Talk:Rajputisation

Improving article

Improved ur article.hope it was helpful. Heba Aisha (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

LukeEmily the bibliography u added is not used as refrence in article.The article still rely upon the sources used earlier only and they are just kept here without any use.If you want to keep it here use it along with the points for which they are placed here.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding nonsense source of other communities to malign a particular grp is not a job of Wikipedia. Nonia samaj and Daroga are different to Rajput group

Noniya comes under OBC. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha. Please do not revert and remove my sources with whom I made a edit. The sources which I have used are more genuine and worthwhile and 110 years old. I can understand you are great contributer but please without going through my sources and supporting your deeds is unfair. Do not be frogs of well! The ocean is very big.

I have posted a new discuss ion go through its contents refute my claims then do whatsoever you wish to do. Aishtomar (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Lord editors,have you lost your human nature so you described 'opium' consuming, alcoholic, practises, polygamy and all the evils as defining characteristics of Rajputs in comparing between Sanskritisation and Rajputisation. Which author had told you that all Rajputs are or were Opium consumers, alcoholic, polygamous,you are portraying a whole community by using a poor-personal source. Would you will accept 'Hammira mahakavya' and ' Prithviraj Raso' as purely historical if not then how can you say Rajput as 'Opium consumers' and ' alcoholic' just by citing source which suits your personal agenda.

I am going to make edits with full sources and if you dare; refute my claims on 'academic grounds' not on your 'reverting capacities'.

With Great Hope That you people will Understand. Aishtomar (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing says that older sources are more "genuine". We depend on modern historical scholarship to explain the historical facts. See WP:HISTRS. Older sources are in fact considered inferior. Knowledge progresses with time.

As for the "evils" that have been covered, I am sure ample WP:RS have been provided. Please read them, and come back if the content is misrepresenting them in any way. Voicing personal opinions will not get you anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This concept is not widely accepted concept and needs balancing

Providing contrast to this concept of Koyal Shivaji

Encyclopedia Britannica describes Rajput origins as "The Rajputs’ origins seem to date from a great breakup of Indian society in the northern and northwestern Indian subcontinent under the impact of the Hephthalites (White Huns) and associated tribes from the mid-5th century CE onward. Following the breakup of the Gupta empire (late 6th century), invading groups were probably integrated within the existing society, with the present pattern of northwestern Indian society being the result. Tribal leaders and nobles were accepted as Kshatriyas, the second order of the Hindus, while their followers entered the fourth (Shudra, or cultivating) order to form the basis of tribal castes, such as the Jats, the Gujars, and the Ahirs." Ref.

Hi @LukeEmily:. Can you please elaborate which part of WP:RS does book by C S Varma violate? Also, how about Encyclopedia Britannica, is that also not acceptable?

You have been explained this by several editors. Please see User:Sitush/Common#CasteAFDs for Varma. Britannica is a tertiary source and not a scholarly academic source - it is often edited online by editors not expert in the subject matter - it is no match for Oxford and Cambridge sources or peer reviewed journals - see the wikipedia page on it for comments about it. Please read WP:HISTRS in detail. Please can you sign your comments on talk page? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Rajputization vs Rajputisation

User:Hemant Dabral, @Fylindfotberserk:, Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555, I did not follow the change from 'z' to 's'.[[1]] I did a search in google books and did not find any instance of "Rajputisation" but found plenty of hits for "rajputization". Indian, British American and even German(Herman Kulke) use the word with a z not s. Should this be changed back to Rajputization?LukeEmily (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I just checked and some sources do indeed call it Rajputisation. Since we have to use Indian English, I think it would be fine to leave it as Rajputisation, as Wikipedia uses Sanskritisation, Indianisation, Indo-Aryanisation, Tamilisation, Pakistanisation, etc. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Chariotrider555, LE its not a big issue.Some of the latest addition also have 's'.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: It has lot to do with MOS:ENGVAR, in this case Commonwealth/Indian/South Asian English. 'Organization' → 'Organisation' for example. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Chariotrider555, Heba Aisha, Fylindfotberserk ! LukeEmily (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Bihari Rajputs as Pseudo Rajputs Issue

Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555, Hello and regards, this is in reference to the image posted on the article which says "Bihari Rajputs who are also designated as Pseudo Rajputs by their western counterparts", as far as I know, this is not the common practice or notion as for eg. Raja Kameshwar Singh of Shakarpura, Bihar was married to the esteemed house of Maharaja Kanthad Wala of Bilkha (Gujrat), then there were several Thikanas (Zamindaris) of Purabiya Rajputs in Mewar, the noblest house among Rajputs in west India, So i Would like to seek a clarification for this, which superceeds the common on-ground realities before removing this. RegardsBhojpal1234 (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia publishes only already written source by scholars which are written by editors in their own way.What you know about kameswar singh and his status is considered as WP:OR, which are not allowed to be written on wiki.The source regarding pseudo Rajput is present there with preview.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Image of The Rajpoot cultivators from Dehradun

Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555, I saw this image as the first image of the Rajputisation page, at first I am amazed as I have never seen this image and have never read about this in my life, me doing a PHD on Rajput history, should have been aware of it though, had it been a real rajput clan, so I would request you to provide the source from where it is taken and context of it. There are many communities who have sufficed the Rajput title after them like the Lodis who started calling themselves as Lodi rajputs, but they aren't considered to be the real rajputs in society, providing an article for your reference (https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/The-flight-of-the-backward-castes/article11640693.ece), so I want two things from the administrators here: 1. Source which says these are Rajputs. 2. The relevance of this photo as the face of Rajput community of India, because this is not how they ar viewed, so unless someone wants to deliberately demean a community, I see no relevance of this photo to be projected as the face of Rajput community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhojpal1234 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You can read the talk page of Rajput article about the source of the image. Already extensive discussion about it has been done there and specially the comment of NitinMlk explains the whole thing clearly.Also, the source is written in footnoteHeba Aisha (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No such thing called Rajputisation.

Later I will add content Alexander the Kshatriya (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexander the Kshatriya, there are pretty extensive sources that disagree with your unsourced viewpoint. Please read Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Ravensfire (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

wrong history it's all gujjar shudra history all caste are shudra only brahman and rajput pure blood

it's wrong history plzz delete this page Historicallychiefs (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Strong example of fabrication of pedigree(Genealogy) for Rajputization process

I present a strong example of Rajputisation here.

If we look at Jadeja's genealogy, they have shown in their genealogy that Buddha is the ancestor of Rama and Krishna is Rama's descendant. That's why it is Proved that the genealogy is fabricated.

If you study history and read the Chachnama and If you read the historian C. V. Vaidya, you will come to know that Jadeja has mixed the genealogy of Lohana and Bhatia dynasties. Historian Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya and Historian Henry Miers Elliot exposed them.

They are the ones who try to prove themselves as Kshatriyas by accusing others of not being Kshatriyas. Like brass has to shine more to sell than gold.

Here I will refer you to the History of Sindh Volume II by the historian Mirza Kalich Beg. Study this then see what kind of Fictional story is run by Jadejas with help of Barots.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.229.98.17 (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Where did Henry Miers Elliott exposed them ? You haven't provided anything. Last what I have read Lohana and Bhatia were mercantile communities.

Well CV Vaidya calls Rajputs as Aryans, similar case with Henry Miers Elliott. Please do read, and Barot was employed by everyone. RS6784 (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear (User:RS6784), First of all, I want to ask question, why you remove those links which I had mentioned here. Now again I am putting these source here. don't remove it. Hinguladri khanda(Up-purana of Skanda purana) Lohana were descend of Rathore.[url=https://archive.org/details/jatibhaskar-satymarg/page/n223/mode/1up%7Cyear=1970]

Second link: Book of H. M. Elliot Page 362. Lohana had two branches, Lakha and Samma[3]

Third Link: Book C. V. Vaidya clearly mentioned on page 189 that Samma were Lohanas.[4]

Forth Link: History Of Sindh Volume II By Mirza Kalichbeg, Page 28: Chapter - Sindh tribes descendand of Arab in Jadeja were descedand of Arab[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.89.184 (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't remove above links

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

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

• Bihari Rajput villagers watching Mallah fishermen.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Group photograph of a Maratha family (c. 1880).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

My explanation for removal of Bundelas

I removed section titled "Rajputisation of Bundelas" here. Though I explained my edit thoroughly, but still I am re-explaining the matter here. The inclusion of Bundela in the article is due to misinterpretation of the term "Rajputisation". It means the upliftment of Shudra people to Rajputs. The section dedicated to Bundelas doesn't discuss anything like that. The source doesn't contain term "Rajputisation" or anything remotely close to that. It simply says that the Rajputs of Rajasthan ignored the Rajput status of Bundelas in Bundelkhand. There is no such thing that Rajputs of Rajasthan have some authority to decide the Rajput status of people. They simply regarded themselves superior to Bundelas due to their history of resisting Islamic invasions from west. The section completely fails WP:REL and hence should be removed. Shinjoya (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"explains" versus "is"

In the lead we have "Rajputisation (or Rajputization) explains the process by which such diverse communities coalesced into the Rajput community." Then in the first section of the body we have "Rajputisation is the study of formation of the community over the centuries." This seems wrong: surely Rajputisation is the process in question, not the study of the process? Like, if I'm a sociologist writing about how the Rajput identity coalesced, I'm not engaged in Rajputisation, am I? --JBL (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2021 to fix a typo

On the last paragraph of the section Formation, change the typo "supporters.They" to "supporters. They" CodeMyGame Wiki (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you, @CodeMyGame Wiki. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of insensitive image of Bihari Rajput

Dear admin

I don't know who has added the image, but it is very insensitive. Not even the source of the image says that these guys are Rajputs of that state. It looks like personal image has been to score political point. This looks like a case of promoting hate based and very agenda driven addition. Kindly please look into it and remove that photo. RS6784 (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Would request some senior editor to look into it. Certain editors with malafide intention have edited this page, Wikipedia asks WP: Assume Good Faith when writing the article from neutral point of view, it is missing on this page. The image representing Bihari Rajput is not mentioned in any journal pointing that it belongs to this community. One editor with wrong intention has tried to portray all this here. I think it needs to be corrected to bring it under WP:NPOV RS6784 (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not a case of MOS:OMIMG, as the image which has been added there is itself unrelated to the community and is not present in any reputed journals, book etc. This is a purely unverified image and added with demeaning intentions. Now, considering the fact that this is an encyclopaedia article on a particular subject, I think adding an unverified image to give it a community tag is nothing short of stigmatising a group of peopl. This goes against WP:DGF which all editors should follow when writing an article. RS6784(talk) 07:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

RS6784, Please see discussion at Talk:Rajput/Archive_30#Why_shouldn't_we_remove_the_Bihari_Rajput_watching_mallah_fisherman_image and Mallah Fishermen deletion nomination page.LukeEmily (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion can be opened if other editors want it. I haven't found the photo in any reputed sources, book etc. I think this purely case of malafide intention to malign a grp of people, WP:DGF is missing. Anyways it is an encyclopaedia article, if there is no image from reputed sources, no need to add any image. It seems that the purpose of adding fake image is to give wrong impression to the readers as well as malign a grp of people. RS6784 (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no reference which says these people are related to the community. This is classic case of WP:STONEWALL by particular quarters to have certain unverified things inserted in the encyclopaedia article. This type of activity lacks WP:Good faith. RS6784 (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Pls provide WP:RS for the image as this is an encyclopaedia article covering a bigger subject. If there is none available, then this image is fake and should be removed, anyways there is no requirement of unverified image if none is available. RS6784 (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Admin has agreed that such unverifiable images cannot be used for caste pages. Please see Talk:Koeri#Transfer_of_British_era_image_and_removal_of_image. Let us not use this image. But, RS6784 , please do not assume lack of WP:Good faith or purely case of malafide intention to malign a grp of people(as you said) on part of Heba, especially as she also mentioned the full name of a person in the description itself. Anyway, this image cannot be used. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: nobody is accusing here but I had informed that editor. The editors contrary behaviour in two cases is in front of everyone and even that editor accepted it on his/her talk page. In one case the editor was trying to insert fake image by any means and on the another case as per contribution page of the editor suggests he/she was trying to remove it using my points for the first one. Looks like you are too much into defending than introspecting a mistake. I hope similar behaviour contradicting WP:DGF is not repeated again otherwise I am well within my rights on Wikipedia to point it out and it doesn't mean I am accusing anyone. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: there is also a discussion going on wrt some Raj-Era photos. So, the matter now also include another selected picture inserted on this page describing Dehradun - Russia used as Lead image. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Rajputization of Chudasama dynasty

Graharipu of Chudasama dynasty was mentioned as Abhira jati's king in Dvashraya Mahakavya, an historical poem written by Hemachandra, a kulguru of Kumarapala (Chaulukya dynasty).

Many historians confirms this.

That's Why chudasama, saravaiya, rayjhada and jadeja who Gahripu's descendand are originally Abhir(Ahir)

@FormalDude: Please verify sources and add in a page. Thank.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.89.184 (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: Please verify sources and add in a page. Thankss.

References

According to Hindu scriptures Rajputs are Shudra

According to Hindu scriptures Rajputs are Shudra

According to Brahma Vaivarta Purana[6] क्षत्रात्करणकन्यायां राजपुत्रो बभूव ह ।। राजपुत्र्यां तु करणादागरीति प्रकीर्तितः।। 1/10/110

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

According to Skanda Purana[7]]

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

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

पराशर स्मृति

वैश्यादंबष्ठ कन्यायां राजपुत्र प्रजायते

अमरकोष

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

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

शब्दकल्पद्रुम

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

अर्थात:- वैश्य पुरुष के द्वारा अम्बष्ठ कन्या में राजपूत उत्पन्न होता है।

Please see reply here. LukeEmily (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

@Heba Aisha: I have noticed a trend on this and other articles where you will use an unrelated edit to justify a revert to your preferred version of the article. An example of this can be seen here:

[8]

Please refrain from attempting to mislead us and other editors. Thank you.RuudVanClerk (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know this is needed here, as I have already notified the editor for their good faith edits. I would say this is after latest Admin's instruction, may be it was in good intentions but such repetitive behaviours are problematic in my view. RS6784 (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The image was removed earlier and no ground was mentioned here for it's removal from this article that's why i reinstated it here. Please note, from Rajput article it was removed because, you said in your edit summary that it is yet to be confirmed that "russia" group belong to Rajput caste or not.[9] But,the subject of this article is entirely different. Here, it is about attempt of lower caste to seek Rajput status and same argument is not admissible here. Tagging both users RuudVanClerk and RS6784.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

But then the short description including certain content of the article needs a change. Do remember there is WP:POINT wrt image as it is undergoing discussion on an another page and latest admin directions are very clear cut. All sudden actions on this particular image topic by any editors are under observations. RS6784 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Russia Rajputs

The Hill Rajput also called Russia Rajputs from Uttrakhand, a claimant of Rajput status.

The sources says similar thing about this image. It can be used here RS6784.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Please specify whether Russia grp are part of this community, Please give proper WP: V for the same. RS6784 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Please remember the antecedents are doubted by the photographer. Doesn't fulfill WP:V, if you have any other references for Russia group then you may add it RS6784 (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Brother, this article is not about Rajput caste. It's about various communities seeking Rajput status. Many non Rajput communities and there images are displayed here. Why to remove this one then. You are involved in "off topic" comment and please don't make the discussion there on Rajput as a reason to remove this image from here. You are about to involve in WP:BFN , by doing this.`Heba Aisha (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I have removed this "photo" many days back so no question of WP:BFN, on the other hand see WP:POINTY by making changes, the edit comes under it. And please do remember the short desc and lead content openly drags this particular social grp. So, you cannot say that it isn't getting related. I request no WP:OR, if you have verifiable references of writers regarding Russia grp, please put here. The photographer isn't sure about their antecedents. RS6784 (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

And I request no accusations, also do read WP:POINTy, I had removed the images some days back and not when you set up the RfC or discussion. The discussion started post the removal. Don't engage into wrong accusations. RS6784 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Rajputisation of Punjabi groups

A section is required on the Rajputisation of Punjabi groups as noted by Denzil Ibbetson and commented upon by Susan Bayly who noted that Rajput in Punjab was merely a status based title and that many traditional “shudra” groups like Jats would be termed as Rajput after amassing a certain amount of wealth and/or land. This is detailed in page 139 of Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age, Part 4, Volume 3 (2001). I do not have extended confirmed privileges at this point however I shall add the relevant section when I am or another interested editor can do so.RuudVanClerk (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

RuudVanClerk at the least please read what the writer says, she says Jats and Rajputs were status groups not what you are doing here. Your points here equal to WP:OR, she isn't saying the same no Original research please. And as the page suggests there is attempt section in the article wrt jats of Punjab. Their chief houses tried to make new connections but it didn't changed their caste as the content of it says. RS6784 (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The adoption of Rajput status by various groups is exactly what the article is about and the ongoing adoption of Rajput as a title by various groups in Punjab is very much relevant to the article. At the very least, it can be added that the attempted Rajputisation by Jats is not just limited to Bharatpur but occurred in Punjab as well. RuudVanClerk (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

RuudVanClerk, there is a section of attempted case wrt Sikhs ( particularly Jat Sikhs) as well in the article, please look at it. Kindly see into it. Rest, I request for no WP:OR here. Secondly, this process not necessarily led to be Rajputs as Lucia Michuletti in her book had explicitly explained in case of Rewari Ahirs and some other Ahir groups. It was of a perceptional thing, I would say "Rajput like" culture adoptions. RS6784 (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If there is already a section then it would not constitute OR. In fact, it can be added to the existing section. RuudVanClerk (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

RuudVanClerk it is already added there, but the reference that you shared only says a writer opinion taking words of Denzil Ibbettson that the social groups were status groups or had such an element as well. It doesn't says what you are saying here. Rest of your points are already there in attempted section by Jats and Sikhs ( here Jatt Sikhs). See that section in the article. RS6784 (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That covers Sikhs only. Susan Bayly applies it to Punjabi society more generally. RuudVanClerk (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Bayly's reference says that all communities were status groups ( it is applicable to all as she took names of all the groups on the page 139). She hasn't gone further to that in the book. I think the other part what you say is covered in section with respect to Jats, Sikhs etc. RS6784 (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

RuudVanClerk, For your points above that "Jats is not just limited to Bharatpur but occurred in Punjab as well", it can be expanded there in that particular attempted section though IMO a lot is covered. RS6784 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue if it’s added to an existing section. However the fluid nature of status groups like Rajputs in Punjab warrants a mention in this article. RuudVanClerk (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2023

the Rajputs of both division of present-day Uttarakhand–Garhwal and Kumaon and show how they were formally Shudra but had successfully converted to Rajput at different times. This statement is baseless.

They are not shudra formally. Spata007 (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Good faith misunderstanding about the term "Rajputisation"

Hello, I feel based on the edits made on this page that there is a good faith misunderstanding by some editors of the term "Rajputisation". I partially take responsibility for this misunderstanding because I could have worded the definition of Rajputisation in a better way in the lead itself. Probably the page needs fixing or rewording in the lead. The misunderstanding is that claiming to be of Rajput descent is rajputisation. IMHO, that is not true. As the sources in the body indicate, Rajputisation is a complex socio-political process. Also, I think we dont need any image on this page - including that of the Hill Porter. Quote from J.J.L. Gommans "The repeated emergence of new groups of Rajputs, i.e. 'sons of kings', reflects an ongoing process of rajputisation that involved the gradual transition of mobile, open, exogamous war–bands into settled, closed, endogamous castes who..." This means Rajputisation explains how Rajput clans were formed. Also, the other castes that are not currently Rajput being mentioned on this page is WP:UNDUE as they failed in getting Rajputized.LukeEmily (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It is well clear from the references like this that it is a broad topic, here-

Appropriation of highly specific Rajput distinctions such as 'Kanwar/Kaur' and 'Singh' can most likely be attributed to active attempts by specific segments of the Sikh population during the mid-to-late Guru period to Rajputize their identity. This process of 'Rajputisation' becomes intelligible particularly in light of the elevation of the lowly Jat to a hegemonic position within the social hierarchy of the Sikh Panth.

On Ms Reena Dube, she has been summarised by Shail Mayaram in a better reference, anyways it is book on female infanticide, rather than specifically on the subject. But if you look at the reference she openly admit this doesn't applies to a only one caste- first line point this out. Interestingly, in between she also writes how some of them adopted lifestyle which was traditionally recognised as Rajputs, this makes it very clear that isn't restricted to any one social group.

(59)In our view Rajputization refers neither to a caste nor a race, instead it signifies a highly mobile social process of claiming military-political power and the right to cultivable land as well as the right to rule. Rajputization is unparalleled in traditional Indian society for its inventiveness in ideologies of legitimation and self-invention. The fabrication of a Rajput genealogy in the process of climbing from feudatory to king does not constitute an isolated historical event in the early medieval period. In nineteenth-century India, the village landlord, the Brahmin priest, the tribal chieftain, the local Raja who has recently converted from Islam, the newly wealthy lower caste Sudra, the professional soldier or the member of a community with traditions of military labor,any of these men could Rajputize themselves and their families by adopting the lifestyle traditionally recognized as Rajput. These aspirants deployed Brahmins to compose a genealogy that would retrospectively endow the aspirant’s lineage with ritual purity.

, I don't know why you added this when same lines summarised by Shail Mayaram. And lastly, in the same reference Ms Dube also talked about other communities like here from the same book -

William L. Rowe's study of the census reports of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as well as his field- work with Noniya Cauhans in the village of Senapur, Madhya Pradesh and in Bom- bay, shows that a segment of the Sudra caste of the Noniyas claimed the status of the Cauhan Rajputs, and consolidated this claim by setting up an organization for caste organization called Sri Rajput Pracarni Sabha (Rajput Advancement Society) in 1898; in terms of our argument about exogamy as part of Sanskritization and Rajputization, it is significant that "for the low status rural Noniyas the average distance from which brides are taken is twelve miles whereas the elite members of the caste invariably report marriage relations at distances of fifty to 300 miles" (1968, 70).

, here another from same book-

Vishwanath also notes that the Jats and Ahir castes of North- Western Provinces who practiced female infanticide in the nineteenth century called themselves Rajputs and identified with the Kshatriya ideology (136, 139).

which you have been carefully ignoring. Akalanka820 (talk)

Please stop WP:OR in comments,,we can't decide ourselves as we are not historian. The references I have shared very clear and they exactly contradict to what you want to do with Lede and Title Summary, like the way you are doing now, you cannot decide yourself. I have quoted from summarised version of the refs. Many writers are very clear with lines like here for Rajputisation of Sikhs using word 'adopted the...characteristics

In the background, too, will be the intriguing study by Jeevan Deol, some two decades back now, of (at the risk of streamlining Deol's important contribution) the 'Rajputization' of the Sikh tradition, the process whereby military labour groups, including the Sikhs, adopted the august pedigrees, characteristics, and ideologies generally associated with the well-established martial Rajput lineages of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Akalanka820 (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

What part is WP:OR? So was the Rajputisation of these particular sikhs successful or not? I dont understand your objection. What is the motivation for adopting the characteristics of Rajputs? The motivation is to become Rajput and be accepted as part as the commnity. Otherwise it is meaningless. Some pastoralist people adopted some customs and slowly became Rajputs. Some did not succeed. If you are saying that some tried Rajputisation but did not become Rajputs, I agree with you. But the other side is also true. Some tried Rajputisation and became rajputs. How were Rajputs clans formed if not by Rajputisation of tribal pastoralists who became sedentary? LukeEmily (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

References

On the subject line

Luke, Please stop WP:OR in comments,we can't decide ourselves as who became what, we are not historian. The references I have shared very clear and they exactly contradict to what you want to do with Lede and Title Summary, like the way you have been doing, you cannot decide yourself. I had quoted from summarised version of the refs you like a lot. Many writers are very clear with lines like here for Rajputisation of Sikhs using word adopted the...characteristics

In the background, too, will be the intriguing study by Jeevan Deol, some two decades back now, of (at the risk of streamlining Deol's important contribution) the 'Rajputization' of the Sikh tradition, the process whereby military labour groups, including the Sikhs, adopted the august pedigrees, characteristics, and ideologies generally associated with the well-established martial Rajput lineages of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

,Here:

Appropriation of highly specific Rajput distinctions such as 'Kanwar/Kaur' and 'Singh' can most likely be attributed to active attempts by specific segments of the Sikh population during the mid-to-late Guru period to Rajputize their identity. This process of 'Rajputisation' becomes intelligible particularly in light of the elevation of the lowly Jat to a hegemonic position within the social hierarchy of the Sikh Panth.

, Sikh families and the leading families of Bharatpur state along with leading family of Rewari zamindari could not become Rajputs despite all their attempts but did they followed Rajputisation? like adopting way of life, it does point to that in case of Sikhs. The above references are example of it.Akalanka820 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Akalanka820:, you are free to add this. Just dont remove anything that is sourced and please don't remove quotes from citation please. In the above case it is also Rajputisation. Did they end up being Rajputs? Or they remained Jats? Rajputisation means replicating Rajput customs trying to show Rajput origin etc. in order to become part of Rajput community. Otherwise it is pointless to simply follow Rajput customs. Rajputisation can be successful or unsuccessful(incomplete). The lead covers both. If the former happens(successful), they become part of Rajput clans. If not, they are not considered Rajputs. Think of it like conversion to some religion except it depends on the acceptance of others. Maratha caste is formed in a very similar way from Kunbis the same way Rajputs are formed. This is not WP:OR but has been mentioned by Gordon. LukeEmily (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Akalanka820, If some Ahirs(for example) Rajputize and are successful , they become Rajputs. If they fail, they dont become Rajputs. Some communities succeeded some failed. But without Rajputisation there would be no Rajputs. From Deube, you left out or ignored:

With surprising rapidity the newly Rajputized family or clan can gain, over a generation or two, social acceptance of their claim to Rajput status(page 59)

. And this quote

The repeated emergence of new groups of Rajputs, i.e. 'sons of kings', reflects an ongoing process of rajputisation that involved the gradual transition of mobile, exogamous war-bands into settled, closed, endogamous castes who recognised little else than unilineal kinship. Those war bands that had grown into local dynasties, particularly in Rajasthan, commissioned Brahmans or bardic pastoralists to construct a new Rajput Great Tradition, equipped with numerous heroic narratives and witha fixed , but highly ficticious, genealogies.

And this Ishita Banerjee-Dube (2010). Caste in History. Oxford University Press. p. xxiii. ISBN 978-0-19-806678-1.

Rajputisation discussed processes through which 'equalitarian, primitive, clan based tribal organisation' adjusted itself to the centralized hierarchic, territorial oriented political developments in the course of state formation. This led a 'narrow lineage of single families' to disassociate itself from the main body of their tribe and claim Rajput origin. They not only adopted symbols and practices supposedly representative of the true Kshatriya, but also constructed genealogies that linked them to the primordial and legendary solar and lunar dynasties of kings. Further, it was pointed out that the caste of genealogists and mythographers variously known as Carans, Bhats, Vahivanca Barots, etc., prevalent in Gujarat, Rajasthan and other parts of north India actively provided their patron rulers with genealogies that linked local clans of these chiefs with regional clans and with the Kshatriyas of the Puranas and Mahabharata. Once a ruling group succeeded in establishing its claim to Rajput status, there followed a 'secondary Rajputisation' when the tribes tried to 're-associate' with their formal tribal chiefs who had also transformed themselves into Hindu rajas and Rajput Kshatriyas.

The other examples you are giving are of tribes that tried to associate with Rajputs but were not fully successful. Some Ahirs became Rajputs, some did not. Some Jats became Rajputs some did not. I had to add the original quote from Dube because you are not understanding the summary. The author is saying that many members from many castes became Rajputs(obviously some were not successful). You are confusing Kshatritization with Rajputisation. I am not saying that all Ahirs became Rajputs(that does not make sense because there would be no ahirs left). There is no WP:OR.LukeEmily (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You are again missing some of the points which she talked about in her own words from the book-

(59)In our view Rajputization refers neither 'to a caste nor a race

, the point is her work which is primarily based on female infanticide has been summarised by Shail Mayaram and that covers the lede as this topic covers vast numbers of groups not only Rajputs based on examples and the references of Rajputisation of Sikh etc, that I have shared. Please read a similar topic Pashtunisation and just see how the page lede and short summary is written. You can't just have your own way. Here is another example from the same Ms Reena Dube reference, she hasn't even used the word some:

Vishwanath also notes that the Jats and Ahir castes of North- Western Provinces who practiced female infanticide in the nineteenth century called themselves Rajputs and identified with the Kshatriya ideology

again here it is very clear from a notable reference for Rajputisation of Sikhs using word adopted the...characteristics, these are writer's word not my own:

the 'Rajputization' of the Sikh tradition, the process whereby military labour groups, including the Sikhs, adopted the august pedigrees, characteristics, and ideologies generally associated with the well-established martial Rajput lineages of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Akalanka820 (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Luke, I think please see WP:TLDR, dumping long paragraphs of quotes on talk page or even in article probably not followed. I remember we were told to avoid it by FF ( Fowler&fowler) in last November. You were part of that discussion. Akalanka820 (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Focus on the topic and article not on my behavior. The quotes I have given clearly show that Rajputisation was also (but not always) responsible for creation of Rajputs. Do you disagree? How did the Rajput clans develop according to you if not by Rajputisation? Your quotes only show that Rajputisation was not always successful i.e. caste did not become Rajuts. For example, the Sikhs mentioned in the quote did not become Rajput. That is already undisputed and I agree with it.LukeEmily (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You can't decide the terminology yourself ( what is so problematic in it?), This is what was happening. I have shown you the reference it specifically talks about Rajputisation of Sikhs where writer pointed adopting the characteristics... Nowhere it is written that this terminology only deals with a formation of a particular caste and not with cultural immitation by others. The above references shows the cultural immitation part by others which also form important part of this topic. We cannot ignore that. This makes it important that we use summarised reference, Dr Shail Mayaram covers it. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Luke, maybe according to Akalanka, they emerged from fire (Agnikul theory) or were descendant of Rama and Krishna (which is claimed by many people). But, these theories are rejected by most historians. One editor was topic banned recently for holding the same views. PS: Akalanka, most of the scholars agree that they emerged from the castes like Gurjar, Mer, Rabari, Mali, and also some of the foreign tribes. This article is about how Rajput clans came into existence, not about various social groups claiming higher status and trying to emulate the practices of twice born. That thing is covered in Sanskritisation. -Admantine123 (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Please avoid your own research in the comments WP:OR, and discussion on some editor is not allowed. I have explained the reasonings with references. You are no one to decide what I think or not.Akalanka820 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Slow motion edit warring

Hello @Akalanka820, Admantine123, LukeEmily, and No2WesternImperialism: and anyone I forgot. It looks like there's a slow motion edit war going on. I'd just like to encourage everyone to use the talk page, and to leave the article on the oldest stable revision before disputed text was added until things are decided on the talk page. This is an important part of WP:BRD. Failure to do this is likely to result in full protection for awhile, and nobody likes full protection. Thanks for listening. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, @Novem Linguae:. Will revert to the revision you suggested before disputed text was added. Thanks.LukeEmily (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear, admin I do understand it and have restored the page to the point before dispute started. Thank you Akalanka820 (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If you all get stuck in your talk page discussion and can't reach a consensus, don't forget you can start a WP:RFC, which will place a template on the section that attracts neutral editors from other pages to visit here and weigh in. And you can request formal closure of RFCs by neutral third party editors at WP:ANRFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

In the Yadavs section -It is mentioned that Rajputization of Yadavs It is factually wrong. No historical book record says Yadavs used Rajputization idioms. so please remove this section.

please Add Rajputization of Ahirs.

Ahirs are among the "older, pastoralist tradition" of peasants who used a Rajputizing idiom to express their values , but who were regarded as " spurious ' Rajputs " by those who stressed genealogical ascription over achievement. 2409:4085:918B:3092:0:0:254B:E0A5 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2024

{{subst:trim|1=

The ‘Rajputization of Jats’ is false information, Sikhs converted to royal surnames ‘Singh’ & ‘Kaur’ as they are royal, not because it is Rajput. Sikhi does not believe in caste so they have no reason to believe in Rajputs either, it is not the Rajputization, it is simply leaving their own surnames behind for a royal surname to show that last name doesn’t matter and that anyone can be royal, for Jat Sikhs specifically, as they were low-caste they were likely less attached to their last names so were more keen to switch to Singh/Kaur compared to high caste Sikhs, though to a true Sikh it wouldn’t matter anyways, I request for the Rajputization of Jat section to be removed from this page, as it is simply anti-Sikh propaganda.

 Not done Personal opinion doesn't matter here in Wikipedia; the suggested change is a classic example of WP:OR! Reliably sourced content can't be removed through such edit requests! Ekdalian (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)