Talk:Rajput clans/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Saini

How is Saini community in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.6.213 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hw r YADUVANSHI a thakur clan ....they want t be thakur , yet they want reservati0n ....duble standards !!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.109.124.205 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Saini of Punjab is upper/forward caste till this date. Here is a well sourced article discussing their history from Yadu Rajputs of Mathura.

http://www.sainionline.com/origin-from-surasenas

We could never use that source. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agnikula Rajputs

The phrase that "Agnikulas originated from fire" is not historically true. Many Rajput geneologies show that Chauhan, Manj and Bhatti were brothers and named the Rajput tribes of the same names. The myth of Agnikula originated in the times of Prithviraj Chauhan and does not have any historica background before that. خرم Khurram 16:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, so I am changing the wording to "Agnikula rajputs claim descent from the fire-god", and dispute is at an end. Dear Khurram, please let us not have dispute tags for petty reasons. ImpuMozhi 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Content removed from article in 2006; You cannot use this page as a substitute for the article, so there is no reason to keep updating this

Moving from Rajput page for use here

The Rajputs are divided into 36 clans, claiming three basic lineages: the Suryavanshi (Solar Race), the Chandravanshi (Lunar Race), and the Agni vanshi (Fire Born). Some scholars also include Rishi vanshi, Nag Vanshi and Vayu Vanshi as separate classes. House of Mewar, Marwar, Amber are Suryavanshi rajputs. Rulers of Bundi, Kotah, Jalore, Sirohi are Agnivanshi. Chandravanshi and Yaduvanshi are from the same line which bifurcated at king yadu when his father banished him from becoming the king. House of Jaisalmer are yaduvanshi rajputs.

The Suryavanshi trace their lineage to the Vedic Sun -Surya(Lord Rama was also born in this lineage) Somvanshi to Som (the vedic deity Soma or Moon) and Agnivanshi orginated from fire. The Yaduvanshi trace there lineage to Lord Krishan.

Each vansha has many cula and each cula has shakha. Rathores are divided into these shakha : Dhandhul, Bhadail, Khokra, Jodha etc. Gehlote cula is subdivided into these shakhas: Aharya (at Doongarpur) , Sisodiya (at Mewar), Peeparra (at Marwar) etc. Chauhan are divided into these shakha: Hada, Kheechee, Deora, Songara etc. Similarly there are various shakha in Kacchwaha, Parihaar and rest of the 12 clans described below.

Each shakha has its Gotra Acharya, a genealogical creed, describing the essential peculiarities, religious tenets and pristine locale of the clan. It is a touchstone of affinities and guardian of the laws of intermarriage.

Twelve of 36 clans of rajputs further subdivide. These 12 are Gehlote, Parmara, Chauhan, Solanki, Rathore, Tanwar/Tomar/Tuar, BirGoojur, Parihaar, Jhala, Yadu, Katchwaha, Gor.

These 24 clans are 'Eka' and do not divide further. Sengar, Balla, Khurwur, Chawura, Dahima, Dahiya, Byce, Gherwal, Nikumpa, Dewut, Johya, Sikerwal, Dabia, Doda, Mori, Mokarra, Abhirra, Kalchoruk, Agnipala, Aswariya, Hool, Manutwal, Mallia and Chhahil.

Prominent Rajput clans & their main centers

Clans of Jammu and Himachal

Rajput clans in Jammu and Himachal Pradesh: Jaswal, Chambial, Mankotia, Sambial, Guleria, Dadwal, Jamwal, Chib, Katoch, Suketia, Kutlehria, Baloria, Charak, Bandral, Kahluria etc. [source: History and Culture of Himalayan States by Professor Sukhdev Singh Charak]

Efforts to hijack Singh article

Editors of this Rajput article are requested to work on the article Singh, as some people are making constant effort to hijack the article and keep it only for Sikhs saying that provide reference if Singh is a Rajput common name, they keep erasing reference that Sing is a Rajput name at all. They keep proving that Singh is a Sikh name only. I suspect these are foreign editors who have no idea what they are talking about obviously.

See this version of the article that erases all reference that Singh is a common name used by Rajputs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singh&oldid=153438525 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atulsnischal (talk • contribs) 06:10, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Kindly provide a lot of references and facts that Singh is a Rajput name and also provide how many Rajputs may be using it as a middle or as the last name because I know Rajputs who migrated outside Rajasthan to other states many hundred years ago have lost touch and now use it now as their last name.

Kindly help to work on Singh article when you all get some time, Thanks

Atulsnischal 06:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit request from Mauryankings, 25 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} <REDACTED> Mauryankings (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. When you want to make a request like this, please do not copy the entire page. Instead, just write specifically what you want changed. Otherwise there's no way for us to tell what you want changed. We're not going to search through the whole thing to look for specific changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.173.227.188, 9 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}


94.173.227.188 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Saini??

How does the Saini page in wikipedia claim to be Rajput? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.20.72 (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Read References. --120.59.59.234 (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Suryauday, 8 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove Saini from the list of Chandravanshi, They only claim Rajput origin which is not backed by any data or contemporary accounts. If you look at the links and references provided in the Saini article it is quite clear that only the community claims that origin, and there is no data or any historical incident which can affirm it. Thanks

Suryauday (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

See Argentina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.159.171 (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: If you look at Saini, there are numerous reliable sources claiming it is a Rajput clan. If you have sources that say it is not, we possibly add that the claim is dispute, although that iscussion should probably take place at Saini. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ubmaurya, 29 June 2011

Maurya's are comes under suryavanshi kshatiya kindly add them in the lineage. I am updating now, kindly refer Book "Indian Civilization and Culture" written By Suhas Chatterjee page no. 135 Origin of Maurya Dynasty

And for more clarification kindly refer

1. Thapar's major works are Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations, Recent Perspectives of Early Indian History (editor), A History of India Volume One, and Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300.

2. The Mauryas Revisited 1987 K.P. Bagchi & Co.

3. "India before and after the Mauryan Empire", in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology, 1980.

4. Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, 1961 (revision 1998); Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-564445-X

All are defining that they comes under kashtriya or rajputs dynasty.


Ubmaurya (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the book title correctly? Look at the Bibliography on Romila Thapar's wikipage, I don't see any book under either of those titles. In any event, it would help if you could provide a page number and, if possible, an actual quote from the book for those of us without access to it directly. At least the correct publication info will be needed, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Chatterjee, p. 135 ("Origin of Maurya Dynasty" is a chapter in "Indian Civilisation and Culture") - Sitush (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I have provided reliable resources & supports kindly add in lineage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs) 17:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I will look into it asap. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Chatterjee, p. 135, says that it is generally accepted by historians that Maurya were kshatriya. It also proposes alternative arguments. All of the comments are based on unreliable ancient texts (Maharabhata etc), so if we included it at all there would need to be a disclaimer. More to the point, the author does not say that they were a Rajput clan. I think it possible that you are synthesising here. I'll go through the other sources which you mention but unless they specifically connect Maurya to Rajput it is very likely that they will be discarded, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
All of the other sources mentioned are either not available online, lack even snippet view or have snippet view but there is no viable search string. I cannot check further, sorry. I note The Mauryas Revisited & Asoka ... are also by Thapar, so the majority of those you proposed were written by one person and this itself might be problematic unless the other authors make similar comments. Authors with a caste bias are incredibly common & if it were to turn out that only Thapar makes the connection to Rajput then we would probably have to qualify any statement (although I accept xe might be the only scholar working in this field of research). Perhaps someone else can see these somewhere, maybe even in a library. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


Some other sources like: Kidly see their origine and refer other history books. Bhagirathis is a landowning agricultural community of Western Uttar Pradesh[1]. They are the descendants of the Ikshvaku dynasty king Sagara and the Suryavansha king Bhagiratha, whom the community is named after. They adopted the Saini surname in 1941[2]. Many kings belongs to this community are also remarkable because of their Sainya shakti. This community was an important component of the Maurya Empire and having kings like samrat Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka.

1.^ Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (1998) [1986]. A History of India (Third ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 59. ISBN 0-415-15481-2. 

2.^ Kulke and Rothermund 1998:62
3.^ a b Boesche, Roger (January 2003). "Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India". The Journal of Military History 67 (1): 9–37. doi:10.1353/jmh.2003.0006. ISSN 0899-3718.
4.^ William Smith (ed), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 1870, Vol 3 p. 705-6
5.^ Shastri, Nilakantha (1967). Age of the Nandas and Mauryas. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. p. 26. ISBN 81-208-0465-1.
6.^ Vaughn, Bruce (2004). "Indian Geopolitics, the United States and Evolving Correlates of Power in Asia". Geopolitics 9 (2): 440–459 [442]. doi:10.1080/14650040490442944.
7.^ Goetz, H. (1955). "Early Indian Sculptures from Nepal". Artibus Asiae 18 (1): 61–74. doi:10.2307/3248838.
8.^ The Span of the Mauryan Empire, Kamat's Potpurri, accessed 9 September 2007
9.^ Boesche, Roger (January 2003). "Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India". The Journal of Military History 67 (1): 9–37. doi:10.1353/jmh.2003.0006. ISSN 0899-3718. "Kautilya [is] sometimes called a Chancellor or Prime Minister to Chandragupta, something like a Bismarck..."
10.^ Trautmann, Thomas R. (1971). "The Cāṇakya-Candragupta-Kathā". Kauṭilya and the Arthaśāstra: A Statistical Investigation of the Authorship and Evolution of the Text. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
11.^ a b c d e Radha Kumud Mookerji, Chandragupta Maurya and His Times, 4th ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988 [1966]), pp. 31, 28–33.
12.^ John Marshall Taxila, p. 18, and al.
13.^ a b Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (1977). Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 8120804368.
14.^ Vincent A. Smith (1998). Asoka. Asian Educational Services. ISBN 8120613031.
15.^ Walter Eugene, Clark (1919). "The Importance of Hellenism from the Point of View of Indic-Philology". Classical Philology 14 (4): 297–313. doi:10.1086/360246.
16.^ Ancient India, (Kachroo ,p.196)
17.^ The Imperial Gazetteer of India, (Hunter,p.167)
18.^ The evolution of man and society, (Darlington ,p.223)
19.^ Tarn, W. W. (1940). "Two Notes on Seleucid History: 1. Seleucus' 500 Elephants, 2. Tarmita". The Journal of Hellenic Studies 60: 84–94. doi:10.2307/626263.
20.^ Partha Sarathi Bose (2003). Alexander the Great's Art of Strategy. Gotham Books. ISBN 1592400531.
21.^ Pliny the Elder, "The Natural History", Chap. 21
22.^ Digambaras, Overview of World Religions, accessed 9 September 2007
23.^ The Courtesan and the Sadhu, A Novel about Maya, Dharma, and God, October 2008, Dharma Vision LLC., ISBN 978-0-9818237-0-6, Library of Congress Control Number: 2008934274

[edit] Further reading 

Kosambi, D.D. An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1985
Bhargava, P.L. Chandragupta Maurya, New Delhi:D.K. Printworld, 160 pp., 2002.
Habib, Irfan. and Jha, Vivekanand. Mauryan India: A People's History of India,New Delhi:Tulika Books, 2004; 189pp
Vishakadatta, R.S. Pandit.Mudraraksasa (The Signet Ring of Rakshasa), New Delhi:Global Vision Publishing House, 2004, ISBN 81-8220-009-1, edited by Ramesh Chandra
Swearer, Donald. Buddhism and Society in Southeast Asia (Chambersburg, Pennsylvania: Anima Books, 1981) ISBN 0-89012-023-4
Nilakanta Sastri, K. A. Age of the Nandas and Mauryas (Delhi : Motilal Banarsidass, [1967] c1952) ISBN 0-89684-167-7
Bongard-Levin, G. M. Mauryan India (Stosius Inc/Advent Books Division May 1986) ISBN 0-86590-826-5
Chand Chauhan, Gian. Origin and Growth of Feudalism in Early India: From the Mauryas to AD 650 (Munshiram Manoharlal January 2004) ISBN 81-215-1028-7
Keay, John. India: A History (Grove Press; 1 Grove Pr edition May 10, 2001) ISBN 0-8021-3797-0
Radha Kumud Mukherji. Chandragupta Maurya aur Uska Kaal (Rajkamal Prakashan, Re Print 1990) ISBN-81-7171-088-1

[edit] External links 

Shepherd boy Chandragupta Maurya
1911encyclopedia.org article on Chandragupta Maurya
Chandragupta Maurya by Purushottam Lal Bhargava (BTM format)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not reading all of those. Tell me which ones say that Maurya are/were Rajput. Nothing else matters as it would be original research and/or synthesis. It is a very simple question and you clearly know your sources, so please could we concentrate on the issue that matters as far as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are concerned. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok Sir,

1. The Buddhist sources like Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa describe Chandragupta Maurya as a scion of the Kshatriya clan of the Moriyas branch of Sakyas who lived in Pipphalivana in eastern Uttar Pradesh.

2. An Advanced History of India, by RC Majumdar, HC Raychaudhri & Kalinkar Datta

3. As per Hinduism varna system: 

the Brahmins: Scholars, teachers and fire priests
the Kshatriya: Kings, warriors, administrators
the Vaishyas: Cattle herders, Agriculturists and merchants[3]
the Shudras: Service providers and artisans

This is based on Karma - if Mauryans were worriors/samrat which is a golden era of ancient history, then they must be have in Kashtriya Clan.

If Hinduism are based on Hindu Epic, like Varnas, Dharma etc, and ancient history says that they are/were great kings then how you can say that they are/were not kashtriya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs) 06:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I will read that book (Majumdar). Your other comments make no odds here. I really do suggest that you read the "original research" and "synthesis" links which I provided above. Probably also a good idea to read WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
What page number, please? For that matter, what part (it is a multi-volume work). - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Mori clan is one of 36 royal Rajput clans of India & falls in 24 eka clans which are not divided further.Mori Rajputs are the descendants of the famous Maurya emperors. Mori Rajputs are sub clan of Parmara Rajputs of Agnivansh. They ruled Chittor & Malwa till early part of eighth century & built the biggest fort in India at Chittor in the reign of Chitrangad Mori (Ref: Archaeological survey of India), later Sisodias made additions & modification in the fort. Last king of Mori Dynasty of Chittor was Maan Singh Mori who fought against Arab invasion. Qasim attacked Chittor via Mathura. Bappa, of guhilote (Sisodia) dynasty, was a commander in Mori army. After defeating Qasim, Bappa Rawal obtained Chittor in dowry from Maan Singh Mori in 734. Then onwards Chittor is ruled by Sisodia Rajputs. Later Mori & Parmar Rajputs continued to rule Malwa until Muslim incursions. Of late they remained as smaller royal states & jagirdars in the central India in present state of Madhya Pradesh, presently settled in Dhar, Ujjain, Indore, Bhopal, Jabalpur, Narsinghpur & Raisen.

Kindly check again and add in lineage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs) 05:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Kindly refer this book: The Rajputana Gazetteer describes the Moris (Mauryas?) as a Rajput clan (II A, the Mewar Residency by Major K. D. Erskine, p 14). 

ubmaurya 14:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)ubmaurya  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs)
As you acknowledge yourself, the Gazetteer is unclear on the matter. If it is not clear then it cannot be used, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


There is a great deal of controversy among the scholars regarding the origin of the Mauryans. Following are some of the different views regarding the origin of the Mauryans that are listed below. • According to Spooner, Mauryans were Persians because the social, religious and political conditions of India and Persia of that time were similar. But most of the scholars disagree with this view. • According to the second view, which is based on Brahman literature, Mauryans were Shudras. Different Brahman books had given different versions about the Mauryans.

Purans: Along with the mention of the destruction of Shishunaga dynasty and establishment of Nanda dynasty, Puranas also mentions that after this Shudras will rule the country. However, this sentence is applicable to Nandas and after the destruction of Shishunaga dynasty there were several dynasties that were definitely Brahmanas. Hence the view does not seem to be correct.

Commentaries of Puranas: According to a commentator of Vishnu Puran, Chandra Gupta was the son of Nanda through a wife named Mura. But this view is not acceptable because nowhere in the purans, Chandra Gupta has been referred as belonging to Nanda dynasty. Moreover, according to Panini`s `Vyakaran`, the word `Maurya` has not originated from the word `Mura`.

Mudrarakshas: Vishakha Datta wrote `Mudrarakshas` between 6th and 8th century. `Mudrarakshas` mentions Chandra Gupta as son of Nanda king and is described as `Vrikhals`. According to some writers `Vrikhals` were Shudras but further study and research has shown that persons condemning caste system were called `Vrikhal`. Now here in one of the dramas Chandra Gupta has been described as son of Nanda through a legitimate wife. It, therefore, appears that the dramatist described him as the son of illegitimate wife of low caste.

`Katha sarit sagar` and `Brihat katha manjari`: These are written by Som Dev and Chhaemendra. `Katha sarit sagar` and `Bidhat katha manjari` respectively, describe Chandra Gupta as belonging to Nanda dynasty. But there are many ancient books and scholars. They doubt their authenticity.

Thus it can be seen that there are contradictory stories regarding the caste of Chandra Gupta.

Kautilya `Arthasastra`: According to Kautilya`s Arthasastra, Chanakya crowned Chandra Gupta after destroying the Nanda dynasty. Being a Brahman, Chanakya was a staunch follower of `Varnashram` system and would not consent to make a Shudra king in place of Nandas whom he had gone all out to destroy. Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerii says, "It is thus quite absurd to suppose that Kautliya who was out to rescue this dharma or system from the outrage inflicted upon it by a Shudra sovereignty, could have chosen as his agent in the fulfillment of his sacred mission a person of the same disqualification. He could not consecrate to sovereignty one Shudra in place of another."

Thus it is quite incorrect to say that the Mauryas were Shudra. • According to the third view, Mauryans were Kshatriyas.

This view is based upon the following literature

Buddhist literature: The entire Buddhist literature describes Mauryans as Kshatriyas. According to `Mahavamsa`, Chandra Gupta was a Kshatriya called Maurya whom Chanakya crowned as king after putting an end of the Nanda dynasty. `Mahabodhi vamsa` describes Chandra Gupta as being born in the royal dynasty of Mariyanagara. There is also the mention of the Kshatriya clan known as the Mariyas of Pipphalivana in `Digha nikaya`. Moreover, `Divyadana` describes Bindusara was lawfully anointed Kshatriya king. There is a reference in `Mahaparinirvana`, which says that when lord Buddha attained nirvana, the mariyas of Pipphalivana sent a message. "You and we are Kshatriyas and so we also enjoy aright to have a share in the remains of lord Buddha." This quote further confirms that Mauryans were Kshatriyas.

Jain literature: According to `Parisistha parvana` written by Hem Chandra, Chandra Gupta belonged to a community who were famous as `rearers of royal peacocks`. Haribhara tika also lends its support to this view. `Punyashrava katha kosh` clearly mentions Chandra Gupta as Kshatriya.

Evidence of the foreigners: According to diodorus, "parus informed Alexander that the king of the gangaridai (nanda king) was a man of quite worthless character and held in no respect as he was thought to be the son of a barber." The famous historian, plutarch has written that androkottos or Chandra Gupta when he was only a young man had seen Alexander himself. He had told Alexander that he could easily win the Nanda king because people "hated and despised the king because of his low and mean origin. The great historian Justin also wrote about the humble birth of Chandra Gupta. But his reference of humble birth does not mean that he was a Shudra, what actually is meant is the weak economic conditions of the family of the Chandra Gupta.

Thus the foreign sources do not prove that Chandra Gupta was a Shudra or was of low origin.

Archeological evidence: The excavated portion of the Ashoka`s pillar at nandan garh contains an emblem of peacock. The stupa at Sanchi also has several statues of peacocks. Besides this, Ashoka`s inscriptions also mentions peacock. Thus it is also said that people living in lands full of peacocks, were called `Maurya`. So it can be inferred that the origin of the `Maurya` is not from the word `Mura`.

In view of the above statements and evidence supporting them, it can be concluded that Mauryas were not Sudras. The view that Mauryans were Kshatriyas does not only seem to be proper, reasonable and correct but there is sufficient reliable evidence to support it as well.


Please update.

~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs) 09:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be repeating yourself. It has previously been explained to you why your the sources that you have (again) provided are not acceptable. You may be correct but you need to find some reliable sources. That's just the way Wikipedia works, sorry - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I am sorry for disturbibg you time to time, but can you please specify this reliable sources? ubmaurya 08:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)ubmaurya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs)

Wrong link--you want WP:reliable sources. Follow that link, and it will explain. The quick summary is that all information in Wikipedia must be verifiable in sources that are reliable, meaning the have a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, etc. The best examples for an article of this type are academic journal articles or books published by reliable academic presses. Other sources are possible, and if you're not sure, you can ask. In other words, we can't just "take your word" that something is or isn't true--instead, you need to show us an expert source that says those things. Note, for example, that Diodorus and Plutarch are not reliable sources, but modern historians publishing in good journals commenting on what those ancient historians wrote could be considered reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Then sir, Kautilya's `Arthasastra` , Buddhist literature, Jain literature and Archeological evidence are must be a reliable sources. If possible kindly check these evidences. As per the views mentioned in these evidences that Mauryans were Kshatriyas does not only seem to be proper, reasonable and correct but there is sufficient reliable evidence to support it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs) 05:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please can you confirm that you have read the reliable sources policy ? Neither Kautilya nor Buddhist/Jain literature are compliant with that. Therefore, if you have read it then perhaps we have a fundamental problem, which could be that you are unfortunately unable fully to comprehend things that are written in clear English. If this is the case and English is, for example, not your first language then it might be sensible to consider contributing to a wiki that is produced in what ever is your first language.There are, for example, Tamil and Hindi Wikipedias.
Archaeological studies may be ok but it depends on the context: which studies, where, undertaken by whom, published in what, drawing what conclusions? You need to be much, much more specific. - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Some Reliable Sources:

Epigraphia Indica, II, 222 Mahaparinnibhana Sutta, page 409

ubmaurya 11:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs)

Yes! That is a reliable source, the only issue being that each volume deals with a single area (I think) & so any statement relying on it may have to be qualified slightly. Anyway, I'll try to find it on GBooks and take a look. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you know of an online source for this book (Epigraphia)? I can find many of the volumes at GBooks but have not yet spotted volume 2. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sir, this site might be help you http://asi.nic.in/asi_publ_epigraphical_indica.asp

ubmaurya 10:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs)

Sir, can you please take a look at this one: Mahaparinnibhana Sutta, page 409. Thanks in advance for your consideration. ubmaurya 05:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs) 04:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Please update. ubmaurya 05:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs)

Sir, I Have provided reliable sources like: Epigraphia Indica, II, 222 Mahaparinnibhana Sutta, page 409, Bhagwan Buddha ke Samkalin Anuyayi tatha Boddha Kendra - By Tripatkacharya, Mahopadhyaya Bhiksu Buddhamitra (P. 23-25) and India : From Indus Valley Civilisation to Mauryas - By Gyan Swarup Gupta (P. 185) ~~ubmaurya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubmaurya (talk • contribs) 18:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You can continue to throw as many sources at this point as you like but I for one will not be responding further because the entire issue has already been dealt with. Sometimes you have to accept that there is no single "right" opinion regarding things such as varna, dynastic origins and the like. That situation is unlikely to change any time soon. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahluwalia

{{edit semi-protected}} Remove Ahluwalia from Chandravanshi list. --Clarkpoon (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
There are no references added in Ahluwalia article about their Rajput status. They are only claiming. --¢ℓαяк (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

More generally...

In response to a few of the comments above, and having looked at the article, it appears that a large portion of it is not verified. The "Original royal Rajput clans" is verified by Tod, which is fine since it's a historical claim. However, basically the entire rest of the article is unsourced. Now, on the clans that are linked (that is, have their own wikipage), as long as their Rajput status is verified on the target article by a reliable source, then they don't have to be verified here. However, if its not, and for those clans that don't have their own wikipage, the information really shouldn't be here. Wikipedia requires verifiability, period. Furthermore, this needs to be verification by reliable secondary sources--that is, quotations from carvings from 1000 years ago do not suffice (unless verified by modern research/scholarship). So, very soon, it's time to give this article a thorough purging. However, before I start to do so, I figured I'd give any of the regular editors here time to add any references you knew of. In particular, in the References section, there are 4 references listed (bulleted) that aren't linked to inline citations; presumably those verify something in the article, but without the inline citation, its impossible to tell what they supposedly verify; if anyone knows what they should link to, please make the connection. If anyone has references but doesn't know how to add them, you can post them here and tell me where they go, and I'd be happy to do the formatting.

I know that once I start the process there's going to be an uproar. But the simple matter is that Wikipedia's rules on verifiability aren't optional--they're one of of our core policies. Since being or not being a Rajput obviously has huge psychological and social consequences, its not hard to see why it is beneficial to list/de-list clans for reasons outside of WP's policies. But we need to move, as much as possible, towards full verification. I hope everyone can agree with and work towards this goal. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree entirely with the principle of what Qwryxian states above. It really is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. I would, however, prefer to see the sources in any linked articles being double-checked before saying that it is ok to rely on those links. There is a borderline WP:CIRCULAR issue if this is not done. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Always a good plan. My thought was to go after the low-hanging fruit first--that is, provisionally "accept" anything sourced that isn't obviously a non-RS (like a blog or somesuch); then, later (most likely much later, given how extensive even this one article is, worry about checking the quality of sources. As questionable issues arise, I would, of course, raise them on the relevant article talk page. To clarify one thing for everyone involved: I am not Indian, and I know almost nothing about the Indian caste system (and, in fact, knew nothing about it until I stumbled on a few pages in Wikipedia within the past year). This, I think, actually makes it easier for me to approach these articles, because I'm not hampered by any problems with, "But everyone knows that..." or "They're just trying to make us look good/bad/whatever." Since Wikipedia needs to be verified, not true, I think it often helps to have editors without a lot of subject matter knowledge take a look at information and pare it down, using Wikipedia's principles rather than any real-world agenda. This means, of course, that, as I mentioned above, that if any of the other editors here do know of sources, I'll have to rely on you to provide them so that we can verify everything. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
So, no adjustments since I last checked about 3 weeks ago. Well, it looks like this needs trimming. Also, it turns out that, after reviewing the available info, Tod does not qualify as a reliable source. Putting that list here gives far too much prominence to information that is at best questionable, and more likely fatally flaewd. I'm going to start by removing that whole section. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I, for one, will be extremely curious to see how we end up picking what named clans are listed here. Is there some plan for what to do with clans that (verifiably) claim Rajput status but are not accepted as such by other Rajputs? I'm also curious to see how long this page will need semi-protection for, what with IPs coming in to say "Hey, the Fooians aren't Rajputs! Removing (along with eight footnotes)". MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Upon input from MV elsewhere, there may be value in adding Tod back in, but just not the way it was before. MV, do you have a secondary source that says something like "Many groups have historically relied on Tod's list of 36 royal races as a list of Rajput clans, but Tod has more recently been rejected as not being reliable." Or anything even vaguely similar? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Poor footnoting

This article still lacks decent footnotes, although some sources are mentioned and there has been a general tag for the issue since July. I think that this situation has persisted for long enough. I shall make one more attempt to locate English language versions of the sources listed that have not been incorporated as footnoted citations and should that fail then I intend to start cutting it back some time in December.

Given that the article has averaged around 5000 views each month, I really do not see that there can be any reasonable objection to this course of action. Nonetheless, do feel free to comment & (better) to fix the thing. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2012

I would like to include 'Saini' clan under the chandravanshi heading. The Saini clan has also been mentioned here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandravanshi

Saini (Punjabi:ਸੈਣੀ) (Hindi: सैनी pronunciation (help·info)) is a Rajput clan. Sainis, also known as Shoorsaini (Hindi: शूरसैनी) [3][4][5] in Puranic literature, are now found by their original name only in Punjab and in the neighboring states of Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. They trace their descent from Rajputs of the Yaduvanshi Surasena lineage, originating from Yadava King Shurasena, who was the grandfather of both Krishna and the legendary Pandava warriors. Sainis relocated to Punjab from Mathura and surrounding areas over different periods of time.


Vimto232 (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone has been adding stuff about Saini all over the place recently. I'll check the sources because when I first looked they were not great & I asked for better ones to be provided. If all is ok then I will add the content for you. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but the citations in the Chandravanshi article were not great at all. We need a source that explicitly says "Saini claim to be descended from the Lunar Dynasty" or something very similar. None of this messing around with the ancient Shoorsaini clan etc because the connection between the two groups is not at all certain, just as the connection between Yadavs/Yadavas and Ahirs/Abhiras is not certain. Do you know of such a source? - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 March 2012

Dhakar is also a branch of Agnivanshirajputs

Akkinitrr (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You would need to provide a reliable source for this, and I note that the Dhakar article is not only unsourced but is presently up for deletion. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

Unless someone can sort out the sourcing for this article fairly soon, I will be reducing it to something near a stub. The {{more footnotes}} tag has been present for a long time and I am not even convinced that the sources listed cover much of the content shown. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2012

I just want to add Dhudhi in the last in clans of rajputs in The Agnivansha just like Baghela · Baghial · Bhakral · Chauhan · Deora · Dor · Hon · Kharal . Dhudhi. thats all I want to do . I want to Increase history about Dhudhi family Please publish this .I shall be ver thankful to you for this act of kindness.


Ahmad Hassan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadbhai913 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source to verify that Dhudhi is a Rajput clan. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Chauhan is a gurjara clan..Please remove it frm dis article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan1192 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 17 May 2012‎

No reliable source provided - declined. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhudhi see this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadbhai913 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are never reliable source. However, thanks for pointing that one out, as I'm about to seriously edit that one since it contains all sorts of unsourced claims. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2012


119.160.125.5 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No request made. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2012

Rana Rajput


Dograsp (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to provide some context - who is/was Rana Rajput and where do you expect to see it in the article. Also, do you have a reliable source for what ever the point is that you wish to be made. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2013

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=f-1XyQ2eIG8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=57&f=false . Page 57, last few lines, verifies Balouria clan ruled the area.

Basohli1ad (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that book was published by Gyan in 2006. We do not use Gyan works as sources, as User:Sitush/Common#Gyan hopefully explains. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2013

Please add Balouria to the Chandravanshi rajput clans. They ruled the Billawar, Bashohli, Bhaderwah areas of Jammu for over 1000 years. They are a branch of Pal dynasty who are Chandravanshi rajputs. Viyogi, Naval; Ansari, Anawar (2010) [2010]. History Of The Later Harappans And Silpakara Movement (2 Vols.) (Reprint ed.). New Delhi: Kalpaz Publications. p. 206.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=f-1XyQ2eIG8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=57&f=false . Page 57, last lines verify Balouria clan ruled the region.

Basohli1ad (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

See below. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 June 2013

Bais is mentioned as Agnivashi clan under Solanki but referring to Wiki paga of Bais Rajputs @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bais_Rajputs under "History and origin" section, Bais Rajputs are Suryavanshi. Further, the article at http://theroyal.wikia.com/wiki/Bais_Rajput confirms that Bais Rajputs belong to Suryavanshi vansh or lineage. Please make necessar changes.

Srp3563 (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Neither Wikipedia nor any other wiki site is considered a reliable source in and of itself. If either of those two pages you provided is backed by a reliable source, you are welcome to provide that here. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


(02-July-2013) Well, I could cite a reference on this. Please refer Chapter 2 from the book "Hand book on Rajputs" written by Captain A H Bingley in 1899. The section, on "Bais", clearly mentions Bais as one of the major 36 Rajput Royal races with a connection to Suryavansh. I hope that forms a valid citation now for the change. Srp3563 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Further to your amended request, A. H. Bingley - in common with most Raj writers - is not a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


Please consider that plenty of pages have referred to this literature from Captain A H Bingley as reliable sources. Few to mention are the following pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaduvanshi_Rajputs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghela
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautam_Rajputs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachgoti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachal
etc... Request you to consider the reference in current context as well. Srp3563 (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that other Wikipedia articles use Bingley as a source is just one reason why Wikipedia articles are themselves not considered to be reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


Here is another citation, Page 110 of Rural Settlements: Planning and Development by Nand Lal written in 1989 quotes the following: "(a) Spatial Diffusion of Bais Rajput Clan Settlements Bais Rajput clan is one of the most influential clans of Rae Bareli district. It has been listed as the 'Surajbansi' Rajput belonging to the 'Surya' (Sun god) gotra."Srp3563 (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: You've been told these are not reliable. Mdann52 (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2014

Add gahadwal also known as gadhwal/garhwal,suryvanshi rajput in suryvanshi lineage of rajput clan,it is major as many suryvanshi clan have born out of them.

101.63.90.241 (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2014

There are some other Rajput goth that are not mentioned in your article . These are sabra(sabbra), sapra (sappra) , basra (bassra)and may be some other also exist. and one thing more Rajput use a title (Rana or Chaudhary) and at last name the word khan used. Mohammad Mohsin Sarfraz (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2015

Chauhan.ryn (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. the Jogi lineage, YOG descent from Chauhan, the Hindu YOGA or in English it is known as Yoga Dynasty;
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 36 royal races

CONSENSUS
Consensus is to oppose the merge as article is not about the same clans. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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.

These articles seem to be about the same clans הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. One major problem is that there is no academic consensus regarding what constitute the 36 royal races. Indeed, I'm not even sure that it is a term often used nowadays by academics, although it was a favourite of pseudo-academics such as James Tod, who is not reliable. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Valid or not, isn't the concept referred to the same? Many of the clan names match, at first glance. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As per Sitush's argument. Also, merging 36 royal races with Rajput clans will give a impression that all of the listed clans are direct descendants of Rajputs, which itself would be seriously controversial and contentious, as it is being put forward by many academicians that Rajputs are also from one of the later wave of inward migration to India. Besides, it reads 36 royal races, not 36 Rajput races ?! Tod's list is not the only one, and the Article says that 36 royal races#Kumarapala Prabandha list included Mauryas as well. Mauryas were different, they were not of Rajput descent. I think We should avoid the merge. Sincerely, ← Abstruce 18:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • 36 royal races is not related only to the Rajputs. There are names of clans from North India as well as few Eastern parts. This gives a view of author's classification, however, such a list was not followed as a universal rule for royal clans. This discussion should be closed and the tag should be removed from the related page. Without proper evidence, this page should not even exist. Abhishek Pujari (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2014 (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.

Rajputs -A Hindu Kshatriya (My recent reverts)

Rajputs is a well known Hindu caste for the ages and it certainly does not matter that Some Rajputs have become Muslim, Christian or some other religion later with the time. Here the article shows the Hindu mythological origin of the word Rajput and not about what they became now or will become in future. Also note that some user is continuously modifying the sourced contents of the page which is illegal and against policies. Please refer the given source no.1 on page 139, it is clearly stated that "Rajput is a group of castes following Hindu rituals" and the same is further confirmed on pages 61-62 of the second source.--MahenSingha (Talk) 21:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Where do the sources say they are a "community of Hindus"?
It does matter that some Rajputs have become Muslims, because it falsifies the lead sentence.
Please keep religion out of the discussion when discussing social groups. Or, if you do, provide a complete picture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mahensingha: As explained, not all Rajput clans are Hindu. Several entire clans are Muslim, Sikhs etc. who follow the Rajput customs. Therefore I would recommend appropriating the lead as it is not entirely true. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
[1] these are Rajput clans and they Hindus. There maybe some clans adhering some other religions, but that is not supported by reliable sources or official data and it is not possible to have articles about those clans. Capitals00 (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, in that case, find some decent sources and use the words they use. The lead sentence as it stands now is completely wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the lead sentence is wrong at present. It is, however, something of a semantics issue and it is one that has bothered me for a long time because usually in these situations "clan" seems to be assumed to mean "gotra", which I think is solely a Hindu concept. Hence, for many articles relating to Muslims in Pakistan we refer to "tribe", and for Sikhs we often refer to "misl". I may be missing something here but this seems like a bigger issue with the lead than just mentioning other religions. It may actually need to be resolved at a higher level of community involvement than this talk page because it affects hundreds of articles. Aside from defining scope, it affects whether or not we even have separate articles for the Hindu and Muslim variants of numerous communities (many of which, by the way, are little more than pov forks). - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually the concept of gotra isn't exclusive to Hindus, it has been retained amongst Muslim communities as well [2]. In Urdu, gotra is usually pronounced got. Mar4d (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. That's why I said "I think" - wasn't 100% sure. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

Add Raghuwanshi in Suryavanshi lineage. [1] Mayank Raghuwanshi (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done A2soup (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.indianrajputs.com/history/

Ahir is not part of Rajput clans

Rajputs and Ahirs both are differnt clans , then why ahir listed here in this page ? It should be removed from this page.

Because the sources confirms their Yaduvanshi lineage, which is in-turn, a part of Chandravanshi Kshatriya lineage. HinduKshatrana (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2019

Remove Ahir and Yadavas from Chandravanshi. HarendraSingh22 (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The sources clearly stats them to be a part of Chandravanshi Yaduvanshi lineage. HinduKshatrana (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2019

Ahir, Saini and others added by the HinduKshatrana user should be removed. They are not even mentioned in the source and the user has been warned. Wikipedia should not be used to spread agendas.174.34.184.130 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 174.34.184.130 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was being warned for not adding correct sources with the information I've added in the past. So I've provided sources for both Saini and Ahirs, and it clearly indicates that they are derived from Yaduvansha dynasty(which is in-turn a part of Chandravansha) dynasty. Refer to the resources that are mentioned and I'm not interested in spreading any kind of agenda. I only try to protect the pages or templates from IP address editors who vandalize the page, however they can. HinduKshatrana (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources mention the clans in question and affirm their (purported) descent from Yadu. Because HinduKshantrana's logic has not been challenged, I see no reason to action the request. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2019

Please include Ujjainiya and Gandhavariya under the Agnivanshi section. Sources are as follow:

Ujjainiya: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44141471

Gandhavariya: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.283324/page/n567

Thank you116.193.159.210 (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC) 116.193.159.210 (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The referenced sources do not say anything about Ujjainiya and Gandhavariya being Agnivanshi.--Thinker78 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Sungpeshwe9 has been blocked . They may disrupt it in future by another account.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

False Claims of Rajputization by Koyal Shivaji

Quote "The Rajputs, who are present day representation of Kshatriyas of old, are strong in body and stout of heart; and have from time to time immemorial been noted for their martial spirit and chivalrous instincts..." [1] Please don't run on Rajputization concept based on single source, and vandalize all Rajput related pages. It is one author's opinion, and shouldn't be taken as a gospel. There are more scholarly articles drawing similarity between Rajputs and Kshtriyas than the ones that tries to derogate Rajput origins.

Request all editors to build consensus before putting one sided narrative in the article.

British Raj era sources are unreliable for castes. See [[3]] Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ C.S.Varma (B.A.) (1904). Kshtriyas and Would be Kshtriyas.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

please remove origin of rajput from shudra, it is not mentioned in any history book, its an agenda of castes who hates Rajputs. Bit to brain (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 09:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2022

Bais are suryavanshi thakur. Every fucking source states that. Change them to suryavanshi from chandravanshi. 2405:201:6001:FC2B:B81C:405B:890B:3D6A (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2022

List of Suryavanshi rajputs could not mention batwal , so I request to mention batwal 2409:4054:2289:47A6:42A7:E11D:FC77:E771 (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC) I request to mention batwal in Suryavanshi rajput

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2022 (2)

Add Suryavanshi batwal Parshotam singh88 (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)addSuryavanshi batwal

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput_clans/Archive_1&oldid=1153746521"