Talk:Rajput/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Images

creating new section for discussing images as talk page is getting cluttered

Heba Aisha with these image reverts I noticed who are these russia rajput whose image you keep adding to origin when it was moved to gallery by some user. I don't know if there is any significant rajput clan by that name. A simple google search don't give any good result. So can you give us some source about this clan of rajput which appears to be so significant that not only it is added here but also moved many times. This British era photograph can be mislabelled too. Can you tell us more about this clan or how much relevant was it? Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Actually it was added not by me but by a user named user:HinduKshatrana u can check.I had seen it in the people of India folder of wikimedia commons from where i add images to other articles as well.But this one was seriously not my work i just move it to origin as images should be pertaining to the section where it is placed.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Its from The People of India by watson and kaye....it is a set of three books.They did survey in 1870s and wikimedia commons have a lot of image of people of various communities.We have no alternative for cultivators Rajputs so it is suitable in that section.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Now according to me origin section is fine and images are also at right place.Similar images are on various articles ex. Ahir.Also see my latest edit a sentence which was unexplained since 2018 is removed and something related is added.Are u all agree with that edit?Kautilya3 Sajaypal007 LukeEmily .Heba Aisha (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Also this photograph is not mislabelled as when i added similar image to Ahir and the castemen tried to remove it by placing a good image.Sitush himself fixed the same image see his edit summary on Ahir.So they seems to be fine.According to Sitush these images are ok.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• The lead section itself explain that various communities claim Rajput status but not all claims are Universally accepted.Hence i think its fine what do u think LukeEmily Heba Aisha (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Btw Sitush has removed the source which was a snapshot of google book which explained Rajputs keeping Jatin and Gujarin as their concubines.If you have source you can put there otherwise after sometime someone can remove this great achievement.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• & lastly, senior editors always say an individual whose achievements are great donot describe the status of whole caste.So they remove photos of politician of a caste if it is put on the top of the caste articles.Similarly i believe that in origin section putting the image of a 16th century warrior with his khanda on horseback will not work as that donot stands for whole community which includes people right from scion of erstwhile kings to the common cultivators as i saw in Bihar.This should look like an encyclopaedic article not like the website of IndianRajput.com..its my own views ask others*Heba Aisha (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha Kautilya3 For mislabelled I mean name on the photograph says "Russia Rajpoot". Origin of Rajputs is a very controversial topic among historians as I read. And there were many clans I read about it, but never read about this so called Russia Rajput. Thats why I am saying it maybe mislabelled. Can you provide some background on this particular clan, so we can know if its was actually some significant rajput clan because I literally couldnt find any. The other article you are mentioning, I visited those too but on those articles the photograph clearly says Ahir or other Yadava etc, so its not doubtful. I am doubting this photograph because I never heard of this clan before and couldnt find any source on that. Also one more image of a woman is labelled as Rajpoot, hindoo from Marwar, Chhota Nagpur. Now Marwar is a geographical region in Rajasthan and Chhota Nagpur is a geographical region in Jharkhand and Chattisgarh. Both these images looks doubtful. I am not saying to add some image of a person on a horseback wielding a sword. Most of the images in gallery are some people sitting and doing nothing. Someone added that image in origin and you replaced that one like twice with this image whose labeling is doubtful. What was wrong in that image which you removed. Can't cultivators just sit down and have some fun as well. These photos can represent the whole community.

Now in origin section last line of first para and first line of 3rd para are same and source given are also same. So its redundant to use same line again with same two sources, 3rd source as I mentioned earlier doesnt say what is written in the line.

Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• There are many groups who claim Rajput status as for example Babuan no one knows them outside Arrah region of Bihar.In fact i have met a person who claim to belong to Babuan rajput clan.They are possibly tribals who claim Rajput origin but Bihar government counts them in general category.Similarly Lodh caste they are also cultivators and are considered a subcaste of agricultural Kurmi caste in many parts of India but they also call themselves lodh rajput.Since you are from Rajasthan it will be difficult for u to know about various claimants as Rajputs of Rajasthan are the direct descendants of erstwhile warriors.The doubtful claims remains those of eastern Rajputs.Since this article is an umbrella article and represents all of them i found this image useful.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• On google search also we find very less stuff about Babuan rajputs only some people and places are shown.There are numerous such example and i know one from ur state too.The Mali communitySome people call themselves Mali Rajput.Do Rajputs accept them as a part of their community.??Heba Aisha (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have not put this image in lead as overall image of Rajputs is of warriors.But what i see...with time the society has diversified and they have taken other jobs too.Apart from orgin section image all other images are of landlords or feudal lords only.I just tried to make balance between the two.i.e poor and rich both section of Rajput society.Nearly 20 caste articles are there in which i added the images from people of India.We can include other images of Rajput cultivators too if you upload on commons but personality right and several other legal matters are there which makes it difficult to add new image thats y most of caste articles are without image.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Heba Aisha We cant rely on anecdotal evidence like you are saying that there are these clans and these unknown clans. If we can't find any evidence for russia rajput then its authenticity is under doubt. Same goes for the photo which combine Marwar and Chhota Nagpur. Also as nobody replied on that redundancy of same sentence used twice just after a para and talbot source so I am taking it as no disagreement on it. Sajaypal007 (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, the first pic is taken from this page of the book which contains all relevant details about it. The first thing which intrigued me was the flowers in their caps, and the page has even details about it: "Like most hill men the Rajpoots are fond of adorning themselves with sprigs of wild flowers" On a different note, the pic is not only an important representation of Rajput cultivators from hill regions of India (and relevant to the "Origin" section of this article) but also a historical image from one of the only two Indian states which have Rajput majority: Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh are the only states in India which have Rajput majority. Rajputs constitute around 35% of the total population at Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh: see here and here.

As far as the second pic is concerned, it is taken this page and its details are at this page, which sums up the pic no. 24 and 25: THE two individuals depicted in these Illustrations are of the Rajpoot tribe, ... The Rajpoot No. 25 is a Marwaree from Jodhpoor, on the western side of India. So the pic in question – i.e. pic no. 25 of the book – is of a Rajput from Jodhpur.

Finally, spellings used by the British used to be often very different from the present day, which makes it a challenge to identify even well-known entities. But that can be easily fixed by changing the caption. In any case, we are using them for representative purpose and are properly attributing to their sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I am just surpised that you guys are making your own claims. I do believe that in Wiki you have to give proper citations in order to add something. I dont want to insult anyone, if you guys have good knowledge then maybe write a book about these Russia Rajpoots and then add the book as a citation. But till the book is published it does not matter what you and Nitin have experienced or know as personal opinions cannot be used as citations here. As far as I know, you guys are not currently historians or renowned authors to make such claims. Either give citations for Russia Rajpoots or remove the pic because it is dubious at best and even the photographer says that their claims are doubtful. Ranadhira (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ranadhira, the last time I noticed you when you were using sockpuppets to disrupt caste articles. And if this is your response after reading my recent comment then it is nothing short of disruption here as well. But I guess you may not have read that comment, as you seem to be replying to another set of comments. So please read it again carefully. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC) edited my comment to clear its context - NitinMlk (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks NitinMlk also Sajaypal007 recent edits made by u is one sided we have not arrived at consensus as LukeEmily and Kautilya have not replied.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• I asked like a day ago, and in the meantime you replied like 3-4 times but didnt raise that issue. If you had the problem or suggestion you could have talked about it. You just ignored that and now I edited and you reverted that. Don't talk for others I visited their pages and they both made some edits in the meantime but didnt reply on this so I sensed no one disagrees on that. About both of them, I maybe mistaken that they didnt reply because of any reason. But you were talking on this page me and made like 3-4 replies. But didnt reply on that. You shouldn't worry about other editors, if they feel something they will say themselves. If you feel something, you say, if you wont address the point how am I gonna know you disagree with it. Please keep that in mind. And now tell me what do you suggest. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• All of us have become busy in other articles like you can see from my edit history.Regarding image NitinMlk explained it to u and i agree with him.It shouldn't be removed.Now regarding repititive sentence i am not in favour of removal.I think two of us(me and NitinMlk) are in favour of image so we should keep it.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Today an admin put this page under ECP for indefinite period reason given was caste boosterism. I Think now anyone who is involved in that should refrain from it.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, I did not discuss images as I was not sure before. But I read that link and the analysis of NitinMlk and he clearly says they are classified as Rajputs (legally).So I agree we should keep it. Anyway, modern sources do say they were also cultivators and tribals. If we have no other representation for cultivators, this image is fine in my opinion. I do not think the image is derogatory in any way - see Kashmiri Pandit or Kunbi or YadavLukeEmily (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This is for image so I am creating a new discussion for repetition of line Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• OK matter of image solved and none of us have problem.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please don't mind my silence. Images don't interest me a great deal. But it occurs to me that "Russia Rajputs" may or may not have anything to do with the country called Russia. That is just how the Englishmen chose to spell the name of their identity. I think the name should be put in quote marks and a full citation added. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Kautilya3 also agrees on keeping the image.Sajaypal007 issue sorted out.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• @HebaAisha @Kautilya3 Can British era source not make mistake in labelling as we agree that those are not reliable. Specially when label is disputed. And main and most important point is that the source i.e. the book itself doubt the identity of russia rajpoot as he mentions just before the photo that "their pretensions to the appellation is however very doubtful."Here Their identity is highly doubted even by the source itself. Can we use such images. Why not replace with photos which have no such doubt. @HebaAisha why so much stress on keeping these such doubtful images. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. We should use the British era sources sparingly.

Also, Heba Aisha, it is not correct to say that I "agreed" with the image. I have no opinion on it.

But on the whole, there are too many images in the page right now. The images should not jut into the References section. If there are too many disagreements, you might consider putting up each image to a vote and pick the ones that get the most votes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I guess we both are familiar with WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, which is a policy. So, voting is never a substitute for discussion. Having said that, voting may be useful for some cases when we have multiple pics which are equally suitable for our purpose. BTW, thanks for putting some order here. - NitinMlk (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, British were the one who conducted the last caste census in India, which was done in 1931. And they recorded around 3,000 castes, which were further divided into around 25,000 subcastes. No such caste census happened after that. So there is neither any modern data nor any modern reliable source which lists even all of the present-day castes of India, let alone their subcastes. And, just like other castes, there is no reliable source which lists all Rajput subcastes. That's why we are attributing these pics to their sources and are using them for just representation purpose. Also, note that most of the time the authors of The People of India series couldn't even confirm the clan/subcastes of the subjects, so they didn't even bother to mention them. So, by your logic, we should remove them as they didn't even have those details.

The appropriate approach here is to balance things out, e.g. we can add a couple of more pics in the Origins section. So you & others can propose pics of some soldiers, village heads, etc. as they are also mentioned in the section. BTW, read the source again, as this is what he said about the subjects: The class represented, however, has no such exalted pretensions. So you are misrepresenting the source in your quoted text.

PS: This is also a reply to this comment of Ranadhira. - NitinMlk (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Ranadhira and Sajaypal007 don't avoid the explanation of NitinMlk deliberately.I also explained why we need that pic as we have no other choice to represent peasant Rajputs.reply hereHeba Aisha (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• See from comments...NitinMlk is in favour, LukeEmily also supported, and i m also in favour of origin image.Further we have explained our narrative above i think no need to say it again.Kautilya is neither in favour nor in support.only Sajaypal is against.So by majority image should be there.Now end this topic move to other thread which u created also if u comment plz wait for my reply for nect 24 hrs i m busy in many works.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Lets discuss about voting on other images.Tell me which image u want to remove apart from those of originHeba Aisha (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• The whole purpose for voting or discussion on photograph was for that russia rajput and to somewhat Marwar, chota Nagpur photo. Only two photos were disputed, I dont think anyone asked for discussion on other photos. You singlehandedly ended this topic like thrice. Earlier you also claimed same thing that everyone agrees while nobody said anything. Please don't behave in such manner. As I can see one user @Ranadhira who earlier was editing the same image also asked for its removal on similar ground now in voting section you created. You earlier reverted his edits by reshifting the images. Also I think Kautilya3 asked is to put each image to vote which can appear at origin section. Correct me if I am wrong. As I can see you also intimated on talk page of the guy who added the photo to come to the discussion, it may favour the outcome of vote but I am okay with it bcz he is the one who added. But as I can see he added the image just 15-20 days before around the time when there was mass editing going on. This guy earlier was asking for removal of an image from same source which was put on Yadava page I think, he said that we shouldnt add British era source and all. And later on that exact day he added this image russia rajput image on Rajput from the very same source he was opposing. You also tagged some other users in a new discussion as well and said I am inviting others. Wouldnt this change the voter base on one side. You tagged one user @Meethamonkey saying that I am inviting people who were engaged in this discussion. This user never made any single edit on this page, and you are saying he was involved in a discussion here. This user was also earlier banned for disruptive editing and 2-3 days before he was once again issued warning for disruptive editing that he may get blocked. Why are you tagging such people. You are also accusing people involved on this talk page as "casteist and personal attacks". I never made any such statement and please assume good faith don't go on accusing anyone of causing personal attack whoever doesnt agree with you. You also suggested that as veiled hint that although you are moving on from this page if edits were made you are going to revert them. What is this behaviour. We are here discussing and trying to come up with agreed upon solution. These kind of statement won't work. Please. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think Sajaypal007 user:Ranadhira u both are deliberately avoiding just comments ofNitinMlk.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• NitinMlk you probably read the wrong para. You are saying this, "The class represented, however, has no such exalted pretensions." But thats second para, read the first para, there is a line in middle of that para, it goes exactly like I said, I didnt misquote anything, you read a different line. The line is," Their pretensions to the appellation is however very doubtful ...." Exactly like I said. The author himself is highly doubtful of their claim. What further proof do you need for their status being disputed. As for other images, why cant we add a photo which is not disputed. And remove others. As i mentioned earlier this photo was added some 15-20 days ago within this mass edit by a user who was himself was opposing that source earlier that day. @HebaAisha what do I say to you made so many different discussion, no one can keep track of all of these. Also you moved some comments of other people as well to a new discussion without their permission, is this even allowed? Kautilya3 can you look into it. @Heba you earlier accused people on this thread of casteist and personal attacks and now you are accusing me of sockpuppetry on other discussion. Please assume good faith, if you keep on accusing in such way I am gonna file a complaint against you with Admins.Kautilya3 please notice this. You also tagged a user named @meethamonkey who never participated here before and was earlier banned for disruptive edits. You know these kind of user can create chaos and you still added him without any reason, whatsoever. I told you discussion of other pages to keep on that page, and again I tell you on Maonda battle page I made a single edit and you made like 15-20 edits and changed the whole page. You did not persuade me, I was persuading you to write according to the sources and you didnt listen and I gave up, I was not involved in any edit dispute with you, I reiterate. You were involved in edit dispute with some other person I was talking in talk page. I explained everything twice before in this talk page and told you not to being other page's discussion here it derails discussion here. As for images go I agree with @NitinMlk on one point that wikipedia is not a democracy and voting should be avoided. I already told my readon for its removal, Author himself (highly) doubted their claim, no such clan is mentioned in record, I give that no survey took place after British times but it doesnt mean we have no written record of clans by any other author not necessarily govt. There are for everyone specially Rajputs because there have been much written about them. My point is whether russia rajput exist or not but if we dont have sources about them they shouldbt be on wikipedia because wikipedia works on sources and when the picture is disputed by author himself there is no reason to keep it. There are many good images out there. We can add them or dont add anything we cant find it, there is no compulsion for including any images in Origin section. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, you are writing a huge amount of text without properly reading my comments or even the sources. I didn't make mistake: the text quoted by me was specifically for the subjects of the pic, whereas the text quoted by you is the author's general comment about the Rajputs of hill regions of India. As far as the subjects of the pic are concerned, the author is clearly identifying them as Rajputs. So you are mixing his general comments about the hill Rajputs with his specific comments about the subjects of the pic.

Secondly, as far as a written record for subcastes goes, I have already mentioned the reason for the non-existence of modern records of subcastes of India. So there is no point in repeating the same thing again.

Finally, all of you should stop opening so many new threads! BTW, user Heba Aisha is not accusing you of socking: she has just moved some comments, which has created a bit of confusion. I will try to fix that and will leave a note on their talk page. - NitinMlk (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You are saying Heba is not accusing me of sockpuppetry. I dont know why are you ignoring his comments directly accusing me of sockpuppetry. Now here is further proof [[1]] and [[2]] She is accusing me of having harassing her with two other accounts which are blocked and also about caste boosterism. This is not acceptable. I am warning her for the last time. @NitinMlk what do you say about her tagging that user @Meethamonkey who was never involved here and was earlier banned too for disruptive editing, he is also issued warning against him after the unban. Kautilya3 please look into this how Heba is accusing me at various other places.

Regarding the photograph he is saying that about whole Hill tribe which also include the persons in photos. He says they doesnt have pretensions he doesnt say their appellation is not doubtful, because he said doubtful for every hill tribe. You are saying that there was no caste based survey in independent india but you didnt provide any pre independence survey too which can mention this particular clan. Whether it will be a reliable source or not is a secondary question. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think explaination of NitinMlk is perfect to explain why we need that pic as he gave proper arguments too.Btw regarding sockpuppet investigation. Sajaypal007 think of my situation.Until now 6-7 new accounts were created to attack me and they opened fake investigation against me and issue was this page only.It is natural for anyone to defend himself/herself against vandal elements and that's what i did.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, when I made my previous comment here, I couldn't locate any sockpuppetry accusation about you on this page. And I am not following edits of either of you, so I am not familiar about other interactions. BTW, you have provided two links of edits: one of them was made after my previous comment here and I cannot access the other link, as it has been deleted.

Now coming to the main discussion, there are similar doubtful claims by numerous communities in the plains as well, and that's why this article mentions in the very first section of the lead that "several clans claim Rajput status, although not all claims are universally accepted". But that doesn't mean that there are no Rajput clans in hills and plains. As far as the survey is concerned, The People of India (1868–1875) is the earliest such survey in the history of India and its link has already been provided to you. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As the sources of the British era time are considered unreliable and top of that Caste sources, survey, ethnographical studies of that time are considered specially unreliable. Let me remind you about that Here & Here . Above that the source is quite old its not even of 20th century Raj era its of 19th century, more reason to stay away from it. You yourself say its the earliest survey of such kind, not the latest. And the picture is disputed too as I pointed out. You didnt provide any of their evidence in later census that were conducted in British period although their reliability are also poor but you didnt provide that either. Now my point is why are you stressing on a single image that have so many issues instead of picking other image which has no problem whatsoever. I think the Udaipur pic of people playing some board game is okay and nominate it for its replacement all other images in gallery can be removed. @Ranadhira is also opposed to russia image. Kautilya3 please give your opinion considering all points, I think that will be acceptable to all of us here. Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, you are still repeating the same points without properly reading my previous comments. These hundreds of pics (which are used throughout the South Asian caste/tribe articles) are from the same 19th-century The People of India (1868–1875) series, as there were no such type of photo surveys in the 20th century. The pic of Bais Rajputs (which is your first choice in one of the below sections) is also from that survey. And all of these pics have same reliability, as they are from the same 19th-century survey. What matters is their relevance to the content.

As already explained by user Heba Aisha in the below comment, people playing Pachisi don't have relevance to the Origins section, but that section should have one more pic. As the Origins section also discusses Rajput soldiers, village heads, etc., a pic of armed Rajputs is relevant to it. Feel free to propose such a pic. BTW, here is one such pic: [3]. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007 even after a comprehensive view produced by NitinMlk U are not trying to understand.We cannot keep pachisi image here as the section should contain only those image which are related to content.seconly see [4] Sitush whose resource list you cited is also saying that this type of images are ok.That was for raj era written source and that also was not my statement but of his only.see here [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/963222640] Heba Aisha (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Also Ranadhira's opinion is not pathar ki lakir.Earlier many people like LukeEmily NitinMlk were in favour of keeping Russia rajput but u didn't cared about opinion of majority then and kept diverting talks to another issues.Btw the main aim is representation of peasant rajputs if you bring any other image i will myself replace it.And pachisi image couldn't be kept in origin section as they represent feudal class not peasants and tribals.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Also NitinMlk was correct there was spelling issue in British records and their pronunciation see..Two men from Koeree(Koeri) tribe in Goruckpoor (Gorakhpur) (1858). I added that image to Koeri article it writes koeri as Koerees...none of modern sources writes koeri word in such a way.There is no issue u are just dragging discussion without reading NitinMlk explaination and wasting time of all of us.It is better if you devote this time to find image of peasant or tribals of Rajput caste.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• If you can. ..plz produce image to represent Rajput peasant as none of image you are mentioning is suited to content of origin section.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Aisha I have nothing against you. You have shifted my comments without my permission and created so many sub-topics that it has become confusing to keep track. I just feel that the Russia Rajpoots pic does not have enough proof to stay here, as there is no mention of them anywhere apart from this image and a short description in the same book. Also I will try to look but I hope you will keep your word and change it yourself later when I do find something. Ranadhira (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ranadhira no i have shifted only my comments.I don't know about which comments u are talking if something like that has been done it is possible that it happened inadvertently.sorry for that.plz correct it.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Plz i m waiting if peasant or tribal rajputs are presented i will be in ur side but regarding image only i will still be in favour of no further changes in origin section as i explained in the thread opened by Sajaypal007 i.e Regarding repetition of same line.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok, not a problem then. Ranadhira (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• I noticed that the image in the sub-section "emeregence as a community" does not suit the topic, perhaps this can be used:

Rajpoots of Narsingharh, Central India.

Reason being that there are no images of Rajputs from central India and there are already several from Rajasthan like playing Puchesee, A royal Rajput procession, Mayo College. The current image is also related to Marwar i.e. Rajasthan. My only arguement is that the other images are useful as they suit the sections they are in, however the Marwar one does not and can therefore be changed with the Narsinghgarh one. This way we will have a diverse range of images from all over India. Ranadhira (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ranadhira, you should search at Commons about any file before uploading it, e.g. a high-resolution version of this file was already there: File:Oomuts of Nursinghur, Rajpoot tribe, Central India (NYPL b13409080-1125623).jpg. Note that low-resolution duplicates get deleted there – see here. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you. Next time I will check. Ranadhira (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Varna status

Is it important to mention varna of any jati on wikipedia caste pages? In my opinion just mentioning the Jati name like Rajput, Maratha (caste), CKP should be sufficient.This would get rid of the constant battles we have had on the caste pages almost since the beginning of wikipedia. Any thoughts? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

As long as people understand WP:RS, WP:Uncensored, WP:HISTRS there should not be any problems or battles.LukeEmily (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Varnas of Jatis gave rise to privileges, repressions and historical events. Hence they are important. Most of the text on many caste pages would vanish if the varna and associated events are removed.LukeEmily (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nope varna jati etc are as important as the caste articles themselves. In a caste page it is an important stuff which should be there as it has historical importance and in Sociology its a big issue which cannot be avoided. In fact we have topics like social stratification and sanskritization so it cannot be eliminated.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, I am afraid it is not up to us to decide one way or another. We just have to follow what the WP:RS do.

I have tried to do something like what you say for South Indian castes, where the varna system is practically non-existent, but even that wasn't possible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Kshatriya v Shudra controversy starts from the belief by many Brahmins that Parshuram, an incarnation of Vishnu, exterminated all living kshatriyas 21 times.That being the case, brahmins believe that only two varnas remain in the Kaliyuga, i.e. brahmin and shudra (we don't hear much about castes claiming vaishya varna). Obviously, many castes (jati) dispute the extermination myth, and claim kshatriya status for their caste.My question is who is right here? Should we go by the brahminical interpretation or that by castes claiming kshatriya status? This was an important issue during Shivaji's coronation in year 1674, or the social boycott of the CKP during Peshwa rule in Pune (1720-1818), and became an extremely important issue all over India because of British colonial policies of insisting on classifying every tribe, caste, and sub-caste in a varna hierarchy.How much space should wikipedia give this topic on the pages of the individual castes?

Could a solution be like this: XYZ caste claims kshatriya status but is rejected by brahmin texts on basis of the Parshuram myth.(put here a summary of the Parshuram myth in the Note section). Thoughts?Jonathansammy (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Jonathansammy thats a big issue and we can talk on that on another forum because it involves numerous caste articles across wikipedia. For here plz keep the issue related to Rajput caste only.Also here we are not using Brahmanical sources like vedas and Puranas or the Dharmashastras which are already forbidden in caste articles.These are sources of modern scholars all of them belonging to Oxford, State University of new york etc etc.Your concerns are already dealt with.Plz examine the sources carefully.For bigger discussion which could be applicable to all caste articles we need experienced editors in this area specially Sitush and this talk page is certainly not a right place for such umbrella issue affecting numerous caste articles. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, It is incorrect to say that every non-brahmin caste was affected by Parshuram story and we should avoid such generalization. Some of the points above are historically inaccurate but we can discuss that elsewhere. The Parshuram story is overridden by other Hindu texts like Skanda Puran and they give exception to the general rule . Please refer to papers on Gramanya by University of Toronto press (as well as Historian Ketkar's books)to get more information on how individual varnas in Maharashtra were properly decided by Brahmins. They were done in a very scholarly way (by the Brahmins council of Maharashtra) and there were formal debates. It was not as if Brahmins randomly decided. For every case including Sonars etc. they used religious scriptures as well as documentation of lineage. In other words, it was really fairly done taking each caste on a case by case basis based on their history and ritual practices. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I cannot think of a most fair way to resolve issues. And please let us keep this page only for Rajput page. I request that you kindly move this section to your talk page as it is irrelevant on this page. Why are we discussing Marathas here? Thank youLukeEmily (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing says that varna is determined by birth. Groups could gain varna over time, as well as loose varna over time. Nothing unusual about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree 100% Kautilya3. LukeEmily (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

On Shudras

Since the issues of Shudras are flying about practically everywhere in this debate, let us get some basics right. At the present time, Shudras along with Dalits make up about 90% of the population of India. They are the vast majority. They do practically everything productive, including farming, herding, building, smithing, pottering, carpenting, cleaning and what have you. The idea that these are all "menial tasks" is elitist propaganda generated by the remaining 10%, who live by depending on the products generated by the Shudras/Dalits and perhaps exploiting them. (It always amazes me how leatherwork is considered lowly while leather sandals remain classy.)

If you read through the history of evolution of the varna system, you would find that the term "Shudra" was initially applied to labouring classes while the well-off people were regarded "Vaishyas". But groups were pushed down the varna order, even in late Vedic period. Rathakaras (chariot-makers) were a prominent example, who counted as high elites during the Vedic period, but became Shudras by the time of the Mauryas. Practically all the Vaishyas gave up their Vaishya status because they didn't see much point in the Brahminical learning they had to do to maintain a Vaishya status. Trading classes are the only ones that remained in the Vaishya category, probably because they depend on trust in money matters and so they had to maintain status.

Shudra is not a uniform category of course. There are dozens of ranks among the Shudras. There are even ranks among Dalits. These are typically exhibitiged by group X not accepting food or water from group Y.

On Wikipedia, just as in scholarly work, there are no ranks. Nobody is high and nobody is low. We don't really care what prejudices people might have. And they better not exhibit them here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Totally agreed to all ur stuff.Varna was not rigid it was flexible.Thats y many moved up and others down in varna hierarchy.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, There is no personal prejudice. Simply a discussion of what was in sources. The varna mobility is a well known historically proven fact. Varna by birth is *not* supported by Lord Krishna Himself.

चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागश:

तस्य कर्तारमपि मां विद्ध्यकर्तारमव्ययम्

LukeEmily (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Rajput demographics and current status

It would be good to have a section on the demographics of Rajput.Also there is not much on the current situation of Rajputs in different states, i.e. economic status, education, reservation policies, status of females etc.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. The section Rajput#Independent_India is just a few lines. This needs expertise from someone in current affairs and political affairs. I have to take a step back as I do not want to embarrass myself by exposing my ignorance in this area :-) but happy to help if I can.LukeEmily (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

References

voting for image

Discussion

• 
  A. "Resbutos", Rajputs as depicted by the Portuguese in the 16th century Códice Casanatense

I am nominating this image for deletion from the article as we have many real images and we don't need pictorial depiction.Heba Aisha (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

voting for other images..my view is these are extra images and already we have images for various section.

• 
  B. Bais Rajputs of Oudh.
• C. The Rajpoot tribes of Oude (Awadh).
  C. The Rajpoot tribes of Oude (Awadh).
• 
  D. A hill porter from Rajpoot caste in Dehra Doon.

The Russia Rajputs definitely needs to go as that pic seems to be a mistake of the photographer, who probably knew little to nothing about India. There is no info about the so called "Russia Rajpoots" anywhere. Also since there are many pics of Oude (Awadh) so we should choose one. I would vote to keep the "Bais Rajputs" pic and remove the rest. Ranadhira (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• I m still opposed for removal of Russia Rajput.Heba Aisha (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Then please find proof that these Russia Rajpoots existed. Because information from colonial time is discouraged and if this pic is the only proof then it should be removed. I'm sorry but your words alone are not enough. Ranadhira (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• The nomination was not for russia rajput as already extensive talks hs taken place on that and we have no choice to represent cultivators Rajputs other than that .And this is what we have to say:

Sajaypal007, the first pic is taken from this page of the book which contains all relevant details about it. The first thing which intrigued me was the flowers in their caps, and the page has even details about it: "Like most hill men the Rajpoots are fond of adorning themselves with sprigs of wild flowers" On a different note, the pic is not only an important representation of Rajput cultivators from hill regions of India (and relevant to the "Origin" section of this article) but also a historical image from one of the only two Indian states which have Rajput majority: Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh are the only states in India which have Rajput majority. Rajputs constitute around 35% of the total population at Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh: see here and here.

As far as the second pic is concerned, it is taken this page and its details are at this page, which sums up the pic no. 24 and 25: THE two individuals depicted in these Illustrations are of the Rajpoot tribe, ... The Rajpoot No. 25 is a Marwaree from Jodhpoor, on the western side of India. So the pic in question – i.e. pic no. 25 of the book – is of a Rajput from Jodhpur.

Finally, spellings used by the British used to be often very different from the present day, which makes it a challenge to identify even well-known entities. But that can be easily fixed by changing the caption. In any case, we are using them for representative purpose and are properly attributing to their sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)}} These are words of another user i think u have not read the last thread.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have been pinged several times from this section to mediate on the choice of images. But unfortunately the discussion is too haphazard for me to understand what is being said. So I am creating a subsection below for each of you to express your preferences. Please give a rank ordered list of the images, along with a brief (very brief) summary of your reasons for each image. Preferenes only, please. Nobody can veto anything. (I am also putting a dummy vote of my own, to illustrate the format.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Kautilya3 I think voting is done. You can now decide based on voting which photo should be kept in origin and which others are to be removed. @Heba I think voting was done for selecting a single photograph for origin section. Now in this last stage do not derail the whole discussion which took days by proposing two photos.Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• All of these four files are in Gallery section, and galleries are not allowed in this type of article – see MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. So we have to either discard or shift them to one of the other sections. The pic of Bais Rajputs is among the most liked pic here. It also serves the requirement of the Origins section's second pic, as already mentioned by LukeEmily. So I have no issue if this pic is shifted there as the second pic. And the gallery section should be removed.

Note that the file no. A depicts Rajput robbers of the present-day Gujarat – read the description in the file: "they sustain themselves out of robbing and die from it". There is no mention of robbers, thugs, etc. in this article. So if somehow file no. A is kept, its caption should explain the depicted subjects. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with NitinMlk we can't remove origin pic as explained in last thread but can add one of these four along with that too.what do u think LukeEmilyHeba Aisha (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with both Heba Aisha and NitinMlk. Thanks, LukeEmily. (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @NitinMlk on some points. Gallery should be removed and these many pictures are not needed in caste related articles, on other caste related articles there are hardly one or two pictures. As for Origin section, as @NitinMlk said, Bais rajput image is most preferred, Kautilya3 can decide based on survey/voting which picture is to be added. As for second picture, I already addressed that voting was done for replacement for russia rajput photo so it make no sense to add another one alongwith it. Besides whole discussion took place for replacement or non replacement of the picture in origin section. Now as it has been voted to, changing the topic to adding two picture to the origin is futile and discussion on that will take more time. Also as I said above caste articles do not need that many pictures let alone two pictures in a single section. If we again start discussing what was the purpose of voting then, voting was done because discussion didnt result in conclusion. I request Kautilya3 to take urgent steps on this matter as the result of voting shows, so we can move to the main issue of "Origin of Rajputs". Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, this section was opened by user Heba Aisha to propose the removal of Gallery section's four files: [5]. But user Ranadhira disrupted it by commenting about the fifth file, i.e. the cultivators' pic, although a separate discussion about that pic was already in progress at Talk:Rajput#Images. Amid all this, editors (especially you) were constantly pinging Kautilya3. So he opened a new subsection for the originally proposed four files. He also noted that "the discussion is too haphazard for me to understand what is being said". But after less than two days of opening the 'survey', you again pinged Kautilya3 and requested him to close it. And you totally misrepresented the situation, as the !voting was neither about the Origins section's file nor anyone proposed just "two photos". In fact, the fifth file (cultivators' pic) wasn't even up for discussion here. Nonetheless, the 'survey' got closed after being open for less than two days. Ironically, around three days earlier, you said that "As for images go I agree with @NitinMlk on one point that wikipedia is not a democracy and voting should be avoided.": [6].

If your pings weren't enough, Ranadhira has already opened a new section at Kautilya3's talk page which is partially about the cultivators' pic: [7]. And now you have pinged Kautilya3 twice in a single comment and again misrepresented the situation: this !voting wasn't done for the replacement of the cultivators' pic and I didn't say that the pic of Bais Rajput "is most preferred" "for Origin section": I said that the "pic of Bais Rajputs is among the most liked pic here" and it "serves the requirement of the Origins section's second pic".

You were earlier writing a huge amount of text without properly reading my comments at Talk:Rajput#Images. And now you are creating confusion by misrepresenting the situation (see WP:GASLIGHTING). I must say this is getting disruptive and has already wasted a lot of time of others.

Finally, if you believe that we should have the minimal number of pics then there isn't any point in adding one more pic of armed Rajputs, as we already have one at the most prominent position, i.e. the infobox of the article. In fact, that's what user Heba Aisha said in her comment below. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not get the impression that the voting was being done to "replace" an existing image. The voting simply rank-ordered the four images under discussion here. Out of these, the image B (Bais Rajputs) was a clear favourite.

As for the "Russia Rajputs" image, I don't have a problem with it, but I do have a problem with the term "Russia Rajputs" being used as the label. The problem is that it gives one the impression that they are being labelled by the country called Russia, but there is no discussion of it either in the article or in the source. So I suggest removing the term. If it is necessary, it should be put later in the caption and stated as something like "called 'Russia Rajputs' by XYZ". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@NitinMlk I am gonna keep it short for you as apparently you dont like long paras. As for your point you said most liked, I didnt reiterate your line word by word hence the word prefer. In the next line you yourself asked for its addition in origin section alongwith other image. If you ask me about minimal number of pictures than I'll say remove every photos except one in infobox, there is no need to have more than one picture in this article. About pinging, I like to keep @kautilya3 in loop and if he has some problem, he can say it, you dont need to say this. I didnt ask for premature closure of the voting, Everyone involved in the dispute already voted even some who werent involved earlier like you, also voted hence there was no purpose to keep it open any longer. Besides this picture issue was a side issue, I was earlier trying to ignore it for the time being and wanted to discuss main concern that was origin section. Hence I also suggested and pinged Kautilya to let him know that everybody involved voted and we can conclude the image issue as soon as possible so we can proceed to the main issue. You werent here at that time, maybe you should read earlier talk history. As you already pointed out that I was in your support for no voting, but even then @Kautilya3 conducted voting so I have to agree on that and voted accordingly. Also by using the word ironically if you are suggesting my hypocrisy then it is pointed out that you too voted, didnt you? Even though you earlier made the original point of no democracy in wikipedia. I will again suggest to kautilya3 that long discussion had already been taken place before voting and even voting has been closed hence this matter be concluded as soon as possible so we can move to the main issue. If the issue is not settled then can this be put on back burner for the time being so main discussion about the origin can take place. This is a side issue and it is taking more than enough time. Sajaypal007 (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I m agreed with NitinMlk infact in my survey comment also me and LukeEmily have said the same.The purpose was not replacement of Russia Rajput as we can't do until we have cultivators image.Even Ranadhira was clear thats y he made me promise him in Image section that if he bring new image i will have to replace it.Its Sajaypal007 who is misrepresenting it even we commented several times that here issue is of four images only and not of Russia Rajput.ForKautilya3's concern we may replace the term with cultivator Rajputs from Dehradoon. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, thanks for the clarification. I agree with you regarding the caption of the pic. It may be changed from "Russia Rajpoots, cultivators ..." to, let's say, "Hindu Rajput cultivators ... ".

Sajaypal007, you are still replying without reading the comments properly. I didn't have any issue with "the word prefer". I said that the pic of Bais Rajputs is among the most liked pic here and it serves the requirement of the Origins section's second pic, rather than saying that Bais Rajput pic is most preferred for the Origins section: these are two entirely different things. As far as keeping just one pic in the entire article is concerned, one pic can never represent an entire community/caste. So we add varied images keeping their relevance to the article's text in mind. There are obviously many articles which don't have even one pic, but the reason for that is the unavailability of relevant pics. BTW, I never !voted in the survey, but I did make a comment in this section after the survey's closure: [8].

As I have already said, we should shift the Bais pic in the Origins section and remove the gallery section, per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES – the Origins section look like this. Most of the others don't have any issue with it. And you should also now focus on the actual discussion, i.e. the text of the Origins section.

PS: Ranadhira has uploaded a pic (File:Impey1860s.jpg) of farmers, but the problem with that is the author didn't know about the subjects' caste. That's why its description doesn't mention the subjects' caste and there is a question mark in the title, i.e. "Group of Rajput agriculturalists.(?)" (see here). - NitinMlk (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 As you seems to be not much interested in image issue and without your active participation, this issue doesn't seem to be resolved, so I am suggesting can we move to the main discussion where we can discuss the whole matter of "Origin" and the recent edits. Because its been days and this small image issue is stopping all the discussion about the main issue. Thanks in advance. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, Sure, please start a new section and summarise what the dispute is in a few lines (4-5 sentences). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The new section is already there.I hope soon it be finished bringing NitinMlk and LukeEmily don't get bored guys we are going to conclude it soon as matter of image concluded.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Also i would like to draw the attention of all of u here i.e Kautilya3, LukeEmily NitinMlk last time when Sajaypal007 didn't get our reply for 24 hrs then he assumed that we are in favour of removing the first line of origin section although it is sourced and i already explained that there is no repition as he thought in another thread.Now he is here after 4 days and still talk is going on and no one is coming at conclusion. It seems u are trying to resolve the issue urself when we deflect to other side from this article.This is not the right way to discuss.If you want anything to be sorted out on the basis of consensus don't wait others to move away from the article with whom u are in edit dispute.Hope Kautilya3 will fairly handle this as we have a lot of other works to do and if Sajaypal007 want to discuss don't wait for others to move away from here.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Also it is evident that Sajaypal007 don't want to continue further on image of origin section and 3 of us has said that we are in favour of keeping it. Kautilya3 i think u shud close that thread too.It will imply that discussion on that is over.Otherwise after many years from now someone will modify that to come at conclusion to remove the image.tqHeba Aisha (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@HebaAisha Who said matter of image is concluded. Please refrain from using such statement, neither I agreed for that nor Ranadhira. And also @Kautilya3 didnt give his opinion regarding it. I suggested for main discussion because @Kautilya3 wasnt much interested in the issue and hence it was not being concluded. Also don't ping invite other users just because they earlier supported your view point. @NitinMlk was not part of the original dispute. If we start pinging other users who were not part of the discussion it wont be easy to moderate the discussion and can become one sided debate too. Also @HebaAisha please refrain from accusing each other and focus on the discussion at hand.Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Its ok...and i m still opposed for removal and will remain forever as already explained above by others to u that this image is also as reliable as others as they are from same book.NitinMlk explaination and others comments are there and future edits to remove it could be easily undone on the basis of the above discussion.So i have no problem with ur views.You are free to hold it.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Heba Aisha, LukeEmily, NitinMlk, Sajaypal007 —— the 4 images in the article's "Gallery" are available here in this section to be viewed, discussed, etc. Even, a survey has already been done. Also, it is not at all necessary that the consensus be unanimous. The discussion may go on here, but there is no compelling need to have a "Gallery" in the article in violation of a policy. Wouldn't it have been better if the "Gallery" would have been removed when the discussion began here with the availablity of all 4 picture here?.

Anyways, per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, I am removing the "Gallery" from the article. Please do not restore it as it is there in a violation of a policy. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Survey

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.

---

• A, B, C, D - No preference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• B,C,A,D - I am giving preference in such accordance because of the reliability of such images and how a normal rajput in general had image like not considering fringes. -- Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• I will stick to the removal of Russia Rajpoots. As for the pics here I would vote for B,A,C,D. --Ranadhira (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• As none of these images are necessary in the context of any of the subtopic of article i can choose any order.For example warriors are as lead figure and russia rajput are in section where cultivators are discussed and for lifestyle and culture we have image of pachisi and bride.So i m putting A,B,C,D --Heba Aisha (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• B, A, C, D - based on the authenticity of the accounts available about them. --Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• B,C,D,A - I agree with NitinMlk about his reasons for keeping the cultivator image. Probably we should change the caption to "cultivator Rajputs" and put B (Bias Rajput men with the sword) along with the cultivator image in the origin section to show the disparate backgrounds of the community. --LukeEmily (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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.