurangzeb at the latter’s court in 1666 went badly, Shivaji was impugned by Aurangzeb’s close circle, including his sister Jahanara and Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur, for being a mere ‘bhumiya’(Chandra 1978–9: 146; Sarkar 1963: 27). This term (evidently a north Indian one) indicates the referent’s relationship to the earth or to soil (bhumiya). In the context,as a term of insult, it appears to mean something like ‘country-bumpkin’, someonelacking the breeding to conduct himself appropriately in a royal court.

Augangzeb's hatred towards Shivaji is expected, but I thought that the hypocrisy of the Rajputs was interesting given that they themselves had pastoral/origins. In fact, Ananya Vajpeyi says Shivaji did nothing different than what the Rajputs themselves had done except that he just went to the top Rajput family(Sisodia) rather than any Rajput like the neo-Rajputs were doing.LukeEmily (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, Come to think of it, Shivaji should be mentioned in the article because he claimed to be of Rajput Sisodiya descent, a claim not accepted the Sisodiyas.BTW, Shivaji had also accepted mansabdari under Aurangzeb for his son, Sambhaji around 1666.This truce obviously did not last long. What I am trying to say is one can not look at everything using a Hindu-Muslim or casteist lense.Like it or not, Rajputs, Maratha, and even the East India company during their respective periods of domination ruled in the name of the Mughal emperor.Maratha rulers even issued currency in the name of the Mughal emperor although he was a mere puppet.Formal Mughal rule came to an end in 1857 when the British crown assumed formal responsibility for British India.Later in 1876 Victoria was proclaimed as the Empress of India. Best regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"Augangzeb's hatred towards Shivaji is expected, but I thought that the hypocrisy of the Rajputs was interesting given that they themselves had pastoral/origins." - LukeEmily, there is difference of opinion in writers on Rajput case with some saying they were Ex Brahmins. So, not quite correct to what you say here. Lastly, a lot of it is already covered in three Paragraph from Historians compared to Mrs Vajpeyi who is an M Phil.Akalanka820 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

In my view the lede last line also needs a change. We can't use only one track when some writers on the page itself talk about Brahmin connection either complete or partial.Akalanka820 (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Akalanka820, peasantry and pastoralism are professions not varnas - we don't mention varna origin of a non-Brahmin caste in the lead. I mean a Brahmin could be a farmer and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, there is a Brahmin caste in maharashtra that was into farming and another that was into trading. Asopa is very old and not reliable. The Brahmin theory looks like a fringe opinion. There are many examples of tribals becoming Rajput clans. Are there specific examples of Brahmin subcastes becoming Rajput clans? All modern sources mention peasant or pastoral. Anyway, getting back to the topic. Vajpayi has Ph.D. South Asian Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago (2004). She is very reliable and modern. I am not sure why you reverted the edit but we can discuss in another section. The opinion of the Hindu religious texts was nowhere mentioned. I dont think there is anything said by Vajpayi there that is offensive(except the word ugra which she clarifies).LukeEmily (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Vajpeyi is M Phil, and two paras in the first section have already been given on the same line- P Mukta reference. I don't think Ex Brahmin theory is fringe, there are some writers who have talked on that line, even the varna-samkara jibe points towards same possibility. And this Ex Brahmin was not only by one Asopa, even Dasaratha Sharma said on the same track, similar case for R.N. Dikshit, even GH Ojha etc. I do agree the voices on other side is more, but to say no opposing voice is there would be incorrect. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia we have not been allowed to share latest research of David Reich- Vaghesh Narsimhan paper on community article pages. The topic related to genetics are freely mentioned on various communities outside of South Asia but this is not allowed for South Asia, very odd rule has been set. Akalanka820 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Coming to the Maratha domination, unlike what Hindutva centric voices would like us to believe it. The mainstream writers don't share the opinion of "Maratha domination"- here is an example from Concise of History by very reputed writer Barbara D Metcalf -

by the end of the eighteenth century the Maratha 'confederacy' had lost whatever coherence it had once possessed, its various baronial chieftains, each embedded in his own regional base, still possessed substantial resources. Mahadji Sindhia, for instance, established at Gwalior near Agra, built up in the 1780s a powerful military machine supplied with ordnance from his own factory. Neverthe- less, far removed from their home base in Maharashtra, these chief- tains were wholly dependent on fragile alliances with local elites and European adventurers, while their divisions and dissensions opened up opportunities for the British to play one off against the other. By negotiating the treaty of Bassein (1802),

Akalanka820 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, Vanina is saying exactly what you are saying. Sorry, I should have been more clear. She says that although nationalist historians called the rajputs "traitors" for attacking fellow hindus from the south under the muslims, it is not correct to do so because it was not a religious war. In fact, it could not have been because Shivaji had muslim warriors serving him. So the nationalist historians are wrong according to her. But I agree that Shivaji's interaction should be mentioned somewhere. One big difference in the Rajput and Maratha empire was that no caste in the maratha administration(irrespective of caste or position) had a tradition of entering in one way marital relations(giving daughers and sisters to the Mughals). It is unthinkable what the poor Rajput women must have gone through entering the mughal household, adjusting to new customs including eating of beef(by their husband) which is repulsive to Hindus.LukeEmily (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, The Rajputs were not the only ones. Even in the south, Vijayanagar kings gave their daugthers to the Bahmanis.A Golkonda king had a brahmin mother per a raj era source.Women have been given in marital alliances for political reasons around the world for millennia. Best regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, I did not say Rajput were the only ones. Playing with the lives of innocent women of any religion or caste for political reasons is not good. Yes, many have done this across the world. Was it a custom for the Vijayanagar kings or only a few did it? Best Regards,LukeEmily (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, Don't forget that some of these Rajput ladies such as Mariam-uz-Zamani, Jagat Gosain became mothers of Mughal emperors.That shows that they were not mere sex objects, or concubines. Perhaps, these kind of marriage alliances wouldn't work in reverse with Hindus because wives from a different religion, or even different caste wouldn't get the same rank as the one from the husband's own community.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2022

Rajputs are the descendants of Indian Sun god and Indian Moon God, not of any pastoral communities Shorya Pratap Singh Bhadouria (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Theodore Benke Page 96, Page 97, 238

Dear LukeEmily, Firstly to let you know in WP:BRD the onus to start the discussion is with one who is reverting. Anyways, it is I who is taking up here. Theodore Benke on page 238, is not saying the particular writer said it, instead he is using his reference not lines. So, it is historian own analysis. Secondly, on 96 and 97, you have failed to testify as to where he is talking about Rajputs. He talks about Mahishya community who are found in Bengal after that Ugra ( Aguri ) community again that is found in Bengal and then Karan of Bengal. I have already explain you the same with their quotes. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I am pasting it here again for your reference- This is on same page 96 of the same reference-

The son of a Vaiśya female and a Ksatriya male is a Māhisya and a regular union. Engaged in the eight qualifications, knowledgeable in the 64 aṅgas, he has all the rites including initiation. Astrology, divination, and prognostication by sound are his livelihood...

, Now we know Mahishya is a caste of Bengal, here Mahishya, the Aguri (caste) referred as Ugra Kshatriya is from same region. Benke is talking about Ugra community of Bengal, it is very clear from the lines. In the book he has talked about Ugra Community of Bengal not once but many times. Here is Mr Benke on page 238 saying North India was divided between Brahmin, Rajput and Shudras, whereas South as Brahmin and Shudras-

Śūdras replaced Vaiśyas in agriculture and Vaiśya artisans and merchants are confined to certain locales or reduced to the level of Śūdras. In the north the Brāhmaṇa, Rajput, and Śūdra, and in the south, the Brāhmaṇa, sat-Śūdra and asat-Śūdra become the three main social strata.14 Beneath them, the landless poor are converted into untouchables and the number of impure Śūdras and untouchable sub-castes (doing the most unclean jobs as menial laborers, scavengers, keepers of cremation grounds, and filth collectors) rises steeply

Lastly, I have no major interest in adding it as such but this wasn't brought up by me. It has 357 pages, 7 times mention about word Rajput and only once in context of community on page 238. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Akalanka820, Discussion about Benke was already going on. Pg 96:

An Ugra (Śūdra mother, Kshatriya father) makes a living by the arts of war.Skilled with the sword and bow, he is expert in combat.He stands apart among men as the mighty Rajput.58

.

58 “The Rajpoots of Bombay are said to perform “the karm of Sudras.”

Also, if you look at what (58) points to in the footnotes, it is clear that he is talking about rajpoot community. I have no interest in adding Benke either but if we add him, we cannot cherrypick. BTW, Benke himself refers to Ms.Vanpayi and even thanks her in the introduction. Vajpayi is definitely WP:HSC. Please see the description. She is also a Sanskrit scholar.LukeEmily (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait, Ugra is a community in Bengal, the line before it talks of Mahishya, Karan. Rajput of Bombay presidency?? Is it MA Sherring, are they part of this Rajput community or they have their own groupings because majorly Rajputs are absent after Madhya Pradesh except in Maharashtra where Maratha claims it as such or in Karnataka a grp who are one of their own. The problem is in the same thesis, the writer talks about Ugra community and if you know the Manu code as other writers on this page Aguri (caste), it talks about Ugra community . Benke has also referred to Jaiswal sources. The point here is Vajpeyi is M Phil, even B S Nijjar many others. I see just an attempt to take this page on a community into different directions. Can we check the Ugra reference from other sources. Here is an example [[6]], page 45 here

Ambastha (Vaishya mother, Brahman father) who worked as a 'medical healer'; the Nishada (Shudra mother, Brahman father) who was a 'hunter or killer of fish'; Ugra (Shudra mother, Kshatriya father) and the Ksattr (Kshatriya mother, Shudra father), who were both assigned to living by 'catching and killing animals living in holes' the Suta (Brahman mother, Kshatriya father) who was a 'charioteer or manager of horses'; the Magadha (Kshatriya mother, Vaishya father) who was a trader; the Vaideha (Brahman mother, Vaishya father) who was curiously said to make a living by 'doing things for women'; Ayogava (Vaishya mother, Shudra father; who lived by carpentry; and finally the Chandala (Brahman mother, Shudra father). The last, who was considered the lowest of all and became paradigmatic of untouchables for at least a millenium, had no special assigned occupation (Manusmriti 10: 8-26, 45).

, the same lines interpreted by another writer, he says it for Ugra caste ( Aguris). I will share more there are references which suggests that the lines are in context of Bengal and it is for Ugra or Aguri community there. On WP: HSC, please do see WP:HISTRW, WP:HISTIC, also we have to see if similar content added or not. The answer to it is first section has 25 Paragraphs with content from better references like Zeingler, Mukta, Sircar covering it, WP:WEIGHT.Akalanka820 (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear editors, as i said, i am very busy in my real life. Akalanka, you should have waited before reverting my edits. Why are you so eager to undo it. Can LukeEmily explain everything about the issue in simple words, and specially about this contested edits.[7].Admantine123 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Admantine123, I will explain in the other section. Akalanka820, Bombay presidency also included Gujarat and Sindh. He is using the word Rajput in the quote not Aguri. Maybe ugra is used for multiple castes. The use of a PhD thesis for contentious issues is discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(history)#PhD_theses Nevertheless, I will remove it from the text in the talk page so we do not get distracted from Vajpayi. I checked her qualifications, she has a PhD and was an assistant professor of history in a US university. LukeEmily (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

She is not a professor of History, She teaches at National Law School. Please see the csds website. As I said, your all claim is based on one Ms Ananya Vajpeyi, who is MPhil. Secondly, if we say Rajputs are mentioned in Dharmashastra using someone having degree of MPhil when in fact they were codified much before this identity came up as other Historians admit would be WP:Fringe. There are other writers who say those quotes are for Ugra community, one example I have already shared it. As there is issue of WP: HISTRW, WP:HISTIC, WP:WEIGHT. I have come across similar lines from Lindsay Harlan's book exactly contrary to what you say. I will share the same today. It gives full details of Caste in Bengal society. The lines you are fond of, are from the same ancient book. Akalanka820 (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Benke is definitely not using it for Rajputs, The lines on Mahishya before Ugra and Karana after Ugra makes it clear. It is from the same ancient source. Benke has expressed their opinion on Page 238. In whole book of 357 pages, only 7 times the word Rajput is used. I will share the Benke's whole quote, you have shared it partially and I will share the written works in Lindsay Harlan's book mentioning about Caste system in Bengal System. Akalanka820 (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Akalanka820:, he uses the word "rajput" and "rajpoot". But most importantly, Benke has already been removed in this edit [[8]]. So we don't need to discuss him anymore. I am not interested in what Mahishya etc is. Other castes are irrelevant here and are unnecessary distractions and divert discussions. Please focus on discussion in the other section on Vajpayi. I have added her quotes in that section. Since Benke is removed from the draft, let us not discuss him anymore. Let me know if Vajpayi's quotes are misrepresented.LukeEmily (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

My Friend, you are trying to ignore the whole point or you are unwilling to see it. You are coming up with very tall claims like Rajputs are mentioned in Dharmashastras which itself contradict the first section of this page, this gets clear from other reputable references. On Benke quote, it is very clear from line above and below it , that he is talking about Ugra community who are found in Bengal. I have already shared Gail Omdevt's source on the same lines. Here [[9]] is another one from very reputed reference, page number 208, 209-

8From a Brahmin man by a Vaisya girl* is born a son called Ambastha; and by a Śūdra girl, a Niṣāda, also called Pārasava. "From a Ksatriya man by a Śūdra girl is born a son called Ugra, who is cruel in his behavior and in his dealings, a being with the physical characteristics of both a Ksatriya and a Śüdra. 10 A Brahmin's children by the three lower classes, a Ksatriya's by the two lower classes, and a Vaisya's by the one lower class-tradition calls these six "low-born" (10.46 n.). "From a Kṣatriya man by a Brahmin girl is born a Sūta by caste; sons of a Vaisya by Ksatriya and Brahmin women are a Magadha and a Vaideha, respectively; 12and from a Śūdra by Vaisya, Ksatriya, and Brahmin women are born respectively an Ayogava, a Kṣattr, and a Canḍāla, the worst of all men so originate the intermixture of classes. 13 As when there is a difference of two classes in a birth, tradition calls them Ambastha and Ugra if the difference is in the direct order, in like manner they are Kṣatr and Vaideha, if it is in the inverse order.

, this is another one from Ms Lindsay Harlan's book- From the Margin's of Hindu Marriage in the Chapter The Effectiveness of the Hindu Sacrament (Samskara): Caste, Marriage, and Divorce in Bengali Culture, page number 148.[[10]] -

The Brahmans asked the Ugras (whose name means “vi¬ olent" or “cruel"), who were physically strong (balavat) and brave, to follow the occupation of Ksatriyas in warfare. The Magadhas, who were unwilling to fight because of the necessity of killing (himsa), were asked to be bards (vandT) to Brahmans and Ksatriyas, to carry messages, and to study the Ksatraveda (Sanskrit works on warfare).

on Page 159, the writer clarifies that it is Ugra community locally called as Aguris-

My own fieldwork had not brought me into contact with Vaidyas, al¬ though I have a good many acquaintances among persons of this caste in Calcutta and elsewhere. The Aguri caste, who consider themselves the modern representatives of the Ugras and refer to themselves as Ugra Ksatriyas, are heavily concentrated in Burdwan district and the immediately surrounding areas.

, You cannot deny all this to have your own research like modern Rajputs in Dharmashastra a text written during Gupta rule much before this particular community as per most writers -[[11]] on this article's page using just a single source that too of a writer who is neither expert in Medieval History, so many writers give their take and that doesn't mean we will add those which aren't backed in any other reference and contradicts the basic context of this page - [[12]]. I can share more on the topic, there are lots and lots of references here, but it is wastage of time. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

review please

Please can some editors review Rajput#Religion_and_Rajput_Women and Rajput#Rajputs_in_Hindu_Dharmashastras. We need to submit this article for rating by the end of year. It is still rated B-Class although we have used high quality sources. Pinging @Akalanka820:, @Jonathansammy:, @Admantine123: , other editors who are watching. In the latter section, Shivaji is intentionally not mentioned. If any statement is objectionable or derogatory in these sections, please point it out so we can rephase or remove it. In my opinion , calling a race/caste "ugra"(scary) is derogatory and racist but we have clarified that it is only meant in the context as a fighter(in which case it is actually a compliment).LukeEmily (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Aren't you using one writer opinion to go that far ? Where is the WP: WEIGHT? FYI, the community was not even called as Rajput in many regions but only "Chhattri". I see this continuous changes, just an attempt to take the page in different directions. Akalanka820 (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Is she even a proper Historian? Or any writer can be used here ? Her qualification says she is M Phil, while she is part of CSDS but we can't just use her to have a whole section on this page. Akalanka820 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This when pov on a similar line has already been given two vast sections. Akalanka820 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Akalanka820:, she is a historian and a very scholarly one who has the ability to interpret the Sanskrit texts. Please can you scratch out the part you think are repeated(by using scratch font like I did in this sentence). Historian view and view of religious texts is different. Several editors had requested the same on the talk page but their request was denied because their sources were not WP:RS. Brahmin view was also not mentioned anywhere. It is important. The custom of Tilak was not mentioned. These religious texts or religious scholars are not mentioned anywhere in the article. I will add quotes for each line later today on the talk page. The source is very high quality. It is peer reviewed. It is definitely very relevant to Rajput. I did not follow your objections.LukeEmily (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Editors can request what they want, many don't like X community, so they would try to add what they want, the abuses on the talk page of the article makes it clear that this page is target of some who don't like this particular community. It doesn't work like that, the writer is an M Phil, and the first section 3rd and 4th Para already mention details on what you want to add, read P Mukta, Zeingler, Sircar etc references and a lot of it has been added by you. I find it laughable when you have already given 4-5 para to it and you want another 4-5 para on the same track. Regarding, reputable source, as far as I have checked I think her area of interest definitely not medieval history.[[13]], see her qualifications, nothing of importance in medieval history. She has done more on present political research. I would have understood if she was like Ms Audrey Truschke who is an eminent historian but that isn't the case. She is definitely not an historian. At this rate even BS Nijjar should be allowed on Wikipedia, he also has MPhil, PhD, and done some work in his domain. There is small para that you have added in between from Theodore Benke who is definitely historian, I have checked it, he isn't talking about Rajput community as such, no inference can be drawn from it. The works seem to be directed at Shivaji Coronation. And FYI, as well as for others there is a community called Ugra Kshatriya here Aguri (caste) in Bengal and it has a wiki page and same line of Ugra being of kshatriya father and sudra mother, being aggressive etc is added on that page using a reference. I am just wondering if it is directed at that by Theodore Benke and the writer comparing their success with Rajput. It needs to be a bit explicit which it isn't. Akalanka820 (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Your attacks on editors are irrelevant and violation of wikipedia policy of WP:NPA. Vajpayi is definitely talking about Rajputs. And so is Benke(see the footnote about Bombay presidency on Rajputs). But even if we ignore Benke, Vajpayi is relevant. The reason Rajputs are discussed while discussing Shivaji's coronation is because Shivaji claimed descent from the Sisodias. I will add quotes in the text below. The only important argument you have made is that Vajpayi is not reliable. I don't agree with you but we can resolve this the official wikipedia way.LukeEmily (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Pls don't try to deviate, I didn't targeted or talked of a particular editor. I just mentioned about the abusive comments in the past on this article's talk page. Those are there, if you want I can share it. Regarding Benke, I went through the available pdf, his work has literally zero mention of Rajput community as such, it deals with Shivaji's fabrication and other stuffs. This is not the page on Shivaji, Like I shared there is another Ugra Kshatriya community Aguri (caste), Even their page also has the same lines reference that you had inserted here, it is difficult to interpret unless she is explicit as we cannot allow WP:SYNTH to make our own work. Ms Vajpeyi is M Phil, definitely not right person to comment on Medieval history when we have historians and it is you who has already added above 20 big paragraphs in Origin section including refs of P Mukta, Zeingler, Sircar etc here-Rajput#Origin and Emergence as community. The whole page has been bombarded with repetitive lines of similar type multiple times in one section with quotes from top to bottom, there is also a question of WP:WEIGHT to it, but that will have long discussions. I don't see the same approach on any community article except here. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, Sorry to say but your content of Historian Benke seems deceptive. This is on same page 96 of the same reference-

The son of a Vaiśya female and a Ksatriya male is a Māhisya and a regular union. Engaged in the eight qualifications, knowledgeable in the 64 aṅgas, he has all the rites including initiation. Astrology, divination, and prognostication by sound are his livelihood...

, Now we know Mahishya is a caste of Bengal, here Mahishya, the Aguri (caste) referred as Ugra Kshatriya is from same region. Benke is talking about Ugra community of Bengal, it is very clear from the lines. Here is Mr Benke on page 238 saying North India was divided between Brahmin, Rajput and Shudras, whereas South as Brahmin and Shudras-

Śūdras replaced Vaiśyas in agriculture and Vaiśya artisans and merchants are confined to certain locales or reduced to the level of Śūdras. In the north the Brāhmaṇa, Rajput, and Śūdra, and in the south, the Brāhmaṇa, sat-Śūdra and asat-Śūdra become the three main social strata.14 Beneath them, the landless poor are converted into untouchables and the number of impure Śūdras and untouchable sub-castes (doing the most unclean jobs as menial laborers, scavengers, keepers of cremation grounds, and filth collectors) rises steeply

, this openly contradicts the way you have used here. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Since i am not active nowadays, i couldn't understand the matter. I can see a lot of edits have taken place in this article in recent times. Let me go through the article to observe the issue. Thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Akalanka820, Benke's quote specifically uses the word "Rajput". In the footnote, he mentions "The Rajpoots of Bombay are said to perform “the karm of Sudras". Obviously M._A._Sherring is very unreliable as per Sitush we cannot use that "karm of sudras" by Sherring. But Benke talks about different regions and scriptures. In any case, let use ignore Benke for the moment since he is used in only one sentence and he does not discuss the quote. Can you tell me which sentence from Vajpayi is a repetion or already exists on the page? Nowhere is the view in Hindu literature mentioned in the article. This is different from views of Historians like Ziegler.LukeEmily (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Not at all the views doesn't seem different to Zeingler, P Mukta, Sircar and those who have been given minimum 4-5 paragraphs with extended quotes, I hav mentioned exact lines of Benke on 96 and 238. It is very clear on page 96 he is talking about Bengal. I have shared the page 238 which contradicts what you are trying to say. He is a Historian unlike Ananya who is a M Phil. You have added most of 20-25 paragraphs in the first section: and I have pointed it out. ~~`` Akalanka820 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Admantine123, the issue is [this edit]. Akalanka820 says Vajpayi is not reliable or is repetitive. TB has edited the entire Bhonsale page using Vajpayi.LukeEmily (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think non-historian references are used when no references are there or not much research has been done. In the case there are so many historians who are already involved and they have been mentioned in over a vast section wrt topic. Comparing a personality page and community page is different. And it seems Theodore Benke has been misquoted, as I had shared the quotes. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Benke is gone from the draft alreadt. Please review WP:HSC and let me know why she does not qualify? She has Ph.D. in South Asian Languages and CivilizationsLukeEmily (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Your each and every queries have been explained including this whole Rajputs in Dharmashastra and the Ugra thing is dubious here from the references of other Historians-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput#Theodore_Benke_Page_96%2C_Page_97%2C_238, Ms Ananya is MA in English & linguistics and a M Phil as per her qualifications, definitely not an historian. The most important part, her work which you want to quote does not seem to have been used in any another Tertiary sources by other reputed historians, surely a very outlandlish claim and there is also a question of WP:WEIGHT because already the first section has 15-20 paragraphs discussing background of this community. Please don't try to come up with your own POV using one reference which is not even written by someone with degree in History- it is very important to look at an editor comment here on Tertiary sources- [[14]], [[15]]. Akalanka820 (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you give some citations for her qualifications? In her book she has a section on "Rajputs in Dharmashastra" .LukeEmily (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

That means you didn't see the various links I shared. I had shared her qualifications at the top of this section, there is also one article where she admits herself to be MA English and Linguistics and nowhere it says that she has a degree in South Asian Ancient and Medieval history. She teaches at National Law School. She can have whatever section she wants to have in her book. Her work on that topic has not been quoted by any other Historian. On the other hand, in parts she has quoted BDC, P Mukta etc for some of her portion and as you can see in Rajput#Origin and Emergence as Community, the contents from BDC, Zeingler, P Mukta has been given more than 5-6 paragraph easily fulfilling WP:DUE even more than what is required. Here is important explanation by an editor on WP:Tertiary, and why the purpose here is to give broader view of subject-[[16]], it has already been covered ( more than due) with many references in first section. Lastly, this [[17]] - edit summary a bit misleading, it was you who had used WP:BRD while reverting my edit Akalanka820 (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There shouldn't be two rules for the same type of pages. If a particular author's work is used in editing Bhonsale, then there is no issues in using her work on the same category of page like Rajput. Admantine123 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Either you didn't read what I shared or you want to ignore it. Every article has their context, this is different to Shivaji's article. Please do read Fowler ( FF) recent comments on using of references, I had shared that. This case is dubious. It is not only about her being reliable in the context but also about how many times this work which you want to share has been quoted by other historians. Just trying to restore to your friendly editor's version will not help this time around. Akalanka820 (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Akalanka820, you are not assuming good faith of Admantine123. The reason for her revert was fine and it has nothing to do with "friendliness". Vajpeyi is WP:HSC that is why she was used on the Bhonsale article. Vajpeyi discusses Rajputs based on Hindu scriptures in great detail in the book. Yes, you did not say WP:BRD in your original revert but your revert of my edit was acceptable under WP:BRD rule. Then we had to discuss as per wikipedia rules. Hence I reverted my own additions since we were still discussing and had not reached consensus. Now coming to your other points, Vajpeyi's article on Shivaji/Rajputs has been cited 10 times - even by historians of international repute like Rosalind O'Hanlon. Please see this. Second, about repetition, you are partially correct IMHO. For example, fabrication of genelogies is already mentioned elsewhere. But the big difference is that this Sanskrit scholar Vajpayi is giving the view of hindu Brahmins and Hindu religious texts. That is nowhere mentioned in the current article. It is not as if modern historians figured out the mixed caste issue. Brahmin scholars had already written about it. The reason that Vajpeyi discusses Rajputs in hindu literature in detail is because she says Shivaji was taking a risk when Balaji fabricated his descent from Sisodias(see Bhonsale). What if the Brahmins had insisted on taking the meaning given in the religious texts vs the meaning in practical politics at that time? The Tika is also not mentioned anywhere. I can go through the draft below and scratch some of the things that are repeated. If the word shudra is bothering you, it can be easily removed by merging two sentences with another sentence in the origin section. I have no intent to intentionally adding Shudra multiple times in different sections on the same page(unless it is talking about some different issue). Sitush himself has discouraged it. BTW, Shudra is not derogatory because it is only a ritual status. But we dont need to mention it in multiple sections. In fact, we don't even need another section for this since it is so small. Not all Brahmins of the north were not corrupt and they had documented the fabrication centuries before historians discovered it [Brahmins involved in Rajputization were generally emigrated Brahmins who might have been bribed]. The second issue is that under Muslim rule, Brahmins were powerless do much about it. It was loyalty to the Mughals that actually helped the Rajputs achieve higher status(at least ritually) than the Jats. That explains why Jats did not get Kshatriya status in practical politics. Vanina also says that Rajputs and Marathas have similar origins, the only difference being that one was north Indian and the other was from western India. I will not add anything to the Rajput page from Vajpayi unless both your concerns are addressed (1) reliability of Vajpeyi (2) repetition. Also, multiple repitions of Shudra can be removed by merging souce with other sentences and adding only non-duplicate information. Hope that helps. Please don't doubt any editor's intentions. But is Vajpayi is deemed unreliable by other senior editors then we dont have to add anything at all and we can close this discussion. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

See it is pretty simple, you cannot decide what helped a particular community on your own with your POV edits based on just one writer. And FYI you are factually wrong, you can read books by other historians where it openly says communities like Jats etc themselves benefited under Mughal rule Example editor FF edited that caste page and it is all there. Actually, it is Mughal who had made them peasant community.These are more like POV based on your viewpoint. You need to read WP:Tertiary, and FYI Wikipedia works on broader views, you need to share here how many times Vajpeyi has been quoted by other Historians on this topic of Rajputs in Dharmashastra, please don't share her other work. Rest I didn't say anything. It was you who used WP:BRD while reverting, I just created the section for discussion. Your edit summary is misleading that is what I pointed. Akalanka820 (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

you need to share here how many times Vajpeyi has been quoted by other Historians on this topic of Rajputs in Dharmashastra. That is only true for conflicting multiple opinions from scholars of equal status where a consensus of scholars in needed. I read FF's comments. If this were true for every statement, we would not be able to use any new research published by OUP or Cambridge source in 2022. Also, a Oxford University peer reviewed publication is considered very high quality. In addition, at least 10 scholarly publishers consider the specific section on shivaji - that discusses Rajputs Dharmashastras also(specifically) credible. I think we are in a deadlock so we need to take opinions of others to determine if she is WP:HSC. LukeEmily (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not only case of WP:HSC like the way you think it, and in this case it is matter of WP:Tertiary as well. You want to ignore because it doesn't suit you here and you know it. The article like this one are based on broad view viewport of Historians and not a place to sponsor one writer who does not have their degree in South Asian History. Not a single reputed Historian has quoted from Ananya's Rajput on Dharmashastra in any of their WP: Tertiary works. We should not be deceptive on talk page in this matter. Regarding conflict, I have already explained you in this section- [[18]] how word Ugra is considered by other writers for Aguri caste. So, some part of it is being contradicted by works of Gail Omdevt, Lindsay Harlan in their books.Akalanka820 (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh so first she was not reliable. Then you said she was not referenced by anyone. Then you said her topic about Shivaji was not referenced. Then when I showed you ten references, now you are pointing to that section in that chapter. Whats next? A sentence is not referenced? The number of references applies to PhD thesis not peer reviewed Oxford Univeristy Publications by a PhD scholar see WP:HSC. BTW, there are other books including an Indian textbook that discusses shudra+kshatriya mix for Rajputs as per sudrakamalakara. Of course, a university textbook is not a high quality source like Oxford Univ Press. Using your logic, most content on wikipedia will be wiped out and even Bhonsale article will be wiped out.LukeEmily (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I have said all the points from the first time. Of course when the particular content is not quoted by any WP: Tertiary sources, then its pretty clear in that context. You have failed to show where her work on Rajputs in Dharmashastra has been quoted in tertiary references, I again repeat it and you haven't answered it, deviating points are of no use. Secondly, I won't comment on the particular comments of yours on the community which is diversionary. The issue here is simple the onus to seek its inclusion is on you and yes nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, it is continuous building process, recently an experienced editor removed almost 6 months of edits ( all of them were atleast sourced to Historian unlike your PoV content using scholar with MA English- Linguistics) on Mohammad of Ghor but the argument on WP: Tertiary was important. Similar, here as other writers ( who are Historians) interpret Ugra with Ugra Kshatriya caste in Bengal as explained in the other talk page section.  Akalanka820 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Kane points out that according to the Sahyadrikhaṇḍa and Sūdrakamalākara an Ugra is called Rajput while according to the Jativiveka he is also called Ravut

source: Social Life in Ancient India (Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya, 1965, pg 18)

Divergent social groups got incorporated in the new socio-political fold of rajputras including Shudras. That’s why the Brihaddharmapurana regarded rajputras as a mixed caste and Shudra-kamalakara equates the Rajputs with ugra, a mixed caste born of the union of a Kshatriya man and a Shudra woman.

source:Unit-14 Social structure and gender relations: c. 700-1200 CE Kumar, Prem; Kapur, Nandini Sinha(historian) Google this quote, you will find a tertiary source(not good quality since it is a textbook but written by historians). Can there not be more than one ugra caste - caste of Bengal is irrelevant - ugra should be added to that page also if it is not there.Mohammad of Ghor is a different case, the issue was contested by several scholars. LukeEmily (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ugra is a community who are referred as Aguris, as attested by multiple writers that too Historian in multiple references. It is useless to share Sudhakar Chattopadhyay who may not be even a Historian. Here also the issue is contested on Ugra by multiple writers including Gail Omdevt, Lindsay Harlan's and many more openly writes about present day Ugra Community. You cannot ignore all this. It is very simple question you need to attest the reference to this point of Ananya Vajpeyi in a tertiary sources to pass it, that makes a broader opinion - Simple as that. I have shared this all in the other section- one writer even openly went to talk about Ugra Caste here- Here [[19]] is another one from very reputed reference, page number 208, 209-

8From a Brahmin man by a Vaisya girl* is born a son called Ambastha; and by a Śūdra girl, a Niṣāda, also called Pārasava. "From a Ksatriya man by a Śūdra girl is born a son called Ugra, who is cruel in his behavior and in his dealings, a being with the physical characteristics of both a Ksatriya and a Śüdra. 10 A Brahmin's children by the three lower classes, a Ksatriya's by the two lower classes, and a Vaisya's by the one lower class-tradition calls these six "low-born" (10.46 n.). "From a Kṣatriya man by a Brahmin girl is born a Sūta by caste; sons of a Vaisya by Ksatriya and Brahmin women are a Magadha and a Vaideha, respectively; 12and from a Śūdra by Vaisya, Ksatriya, and Brahmin women are born respectively an Ayogava, a Kṣattr, and a Canḍāla, the worst of all men so originate the intermixture of classes. 13 As when there is a difference of two classes in a birth, tradition calls them Ambastha and Ugra if the difference is in the direct order, in like manner they are Kṣatr and Vaideha, if it is in the inverse order.

, this is another one from Ms Lindsay Harlan's book- From the Margin's of Hindu Marriage in the Chapter The Effectiveness of the Hindu Sacrament (Samskara): Caste, Marriage, and Divorce in Bengali Culture, page number 148.[[20]] -

The Brahmans asked the Ugras (whose name means “vi¬ olent" or “cruel"), who were physically strong (balavat) and brave, to follow the occupation of Ksatriyas in warfare. The Magadhas, who were unwilling to fight because of the necessity of killing (himsa), were asked to be bards (vandT) to Brahmans and Ksatriyas, to carry messages, and to study the Ksatraveda (Sanskrit works on warfare).

on Page 159, the writer clarifies that it is Ugra community locally called as Aguris-

My own fieldwork had not brought me into contact with Vaidyas, al¬ though I have a good many acquaintances among persons of this caste in Calcutta and elsewhere. The Aguri caste, who consider themselves the modern representatives of the Ugras and refer to themselves as Ugra Ksatriyas, are heavily concentrated in Burdwan district and the immediately surrounding areas.

Here is another A R Desai page 453 in State and Society in India-

A Bengali version of the martial style is the Ugra-Kshatriya jati, Ugra meaning "hot-tempered." They are characterized in Lal Behari Day's novel of 1872 about his village in Burdwan district as "a bold and somewhat fierce race, and less patient of any injustice or oppression than the ordinary Bengal raiyat." An account of the same village as of 1962 quotes this passage and comments that the Ugra-Kshatriyas ("a strong, courageous community") still show the same characteristics. Their origin myth (from Manu X.9.) told of their descent from a Kshatriya man and a Sudra girl, and so they were not given unequivocal Kshatriya standing, but "they are now claiming themselves to be Kshatriyas and are trying to acquire the status of the twice-born themselves" (Basu 1962, pp. 24, 36).

Ugra is a community like Mahishya is a community. These are old groupings who probably existed at the time of Ancient text writings, on this community as tertiary references suggests they probably didn't existed when the text were written. The issue at hand is simple to solve the matter, we take broader view WP:Tertiary, already this page has been made a total mess. One para says something whereas other says something else. And I again say it is meaningless to engage in diversionary talks and wasting time. I have asked you very simple question as I could not find anything wrt the section of Ananya Vajpeyi quoted in tertiary references and I repeat that please share the tertiary references where she is quoted on Rajputs in Dharmashastra, and if you don't have anything, it means the points I raised do stand. You are free to raise that wherever you want to but pushing your POV edits might not be helpful here.Akalanka820 (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALL. LukeEmily (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don't try to accuse or deviate from the talk page discussion. As far as I remember an Admin has said same thing should be avoided. The same can be said by me, but I don't want to go to that level. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC) 06:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I dont want to discuss with you anymore as I have given you 10 places where that chapter by Vajpeyi has been cited. And also given you two references that say the same thing - including one tertiary reference(textbook). That is enought to make my point.LukeEmily (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

None of those 10 references talk about Rajputs in Dharmashastra attributing it to Ananya Vajpeyi, they talk on other subject. The reference of Sudhakar Chattopadhyay ( not even heard of that name) is definitely not tertiary. On the contrary, I have given you 4-5 references with content, all of very broad opinions by Lindsay Harlan's, A R Desai, Gail Omdevt etc, the primary reference and secondary references are being interpreted differently by different writers, which makes it very important for us to look at books with broader opinion.  Akalanka820 (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the chapter itself is referenced 10 times speaks for its credibility. It is an Oxford Univeristy Press publication and peer reviewed. How much more credible can it get? That makes is very WP:HSC and usable on wikipedia. 4 scholars (Kapur, Chattopadhaa, Vajpeyi and one more) have the same opinion about the scriptures. Please do not discuss this further with me - as we are going in circles - need to escalate it. You are preventing improvement of wikipedia articles for WP:PUFFERY.LukeEmily (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

No where her work on Rajputs in Dharmashastra is quoted by Historian in a tertiary sources as per WP: Tertiary sources including that Ugra part. I am not talking about her other works. For some of her parts, where she has quoted BDC etc, BDC is already added here which is more than WP:DUE, and that is also an opinion. Not every Historian have same views. Don't accuse me constantly here on the talk page. The point here is simple you don't want to improve an article but want to push your POV using a writer ( who doesn't even hold degree in South Asian History). Improving an article is different to pushing POV bias on an article and that is when the work isn't quoted in tertiary references. If her work on Rajputs in Dharmashastra is quoted please mention here itself. You haven't because it isn't. Akalanka820 (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The section on dharmashastra is in her book in a chapter that is peer reviewed and published by Oxford University Press. The name of the chapter/paper is "Excavating identity through tradition: who was Shivaji?". This chapter discusses dharmashastras in the context of Rajputs. This particular chapter that discusses dharmashastras has been cited 10 times. I am NOT talking of her other work only this chapter that discusses dharmashastras. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16623058654911946809&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en. See the name of the chapter/paper at the top of the page. And Chattopadhaya is an indologist. I already gave you a tertiary source (textbook) that discusses scriptures and mixed caste. And also gave you secondary source. LukeEmily (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Well again you are deviating she has been courted by few scholars 1-3 not 10 as you say ( see the word cited there), and that is on Shivaji and not on Rajputs in Dharmashastra as per WP:Tertiary. Please quote here what the writers ( and some of those aren't even Historian) are saying using her work on the Rajput community. Using Publisher house as logic is immaterial. She has degree in English, Linguistics and Philosophy and definitely as scholar she can get a decent good publisher. You haven't given anything of note here on talk page except your opinions and on the other hand I have shared 4-5 reputed reference easily contradicting on Ugra. Akalanka820 (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The part where she has been quoted on Shivaji, and none of it wrt Rajputs in Dharmashastra, this deals with Konkan region [[21]] , otherwise it is pretty simple we can use that tertiary reference ( as you claim it to be) content here. Why not quote that part here? That is what I am asking? The fact is those writer at max talk about Shivaji in their reference not this community. Tertiary references are like Barbara D Metcalf's A Concise of History, similarly Thomas Metcalf Aftermath of Revolt can be another, Stanley Wolpert's book is another example. Akalanka820 (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:TERTIARY sources are used for summarising a broad topic, e.g. for summarising a lengthy article's body in the lead. They are not used for choosing a scholar. In fact, by your weird assertion, we will have to delete most of this article's content, as most of the scholars cited here haven't been cited in scholarly tertiary sources for Rajput-related details.

Ananya Vajpeyi is not describing anything new, as this article's lead as well as the body already mention that Rajputs are of mixed origin. She is just explaining and giving historical reasons for that point. At the same time, Vajpeyi's content shouldn't be covered in a separate section, as that's unnecessary and confusing. These details are about the origin and/or early history of the Rajputs. So they should be covered succinctly (with attribution) at the start of the history section and/or somewhere in the origin section.

PS: I have yet to read the source in question. So I might give further inputs after checking it on Monday. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

There are various opinion wrt this community and not a uniform one as you think it to be, it is writer to writer. Secondly, FYI some parts of the primary references that she uses is interpreted by other writers to be for Ugra Community as quoted above and here [[22]]. In this case WP:Tertiary becomes even important.  Akalanka820 (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

What you are sharing is not contradictory to Vajpeyi. Thats because multiple communities can be ugra - Rajput is not the only mixed caste. If there was a source that said Hindu scripture sudrakamalkara says "Rajputs are pure kshatriyas and have no other mix" that would have been a contradiction to Vajpeyi. In that case, as per WP:NPOV we would have had to give both opinions. FYI, Buchanan has in his journal recorded Rajput , the pure Sudras of a country in the north of India. But it is not relevant since he was a medical doctor. But I am just stating it to show that the Rajput Kshatriya claim was not easily accepted(I believe he means Rajputs of Bihar based on his writings). Ugra is used for another caste in another part of India is not a contradiction. There is no rule that only one community has to be ugra and others cannot be. There are many Brahmin castes but it does not mean that if one caste in Bengal is Brahmin, no other Brahmin caste can exist in India. Vajpayi gives the word rajaputa in italics and uses diacritics implying that that rajaputa is the actual sanskrit word used. Note that it is not an interpretation but a transation by a Sanskrit scholar. As per WP:NPOV, we have to write all opinions. If you want to add the irrelevant castes of Bengal as mentioned by saying"X,Y,Z fom Bengal are also called ugra by Harlan and Omvedt", please go ahead but do so in short or in a footnote. You are mixing manusmiriti and sudrakamalakara that are diffrent texts. The WP:TERTIARY Indian textbook by Nandini Kapur (historian) also says Divergent social groups got incorporated in the new socio-political fold of rajputras including Shudras. That’s why the Brihaddharmapurana regarded rajputras as a mixed caste and Shudra-kamalakara equates the Rajputs with ugra, a mixed caste born of the union of a Kshatriya man and a Shudra woman. So this issue has been discussed by Indian textbooks(teriary sources) also. We only need to discuss whether we need to keep a seperate section or merge it with other sections as suggested by NitinMlk . I think plenty of editors have explained it to you by now.LukeEmily (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Same Dharmashastra scriptures and lines are used by other writers to imply that it is for Ugra Community or Aguris. We just can't ignore it ! this is why I asked for a broader tertiary reference as per WP: Tertiary. There are different views of writers on this topic not a specific one like you say. I can also share counterpoint where they are mentioned as Kshatriya or the word itself used for alternative terminology from an old reference but we generally go by broader view point which definitely is not that. Anyways right now TB has corrected some of it. I don't have a lot of spare time for discussing on it. Akalanka820 (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Rajputs in Hindu Dharmashastras

Ananya Vajpeyi discusses the Rajputs in the context of Hindu Sanskrit Dharmashastra texts and shows the dissonance between the meaning of Rajput in the practical political arena versus the literal meaning of rajaputa in Hindu religious texts and how both meanings could coexist.

The Jatinirnayaprakaranama of Sudrakamalakara, an early 1600s Dharmaśāstra text written by Kamalakarabhatta (uncle of the notable Brahmin scholar Gaga Bhatt) for ugra or rajaputa is the projeny of a Kshatriya father and Shudra mother. Vajpeyi clarifies that although ugra literally means scary or fierce, in this context the medieval writers only used this term in the context of his qualities as a warrior. Seshasakrishna's Sudracarasiromani, a text that predates Sudrakamalakara also supports this definition for a rajaputa.Vajpeyi notes that Kamalakarabhatta makes a professional and religious distinction: a rajaputa may fight, however, he has to follow the duties similar to sudras or sudrasamana. She says Ugra or rajaputa is listed as one of the six types of a sankarajati(mixed caste) given in the text, whose father's varna is higher than that of the mother, and are thus an anulomajas or "one born in accordance with the natural flow". There are five other types of anulomajas unions given by Kamalakarabhatta. Thus, as per the medieval Brahminical Dharmashastras, Rajputs are a mixed jati. In the practical political context, the word meaning edges towards Kshatriya although in Hindu religious texts rajaputa is closer to Shudra, hence the lexical similarity of the words is deceptive.

Some emigrant Brahmins may have been involved in Rajputising tribes to the Rajput status. Despite this, Vajpayi states that, periodically, Brahmins have characterized Rajput as self-seekers, and stated that they are not real Kshatriyas.

Other than establishing marital ties with already established Rajput families, constructing false genealogies and adopting titles such as "rana", Rajputising also involved starting the pretensions of rituals of twice-borns ( wearing sacred thread etc.).

However, one ritual that was not given much significance was the Abhisheka. When a clan leader was made king by the Mughal emperor, the Tika mark on the head of leader by the Muslim emperor confirmed his Royal status and the Hindu ritual of Abhisheka was only of secondary importance. Aurangzeb eventually stopped the custom of Tika and the custom was replaced by bowing or taslim to the Mughal emperor, who would return the salute. According to Vajpayi, this possibly implies that it was still up to the Mughal emperor to ultimately give or deny the Rajput status to the clan leader. The description of Rajputs in the Hindu Dharmashastras, self image that the Rajputs presented, and the Mughal view of the Rajputs was disparate. This incongruity, according to Vajpayi makes the Rajput identity Polyphonous.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2022

'''Rajput''' The above-mentioned information about Rajput origin has been edited by Pastoral communities in India. Because they have to claim themselves as Rajput. So, Don't believe the first article about the origin of Rajputs. Shorya Pratap Singh Bhadouria (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

NUKE

This article is unsalvageable. Over the past few years, editors of this page appear to have been oblivious of WP:DUE. What is even the "Origin and Emergence as community" section? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, you wrote:

Lindsey Harlan in her study as documented in "Religion and Rajput Women" has praised the selfless and sacrificing character of a traditional Rajput woman.

Can you please provide the exact page number where she praised such traits of Rajput women? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Trangabellam:, in retrospect, I made a mistake by using the word "praise" in the sentence. She uses selfless and sacrifice several times in the book but I was wrong to call it "praise". That was my (incorrect)interpretation. I think I might have used on pg 152 where she writes "Moreover, in detailing the transition that the sativrata stage represents, it has elucidated the conceptual connection between the pativrata , who sacrifices personal desires to fulfill those of her husband and family, and the satimata , who protects the husband and family directly and also indirectly, by helping the pativrata to protect them. Finally, it has shown how the sativrata , not yet a fully transcendent being, publicly communicates with those whom she intends to protect. Manifesting her sat , she demonstrates that her acquisition of sativrata power results from a cultivated attitude of selfless sacrifice, only the final expression of which is the sacrifice she will make on her husband's pyre." On 204, "As I emphasized, duty is not expressed in specific action, although certain acts such as religious fasts or marital obedience are thought prima facie to accord with it. It is expressed in terms of intention, which is why moral exemplars are emulated despite their violation of approved conduct. Bravery animates a previous hit selfless intention to sacrifice, be it that of personal desires by a pativrata or of life by hero, sati , or heroine who is ultimately a sati ." As a pativrata she is not a sacrificer of men but of self, for a wife's self-previous hit sacrifice next hit strengthens a husband and his family. Not a wild virgin but a devoted wife, she does not drink her children's blood but rather preserves and replenishes it." I am OK with your deleting the section. In fact, I was going to request you to trim it. Thanks. LukeEmily (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Instead of completely removing it, please can we keep some content? The picture of the Rajput Bride was really nice. We can reduce the section to 5-6 sentences if necessary.LukeEmily (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)