Talk:Rajput/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Regarding Origin Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As suggested by you Kautilya3. A new discussion for Origin section is created. This Origin section was heavily edited by two users some 20-25 days ago. The whole section has been edited with one sided view. Random books and papers which have even running references about origin of rajputs but were not at all related to the subject were added just because it gave similar one sided view. Some points of the same books/papers were left out as they talked about opposite view. The scholars who studied the subject and wrote about it should have been given preference over some scholars whose area of speciality is totally different but wrote a line or two about it. As discussion proceeds I will list every such sources which are one sided and other sources which are more related to the subject but provided opposite view which are not included. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Replies

Apart from parita mukta u cant say that all other writers are not related to subject.Also Satish Chandra (historian) which quotes the main sentence with which you have problem is a much bigger name in Indian history and can't be substituted.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Also there is nothing like preference and we have to produce all possible argument regarding origin and i must say we may include ferishta also as it is also one of the thought among others.Since varna status is not clear we will have to put all thoughts so that it may not appear that we are fixing something and refraining from having wp:PovHeba Aisha (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Also there is currently all sort of thoughts in origin sector ex. Origin from brahmins, erstwhile kshatriya is also written and not removed by LukeEmily so it is according to me is the best version.The earlier one which left various theories of origin was definitely a violation of WP:Pov. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Preference is a wrong word here and we can't left so many historians and their theories to select who is superior to other.Also its already told several times by LukeEmily and we can see that sources are from oxford and state University of new york.Its better than Rima hooja and Rupa publisher whose books u are citing over other articles related to the subject.So no question of removal is there as WP:Verifiability and WP:RS are completely fulfilled presently.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Lastly we will have to take care of another policies like WP:Puffery.If you remove reliable sources to show only brahamanical or kshatriya origin WP:Puffery will apply.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Also for ur this sentence Some points of the same books/papers were left out as they talked about opposite view.The other views were already written in article and there was no need to repeat them again and again.when something is not clear we need views of different authors.And origin of Rajputs is the most unclear thing here so i would like to make consensus on Ferishta statement too once again.This is because primary sources could be used with caution sometimes and he also represents one view which shouldn't be left as he is a big name among medieval era historians.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC) This is quoted by Satish Chandra and if someone even have a graduate level knowledge of history, there is no need to tell him the authenticity of Satish Chandra.Modern historians agree that Rajputs consisted of a mixing of various different social groups including Shudras and tribals.I request not to deteriorate historical facts. Btw dear Sajaypal007 i m always here for discussion.Though i m writing on a large number of subjects this article will always remain in my watchlist and i will be visiting here always.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC) @HebaAisha yes, I expect you to be here, you are the one we have to discuss with. And please organise these replies, so reader doesnt have difficulty in understanding. Its not a whatsapp argument to make many long comments and please dont make so many comments and edits one after other. Let other people see and reply, then comment. And please dont mix up. We will start the discussion once @Kautilya3 sees this too. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Plz put in short all the changes u want to make in origin section in a single comment.Its very difficult to reply again and again for different demands of urs.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC) I want to finish this issue in this month only.Repeated arguments can ensure penalty by admins in form of topic ban.After that you will not be able to write on any topic related to caste community even notable person and historical stuffs as all of them fall under same category. So just do it in shortest possible time instead of creating disruption.For the first line i explained its sourced from satish chandra which is a very authentic source.What are ur other demands, plz write in a single sentence in point format as Kautilya also asked you to do.Also you have cleared ur talk page to hide the notices you were served when you were reverting the sourced content before coming to talk table here.Dont do so as history can be checked and its useless.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC) I ask you not to flood this discussion with other topics. You may try to create confusion in this way. For every other topic unrelated to this discussion I'll reply on your talk page. And for discussion @Kautilya3 asked for writing in 4-5 lines about the problem. I already did, when he will see it. Then I'll further discuss because without him you will flood this page with 4-5 replies every hour or so which can create confusion for others. Lastly I ask you once again to keep it short and relevant and to write in proper manner. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC) I cant see where u wrote in 4 lines.And Kautilya is a mediator its us i.e LukeEmily NitinMlk and me with whom u are in edit dispute.Also let me tell u Kautilya has many extended rights on wiki and such editors cant take upper hand in any edit dispute otherwise rights are taken away.So if u want any changes u should try to fix with me and these three ppl.You are not clear what changes u want thats y i m seeing no explanation from ur side regarding changes u want in 4 5 lines.Btw for convenience of admins i would like to put this.[1]..These are the sources you want to remove anyhow.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC) @Sajaypal007 and Heba Aisha:, No, I don't have any special rights. I am just a regular editor, like all of you. All I have is some years of experience fighting many POV battles. If you both of you want me to mediate, I will be glad to. But all posts need to be short, like 4-5 sentences. And, you can't subvert that by writing many such posts! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Agreed.Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Kautilya3, I respect you - no question there. I did not realize what moderation was but just read Wikipedia:Mediation. Based on that I think we need an uninvolved admin or very senior editor like User:Sitush who has edited multiple caste pages to mediate since he has not participated in the discussion with us on this page actively. Also, not sure if @Heba Aisha: understands it too as she did not reply here. Maybe she did not see it? My concern is that unless the mediator is an admin or super-senior, this consensus will keep getting challenged in the future. They can also use the technicality issue that since you were already involved in the discussion, the consensus is not valid. Pls correct me if I am wrong.LukeEmily (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC) LukeEmily and Kautilya3 actually i was also thinking the same.If this issue will be settled by us.There will be challenges as we are not established editors like Sitush and if not this article then in other articles new editors can challenge our viewpoint.ex--- If we remove derogatory words from this article on the basis of consensus and try to remove such terms from other articles.New stakeholders can challenge it on the basis of policies.So i think we all shud wait for Sitush.If he remove all the derogatory terms then also i will have no problem.And i think if he keeps then Sajaypal007 will also have no problem.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Hi Heba Aisha, since wikipedia is uncensored and the Shudra, illiterate etc. are the words used by multiple historians and scholars not by editors- I do not think they will be removed from this or any article on wikipedia. Also Sitush has warned a user against removing the word shudra on this article and I agree with Sitush. So many caste articles use worse words like chandal(see Jat people). I think we should not wait for Sitush as he might be very busy but his decision can be obeyed by all of us. I think the only editor having issues right now is Sajaypal007. If we can discuss with him and explain the changes, we can move on for now. I am very eager to write about Nitishatakam, Shungarshatakam and Vairagyashatakam and this unnecessary(imho) discussion is taking all the time. As Kautilya3 explains below, he has graciously agreed to help us. We should probably continue the discussion with Kautilya3 as a moderator. If we disagree, we can involve sitush or WP:DR. Or we can discuss with him for final blessings. LukeEmily (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC) On second thoughts, since the admin has pinged senior editors about this issue, we can wait for them.LukeEmily (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Ya i talked to Bishonen and i think admin Vanamonde93 can help us.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC) LukeEmily, Moderation is not Mediation. I am just trying to help you folks to reach a CONSENSUS. If I don't succeed, you will need to go for WP:DR. It is up to you whether you want to participate or not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC) OK. Sorry for misunderstanding Kautilya3. Thanks for your help. LukeEmily (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC) References

@Heba Aisha:, can you also state in 4-5 sentences what you think the dispute is regarding the Origins section? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007, Heba Aisha, Kautilya3, and Sitush:, origin section is well sourced and backed by *very high quality* academic sources. Origin was discussed already and changes made. I strongly object to the removal of any more content. If any, the discarded Raj era opinions could be put in one line. Sitush has already warned someone here who tried to remove sourced content from this page[[2]] and the admin specifically said "caste booterism" while protecting this page. Sorry to say, this is getting very tiresome. LukeEmily (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply

You yourself heavily edited the page. Now when others are challenging your view points, don't be so defensive. It wasnt discussed already, it is being discussed continuously, you werent part of it but we were discussing nonetheless. The image was also part of that section. We are not here to include Raj era sources, so that it can be done away with. Both of you guys made 40-50 edits atleast and now trying to be hostile to the issue when we are discussing the subject. Please co-operate, so we can discuss this issue amicably. Thanks in advance. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha hasn't given her summary, but LukeEmily has. So I think we can start on that basis. First some ground rules:

• In a moderated discussion, you cannot talk to each other. You can only talk to the moderator.
• Please be as succint as possible and address the points I am asking. More details can be provided when asked for.
• Do not comment on each other's conduct. That can be done on User talk pages if necessary, but usually it is best avoided. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

First round

Sajaypal007, you say the new edits had a "one sided view". Can you elaborate? Which side are you talking about? Can you give an example of a source that gives this "one side" and another source that gives the "other side"?

Heba Aisha, LukeEmily, Sajaypal007 says sources that have passing references (he said "running references") to the origins of Rajputs were used, while others with in-depth coverage were ignored. Do you agree? If not, how do you justify the choice of such sources?

Please type your answers below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Before LukeEmily edited it was one sided and sources out only wrote origin from brahmins and kshatriya.But a large number of sources say about shudra and tribal origin so they were placed to put all view.The former sources were not removed just Wp:Pov was maintained.Heba Aisha (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

No matter what Heba says, you can see that, before these heavy edits by these 2 users were made. There was a single line about Kshatriya Origin that too not as general line but mentioned specifically as "Nationalistic Historian CV Vaidya believed Kshatriya Origin of Rajput". And one Line was that about Brahmin Origin by Asopa. Just these two lines were there in the whole section that consisted of 3 paras. All other part was either about foreign origin or some other tribal or nomadic origin. None of them can be called as glorification at all. [you can see this is the version after @Sitush edited this page on 25th July] Later heavy edits added more such terms that can be termed as "derogatory" for some people, like shudras, low class and illiterate etc with one sided approach, including citation which has nothing to do with subject except that line. There are many issues with the section, like neutrality. Also there are many problems with citations too, I can list all the problems when asked.

The academic consensus converges on what the sources say. Saying that other sources are ignored is not accurate as no sources were deleted (not even the source that had the Raj era discarded opinions). If there are more sources that give different opinion and are academic, these so called "ignored" sources can be added too but we have to present all sides of all scholars for a neutral view. The sources used are not only WP:HISTRS but top quality. This origin is not a fringe opinion - we would not have 10 top world university sources reiterating the same points. These scholars are reputed historians on Indian history - not journalists or novelists. Nor are they scholars who write about botany or cooking or American history and made a "passing reference" to Rajputs. The passing reference comment is inaccurate and even if it were hypothetically true it is important to note the qualification of the author who made the one line summary. These scholars have written on caste mobility(Sanksritization), Rajputs etc. and if we were to dismiss these, every source in this article can be dismissed. For example, there is a book by L.M.Khanna "India social Justice". It was not used although it gives multiple references for shudra origin because I checked the credentials of the author and was not satisfied that Khanna was an academic scholar. We need to have WP:NPOV and any further deletions amounts to WP:PUFFERY. Whether anything in derogatory or not is irrelevant. I have seen derogatory things written about my brahmin subcaste too but have not objected to it as I do not believe is censorship neither does wikipedia. There are words like untouchables, Slaves used on other pages and we cannot give this page special treatment. Sorry.LukeEmily (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 its became clear with this comment of Sajaypal that he has problems with shudra and other terms which he found derogatory and all the claims of running refrence etc etc were just to conceal the real matter.Also Satish Chandra is a noted historian and others which LukeEmily cite are also noted.So real matter is derogation not the reliability of sources.And we do not care about that as WP:Uncensored applies.And everything is sourced from oxford and high quality sources.Heba Aisha (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Also Sajaypal is not following ur rules to keep the comment short and focus only on content. Kautilya3 the matter was whether we used fraud sources or not and but it looks like we are discussing about upholding Rajputana proud.Wikipedia is not a place for that as i can see on other caste page ppl accusing even Sitush of being biased when he wrote something bad.see here [3] Sajaypal's issue is also nothing more than that.Heba Aisha (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Unfortunately the first round did not work well. All of you are debating with each other. You are also not giving sufficiently precise answers to my questions but are straying into other issues. I am not concerned with the editing history. I also don't need to be reminded of policies I know them well. If you focus on my questions, we will be able to get to CONSENSUS faster. Otherwise we will be here forever. In the next round I am going to ask only one question. Focus on it please. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Round 1.5

Sajaypal007, your answer to the "one-sided" issue is not clear. You say that certain terms that you deem "derogatory" are being used. But that is a wording issue that we can get to later. To say "one-sided", you need to be able to show two sides. What are the two sides? And, can you give an example of one source for each side. (So, to be perfectly clear, I am expecting two sources to be given.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I didn't say I deem them derogatory,I said such terms were added which can be seen as derogatory by some people. Anyway, the two sides which I wanted to show was one maintained by scholars who wrote particularly about the subject at hand, they didn't use such terms, shudra, low origin, varna-sankara or illiterate for Rajput Origin. Other side is some authors who didnt write about the subjects but used those terms in a line or two in otherwise different topic. Eg. For first category, GN Sharma, Dashratha Sharma, and for second category Parita Mukta and (Reena dubey & Rashmi Bhatnagar book). Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Can i say something in reply Kautilya3.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

No, not yet. Your turn will come.

Sajaypal007, I can see the Parita Mukta and Dube-Bhatnagar sources on the main page. But GN Sharma and Dasharatha Sharma are not present at this time. Can you provide the full citations for the sources you are thinking of? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

G.N. Sharma's "Origin of the Rajputs" is not available with me right now but I found one book of his which has a separate chapter on Rajput Origin, but its in Hindi, nevertheless here is archive.org link for the book, its 3rd chapter of the book [[4]] . The book talks about all the theories of Rajput origin but doesn't say a word about shudra or low origin of the Rajputs. He was a professor of History, in Rajasthan University, Jaipur. I can't copy whole chapter, but if someone needs translation, I can provide For specific paras. Edit: I got Dashratha Sharma's work too, in his book "Rajasthan through the ages" Vol.1, he talks about Rajput Origin from Page 103 to 105, nowhere he mentions these words.Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Replies

Sajaypal007, the book provided by you shows its year of publication as "1671", which cannot be correct: I guess its publisher Shivlal Agrawal and Co. meant 1971 (?). Anyway, I have just glanced over the chapter mentioned by you. And it seems all of those details of foreign origin from Hunas, views of Raj-era authors, etc. are more or less already summed-up in the second paragraph of the Origins section. But the modern scholarly consensus is pretty much clear about the origin of Rajputs. I have a latest academic book from the Cambridge University Press which has in-depth coverage of the identity formation of Rajputs and it is pretty much along the same lines of the already cited scholarly/academic sources of this article. Here is the relevant quote: Quotation regarding the Rajput origin Kothiyal, Tanuja (2016). Nomadic Narratives: A History of Mobility and Identity in the Great Indian Desert. Cambridge University Press. pp. 264–265. ISBN 978-1-107-08031-7. Between eleventh and thirteenth centuries, the Thar provided space to displaced groups, warriors in search of employment or adventure and local tribal-pastoral groups with ability to replace older clans. From the fourteenth century onwards the Thar witnessed development of a wide range of sedentary political formations that increasingly centred themselves around the idea of ‘Rajput’. The emergence of ‘Rajput’ states, in the Thar region, that is the Bhati state of Jaisalmer and the Rathor states of Jodhpur and Bikaner, resulted from gradual transformation of mobile pastoral and tribal groups into landed sedentary agrarian ones. ... Exploring the Thar also allows investigating processes of identity formation in frontier zones, where Rajput identity often appears enmeshed with nomadic, pastoral, tribal and Muslim identities. ... Before Rajputs came to be seen as landed aristocratic caste group, Rajput appears to have been an umbrella term used to refer to a number of groups with similar aspirations and capability. In fact as Ziegler suggests, there was no contradiction in being a Rajput and a Muslim at the same time. However, the emergence of Rajput genealogical orthodoxy by the sixteenth century closed the ranks of Rajput ‘caste’ group, and excluded several groups with similar claims. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Sorry for replying without ur consent Kautilya3.I m keeping it very short.For this statement of Sajaypal Anyway, the two sides which I wanted to show was one maintained by scholars who wrote particularly about the subject at hand, they didn't use such terms, shudra, low origin, varna-sankara or illiterate for Rajput Origin. Other side is some authors who didnt write about the subjects but used those terms in a line or two in otherwise different topic. Eg. For first category, GN Sharma, Dashratha Sharma, and for second category Parita Mukta and (Reena dubey & Rashmi Bhatnagar book).>>> We have shudra comment from Satish chandra and illiterate warrior and other terms are used by Burton Stein and Ziegler.Also Andre wink; Herman Kulke and Stewart Gordon supports the arguments.Even if we consider parita mukta and Rashmi Bhatnagar to be authors who do not specifically write about the origin of rajput and making comments for different topic.Then also we have much better sources and notable authors to support our points as NitinMlk also kept here.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007 Dasharatha Sharma's books were published in the 1960s around the time of his retirement, and the majority of his work was done during the Raj era. Gopinath Sharma's book probably draws from the same body of work. It is a provincial level book in any case, and doesn't reach the national/international level. So neither of these sources is able to challenge the works of other scholars. Moroever, they really need to challenge them in order for your arguments to work, merely ignoring them is not enough. So I don't see a valid objection here. I suggest we drop this issue, and look at your "derogatory terms" issue. Are you agreeable? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Agreed.Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank u Kautilya3 and Sajaypal007.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Second round

Sajaypal007, thanks for the progress. On your second point, "terms that can be termed as "derogatory" for some people, like shudras, low class and illiterate etc.", I don't actually see "low class" on the main page, but there are some equivalent phrases. We will get to this later. Why do you think "shudras" and "illiterate" are derogatory terms? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I meant Low origin not Low class. Also about these terms I said they were put by editors frequently in the section because the terms can be considered derogatory by some people. For illiterate, in medieval India or even during British period more than 90% of the population can be said illiterate. What is the meaning of mentioning illiterate for Rajput in the article, its not like everyone else was literate, so it needed special mention. For Shudras, the term is considered derogatory by some people because of its historical connotation. And as I told you Rajput origin subject was addressed by many top scholars even during modern times but nobody used shudra origin for Rajputs except these 2-3 sources cited here which are not mostly related to literature and bhakti tradition not history let alone rajput history. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

For Shudra....the claim that this term can be found to be derogatory by others is baseless. AS shudra word has well defined meaning and it stands for peasant and nomadic groups. Usually for commoners who are not associated with history, this term can appear derogatory as there is common perception in indian society to think Shudra of being related to menial works more explicitly they consider it to be related to Scheduled Castes.But this is a mistake......SC were categorised as Chandals and untouchables. {Remember account of chinese travellers who wrote that even their shadow was considered polluting}. Shudra was ascribed to present day Other Backward Class castes namely Yadav; Kurmi; Koeri; Jat ; Gujjar; Maratha etc.Also this classification was solely on the basis of occupation passed by inheritance to next generation. Even brahmins were divided into Kshatriya brahmin ; Shudra brahmins on the basis of occupation they pursued.So i don't think it to be derogatory.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

for other terms: Varna Sankara= It is defined as offspring produced by inter varna marriages.It could be a marriage between brahmin and Kshatriya too apart from in between Shudra, Vaishya or other intervarna marriages. It just stands for mixing of varnas and yes actually it has taken place in past as we have refrences to various type of marital relations like Anulom and Pratilom.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

For illiterate= In 1920 only 6-7% population was literate{Refrence=Bipin Chandra} and it is correct to say that a majority of people from ruling class were also illiterate.Remember Al-Biruni= He says brahmin were insular in approach and they hardly share the knowledge they had to others. He wrote about the Rajput period only and India was falling as a Knowledge based society during those times when Europe and Arab world was flourishing.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

None of these words should be an issue due to WP:UNCENSORED even if they are derogatory. That aside, the shudra origin , illiterate origin etc. is not surprising given they were of peasant origin. Please see Shudra#Occupation and Shudra#Education. There were a plenty of communities that were literate and even highly educated - but they were numerically small - some examples: Brahmins, Bengali baidyas, Bengali Kayasthas, Sonars(goldsmiths), Khatris, Parsis, some Christian and Muslim groups and so on..Its not like all communities were illiterate. Varna Samkara is also not surprising giving that there were hypergamous marriages which implies one was higher varna than the other. The scholars find these words sufficiently important to use them across several sources. This is not personal. Such and "worse" words are used all across wikipedia. Personally, having seen the words used on other pages I do not think they are derogatory. LukeEmily (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, I agree that the terms "Shudra" and "illiterate" fall under WP:UNCENSORED. They are both factual and have long been in use, "illiterate" of course being applicable everywhere, not only in India. I can discuss them more, but I think there is little point because the policy is clear. If the article seems to use them in a judgemental way, please bring that up and we can address it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we misunderstood each other, given that unlike others I only replied when you asked and tried to give short reply and to the point answer. I dont mean to say that Shudra, illiterate or other words shouldn't be used on wikipedia or there is something bad about them to use. About your last line, yes my main point is this, all these terms were used in judgemental way, allow me to raise one point at a time. You can ask opinion of others on that too and decide for yourselves the best course. As these guys made edits and I raised my doubts on this, so I think it will be better if you listen my concerns, one at a time and ask others on it and decide it yourself, what is right. Will that be okay? Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Now this could be called as nothing but disruption by Sajaypal007.The issues have been explained numerous times by many users LukeEmily me NitinMlk etc but the habit of not reading the comments of others and reiterating same baseless things again and again is extending it long and long.For the purpose of proving his points he is keeping the regional sources which donot reaches even to national level (forget about international).Even Kautilya3 explained very recently about the issues.I m sorry but it is not a genuine concern of urs but something different.And you are dragging the whole things which though settled to the initial point again without a High quality source to support ur claim. See WP:GASLIGHTING~Specially off-topic rambling you are just destabilising the consensus building process.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, yes, please go ahead and raise your concerns. Only the issue of "derogatory terms" in this section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. My first point is this "Last line of first para and first line of 3rd para is almost identical i.e. Rajput originated from many groups including shudras". The word shudras is used in both these lines. First one has two sources, Satish Chandra and Reena Dubey while second one has same two sources and an extra source of Talbot. Now that extra source of Talbot doesnt say Shudra word, so for that shudra word both these lines have same two sources. To sum it up these both are almost exact lines with same sources. My suggestion is one has to be removed. Origin of the Rajputs is a subsection in which there can't be an introductory para, lede or something like that, and @sitush has chronologically edited this origin of rajput subsection just before this new editing putting earlier theories first and so on. Hence I suggest the first one i.e. last line of the first para be removed that way it will also be in chronological order. Earlier british era opinion first then later sources. Sajaypal007 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The "Shudra word" can be repeated as often as necessary. It is not derogatory.

The mention of Shudra origins is stated as summary in an introductory paragraph, and later explained in detail. There is no problem with doing so. It is in fact a good writing practice. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead and raise as many issues as you want. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Illiterate issue

Thanks a lot. My next point is regarding 5th para of the Origin section which starts with, "Gradually the term Rajput came to denote....". The last line of the para goes like this, "Thus, modern scholars summarise that Rajputs were a group of open status" since the eighth century, mostly illiterate warriors who claimed to be reincarnates of ancient Indian Kshatriyas – a claim that had no historical basis. Moreover, this unfounded Kshatriya status claim showed a sharp contrast to the classical varna of Kshatriyas as depicted in Hindu literature in which Kshatriyas are depicted as an educated and urbanite clan." This is backed by 3 different sources.

First source of Andre Wink says almost the same thing as quoted on this page. We will come to this later. Second source Brajadulal Chattopadhya doesnt talk about Rajput being illiterate. I read the relevant pages and didnt find the mention of illiterate on that page 59 or even 58 or 60 for that matter. If someone wish I can mail him the copy of the relevant page. Next source of Ziegler says that Rajput with some exception were totally illiterate, he was talking about the period of 16th century. And this source is from footnotes in the end not the actual work per se. Anyway he just mention this when talking about something else not about rajput origin or anything. This source has no relevance here, it looks like, it was just put here to further strengthen the point that rajput were illiterate rather than original point of Andre wink which uses illiteracy of rajputs to compare them with Kshatriyas.

Now come to Andre wink again, he is a learned scholar of history but his point of comparing literacy level of Kshatriyas of Epics with Rajputs of medieval period (that is like gap of more than a millenium) seems to be unfounded. Whether they were kshatriyas or not is irrelevant for this argument but the claim that their literacy can be compared and used for denying their kshatriya status is I believe a weak argument at best. In next line he further argue that according to legends Kshatriyas were exterminated by Lord Parshurama. To summarise the argument of Wink doesnt hold water when he compares literacy of Kshatriyas with Rajputs (comparing literacy of different eras) and also the argument that kshatriyas were exterminated not to mention measurement of literacy of those two periods probably varied a lot. I hope you will forgive me for writing this long as I wanted to be sure that you get my point and also added quotes from wiki page further increasing the length of this. PS: Your decision on this point will be acceptable to me. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Please forgive me for strongly disagreeing with the previous editor. This is completely justified. First, the scholars are very high in the rank of WP:HISTRS and highly qualified so we have no reason to dismiss or judge their opinion. Please see comment by Sitush here [5] - "it is fine to show different opinions etc provided that they are from reliable sources.". In this case, it is still stronger because no source opposes it. It is a consensus of different opinions and multiple sources. Rajputs being illiterate is not WP:FRINGE. This argument should suffice but please allow me to explain further from an academic viewpoint to the previous user. Wink's comparison is justified because he is showing a contrast between Kshatriyas like Lord Rama/Lord Krishna and many others in Hindu scriptures who were almost always learned scholars and even studied Vedas vs. Rajputs who claim to be Kshatriyas but were not literate. Multiple sources are often cited to show that it is not a fringe opinion and there is nothing wrong with that either.LukeEmily (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, you are trying to counter the content of modern, high-quality, scholarly sources by giving your personal views. But your personal views are unreliable, just like the views of any other WP editor. The correct way to counter the detail(s) given by these historians is to provide scholarly sources which refute their claim(s). You have to just provide the relevant quotations from such sources. On a different note, I have access to a reprint of Reinhard Bendix's book which also mentions regarding Rajputs' literacy. That source is obviously not comparable with the in-depth source of Wink, but I am providing it here as it is relevant to the discussion:

literacy of early Rajputs

Bendix, Reinhard (1998) [1960]. Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Routledge. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-415-17453-4. Eventually the position of the old Kshatriya nobility was undermined not only by the Brahmin priests but also by the rise of a warrior caste in northwest India.30 Most of the Rajputs were illiterate mercenaries in the service of a king. Their support may well account for the fact that the rulers of the Maurya dynasty (ca. 321-185 B.C.) destroyed the old Kshatriya monopoly on officeholding. In addition, the Mauryas undermined the pre-eminent position of the Brahmins, at least for a time, by supporting Buddhism, and the social setting of the Buddhist movement provides one of the clues for an understanding of the social change during this period.

- NitinMlk (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If two out of three citations mention the "illiterate" issue, then I don't see a problem. If Ziegler is only dealing with 16th century, that is an issue of course. But NitinMlk has provided an even more definitive source for it. In my own experience, since I deal with the Kashmir conflict a lot, I know that the Dogra Rajputs that ran the princely state were essentially illiterate (had very low levels of education). The founder Gulab Singh was completely illiterate. Probably a lot of the Kashmir problems we have now are a product of this deficiency.

The comparison being made with Kshatriyas traditionally being "educated urban elite" is fine, I think. Kshatriyas are after all a dvija caste, and the "second birth" alluded to is that of education. So, theoretically, Kshatriyas are required to be educated, and that is true for all times. Other ruling classes in India were highly educated, irrespective of their caste. See for example Amuktamalyada. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Kautilya3, I was about to write that since the Origin section is so large I agree with you. But I partially agree with Sajaypal's view <Sajaypalsaid>that since the lines sound a bit similar</Sajaypalsaid> so <Ithink> we should expand the introductory para in the origin section to give full summary in 3-4 lines at the most. Most readers will be lost after reading the long second colonial era view paragraph in the section which is discarded by modern historians. If the second(colonial) paragraph were small, then getting rid of the first line is justified, otherwise not.</Ithink>But now it looks like the entire introduction is missing now from the article now because of [6] (without even asking in the discussion section for consensus/input from others in the moderation discussion.) so I will not say any more on this in this section for now.Thank you.LukeEmily (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I never said about expanding introductory part. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I never said Sajaypal did. I have put brackets to clarify.LukeEmily (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Both sentences are almost the same and have same sources supporting it, there is nothing like one is introduction and other is explanation. But if you think so I'll not raise this point again. May I raise another point now? Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Its not working we should move to another forum where an uninvolved admin can settle issues.LukeEmily NitinMlk and Kautilya3 i m not satisfied with the procedure running here as even after community concensus on any issue the section is removed without feedbacks of others for now i have undid Kautilya's edits as he himself looks confuse plz move to WP:DRR to settle issue by uninvolved admin or volunteers.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If you truly want community consensus then please revert all of the edits both of you guys @Luke and you made a month or so ago from which this controversy arose and add one at a time after making consensus here. Those edits were also not based on consensus and started this long debate. You guys made all the edits and now want community consensus when someone disagrees with you. You also reverted a single edit made by the moderator which was against your opinion, how do you expect others will react when you guys made a ton of edits which were against their opinion. If after some days some other user come and make many edits and later when you oppose he will say first build up community consensus then what will happen. This is not correct approach. @Kautilya3 please see to it. I am not gonna further argue with you because I know that will derail our original discussion, will just stick to communicating directly with the moderator. Sajaypal007 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The wikipedia community consensus is to allow WP:RS. The consensus is already established by the foundation- we don't need to. To remove something that is backed by a WP:RS and thus allowed by wikipedia - requires consensus. You need to show why that source is not reliable. To remove something that is not sourced does not require consensus. The burden of proof is on the person who is trying to remove the WP:RS not the other way around. A well sourced statement, supported by academic citations is innocent until proven guilty- otherwise no one will be able to add anything on wikipedia and most editing will be only on talk pages as is happening here. Kautilya was not "uninvolved" and by his own words he had had agreed to only moderate the discussion to help us reach consensus. He had explicitly said he will not mediate. I had expressed this concern earlier. But by making changes without consensus or even input from others as well as his comments in the other section he has lost all credibility to be a moderator here - with me at least. You do not know how sorry I am to say this because I really like him. I will not say more here. Every editor, including Kautilya has given reasons for why "illiterate" is fine to use. Do we really need to discuss this further?LukeEmily (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, I don't think any admin can manage it as effectively as Kautilya3 has done so far because admins are generally not familiar with the complexities of caste-related topics. So you have to be a bit more patient. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If this is about my removal of the second sentence in the "introductory paragraph", I should have perhaps explained a little bit more before removing it.

Heba Aisha, the reasons for remvong it are as follows:

• Saying that the origins are "debated by scholars" is perfectly fine as an introduction. Nothing more is needed.
• I don't think the section is that long that a separate summary is needed in the introductory paragraph.
• If a true summary is needed, you need to summarise all sides. You can't pick one theory that you want to promote and just mention that. That is not WP:NPOV.

So I think it is best to remove that sentence. There is no real loss because it is discussed later. Recall my very first observation that the section is a bit repetitious. This is an example of that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

NitinMlk Admins are not familiar with caste issue so they can neutrally settle issues on the basis of WP:RS and other policies without themselves getting affected and we know that we have a lot of high quality sources.Second i m offended by latest action of Kautilya3 and i m in 100% agreement with LukeEmily that he just proposed to settle dispute of ours which we had with Sajaypal007.Also i was waiting for my turn as he said that you will be given chances to speak but it seems that just Sajaypal007 and Kautilya3 are talking and from his side chances for me never came.But for u, I will be patient as when recently i talked to my favourite admin Salvio giuliano....he also do not want to be involved.So carry on guys and plz be fair if i m not commenting it doesn't mean that i moved away.We have a strong basis and our opponent is just fighting with his personal views without any reliable source.For him i want to say this The burden of proof is on the person who is trying to remove the WP:RS not the other way around. Heba Aisha (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Further i will also advice Sajaypal007 to be familiar with policies like WP:STONEWALL and WP:ICANTHEARYOU....reiterating same points even after community has decided to move away also amounts to disruption.I m talking about origin image section & still shocked why that thread is not closed until now...are we waiting for others to engaze in future when me and LukeEmily will decide to move away.And Kautilya3 PLz don't delete this comment as it is related to the issues of this article.Kautilya3 at first fix all issues altogether and when Sajaypal007 will have no issue to raise....then we will have no problem in removing it.PS:Despite of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES and concensus on removal of gallery....you haven't removed it yet.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, if you are "offended" by my edit, then I am afraid you are exhibiting WP:OWN behaviour. I have explained the reasons for my edit above. You have not countered it in any way. As per the normal editing norms, the editor that reverts an edit needs to provide the reasons for the revert. I am also surprised to hear that you have been waiting for me to ask for your input. Either you or LukeEmily have been responding with several messages everyday before I get a chance to look at this page. In any case, now that I see the objections to this one summary sentence, I guess there is an issue here. I will open a round for it. Hopefully that will address the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

yes i have given a big explaination in the edit summary backed by ur statement.plz go through it.Also, i was just following ur direction after i saw repeated warning from ur side that we should intervene when asked but sadly you didn't gave us chance.But, lets move away.Drop that issue.Plz read my second comment above there is nothing like WP:OWN behaviour as u stated.I m worried about the issue that the matters that were fixed were not dealt with and You edited the issue that was under discussion.Heba Aisha (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@LukeEmily and I already gave our opinion, only one remaining is @HebaAisha. I hope he gives his opinion on this soon and we can then conclude this point so we can move to next point that is comparison of literacy. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Its been almost two days since my last reply. @HebaAisha still didn't reply though he is regularly active on other pages. @Kautilya3 please do the needful so this point can be closed and we can move to 'comparison of literacy' point. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007 , she has already clarified her stance. Kautilya is not a mediator as per his own words and does not get to decide. Just making it very clear so we are all on the same page. We need an uninvolved third party who is acceptable to all three of us, and both Heba Aisha and I have objected against Kautilya right from the beginning. Was that not clear?LukeEmily (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007 and LukeEmily I WILL speak only on the call of Kautilya3.Btw i had seen ur comments and regularly visiting this page.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha has already said that she supports LukeEmily on this issue. So both of them want the additional line in the introductory paragraph. I myself don't see the need for it. The second paragraph is no so long that the reader would get "lost", as LukeEmily claims. I thought I saw another issue here that could be debated. But I don't see it now. The Raj era theories were obviously speculative. And modern research has discounted it.

Sajaypal007, you haven't replied to the last round in the "Illiterate issue". If you agree with what I said, please note it there so that that section can be closed off.

As for moderation, LukEmily has said clearly she doesn't have confidence in me. So there would be little point in me continuing. There are other burning issues in the world right now than the origin of Rajputs. So I suggest you folks continue on your own, using the same sort of structure that I have developed above. Take one issue at a time and debate it until you reach agreement or you get to a point that you can go for WP:DR. Avoid mutual recriminations and stay focused on one issue at a time. If things get too hot, all of you will be in danger of getting sanctioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I was thinking about one point at a time. This issue got reopened after @HebaAisha reverted your edit and said he doesnt agree with me. I thought if two issues run together then there might be some confusion.

Round 3

For the next round, let us begin by looking at a sample paragraph in the main page:

According to scholars, in medieval times "the political units of India were probably ruled most often by men of very low birth" and this "may be equally applicable for many clans of 'Rajputs' in northern India". Burton Stein explains that this process of allowing rulers, frequently of low social origin, a "clean" rank via social mobility in the Hindu Varna system serves as one of the explanations of the longevity of the unique Indian civilisation.

References

Here are some problems with it:

• The first sentence is attributed to "scholars" but has long direct quotes. Where are they from? Whenever quote marks appear, it should be clear whom you are quoting. It seems they are from Burton Stein, but his name appears only in the second sentence.
• Stein's full sentence begins with, "when the rank of persons was in theory rigorously ascribed according to the purity of the birth-group". This preamble is omitted in the quotation. So, whereas Stein is not taking responsibility for the value judgement implied by the "very low birth", we are putting Wikipedia in a position of responsibility for it. Really? Does Wikipedia make judgements on "low birth" and "very low birth"?
• The author of the first citation is not specified.
• Putting three citations at the end of a paragraph with multiple quote marks is confusing.

So, can somebody rewrite this so that the attribution for each pair of quote marks is clear, and also provide suitable quotes from the other two sources so that we can look at them? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 since these sources are used by LukeEmily and he seems to have proper knowledge about the sources , it is better for him to write.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Quote from Dube According to Stein, the medieval period of Indian history is characterized by the fact that the "political units of India were probably ruled most often by men of very low birth" and this "may be applicable for many clans of Rajputs in northern India(1968,79)[....skip some stuff about marathas, Mansingh going to orissa etc...]William L. Rowe's study of the census reports of the last nineteenth centuries, as well as his field work with Noniya Cauhans in the village of Senapur, Madhya Pradesh and in Bombay, 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). In the 1950s David F Pocock's fieldwork in Gujarat led him to conclude that, "almost every caste in Charollar(Kaira District, Gujarat) including the untouchable Dedh, has its caste stories and legends a history of warrior and kingly origin(1957,24)"

This quote is by Burton Stein(M.N.Srinivas and Dube also quote him in agreement to make their point about the same but the original quote is Stein's). When the rank of persons was in theory rigorously ascribed according to the purity of the birth-group, the political units of India were probably ruled most often by men of very low birth. This generalization applies to south indian warriors and may be equally applicable for many clans of Rajputs in northern India. The capacity of both ancient and medieval Indian society to ascribe to its actual rulers, frequently men of low social origins, a "clean" or "Kshatriya" rank may afford one of the explanations for the durability and longevity of the unique civilization of India

Suggestion is to change it to a complete quote so that the burden is on Stein and historians and it is clear that it is not a personal opinion:

According to Burton Stein whose view is also quoted by others scholars, "When the rank of persons was in theory rigorously ascribed according to the purity of the birth-group, the political units of India were probably ruled most often by men of very low birth. This generalization applies to south indian warriors and may be equally applicable for many clans of Rajputs in northern India. The capacity of both ancient and medieval Indian society to ascribe to its actual rulers, frequently men of low social origins, a "clean" or "Kshatriya" rank may afford one of the explanations for the durability and longevity of the unique civilization of India."

Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 its suggested that you should change it urself as account of LukeEmily is not extended confirmed....if u are agree?Heba Aisha (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a general comment: This discussion is taking too much time. I think I have said all that I had to say. Please close this at the earliest. Thanking you in anticipation.LukeEmily (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

origin discussion

• Lets discuss more constructively.plz explain what changes you want to be made as it can't be reverted provided that most of the source says about Shudra and low origin of Rajputs.So plz say in minimum words the fair change you want to be made as we can't achieve anything in such a way.we should talk and try to build a common viewpoint.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Bro...see just deleting sourced thing which u not like about ur community doesn't gonna work.and regarding ur explaination..u give explaination but they are personal opinion plz support ur explaination with a reliable source.see what you did here...[7]Heba Aisha (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Mohammad kashim ferishta is a medieval historian and our medieval history is heavily derived from his work.This is a WP:Primary and it can be used with caution.It was fairly used there because whole origin section was not derived from his idea only...there were numerous other thought as when something is not clear we can put views of various historians.And u removed in one go with a very different reason.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Now after filing complaints and all you are saying this. You could have asked before filing complaints and threatening with blocks. I am all up for discussion but the matter has now reached at talk page of admins. So we should wait for their response first. Lets hear what they say before we work on this article. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• PS: Please dont make thread with my username on it. You should add subject on that not username with you want to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Thank u being constructive lets wait for admins reply.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Also i have seen that reports filed before us got cleared but our report is still under process...it seems admins also are not able to decide coz. none of us have engaged in edit wars except ur removal of content without discussion none of us have violated any major policy.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007 LukeEmily NitinMlk and anyone interested.Since Kautilya3 left we will continue discussion here on earliest thread where we were actually discussing.The another origin thread is closed as it was backed by a moderator and could have created confusion. We will comply with all rules fixed and don't give admins a chance to inflict sanction upon any one of us.ThanksHeba Aisha (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@HebaAisha @LukeEmily all three of us were debating before and we didn't reach single at consensus even on single point before @Kautilya3 started to moderate. @HebaAisha warned me of block @LukeEmily filed a complaint against me at administrators, @HebaAisha filed complaint against me for sockpuppetry. All of these were baseless and nothing came out of it. Both of you guys asked for some third party help because we couldnt agree. So I think there can be no solution without a third party moderator.

@Kautilya3 tried to help us to moderate but you guys didn't agree with him and repeatedly asked for other moderators. Both of you guys asked for help of other moderators and nothing came out of that. So I think @Kautilya3 is the best bet for us, he can help us resolve this dispute, he did great job in the past as well. Without third party moderation I am not gonna argue with you guys because I know same thing will happen and some of us may get sanction and this page will remain under dispute. Also don't archive the discussion within half an hour of kautilya3's reply. I didn't reply either and you archive everything, so i am replying here. I will also appreciate if you guys dont tag me every now and then, i frequent this page regularly, so I read here everything.

To summarise I won't participate with you guys without third party moderation, because of past experience and warning from senior editors you guys asked for other moderators, none showed any tendency to moderate, so I think Kautilya3 is to be asked to remain here to moderate, otherwise this dispute will remain open. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007 Kautilya3 don't found it fruitful because there are numerous issue on earth rather than origin of Rajputs. If you want i would create similar one point one discussion format here.That section became too long to discuss so shifted ur comments here.Also you can ask for moderator at WP:Rfc i m waiting for your final reply and plz no recriminations.Heba Aisha (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Kautilya3, I posted few comments here because your intervention brought clarity and order at this page. If you will leave this altogether then it will again become a disoriented mess. And the reason for that is simple: out of the three main editors, one is mostly involving in disruption, and the other two are newbies who can be easily distracted to make off-topic comments, although they are improving & learning quickly. Before making any comment here, I had some familiarity with Sajaypal007, whom I first noticed when they misrepresented sources (along with making pointless comments) at another Rajput-related article (Talk:Bhati) – see What is the page about?? Why add Jats and Gujjars in the Bhati clan just for their surnames?. And he is mostly continuing in the same vein here. But you somehow managed things well. So I guess you should rethink about your decision of leaving this discussion. LukeEmily & Heba Aisha, I suggest you two should continue the discussion under the guidance of Kautilya3, as most of the points are getting resolved by his intervention. Sajaypal007 already wants Kautilya3 to continue. But it's up to you two to decide. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@NitinMlk why am I being called disruptor here? And why both of them are not? I couldn't understand this behaviour of yours? I always thought why you who was uninvolved in the dispute is always taking side of those both, and always opposed my point, no matter what. Even when he clearly made baseless allegations of sockpuppetry against me, you only advised Heba, but for me even smallest of some points was vehemently opposed by you.

Now I understand why. @Kautilya3 knows I rarely made any disruptions, I made the least number of edits or even reverts on this page among 3 of us during the controversy, I also replied whenever @Kautilya asked and only addressed him directly unlike those two to settle this debate peacefully.

You may have some personal bias against me because of my edits but I assure you, that was my genuine question on Bhati talk page. Also to make it clear I didn't remove Jat or Gujjar word from the article, I only asked for my concern on talk page. I wont repeat my point here because its irrelevant to this topic but you still can see and I can reply over there to make that more clear to you. I hope there won't be any further doubt or animosity amongst us. And thank you for the concern about the debate here, and to tell kautilya to moderate so this debate can be ended soon and peacefully. I also hope you won't mind this big para as it was meant to clear things up. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, your approach on this page has been to somehow get the relevant content deleted in spite of the fact that those details are based on some of the highest quality scholarly sources. You are also giving your unhelpful personal analysis to discard those details. And that's why your approach here is unhelpful & disruptive. Had you provided equally high-quality scholarly sources which are opposing those details then everyone else would have helped you to balance things out.

Your another problem is casting aspersions and making off-topic comments, like you did in the above comment. I mean read your comment again. You have just labelled me as totally biased, i.e. someone who "is always taking side of those both, and always opposed my point, no matter what." And you also think that there is "animosity" between us!

You are also repeatedly mentioning some previous socking accusation against you, although I have told you last month that I am not following the edits of three of you: [8]. I advised user Heba Aisha because I noticed her relevant comments, but I haven't noticed LukeEmily making similar comments here. In any case, these are off-topic details and you should not repeat them here.

Finally, if you want to really improve this article then you must stop casting aspersions and repeating off-topic comments. You should also back up your every assertion with a modern scholarly source. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding moderators for discussion.

@HebaAisha @LukeEmily both of you guys asked for admin or moderators for debate bcz we couldnt reach on conclusion. After @kautilya3 agreed to help us both of you opposed him vehemently. You guys asked about another moderator and all. Because of your behaviour @Kautilya3 left, I was more than happy to work with him. So its your responsibility to call other moderator. I have lost hope to work with you guys without any third party participation because of past experience. You guys didnt wish to listen, threaten me with baseless administrative actions, filed fruitless complaints against me. We didnt reach consensus even on a single point without 3rd party help. I am asking you guys to get other moderator as you wished at that time or ask @Kautilya3 to continue who was doing a great job. @HebaAisha, I think I made it crystal clear not to tag me every now and then, the last time I commented, this is the last time I am asking you not to tag me, I visit this page frequently and see all the content, no need to tag me here. Also don't remove my comment without my permission, this also happened for second time, you archived the thread after 13 minutes of @Kautilya3's comment and expected me to follow you. Its not correct behaviour. Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Will respond in 2-3 days to these points. Just wanted to clarify that I was not ignoring your allegations but busy with something in personal life at the moment. LukeEmily (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, NitinMlk, Heba Aisha sorry for the delay. Please correct me if I am wrong below iin any of the facts below.

Sajaypal007, I can back up every fact with examples and page history but hoping that will not be necessary. I have used discussion on other talk pages by older editors and have used some of their reasoning below. Sorry for not giving due credit to all.

Fact 1: We need to follow senior editors like Sitush by example.

In [9]

Sitush says in the summary : explain, although I am getting tired of doing so.

Then he explains: You cannot just remove sourced content because you have found a source that says differently. If there is disagreement then we show all sides; if a source is unreliable then it is for you to gain consensus for that before removing it.

In this case, the argument on the Rajput page is certainly stronger as all sources are in consensus and there is almost no opposing view.

Fact 2: I did not delete any sources/text when I expanded the section.

I added more academic opinions to show all sides to make the article neutral and the sources are WP:RS.

Similarly, Heba added some images and one statement.

Fact 3: Sajaypal deleted(reverted) some of these modern high quality academic sources that said something unpleasant about Rajputs. That is why a complaint was filed with admins. Since he had not violated 3RR, no action was taken. But that does not mean that removing sourced content is right.He has not provided any sources that say the opposite of what the current sources say and is simply using his personal opinion to discredit sources. Hypothetically, even if he were to provide sources with opposite view, we would have to show all opinions since the current sources are WP:RS.

Fact 4: All the sources fall in the WP:RS as well as WP:HISTRS and hence Wikipedia policy allows the content - we can discuss if anything needs to be rephrased/rearranged but we do not need "consensus" or "permission" from sajaypal007 before adding any reliably sourced content about Rajputs on this page as the wikipedia policy allows it.

These academic sources use words like illiterate etc. that Sajaypal is objecting to.

These words are not derogatory and several pages use them. Some editors have explained this to Mr.Sajaypal007.

The intent is not to disparage the community but to show the academic consensus and avoid WP:PUFFERY that is obvious on this page.

Ancestors being Shudra or illiterate is not derogatory.

Fact 5: The possibly "unpleasant" content is supported by multiple academic sources. The sources are not just academic but also top quality -Cambridge Univeristy press, Oxford University Press etc and well known historians/scholars. Unfortunately, wikipedia is not censored.

Fact 6: This disruptive pattern to delete Rajput related negative text by Sajaypal007 in not limited to this page. For example, he recently removed the word ::"mediocre" from the Prithviraj Chauhan page. See [10] that Cynthia Talbot explicitly uses in her book. The "reason" he removed it under is not acceptable as there is no wikipedia rule that only medieval opinions are valid and modern reconstructions are not. He should have put both opinions. Mediocre and unsuccessful are quite different. Vincent van Gogh was unsuccessful but not mediocre.

I am showing a pattern of Sajaypal's disruptive edits on wikipedia that are not limited to this page. There might be more examples but I am not religiouly following his edits.

Fact 7: I am definitely not racist/bigoted or prejudiced just because I am using words like Shudra from sources - nor do I think any less of any caste or person because of their ritual status. There are good and evil people in every caste and religion and their caste is irrelevant. Any such insinuation of me being bigoted is offensive and calling someone prejudiced without proof is as bad as being one. My interest is caste mobility, not Rajputs, which by itself is a very controversial subject.

Personal opinion:

I sincerely feel that Sajaypal is being disruptive and WP:STONEWALL and WP:ICANTHEARYOU applies clearly.

Suggested solution:

Since all the sources are WP:RS, we can rephrase/rearrange some sentences, quotes and can add opposing points of view by using more WP:RS. Sajaypal007 is kindly requested to provide sources that say opposite of what he finds incorrect so we can add those views too.

In addition, also requesting Sajaypal007 to make a list of all points he opposes in the current version and why. Personal opinions are not relevant. For example, if he can provide sources for "they were literate and highly educated", I will be more than happy to add these sources to show all points of view. If we continue to disagree, we can get an uninvolved third person who is very senior to help us. Please feel free to post your own version on talk page or add inline comments in the posted version. Getting a third person involved so soon and repeating the same issues again and again without having a clear understanding of wikipedia policies will be waste of time for that editor. Also, it will be better to summarize all the objections and reasons by Sajaypal007 so we waste minimum time for the third person before we ask for help.LukeEmily (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what I edited from Prithviraj Page and summary I gave. Perhaps you need to re read that if you are having difficulty in understand what was written and what Talbot said. A very senior editor also thanked me for that edit, and I understand he knows better about the subject than you do. Anyway this is not about that page and if you have problem state on my talk page. You are constantly accusing me of various things and tagging me repetitively when I specifically asked you not to do that twice, the third time I am saying not to tag me, is that clear to you. Now about debate I know this is how debate will go on so I am not arguing with you guys for fear of ban until some moderator join us. I am again stating you not to tag me third and the last time, I frequent this page regularly and I don't need to be reminded. If both of you guys tagged me one more time, I am gonna file complaint against you for wiki harassment. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Because of repeated baseless charges and personal talk, which keeps on going since 2 months, I am saying this that this is my last comment with you guys until some moderator join us, I have no interest in derailing this conversation in multiple directions by accusing and counter accusing. I am already asking for another moderator since you guys made @Kautilya3 leave and didn't bring another moderator. Without moderator this conversation is going to go in same direction it was going until @Kautilya3 joined i.e. nowhere. We will risk getting banned, I consider this serious matter hence no comment without 3rd party moderator. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I might have missed it but you never told me to not tag you AFAIK. Anyway, I hardly ever tag you except when I address you directly. I would prefer that we not discuss each other's behavior as we all have made our respective points clear. If we could discuss only the source and the content of the article, that might have been productive but I find that all such requests are futile hence I am insisting on a moderator for any discussion between is. I consider this a serious matter as WP:STONEWALL results in loss of productivity and draining of resources of editors. I cannot discuss any more with you directly and please use Wikipedia:DISPUTE. Please do no address me again and I will not address you also unless some uninvolved moderator gets involved. I consider WP:ICANTHEARYOU as harassment as it prevents me from making constructing edits on other articles and keeps me tied to some old discussion that is going nowhere.LukeEmily (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007 and Bishonen ironically Sajaypal007 is accusing others of tagging him and harrassment as he doesn't want to be engazed in discussion with us and on the other hand asks on the talk page of other editors with accusations against us. See here [11]. If he has sources then we are happy to add.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Try dispute resolution

LukeEmily and others, you can report the problem at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard in order to have a moderated discussion there. Please read their instructions carefully and speak softly. Personal criticism of other users will not be well received. Bishonen | tålk 11:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen thanks for concern mam....since we are new and learning features of wikipedia gradually. It will be helpful if you file complaint as for me i m not knowledgeable about procedure. Second i m agreed to LukeEmily above. The particular user called Sajaypal007 is removing the terms which he finds derogatory on the basis of personal opinion from various articles related to Rajputs. To support his claims he has produced only two regional source written in hindi language and rejecting sources from Oxford and other high quality publishers.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

wait i m on mobile device and using chrome browser. I m not able to edit that page of requesting dispute resolution the message is (this page requires javascript to use the form tool).Can we try WP:Rfc.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, please let the editor who wants to remove content(Mr.Sajay) open the dispute. I do not have any dispute with what is on the page currently. To add to what you mentioned above, even the regional hindi sources he has produced do not support his claims because they do not oppose what is in all these Oxford and other academic sources. They simply do not discuss that matter - and as another editor explained to him absence of content is not the same as opposition. Moreover his sources are based on Raj era opinions that are already on the page. As Sitush explains in [12] You cannot just remove sourced content because you have found a source that says differently. If there is disagreement then we show all sides; if a source is unreliable then it is for you to gain consensus for that before removing it. In this case, the argument on the Rajput page is certainly stronger as all sources are in consensus and there is almost no opposing view so the opposing user needs to open the dispute with his objections. For example he opposes illiterate origin statement without producing a single source that states anything to contradict it. Heba Aisha, I think the user who wants the WP:RS content removed should open the dispute as we do not have any dispute with the content on the page as it stands right now. We should get involved only if needed. Bishonen, please correct me if I am wrong or mistaken. LukeEmily (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, yes, you can try WP:RFC, good idea. Please note that the introductory RfC statement should be neutral and brief — please see instructions on the RfC page. LukeEmily, as for WP:DRN, if you choose that road, anybody can open the discussion — anybody who's interested in a moderated resolution of the dispute. It doesn't make any difference which of the parties does it, or what the current text is on the page. Bishonen | tålk 14:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen and LukeEmily if as of now we stop. There will be continued attempt from the other user to bring this issue again and again with different pretext. As we can see here. So better to resolve it for always.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Please be more specific in the RfC sentence so that people know what they're supporting or opposing, Heba Aisha. Give the two alternative texts that are in question. Please. Do it now before people start to respond. Bishonen | tålk 15:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC).

Done Mam.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Did somebody open discussion at dispute resolution? I don't know how it works, so just asking. Sajaypal007 (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007 due to technical issues we are using another forum for dispute resolution called WP:Rfc. In this one discussion takes place on talk page but many people watch you and may intervene on time. The last thread called Rfc for..... is made for the same. So you may continue there.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Population

Is there a source about the Population of Rajputs in India at any point of time? It is several millions but not sure of the exact number. If not in India, what about specific states? Thank you.LukeEmily (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

About the sources in section — Rajput lifestyle

Hello! Paragraph in question is:

Until recent times polygamy was common among Rajputs also concubines were kept freely depending upon economic status of a person, particularly in Rajasthan where there were three classes of concubines first were called khawals, who were generally jatins and gujarins they lived in harem and children were treated as Rajputs except few restrictions. The other

two classes were called Darogi and Goli.

References

Recently there has been some editing at the Rajput#Rajput lifestyle section — 3 edits by me [13] [14] [15] and 2 edits by Sajaypal007 [16] [17].

1. First source: I suggest that the first source M. S. Naravane is not a WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, and the reason is provided at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Books by serving/retired Indian and Pakistani defense personnel on castes
2. Second source: A search at the google scholar for citation index of Priyanka Khanna's article in Proceedings of the Indian History Congress is not showing any number/hits (zero?) on the article.

   I am texting below a paragraph from currently cited article's page 338 from which the editor might have sourced the information:

Nevertheless such integration of concubines was predicted on a set of Rajput tenets. At Marwar, women from higher castes such as the Brahmins and the Rajputs were exempted from concubinage, while women from very low castes such as Chamara, Kanjar, Koli and Chandal were disqualified to attain the status of a concubine, keeping intact the purity of sexual relations of Rajputs.^[5] Only those females who belonged to touchable castes were raised to the status of a royal concubine. These castes included the Gujar, Ahir, Jat, Mali, Kayastha and Darji. It is noticeable from the sources that almost all these castes also claimed Rajput decent.^[6]

5. Zanani Deorhi Bahi, No. 1621, Maharaja Mansingh Pustak Prakash (M.M.P.P.), Jodhpur

6. See Munshi Hardayal Singh, Castes of Marwar: Census Data of 1891, Jodhpur (reprint), 2009

I invite comments from editors who contributes to caste articles. Also, pinging some of the experienced editors who I think have always contributed scholarly content to caste articles and hence may provide guidance on whether Priyanka Khanna's article is a scholarly source per standards required for caste articles and a WP:RS/HISTRS for caste articles or not?

@Fowler&fowler:, @Kautilya3:, @NitinMlk:, @Sitush:, @Titodutta:, @Uanfala:. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC) (minor edit — added currently cited article's page number for editors) Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Indian History Congress is a professional historians' conference and is quite prestigious. Everything in it is de facto reliable. The Naravane book is written a retired military officer, but one who apparently has a PhD. It seems to be a non-academic book and probably reproduces a lot of folklore.

On a side note, research on castes is not fashionable in India, and you will find very few scholarly sources dealing with them. So we are often left to rely on books like Naravane's. But they should be used with caution. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• For controversial topics, I would prefer a high quality western publication if available such as this one by Richard Eaton by Indiana University Press. Such sources are more uncensored and not politicized like the "Indian History Congress" or most other modern (2000 and later) publications in India.

References

(above comments are by User:LukeEmily)

Kautilya3, thank you for sharing your views. There is no dearth of academics from India or academics of Indian origin writing on history of castes. Naravane did a Ph.D. after his retirement from the Indian Air Force (he was not having a career at an academic institution/university), and only doing a Ph.D. (particularly when one has not been a university researcher and professor but a defense personnel or having a career in any other field) does not make any person a reliable source for caste articles than involves centuries of history. Any use of such author's work on history article, and on such contentious and debatable ones like this, is not encyclopedic. He is not a WP:RS/HISTRS for caste articles where we need highly reputed scholars' opinions. That require much more! For example, I had added the following paragraph but it was reverted by Sajaypal007:

Historically, the members from the Rajput community have also practiced polygamy and also kept concubines.

References

Per her biographical article, Ramya Sreenivasan is an associate professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania. I want to ask you that what is your opinion on preferring Ramya Sreenivasan's work (published in a book edited by Richard M. Eaton and Indrani Chatterjee and published by Indiana University Press) over M. S. Naravane's? It's an important question because we are discussing the sources, not content.

Kautilya3, I think that considering every article published in the Proceedings of the Indian History Congress as a scholarly reliable source is not a good idea. Instead of generalizing, there should be some criteria. Also, I think that if a source has a zero google scholar citation index score then it is not really a scholarly academic source and it is better to replace that with a better source. Kindly share your views. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC) (edited comment) Мастер Шторм (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC) (added a few words) Мастер Шторм (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Since we have better alternative sources, it is better to replace the current sources by a better source like the one you mentioned previously(Sreenivasan). Zero google scholar citation is not a good sign and I also noticed she uses the census report for her statement. For a non-controversial topic or for a topic where no other sources were available, it would have been OK. LukeEmily (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

All papers published in the Indian History Congress are peer-reviewed by professional historians, and meet the criteria of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. But, of course, if the paper hasn't received much academic recognition, it should be given lower WP:WEIGHT. If better sources are available, then can be used in preference to this one. Ramya Srinivasan's book is excellent and I am not sure why Sajaypal007 reverted it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, thank for offering your views so clearly about Ramya Srinivasan's book and its removal. Kindly give me time, I will add back Ramya Srinivasan's citation but possibly with bit more content from her work (will read her article again) or I would add one more source also to add one or two sentences more to build bit more content than what was removed earlier by the other editor. I will look for sources, now. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Мастер Шторм, Kautilya3 , Thank you for your comments and discussion. I agree with both of you and about the WP:WEIGHT issue also.LukeEmily (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)