Talk:Rajput

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

The word Rajput

the word Rajput is noway related to arya as suggested by some it is simply Raj+putra.It is recorded in vishnu purana too by that name ruling out any distortion of previous words.People have given several explanation of Raj connection to rajput.Some say it is for king or aristrocracy while some connects it with Rajogun or even male semen is called raj in sanskrit.rajput means derived from raj.Holywarrior 11:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

brahmano sya mukham asid(brahmins came from the mouth).bahu rajaniah kirtah(rulers were made from the arms),rigved,purusha sukta.the words raja,rajanya,rajan are as old as the rigveda and so is the word rajput.as soon as the word raja came into being so did the word rajput because rajas sons were called rajaputras.the word raj in rajput is short for raja the same way the word put is short for putra.by the way raj also means mistry(bricklayer).a twelve inch file is called bast,rd file.so,by this definition do we call a twelve inch file illegitimate file.what about british raj?.do we call it british semen,british mistry(bricklayer) or british rule?.and what about raj purohit(royal priest) and raj guru(royal guru).do we call them semen priest and semen guru?.no,i don,t think so.in the rural areas rajputs are called thakurs but in the cities they are called rajputs.thakur is a title for landowners and rajput is lineage based.

It would be a good idea to offer an explanation as to where the word Rajput came from. We know it only came into being after the 6th century or so and considering major clans claim descendancy from ancient Kshatriya clans, why did this name replace the standard Kshatriya title? Also, we knew 'newer' Rajputs were initiated in and weren't from the original Chandra or Surya vansh's, so when this process of initiation began, when did it end? i.e. I see a lot of questions that I feel that arguments aside would be relevant answered at some point for other non Rajput readers. (I believe Zora a few months back questioned 'who decides the rules? who decides the entrants and the leavers? I found these relevant points)

Otherwise, sock puppets are popping up in great numbers after the ban. ImpuMozhi you stated it was poor to see such Rajputs claim glory and then stoop to sock puppets and troll behaviour. I totally agree my friend. When people are misguided by ego and mistake ego for honour instead of honour of character then we get some such examples. Especially in our group unfortunately....--Raja 11:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the origin of word "hindu".hindu religion is called "sanatana dharma".hindu is corruption of sanatana.in punjabi and persion dialects sanatana became hanatana,hanatana became hanadna,followers of hanadana were called hanadanu,hanadanu was shortened to hindu.female was called hanadani.nowadays females are called hindwani or hindni.people of sindh are still called sindhi.why are,nt they called hindi.both males and females are called sindhi.if the word hindu is from sindh then why are not the people of sindh called hindu and hindwani.one of the sons of babur was called hindal because he was born in india.hindal is from sanatan or hindan.sometimes l and n interchange with each other in different dialects.the word india is as old as alexander.after alexander greeks had diplomatic relations with mauryas.someone wrote a book entitled"indica".

the origin of the word "rajput".one explanation is that the word rajput is short for rajrishi ka putra.as rajputs are descended from rajrishis(king prophets).the other explanation is that it is corruption of the word aryaputra.in the drama serial mahabharat queen ghanadari addresses her husband as aryaputar.i think swami dharmaanand ji also called one of the rajput rajas(i think maharaja of jodhpur) as aryaputra when he wanted him to fight against british.aryaputra became arjaputra, arjaputra became rajaputra,rajaputra became rajput.hawkraj.

WP:CITE is your friend. dab (ᛏ) 14:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkraj, is there any way you can cite references for this 'development' of the original word? It was my understanding that Indus people were referred to as Hindu amongst other theorries. But this isa new one on me, albeit I'm not questioning it's authenticity as such. The reason I ask is that it would be good to provide some useful info to non Rajputs too. I was always of the understanding of 'Raj Putra' to Rajput. I'm interested in why this reference came about. Also do you have some knowledge relating to Punjab based Rajputs? Perhaps you can add some history to it here also? I believe Khurram may return at some point soon to address your question/request to him. I've noticed you becoming civil now. Let's keep this up and get somewhere with the article now. --Raja 21:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siddiqui reference

There's a reference on the page by source siddiqui 2004 regarding Muslim Rajputs aren't all patrilineal. This is the only source I have heard this from and in fact in my entire life and humble research I have never come across this point. Any jatt of a rajput mother would vehemently claim his jatt patrilineal descendancy. In fact, in our culture it's most humiliating to claim your matrlineal descendancy over patriline. Can this poor and ill informed source be removed as none of the major Muslim Rajput clans attest to this 'theory' . The Jehangir point is ridiculous beyond reason. But I dont know if this point has been added by anti-MR sentiment or not. Nowhere in the entire archive was a mention made of such an example of non patrilineal rajputs.--Raja 00:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets blocked

All right, we have:

10 000 thundering typhoons (talk · contribs · block log)
RendezvousSingh (talk · contribs · block log)
Stephanian (talk · contribs · block log)
William Cutbush (talk · contribs · block log)
Medicine Man (talk · contribs · block log)

All these accounts have been blocked indefinitely - I just thought all editors should know. Full details at ANI. --Latinus 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gr8. This is fabulous!. Is this everlasting soution?

Excellent news. And a positive message to any future sock puppeteers that this is the eventual result.--Raja 21:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

raja sahib,go on google search and type "life of swami dayananda".read the article and you will find the word arya putra.raj is short for raja or rajanya and put is short for putar.in farsi it has been corrupted to pissar.pitar to pidar and mater to maader.hawkraj.

Thanks for your link Hawkraj. I have read that (and a few others provided) but none go into direct details of where this word suddenly came into use/vogue from 7th century onwards, other than theory. I think that some research into this point would beneficial and in future at some point be brought here. We get a lot of contention from others such as juts who question whether Rajputs really have true geneology dating back thousands of years (we all know this is hard to prove anyway beyond a script of an ancestral tree) and that we are descendants of invading elements which were absorbed into the system and 'given' these given genelogies by the Pundits etc, hence our coming of prominence after this period i.e. 7th century. I dont personally believe this, but it is a view none the less.

Either way, not much is known on India of the 6th and 7th century upheavals, and ceratinly the loss of the word kshatriya clan to rajput clan is an interesting point, no? Whether we like it or not, I do believe in the interests of all views being represented, it is worthy of mention. But only on principle. Cab we poll/debate this also amongst us?

May I also recommend that you sign up, to keep things in line with wikipedia policy etc.--Raja 23:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong interpretation

It appears that some of the more unsavoury among the muslim-rajput crowd have interpreted the banning of the sockpuppets as the signal for them to run amok on this page. The result of this attitude can only be disaster. What is good is good for the gander, and we have the Arbcoms VERY CLEAR STIPULATION that:

"Advocates of an Islamic point of view are specially reminded that Rajput is a noble Hindu caste and that the bulk of the information in the article should reflect that reality"

The page as it stands on my last edit mentions muslim-rajputs TWICE: early in the page, in "Demographics" and again in the "Cognate communities" section. In both places, the wording is entirely NPOV and treats the MR viewpoint with respect. I therefore urge the MR's to please take any further detailing of their viewpoint, rants, theories and whatever else, to the Muslim Rajputs page. Regards, ImpuMozhi 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are labelling people (me, I presume) as "unsavoury" and describing them (or me) as "running amok". That's really uncalled for. If you have a disagreement with me or anyone else, address the disagreement instead of name-calling or saying any other unkind things.

While it's true that you "mentioned" "muslim-rajputs" (sic, your invented terminology, with lowercase, hyphenation, and scare-quotes) twice, the way you did it was, in my considered opinion, neither consistent with NPOV nor did it treat the subject with respect, contrary to your claim.

For one thing, this article used to say that Rajputs come from India and Pakistan, but you deleted all mention of Pakistan. What good reason could there be for any editor to do that? I can't think of a good reason for someone who's editing in good faith.

For another thing, in your version of the article, every time you mention Muslim Rajputs (or "muslim-rajputs" as you call them) you write of them in a way that appears deliberately designed to create doubt in the reader about their genuine existence or the legitimacy of their self-identity. What good reason could there be for that? Again, I can't think of any good reason to do that for someone who's editing in good faith.

Also, some of the things that you wrote (some in the article, some in Talk) make it clear that there is a great deal that you don't know about Muslim Rajputs, but that you nevertheless insist on making assumptions and generalizations. I can also see that you resist accepting the validity of propositions that challenge your pre-conceived notions.

Furthermore, just how much "bulk" is enough to satisfy the "noble" Hindus? The last time anyone counted, about one in every five Rajputs was Muslim. If the "bulk" of this page were allotted in proportion to population size, then 80% of the page's "bulk" would be enough for the Hindus, but you seem to be insisting that every scrap (or nearly every scrap) of this huge bloated nightmare of a POV-saturated article must be exclusively monopolized for the glorification of the "twice-born" princelings. And it appears that the only way you'll (begrudgingly) tolerate the merest mention of Muslim Rajputs is if it's worded in such a way that puts doubt on their authenticity as Rajputs, and then you'll credit yourself with being fair and respectful.

Finally, your urge for Muslim Rajputs that they confine themselves to the Muslim Rajputs page and leave this page in your hands essentially amounts to advocating the ghettoization of contributors with whom you disagree. --Bhola 02:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Bhola

Bhola has made some statements and here is my response.

While it's true that you "mentioned" "muslim-rajputs" (sic, your invented terminology, with lowercase, hyphenation, and scare-quotes)...

"Sic, your invented terminology??" WHATT?? Is there no such term? Have you & co not been agitating loudly for inclusion of this term for half-an-year? What term do you want? Rajput-Muslim? with/without hyphen? Whatz the big deal??

Can you cite any reputable source within the field of ethnography that normally uses the term "muslim-rajput"? I can't. Unless I'm mistaken, contributors to WikiPedia are supposed to use conventional terminology and aren't supposed to make up new words. All of the sources with which I'm familiar use expressions such as Muslim Rajput. Older sources use the expressions Muhammadan Rajput or Musalman Rajput, but Muslim Rajput is best. Both words should be capitalized and there should not be any hyphen between them.

Also, who's "you & co"? You obviously don't know who I am, so why are you jumping to the conclusion that I'm part of some group that's been agitating for anything loudly or otherwise? This is a new example of the assumptions and generalizations that I noted earlier. I haven't been here for half a year; In relative terms, I just got here.--Bhola 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase has been used all over the place by me -- for "hindu", "muslim", "rajput" all alike. In fact, in my last-saved version, "Muslim-Rajput" has been capitalized in all except one place, by chance. There is no discrimination whatsoever. Also, this usage is what is normally found in books and magazines.

Which books and magazines? In the English-language books and magazines that I've read, all of those words are normally capitalized, in accordance with normal English usage.--Bhola 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "scare-quotes". The term is put between quotes only once, and that is when I try to speak-in-the-voice of census respondents. In this usage, the "xx" quotes are warranted.

I don't believe that such use of quotes in that context is warranted. It may be that you didn't deliberately intend to create doubt, but sometimes when people write or edit something they can inadvertently give a misleading signal to their readers. Putting the term in quotes in that context signals that the self-identification of Muslim Rajputs as reported by the census is something dubious or contestable.--Bhola 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the way you did it was, in my considered opinion, neither consistent with NPOV nor did it treat the subject with respect, contrary to your claim.

You can't just say that. Quote the words that are derogatory or POV. Your succeeding statements are not illustrative of derogation and I am dealing with them here anyway.

For one thing, this article used to say that Rajputs come from India and Pakistan, but you deleted all mention of Pakistan.

Wrong call. "Indian subcontinent" certainly includes Pakistan. As also other countries where rajputs reside.

I don't doubt that Pakistan is a part of the Indian subcontinent, but when someone says that something is "in the Indian subcontinent", a reader has no way to know whether that should apply to Pakistan or not. Unless he has more information, he's left to guess. For example, I could say "The Taj Mahal is in the Indian subcontinent" and that would be a true statement, because the Taj Mahal is in India. But in that case, the expression wouldn't include Pakistan. Similarly, when you say that Rajputs come from "the Indian subcontinent", one can't assume that your statement is meant to include Pakistan. Therefore, it's better to just name the countries that Rajputs come from instead of expecting the user to guess. --Bhola 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you write of them in a way that appears deliberately designed to create doubt in the reader about their genuine existence or the legitimacy of their self-identity.

Rubbish. Their "genuine existance" is nowhere left open to doubt. The question of their "legitimacy" is nowhere raised at all. NOWHERE do I say that they are shunned or not accepted by other rajputs. Even in inter-marriage, it is worded such that "they do not intermarry with others" not that "others do not intermarry with them". I have taken great care to anticipate such sentiments. This statement is unsubstantiated and baseless.

You may have taken what seemed to you like great care, but when people write something, it sometimes happens that the impression upon readers differs from the impression that the writer was seeking to make. In my opinion, the way you worded your statements made it seem that you considered the identity of Rajput Muslims open to doubt.--Bhola 06:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)*[reply]

some of the things that you wrote (some in the article, some in Talk) make it clear that there is a great deal that you don't know about Muslim Rajputs, but that you nevertheless insist on making assumptions and generalizations

Such as what?? Please substantiate with instances. You make a vast number of baseless, unsubstantiated statements. Anyway, let us see what all I say about the MR's. The demographic statistics is entirely innocuous, and supplied by Bachmann. The fact that they marry with other muslims, and are partially non-rajput, is not my "assumption", it is a fact often asserted on this talk-page. It is specifically mentioned that there are MR communities that do NOT marry with other muslims. Apart from this, NOTHING IS SAID.

Since when did propositions "often asserted on this talk-page" become a Reliable Source?--Bhola 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, just how much "bulk" is enough to satisfy the "noble" Hindus? .... 80% of the page's "bulk" would be enough for the Hindus..."

But this is exactly why a separate page is given over to Muslim Rajputs (a duly capitalized, no-hyphen page!!). I find it profoundly revealing that you have not made even one edit to that page!! So much for your interest in Muslim Rajputs!! Your obsession with the Rajput page, combined with your total disinterest in the MR page marks you out as not being a good-faith editor.

I fail to see how you can validly conclude that I'm not a good-faith editor of this page just because I haven't edited some other page. There are more than a hundred thousand articles in the English WikiPedia. How many am I obliged to edit in order to satisfy you that when I do edit, it's in good faith? I thought that good faith was supposed to be assumed in WikiPedia, and I thought that WikiPedia was a free Encyclopedia and that anyone is allowed to edit.--Bhola 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this huge bloated nightmare of a POV-saturated article must be exclusively monopolized for the glorification of the "twice-born" princelings

It clearly is not, but anyway, how can a once-born princeling of your refined sensibilities commit the egregious crime of using "scare quotes"??

It's not an egregious crime to use scare quotes, but it's not appropriate to an article text. When I put "noble" and "twice-born" in quotes, I did it on this talk-page, not in the article.--Bhola 06:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, your urge for Muslim Rajputs that they confine themselves to the Muslim Rajputs page and leave this page in your hands essentially amounts to advocating the ghettoization of contributors with whom you disagree

Misrepresentation again. What I aked was that you "please take any further detailing of their viewpoint, rants, theories and whatever else, to the Muslim Rajputs page". The rant with which you have filled the "Demographics" section, your other lengthy identity-issues arguments, etc etc should certainly be taken elsewhere, and IMHO, the Muslim Rajputs page is the ideal candidate for it.

I don't believe I've filled the "Demographics" section with any rant. But evidently, you don't approve of what I wrote there. Why don't you spell out the problem that you have with it so that we can make the section, and the article, better?--Bhola 06:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, your utter disinterest in the Muslim Rajputs page, combined with your pugnacity in pushing that POV on this page, including the edits that are going on even as I type this, are quite, quite trollish. This is of a piece with no your sudden and ruckus-creating appearance, on the day the arbcom decision was published. If you wish to have a decent record on WP, and not go the way of trolls on the other side, I urge you to desist from such behavior and edit constructively. ImpuMozhi 04:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like you're having trouble tolerating ideas that disagree with yours.--Bhola 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

guys, try some Wikipedia:Civility, if not Wikipedia:Wikilove. The socks are banned for now. This means we could all behave like civilized people now. Bhola is within his rights to ask for citation, but he has to take criticism with his edits as they come. It is possibly to revert edits politely, and explain, civilly, what was wrong with them. Bhola's intention to document the dispute may be in good faith, but they should be reverted for now, since asserting things like "However, Muslim Rajputs do not concede that anyone has any authority to dictate to them what their identity is, but believe rather that they have the right to define their own identity." without attribution is out of the question. Who is speaking for the entire Muslim Rajput community here? What you need is a neutral ethnologist's account of the matter, not a series of pov-and-counter-pov weasel statements. dab (ᛏ) 08:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to take criticism for my edits, and I'm willing to back down if I'm wrong. My statement was in good faith, but it's also true that I made the statement on my own authority without citing a source. However, my statement was really no more weaselly than the statement it was intended to answer. So, I've reverted to my last version (because I have criticisms of ImpuMozhi's edits that I think are valid) but removed both of the weasel statements (because I concede that your criticism of some of my wording is valid). If you believe that I was impolite or uncivil to ImpuMozhi or anyone else, then please let me know what I did wrong so that I may tender my apology.--Bhola 09:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

very well -- since we clearly have people who have a great interest in the question, now would be a good time to really dig into sources on the topic. The "embattled identities" book sounds like a promising lead. I am sure there are studies by professional sociologists on the topic, but it's your task to find them. dab (ᛏ) 11:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

origin of gurjra-pratiharas and powersharing in governments.gujjars were living on the borders of rajasthan and gujrat in gurjra desa.gujjars founded a small state called bhinmal.gujjar power grew and they brought surrounding areas under their control.in governments you have share power with others otherwise you cannot stay in power for long.mughals and the british shared power with rajputs and so did previous muslims sultanats.gujjars shared power with rajput pratiharas.gujjars had the overall control.this is also what happened when sikhs,marhattas and jats came to power and founded states.rajputs became vassals to muslims,jats,marhattas sikhs and british.after a short while gujjars lost control and rajputs reasserted themselves and became independant rulers again.rajputs never dissappeared during muslim and british rule and they never dissappeared during greek,bacterian,parthian,scythian,kushan,yeu-chi and hun rule etc.rajput is not new word.it is as old as first person who called himself raja.mughals used mirza and british used lord as a title.the central asians had their own titles.anyway,the central asians used to become budhists,not hindus.rajputs did suppress budhists but they were central asian invading budhists.well done rajputs.the budhists of hindu origin were converted back to hindu religion by shankaracharya ji.it is time for rajputs to suppress muslims of central asian origin and some shankaracharyaji should convert the muslims of hindu origin back into the hindu religion.rajputs never dissappeared during muslim and british period and they never dissappeared during scythian and kushan periods.they were always their.rajputs always come back into power because rajputs are the comeback kids.long live rajputs.hawkraj.

Ok, we have another idiot on here now 'rs ftz' who on the history page clearly shows has deleted my post that I am reprinting below. I am trying to get us all to work TOGETHER and someone obviously has a vested interest not to let this happen. Either way I am reprinting this--Raja 17:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Bhola and ImpuMozhi are both good faith editors in my opinion albeit this last criticism above. Bhola, ImpuMozhi has done some excellent work on the article in fixing it from the original POV NIGHTMARE it used to be. My only query to it would have been the siddiqui source which was clearly a non held/non sensical view. To add that wasn't good without debating it here, after all, why not ask us? But he has taken a lot of criticism from his own Hindu peers for upholding wiki values and maintaining our right to be mentioned here and for that I respect him whole heartedly. Bhola, there has been a long and very heated (plus disruptive) discussion here, therefore, as dab recommended, a discussed and debated change is the only option here, with the consensus of the majority. Your views are ofcourse important but a little team work is required. Bhola can I ask that you work with ImpuMozhi and try and use his writing skills and netrality to work on the areas you mentioned? Im quite sure he'll oblige. This would be far more positive and constructive, ofcourse if my friend ImpuMozhi agrees? We need to work together here.--Raja 12:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput"

caste is like a grapevine.there are,nt any broken links.it is a very well regulated institution.if you go to india or pakistan and take one single individual rajput and ask him to tell you about any other rajput he will take you to the second rajput and the second rajput will take you to the third rajput and so on and so on and you will be able to meet all those true and pure blooded millions of rajputs without missing anyone out.this is not only true for rajputs it is also true for jats, gujars,ahirs,brahmins etc.imagine one of the vines broken in a grapevine,it wouldn,t survive.the same is true in a caste.caste is first and foremost lineage based and then it is profession based.

origin of agnikul rajputs.raja vikramaditya was parmar agnikul rajput.he was contemporary of famous roman emperor julius ceasar.he lived in 57 b.c. which is before the scythians etc came to india.so,the question of agnikul rajputs being descended from scythians etc.is ridiculous.agnikul rajputs were created after parshuram had waged 21 campaigns against kshatriyas.(mahmood gaznavi waged 17 campaigns against rajputs).some kshatriyas had escaped and run away into western rajputana hills.brahmins declared that since the kshatriyas have lost their umbrella of royalty and they are not ruling anymore therefore they have lost their caste status as ruler and warriors and have become outcaste and lost their purity of blood.(tod thinks this is ridiculous).in my opinion some of these runaway kshatriyas had founded kingdoms in the region of western rajputana and through a fire purification ceremony they had been restored to their former ruling and warrior caste status and were given a new name and were called agnikul.one of these warriors was dark in colour and cannot be scythian because central asians are light coloured.hawkraj.

this seems to belong on caste, and is unsourced. Caste was officially abolished in the 1940s. Of course it lingers on in conservative minds, but claims to the effect that the caste system survives fully intact underneath a thin veil of legislation need sources, is hardly uncontroversial , and likely also offensive to more modern-minded Indians who believe they live in a secular state. Please do not continue posting tangential and unsourced claims here. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and this page is for focussed discussion of the article only. dab (ᛏ) 20:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1940 is not the first time that caste was abolished.it was also abolished in the mauryan times when budhism was officially established in india.but rajputs brought it back in the christian era.rajputs and caste are inseparable.like i said rajputs are come back kids.caste is also a come back institution.i am not trying to start a discussion.after going through the archives and other articles,i am only trying to clarify some of the claims that i think are wrong.hawkraj.

Unsourced statements in introduction

I just deleted the following unsourced statements from the introduction:

The term rājaputra is first found in the 7th century AD^{[citation needed]}. It evidently originated in the areas that form the present-day states of Rajasthan and Gujarat and spread only gradually to other Hindi-speaking areas^{[citation needed]}; the Kshatriyas of Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh still do not generally self-describe as rajputs^{[citation needed]}; The association of this term with Rajasthan and Gujarat is definite^{[citation needed]}; even in areas where the term is used widely, the people referred to as "Rajputs" tend to ascribe an origin in those areas to themselves^{[citation needed]}.

Some of these statements might be true, but I have evidence that at least one of them is defininitely false (the statement about eastern UP and Bihar). As for the paragraph, I don't think the article will be any worse without it.--Bhola 03:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't believe the article is any the better for that change, so I am reverting it. ImpuMozhi 04:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that providing sources for content is mandated by Wikipedia policy, and that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.--Bhola 04:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

Well, the article has been unprotected. Now the insufferable Bhola can deal with User:Dhruv singh and other such. I do not feel inclined to do anything to help such people any more. A pox on both your houses. Goodbye. ImpuMozhi 04:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening line

ImpuMozhi changed the opening line from:

Rajputs ... are people who belong to a loose grouping of clans or tribes originating in India and Pakistan that claim descent from the ancient royal dynasties of the region.

to

Rajputs ... are a prominent social group of India, Nepal and Pakistan. They claim descent from the ancient royal dynasties of the region.

and wrote as his edit summary, "even less ambiguity".

In my opinion, calling them 'a prominent social group' is'nt less ambiguous than the text that he deleted, but rather moreso. It's true that they're a prominent social group, but the other version was even more specific. After all, a college fraternity is a social group too, but Rajputs are an example of a particular kind of social group very different from the former, and I think it's better to be more precise. Furthermore, saying that they're 'a prominent social group' is an example of using a peacock term, something that the Wikipedia style guides advise us to avoid.--Bhola 04:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

guys,rajputs are not the only ones having hindu muslim rajput discussions.i have been visiting gujjar website called chawra.com.hindu muslim gujjars are also having discussions with each other and they are much more tolerant than rajputs.some gujjars are claiming that in 350 villages of gujjars in india,hindu muslim gujjars are practicing inter-faith marriages.hindu jats on jatland.com are also being tolerant of muslim jats and want to make muslim jats members of their website.

Yes, but a site called Rajputsamaj did incorporate Muslim Rajputs and regarded them openly and is actually run by a Hindu Rajput. But I think it was Dr Gorkhali that wanted the link here on the atricle removed because he thought it was poor. Maybe it was because of their tolerance, but either way, Im glad to here of the tolerance of other communties.--Raja 06:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former version is better. Rajputs are "people who belong to a loose grouping of clans or tribes", they are not a single "social group" in any concrete sense. They don't speak a single languge. They have no officially recognized status. They are millions of people scattered over half of India with the single unifying property that they claim "Rajputness". They do include actual social groups or even ethnicities, such as the itinerant blacksmiths of Rajasthan or that mountain people of Himachal pradesh, but the mention of these few well-defined sub-groups was removed from Demographics. I think it has long transpired that the bulk of Rajputs are just regular Indians/Pakistanis who obsess about their mythic ancestry. dab (ᛏ) 06:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said. --Bhola 00:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but there is just one small quibble. I don't know for sure if we can necessarily say that the bulk of ordinary, regular Rajputs in India and Pakistan is anywhere near as obsessed about, or even cares much about, the mythic ancestry business as certain personalities on the internet or on Wikipedia might make it appear.--Bhola 00:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the antagonism shown by hindu rajputs towards muslim rajputs is less to do with muslim rajputs being muslims and more to do with muslim rajputs being chandervanshi rajputs and hindu rajputs being surajvanshi and agnikul rajputs.surajvanshis and chandervanshis have always challenged and fought with each other for the supremacy,domination and control of bharat.both are age old rivals.rajputs are not a loose collection of tribes.rajputs are a closely bonded and close-knit community without cracks,which no outsider can enter.there is exit but their is no entry.hawkraj.

raja sahib,i think you are wrong about kiyani gakhars being of iranian origin.yesterday,i heard on the news about an indian industrial called i.k.gakhar and his wife is called suraksha gakhar.i,ve heard about hindu gakhars before.it would be interesting to know whether they intermarry with other hindu rajputs or not.i think kiyani gakhars are ancient kekayas.they are mentioned in the vedas.kiyani might be corruption of kekaya.shri ram chanderji,s step mother kaikai belonged to the kekaya tribe that is why she is called kaikai after her tribe.it was the brave gakhars who had succesfully fought against the arab invaders and the arabs were unable to find a foothold in the northwest.hundreds of battles were fought with the arab invaders and they were unsuccesful until the gaznavis were able to conquer the north after three hundred years after the arab invasions.this only happened after the arabs were able to convert some of the tribes to islam through propagation rather than with the sword.i think kiyani gakhars are real rajputs and not iranians.

caste is still recorded in marriage certificates and birth certificates.

"my dear brothers,sisters and friends from rajput community all over the world,jai mata jee kee. for the last few days i am reading emails from our various friends who have described very well about existence of muslim rajputs.i am sorry to dissappoint many of you that they actually exist as destribed in rajput samaj.net. muslim rajputs are from almost all of our vanshas,who were converted to muslims under cicumstances or were forcefully made to adopt islam.they are from bhati,rathore,parmar, panwar,lodha,chauhan and many others of them. there are many occasions narrated in rajput history that the whole village was boycotted and forced to adopt islam by fellow hindus/rajputs because they have used water from a well or pond touched by a muslim or touched any belonging of them,whether knowingly or unknowinly.the vanshajas of jahar veer goga jee chauhan who is worshipped as a lok devta in rajasthan and haryana are all muslim rajputs now (kayamkhani) because the 11th vanshaja of goga ji was kidnapped by muslims at very young age and converted to islam.this was not their fault and still many of them are following same old rajput customs. to say only 5-10 % muslims in india are outsiders,rest all are converted.in 1997,at centenary celebrations of akhil bharatiya kshatriya mahasabha muslims from all over india also participated and wished to return back to hinduism as they clearly said,this was mistake of our forefathers,why we should suffer for their deeds. so my dear friends,we should not get stuck in these small things.jai mata jee kee".some time ago hindu rajputs had a dicussion about the existence of muslim rajputs,on one of their websites.majority of the young hindu rajputs were bashing the muslim rajputs and denying their existence.this email was from an older hindu rajput of a very high social standing.there are older,wise and learned hindu rajputs who do acknowledge and sympathise with muslim rajputs.hawkraj.

Three month hiatus

and this jihaadi rag tag brigade with there leader bachman are still spreading Islamic nonsense. Raja and Bachman and this new fellow Bhola go play on muslim rajput page. You have tried your best and YOU WILL NOT tarnish rajput history here.

Rajput is a hindu jaati. Read your favorite Ibbetson, whose census survey you are totuing, he gives you the exact grounds on which rajputs lost there hindu jaati and were ostracised from rajput community on practicing widow remarriage. Muslims are not rajputs no matter how hard you try.

-Digvijay

Digvijay, I advise you to revert yourself or you will get a long block (longer than you would have got) when the administrators decide to enforce your ban. If you want to modify this page, propose it here - explain your rationale and if a consensus is formed, then someone will make your edit. Trolling and violating your ban will get you nowhere. I've also noticed that you tend to repeat the same edit summaries - 10 000 thundering typhoons did that as well ;-) I guess you both use Netscape... --Latinus 12:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

chuckle, the effect of sprotection: the socks don't work any longer, so the banned account is thrown in for a final heroic revert? I don't give a flying fork if there are Rajput Muslims or Muslim Rajputs, it is really nothing to me, ok? Just cite whoever said that there are or there aren't. See also User_talk:Raj2004#Rajputs. The DPSingh account is going on 5 days' hiatus for violating its arbcom ruling. dab (ᛏ) 16:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure - I'm sure there are plenty of sleeper socks in the wings, some of which are destined to be blatant revert socks, the others to be impersonators of newbies with an interest in the topic ;-) --Latinus 16:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is, as a rule, extremely easy to recognize good faith newbies. In fact, disconcertingly easy, it is much more difficult to disguise yourself even using the low-bandwith channel of typing on your keyboard, than you'd imagine. What I'd love to see would be some polite, intelligent, erudite and reasonable new editors who argue the case of the trolls, it is ever too easy to dismiss an argument together with its inept proponents. dab (ᛏ) 17:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"impersonators of newbies with an interest in the topic". Aha. Would you be refering to a certain user, with 11 edits in July 2005, and then nothing, who made a resounding advent in February, on the day the arbcom decision was promulgated? ImpuMozhi 17:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devils advocate

Banning the already banned users is all very well, but the page as it now stands is hardly representative of facts and reality, vis-a-vis those whose claim to rajput-hood is disputable. Here is a message I wrote earlier but forbore from posting:

What grace, what highmindedness, what cordial concord! Only the churlish would point out that the (themselves utterly satiated) assembly-in-favour have not exactly fallen over themselves in a rush to do justice to the (rather similarly situated) itinerant blacksmiths, whose claims of half-blood are what apparently keep the rajputs from being a closely-knit community [1]. Given this happy situation, what prevents unprotection? Why not let the recent immortal rewordings be vetted by the larger community?

When every other claim and POV is receiving play to its entire and stintless satisfaction here, why keep out the views of Those Others? ImpuMozhi 16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heh. I didn't research these itinerant blacksmiths, keep them or drop them depending on their notability and verifiability. They came up when I looked in SIL whether they list languages that are associated with particular Rajput tribes. It doesn't seem a terribly important point of course. Sure, try and un-s-protect, I predict that we'll have hordes of socks and an unexplained sudden multitude of innocent newbies who just happen to favour the sock version, within the hour. But unprotecting is cheap, we can always just re-protect when we get tired of the sock army. dab (ᛏ) 16:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need I clarify that I have no more objection to the blacksmiths than to the MR's? Recollect, I had created a section to hold all such claims. But to affirm, in Wikipedia's voice, that all of these ARE rajput, without one word about this being self-reported and disputed, is wrong. ImpuMozhi 17:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

widow re-marriage,why not?.in the artha shastra part 3,chapters 2 and 4,not only widow re-marriage but also re-marriage after divorce is mentioned.both husband and wife could divorce each other according to the law.it seems to be widely practiced in 300 b.c.in a book called " the myth of sati" it says that divorce was quite prevalent in 5th and 6th centuries.then it was outlawed due to campaign by the women because single mothers were finding it difficult to bring up families on their own.i think the real reason for not practicing widow re-marriage is because nobody wants to pay the dowry twice.the in-laws don,t want to pay it and the parents cann,t afford to pay it,either.

"throne has always been the watchword and rallying point of rajputs and my prayer is that it may continue so",col. james tod in his introduction to the annals and antiquities of rajasthan.rajput is a royal warrior tribe of india.why are people writing that it is an agricultural tribe?.it is rather insulting.there are still rajputs around who have never touched the plough.rajputs are traditional rulers and warriors of the indian subcontinent.rajput means prince and calling a prince an agriculturist or just a warrior(soldier) is rather odd.rajputs are rulers first and warriors later.hawkraj.

picture

Who can vouch the picture in lead section are rajputs? Who are the people depicted, what are there names? They do not look distinguished enough to be rajputs. —This unsigned comment was added by 203.101.61.10 (talk • contribs) , also known as DPSingh (talk · contribs).

check the image page for reference. They look very distinguished indeed in comparison to the circus made here on Wikipedia by self-described Rajputs. dab (ᛏ) 11:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguished? How? That picture might as well be of a jat, ahir or gurjara. Unless you can provide names of these people I am afraid we cannot know for sure. Then we need to know which village, clan they come from. It is a tad complicated. —This unsigned comment was added by 203.101.61.10 (talk • contribs) , also known as DPSingh (talk · contribs).

I don't think it makes any difference who they are - as long as we are sure that they are Rajputs. --Latinus 12:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the question: How are we sure they are rajputs? —This unsigned comment was added by 203.101.61.10 (talk • contribs) , also known as DPSingh (talk · contribs).

Well, as it's from the cover of Kasturi, Malavika, Embattled Identities Rajput Lineages, Oxford University Press (2002) ISBN 01956-5787-x, then I'm going to believe that they are. Books published by Oxford University Press are reliable sources in my opinion. --Latinus 12:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since there seems to be no consensus whatsoever about who is a Rajput nowadays, we are stuck with 19th century images. This is the best image we have so far, do provide a better one if you find one. dab (ᛏ) 13:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image

I do not insist on the 1860 photograph being on top at all, it could also go to the British Raj section. So far we have no better picture of a contemporary Rajput though. However, what about the Rajput in Image:Indo-aryans.JPG? It is from [2], there is no caption, but it appears to be a Jaipur Rajput photographed in 2004 or 2005. Only if people prefer it of course, I'm also happy with the 1860 image, but this one looks a little bit more cheerful. dab (ᛏ) 11:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking? Gandhi is a vaishya. Tagore is not a rajput. The purported rajput looks like a nautanki man.

please pay attention, I was obviously not referring to Gandhi or Tagore, but about the "purported Rajput". I don't care, if you don't like the present image, suggest a better one for the lead. dab (ᛏ) 13:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error ridden page

Page has too many errors, misinformation and is very badly organized.

Lead:Rajput a tribe of pakistan is incorrect. Word Hindu appears in the last sentence. Why? Second paragraph is wrong in saying rajput influence only in northern india. Demographics are too old and useless. Ravi verma's painting should go on ravi verma page. Languages section is total junk. "Rajputs may speak rajasthani" who wrote such rubbish and why? What about english, french, german, kannada? I am sure we can find enough rajputs speaking these languages.

Origins section is completely wrong.

All rajputs in India belong to three major lines starting at Hindu Gods. To say it is legend is bonk.

Modern hypotheses is Tod's work written in 1800's. Scythic origin is looney bin too. Tod carried on the thoughts of aryan invasion theorists to his work. Modern i.e 20/21 century has superseeded invasion theories of aryans. They have no value on this page.

Political history is a confused mess. Invasions of India started by muslims in 7th century so why does it have another section for invasions?

Important relocations is unimportant.

This is rajput page, why is the time line divided on musilms? "conflict with sultanate etc". It is wrong to glorify muslims here.

Mughal rajput alliance does not highlight the tumult rajputs felt on this alliance. Very little pertinent info here.

Maratha and British suzernaity section should be a different page. I see no value here. What is Tod's comment doing in this section? He is not talking about Maratha and British in this quote, IMHO.

Culture should be higher up on the page.

Cognate communities need to be described on there own page. Too many hindu people in India wanting to be called rajputs today. Even chief minister of MP, Shivraj Singh Chauhan, calls himself a rajput though he is really not a rajput. There are literally hundreds of such groups and have no relevance to rajputs.

Modern rajputs should be on there own page. This page should be about why rajputs are revered in India today.

Garuda 12:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just cite your sources. Rajputs are "revered in India"? They have no official status since 1941. If they are "revered", state who exactly is revering them (apart from themselves obviously), and who exactly defines whether "too many hindu people" are calling themselves Rajputs. You seriously suggest that we state in Wikipedia's voice that Rajputs are historically descended from Vedic deities? No comment necessary then. This being the main Rajput article, of course contemporary Rajputs are relevant, we have a History of Rajputs article for people interested in details of the invasion stuff. Tod was British, and wrote at the time of British suzeranity. Yes please, improve the "culture" section. We may also move it up if you like. Nobody is to be "glorified" here, neither Hindus nor Muslims. If you find any "glorification" of either Rajputs or Muslims here, do remove it. dab (ᛏ) 13:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite source on what? I am pointing errors on page saved by you. So burden is on you.

Travel in India and you will see photographs of Maharana Pratap in a lot of hindu (non-rajput as well as rajput) homes. He is considered semi-God.

Non rajput people trying to call themselves rajputs is a fact too. I gave you the example of current chief minister of Madhya Pradesh in India. Besides there are many other hindu communities: Mairs, Jhinvar (some sections of them), Lodha, etc.

You do not seem to know much about Hindu/Veda? There are no deities mentioned in Veda. All hindu rajputs trace there lineage to hindu gods. Who are you to question this belief held by millions of hindu rajputs?

Garuda 07:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gorkhali,i,ve read somewhere that the two daughters of maharaja sansar chand katoch,who were given to raja ranjit singh were not legitimate issue.i was wondering if jodha bai and others that were given to the mughals might not be legitimate,too.if this is true, then could you spread the word around that they were not legitimate.

should the muslim rajputs be converted back to hinduism?.according to caste system rajputs are supposed to be rulers and warriors.hinduism gives the rajputs the right to rule,administer and defend bharat.under islam,rajputs do not have this right.conversions will also increase the hindu rajputs,s numerical strength.this will increase rajput vote bank and political bargaining power.of course present day hinduism needs massive reform.hindus are living in kalyug times.may be a new sect can be started that can accomodate the muslim rajput converts and others,jats and gujjars etc.i think muslim rajputs will be better off in hinduism.pakistan already means shudhistan,pak means pure and pure means shudh.they can be called shudhi rajputs,just like rors are called ror rajputs.rors do not marry with non_ror rajputs and the same way shudhi rajputs do not need to marry with non_shudhi rajputs.they can forge political alliances.hawkraj.

why pakistan names its missiles after foreign muslim invaders?.(archive 11).pani pani kar gai mujh ko qalander ki yeh baat,tu jhuka jab ghair ke aage na man tera na tann.(dr.allama iqbal).(i cried flood of tears when the wise man told me that when we bow down to others then our body and soul belongs to them).well,pakistan is still under occupation of foreigners of arab,iranian and central asians origin.and the desi muslims i.e.muslim rajputs,jats and gujjars etc are slaves of the arabs etc.hindu rajputs had made matrimonial alliances and their chains of slavery were not so strong.they could be easily broken.by becoming muslim,muslim rajputs had become mental slaves of the arabs etc.the chains of mental slavery cannot be easily broken.it is a kind of brainwashing and it requires de_progamming in order to break the chains of mental slavery.it is the duty of hindu rajputs to liberate occupied bharat and de_programme the brainwashed hindus (muslims of hindu origin).

raj in rajput stands for raja,put stands for putra.maharajadiraj stands for maharajian da raja.the a at the end of maharjadiraj is always missing when it is written in condensed form.maharaj is a form of respect.it means maharaja i.e.shahuji maharaj,shivaji maharaj and sudanshuji maharaj etc.this condensation is not unique to indian languages.mirza is title that is used by muslims.mirza is short for emir zada(son of an emir).mir in mirza is short for emir and za is short for zada.if people can accept mirza as a short form for emirzada then why do they find difficulty in accepting rajput as a short form for rajaputra?.hawkraj.

reverence for rajputs.rajputs are both revered and feared in both india and pakistan.a pakistani of arab muslim origin has written a book entitled "rajputs,through the mirror of history".he has dedicated this book to the rajputi ghairat(honour).this is what he says"in the name of rajputi ghairat(honour)that god has put in the nature of rajputs,with the hope that now it will be used for the defence of nation of islam".of course he is talking about muslim rajputs.during the kargil war the non-rajput indian army was unable to through the kashmiri militants out of tololing hills.the indian government had to bring in rajput regiment to through them out of tololing hills.rajputs of rajput regiment had hand to hand fight with kashmiri militants and were able to through them out.i am sure the militants were also muslim rajputs.you know what they say"lohe ko loha kat-ta hai"(iron cuts iron).during the wars between india and pakistan the majority of the dead soldiers are always rajputs,muslim rajputs from pakistani side and hindu rajputs from indian side.rajputs are frontline fighters.

Whew! Caps, spaces, and paragraphs would be a good idea. This is not Ulysses. Zora 11:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

It's been my understanding that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official policy and non-negotiable. Yet the vast bulk of this article, full of weasel words and peacock terms, has been written without any sources cited.
The official policy states:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
There are a many statements made on this page that have no source cited for them, and the official policy says that any editor is allowed to remove those statements altogether. But instead of just removing the unsourced statements, which wouln't have been improper of me, I just added ^{[citation needed]} tags to draw attention to the lack of sources, so that anyone else could add the citations if they had any.
--Bhola 13:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

guys,i found sikh janjua rajputs on a sikh rajput website called"www.sikhrajput.com".i clicked on the "villages" section and found out that there are quite a number of sikh janjua rajput villages in the indian punjab and haryana.if there are sikh janjua rajputs then most definitely there will be hindu janjua rajputs,too.it would be interesting to know if they trace their lineage to arjunaji.hawkraj.

Bravery and rajputs

Rajputs are renowned for there bravery and yet the page has just a few lines describing how brave they were. Authors seem to talk about there bravery as an afterthought. This is wrong so I am changing the page to an older version which does more justice to rajputs.

Why was the page changed? I am moving it back for the reasons I explained earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comte De Boigne (talk • contribs)

If you do not see information about bravery of rajputs, why don't you insert lines in by properly citing sources rather than reverting to a previous version? Can you please explain? - Ganeshk (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "previous version" has decent content on the bravery of rajputs. I have read some on rajputs and part of what is presented here does jive with what I have read. So I have reason to believe rest of the stuff is fine too. If you can show some errors then we can discuss on how to correct them. Also this previous version has lot more information then your version so you ought to be careful in tossing stuff.

Please respect Wikipedia no-ownership-of articles policy [3]

It is clear that some editors such as zora, impumozhi, ganeshk, dbachmann, latinus and some others are acting as if they legally own the Rajput article. What other conclusion can bw drawn by their zombie-like revert of any changes made in the version they prefer. They are also holding the article a hostage and trying to fossilize it completely. If they can have their way not a single word can be added/deleted from the this fossilized version.

May I remind all the editors, good faith and otherwise, that wikipedia prohibits ownership of the articles [4]. In other words, all the articles are the property of everybody. The irony of it all is that currently the Rajput article is being owned (actually being held captive) by the editors none of whom is a Rajput. At least give the true Rajputs a foothold in the article. May be they can add something constructive here.

As of now I am reverting the last revert made by the user with proven malicious editing record. Take my version as the baseline version. I invite all Rajput and non-Rajput users to make constructive changes in this version.

You are right. None of them seem to be a rajput.

LOL

"Take my version as the baseline version." This, from a user with precisely three edits to his credit, two of them being revertions to this article, the third being the golden words above. This, combined with the general expertise of these brand-new users in WP policy, motivates me to begin compiling a list of dubious accounts:

All this having come up within the last 70 edits!! ImpuMozhi 14:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, the reason the names keep changing is because these are all blocked. Most of these are sockpuppets of DPSingh, see WP:RFCU#Rajput_case. Dmcdevit·t 15:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you for the involvement, dmcdevit, I didn't realize you had already taken steps towards (yet another) sockpuppetry test. And even User:Shomu is implicated! Thanx to both you and David Gerard for the fresh round of permablocks. Although I'm sure we shall presently have a fresh crop to harvest anyway. Regards, ImpuMozhi 16:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spineless south Indians jumping up and down with glee. How many of you fought to make India independent? Saale jis thaali me khaate hain usi main chaid karte hai. Desh ka durbhagya ki aisi janta ko saath le kar chalna pad raha hai.

How can WP tolerate consistent spread of misinformation?

So Mozhi, Shekhawats are Gohil rajput? [5]

Oh and Tomar's are descendants of Pandavs and are chandravanshi too! [6]

and you should be allowed to edit rajput related articles. Why?