Talk:Rajput/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Rajput identity and Dharamshastras

So, F&F, you believe that

The description of Rajputs in the Hindu Dharmashastras, self image that the Rajputs presented, and the Mughal view of the Rajputs was disparate.

and

Many late-medieval Dharmshastra texts classify the Rajputs as a mixed caste from a Kshatriya father and Shudra mother; despite being allowed to earn their occupation as warriors, they were ordained to lead the life of a Sudra in the non-secular realms.

are either untrue or undue to be mentioned. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Fowler&fowler:,

Rajputs in dharmashastras are also discussed in a univ textbook i.e. tertiary source, so how can it be WP:UNDUE? Tertiary source is used to determine the weight of an opinion when different opinions exist, but this is an opinion that has no contradictions(ugra also being used for some caste in Bengal is not a contradiction)

Please can you see the quotes in other sources:

1.

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

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

2.Indian University textbook: source:Unit-14 Social structure and gender relations: c. 700-1200 CE Kumar, Prem; Kapur, Nandini Sinha(historian)

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

Please see this . I checked, it is published as part of a textbook for university students in India.

3. F&F you are a very respected editor, but making rules like this and removal of due content (there is no modern source that says Rajputs are a non-mixed caste), will make life very difficult for us editors. Sir, please don't do this. There are many caste warriors on each caste page, and a valid, and non-contradicted content that does not make the caste look good will simply be removed using WP:UNDUE. On a normal wikipedia page(non-caste), its not such an issue. Vajpeyi is not saying anything extraordinary. Several editors have opposed Alankara in the section above. Second, I kindly request you to read her paper and the section on "Rajputs in Dharmashastras" before making any judgement about her. The paper is available online easily.

Also, pinging @Sitush: for his opinion.

I full agree with TB's edit and respect (but disagree) with your removal of this due content here for the reasons given above.

Sincerely, LukeEmily (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Susan Bayly's book is a upper undergraduate or first-year graduate textbook used around the world. It has much on the Rajputs.

1. Unlike Vajpeyi's chapter, Bayly's book has been cited a whopping 1,286 times on Google scholar, which means it is both tertiary and secondary.
2. Susan Bayly, moreover, has been described or cited in other even more tertiary text books, e.g.:
   1. Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's Concise History of Modern India, CUP, 2012
      1. Cited 893 times on Google Scholar
   2. Judith M. Brown Global South Asians: Introducing the Modern Diaspora, Cambridge, 2006
      1. Cited: 348 times on Google Scholar
   3. Ian Talbot's History of Modern South Asia, Yale, 2016
      1. Cited 40 times in GS
   4. Peter Robb's History of India, 2nd edition, 2011
      1. Cited 180 times on GS
   5. Burton Stein and David Arnold's History of India, Oxford/Wiley, 2012
      1. Cited 535 times on GS
   6. Michael H. Fisher's Environmental History of India, Cambridge, 2019,
      1. Cited 25 times on GS
   7. Michael Mann, South Asia's Modern History, Routledge, 2015.
      1. Cited 42 times on GS
   8. Maria Misra, Vishnu's Crowded Temple: India Since the Great Rebellion, Yale, 2008.
      1. Cited 82 times on GS

First see what Bayly says. Paraphrase it as much as you can. Vajpeyi warrants no more than a small footnote in some other section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I am posting the arguments. My point were primary references of Dharmashastra is being interpreted by other writers for other community like Ugra Community of Bengal. Here-[[1]] is another one from very reputed reference, page number 208, 209-

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

, this is another one from Ms Lindsay Harlan's book- From the Margin's of Hindu Marriage in the Chapter The Effectiveness of the Hindu Sacrament (Samskara): Caste, Marriage, and Divorce in Bengali Culture, page number 148.[[2]] -

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

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

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

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

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

, there are multiple writers interpreting the same primary reference of Dharmashastra and Ancient texts for a different grp especially the Kshatriya father and Sudra mother children is called Ugra is the line in all the refs. So, it becomes important we seek WP: Tertiary. Lastly on the caste part, there are secondary references which also say that this community is regarded as Kshatriya etc, but that is immaterial to the point I raised. Thanks and Regards. Akalanka820 (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Akalanka820, you say: there are multiple writers interpreting the same primary reference of Dharmashastra and Ancient texts for a different grp especially the Kshatriya father and Sudra mother children is called Ugra is the line in all the refs. Why is this a contradiction? Can there not be two or more ugra castes? Can you show one quote where the specific 17th century text sudrakamalakara is translated differently from rajaputa? There are zero contradictions and the reason is these are direct translations from Sanskrit. Second, do you agree that Nandini Kapur is a tertiary source?LukeEmily (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ugra is name of a community like Mahishya, Nishada and others are a community. They are called as Ugra Kshatriya etc. I am for the last time clarifying this part. Akalanka820 (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that already and we mention it on their respective pages. That is in Bengal. But I am saying the ugra community is called Rajputa by sudrakamalakara and skanda purana. Is that contradicted anywhere? Saying that there are also some ugra communities in Bengal is not a contradiction, is it?LukeEmily (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ugra is a community in itself, not only in Bengal but many neighbouring areas of it, now if few writers extend it to Rajputs with whatever reasonings, doesn't mean that the word used Kshatriya father and Shudra mother children is called Ugra is also for Rajputs becomes a broad tertiary view point. This is why I asked for WP:Tertiary. We ourselves cannot become expert on everything, from ancient text to all old sources. It is pretty simple. Akalanka820 (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ugra is like a varna, a mixed varna. rajputa is discussed as one of the several ugra castes that fall into this "varna". Nandini Kapur is tertiary and she mentions the opinion from the religious texts on Rajputs.LukeEmily (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You cannot decide Ugra as varna by yourself ( (which is definitely a POV) when other writers openly talk about Ugra is a community in Bengal and neighbouring regions. Akalanka820 (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

F&F, don't know if you got access to Vajpeyi but here are the quotes for easy reference:

pp. 257: section RAJPUTS ACCORDING TO THE DHARMASASTRA: Whatever the realities of Rajputization among powerful tribal families seeking to enter the varna system with a certain status, and emigre brahmanas helping them to do so, by brahmanical dharmasastra definitions prevalent in Shivaji’s lifetime, Rajputs are a miscegenated jati produced from non-alike fathers and mothers of specified types. According to the Sudrakamalakara, an authoritative Sanskrit text on the dharma of sudras written by Gagabhatta’s own uncle, Kamalakarabhatta, in the early part of the seventeenth century, the progeny of a ksatriya man and a sudra woman would be an ugra, otherwise known as a rajaputa.33 Such a person does battle and is expert in wielding weapons, but he must follow the duties proper to a sudra. In Kamalakara’s classification, being a sankarajati, or mixed group, ugras, or rajaputas are sudrasamana, as goodas (or as bad as!) sudras. [footnote]‘Ugra’ literally means ‘scary’, or ‘ferocious’.In equating the ugra and the rajap"uta, medieval dharma«s"astra writers nodoubt intended to refer to the warlike properties of the class of person they were describing.See Kamalakarabhatta, ‘Jatinirnayaprakaranam’, in his ®Sudrakamalakara,p. 255. A progeny whose father has a higher varna than the mother, as in this case,is called an anulomaja, or ‘one born in accordance with the natural flow’ (that is,the descending order) of social hierarchy, from man (superior) to woman (inferior).Kamalakara lists the ugra among the six types of anulomajas (ibid.: 254–5). An earlier text in this genre, the ®Sudracarasiromani by Sesakrsna, also provides thesame definition of a rajaputa (Ibid.: 15)

(page 258)HE POLYPHONY OF RAJPUT IDENTITY:From its earliest appearance in north India, the category of ‘Rajput’ seems to have been by definition an open and accommodating one. Repeatedly, over the course of centuries, its persistence, or reinvention, allowed politically and sometimes even economically ascendant groups, especially those with a clan-based structure, to be recruited into ksatriya status. Time and again brahmana and non-Rajput ksatriya interests denigrated it as a category for arrivistes, insinuating or charging that Rajputs were nothing but ersatz ksatriyas

Do you think these are contradicted, false or not due?LukeEmily (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Look upstairs at Bayly. That is what a scholarly secondary and tertiary source is. Vajpeyi's book is nowhere in that gene-pool of rigor and sophistication. Quote from Bayly. It is DUE. I'm done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler So, it is your proposal that not only the lead but also the article body shall only be cited only to sources that are extensively cited by others? Interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: It is not so much the lead, but the foundation or ground from which an article sprouts and its boundaries that needs to have such support. Once in place, the broad assertions can be expanded, or supplemented with vignettes, using narrowing categories of scale: from broader ones at the level of the books of Christophe Jaffrelot, for example, (which generally cite secondary sources) to the monographs, for example among the older folk, of the fieldwork of MN Srinivas and Andre Beteille, both in South India; Gerald Barreman (Hills), or TN Madan (Kashmir), or Adrian Meyer (Central India) on to book chapters and journal articles. I'm not suggesting regimentation but a general plan. I rewrite leads in such fashion in some poorly written articles not so much to write leads, but to have a template of DUE as a ready reference until the rest of the article is written. Otherwise, you have a big mess, especially in caste-related articles, especially among Indian authors, who are not unknown despite their training to display in their choice of what to emphasize Louis Dumont's general observations of the society they have set out to characterize. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam: I hadn't really looked at this page until today, but in some sense it was more readable two years ago before LukeEmily made their first edit which involved following up the neutral if facile first sentence in Origins, "The origin of the Rajputs has been a much-debated topic among the historians." with a provocative second sentence, "Modern historians agree that Rajputs consisted of a mixing of various different social groups of different Varna including Shudras and tribals." In my view, that is playing with fire because Shudras were themselves infirmly characterized even in the early 18th century. Some groups were defined to be shudras, not so much by the early British, which seems to be the fashionable Indian refrain these days, but by the Indian "upper castes," to heighten their ritual purity by having someone else do the most polluting work (as the East India Company had begun to take out some of the wind from beneath their upper caste sails). This was well before the more nebulous "castes" (Kayasthas, Khattris among the scribal, Kurmi or Jat among the tilling, Keori or Kachi among the market gardening, Gwalas and Aheers among the herding, began to be pressed into various grades of clean shudras in the late 19th-century, eliciting, in turn, the early 20th century forms of upliftment. Varna is a tricky business. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Polly O'Hanlon's Caste and its histories in Colonial India would also be an example of a tertiary source as well, in that it is a survey article of sorts. Less broad-scaled than Bayly's. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:, you said Vajpeyi's book is nowhere in that gene-pool of rigor and sophistication. Sir,it is not her book - it is a broad collection of topics from various scholars on many topics including Buddhism. You are discussing another book on that other page that you have used. We are not using her unpublished PhD thesis either. This specific chapter by Vajpeyi(not the book) is cited by 10 scholars including historian Theodore Benke and Dr.Rosalind O'Hanlon, Dr.Audrey Truschke etc. But she is not rigorous enough for wikipedia? Susan Bayly is great, I agree, but Vajpeyi goes in great depth in this source. She even gives the page number of the Sanskrit scripture in her citations. Also, I am not sure that as editors were are allowed to judge if source are sophisticated or not. Would that not be WP:OR? Sorry, I cannot believe what I am reading. This will get rid of 90% of content on caste articles on wikipedia and will open a can of worms. This will be seriously detrimental to WP. For DUE,the Indian textbook(by Historian Kapur) is a tertiary source as per wikipedia definition of tertiary source. I think we will be violating WP policies with such arbitrary rules and judging sources i.e WP:OR.LukeEmily (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, LukeEmily, please don't quote WP rules to me or drop names, and don't quote long paragraphs. Please summarize them without jargon in simple language, using heuristics perhaps, appropriate for a talk page discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily: Please cite the chapter in the Wikipedia format: {{cite book | last = | first = | chapter = | title = | editor1-last = | editor1-first = | editor2-last = | editor2-first = | isbn = | pages = | publisher = | location = }} Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Fowler&fowler:, We have simply used what sources say and dont give personal opinions. The consensus was established two years ago after a long discussion. I dont understand what you mean by "playing with fire". Historians do mention "Shudra" for several of the caste origins incuding Rajputs and all those wiki pages use that too. Sitush made the rule that we do not mention varna in lead so as to avoid edit warring if it involves "Shudra" - which is nothing more than a ritual status. That rule is being followed strictly. I understand the need for POV pushers to remove the word - but we can't have different rules for different pages. The Rajputisation, violence among castes and mistreatment of Rajput women all occured because of attempt to change shudra to Kshatriya. We cannot ignore it. On Baidya page(mostly edited by TB), sudra is mentioned more than 10 times and Hindu dharmashastras are given. It has been mentioned on Kayastha page too. There has been a consistent effort to remove it (including forming facebook group of rajputs against wikipedia editors), using personal attacks by Rajput and Kayastha POV pushers and several attacks on @Admantine123: especially by some Rajputs and a Kayastha pov pusher named Srivastava. Many of them were blocked by admins. I think I need a break. Will take up this discussion later.LukeEmily (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Luke, here the discussion is going on the specific recently added content which has been removed. It is better we stick to it. A lot of things happened on this page in the past, including addition of user generated image to depict this community in particular manner. This is why we stick to the content discussion here.Akalanka820 (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You have done everything but respond to my request, which was: Please summarize that paragraph (pp. 257: section RAJPUTS ACCORDING TO THE DHARMASASTRA: Whatever the realities...) above from Vajpeyi, say, in six sentences in simple language appropriate for an encyclopedia, for what she has written is not encyclopedic prose. Otherwise, you are wasting my time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry @Fowler&fowler:, will do than soon.LukeEmily (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

What applies to the pages of other caste and communities, is equally applicable to this page. Just because the people from this caste group are very active on Wikipedia and they resent everything that appears to them against the honour of their community, we can't just erase everything that is supported by sources but not liked by Rajpoot people. Let's just avoid the varna discussion as that is supported by sources and consensus was established long ago after months of discussion. For the recent addition like "Rajputs in Hindu Dharmashastra" and other stuffs, please carry on discussion. I'll be keeping a tab on the discussion going on here.Admantine123 (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

And who are you? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged here. Btw, i am a human being. :) Admantine123 (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

What dictionary of what pidgin dialect of English is that human being using that gives them the right to spell Rajput as Rajpoot? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Reading Todd in the original lost manuscript, or Prithvi Raj raso translated by an early Company rule orientalist? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Not that much, actually not have time for that. But, some of the British era images used here were using the same spelling for "Rajput", that i used. Anyways, cool down.:) Admantine123 (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Really? There is no consensus here because a consensus among WP editors with wide ranges of knowledge or ignorance is no consensus. The consensus needs to be of sources, determined by WP:TERTIARY sources, which summarize them and which alone have the right to determine the consensus. Thus far I have seen no such consensus. Eight sources are listed above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

F&F: {{There is no consensus here because a consensus among WP editors with wide ranges of knowledge or ignorance is no consensus.There is no consensus here because a consensus among WP editors with wide ranges of knowledge or ignorance is no consensus.}} I strongly disagree. The consensus was arrived at by discussion by several senior editors and strictly following rules like WP:CONACHIEVE. Even admins were involved, there were multiple RFCs and senior editors like @NitinMlk:, @Kautilya3:, @HinduKshatrana:, @Utcursch: and myself and several senior Rajput editors too. If Bayly has not written anything about Rajputisation while discussing Rajputs then it only shows that the Bayly source is not good and we should discuss that source on ANI. Rajput community formation was the results of Rajputisation, an important topic that did not even exist on wikipedia two years back. We can discuss and trim repetitive content and clean up and improve the article but I will prefer to either get banned or retire if undiscussed disruption of long established content removal to this page starts. We have spend months and weekends discussing the sources, asking for counter views, RFCs, admin protection due to caste promotion etc. and now you say there is no consensus two years back. Please involve Sitush please or admins before any further edits.LukeEmily (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You are talking about recent addition, i think. I am not active nowadays and i don't have idea about this "Ugra" issue. But, i would like to learn about it from the discussion going on here. Let's wait for reply of the other editors. You have asked about the quote from the particular source, i think. Admantine123 (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean this as a response to you. I grant that you are a person with integrity. But what I generally worry about on the caste related articles is the plethora of editors with no training in the social sciences or their methodologies, let alone in reading primary sources, judging them, who all have access to Google and can find obscure secondary sources that they can only very infirmly understand. They often edit only caste-related articles, which makes you wonder why they are there. They haven't displayed the knowledge or skill elsewhere on WP that might give us comfort that they are capable of faithfully summarizing sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sir, i understand what you wanna say. You are here for a long time and when i started editing the caste related articles, i usually learned from the edits of people like you and Sitush only. Don't worry, we'll fix it in best possible way. Thanks-Admantine123 (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I always learn from Sitush. Yes, Admantine123, I think he is asking for a summary of ugra from Vajpeyi.LukeEmily (talk)

I've asked for the citation in the WP format above; and I've asked for your summary of the long paragraph from Vajpeyi you have quoted for our edification. Please summarize it in five sentences in the ordinarily simple encyclopedic language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

To Admantine123, nobody is asking here for any extra treatment to be given to this page, so you yourself should not decide what points someone has raised. The content properly referenced are always good and should be supported but there is way to write any encyclopaedia page on a topic. We can't just put everything we like or we have a personal strong opinion on the page. Unfortunately, this has been the case here and this is rightly pointed out by FF Sir. This page definitely needs editing style of a very experienced editor like him. Akalanka820 (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is my summary:

Dharmashastra part:

---

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

As per the medieval Brahminical Dharmashastras, Rajputs are a mixed jati. The Jatinirnayaprakaranama of Sudrakamalakara, an early 1600s Dharmaśāstra text written by Kamalakarabhatta , an ugra or rajaputa is the projeny of a mixed caste. Although ugra literally means scary or fierce, in this context the medieval writers only used this term in the context of his qualities as a warrior. Seshasakrishna's Sudracarasiromani, a text that predates Sudrakamalakara also supports this definition for a rajaputa. Kamalakarabhatta makes a professional and ritual distinction: a rajaputa may fight, however, he has to follow the duties similar to sudras or be sudrasamana in non-secular realms. Thus, in the practical political context and Hindu religious texts the lexical similarity of the words is deceptive. Some emigrant Brahmins may have been involved in Rajputising tribes to the Rajput status. Despite this, periodically, Brahmins have stated from time to time that Rajputs are not real Kshatriyas.

non-Dharmashastra part:

---

Other than establishing marital ties with already established Rajput families, constructing genealogies and adopting titles such as "rana", Rajputising also involved starting the pretensions of rituals of twice-borns ( wearing sacred thread etc.). However, one ritual that was not given much significance was the Abhisheka. When a clan leader was made king by the Mughal emperor, the Tika mark on the head of leader by the Muslim emperor confirmed his Royal status and the Hindu ritual of Abhisheka was only of secondary importance. Aurangzeb eventually stopped the custom of Tika and the custom was replaced by bowing or taslim to the Mughal emperor, who would return the salute. This possibly implies that it was still up to the Mughal emperor to ultimately give or deny the Rajput status to the clan leader. The description of Rajputs in the Hindu Dharmashastras, self image that the Rajputs presented, and the Mughal view of the Rajputs was disparate. This incongruity, makes the Rajput identity polyphonous. LukeEmily (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I said five or six sentences. You've essentially repeated her opaque text. I know enough Sanskrit to also know that ugra is an adjective; ugras would be meaningless; the nominalization is ugraha It was commonly used in the old days for snake catching tribes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You are talking about one text. I don't think she is saying it was the reality, only that in one text those biases were seen to be affirmed by some upper-castes to wall out aspiring entrants. Why is that notable for this article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Or to scoff at the new entrants. The notion that a caste would be created by miscegenation is itself ludicrous unless we are only talking (ironically) about creation myths. I mean how many brahmins or kshatriyas were going around sleeping with shudra women and how were the offspring being rounded up to look for snakes,and thereafter to intermarry, with a fierce look on their faces? In other words, it was most likely the Indo-Aryan creation myth for walling out yet another pre-existing skilled indigenous group on the subcontinent (that the world's oldest system of apartheid yet again managed to label impure)

It doesn't help that Vajpeyi piece is not lucidly written, but I fear you have grossly misinterpreted her meaning or her irony. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Good to know that you know Sanskrit. I know a little sanskrit too. I agree, ugraha(ugra with visarga) would be nominative case just as "Ramaha" would be nominative singular. Rama is vocative - nevertheless when translated into english, most people will translate "Ramah gacchati" to Rama goes - not Ramah goes. They drop the visarga as it will confuse the english reader. ugra is an adjective, I agree. ugram would be the stem. I suspect she is using ugra loosely in english hence she is using ugras which does not make sense if you look at it from the Sanskrit point of view. ugra has many meanings one is this - all its meanings are here. The point is that rajaputa is used in the sanskrit text(it is NOT her interpretation of ugra). ugra is also used but even if it were not used, nothing would change. In fact, TB dropped out ugra completely. The plural would be "ugraaha" but using that instead of ugras would confuse english readers. This is from the famous Ramraksha stotra that most Brahmins families ask their children to memorize "रामो राजमणिः सदा विजयते रामं रमेशं भजे रामेणाभिहता निशाचरचमू रामाय तस्मै नमः।।" The word Ram is used in several different cases. In english, it would all be translated as Ram not as Ramo or ramam or ramaya. She uses the same logic - hence discussing sanskrit grammar in an english chapter is incorrect. The first part was only 5-6 lines. I would trim the summary to two lines as follows As per some hindu dharmashastras, the word rajputa means mixed caste from a Kshatriya father and Shudra mother. Brahmins have time and again alleged that Rajputs are not real Khsatriyas even though some Brahmins themselves were involved in Rajputising tribes.". But I think TB's summary was much better than mine. As a side, Please check this screenshot by manpret sohal(I have no clue who Mr Sohal is and have no association with him - but he has shared a screenshot from Skanda Puran) sohal . This is the image from the hindu scripture image. Please check line 48 and 47. It explicitly uses the word "Rajput" (not Rajputra). And it says the Rajput is the product of a Kshatriya man, shudra woman and has to follow the dharma of a shudra. This is from another scripture not the one Vajpeyi mentions. My point was simple: Rajput claims of their varna were given, historian opinions were given but nowhere were Brahmin opinions or scriptures cited. Are the Brahminic scriptures not important? If you feel it is undue, I have no further arguments and we can close this discussion with the consensus to keep it removed. I apologize for taking everyone's time. LukeEmily (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

And sure enough I did find a tertiary-ish text-book which we can use to summarize what Vajpeyi is saying which is not that far from what I somewhat satirically posted above, though obviously more precise and appropriate for an encyclopedia: Irschick, Eugene (2015). A History of the New India: Past and Present. Routledge. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-415-43578-9. These interpretive activities on the part of Maharashtrian Brahmans, says Vajpeyi, were probably an attempt to domesticate and colonize a wide and heterogeneous series of groups (both social groups but also women) by thematizing otherness and social difference where most people did not need to have reference to dharma (or appropriate behavior) in their daily lives to display markers of ritual status. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Luke, so now we are going to be using Quora as reference, absolutely ridiculous. I won't comment on the Sohal account there it is immaterial but it definitely looks like some inter-community rivalry of Jat v Rajput at play on that forum, but let me clear you on Wikipedia we don't encourage such petty inter-community rivalries. It is surprising you yourself want to interpret primary texts. The word Ugra is used for a community which existed as a group since ancient time period. They are still found there in West Bengal and neighbouring regions referring themselves as Ugra Kshatriya. Enough with this deviating talk. Akalanka820 (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: Just saw your dictionary, the complete one. It does say snake catcher! I'm a rank beginner but it quotes: क्षत्रियाच्छूद्रकन्यायां क्रूराचारविहारवान् । क्षत्रशूद्र- वपुर्जन्तुरुग्रो नाम प्रजायते ॥ My grammer is bad, but I break the second line as क्षत्र (control, domination) + शूद्र (in this instance: at ones feet) + विपु: (body/bodies) + जन्तु: (animal(s)) + उग्र​: + नाम (name) + प्रजायते (said to be?)

Is this remotely correct? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Just read your latest comment, I think your comments are WP:OR. Can we close this as per WP:UNDUE. It is obvious that the Brahmins had to have some way of discussing a mixed caste as a metaphor and the Kshatriya-shudra sex is not to be taken literally. LukeEmily (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

What you had written in the article is UNDUE, and it was the reason I removed it. You are welcome to use Irschick's summary of Vajpeyi, but not interpret Vajpeyi yourself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

My general recommendation to you is that you not spend all your time on caste-related articles. I mean this helpfully: you should cut your teeth on uncontroversial articles, even simple start class articles, where your edits can receive adequate criticism by many more Wikipedia editors than would appear on a page such as this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed the sarcasm in Vajpeyi. Thank you for explaining it. I really appreciate your time and effort. I have no plans to add something that was meant as sarcasm. Is it OK to close this discussion? I have read a lot of literature on caste as well as Rajputisation, female infanticide etc. that is why I got involved. For example, I have the complete analysis of the disputes regarding the Daivadnya Brahmans by a Univ of Toronto historian and it is just too interesting(and sad at the same time).LukeEmily (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: Hers is not sarcasm really, maybe some irony, as much as might be allowed in a scholarly context (although mine is somewhat sarcastic; just letting off steam for which I apologize).

More precisely, hers is some form of distancing in a socio-historical-linguistic interpretation of a literary-religious work. The problems with such sources is that they are very difficult to summarize for encyclopedic purposes and therefore I generally stay away from them (generally meaning that I use them only if they have something juicy balancing text from a tertiary source that has already been incorporated into the article, but is perhaps too dry by itself.

The bit about cutting teeth on simple articles in diverse fields was not meant to be patronising. I do this all the time. Witness: copying pencil, ... I did so even more in my early days: Ethelbert Blatter. It is very important for clarity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm done here. Thank you for the conversation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Finally, she says in your paragraph,"Rajputs are a miscegenated jati produced from non-alike fathers and mothers of specified types. According to the Sudrakamalakara, an authoritative Sanskrit text on the dharma of sudras written by Gagabhatta’s own uncle, Kamalakarabhatta, in the early part of the seventeenth century, the progeny of a ksatriya man and a sudra woman would be an ugra, otherwise known as a rajaputa.33 Such a person does battle and is expert in wielding weapons, but he must follow the duties proper to a sudra. In Kamalakara’s classification, being a sankarajati, or mixed group, ugras, or rajaputas are sudrasamana, as goodas (or as bad as!) sudras."

This does not seem to be a metaphor. Given there is nonstop upper-caste violence against shudra women in the 21st century, including brutal sexual violence, it was very likely much more of it prevalent in the 17th century, i.e. there were quite a few such unlucky unwanted offspring. They seem to be saying essentially, that in the Dharmashastra there is no notion of mulatto or octoroon, as there is in Latin America, only the one-drop rule. If the woman is shudra, so is the offspring, irrespective of the father's caste. So is not so much a creation myth or metaphor for walling out a pre-existing native group of India (as I had originally thought) as a myth for controlling the reactions to the violence visited on the lower-castes by the upper-castes, or as Irschick says in his book sumarizng Vajpeyi: "an attempt to domesticate and colonize a wide and heterogeneous series of groups." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

In other words,

the implication that the so-called back-door entrants to Kshatriyahood are lesser Kshatriyas than those who fancy more authentic origins; that the snake-catching tribes are metaphorically born of less pure relations, is not something Wikipedia can give notability to in its articles on the castes so objectified. It can mostly do so only in its articles on the castes who did the objectifying or on the works of objectification that appeared as a result; those are the venues where a mention would be WP:DUE.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: , the scripture that Vajpeyi mentions is not manu smriti. You are using the manu smriti definition for snake hunters in the dictionary. The profession mentioned in the scriptures cited by vajpeyi are warriors, not snake catching. Your quote and above discussion is for Manu smriti. It will take a long time to go through the sudrakamalakara and find the exact text but there was another scripture mentioned by Nandini Kapur. Please see the link to this image from a page in sahyadrikhanda that she mentioned sahyadri khand rajputa. It says exactly what Vajpeyi is saying in sudrakamlakara. BTW, @Admantine123:, on an unrelated note, I think you had quoted Buchanan somewhere - see his views on Rajputs here [ https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a0dead61ef81568a2edfe6e7a7a2eecb Buchanan]. But since he was a doctor, we can safely ignore him. I confess I am showing the link to the images linked by that person on quora (Sohal). But was not sure how else to show a primary source. The rough translation of the sanskrit text clearly says exactly what @Trangabellum: wrote - they are warriors by profession but have to follow the rituals of shudra. A quick look at the link to the tertiary source mentioning "shenvis" proves how misleading tertiary sources can be and that is why wikipedia discourages using tertiary source as a citation by policy. Does the writer know that many Brahmins nor scholars consider Shenvis Brahmins even today let alone 500 years back. umich professor Dr.Madhav Deshpande has written on this as well as Wagle from the Univ of Toronto. When there are differing opinions of historians, then we use tertiary sources to access due weight. There is no differing opinion on mixed caste/peasant origin of rajputs. Satish Chandra, a reputed historian summed up the opinions of various historians. Sinha/Kulke/Vajpeyi(not the part i quoted on tp)/Eaton etc summed up rajputisation and Rajput caste formation succinctly. I think TB's trimmed version was much more appropriate and should be in the article. But I acquiesce to your decision based on your seniority only in this case. But please let us not disrupt the article too much. I think, we also need to see how relevant Bayly is given all the new research on Rajputs. I dont want to make a case against Bayly's superficial understanding on some matters IMHO as I respect all academics but there is enought evidence for a case based on some of the quotes I read in her book. If you are associated with Susan Bayly, I apologize, I dont mean it as any disrespect to her. But a single human cannot possibly have the correct overview of all castes in the world. In some cases, we need to dig deeper by going to the subject experts. The other thing I request is that if anyone is communicating to you via email requesting you to remove content they dislike, please let us have the communication done publicly via talk page. I intentionally do not have any email attached to my wiki account as I want all my communication with all editors to be completely transparent. BTW, that facebook group formed is called RAJAP Providing below the... - Rajputs against Propaganda - RAJAP A page to burst the evil propaganda against the Kshatriya (Rajput) https://www.facebook.com/108197814411768/posts/providing-below-the-list-of-hate...Providing below the list of hate mongers and propagandists against rajput community. These are working with an agenda to malign the Rajput on wikipedia and uplift other castes to Kshatriya status. .. They have made it private now but they dont realize that google caches the summary. I will not be completely shocked if many of the Rajput POV pushers are part of the facebook group privately communicating with you.LukeEmily (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You are lucky, LukeEmily, that I am not the kind of person who takes editors to AN and demands blocks for writing drivel about other editors that borders on paranoia. I don't click on links on talk pages, unless they are in the WP cite book or citation format, so I can't respond to those links.

What I see here is continual misinterpretation. You misinterpret what I write. You misinterpret what Ananya Vajpeyi has written. And you pay no attention to Eugene Irschick's book, A History of the New India, Routledge, 2018, a generally tertiary source, which does summarize Vajpeyi. By the way, I had mentioned snake catching only because I had read that somewhere a long time ago, and I was excited that you quoted from a Sanskrit dictionary whose shloka I was able to decipher (I hope) with my very limited knowledge of Sanskrit. I then asked you if my interpretation was correct? Instead of responding to that you began to me that that it is from Manu and not from the Dharmasashtra.

I recommend again that you cut your teeth on paraphrasing and comprehending general sources for simple start class articles. Again I don't mean this patronizingly, as I've already stated I do this myself. It is essential because it makes us write and read precisely in light of criticism from the ordinary editors who respond; there are many more of those in instances of simple start class articles than there in those of obscure caste-related articles.

The principles are clear: the foundations of edits must lie in broad-scale introductory texts, vetted and cited around the world. They can be embellished with sources in a hierarchy of scale, proceeding from the broadscale and tapering to the narrowscale, which means the proportion of textual space is in some sense proportional to the breadth of scale. (This is an art not a science.). In the coming days, I'll create a section with a sampling of such books and give a flavor of such an hierarchy for the topic of vital caste-related articles. I don't have anything more to say now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear LukeEmily, your last line is outright attack on editors and if it is directed at me, let me tell you I did not called any other editor here (tagging @Fowler&fowler Sir, he can also clarify this part) but it is clear that it was you who had tagged FF Sir on WT:INB for comments, and lastly I am not associated to any such FB based caste etc or carry same opinions/views like you think in your imagination. This is bit surprising but it is you who has 400+ edits on this article (as per edit history on this page) and if other editors raise questions on the points related to it, you can't just keep on chanting POV-pusher every now and then on this talk page discussion to just shut them off. Now, for the second time you have taken name of some Quora account of Mr Sohal in your replies. This is absolutely ridiculous and laughable. I wonder what is the exact reason for quoting Mr Sohal or any such random Quora accounts whose most posts on that platform ( as per the link you shared) gives the idea that they are engaged into petty inter-community/caste fights. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

My dear Akalanka820, no it was not an attack any editor in the talk page and especially not on you. Your page says you are Jain so I cannot assume that you would be part of RAJAP. There was a discussion with Admin in 2020 about this fb group. Some of the FB posts were abusing some wikipedia editors and congratulating each other on how they (after becoming wp editors) taught existing editors a lesson etc. I did not even know that Sohal was a Jat until you mentioned it. I dont know if he is or is not involved in any intercommunity dispute and could not care less. I am not active on social media. I was not sharing his opinion itself but the images of the primary sources he had posted in his reply. One of them was Skanda Purana that was also mentioned by Kapur. Hope my intent was clear(I dont know how to type in Sanskrit) hence I had to post link to the images.LukeEmily (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What is RAJAP? , It is pretty clear why you shared an unknown Quora account post ( not once but twice in the comments on this page. It is easily identifiable from the link you had posted in the comment, it has profile and the account's other posts. This is ridiculous to say the least and you call others as POV-pushers. It is better to have some self-reflection and then constantly comments on other editors behaviour.Akalanka820 (talk) Akalanka820 (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion closed from my side. Best Wishes.LukeEmily (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Your translation was correct and I was impressed with Sandhi. Thanks.LukeEmily (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Luke, not many here cares or have any particular interest in what decision you take with respect to yourself. You should read WP:YANI. This constant attempt to indirectly attack editors and then put comments about retirement on an article talk page discussion should be considered as part of WP:HIGHMAINT. I do hope it isn't any form of WP:GAMING, we are told to assume good faith as per WP:AGF but it gets very difficult in the present situation with type of deviating responses. Akalanka820 (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Akalanka820, Good to know that. Have removed my comments and unretired. I should have used semiretired or on a break template instead. WP:AGF applies to ALL - something which you forget in edits where you say " this person hates this caste", "friendly editor2 to editor1", "purposely trying to show community in a different way" in the edit summary itself! About Fowler&fowler, I realize he was actually trying to help me, so I apologize to F&F for letting off steam. Happy belated Thanksgiving BTW to you Akalanka820 and F&F. As far I am concerned, this issue about not using that text in dharmashastras is resolved as WP:UNDUE and I have already said that I have. My only intent is improving articles on subjects that I have studied in depth. (caste mobility, Rajputisation, etc.). But I am going to work on some simple articles as suggested by F&F to reduce stress.LukeEmily (talk)

F&F Yes, I admit that I misinterpreted Vajpeyi. Sorry. I dont have Eugene Irschick's book with me currently - will try to get it. Point taken about the comment on general sources. Thanks for the suggestions. As I said, your translation was perfect. If you are new I highly recommend Introduction to Sanskrit by Thomas Egenes (both parts) - available on amazon.com . The first part will be a bit slow for a someone who understands Devnagari script but the learning curve for the second part is steep and it analyzes the shlokas from the Bhagwat Gita and discusses the grammar used. If you already know Devenagari, I think Satavlekar's 18 booklets are great but although cheap they are hard to find in the US. The price on amazon.com is absurd compared to their actual price(about 3 dollars!) LukeEmily (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I already have quite a few books, including,

• Ruppel, A. M. (2017). The Cambridge introduction to Sanskrit. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-08828-3. LCCN 2016010373.
• Goldman, Robert P.; Sutherland, Sally J. (2011) [2004]. Devavanipravesika: An Introduction to the Sanskrit Language. Delhi, Berkeley: Motilal Banarsidass; University of California. ISBN 978-81-208-3294-7.
• Deshpande, Madhav M (2007). Saṃskrtasubodhinī: A Sanskrit Primer. Volume 47 of Michigan papers on South and Southeast Asia series. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

I had learned the Devanagari and Perso-Arabic scripts of Hindi/Urdu a number of years ago. I'm now trying to learn the mother languages (of the Great Tradition, that is), Sanskrit and Farsi (Persian). I also have books for reading Latin and Attic Greek. Part of the grand plan of shallow-water wading of the Indo-European classical range.

I have received Vajpeyi's chapter through inter-library loan. I will post a very short summary sometime soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I will also sometime in the future propose something on writing the major caste articles in an RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I especially like Antonia Ruppel's book as it is written from the perspective of modern linguistics, and dives into classical texts early on. She's a scholar of early Indo-European. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Pratihaar of Kannauj

Pratihaar of kannauj also known as Gurjar-Pratihaar Kingdom. They belongs to Gurjar Caste not Rajputs. Therefore, you are requested to remove Pratihaar of Kannauj from this page as it violates the rules of Wikipedia. DrPawan29 (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Latest additions

It was added that just recently that in anti-Mughal literature here [[3]]- ( yes this was the word used by those who wanted to add it) this particular social group rulers were criticised for their closeness to Mughals. After that Dr Purnima Dhavan reference of an event which is not every detailed in her chapter except one liner has been added to support it. This is the full words from the same book Chapter named Sikhism in Eighteenth Century by Purnima Dhavan, page number 3 of it- [[4]] , The last paragraph here becomes important, the writer says it is Sikh version and yes it also says How Guru Gobind Singh was reaching out to Mughals ( the word diplomatic exchange...??), I am bit surprised as to how this is a broad topic notable to a caste page?? If anything it can be mentioned in Guru Gobind Singh's page. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Akalanka820:, Please ping me if you discuss my edit. Here is the quote from Vanina:

In many literary works, especially those reflecting the views of the anti-Mughal movements, there was observable criticism of the Rajputs for their alliance with the Mughals and...

. Mughal Rajput and Sikh interaction is quite important. Anyways, by deleting a sentence added 54 months back(and also modified by you 54 months back), and after several editors have continued editing the page, falls under WP:BRD if you delete it now. Are Sikh and Rajput interactions are not relevant? I guess the general answer is that anything that does not show the community in a positive light is not relevant. No objection for Bingley's quote nor Vivekananda's quote here since both these quotes are flattering. Anyway, there is more sikh Rajput interaction, will discuss on talk page.LukeEmily (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear Luke, It is not 5 months ago,where did I gave any consensus to it? I simply corrected few lines at that time ( definitely not 5 months later) which I could see on that page. These are regular additions that you have been continuously pushing on this page. And it is very important to note the recent comments by dear FF as to how and where such comments should be explained ( if those comments are very notable enough). I will not say on rest of your off-topic things that you mentioned. The line you shared says in literary works... that is enough to tell the whole story. Every group has their literay work that doesn't mean we are going to use that to assess the other community/or on caste pages. And lastly to call Sikh literary works which were inspired by Persian and Indo-Timurid system ( this can be checked from Oxford Handbook on Sikh Studies), the same reference you quoted later as supporting argument for "Anti-Mughal" is definitely not completely correct. We are not here republishing each and every line from book of writers but only what is important and makes sense. On the ping part, your bio says wiki off-break which does created ambiguous situation for me. Lastly, the other content that you talk about here, those haven't added by me. I am liable for my edits and not for your or others edits. Due to constraint of time ( as we all are busy in real life), I haven't gone into all of it. There are lots of references here on this page. The one I remembered it stuck to my head.Akalanka820 (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear Akalanka820, Please do not edit war. Please see the flowchart on the right at WP:BRD on how the consensus is determined. Consensus is implicit. You reverted a change that was 5 months old and after several editors (incuding you) had modified the page and section. Hence, it is definitely WP:BRD. 2016 weeks is a long time when a page is being actively edited. I am not going to comment on your quote: regular additions that you have been continuously pushing on this page. But it suffices to say I have been adding both positive and negative views all over wikipedia. Please let me know if you need examples. You are free to add only positive views. Or add opposing views as you mentioned(giving refuge to Sikhs). Your previous comment on literature is WP:OR as Vanina does not say it is sikh literature. And even if it were, why does it matter? It could be rephrased if I made a mistake in understanding what she said - you could have just removed anti-Mughal instead of deleting everything along with the source. There have been some deletions and additions(including mine) since december 15th that have been reverted and objected to. So as per WP:BRD, each of us - both you and me - need to explain our edits via discussions and reach consensus. As per WP:BRD, 15th december is clearly a consensus version. Please let us follow WP rules/policies. I will create a section to discuss the sikh/rajput relation so we can discuss. Please focus only on the content and not on the editors in that section.LukeEmily (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Luke Emily stop misleading on talk page. You have added the content as part of your regular additions on 22 August 2022 here- [[5]]. It isn't 5 months or 20 weeks by any stretch and there is no consensus on talk page for that content. The reference quote you shared it says literary works...- your own quotes and not mine. On your part of Sikh- Rajput relations. Do you understand there is a community called as Sikh Rajput. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Please continue discussion about sikhs in previous section where I have added details. I never said 40 weeks, I said 20 , it was 16 weeks but what difference does 20 to 16 make? Your latest revert is violating wikipedia policies of WP:BRD. Please self revert.LukeEmily (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

First you say 20 then move to 16 as per convenience, Please post the consensus on the particular content that you had added here on the talk page. I cannot see any such consensus to it. And it is very important to note the recent comments made by experienced editor FF with respect to various edits made on this page here - [[6]]. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I request again, please read WP:BRD. I miscalculated the time. 16 weeks or 20 weeks is irrelevent as both are several months.LukeEmily (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a single regular edit by you and definitely I cannot see any consensus on talk page for it. Only this particular thing has been removed. You have been continuously adding content here and it is very important to note remark by an editor on it. Those edits were very old but this one is just latest additions which you make regularly on this page. Not a single other edit has been removed except the two line content you had added. There is no need to continuously mislead here.Akalanka820 (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Sitush has asked that Shudra not be added to lead and we have followed it. Satish Chandra is a respected historian who has summarized varnas well and peasant origin is well supported by plenty of sources(20+). A Rajput page that does not mention the word 'Rajputisation'(how the Rajput community was formed), or how peasant/pastoral groups transitioned from peasants to warriors is an "incorrect"(to put it mildly) as it was before 2020. I am not googling many sources all he time- I have many of the books in my possession. Even tertiary Indian textbooks(like the one by Kapur) that discuss Rajputs have discussed shudra, peasant pastoral etc and this wiki page was discussing heritage from Rama and Krishna of the scriptures before 2020 !! Beyond absurd! Anyways, I dont want to discuss that anymore here. The rest of the content is well sourced and accurate and the sources have been discussed to death in 2020 via RFCs etc. What misleading are you talking about? Please can you discuss the sikh issue below? Please uncollapse.LukeEmily (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

You please stick to the topic. I raised issue with a particular content. I don't want to go through every content but let me tell you based on the recent experience and after the comments made by an editor in a discussion in last month with you, it seems a lot of the content that you add are not exactly depicted as such in the reference, yes this becomes clearer when one reads the book. You generally pick up one paragraph to draw your own conclusions but ignore the other paragraph in the same book. In most cases, your content are not backed by Tertiary references. One example is of Dr Purnima Dhavan where I have explained the full quotes from her book including the last lines. Regarding, Ram and Krishna God connection that is part of their cultural traditions. We depict any community cultural traditions for sure, this has been followed on many pages. It is also written clearly in many references as to how the community was a thread wearing grp. Yes thread wearing was not even allowed for scribe castes etc in north. But I have least interest in discussing all this or any of your off-topic provocative comments here. To clarify your last line, I didn't collapsed it ! I had just moved that in chronological order. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

No one is preventing you from adding sourced content from other parts of a chapter that you think are ignored, are they? By scribes do you mean Kayastha? Actually, shudra was added on their page also by @Admantine123: and that is why one guy(named Srivastava or something like that) has attacked her relentlessly. I am not talking about traditions - it is a summary made by a historian. And yes, this discussion is off-topic.LukeEmily (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, we don't discuss any editor on the talk page. I think this was told very clearly. Next time you bring off-topic on talk page. I am bound to take this up. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Luke Emily, I think in the previous discussion it was clearly explained by @Fowler&fowler: Sir, on the topic as to how to the views of some political personality is more notable to their page rather than to caste page. We are already explaining reasonings given by historian for marital relationship between Rajput rulers and Mughals in the section- Akbar's policy. Guru Gobind Singh comment into the another section of this page Aurangzeb's policy doesn't make sense at all. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

References

"Rajaputra" in Rigveda

I recently added the mention of term "rajaputra" in Rigveda and other Hindu texts. The addition was reverted by LukeEmily twice: 1 & 2. I wish to respond to you, Luke. Rajaputra redirects to Rajput only for a simple reason that "rajput" is largely considered to be derived from the sanskrit term "rajaputra". I added the content in "Origin" section rather than "Emergence as a community" section. Mentions of the term in ancient Hindu texts is worthy enough for the origin section. I haven't added any conclusive statement in the main body like "today's rajputs are ancient rajaputras". The quotes provided with citations are for verifiability of sources. Here are the citations provided by me for content addition:

In your edit summaries, you seem to be contesting the mention of "rajaputra" in Rigveda. Apart from the sources provided, you can find the Rigvedic verse "rajpautreva savantava gachhatah" in Sanskrit scholar John Muir's translation of Rigveda here. I also found these two sites in "External links" section of Rigveda page: 1 & 2. A simple Ctrl+F command will do. Dympies (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Dympies, please add all those references in this same section itself. Akalanka820 (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Akalanka820 sources have now been made available above.

Most of the sources you have added to support your edit are usually considered poor, when it comes to caste related articles. As for example the John Muir translation, which you are referring to is a WP:RAJ era work, which is a poor source and isn't allowed in caste articles. Also, the first source itself is from Cambridge Scholar's Publishing , which is barred by senior editors because they often plagiarise the content from other sources. Also, the other sources seems to be WP:SPS and they are not even talking about this caste group.Admantine123 (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Admantine123 there is no blanket ban on Raj era sources. They are discouraged for caste articles but there shall not be any issue when it comes to translation or presentation of religious scriptures. Whether its a Raj era writer or a modern one, the content in religious texts remain more or less same. Secondly, when have I claimed that the mentions are essentially related to today's caste group? The origin section is not supposed to discuss much about today's caste. It should briefly cover stuff related to etymology, religious mythology and assimilation of different ethnic groups. So, a brief discussion over the term "rajaputra" in mainstream Hindu scriptures as well as inscriptions is not undue. As far as Cambridge Scholars Publishing is concerned, it gives reference to JN Asopa's writings. We can also use Asopa's quotes directly from his book "Origin of Rajputs". And Rigvedic verses are available online; mention of the term in Rigveda shall not be questioned. Dympies (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

In such cases, the translation are not directly used as source as that will be WP:Primary. You are directly using those in this article. They need to be interpreted by any historian or scholars to be considered as a source for Wikipedia.Admantine123 (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Admantine123: the policy regarding primary sources is clear : Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

My primary sources are from reputed publishing houses, they have been discussed by noted historians like JN Asopa, Umberto Mondini and Rajvi Amar Singh. And I am using them for making a straightforward statement that the term is mentioned in the said Hindu texts. I am not adding any interpretation of the text in the main body. So I don't think their usage is an issue. Dympies (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Dympies, without taking sides in this discussion as I haven't gone into this, you should remove or at minimum replace Cambridge Publishing sources with other reference WP:RS implying what you want to add. I am not sure we use that publication. Akalanka820 (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Sikh Guru comments

Recently, I have removed a two liner quotes here-[[7]] added in Aurangzeb's policy section, following the editor who had added the quote then added another content to support their points but these narratives were part of the Sikh claims to warrior hood as per Dr Purnima Dhavan in Chapter Sikhism in Eighteenth Century in Oxford handbook of Sikh Studies here is the quote just below the above mentioned part -

Even in these reduced circumstances, later texts would note, the Guru continued to rally his supporters, pursued a diplomatic exchange with the Mughal court, and despite his difficulties, did not budge from his original claims of miri and piri or restrict his patronage and protection to the Khalsa (p. 51) alone. This charismatic leadership, courtliness, and open-handed patronage, even in difficult times, would remain the benchmark against which later Sikh courtly traditions would judge their own claims to warrior status

<ref name="SinghFenech2014">Purnima Dhavan; Pashaura Singh; Louis E. Fenech (27 March 2014). The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies. OUP Oxford. pp. 50–. ISBN 978-0-19-100411-7.,

Another comments of Louis E Fenech in one of their book- The Sikh Zafar-namah of Guru Gobind Singh- A Discursive Blade in the Heart of the Mughal Empire (2013) page 146

The Guru certainly draw many facets from Indo-Persian, Indo-Timurid, and Rajput courtly but not all..

, The most important part a simple glance over most of these books will tell that the writers here explain the Sikh centric literature and are more related to Sikh community claims to warrior hood.

This is from a very notable book WP:Tertiary work of writer Barbara D Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India (2006), page 33 -

The last guru, Gobind Singh (1666-1708), like other Punjab chiefs, variously used and resisted Mughal rule. Although defeated by Aurangzeb at the end of his reign, Gobind appealed to the new emperor, in vain, for restoration for his lands.

.

Last bit summarising, this two liner in my view is immaterial to this caste page in a section of Aurangzeb's policy, firstly because it is opinion of a political personality who as per tertiary references shared above was seeking legitimacy for himself ( if anything the comments should be notable to their page and not to this caste page) and Secondly, the Historians have explicitly explained that these were marriages for political purposes ( like alliances which are common through out the world) and has been discussed in section of Akbar's policy on this page as per WP:DUE. Rest we can re-include that two lines if a very notable tertiary reference of the likes of Barbara D Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India etc mentions it but I cannot see anyone till now . Akalanka820 (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources.LukeEmily (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I have provided quotes from a reputable WP: Tertiary which explains the context in different way. That is not WP:OR. On the other hand, you used a Sikh literary tradition to support your point of Dr Vanina's point which is WP:SYNTH as the other doesn't say that at all. The other references explain the Sikh Guru interactions with Mughal and Mughal state apparatus ( which may have included Rajput]] differently. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You obviously did not click on the link provided. The link talks about how tertiary, secondary and primary sources are ued.LukeEmily (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Just small advice to avoid WP:TLDR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Akalanka820 Disclaimer I do not keep any interest in caste imbroglios hence shall remain uninvolved. Just wish to share my experience Wikipedian community is not usually not comfortable with long walls of text they say WP:TLDR. So I suggest to provide a synopsis of what you want to say. If necessary keep long paragraphs in own user space and provide a link only on discussion pages. This just friendly suggestion and not for holding against you. Bookku (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC) Dear @Bookku:, thanks for your great suggestions. I will add the quotes on my talk page and direct the link to it. I hope this can work here. Akalanka820 (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC) @Akalanka820 Alternatively you can use collapse templates too, if at all you wish to have it on discussion page itself. Bookku (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)