Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:40, 18 June 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rajput article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in May 2023. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by diannaa, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on January 20, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Nepal Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Origin of Rajputs and Western Southern India

Many Rajputs originated from South India, such as the Rathor Rashtrakutas, Solanki Chalukyas, and Rajputs such as the Guhil Chauhans originated from southern Rajasthan, the Gurjara Pratiharas and Parmar Rajputs also originated from southern Rajasthan, who later fought the Turks. After reaching Khyber and Potohar, some Rajputs mixed up with Indo Hunnic people (due to marriage relations with Indo Hunnic women) 103.206.177.49 (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Raja putra

Only the son of the king was called Rajputra, it was just a title which became more common in the medieval period, kings came from every caste like Chola, Vaishya, Ahir, Brahmin, Gujar, etc. From and all of these sons will be called Rajputras! This is not a caste, it was just a title, the Kshatriya character was created by Brahmins, they have written the Hindu Kshatriya Gods. राजा वीर (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

What is the source???

What is the source that Recent research suggests that the Rajputs came from a variety of ethnic and geographical backgrounds and various varnas. Tanuja Kothiyal states: "In the colonial ethnographic accounts rather than referring to Rajputs as having emerged from other communities, Bhils, Mers, Minas, Gujars, Jats, Raikas, all lay a claim to a Rajput past from where they claim to have 'fallen'. Historical processes, however, suggest just the opposite". Xyzaksingh (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Adydryer (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Rajput Or Raaj Putra (Son Of a king) , Warrior, kshatriya.

 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. DreamRimmer (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

K.S Singh as a source

Ekdalian and LukeEmily, would you please elaborate your objections for using K.S Singh's work as a source here? Till now, I considered him among the most reliable scholars for caste pages as evident from the fact that his works have been cited in a lot of caste pages without any objections. His works like The Scheduled Tribes , The Scheduled Castes and India's communities have been published by the Oxford University Press. Reading about his works on Rajputs, I can safely say that he has done an in-depth research on primary sources related to the group and his works can prove to be very beneficial for the article. For example, he is the one who informs us that the very first reference to the term rajput comes in Vidyapati's keertilata (source).

@Luke, it might be convenient for you to ask me to find "better sources" but its not essential that the works published in Oxford and Cambridge covers everything about the group. At some point, we have to refer Indian sources. In your edit summary, you have said that he is not suited for "contradictory issues". May I know what is contradictory here in his statement that both rajput and rajputra have been used in medieval text interchangeably? Please do let us know which modern scholars have contested this simple fact. In your edit summary, you have come up with your usual WP:OR saying Rajputra means prince while Rajput means soldier. Our page itself says that Rajputra is used for nobles numerous times in early medieval era (eg Lichhavi inscriptions and works from Kalidasa, Banabhatta and Asvaghosha.) Also, in Bakhshali manuscript, it has been used for mercenary soldier. Rajatarangini and Varna Ratnakara discuss the Rajputra clan structure without using the term Rajput. Here, Irfan Habib concludes that a Rajputra caste had been formed before 13th century. So no, rajputra doesn't differ from rajput in definition and they have been used interchangeably in medieval text. Please stop creating an artificial rivalry between rajputra and rajput through your OR as both are one and same thing per scholars. Dympies (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read User:Sitush/CasteSources#The_People_of_India for more information! Also, you may check a recent objection by an experienced editor Abecedare regarding the same here! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

They have objected to his The People of India to be precise. The statement in question doesn't seem to be problematic as explained above. There have been no contradictions from other writers over it. If we go on treat him this way, we will end up losing a lot of informative stuff from caste articles.Dympies (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You should respect the consensus, no experienced editor would accept it as a reliable source. And obviously, you can't be selective here; your logic hardly makes sense. Why can't you find reliable sources for your POV? Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not being selective, its the other way round. I don't see any consensus on writer as such. Sitush raised his concern over a book named The People of India. Over this, we can't term a writer of Singh's stature as "unreliable" and start rejecting all his works. Dympies (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry; Singh is considered as unreliable! Period. Please look for reliable sources, there's no point wasting time on the source rejected by the community. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dympies and Ekdalian: As per Sitush, the Oxford University Press version is reliable but the Popular press publication is not. I have added Sitush's 2019 quote here: User:LukeEmily/reference. As Sitush said, Singh's first series was plagiarized. That does not put Singh in a postive light IMHO. Singh was simply the editor of the reliable(national) series. Dympies, I understand that you have used the reliable series (not "People of India"). As I said in the summary, multiple modern scholars contradict Singh. And for the reasons that Ekdalian rightly stated, he is not considered very high quality. Also, Singh is an anthropological survey and is good for customs etc(so and so caste have a marriage ceremony that lasts X days etc or so and so caste are vegetarians etc). He is also useful when high quality sources are not available. There is a surplus amount of modern academic material on Rajputs. An adminstrative official, who edits a survey on all castes in India is no match for modern academic scholars who have studied Rajputs and literature mentioning them. Singhs' source more like tertiary source in that regard. It would be like keeping Encyclopaedia Britannica at the same level as work by Norman P. Ziegler although both are reliable. The contradiction is that Rajput and Rajputra are not the same. Nor are they used in literature interchangeably as the literature itself shows. There are specific examples given with different meanings by scholars in the article itself. Is horse-soldier/trooper same as a Prince(Rajputra)? How can a wikipedia article contradict itself using a fringe opinion from a tertiary-like source when opposite opinions are given by scholars? LukeEmily (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I understand your concern but you said in edit summary that its a contradictory thing. I haven't come across modern scholars who contradicted that rajputra and rajput were used interchangeably. But it would have been better had he specifically mentioned the period ie late medieval period. Anyways, I am not going to add it now. Dympies (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Unable to edit this article

I was going to add a wikilink to this article but was unable to do so because it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

There must be a reason, nothing is arbitrary here! This article is protected in order to prevent vandalism and/or disruptive editing! You may request for the changes (you suggest) here; someone having access will check and do the needful and/or respond here! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Rajput is not a real Kshatriya, it is a mixture of many castes, Harsh Vardhan was told by a Chinese traveler himself from a Vaishya Baniya caste, and then some Rajputs were also made from Shudras like Kachchwah Mori solankis chandels tomars and then some Rajputs were made from Brahmins like Guhil pratihars chauhans etc. Rathores are made of Dravid creeds like Rashtrakutas and some Rajputs are made of castes like Huns kushana who are found in Potohar pakistan. Some Rajputs are also mixed with some Afghans tribes, they have nothing to do with Kshatriya Varna, they emerged as a strong union in the medieval period and then Got their history written with their own so called historians

Raja putra sons of kings Gaur brahmin (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Replacement of redirect (Rajputra) with questionable content

LukeEmily, this is in reference to your recent edit to Rajputra which had been a redirect from last two decades. In this edit, you have given a large edit summary in order to justify your action. Its really unfortunate that an experienced editor like you has to be reminded of a basic policy like WP:OR. Your edit summary is a clear violation of this policy. Earlier also, you were using your OR to justify your edit on Rajput page. It seems that you take anonymous messages like this too seriously. The origin section of our Rajput page clearly notes that the term Rajputra has been used by various authors in past with different connotations apart from prince including noble/minister, soldier, horseman, landowner and Kshatriya. JN Asopa is not wrong when he says that the term appears in the sense of Kshatriya in Mahabharata (refer verse शूद्रं वैश्यं राजपुत्रं च राजंल्लोकाः सर्वे संश्रिता धर्मकामाः). You conveniently removed his interpretation calling him unreliable. Anyways, please refer to the "Emergence as a community" section. Various authors including Irfan Habib have talked of Rajputra in the sense of Rajput caste. Almost all modern day scholars agree that Rajput is nothing but a corrupt form of Rajputra. So, there is no need for a separate article named Rajputra when a full-fledged article Rajput exists. The creation of another article on Rajputra is likely to create mess. Therefore, I am reverting your edit by restoring the redirect. Dympies (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that addition for Rajputras (prince) goes on for WP:PUFFERY and violating WP:UNDUE. It is unfortunate that you ignore the cited sources which clearly state the meanings.

Hastings, James (2002). Poets, Sants, and Warriors: The Dadu Panth, Religious Change and Identity Formation in Jaipur State Circa 1562–1860 CE. University of Wisconsin--Madison:

' Rajput ' ordinarily meant a trooper in the service of a chief or a free-lance captain(1960,98); and Dirk Kolff(1990), following both Quango and D.C.Sircar has surely settled the matter with his argument that many Rajput clans came out of pastoralist bands which achieved some degree of landed status in the first half of the second millennium, forming "largely open status groups of clans, lineages, or even families and individuals who achieved statuses as 'horse soldier', 'trooper' or 'headman of village', and pretended to be connected with the family of some king, it became a generic name for this military and landed class(p 71-72)

From Parita Mukta (1994). Upholding the Common Life: The Community of Mirabai. Oxford University Press. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-19-563115-9:

The term 'Rajput' before the fifteenth century meant 'horse soldier', 'trooper', 'headman of a village' or 'subordinate chief'. Moreover, individuals with whom the word was associated were generally considered to be products of varna–samkara of mixed caste origin, and thus inferior in rank to Kshatriyas.

Peabody, Norbert (2003). Hindu Kingship and Polity in Precolonial India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 38–.:

Prior to the Mughals, the term 'Rajput' was equally an open-ended, generic name applied to any '"horse soldier", "trooper", or "headman of a village"' regardless of parentage, who achieved his status through his personal ability to establish a wide network of supporters through his bhaibandh (lit. 'ie or bond of brothers'; that is, close collateral relations by male blood) or by means of naukari (military service to a more powerful overlord) and sagai (alliance through marriage). Thus the language of kinship remained nonetheless strong in this alternative construction of Rajput identity but collateral and affinal bonds were stressed rather than those of descent.

ANANYA VAJPEYI: Oxford University Press

According to the ®Sudrakamalakara, an authoritative Sanskrit text on the dharma of sudras , in the early part of the seventeenth century, the progeny of a ksatriya man and a sudra woman would be an ugra, otherwise known as a rajaputa.Such a person does battle and is expert in wielding weapons, but he must follow the duties proper to a sudra. In Kamalakara’s classification, being a sankarajati, or mixed group, ugras, or rajaputas are sudrasamana, as good as (or as bad as!) sudras.

Norman Ziegler 1976, p. 141:

...individuals or groups with which the word(Rajput) 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. What I perceive from the above data is a rather widespread change in the subjective perception and the attribution of rank to groups and individuals who emerged in Rajasthan and North India as local chiefs and rulers in the period after the muslim invasions(extending roughly from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries). These groups were no longer considered kshatriyas and though they filled roles previously held by kshatriyas and were attributed similar functions of sustaining society and upholding the moral order, they were either groups whose original integrity were seen to have been altered or who had emerged from the lower ranks of the caste system. This change is supported by material from the Rajput chronicles themselves.

Doris Marion Kling (1993) The Emergence of Jaipur State: Rajput Response to Mughal Rule, 1562–1743. University of Pennsylvania. p. 30:

Rajput: Pastoral, mobile warrior groups who achieved landed status in the medieval period claimed to be Kshatriyas and called themselves Rajputs.

• The above quotes give the definition or the context in which the word "Rajput" is used. The meaning of Rajputra is prince. Adding the references and multiple lines for Rajputra on a Rajput caste page is ridiculously WP:UNDUE even if one word is derived from the other. One is a caste name and Rajputra has nothing to do with caste, religion or even ethnicity/race. Moreever, they are free to pretend to call themselves whatever they want.

Are you seriously saying that a Rajput person and a prince are equivalent? Its way more accurate to redirect Rajputra to Prince of Wales.

• Asopa: Dympies, you wrote, and I quote , JN Asopa is not wrong when he says that the term appears in the sense of Kshatriya in Mahabharata. Dympies, unfortunately, a historian quoted on the Rajput article disagrees with you and his opinion in the article itself Alf Hiltebeitel  :

  Asopas' epic references are far fetched and unintelligible

  . Please also see WP:HSC and WP:HISTRH and WP:FRINGE.

Moreover, It is unfortunate that you added Asopa all over although a scholarly editor @Trangabellum: told you Origin of Rajputs by Asopa was not reliable source, yet you deleted his comment and said That can be discussed later. Please could you point us to that discussion you had with Trangabellum before you added Asopa as a source on this contentious page?

Pinging @Ekdalian: and @Admantine123: since you discussed this same issue Rajputra with them here and they both disagreed with you.

The page mentions a zillion places in the scriptures for "Rajputra"(prince) however not a word on the page about the scriptures where the word "Rajput(caste)" is mentioned (Skanda Puran, Sudrakamalakara, etc.where the meaning of the word Rajput is given as a warrior who follows the rituals of Shudras. There is no ambiguity, the word being used is Rajput. The interpretation has also been given by scholars.) If this is not cherry picking, I dont know what is.LukeEmily (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I think you have completely forgotten the long discussion you had with Akalanka820 here. Ananya Vajpayee is not a good source and Skanda Puran isn't considered reliable either. As far as Asopa is concerned, yes, Alf Hiltebeitel has disagreements with him. But if you read Asopa's book, he has criticised works by western scholars. Different authors can have different viewpoints and that is no big deal.

The quotations of different scholars you posted in this thread are already there in the article for a long time. I don't get what we are discussing here. But yeah, these writers too say that the term rajput is used in various connotations rather than just king or prince and these include soldier, horseman, village headman, landowner etc. The same was in the case of rajputra and it has been noted in our article too. Dympies (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Dympies, That discussion about Vajpayee never ended. F&F had just received a copy of the book and had not read it yet and was going to post a summary. I had pointed to some images but since they were not on wikipedia, F&F did not click on them. There was some tangential discussion related to snake catchers. Vajpayee talks about Rajputisation and does not go much into Rajput history as such. The question was whether it was due or not on the Rajput page - not the reliability. Trangabellumm, some others and I thought it was due. Even F&F suggested a footnote. Vajpayee is a WP:SECONDARY, so as per wikipedia policies , she is reliable given her qualifications and the publication. In fact, she is used on wikipedia in other article. Skanda Puran is a primary source. It cannot be used directly except in cases where WP:PRIMARY is allowed.LukeEmily (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that Dympies is trying to equate Rajput with 'Rajputra'! This is clearly WP:UNDUE and equivalent to caste glorification citing fringe opinion. LukeEmily has already explained above. Thanks LukeEmily for taking the trouble of providing quotes from high quality reliable sources! I have nothing more to add; I completely agree with LukeEmily in this regard. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Ekdalian, this is not a place to push narratives built by caste organisations of various Indian castes. I am myself a post graduate in History, and i am sure that the "Rajputra", which was a term used for nobles of royal blood in many ancient dynasties has no direct link with this Rajput caste. The section etymology itself appears to be WP:OR.-Admantine123 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Admantine123, Please stop it. This is nothing but WP:OR. Nobody cares if you are a graduate of history or geography. This is an encyclopaedia which strictly follows RS. You can't justify your edits at this platform saying that you are a history graduate!

@ Ekdalian : I never saw you editing the Rajput page before. You never give your rationale on the content dispute but rather give passing comments in support of LukeEmily's and Admantine123's baseless POV. This indicates that you have a little knowledge of the subject. You have always been disrespectful towards me. You don't hesitate in casting aspersions on other users like you did in this edit summary. You are calling me ridiculous for equating rajput with rajputra. Instead, you should have gone through the sources as advised by me in the last comment. All the sources are present in the article itself but you didn't invest some time in going through them. Anyways, let me make it easier. I am now posting some modern scholarly sources which have talked about Rajputra in the context of Rajput:

• Britannica Encyclopaedia (2009) pg 60:

in Rajasthan and central India there arose a number of small kingdoms ruled by dynasties that came to be called the Rajputs (from Sanskrit raja-putra, ``son of a king).

• Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500BCE to 1740CE - Page 75 by Kaushik Roy (2015)

The term Rajput was derived from the word rajaputra.

• India before Europe - Page 115 by Cynthia Talbot, Catherine B. Asher (2001) :

Because the term Rajput is derived from the Sanskrit rajaputra or “king's son,” Rajputs have typically claimed the status of kshatriya or ruling warrior in the four-fold varna classification of traditional India.

• The Emergence of Jaipur State; pg 30 by Doris Marion Kling (1993):

The term Rajput is a corruption of  Rajputra, meaning the son of a raja.

• The Puffin History of the World: Volume 1 - Volume 1 by Roshen Dalal (2014):

Beginning in CE 700 or a little earlier, there were several kingdoms in north India. Many of these were ruled by the Rajputs (from 'rajaputra', sons of kings).

• History of Civilizations of Central Asia Vol 3; pg 172 by Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson (1999):

For the first time Bana (court poet from 606 to 647) in his Harsa-Caritam uses the title of rajaputra, from which is derived the modern term Rajput.

• Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century; pg 32 by Susan Bayly (2006):

In the arid hill country which is now known as Rajasthan, located to the southwest of the Mughals' original strongholds in the Gangetic plain, powerful lords and their arms bearing retainers had been calling themselves Rajput, a title derived from rajaputra.

• The Penguin History of Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300 (2015) by Romila Thapar:

Not only was there a stronger insistence on being of the kshatriya caste, but an additional category of kshatriya status was thought necessary, that of the rajaputra or Rajput, claiming a filial kinship with kings.

• A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century (PB); pg 567 by Upinder Singh (2008):

The use of the term Rajaputra for specific clans or as a collective term for various clans emerged by the 12th century.

• Economic History of Medieval India, 1200-1500; pg 66 by Irfan Habib (2011) :

In the Mahoba Fort inscription (actually from Kasrak near Badaun), in an entry of 1234, the rautas are spoken off as a jati or caste. Rautas is actually the Prakrit form of Rajaputra (modern Hindi Rajput); and a Rajaputra caste had established itself well before the thirteenth century.

• A History of Rajasthan; pg 181 by Rima Hooja (2006):

However, epigraphical and literary evidence would indicate that it was probably sometime during the c.twelfth-thirteenth centuries AD period that the usage of terms like Rajputra, Kshatriya, Rautt and similar words denoting connections with kingship, and Rajput became established as more or less synonymous words....In Kalhana’s Rajtarangini (VII.390) the word rajaputra is used in the sense of a landowner, but if it is read with VII, vv.1617 and 1618 of the same book it would be clear that they acclaimed their birth from the 36 clans of the Rajputs.

This article cannot be written without discussing rajputra which was an earlier derivative if the term rajput. Dympies (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey Dympies, you are simply wrong and I 'll explain why. I never wrote any insulting comment in any edit summary; I edit hundreds of caste related articles, and that particular edit summary was apt! I never said, you are ridiculous! I simply said equating Rajput with Rajputra is ridiculous. Now, coming to this topic, we all know that the term Rajput is derived from the word 'Rajputra'; that's what the sources say as well. In earlier times i.e. early medieval period, probably the royal blood / descendants used to be called Rajput, as indicated by sources. What happened later is known to all who have studied the subject. Due to Sanskritisation, various clans including landholding peasants became a part of the Rajput community! As our article states in the lead only, "According to modern scholars, almost all Rajput clans originated from peasant or pastoral communities." We can assume here that we are talking about the modern day Rajputs, not the medieval or early medieval ones! Therefore, even if the term Rajput originated from the Sanskrit word 'Rajputra', Rajputra and Rajput are not at all synonymous! Rajputra still holds the same old meaning, son of a king. But Rajput is a cluster of different clans, as mentioned above. Hope you understand the difference! Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Low-importance
• B-Class Indian history articles
• Mid-importance Indian history articles
• B-Class Indian history articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Low-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• B-Class Hinduism articles
• Low-importance Hinduism articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Indian military history articles
• Indian military history task force articles
• C-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• B-Class Nepal articles
• Low-importance Nepal articles
• WikiProject Nepal articles
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics