Talk:Rajput

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

In the Wikipedia page about Rajputs,Islam is mentioned in the Religion section.This is straightforward outrageous and unacceptable.Rajputs are simply against Islam,millions of Rajputs like Maharana Pratap have died protecting Hindu religion from Islam.Today if Hindu religion stands prosperous is due to sacrifice of Rajputs or else India would simply be under Sharia law. Remove this as soon as possible as the Rajputs have never been Muslim,together we can make Wikipedia more reliable and trust worthy. Thanking you 2409:40C1:3C:BE82:ECB2:D039:BA3A:1B0C (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please be specific about the change you would like to see (for example, remove the following text from the article). If you're asking for the removal of sourced content, you will need to explain why the source is not reliable, not appropriate, or improperly used. RegentsPark (comment) 13:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024

Please remove Islam from Religion section of this Wikipedia page.Rajputs are Hindus only,they are not even Sikhs. 2409:40C1:3C:9478:A827:57A9:FD86:438E (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done We determine what to write based on the reliable sources, not our personal opinions (as true as they may or may not be). In order to Islam removed, you'll need to show at least 1 reliable source which says Islam is not a part of Rajput, and then you'll need consensus: Wikipedia:Consensus. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Rajput identity in Dharmashastras, politics and historical facts.

Since, editors have been discussing texts and scriptures mentioning Rajputs, adding a section on the talk page summarizing the opinions of texts, mughals and brahmins. The bottom line is that Brahmins have disagreed with the Kshatriya status, and hence the religious texts says that the Rajputs may fight like a Kshatriya but have to follow the rituals of a shudra. It also shows that the Kshatriya claim is only in political sense.

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. The Jatinirnayaprakaranama of Sudrakamalakara, an early 1600s Dharmaśāstra text written by Kamalakarabhatta for ugra or rajaputa is the projeny of a Kshatriya father and Shudra mother. Vajpeyi clarifies that 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. There is a professional and religious distinction: a rajaputa may fight, however, he has to follow the duties similar to sudras or sudrasamana. She says Ugra or rajaputa is listed as one of the six types of a sankarajati(mixed caste) given in the text, whose father's varna is higher than that of the mother, and are thus an anulomajas or "one born in accordance with the natural flow". There are five other types of anulomajas unions given by Kamalakarabhatta. Thus, as per the medieval Brahminical Dharmashastras, Rajputs are a mixed jati.

In the political context, the word meaning edges towards Kshatriya although in Hindu religious texts rajaputa is closer to Shudra. Some emigrant Brahmins may have been involved in Rajputising tribes to the Rajput status.

Despite this, Vajpayi states that, periodically, Brahmins have characterized Rajput as self-seekers, and stated that they are not real Kshatriyas.

Other than establishing marital ties with already established Rajput families, constructing false 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, according to Vajpayi makes the Rajput identity Polyphonous. LukeEmily (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the source again it seems[2]. This is after you were warned by Fowler&fowler for doing the same exact thing with the same source[3][4], it is clear that you do not understand what Vajpeyi is saying so you should stop bringing her up. Dympies (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You can feel free correct my misunderstanding of the source. I have stricken out the last part the Ratnahastin objected to - will read it again. Please see the entire discussion with Fowler&Fowler. It was left incomplete. Fowler&Fowler was going to post a summary of the source since he had not read the source during the discussion and had just received a copy later. There was no discussion of the source after F&F got the copy. The issue at the time was WP:DUE since we had not discussed any scriptures on the page. Trangabellum did not agree but I agreed with F&F at the time. So there was no consensus. I was grateful to F&F for suggesting an excellent Sanksrit book - and I got a copy of it. (I need to thank F&F for the suggestion - the book is excellent). But the context has changed now. Too many irrelevant scriptures have been added since then. Also, after the discussion with F&F, I had contacted a retired Sanskrit scholar (well known and hence I cannot name the scholar here and the person does not edit wikipedia to the best of my knowledge) and requested to look at the sudrakamalakara (original sanskrit text) and compare it with Vajpayee. He had agreed that Vajpayee's interpretation was 100% accurate. He also told me how to get a copy of the images of the handwritten scripture. Anyway, that would come under WP:OR so the opinion of the Sanksrit scholar can be dismissed if you want. However, if you feel my interpretation of the source is wrong, please feel can you correct it?LukeEmily (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Click a footnote link above (or 'show') to view refs.

Recent content addition in Etymology section

I removed some recently added content from "Etymology and Early references" section giving due explanation in edit summaries.[5][6][7]. This content was added by LukeEmily last week, and Luke now the WP:ONUS is on you to find consensus for the inclusion of these recent edits of yours, WP:ONUS is a policy. Ekdalian, always remember AGF and WP:ONUS, do not restore content that has no consensus for restoration yet and do not accuse other editors of POV pushing in your edit summaries, you have been warned for it already. Dympies (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't forget that I have never been warned by an admin since I created this account in 2013; but an experienced admin has categorically pointed out how you have systematically engaged in POV pushing through slow edit warring and that's the reason you were blocked from the article. I don't want to discuss the same old story again! You are clearly reverting genuine edits citing some reason or the other. I have reverted to the last best version and shall keep on watching this article closely. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Do not attack other editors or try to poison the well against them. "You are clearly reverting genuine edits citing some reason or the other. I have reverted to the last best version" - LukeEmily made edits and they were reverted, so it was his responsibility to discuss them here per WP:BRD that did not happen, in fact LukeEmily has edit warred to reinstate his edits in tandem with you and others. The version you have restored is not "last best version " but a POV version relying on synthesis and undue emphasis. You need to read WP:ONUS which is a policy, onus is always on those seeking inclusion to get consensus. Dympies (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD-NOT and WP:NPOV. The references section was meant to discuss references to Rajputra and Rajput in scriptures as well as what those words meant in those scriptures. Yet, you cherry picked some POV statements that related to emergence of a community section and added them in early references without full context. This has created a false narrative that the admin and Sitush had warned you about. In fact, even the last statement by Eaton right now has not been given in full context. I have the book and Eaton refers to Norman Ziegler's Rajput loyalties (to Mughals) paper and I have the paper too where Ziegler calls the kshatriya claim "based on myths". Ziegler further refers to the other paper that is currently on the page where he explicitly calls them non-Kshatriya. The statement by Chattopadhyay is also POV and misleading because I have the paper and he clearly calls them a mixed caste and says that the Thakur word was not hereditary(see the emergence section for f ull context). However, the way it has been written by you is giving a different meaning. The sudrakamalakara is due given that so many irrelevant scriptures have been added and it has been accepted by consensus. BTW, Metcalf has also been cherry picked and added in WP:NPOV manner. The version that was accepted was a last best version as per WP:NPOV. So I agree with @Ekdalian:. There is a lot of POV in that section even now ! LukeEmily (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

LukeEmily, when you added the following things in etymology section, I never called it violation of NPOV and never said you are cherry picking :

• BD Chattopadhyay's statement regarding mixed caste in Rajputra sub-section
• Trooper, village headsmen and varna samkara in Rajput section
• Nandini Kapur statement in Rajputra section

Because all these statements were being supported by cited sources and they were relevant for the section. When I never raise question on your intentions, why don't I recieve the same civil behaviour from you and Ekdalian? Do you deny that etymology section is here to discuss the terms Rajputra, Thakur and Rajput? If no, then do let us know any good reason for inclusion of content you wish to add here. You say sudrakamalakara is relevant because so many irrelevant things have been added here. Are you here to balance the things out? If you think other things are irrelevant then please explain how? If you think sources are being misrepresented, explain how. But don't give casual arguments that you will add irrelevant things because other irrelevant things exist. Dympies (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Dympies, please can you quote where I have been uncivil? Pointing out issues in edits is not uncivil. I have never been rude to you etc. Sitush and admin have pointed out the same issues too. Are they also uncivil? The etymology/references section was for the inclusion of meaning of the terms as well as references in scriptures. The sudrakamalakara is relevant to etymology/references as it is discussing the word and is an early reference. I did not remove anything from the section although I might not agree with its inclusion in that section. You had added only one part of Eaton, so I added full context. I don't understand the objection.LukeEmily (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Etymology section is not there for discussing "full context". Thats how it has been since the beginning. Also, anything like Purbiya Rajput doesn't pertain to the section. Lack of italic fonts/inverted commas in sudrakamalakara's source means the author is discussing the community rather than term. Caste has been discussed throughout the article, then how would this section differ from the rest? Dympies (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: - Consensus version? These changes were made by you from 30 December onwards, since then they have been constantly reverted it is your responsibility to get consensus for them per WP:ONUS, do not engage in a slow burning edit war. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Ratnahastin, it's you and Dympies who are edit warring here. The version you are reverting is here after a long discussion which was held few years back. Adamantine123 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin:, please check the edit made by Abhishek0831996. As per the flowchart on WP:EDITCON, the edit before it is the consensus version. This is because he did not revert the original edit, only modified it.LukeEmily (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

From what I can see, Dympies does not agree with these changes [8][9], neither does [10] Abhishek0831996. So far three editors have reverted them, so consensus will be required for reinstatement, thanks. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dympies:, the sources are explaining what the word meant in the scripture(Kapur) and how it was used and when(Eaton).LukeEmily (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Explain how. Kapur hasn't used the italic fonts for "Rajputs" as she did for "Rajaputra". There must be some reason behind that. And Eaton's edits were gross synthesis. Dympies (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Why do italics or fonts matter? Please explain why Eaton was synthesis - the quotes were provided. Can you rewrite based on the quotes. I have the entire book but cannot share it on wikipedia due to copyright issues. If you do not have access to those pages, you can ask someone to shhare that resource and verify the quotes.LukeEmily (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This is incorrect, when you tag something you are required to explain why you tagged it per WP:DRIVEBYTAG. This unexplained mass addition of tags falls under WP:TAGBOMBING. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The tags are already explained. The discussion in this section is the dispute. I have no problems clarifying further.LukeEmily (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Dympies, the word Rajput is being equated to ugra which means horrible is Sanskrit. It is obvious that she is discussing the word meaning and usage not the community. And even if she were discussing the community, why would it matter?LukeEmily (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It matters. Rajput has many synonyms. Also, the terms Rajput and Rajputra are often used interchangeably by scholars. Without italic fonts, we get no idea whether the term used in particular text is "Rajput", "Rajputra" or anything else. Dympies (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Early references section is for scriptural references. Also, Kapur is explaining what the word means using a synonym.LukeEmily (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Again we are just speculating. Thats not what we are supposed to do. Dympies (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Dympies, what I mean is that the section discusses the word as well as the references. Etymology is for the word. References is for any early text where Rajput/Rajputra is discussed - for example Ramayana. This means scriptural references. Also, I did not understand your comment on Eaton. Can you elaborate on Eaton (why you thought it was WP:SYNTHESIS)? Can you write in your own words(in the talk page) about summary from Eaton based on the quotes. I have the book, so if you need any context or text before or after the quotes, please let me know. Also, can you provide sources for your statement:Also, the terms Rajput and Rajputra are often used interchangeably by scholars. One is a caste, other is a profession. For example, Prince Christian is a rajputra but not a rajput.LukeEmily (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

LukeEmily, Ananya Vajpeyi has made it clear that the term used in sudrakamalakara is "rajapūta" (रजपूत) which has a different meaning from "rājpūt" (राजपूत) on which our page is based. Dympies (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Rajputras are not used for the Rajput caste only. It is meant for nobility in ancient India. It doesn't refer to present day Rajput caste. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Outstanding disputes tagged by LukeEmily

I am creating sub-sections for all the pending disputes tagged by LukeEmily. So Luke, now you are supposed to explain your objections to the content in question. Dympies (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

BD Chattopadhyaya in "Thakur" sub-section

From article: According to B.D Chattopadhyay, from 700 CE, north India's political and military landscape was dominated by large Kshatriya landowners called thakurs, some of whom were descended from pastoral tribes and central Asian invaders; they later came to be known as Rajputs.

Richard M. Eaton in "Rajput" sub-section

From article: He further says that the lineages in Rajasthan which had traditionally identified themselves as kshatriya began to call themselves Rajputs in the 16th century.

References

Click a footnote link above (or 'show') to view refs.

Richard Eaton WP:NPOV version

Richard M. Eaton notes that after the 14th century, in Rajasthan, Malwa and Gujarat, clans of nomadic cattle-herding and cattle-rustling communities that became sedentary, began using the word Rajput for themselves, patronizing bards to rewrite their past and disassociate with their pastoral ancestry. In the fifteenth century, peasant soldiers from the east who served in the army acquired the identity of Purbiya Rajput and eventually identifying as Rajput; tribal and pastoral communities patronized bards to link their ancestors to some Kshatriya lineages. Lineages in Rajasthan which had traditionally identified themselves as kshatriya began to call themselves Rajputs in the 16th century.. This is an WP:NPOV version. The current version on the article is misleading. I will add more details from the book here.LukeEmily (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC) LukeEmily (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

How does "Purbiya Rajput" become relevant for this para? And how does the source support this line : "clans of nomadic cattle-herding and cattle-rustling communities that became sedentary, began using the word Rajput for themselves" ?Dympies (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Cattle hearding/rustling is mentioned by the source on pg 87. Purbiya is relevant because they started using the "rajput" name for themselves.LukeEmily (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Mention of cattle herding/rustling in source doesn't make it eligible for inclusion in etymology section. Does it use inverted commas, italic fonts or phrase like "word Rajput", "name Rajput" or "term Rajput" as you interpreted? In Purbiya Rajput too, such things are absent and the source doesn't say "Purbiyas started using Rajput name" as you interpreted. Please stop this. Dympies (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Please stop what? Please see WP:NPOV.LukeEmily (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You have not addressed these concerns. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Italics or inverted commas is simply an authors choice and is irrelevant. The issue here is where and when the term was used. Please check the definition for "etymology". The bigger issue is the WP:NPOV issue because it misleads the reader.LukeEmily (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

This is synthesis. You are combining two sources to state something neither of them support. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

There is only one source. And it is discussing 3 different centuries. And one statement for each century. What is the synthesis? LukeEmily (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Quoting the author when he is clearly referring to two different events and in different contexts is not going to work. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course they have to be different events since they span different centuries. If you feel there is synthesis, then please correct the above summary to show a "non-synthesized" version that works.LukeEmily (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no compulsion of including the stuff at first place. I don't think we can form any content which is due for the section. Dympies (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Luke Emily's views on Purbiya. In fact, I myself wanted to add some stuff related to that but due to paucity of time couldn't do. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

This "Purbia" has nothing to do with the section in question. It is neither an "early reference" nor "scriptural reference" and it doesn't fit into "etymology" as well. We won't do WP:SYNTHESIS in the name of WP:NPOV. This issue is not even worthy of more discussion. Dympies (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Adamantine123, I think you are misunderstanding the objection from Dympies. Dympies only has the issue with the section it is in - not the content itself. Please see this.LukeEmily (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Also the phrasing must be fully supported by source. No synthesis. Dympies (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Click a footnote link above (or 'show') to view refs.

Migration out of India following the mutiny of 1857

I recommend we add a section on diaspora Rajputs whose ancestors left India from the present day states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar following the uprising of 1857, and the subsequent disbanding of the sepoy regiments of the Bengal army.The British preference following the uprising to recruit mainly from Punjab dried up opportunities for Rajputs, and brahmins from UP and Bihar to serve in the Indian army.The prospect of getting employment lured many from these castes to leave India. Most of them ended in the countries of Trinidad, Guayana, Mauritius and Fiji.Here is one source for that. Since I have not contributed to this article in many years, I would like experienced editors to take the lead.. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Click a footnote link above (or 'show') to view refs.

Roy surname in west bengal?

roy are kshartiya surname or caste use by zamindar in west bengal, they are kshartiya or bhumihar, mostly roy in bengal are kshartiya (Rajput). in Mughal rule,many Rajput migrated from North India to east. British rule , pronounce roy to the place of singh, zamindar,rajput. Roy surname use by sisodiya Rajput, rathore Rajput, gaur Rajput and bais Rajput. Lionking69k (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Undue opinions of Abul Fazl and Mirza Hasan Qatil in Rajput sub-section

Our Rajput sub-section under "Etymology" section reads :

Unlike Abu Fazl, Akbars's secretary, who considered Rajputs, the Mughal allies, as Kshatriyas descended from the sun and the moon, the Persian scripture Haft Tamasha claims Rajputs as Shudras because, in contrast to Kshatriyas, they did not wear the sacred thread, nor did Brahmins accept cooked food from them.

Now, the author of this source, Sajjad Alam Rizvi notes on page No 190 :

One can also discern the socio-political and cultural positions of the authors in their selections and emphasis...Abu’l Fazl was an officer and ideologue of the empire; hence, in his interpretation of the varnas, he focuses on social stability and includes Mughal ally Rajputs in the category of the kshatriyas. Qatil, a Khatri convert to Shi‘i Islam, tries to exclude the Rajputs from the kshatriya group and claims that ‘the Khatris are not inferior to the kshatriyas in sharafat and by virtue of knowledge, piety, asceticism are like the brahmans. They are known for their bravery, sagacity, good manners and adornment of house.’

The author highlights the possibility of bias in viewpoints of Abul Fazl and Mirza Hasan Qatil. As Abul Fazl was a courtier of Mughals, he is likely to talk high of Rajputs who were Mughal allies. Same way, as Qatil was a Khatri, he is likely to talk high of Khatris and low of Rajputs. When the author himself is casting doubt on neutrality of these Persian writers, there is no meaning in keeping their opinions on the contentious topic of varnas. Dympies (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

References

References

"Consensus required" page restriction

Given the long and contentious edit history of this article including the edit-warring that led to the full page-protection in January and the recent back-and-forth tag-teamed reverts without consensus being established for the disputed edits being established on the talk page, I have applied the "consensus required" contenious topic restriction, as authorized by WP:CT/IPA, to the Rajput article. That is, "an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page." Abecedare (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to differ Abecedare, but I fear that now some editors would take it as a license to game. Already, we are seeing well-sourced content being erased like this. Now it has become convenient to ask for consensus for anything which doesn't match with their Pov. Though I understand your concern over the history of contentious editing on this page, I would still suggest that admins like you play a larger role like getting involved into editing and see things closely. Dympies (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare for such an appropriate action! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dympies: I realize that the "consensus required" restriction makes the editing process potentially more tedious but it eventually favors the "side", regardless of their POV, with higher quality sources and better idea of DUE since they have an easier time establishing consensus through talk page discussions, and use of noticeboards, RFCs and DRN, as needed. This is admittedly a slow process but leads to an article improvements that "stick" instead of being subject to summary insertion/deletion... as we have seen at this article recently and oft in the past.

For completeness, I should also note that the added restriction can be appealed at WP:AE or at WP:AN as described at WP:CTOP. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Abecedare:, please forgive me if I am misunderstanding but does not WP:BRD already cover this rule? For example, say X makes an edit which could be a (1)removal of a long standing content or (2)the insertion of a new content, and Y reverts the edit by X, then the next step would be for X (or any other editor supporting X) to discuss the revert as per the flow chart in WP:BRD. Y could have restored long standing content or deleted new content in the revert(depending on what X did). Am I understanding it correctly? Unfortunately, subtle WP:NPOV edits have been going on on this page by adding one sided views (not giving a complete picture - will give examples soon), as well as removing well sourced content such as [11] after removing [12]. @Ekdalian: please could you also help in compiling the list? Maratha and Rajput and Jat are very similar in that all were a community of peasant-warriors. The difference being that Rajputs were mostly loyal to Mughals and the name is derived from "Rajputra" which means prince in Sanskrit. But that is not the same as being royalty. However, to a naive reader, Maratha article paints an accurate picture where as the Rajput page looks very different due to some statements in the etymology section that only give a patrial picture without the full context.LukeEmily (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: BRD is indeed the preferred strategy to follow everywhere on wikipedia but WP:BRD is an essay and its use is (unfortunately) optional and therefore difficult to enforce. Even the "enforced BRD" (see linked footnote) editing restriction is too game-able on pages such as Rajput, where the dispute is not restricted to be between just two editors. The "consensus required" restriction is easier to enforce since it means that if one's edit is reverted, one needs to discuss and establish consensus for the change before the edit can be reinstated.

Again, I recognize that this slows down efforts to change the standing version of the article but it also means that if one establishes consensus for the desired change, those efforts cannot be easily reverted by the next drive by editor. So the expectation is that in the long term it leads to an improved and stable article even when the subject is contentious. Abecedare (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Abecedare, now this is noteworthy that Luke and me are main editors of this page and both of us are not comfortable with the new restriction. Though we do engage in edit wars, but very often, we are able to convey ourselves better through edit summaries. At some point, we stop edit wars showing mutual respect and turn to talk page. This is how things have been going for last two years or so. Consensus is something which is sometimes better obtained through edit summaries. In instances when consensus could not be obtained like at Talk:Kshatriya, we opted for RfC which slowed down everything. We don't want RfCs for every little thing. Thats why I request you to reconsider your decision over restriction. Dympies (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dympies: You and LukeEmily are welcome to follow the process you outline above except that instead of communicating through edit summaries, after the first revert, you should use the talk page instead. I am not sure why "Consensus is something which is sometimes better obtained through edit summaries." would be true, and it certainly didn't work recently as seen by the series of reverts involving four editors between March 4th and March 13. Finally, note that establishing consensus does not necessarily mean having a formally closed RFC. Abecedare (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Terms Rajput and Kshatriya used synonymously : Statement removed

The following line was removed recently by LukeEmily from Rajput sub-section [13]:

The term has often been used synonymously with kshatriya in past as well as present times.

The following edit summary was given : I dont have any objection to your recent addition but we have to add opposing views also. The statement is not neutral as some modern sources refer to Rajputs as Shudra , non-Kshatriya , varna-shankara, mixed varna etc. Please discuss on talk page to create a neutral statement.

Luke, this term "neutral" is itself subjective. What is non-neutral for you can be neutral for me and vice versa. If you think authors are biased, we can't do anything to help (see WP:ALLOWEDBIAS). What matters here is that the content is completely backed by reliable sources and and it is relevant for the sub-section. The sub-section itself is meant for discussing the term rather than community. The content doesn't comment on the Kshatriyahood of Rajput community but it says that the term Rajput has been used synonymously with term kshatriya in past and present. This is exactly what citations say. There are seven citations attached to the content. While the first four deal with past, the last three deal with present. So, removing the content isn't justified. Please restore it yourself. Dympies (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Dympies, there are opposing citations present all over the existing page that say that the names are not synonyms(although they may not use the exact word synonym). That is why I said, we have to give opposing views also. As per merriam-webster Synonym is "one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses". I will give a more elaborate answer in a couple of days so that other editors who do not have context will also follow it.LukeEmily (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Opposing views like varna samkara, shudra caste are already present in Rajaputra as well as Rajput sub-sections. We don't have to make artificial efforts to look "neutral" while representing the sources.

@Abecedare, thats why I was concerned about the new restriction on this page. First Luke removed well sourced content with a vague edit summary. Now, as he doesn't have a proper justification, he wants a couple of days for elaborate answer. Now things haven't become slow but very, very slow. Dympies (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Click a footnote link above (or 'show') to view refs.