User talk:Rana of Bharat

Rana of Bharat, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Rana of Bharat! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello, I'm Blablubbs. I noticed that in this edit to Bhati, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I changed because the points added are from irrelevant source Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Rana of Bharat, you can't just unilaterally decide that sources or content are irrelevant without providing a rationale; please discuss things on talk pages before you blank sourced content. Thanks. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you are writing nonsense links. Nonia samaj are OBC community not part of Rajput samaj. So how are you adding them to Rajput to malign the group. Similarly, Daroga are not part of Rajput group but were part of separate group though aligned. You are using baseless to make Wikipedia a casteist place. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Rana of Bharat, I have little interest in the topic area and no dog in this fight; I'm simply trying to enforce established community processes. Again; please don't just delete almost 20,000 characters from an article as you did here because you think the sources are "fake" or because they are from the 20th century. Especially since the sources in question all appear to be from reputable academic outlets. Unilateral blanking is considered disruptive and may get you blocked, especially since you're editing in an area where the community has enacted more strict regulations because of past disruption (see below). Thanks, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

None of them are from reputable academic outlets, are these any outlets who can't differentiate between OBC and general category. Don't hide your casteist bias in the name of neutrality. None of the links are from Historians, but any random writers of 21st century. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jadeja. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bhati, you may be blocked from editing. Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Community sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions – such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks – on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

With due respect why are you allowing half baked links to malign communities. A constant vandalizing of Rajput page is being done by few casteist people. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello, I'm Heba Aisha. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Darbar (title) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gaur Rajput, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to a community sanction

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

For 2 weeks, you are topic banned from making edits and engaging in discussions about social groups, be they castes, communities, tribes, clans, kootams, gotras etc., explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

You have been sanctioned for persistently attacking other editors and ignoring community concerns about your edits in this area.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are you banning me but not Heba Aisha who writes nonsense about my community. Who are you to ban me ? I donate my money to wiki, so that you write nonsense against my community. I won't allow it. Rana of Bharat (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Because of persistent disruption in this area, the community has authorized such measures (see Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups). Referring to another user as "idiot" (diff) and "casteist" (diff), repeatedly calling others' contributions "nonsense" (example 1, example 2), "vandalism" (diff) and personalizing the issue ("Wikipedia is not your father's property.", diff) are not acceptable and seem to confirm the need for such sanctions.

Wikipedia is written and maintained by unpaid volunteers, not by the Wikimedia Foundation. See https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/where-your-money-goes/ for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is written and maintained by unpaid volunteers, not by the Wikimedia Foundation." Well some of those volunteers have casteist agenda. Why I should not call you casteist if you write nonsense about my community with unsubstantiated claims. What is repeated disruption ? You are vandalizing Rajput page to defame my community. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi I am taking Rana's side but please look at the pages heba and lukeemily are writing they are not vandalising the wiki pages but they are on agenda to target and write disgusting thing about a community.

They have even blocked others users to edit the page , if Wikipedia is for everyone then why can't we object towards a content we disagree.

Please investigate it they writing continuously towards a single community in india.

Jbinsan (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rana_of_Bharat reported by User:Heba Aisha (Result: ). Thank you. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked sitewide

Hi. You are topic banned from castes and social groups, a ban which you immediately violated. ToBeFree then blocked you from the page Rajputization for two weeks — a very mild sanction, in my opinion. It has not deterred you; you have continued to discuss caste matters, for instance [1][2][3][4]. Either you don't understand what a topic ban is (why didn't you look up the banning policy, as recommended, or ask the banning admin?), or you don't care. I have blocked you from editing the whole of Wikipedia for two weeks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 13:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC).

Dear Bishonen On Wikipedia certain handles like Heba Aisha, Luke Emily are deliberately vandalising certain pages of communities as per their personal choices. Wiki admins didn't took any actions against them who are using incorrect words for certain communities on talk pages. Any specific reasons for it ? Rana of Bharat (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rana of Bharat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

certain handles like LukeEmily, Heba Aisha are promoting caste based hatred by constantly editing certain community pages. I apologize and accept my mistake for any harsh words. But why wiki is not taking actions against those editors who promote hatred between communities through the wiki page. Rana of Bharat (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per WP:NOTTHEM. Consider making a new unblock request that does not contain the word 'caste'. You should be completely avoiding that subject. It is also not wise to continue misusing the word 'vandalism' when referring to other editors. You should be trying to show admins that you understand policy and won't violate it again. Your recent comments are so inappropriate that they might suggest to admins that your block should have been indefinite and not just for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Rana of Bharat, please have a look at WP:NOTTHEM: The behavior of others may have been problematic, but the topic ban and the block are for your own behavior, and only your own behavior is at discussion here. You could avoid such situations by not repeating the attacks and confrontational behavior that led to the ban – in other words, please make sure that your hands are clean before complaining about others. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ToBeFree_(mobile), I apologize to you for any harsh words. I would not repeat the same. But I just request you to kindly please look into the propaganda editing and constant vandalising of certain communities page being done by editors like Heba Aisha and LukeEmily.

Dear, Wikipedia is read by many and I am of the opinion that promoting community based should not be its policy. I just request you to look into last month written page of Rajputization which is seeks of propaganda rather any written works. It is more of a cherry picking from sources rather full written works. Rana of Bharat (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have formatted your unblock request template so that it's able to call an uninvolved admin to this page. Feel free to change the text in it. I think that would be a good idea, because it's not a very helpful unblock request, as ToBeFree points out. Your notion that text based on "some new foreign academicians"[5] expresses "caste hatred" is mistaken. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and our articles are based on reliable sources, preferably academic sources. Bishonen | tålk 15:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC).

Dear Bishonen, Just asking one question to you, how do you decide reliable sources? Because a lot of writers opinion are based on repetitive works of the earlier writers. Apart from that there is no academic consensus on the subject, some writers are of the opinion of Scythian, Indo-Aryan origin whereas others have a different take. I was just highlighting some glaring discrepancies in the wiki page: Rajputization For example: in that article they have added Nonia community into Rajput. But If you don't mind I can share with you the govt links where they are considered as separate group nothing to do with Rajput. Isn't the authenticity of articles then questionable. Rana of Bharat (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Rana of Bharat, please see Talk:Rajput#Noniya_are_not_Rajputs. I have replied to you. Please note that nothing was removed from the origin section on Rajput. The academic consensus is the same by every modern writer and that is why there are so many citations available. The modern consensus is that they originated from a mixed race and mixed varna group and that is exactly what the section states and stated even before Rajputization was added. Norman Ziegler states: "individuals or groups with which the word was associated were generally considered to owe their origin to miscegenation or varna-samkara ("the mixing of castes") and were thus inferior in rank to Ksatriyas" . Rajputization is a new term that was coined in 1960's if I am not mistaken so you will not find it mentioned earlier. You are giving equal importance to the racial theories such as Indo-Aryans etc. made by some Raj era writers. Vaidya for example uses shape of noses and also classifies Gurjar as Aryans. Raj era writers are generally not considered reliable. Secondly, even if some of them did not use the racist British theories, these writers did not have enough material available at their disposal that post independence writers did. Please see WP:HISTRS - and note that British era writers are not given the same importance as modern writers. Talking of British era writers, even Herbert Hope Risley has talked with annoyance about Rajputization (he does not use that word because it was coined much later). I have read this( unfortunately do not have the book with me right now). Please stop using words like Vandalism as no one has any agenda. I hardly know any Rajput in my personal life. My interest is Sanskritization and related social mobility methods. Rajputization is a new addition to wikipedia hence it affected the Rajput page. I am not even interested in Rajput history. And based on Heba's edits I think she is interested in history of Bihar. There are a lot of things more important to editors in their personal life than being obsessed about the origin of Rajputs. The reason some sources cite others is because they are in consensus. At this point there are roughly 10-15 high quality independent academic sources that support the same facts and also give concrete examples. You said earlier that Rajputs were not illiterate. I can point to possibly six citations that talk about their illiteracy. Please do not use WP:OR. And wikipedia is not the place to promote your community. You can use facebook or some blog for that.LukeEmily (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Rana of Bharat, I'll just complement Luke Emily's reply by stating that academic sources (by academics, published by reputable publishers such as university presses) are superior to what you call government links. Also, no, you did not merely "highlight some glaring discrepancies", you removed big swathes of well-sourced material from the article. Here's one example, where you removed for instance a source published by the State University of New York Press, with the incomprehensible and aggressive edit summary "Again nonsense vandalising source of last 10 yrs." That's just one example. Frankly, if I had seen your editing at Rajputization before ToBeFree did, you'd have gotten a lot more than a mere two-week topic ban from one article. I suppose he thought you could develop into a constructive editor. I have my doubts, especially in view of your comments here on this page, but let's hope he's the one in the right. Could you please indent your responses using colons like the rest of us? See WP:INDENT. Bishonen | tålk 20:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC).

Mr Emily, Okay am I allowed to respond to the accusations. I hope this much right I do have, as you guys claim Wikipedia as an independent platform. 1. Norman Zeigler's work is not particularly based on Rajput community, he is just commented based on how society comes up. You are just cherry picking opinions to write the sane. 1. Communities like Daroga, Hazuri are not Rajput, neither they have been recognised today by the govt, nor the British and not by the Rajput community. 2. Nonia community comes under EBC and not Rajput who are general category ( except in Karnataka where they are not found). I hope you know Brahmins are also OBC in Manipur. 3. "The modern consensus is that they originated from a mixed race and mixed varna group and that is exactly what the section states and stated even before Rajputization was added. " There is no modern consensus except if you want to see beyond your biased views. If you can share 10 academics ( none of them are writing specifically on the community, for example: one writer is talking about Maratha but dragged Rajput into it), I can also 10 links from the various writers if you allow me to. 4. If Rajputs are inferior to Kshatriya as you say, then how are Kshatriya today. Have you ever thought? Did Brahmins accepted them as Kshatriya the answer is yes. Was Kshatriya a varn - again yes. 5. Again you are not understanding your own written works, as per your writers, brahmin, kshatriya/ Rajput and Vaishya/Bania are Varn not jaati. 6. If Rajputs were inferior then why was a Maratha king being connected to Sisodia Rajput lineage before his coronation. This proves Rajputs never had any low status. 7. What historians are saying, during British times many communities started claiming Rajput ancestry ( though they were separate group). Now all of these groups if you observe closely are OBC and separate group not Rajputs. Neither they marry in Rajputs. Rana of Bharat (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Mr Bishonen, Is the below not academic sources:

Rethinking India's Oral and Classical Epics: Draupadi among Rajputs, Muslims written by Alf Helbeital - University of Chicago Press- he talks about three scholarly positions as writers were trying to decode the Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi and Agnivanshi on Rajputs

1. They are descendants immigrants Scythians who joined the Kshatriya. 2. They are descendants of Vedic Kshatriya ( this was the position taken by some Indian scholars) 3. They were Brahmins who became Kshatriya.

My whole point there is no academic consensus on the subject. Rana of Bharat (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"You are giving equal importance to the racial theories such as Indo-Aryans etc. made by some Raj era writers. Vaidya for example uses shape of noses and also classifies Gurjar as Aryans. Raj era writers are generally not considered reliable." Except Tod, who was unreliable, nobody has said Vaidya is not reliable. Show me one scholar who debunked Vaidya. Even Alf Helbeital is quoting him in his book. I have given the book name above.

"Rajputization is a new term that was coined in 1960's if I am not mistaken so you will not find it mentioned earlier." Not really the word was coined during community census in 1920s, when certain communities were also claiming they are kshatriya or Rajput. It was a race to be a Kshatriya or Rajput by many other groups. But their claims were not accepted by the Rajput community, British Authorities and even in the census. I hope you know this as your quoting writers. But what you have written in the Rajputization is that all of the Rajput community follows the same. This is incorrect.

Rana of Bharat (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bishonen, I accept that I deleted without adding adequate reasons, this was a mistake. I apologize for the same. Mr Emily, Below is 2020 link: Nonia community is not Rajput as you have added in the page. Pls read this

  https://m.timesofindia.com/city/patna/state-seeks-st-status-for-noniya-caste/amp_articleshow/76472841.cms

That is why I am saying there is discrepancies in the page Rajputization, and origin section of Rajput. Rana of Bharat (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"You said earlier that Rajputs were not illiterate. I can point to possibly six citations that talk about their illiteracy. " I can also six citations where it written Rajputs had access to Vedas. As you know Kshatriya job is mainly of being a Warriors who follow Kshatriya code. Rana of Bharat (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bishenon, Alf Hilteibetal, pls see in to it. He is saying there are three positions on Rajputs. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=MMFdosx0PokC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Alf+Hiltebeitel+rajputs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr1bv7jpjtAhWb7HMBHWQ8B0IQ6AEwAHoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=Alf%20Hiltebeitel%20rajputs&f=false Rana of Bharat (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Page No: 440 from the above book Rana of Bharat (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Rana of Bharat; first of all ur username represents that you also hail from Rajput community and in such case your personal views are far from being reliable. As no community could be honest about their origin. If we ask any Dalit community, they too have some myth related to their origin . ex:Pasi caste claim to have descended from sweat of Parshuram.

• Kachhwaha Rajput claim to be descended of Kusha but similar claim are made by an OBC caste Koeri who are called Kushwaha and recognized by govt with same name.
• while I wrote Mallah I came to know that they call themselves descendent of Ved Vyas.

So...we can't rely on personal claims of these communities as no none can be honest about their caste. Also..plz see WP:COI policy. And I know that Noniya are separate groups and are under EBC in bihar same is Lodhi and Mali but they claim Rajput status. Its obvious that Rajput community will not like their attempt to sanskritize but it's not our concern as some of these 'Community have got recognition as Pseudo Rajputs as far as sources are concerned. Heba Aisha (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am tagging ToBeFree here as you are continuously violating topic ban.Heba Aisha (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

With due respect , I only discussed since Mr Emily commented on Rajputs. How can you shut my voice, for just giving you the details.

"but it's not our concern as some of these 'Community have got recognition as Pseudo Rajputs as far as sources are concerned." Madam which sources as you haven't backed any source to claim that they have been accepted as Rajputs. They come under a separate category of people.

 Rana of Bharat (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Rana of Bharat; first of all ur username represents that you also hail from Rajput community and in such case your personal views are far from being reliable." Well Madam Heba you come from Muslim community, and as per history both Rajputs and Muslims have fought each others in the past

So, there is conflict of interest if you edit community page of Rajputs, as what you share would not be unbiased. Rana of Bharat (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Its obvious that Rajput community will not like their attempt to sanskritize but it's not our concern as some of these 'Community have got recognition as Pseudo Rajputs as far as sources are concerned"

Sorry Madam, you are not highlighting this in the article. What you are writing in Rajputization page is very different from what you are saying above. You are saying that these are members of Rajput community. In the page named Rajputization you haven't pointed that these groups are not accepted as Rajputs by the Rajput themselves.

"Kachhwaha Rajput claim to be descended of Kusha but similar claim are made by an OBC caste Koeri who are called Kushwaha and recognized by govt with same name." Kachwaha Rajput made this claim 1000 yrs ago whereas Koeri community made it just 60 yrs back. I hope you know the difference of time frame here. And FYI, most of these groups claim kshatriya status. Doesn't it make Rajput and Kshatriya synonymous. Rana of Bharat (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear LukeEmily This is from Oxford - It says Rajputs are prominent community of Kshatriya Varn https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0AyDDQAAQBAJ&pg=PR45&dq=kshatriya+oxford&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7sN_Ll5jtAhVu7HMBHfYACcUQuwUwAXoECAMQBg#v=onepage&q=kshatriya%20oxford%20Rajputs&f=false

I hope you would accept Oxford. Rana of Bharat (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Rana of Bharat; first of all ur username represents that you also hail from Rajput community and in such case your personal views are far from being reliable." Madam Heba, Rana is also used now by many communities. So, you can't definitely say there is conflict of interest. Rana of Bharat (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

What u are telling is already mentioned in article that some writers think them of vedic kshatriya origin. and other views are also there.There is nothing new in what u are telling. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Madam, you haven't added that on the page. Have you added from the Oxford link I shared. No Rana of Bharat (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

According to this theory, the Rajputs originated when these invaders were assimilated into the Kshatriya category during the 6th or 7th century, following the collapse of the Gupta Empire.[16][17] While many of these colonial writers propagated this foreign-origin theory in order to legitimise the colonial rule, the theory was also supported by some Indian scholars, such as D. R. Bhandarkar.[15] The Indian nationalist historians, such as C. V. Vaidya, believed the Rajputs to be descendants of the ancient Vedic Aryan Kshatriyas although he accepted the "Aryan Invasion theory" to explain that the solar and lunar race were "two hordes of invaders" who colonised India at different times.

Already written.Now stop breaching ur ban and being selective to promote ur community.Heba Aisha (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

With due respect, I am talking about the Oxford link I shared above. Rana of Bharat (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Heba pls find below the links of Nonia community, they claimed Kshatriya status in the early 20th century but you and Mr Emily are adding in the Rajputization page that Rajput and Kshatriya are not same. Then how Nonias have been added to Rajputs if you consider Rajputs and Kshatriya different. Below is the link for the same. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bgpEIb4tNjgC&pg=PA1998&dq=rajputs+kshatriya&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjqyuvZoZjtAhW1guYKHQXrDvQQuwUwBHoECAQQBg#v=onepage&q=rajputs%20kshatriya&f=false Rana of Bharat (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This proves Kshatriya and Rajput term is used for same group of people whether it was fluid or open is matter of discussion in the academic circles with no perfect consensus. Rana of Bharat (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Heba I am not promoting any community but highlighting the inconsistencies in the article Rajputization you have mentioned. Rana of Bharat (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

As per this links some of the clans are related to Hunas, Hunas were not regarded as shudras or tribals but foreign Scythian group, below is the link for the same: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=4xIRAQAAIAAJ&q=Rajputs+kshatriya&dq=Rajputs+kshatriya&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP98buqpjtAhXh63MBHZIVAE04PBDoATAGegQIBRAC Rana of Bharat (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Notable historian Satish Chandra and many others have observed that Rajputs are not purely kshatriya. They contain Shudra also who got recognition as kshatriya which was done with the helps of brahmin. Actually when many tribal chiefs assumed power with time. The first thing they did was to assume kshatriya status and all such groups started calling themselves Rajputs.This is also taught in all university level courses of India Indian history. Practically you may observe people of different races are present in Rajput community. Some of them are of Dark complexion even to a larger extent than Chamar and Musahar. On the contrary you can also find fair skin people in lower castes.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Notable historian Satish Chandra and many others have observed that Rajputs are not purely kshatriya. They contain Shudra also who got recognition as kshatriya which was done with the helps of brahmin." Is Satish Chandra the only historian. You are again cherry picking two lines of him. Do you know who he meant by shudra or tribal ? Or was he talking about Hunas, Sakas etc ?

"Actually when many tribal chiefs assumed power with time. The first thing they did was to assume kshatriya status and all such groups started calling themselves Rajputs.This is also taught in all university level courses of India Indian history. Practically you may observe people of different races are present in Rajput community." I don't which university you have graduated from. This is no where taught in India. What they say is some clans came after 6th century Scythian/Huna invasion. "Practically you may observe people of different races are present in Rajput community. Some of them are of Dark complexion even to a larger extent than Chamar and Musahar. On the contrary you can also find fair skin people in lower castes" And: With due respect OBC people who call themselves Rajputs are not Rajput. Rest general category Rajputs have always been categorised Indo-Aryan immigrants along with Bhumihars and Brahmins. I again repeat, groups like Nonia, Lodhi etc are not Rajputs but separate. And no general look like like the groups you are talking about. If you are commenting about OBC groups like Nonia, Lodh, Daroga, Sagars, etc they are not Rajputs and are not recognised as such. Whereas Muslims have Bihar do look like darker than Musahars and Chamars. I also come from UP not far from where you belong to. Rana of Bharat (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Again I repeat the community like Nonia, Sagars, Lodhi are not Rajput. Rest Rajputs who come under general category don't look what you are suggesting. Rana of Bharat (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Also Rajput clans like Haihayas, Trilokchandi Bais, Karnats, etc are very old. Some of them probably related to Malla kingdom during Gupta empire. Nowhere tribals have become Rajputs!! Yes they do have become kings but not Rajputs/Kshatriyas. You are confusing somebody becoming king with Rajputs. Anybody can become king, Marathas, Jats, Gonds all have their rulers.

Pls do cite one example: For example Rajgond are even today part of Gond community not Rajput If anybody could become Rajputs then Jats of Bharatpur or Dholpur would have been Rajputs not Jats. This debunk this theory once for all. Rana of Bharat (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Those who are outside general category amongst Rajput are not Rajput as per govt of India census 1931. The people who are in general category Rajput group are based on clan based social group not some tribal or something you suggest. Regarding Satish Chandra, is he and other historians talking about other groups who claimed Kshatriya status post 1890s. The answer is yes. Because for the Rajputs, the Satish Chandra says they could be from Sakas or Hunas.

If we were what you suggest we would have got reservation long time back. Brahmins, Rajputs and Banias can't get reservation as per the policy of the govt of India. Rana of Bharat (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Rana of Bharat, Please read the quotes. The sources do not support your personal opinions about origin and you add nothing new as Heba rightly says. FYI. Successful Rajputization ends in a tribal chief, Shudra or peasant turned warrior successfully entering and accepted into the Rajput status. In case of a chief, he first breaks off from his tribe. Once his family is accepted as Rajput in a generation or two , (if he is a chief) the members of his tribe also claim to be Rajput because their formal chief has now become a Rajput. That is called Secondary Rajputization. In case of Shudra, he either enters the army and or marries his daughter to a poor Rajput and himself adopts Rajput practices. Within a couple of generations, his family is accepted as Rajput too. Rajputization does not apply to only British era. In fact, it could have been harder during British times due to everything being well documented. Maximum Rajputization occurred during Mughal reign when peasants started joining the army. The rajput clans themselves originated from peasant and pastoral groups.I agree that the Noniyas are NOT Rajputs so your citation does not mean anything. The source is saying that some rich Noniyas 100 years back separated themselves from their caste and "became" Chauhan Rajputs and formed the Rajput Pracharini Sena. Do you agree that the present day Rajputs of Uttarkhand are considered Rajputs and in general category there? Answer is yes. Now check the sources, they say these very same castes were classified as Shudra before 1790. These are not like Marathas whose claim is contested or not accepted(BTW, Vaidya also called marathas Kshatriyas and called Gujars-a pastoral community- aryans. You will get a lot of hits on maratha kshatriyas also.). I can post all citations on your page but you can save me the trouble if you read the quotes. The most important fact you are missing is that we are discussing the origin of Rajputs in Rajputization not the current status - Kshatriya or not. I dont know anything about Gond community so cannot comment.LukeEmily (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Practically you may observe people of different races are present in Rajput community. "

I haven't found people of different race amongst general category Rajputs ( almost all being Indo-Aryan) group. It all depends whom a person is deliberately adding in Rajput group like Daroga, Nonia, Lodh, Sagars etc. They are all separate OBC group with their own history and memories. Not Rajputs. Regarding hills of Jammu, HP etc, Rajputs of Jammu & Himachal are very light skin. Rana of Bharat (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Luke, " The source is saying that some rich Noniyas 100 years back separated themselves from their caste."

Since you have raised this point. I am entitled to answer to your questions, I hope wiki as independent platform gives me this much right- 1. In 1920s, Ahirs started using Yadavs as their claim to Kshatriya/Rajput status Similarly, some Nonia started using Chauhan as a part of Sanskritisation process. They claimed Kshatriya status. This proves the word Kshatriya and Rajput were synonymous in those days. I give you the links-https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bgpEIb4tNjgC&pg=PA1998&dq=rajputs+kshatriya&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjqyuvZoZjtAhW1guYKHQXrDvQQuwUwBHoECAQQBg#v=onepage&q=rajputs%20kshatriya&f=false This doesn't prove that these groups today are part of Rajput community. Because Rajputs don't consider them as part of their group. They are in EBC. And FYI, they didn't separated from the Nonia group, they claimed kshatriya status for Nonias.

"Do you agree that the present day Rajputs of Uttarkhand are considered Rajputs and in general category there? Answer is yes. Now check the sources, they say these very same castes were classified as Shudra before 1790." Ans: which official British recordings happened before 1790s, None. The first caste census was done in 1872. Uttarakhand case is peculiar, I would explain this way and the history of that state also point towards that. There was ancient race called Khasas ( who are mentioned in puranic literature, as well as Mahabharata)". They are not sudras but foreign race who immigrated to India similar to Dardic people. These Khasas got divided into Khas Brahmins and Khas Rajputs along with Rajputs and Brahmins. For example: Ruling Chand dynasty was always regarded as Kshatriya/Rajput by the Brahmins. Sir, This is not only true for Rajputs, it is also true for Brahmins. There are Khas Brahmins as well. Have you ever highlighted Khas Brahmins in your articles. If we use the same logic- then Khas Brahmins are also Shudras.

"The most important fact you are missing is that we are discussing the origin of Rajputs in Rajputization not the current status - Kshatriya or not. I dont know anything about Gond community so cannot comment." Sir, had you been discussing the origin of Rajputs in the article without cherrypicking two-three lines and collating them, then there was no issue from my side . I am not contesting that some Rajput can't be Hunas, Sakas, Khasas etc because these were Indo-European racial groups. Yes they could be. There is no evidence to suggest that OBC groups like Nonia, Daroga, Lodh, Sagar are part of Rajput of community. 3. And if Rajputs are low as you suggest, then why Brahmins were giving Sisodia clan lineage to Maratha ruler Shivaji as his coronation was not possible without Rajput/Kshatriya connection. That doesn't meant Shivaji became Rajput, he was Maratha and recognised as Maratha. 4. Who are Kshatriya according to you today? wiki has written Banias as Vaishya. Whereas all historical point that Rajput/Kshatriya are just synonymous word who had no 2 status status after Brahmins. These groups like Nonia were basically claiming Kshatriya status for their group. All sources point that in those days Kshatriya/Rajput meant for same group. I have given you the link of Nonias claiming kshatriya. 4. The real question erupts was the Brahmin Kshatriya Vaishya identity always fluid, the answer is yes. This has not been pointed in the article. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Rana of Bharat, there has been a lot of discussion on this. Wikipedia is neutral. There are facts that are unpleasant but if they are scholarly and academic we cannot remove them. You say: "If we were what you suggest we would have got reservation long time back. Brahmins, Rajputs and Banias can't get reservation as per the policy of the govt of India.". Well, that is not true. Rajputs are considered OBC in Karnataka. This applies to all Rajputs as they do not specify any clan. Rawat Rajputs are also OBC. Bhamta Rajputs are also OBC. Sagar Rajputs are also OBC. There are OBC Bania castes too. Based on sources I have read the only communities that were highly educated in the British era were 1.Brahmins - mostly from Maharashtra and Gujarat and others like Kashmiri Pandits 2. Parsis 3.Khatris and kayastha and Baidya (Bengali).You will find a lot of scholars from these small communities in the British era. Rajputs were not very literate in the British era, hence although they have ahuge population there were not too many scholars and that is why the British classified them as a martial race - please see Rajput#Martial_race. Secondly you incorrectly said on my page that Brahmin castes in Maharashtra are only 500 years old. That is quite wrong. Please see List of Deshastha Brahmins. You will find a lot of intellectuals more than 500 years back. Chitpawans have also produced a lot of intellectuals and were considered an elite and educated community. You cannot compare them to Rajputs. LukeEmily (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Luke Sir, FYI In Uttarakhand even today it is Khasa Kshatriya and Khasa Brahmin. The word Rajput was adopted by Kshatriyas of all Northern belt over a period of time, in a way this was used as synonymous . Now if you have issue regarding the whole kshatriya identity, that is different question. Most scholars believe that Kshatriyas was used for any new immigrant warriors and their ruling class. For example Kanishka who was Saka foreign invader was called as Kshatriya ( Kshatrapa) in the book of historian Mr Dashratha Sharma, Mr Bhandarkar. So the word Kshatriya has always been like this. Even in ancient time Indo-Greeks were also later to as Kshatriya, Kshatrapa. Similar case with Brahmins. You haven't created a page on Brahmins, who Manipuri Meiteis Brahmins were formed or on the Khas Brahmin. But you are talking about Khas Rajput. I hope you know Chhetris , Bahuns ( Khas Brahmins ) are also kshatriya and Brahmins of Nepal. They are not any low caste sudras. One can say at one point they were foreigners like Hunas. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Based on sources I have read the only communities that were highly educated in the British era were 1.Brahmins - mostly from Maharashtra and Gujarat and others like Kashmiri Pandits 2. Parsis 3.Khatris and kayastha and Baidya (Bengali).You will find a lot of scholars from these small communities in the British era. " Well I hope you know what was the job of Kshatriya (warriors), they were allowed to read Vedas but their primary job was always fighting. Rajputs didn't join British as govt employees, and FYI Kayasth who are highly literate is a caste of scribe with mixed race background in 1500s. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Well, that is not true. Rajputs are considered OBC in Karnataka. This applies to all Rajputs as they do not specify any clan. Rawat Rajputs are also OBC. Bhamta Rajputs are also OBC. Sagar Rajputs are also OBC. There are OBC Bania castes too." Sir KARNATAKA doesn't have any Rajput community. And Sagar Community is not Rajput/Kshatriya they are separate group claiming Rajput status. Bhamta are also OBC not part of Rajput community as per 1931 census. The last caste census. This was authentic census and govt records admit it. Sir Rawat in Rajasthan are OBC but they are not Rajput, a separate group. In Uttarakhand, Rawat is just a title of the pahadi Rajputs. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sir, I again Kshatriya primary job was adminstration and warfare. And regarding Brahmins: Brahmins of Manipur are in OBC. I shared the circular with you 2 days back. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Secondly you incorrectly said on my page that Brahmin castes in Maharashtra are only 500 years old. That is quite wrong. Please see List of Deshastha Brahmins. You will find a lot of intellectuals more than 500 years back. Chitpawans have also produced a lot of intellectuals and were considered an elite and educated community. You cannot compare them to Rajputs"

What is the history of Chitpavan Brahmins? Could you share any link of Chitpavan Brahmins before 1500. Yes Chitpavan are the most intelligent. Why we need to only focused on Deshastha Brahmins as separate from other Brahmins like Manipuri Brahmins who are in OBC, or Khas Brahmins of Uttarakhand? This when in Rajputization page you are adding general category Rajputs with some OBC groups who claimed Rajput status in 1900s. Do you know why these neo- OBC groups were claiming Rajput /Kshatriya status? Because the word was synonymous. But you have written it based on a particular writer's opinion. I gave Oxford link in this above conversation thread. You can check the same. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Luke Sir, There are OBC Bania castes too.-Teli, Sahu are not regarded as Banias by other Banias. But you haven't created Baniasation page to highlight the same. Even a simple logical conclusion would tell that Rajput in 20th century was probably a very high status. That is why groups like Nonia, Sagars, Lodh were claiming Rajput/Kshatriya status. Just imagine why would somebody claim a mixed race background / or Varna samkara background. Luke Sir, if you are not from India, I am just highlighting all this, so that you have a review on the article. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

For Deshastha Brahmin, all personalities start from 1200 onwards as per the list you have shared. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemadpant Just look at the references you have added in the article, how many oxford articles been have added to come to the conclusion that this gentleman is a Deshastha Brahmin. Sir, my opposition is just against two different rules- one while writing Rajput page and second one for others Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Chitpawans have also produced a lot of intellectuals and were considered an elite and educated community. You cannot compare them to Rajputs" Do you think Chitpavans are older than Sisodia clan of Rajputs ? And I hope you know roles of Brahmins and Kshatriya were different. Rajput / Kshatriya didn't join Colonial education system on large scale unlike Brahmins. This doesn't mean they were considered as low. And the whole English education in subcontinent is not more than 180 yrs. I hope this clears the above raised point. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

My dear Rana of Bharat, here is a source about Uttarkhand Rajputs. Allen C. Fanger. "Marriage Prestations Among the Rajputs of the Kumaon Himalayas". The mankind quarterly - Volume 32(Volume XXXII, Number 1-2, Fall/Winter 1991) page 51 Generally such changes are followed by a claim to a higher position in the caste hierarchy than that traditionally conceded to the claimant caste by the local community" (Srinivas 1966:6).' Sanwal (1976:43-44) reports that the Khasa were elevated from Sudra to Rajput status during the reign of the Chand rajas (which ended in 1790). Pauw (1896:12) and Berreman (1963:130) indicate that the Rajputs of Garhwal were without the sacred thread (a traditional high caste ritual marker) until the twentieth century. Please let us not discuss Manipuri Brahmins and others here. I dont know anything about them and it is irrelevant to Rajputs. Karnataka considers all Rajputs who have migrated there as OBCs for whatever reason. I think they studied caste literacy in British Raj and classified them as OBC/non-OBC. During Shivaji's time, historical facts were not important. It only needed Brahmin community approval - many Brahmins in Mahaashtra at that time would not be familiar with the concept of Rajputization in the north and might have assumed the Sisodias to be Kshatriyas if a north Indian Brahmin told them so.LukeEmily (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"were considered an elite and educated community. You cannot compare them to Rajputs" Elite and Educated are two different things. Rajputs ( the general category ones) were always elite group in North India. And Rajput is not a big population, as per census of 1931 Hindu Rajputs were just 89 lakhs. The source of 120 million is author opinion, not from the official figure of 1931. Rajputs were less than all type of Brahmins as whole. In North India there were no Chitpavans. I hope you it is only a Maharashtra based group. Rana of Bharat (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"During Shivaji's time, historical facts were not important. It only needed Brahmin community approval - many Brahmins in Mahaashtra at that time would not be familiar with the concept of Rajputization in the north and might have assumed the Sisodias to be Kshatriyas if a north Indian Brahmin told them " Can you cite anything to substantiate it. This is your opinion. For you Information, North Indian Brahmins don't consider Maharashtra Brahmins as part of their group. Why is Manipuri Brahmin irrelevant? They are in OBC.

Karnataka don't have any Rajput group. Reservation was not based on literacy, but on all concept of anyone outside Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya. There was no Rajputization in those days. It is a later concept during 1890. I have been very polite but you have a very biased views. Rana of Bharat (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

s go through your own wiki page of Khas people https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khas_people Rana of Bharat (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This is as per wikipage on Khas people : They have been connected to the Khasas mentioned in the ancient Hindu literature.[17] Historian Bal Krishna Sharma and Nepalese anthropologist Dor Bahadur Bista speculates that the Khas or kus people were of Yuezhi origin.[18][19] Historian Baburam Acharya speculates that Khas are a sub-clan of Aiḍa, a clan that originated at Idavritt (modern day Kashmir).[20][nb 2] Khas were living in the Idavaritt in the 3rd millennium BCE. and the original meaning of the term Khas was Raja or Kshatriya (Yoddha). You constantly forget that there is Khas Brahmin as well. Why are you ignoring this. Rana of Bharat (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Luke Emily, This is from Wikipedia page of Khas people: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khas_people Historian Balkrishna Pokhrel contends that Khas were not the Vedic Aryans but Aryans of latter period like the Gurjara, Darada, Shaka, and Pallava.[22] He further asserts that post-Vedic Aryans were akin to Vedic Aryans in terms of Indo-Aryan languages and Indian culture.[22]

History Khas are believed to have arrived in the western reaches of Nepal at the beginning of first-millennium B.C.[23] or middle of first-millennium A.D.[24] from the north-west. It is likely that they absorbed people from different ethnic groups during this immigration.[25] They have been connected to the medieval Khasa Malla kingdom.[17]

In the Kumaon and Garhwal regions of Uttarakhand in India, the Khas Brahmins and Khas Rajputs had a lower social status than the other Brahmins and Rajputs. However, in present-day western Nepal, they had the same status as the other Brahmins and Rajputs, possibly as a result of their political power in the Khasa Malla kingdom.[26]

NOW PLS TELL ME HOW ARE THEY SHUDRAS? THEY WERE REGARDED AS KSHATRIYA: as per wiki page- Historian Baburam Acharya speculates that Khas are a sub-clan of Aiḍa, a clan that originated at Idavritt (modern day Kashmir).[20][nb 2] Khas were living in the Idavaritt in the 3rd millennium BCE. and the original meaning of the term Khas was Raja or Kshatriya (Yoddha). Also there is Khas Brahmins you haven't talked about them. You are saying that you have adequate knowledge on the subject, but I think you are not aware of Khas Brahmins. Yes who were they if Khas Rajputs are shudra as per you. Rana of Bharat (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Possibly due to political power of the Khasa Malla kingdom, Khas Bahun and Khas Rajput (Chhetris) had high social status. From the book below: John T Hitchcock (1978). "An Additional Perspective on the Nepali Caste System". In James F. Fisher (ed.). Himalayan Anthropology: The Indo-Tibetan Interface. Walter de Gruyter. So, if you give one source there are many more other other source debunking or questioning the same. Rana of Bharat (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

From Wikipedia itself- In the Kumaon and Garhwal regions of Uttarakhand in India, the Khas Brahmins and Khas Rajputs had a lower social status than the other Brahmins and Rajputs. However, in present-day western Nepal, they had the same status as the other Brahmins and Rajputs, possibly as a result of their political power in the Khasa Malla kingdom.[1] It doesn't talk about them being Shudra. Rana of Bharat (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"elevated from Sudra to Rajput status" Mr Emily, are you not contradicting yourself. "If RAJPUT IS INFERIOR TO KSHATRIYA THEN WHY WOULD SOMEBODY ELEVATE THEMSELVES TO RAJPUT." Pls a humble request, study more on the subject. I am not sure whether you belong to India or not, but your understanding about community background is not upto date. Pls go through imperial gazetteers to understand the same. Rana of Bharat (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"During Shivaji's time, historical facts were not important. It only needed Brahmin community approval - many Brahmins in Mahaashtra at that time would not be familiar with the concept of Rajputization in the north and might have assumed the Sisodias to be Kshatriyas if a north Indian Brahmin told them so" Really? That is why Chitpavan Baji Rao went to Mewar bended before Raja Raj Singh. Forget about community page, Pls read Indian history then we can have some conversation on the subject. How old are you? And which country do you belong to?. Rana of Bharat (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

" I think they studied caste literacy in British Raj and classified them as OBC/non-OBC. " Hmm it was due to one CM Dharam who added them, and there are no Rajputs beyond Madhya Pradesh. It is like saying I give you reservation in XYZ region where you are not present. This is more result of administrative goof up. Rana of Bharat (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Rajputs are found in 8-10 states and in none of them are in OBC category or were offered OBCs. They are forward caste in all the states where there numbers are. Why are you obsessed with one Karnataka. Brahmins in Manipur have reservations. There is nothing like XYZ Brahmins. If Brahmins in Manipur have reservations it means any Brahmin can get reservation there. Pls go through procedure of the reservation to understand this. Rana of Bharat (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Rana of Bharat...I have also written Teli article and regarding this:Luke Sir, There are OBC Bania castes too.-Teli, Sahu are not regarded as Banias by other Banias. But you haven't created Baniasation page to highlight the same I have mentioned that Teli branched off as Bania but still they are considered of low status.as per source. Also I have personal experience with many upper caste Rajputs who are dark Skinned and look like some Dalit caste. Even some of my students in Bihar are Rajputs who donot get benefit of reservation and vote for BJP are akin to Scheduled Caste in complexion. Even during 2020 Bihar election I have visited many villages frequently inhabited by different castes like Yadav, Kurmi Rajbhar Mallah and Rajput. I have seen mixed race ppl in them. Some Yadavs are fair skinned while some Rajput are dark skinned like Chamars.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You are asking LukeEmily to read imperial gazetteers which are not as much reliable sources as compared to the sources from good publisher used here. Bishonen had already told you about it. The problem is that you are making claims based on poor sources which are not reliable.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ms Heba Aisha, imperial gazetteer are the best source of recordings of the number of clans especially when you are adding Nonia to Rajput community. I have always provided some sources above, few are from Oxford as well. They are anyday reliable than a particular writer opinion. Rana of Bharat (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Also I have personal experience with many upper caste Rajputs who are dark Skinned and look like some Dalit caste. Even some of my students in Bihar are Rajputs who donot get benefit of reservation and vote for BJP are akin to Scheduled Caste in complexion. Even during 2020 Bihar election I have visited many villages frequently inhabited by different castes like Yadav, Kurmi Rajbhar Mallah and Rajput. I have seen mixed race ppl in them. Some Yadavs are fair skinned while some Rajput are dark skinned like Chamars." I haven't seen and belong to the same area, may be your hatred for Rajput is too high considering they support and you support RJD. Rajput population in Bihar is very low and small. And none look like Chamar. Sushant Singh was a Rajput, so are many others. I haven't seen them as such. Rana of Bharat (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Even some of my students in Bihar are Rajputs who donot get benefit of reservation and vote for BJP are akin to Scheduled Caste in complexion" Well rounded nose is the criteria for akin to Schedule caste. Tan skin is not. Such things are common in Brahmins as well. Many Brahmins are tanned skin. If you carry any personal hatred against Rajputs it is different case. Anyways Muslims in Bihar have even worst looks. Rana of Bharat (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Some Yadavs are fair skinned while some Rajput are dark skinned like Chamars." I haven't seen but belong to the same region. Even British didn't highlighted this while talking about race. They counted Bhumihars, Brahmins and Rajputs as Indo-Aryan group, rest as local. They observed it more than you. There are many people who use Singh surname but are not Rajput. I know because I also belong to the same region. Rana of Bharat (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha Bihari Muslims should not even talk about skin colour, I have seen a lot of them, when your own skin colour is not good better not comment on others. Anyways Rajputs ( the gen category) are 5 times better than them as far as I know. Rana of Bharat (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't comment about OBC new ones like Nonia, etc who are not considered Rajput by Rajput community Rana of Bharat (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ms Aisha "Even during 2020 Bihar election I have visited many villages frequently inhabited by different castes like Yadav, Kurmi Rajbhar Mallah and Rajput. I have seen mixed race ppl in them. " Well you are showing your lack of understanding on the the subject by equating Mallah, Rajbhar, Ahir ( Yadav), Kurmi with Rajput. If you know anything about your state, Rajput along with Bhumihars and Brahmins were the ruling groups of Bihar before 1990. It is good that you have opened your hatred for them because they vote certain party. So, imagine what kind of unbiasedness, one can accept from you and Luke Emily, when you carry particular hatred for a social group. Anybody can point this out from the discussion. Rana of Bharat (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ms Heba and Luke Emily, I have had enough yours better don't respond anything now. Already I have been banned for specific time period. So,we can discuss the matter only after that Rana of Bharat (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Successful Rajputization ends in a tribal chief, Shudra or peasant turned warrior successfully entering and accepted into the Rajput status. In case of a chief, he first breaks off from his tribe. Once his family is accepted as Rajput in a generation or two , (if he is a chief) the members of his tribe also claim to be Rajput because their formal chief has now become a Rajput. That is called Secondary Rajputization. In case of Shudra, he either enters the army and or marries his daughter to a poor Rajput and himself adopts Rajput practices. Within a couple of generations, his family is accepted as Rajput too."

The above is a good fairy tale story, if that is the case there would not be any RajGond Kingdom like: Khairagarh, Maratha, Jat Kingdoms like Bharatpur, Dholpur. These Kingdoms should have been classed as Rajputs not Jats. Your theory gets debunked by the above example. I think you believe history is only business making process, so a writer of 2015 and their personal opinion scores over inscription records of ancient and medieval sources. Just because those records don't suit the propaganda. You have not present even one inscription of various dynasties where they have classes as something else. Some of these dynasties have easily ruled for 1000-1300 yrs. Rana of Bharat (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You are not ready to accept gazetteer would admit opinions of writers with only particular Marxist school of thought who are inherently biased because of their hatred towards Hindu religion. Rana of Bharat (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If inscription becomes the criteria, no community's clan has history of more than 400-500 yrs except Rajput. Even Deshastha Brahmins you pointing towards are not mentioned in any inscription before 12th century, so are many other Brahmin sects like Chitpavans etc. Rana of Bharat (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You are talking about Rajputization, but if that was the case then how come bharatpur and Dholpur royals couldn't become Rajputs despite having over 300 yes of history. RajGond dynasty are still RajGond, not Rajput. I agree on imitation of Rajput culture ( virtues) like sacred thread, code of conduct etc by others above but they were never classed as Rajputs /Kshatriya. Rana of Bharat (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any hatred and your personal opinion is not gonna change the well sourced content.Rajput along with Bhumihars and Brahmins were the ruling groups of Bihar before 1990. Also Plz study books related to Bihari politics rather than listening to hearsay.

Since 1967 itself OBC caste have changed the social composition of Bihar assembly. And Many CM before 1990 were Lower caste like Ramsundar Das and Karpoori Thakur also Daroga Prasad Rai. It seems that you have seen any tv documentary which makes you think that before 1990 Rajput and Bhumihar were ruling class. Its not actually so. I would suggest you to read books like Those of Sanjay Kumar: Changing Electoral Politics. In 1990 the ruling party as well as opposition came to be dominated by Lower caste that's y It is said casually by media. Otherwise in 1967 itself Rajput and Bhumihar became in affective. Go through articles like Dalelchak-Bhagaura Massacre 1987 and Afsar massacre also Politics of Bihar and Bara massacre. You may also go through following books.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am done with the futile conversation which is of new use with those who believe in 2015 write ups of somebody living in XYZ country never visited India more than 500-700-1000 yrs old inscription of various clans

Thanks & Regards Rana of Bharat (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Heba," I don't have any hatred and your personal opinion is not gonna change the well sourced content.Rajput along with Bhumihars and Brahmins were the ruling groups of Bihar before 1990. Also Plz study books related to Bihari politics rather than listening to hearsay." Most of the land was with bhumihars and Rajputs till 1990. I think you have zero knowledge about your home state. Better read something then come here and debate. Karpori Thakur became CM in 1977 not 67, and even after that Upper caste like Bhumihars and Rajputs had the say.

Well sourced content, it would change. You think only you are the editor Wikipedia. We will don't it within six months come what may. Get this straight you Bihari Muslim. Rana of Bharat (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Also regarding this . I think you believe history is only business making process, so a writer of 2015 and their personal opinion scores over inscription records of ancient and medieval sources. Just because those records don't suit the propaganda. You have not present even one inscription of various dynasties where they have classes as something else. Some of these dynasties have easily ruled for 1000-1300 yrs. We don't use inscription as they are WP:Primary plz make urself aware with rules.WP:Secondary is preferred by us while writing here.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Go through articles like Dalelchak-Bhagaura Massacre 1987 and Afsar massacre also Politics of Bihar and Bara massacre. " Those were taken avenged by the Ranvir Sena. Anyways in Bihar, Bihari Muslims are neither here nor there. Many think themselves as Pathan but look like any dark skinned low convert. I am done with replying you, it seems people with agenda have little understanding of things. They only believe in cherry picking things. Rana of Bharat (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Again u are wrong... Ranvir Sena used to kill Dalits i.e SC but these massacre are perpetrated by OBCs which were not retaliated and lastly during Nitish Kumar's govt Ranvir Sena chief was himself shot dead. Plz go through South Asia terrorism portal: caste based massacre in Bihar. You will hardly find any incident where OBC were killed. In most of the cases either Dalits and upper caste were victim and OBC were perpetrators.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"We don't use inscription as they are WP:Primary plz make urself aware with rules.WP:Secondary is preferred by us while writing here" I have also given secondary links some of those are from Wikipedia itself. Go through above thread, some are from Oxford. Secondary source is not only 3-4 particular writers who are quoting each other.

Anyways done with you. I request you Bihar based Muslim to stop writing anymore on the above page. Rana of Bharat (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Again u are wrong... Ranvir Sena used to kill Dalits i.e SC but these massacre are perpetrated by OBCs which were not retaliated and lastly during Nitish Kumar's govt Ranvir Sena chief was himself shot dead. Plz go through South Asia terrorism portal: caste based massacre in Bihar. You will hardly find any incident where OBC were killed. In most of the cases either Dalits and upper caste were victim and OBC were perpetrators". Ms Heba, Ranvir Sena was of Bhumihar group UC not OBC. I guess you have very little knowledge on these matters, better not comment. Pls study more about your home state. Rana of Bharat (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Rajputra and kshatriya are synonymous terms Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Literal meaning of rAjaputra is – son of a King or royal child. Earliest recorded reference to this term are in Aitareya, Taittiriya and Sathapatha Brahamanas of the Rigveda. People who have been called rAjaputra in these scriptures include Vishwamitra. To pick one instance – Aitreya Brahmana 7.17 has Sunahsepa’s father calling Vishwamitra as a Rajaputra. Vishwamitra was no prince. That he owned land is clear from the fact that he declared Sunahsepa’s father as rightful owner of his primogeniture (jyaisthya). Later the term Rajaputra appears in Kathaka Samhita and other vedic literature compilations. Then in Mahabharata 3.266.61 (Ramopakhyana), lord Rama and Lakshmana are called rAjaputras when they bid farewell to vānara rāja Sugreeva: राजपुत्रौ कुशिलनौ भरातरौ रामल मणौ सवशाखा मृगेद्रेण सुग्रीवेणािभपािलतौ Similarly, Shrimad Bhagvatam 1.12.311 calls Abhimanyu’s son Parikshit a rAjaputra

Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

न ब्राह्मणो नोम्हि न राजपुत्तो, न वेस्सायनो उद कोचि नोम्हि। गोत्तं परिञ्‍ञाय पुथुज्‍जनानं, अकिञ्‍चनो मन्त चरामि लोके॥

Buddha himself speaks to a brahmin named Sundarika Bharadvaja that: “I’m not a brahmin, a rajput, a vaishya or anybody else. I don’t identify myself with the typical gotras. I just dwell in this world only by my wisdom.” verse number 457 under Sutta Nipata (its section 3.4 called Sundarika Bharadvaja Sutta) of the Khuddaka Nikaya

It can’t get easier than the verse above to establish rajaputra and kshatriya as synonyms in usage. We know that kshatriya was a word reserved for not only the princes, rather for a whole class of the society that looked after the administration & defence.

Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Rajput and kshatriya are synonymous terms a rajput is not inferior to a kshatriya if both are just synonymous terms Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop arguing here, Heba and Luke

Heba Aisha and LukeEmily, I encourage you to stop posting here. Apart from being a waste of time, it is obviously encouraging Rana of Bharat to show his worst side, in making primitive and disgraceful statements about how ugly Muslims are (racist posts here and here) and how you two "carry particular hatred for a social group". I'm within a hair of blocking him indefinitely for typical caste warfare and other hateful stuff; the only thing restraining me is that he's sort of being provoked. Please leave him alone. And one thing more for you, Rana of Bharat: websites with user-generated content can't be used as sources. They are not reliable. Wikipedia consists of user-generated content. The Wikipedia articles you're referring to are works in progress; they may have just been vandalized at the time you read them, or indeed they may have been edited by a caste warrior promoting their own caste, which comes to the same thing. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Bishonen | tålk 18:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC).

Ok Bishonen I m done as u wish. Thank you very much.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bishonen, Just see who started commenting about community. I was just responding and would stop commenting. Ms Heba started writing racist comments about various group like Mallah, Yadav, Kurmi calling them as mixed race and dark skinned. I was just responding to it. I have no more business to reply, if the other side stop provoking. Well this I have realised that Wikipedia is not the reliable source. Thanks Rana of Bharat (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

OK Bishonen, I will not post further. Was only trying to explain him what was in the academic sources. He has also posted insulting comments and false comments like "fool", "idiot', "who said this, your daddy?", "Deshastha are not Brahmins","chitpawans are not brahmins", "Rajputs were accepted as Kshatriya by your Brahmin uncles", "Brahmins in north India were beggars" on talk pages but I completely ignored the insults trying to explain him the sources for Rajput. Anyway will not post further on this page. LukeEmily (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"false comments like "fool", "idiot', "who said this, your daddy?"" Since you put an accusation here, I need to answer- this words were used before I was banned by Bishonen. I didn't used such terms after the last ban by admins on the Statewide Ban page . For Deshastha Brahmins and Chitpavans I have given you the links- from your own Wikipedia source. Why don't you read that. For the beggars part- well it is well documented, if you would read you can find it. I am not here to argue anymore Thank you Rana of Bharat (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sitewide* instead of statewide Rana of Bharat (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Distortion of truth

Hi

Don't feel low Jbinsan (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)