![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
The previous version here [1] is based on widely accepted authorities on rajputs. the new version is a personal opinion without any meaningful sources.
Reasons should be provided for completely altering a version which was there from years.
8XM ( talk) 09:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
First of all I have not "completely altered" the article: most of my edits were to the origin and history part, which was not adequately sourced. The section began with "The origin of the Rajputs is the subject of debate. Writers such as M. S. Naravane and V. P. Malik believe...". According to Google Scholar, M. S. Naravane's book has been cited by only 3 others: a journal article, a 2016 dissertation by a graduate student, and a Wordpress blog post. V. P. Malik is not even an author of the book -- he has written the foreword for the book. Aydogdy Kurbanov's work is an unpublished thesis from 2010. If you look at the Britannica article history, you will not find any "widely accepted authorities on rajputs" either.
Compare this to sources that I've added:
If you can be specific about which of my additions is "personal opinion without any meaningful sources", I can provide more specific explanations. utcursch | talk 14:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
You're mixing up two different things here:
References
. (consensus has long been that we do not mention varn in the lead) (undo | thank)- edit by sitush — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acharya63 ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Shinjoya: Your version of the lead reads that Rajput is an Indian caste, while the article clearly states that the Rajputs are also native to Pakistan. Also, I'm not sure what part of "clans" doesn't make sense to you. It's a well-known fact that the term Rajput covers a number of patrlineal clans, such as Chauhan (Chahamana), Parmar (Paramara) etc. A number of such clans / communities claim to be Rajputs, but not all such claims are acknowledged universally. The article body contains sources for both these assertions (e.g. in the Rajput#Subdivisions). Please see WP:CITELEAD: the lead does not need sources for a summary of the content that is already cited in the article body. utcursch | talk 15:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Even this "acquiring Rajput status at different times in history" theory is contested. And I don't think
Bundela Rajput status is contested. Rajput is very much a caste/ethnic group. Is it really worth mentioning? I mean there are so many Indian castes. None of the article has such a thing in the very lead. Can't it rather be mentioned in history or classification section? -
Shinjoya (
talk)
08:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
References
http://rajputana.htmlplanet.com/scy_raj/scy_raj4.html
As per the above source it can be deduced that the Rajputs are indeed a mixture of various tribes that rose to prominance on were related to those who did. The Real Rana ( talk) 03:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rajput. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Mohanbhan: Regarding this edit: if Kosambi indeed means "all Rajputs" when he says "the Rajputs", this is not a mainstream view. Please find some mainstream sources (preferably recent ones) which state that all Rajputs claim descent from Bappa Rawal. As the article Guhila dynasty#Origin states (with sources), even the Guhilas started claiming descent from Bappa Rawal only in 13th century: Bappa wasn't the actual founder of the dynasty, and the claim has little to do with the origins of the Guhilas, let alone all of the Rajputs. utcursch | talk 17:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Utcursch: Here is the Kosambi quote in full from page 370 of An Introduction to the study of Indian History:
“...the Rajputs traced their descent from the legendary Bappa Raval (whose coins seem to have been found); and they had a tradition of ancient, former kinship with some Pathan clans who were also military groups living by the sword. They were raiders whenever possible, mercenaries when it paid, but could be peasant cultivators at home. Their military hierarchy, with each man owing fealty to one acknowledged leader, goes back to their tribal and clan origin. The complete political inconsequence is also due to the persistence of a narrow tribal outlook. Their home territory in comparatively barren Rajasthan (already changed beyond recognition wherever the Rajasthan canal has brought its life-giving waters) lay across the important trade-route to the south. The Rajputs, therefore, show us – in an undeveloped stage – the superficial elements that go to make feudalism, but not a supply of labour to cultivate extensive fields. Such captains were well suited for service under kings that had already developed administrative units 84, then 42, and 21 villages, perhaps the last formal stage between the two types of feudalism, from above and below.”
The Origins section represents the views of "Colonial-era writers" and "Indian nationalist historians" both of which are either dated or vague antiquarian views, and not "mainstream", meaning, not in agreement with the views of contemporary historians. So I am not sure why you removed this quote: "According to the Marxist historian D.D. Kosambi, the Rajputs trace their descent from the ruler Bappa Rawal (c.8th century); "they had a tradition of ancient, former kinship with some Pathan clans who were also military groups living by the sword." [1] which clearly states that it is a Marxist view. D.D. Kosambi is more mainstream than all the historians mentioned in this section and he does "state that all Rajputs claim descent from Bappa Rawal"---this Marxist viewpoint must be represented. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 17:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Mohanbhan: I'm not talking about a viewpoint here -- it's a factual mistake that all (or even a majority of the) Rajputs claim descent from Bappa Rawal. They don't -- only the post 13th century Guhila records claim that their dynasty was founded by Bappa Rawal, and even they don't mention Bappa as the earliest known member of his family. They claim that he was born in a royal family, escaped after their kingdom was conquered by enemies, and then founded a new dynasty.
Kosambi's book is not free of errors, according to multiple reviewers (such as those by his friend Daniel H. H. Ingalls in Journal of the American Oriental Society and AL Basham). As Brijen K. Gupta's review points out, Kosambi was not professional historian in 1956 (when he wrote the book) -- he was a mathematician and a teacher at TIFR.
Even if this supposedly claimed descent from Bappa was a "viewpoint", it's not important enough to be mentioned because it is/was not held by other historians. The "dated or vague antiquarian views" that you're referring to have been held by a significant number of historians in the past, which makes them important enough to be mentioned. Their mention in the article isn't cited using the outdated books written by the authors who held these views, rather a modern source that summarizes the debate.
Please present at least a couple of more sources which state that all Rajputs claim descent from Bappa Rawal. utcursch | talk 19:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
In history madigas ever ruled ????? VrajaRV ( talk) 10:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rajput has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chittorgarh Fort was built by Mori(Mauryan) rajput king chittrangad mori. Sumit77312 ( talk) 11:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rajput has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rajput and Rajput-like (Rajputra) castes historically lived in Nepal. See Rajputs of Nepal. 27.34.68.148 ( talk) 03:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
i read wikipedia page RAJPUT - under heading RAJPUT LIFESTYLE -in which there was mention of two different communities the jats and gurjars in disreputable terms.to put it verbatim it reads
"Until recent times polygamy was common among Rajputs also concubines were kept freely depending upon economic status of a person, particularly in Rajasthan where there were three class of concubines first were called khawals generally jat and gurjar women they lived in harem and children were treated par with 'pure' Rajputs except few restrictions. The other two classes were called Darogi and Goli.[100][101] "
although sources (books ) have been cited .but it is well known that it is not difficult to pick books with shady or biased writers and to believe their nonsense and putting that on something as illustrious as wikipedia is not prudent in fact the book cited "Handbook on Rajputs"by A.H Bingley calls Rajputs
bastards ,born of brahmins (page 28)
https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.219902/2015.219902.Hand-Book_djvu.t how can one believe one statement and not believe another from the same book,one cannot quote selectively
again there is another s o called historian Robert Montgomery Martin in his book Behar (Patna city) and Shahabad (page 159 and 160) calls "rajputs bastards" and "offsprings of persians" https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CumEvq2n5RQC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=bastard+rajputs&source=bl&ots=XgjW7q_lrQ&sig=ACfU3U10kZlNUpv2XzuqAOTfee05xdauAA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlk8ncoIrkAhWK6nMBHWZDByg4ChDoATADegQICBAB
Again vidya dhar mahajan mentions "The word "Rajput" is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar." [Mahajan Vidya Dhar, "Ancient India", Fifth Edition, Reprint 1972, Chand and Co., New Delhi. p. 550 moreover some of them have even called rajputs to be "descended from gurjars" -Niharranjan Ray and Niharranjan Roy Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Vol. 12, No. 2 (1931), pp. 117-122 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41688201?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
these all are ridiculous utterances ,the reason i am mentioning them is that there is enough of bullshit written about everyone and it would be pity if such references are put on a site like wikipedia ,moreover some sensitivity need to be factored in when discussing entire communities whose numbers run in tens of millions of people.further it breeds hatred among communities ,weakens the social fabric .there are enough of this slugfest on many private webpages ,let it remain there. let's not pit one community against another,those who have personal enmity should find other avenues wikipedia is a powerful tool and with power comes responsibility.let us not spread malicious defamatory misinformation i request the admin to remove the names of both the communities mentioned under webpage "Rajput" sub heading 'Rajput lifestyle"
regards -- Raakkeesh ( talk) 16:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rajput has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
deletion of names of communities "jats and gurjars "mentioned in webpage" Rajput " under subheading "Rajput Lifestyle"
i read wikipedia page RAJPUT - under heading RAJPUT LIFESTYLE -in which there was mention of two different communities the jats and gurjars in disreputable terms.to put it verbatim it reads
"Until recent times polygamy was common among Rajputs also concubines were kept freely depending upon economic status of a person, particularly in Rajasthan where there were three class of concubines first were called khawals generally jat and gurjar women they lived in harem and children were treated par with 'pure' Rajputs except few restrictions. The other two classes were called Darogi and Goli.[100][101] "
although sources (books ) have been cited .but it is well known that it is not difficult to pick books with shady or biased writers and to believe their nonsense and putting that on something as illustrious as wikipedia is not prudent in fact the source cited above i.e the book"Handbook on Rajputs"by A.H Bingley calls Rajputs
"bastards ,born of brahmins" (page 28) https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.219902/2015.219902.Hand-Book_djvu.t how can one believe one statement and not believe another from the same book,one cannot quote selectively
again there is another s o called historian Robert Montgomery Martin in his book Behar (Patna city) and Shahabad (page 159 and 160) calls "rajputs bastards" and "offsprings of persians" https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CumEvq2n5RQC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=bastard+rajputs&source=bl&ots=XgjW7q_lrQ&sig=ACfU3U10kZlNUpv2XzuqAOTfee05xdauAA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlk8ncoIrkAhWK6nMBHWZDByg4ChDoATADegQICBAB
Again vidya dhar mahajan mentions "The word "Rajput" is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar." [Mahajan Vidya Dhar, "Ancient India", Fifth Edition, Reprint 1972, Chand and Co., New Delhi. p. 550 moreover some of them have even called rajputs to be "descended from gurjars" -Niharranjan Ray and Niharranjan Roy Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Vol. 12, No. 2 (1931), pp. 117-122 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41688201?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
these all are ridiculous utterances ,the reason i am mentioning them is that there is enough of bullshit written about everyone and it would be pity if such references are put on a site like wikipedia ,moreover some sensitivity need to be factored in when discussing entire communities whose numbers run in tens of millions of people.further it breeds hatred among communities ,weakens the social fabric .there are enough of this slugfest on many private webpages ,let it remain there. let's not pit one community against another,those who have personal enmity should find other avenues wikipedia is a powerful tool and with power comes responsibility.let us not spread malicious defamatory misinformation i request the admin to remove the names of both the communities mentioned under webpage "Rajput" sub heading 'Rajput lifestyle"
regards Raakkeesh ( talk) 17:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
+ + Beginning in 1561, the Mughals actively engaged the Rajputs in warfare and diplomacy. [1] + Toward the end of the 16th century, the Mughal emperor Akbar entered into a series of alliances [2] [3] [4] [5] with numerous Rajput ruling houses, arranging marriages with Rajput princesses for himself and for his heirs. Mughal-Rajput marriages continued until the early 18th century, bringing many Rajput states into the imperial fold without costly military subjugation. The Rajput practice of giving daughters to the Mughal emperors in return for recognition as nobility and the honour of fighting on behalf of the Empire originated in this arrangement and thus the Mughals were often able to assert their dominance over Rajput chiefs in north India without needing to physically intimidate them. [6] [7]
Furthermore, the Rajput relations with Mughal were consolidated by marriage and blood ties; the Akbar's successors, Jahangir and Shah Jahan were sons of Rajput Princesses is therefore not insignifant. [8]
The political effect of these alliances was significant. [4] The interaction between Hindu and Muslim nobles in the imperial court resulted in exchange of thoughts and blending of the two cultures. Further, newer generations of the Mughal line represented a merger of Mughal and Rajput blood, thereby strengthening ties between the two. As a result, the Rajputs became the strongest allies of the Mughals, and Rajput soldiers and generals fought for the Mughal army under Akbar, leading it in several campaigns including the conquest of Gujarat in 1572. [9]
Further Reading-
1. Singh, Nau Nihal (2003). The Royal Gurjars: Their Contribution. Anmol Publications. pp. 329–330.
ISBN
978-81-261-1414-6.
More books--
NO link between Vedic Kshatriyas(old Rajas) and medival Rajputs in many cases. [10]
The story of agnikula is not mentioned at all in the original version of the Raso preserved in the Fort Library at Bikaner.
[11]
According to the book,a glimpse of medieval Rajasthan by Naravane & Malik the Agnikula theory for Rajputs was invented in 16th century to legitimise the “conversion” of foreign people as pure Kshatriyas. [10]
In the book by Satish Chandra, [12]
In fact, according to a number of
scholars, the agnikula clans were originally
Gurjaras (or
Gurjars)
[13] and [[Chauhan] was prominent clan of the
Gurjars (or Gujjars).
[14] Several scholars including D. B. Bhandarkar,
Baij Nath Puri and
A. F. Rudolf Hoernle believe that the Pratihara were a branch of
Gurjars.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
Prithviraj Chauhan,according to several scholars, was a
Gurjar.
[21]
[22] Historian Sir Jervoise Athelstane Baines states that the
Gurjars were forefathers of the
Sisodiyas.
[23]
,
Rajputana was essentially the country of the
Gurjars.
[24]
[25] Historian
R. C. Majumdar explained that the region was long known as
Gurjaratra (Gurjar nation), early form of Gujarat, before it came to be called Rajputana,later in the
Mughal period,16th century.
[26]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
It has been reported that the story of agnikula is not mentioned at all in the original version of the Raso preserved in the Fort Library at Bikaner.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
According to a number of scholars, the agnikula clans were originally Gurjaras.
By that marriage Harsha had contracted an alliance with the dominant race of the Gurjaras, of whom the chohans were a prominent clan.
Jamanadas
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The Parihars (Pratiharas), as Mr. Bhandarkar rightly points out, were one of the divisions of the Gurjaras.
Al-Masudi who visited his (Gurjara mahipala) court, also refers to the great power and resources of the Gurjara pratihara rules of Kannauj.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
According to a number of scholars, the agnikula class were originally Gurjaras.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
By that marriage Harsha had contracted an alliance with the dominant race of the Gurjaras, of whom the chauhans were a prominent clan.
Sir Jervoise Athelstane Baines 1912 31
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Rajputana was essentially the country of the Gurjaras, Gujarat came to be called after...
But this much is certain that Rajputana was essentially the country of the Gurjaras
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
R.C. Majumdar 1994 263
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
Rajput has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jassapatti2 ( talk) 08:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Request for edit Jassapatti2 ( talk) 08:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I am from the town near to Harsol, where these copper plates were found but never knew until recently. I want to know where are they now and in what condition. I can probably do some research on that locality and find out more information. Mihir.261 ( talk) 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Sitush: caste glorification can be seen from list of notables.And possible WP:BLP violation is there as many people listed are not self recognising themselves as Rajput. Heba Aisha ( talk) 19:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rajput has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{subst:trim|1=
There are many more sources but these are very high quality. There seems to be a consensus among modern scholars about the origin. LukeEmily ( talk) 15:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
A: Eugenia Vanina(Historian, Indologist) : Almost all Rajput clans originated from the semi-nomadic pastoralists of the Indian north and north-west [1]
B : David Lorenzen, Daniel Gold [6] "Rajput" was a more ascriptive term, referring to all kinds of Hindus who lived the life of the adventuring warrior, of whom most were of peasant origins [2]
C: Dasharatha SharmaAccording to some scholars, the so-called Agnikula clans, the Pratihāras, Paramāras, Solankis and Chauhāns were originally Gurjaras.so-called Agnikula clans, the Pratihāras, Paramāras, Solankis and Chauhāns were originally Gurjaras (Gurjar is a pastoral group) [3]
D: Andre Wink [7] very probable that fire-born Rajput clans like the Caulukyas, Paramaras, Cahamanas, as well as the Tomaras and others who in the eighth and ninth centuries were subordinate to the Gurjara-Pratiharas, were of similar pastoral origin, that is, that they originally belonged to the mobile, nomadic groups [4]
E: Doris Marion Kling, University of Pennsylvania: Rajput: Pastoral , mobile warrior groups... [5]
F ...these new Rajput aristocracies quickly obliterated their obscure, often pastoral origins in the expanding agricultural society of early medieval North India.As a rising agricultural gentry and ruling elite, the medieval Rajputs differed widely from the urbanized and highly educated classical varna of kshatriyas, at least as they are depicted in the literature. The largely illiterate warrior groups of Rajputs, adopting landholding along with their newly found kshatriya identity and dharmic code, associated... [6]
Citations
|
---|
References
|
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
User:Sajaypal007 is persistently deleting new academic content to promote the caste. Please help. LukeEmily ( talk) 14:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
On balance, I agree with this deletion. When Dasharatha Sharma is saying, "according to some scholars", we can't change it to "according to Dasharatha Sharma". -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
we have no alternative to the words like very low origin and these words have been used in the context of caste hierarchy only as it is done on pages related to other backward communities.So removing it implies we should remove that from all caste articles.If you all want that then bring out the consensus of other caste editors so that in future they donot bother our removal of low origin low categorized and untouchable words from all caste articles as there is no social stratification on wikipedia that these words should be used only in lower caste articles.Also the high and low categorization in our society is solely on the basis of occupational background not on the basis of race or economic status And since Rajput clan emerged from peasant and pastoral background we should have no issues in using that words for their origin.Since i m less active on wiki thats y putting my view in advance. Heba Aisha ( talk) 05:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
In the process of stratification that developed within the Gurjara stock some families attained political dominance and became ruling lineage.
Kautilya3,
WP:Primary can be used when supported by other reliable sources.
Earlier Sajaypal removed a note of ferishta as it was sourced directly from his book.But there is restriction on use of Raj era sources.But i can see Todd who is unreliable and the stanza also say that is here with his glorifying words in the form of quote.so either we should add ferishta along with tod or to remove tod as well.
Sajaypal007, @
LukeEmily: what do u think?
Heba Aisha (
talk)
04:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
While bernier will always criticise india comparing it to europe.Barani and ferishta will be biased towards Hindus and Shams siraj afif would have problems related to chronology.I m thinking whether to talk about ferishta's account or not.Sajaypal and others may give suggestions. Heba Aisha ( talk) 10:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok don't add ferishta i also agree Heba Aisha ( talk) 17:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Heba Aisha As we discussed in other thread, the same line is getting repeated in origin section. Last line of first para and first line of 3rd para they both have same sources as well. Except Talbot's source which doesnt even mention what is written in that line. My suggestion is to remove the redundancy and get one line removed. If we remove last line of first para which I believe was added quite recently in this controversy and major edits. That way the para will be in chronological order too, because if remove the other line then chronology would break. From British period to modern period. Kautilya3 Sajaypal007 ( talk) 18:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
For example the line says...they include various group including shudra and tribals. Let us know.
So i support to Keep. Heba Aisha ( talk) 01:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
In name of improving the article the castemen are active in removing all the things they found inappropriate despite of it being sourced.I m tired of discussion now as new users come on and all just have the same purpose i.e glorification as they have problem with the line that have Shudra term and also i am sure they will also have problems with other words like varna shankar.Only reason is that they don't like .I am moving to other articles as i had not joined wikipedia to woo just one particular caste as many people are doing in name of editing historical topics but i m and will remain opposed to the removal of origin image and according to me origin section is also fine right now.Everyone who earlier participated moved from here i guess just because of stiff resistance from casteist and personal attack by creating redirect to our accounts and trolling.This is what user:LukeEmily》 and me both of us faced. So if edits are done in future to glorify the caste by removing terms castemen find inappropriate you can see reversion from my side.(Not quickly but they're not gonna remain here forever as wikipedia is a living entity and subject to change)
Heba Aisha ( talk) 09:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Moving to other articles Heba Aisha ( talk) 09:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Heba Aisha I think this is a complex issue , as you mention there is caste boosterism , but also attempts of disruptive editing to remove things that do not conform to traditional relegious narratives ( like saying people from shudra varna also formed part of an upper caste ) . More importantly there are also attempts to humiliate other castes , this I believe is a very serious issue , as it is done to reinforce toxic caste narratives to humiliate a particular caste ,this sometimes is done quite blatantly and sometimes by citing selectively , giving a false impression of what was actually intended to be said by an author. I am no expert at Wikipedia editing and made the mistake of engaging in edit wars , but now I have come to an understanding that ultimately things will move in the correct direction , if not now then later . The disruptive editors in this case should clearly be blocked. But I am not aware how that would be done. But hope people who can , become aware . Meethamonkey ( talk) 07:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
The previous version here [1] is based on widely accepted authorities on rajputs. the new version is a personal opinion without any meaningful sources.
Reasons should be provided for completely altering a version which was there from years.
8XM ( talk) 09:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
First of all I have not "completely altered" the article: most of my edits were to the origin and history part, which was not adequately sourced. The section began with "The origin of the Rajputs is the subject of debate. Writers such as M. S. Naravane and V. P. Malik believe...". According to Google Scholar, M. S. Naravane's book has been cited by only 3 others: a journal article, a 2016 dissertation by a graduate student, and a Wordpress blog post. V. P. Malik is not even an author of the book -- he has written the foreword for the book. Aydogdy Kurbanov's work is an unpublished thesis from 2010. If you look at the Britannica article history, you will not find any "widely accepted authorities on rajputs" either.
Compare this to sources that I've added:
If you can be specific about which of my additions is "personal opinion without any meaningful sources", I can provide more specific explanations. utcursch | talk 14:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
You're mixing up two different things here:
References
. (consensus has long been that we do not mention varn in the lead) (undo | thank)- edit by sitush — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acharya63 ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Shinjoya: Your version of the lead reads that Rajput is an Indian caste, while the article clearly states that the Rajputs are also native to Pakistan. Also, I'm not sure what part of "clans" doesn't make sense to you. It's a well-known fact that the term Rajput covers a number of patrlineal clans, such as Chauhan (Chahamana), Parmar (Paramara) etc. A number of such clans / communities claim to be Rajputs, but not all such claims are acknowledged universally. The article body contains sources for both these assertions (e.g. in the Rajput#Subdivisions). Please see WP:CITELEAD: the lead does not need sources for a summary of the content that is already cited in the article body. utcursch | talk 15:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Even this "acquiring Rajput status at different times in history" theory is contested. And I don't think
Bundela Rajput status is contested. Rajput is very much a caste/ethnic group. Is it really worth mentioning? I mean there are so many Indian castes. None of the article has such a thing in the very lead. Can't it rather be mentioned in history or classification section? -
Shinjoya (
talk)
08:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
References
http://rajputana.htmlplanet.com/scy_raj/scy_raj4.html
As per the above source it can be deduced that the Rajputs are indeed a mixture of various tribes that rose to prominance on were related to those who did. The Real Rana ( talk) 03:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rajput. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Mohanbhan: Regarding this edit: if Kosambi indeed means "all Rajputs" when he says "the Rajputs", this is not a mainstream view. Please find some mainstream sources (preferably recent ones) which state that all Rajputs claim descent from Bappa Rawal. As the article Guhila dynasty#Origin states (with sources), even the Guhilas started claiming descent from Bappa Rawal only in 13th century: Bappa wasn't the actual founder of the dynasty, and the claim has little to do with the origins of the Guhilas, let alone all of the Rajputs. utcursch | talk 17:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Utcursch: Here is the Kosambi quote in full from page 370 of An Introduction to the study of Indian History:
“...the Rajputs traced their descent from the legendary Bappa Raval (whose coins seem to have been found); and they had a tradition of ancient, former kinship with some Pathan clans who were also military groups living by the sword. They were raiders whenever possible, mercenaries when it paid, but could be peasant cultivators at home. Their military hierarchy, with each man owing fealty to one acknowledged leader, goes back to their tribal and clan origin. The complete political inconsequence is also due to the persistence of a narrow tribal outlook. Their home territory in comparatively barren Rajasthan (already changed beyond recognition wherever the Rajasthan canal has brought its life-giving waters) lay across the important trade-route to the south. The Rajputs, therefore, show us – in an undeveloped stage – the superficial elements that go to make feudalism, but not a supply of labour to cultivate extensive fields. Such captains were well suited for service under kings that had already developed administrative units 84, then 42, and 21 villages, perhaps the last formal stage between the two types of feudalism, from above and below.”
The Origins section represents the views of "Colonial-era writers" and "Indian nationalist historians" both of which are either dated or vague antiquarian views, and not "mainstream", meaning, not in agreement with the views of contemporary historians. So I am not sure why you removed this quote: "According to the Marxist historian D.D. Kosambi, the Rajputs trace their descent from the ruler Bappa Rawal (c.8th century); "they had a tradition of ancient, former kinship with some Pathan clans who were also military groups living by the sword." [1] which clearly states that it is a Marxist view. D.D. Kosambi is more mainstream than all the historians mentioned in this section and he does "state that all Rajputs claim descent from Bappa Rawal"---this Marxist viewpoint must be represented. - Mohanbhan ( talk) 17:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Mohanbhan: I'm not talking about a viewpoint here -- it's a factual mistake that all (or even a majority of the) Rajputs claim descent from Bappa Rawal. They don't -- only the post 13th century Guhila records claim that their dynasty was founded by Bappa Rawal, and even they don't mention Bappa as the earliest known member of his family. They claim that he was born in a royal family, escaped after their kingdom was conquered by enemies, and then founded a new dynasty.
Kosambi's book is not free of errors, according to multiple reviewers (such as those by his friend Daniel H. H. Ingalls in Journal of the American Oriental Society and AL Basham). As Brijen K. Gupta's review points out, Kosambi was not professional historian in 1956 (when he wrote the book) -- he was a mathematician and a teacher at TIFR.
Even if this supposedly claimed descent from Bappa was a "viewpoint", it's not important enough to be mentioned because it is/was not held by other historians. The "dated or vague antiquarian views" that you're referring to have been held by a significant number of historians in the past, which makes them important enough to be mentioned. Their mention in the article isn't cited using the outdated books written by the authors who held these views, rather a modern source that summarizes the debate.
Please present at least a couple of more sources which state that all Rajputs claim descent from Bappa Rawal. utcursch | talk 19:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
In history madigas ever ruled ????? VrajaRV ( talk) 10:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rajput has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chittorgarh Fort was built by Mori(Mauryan) rajput king chittrangad mori. Sumit77312 ( talk) 11:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rajput has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rajput and Rajput-like (Rajputra) castes historically lived in Nepal. See Rajputs of Nepal. 27.34.68.148 ( talk) 03:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
i read wikipedia page RAJPUT - under heading RAJPUT LIFESTYLE -in which there was mention of two different communities the jats and gurjars in disreputable terms.to put it verbatim it reads
"Until recent times polygamy was common among Rajputs also concubines were kept freely depending upon economic status of a person, particularly in Rajasthan where there were three class of concubines first were called khawals generally jat and gurjar women they lived in harem and children were treated par with 'pure' Rajputs except few restrictions. The other two classes were called Darogi and Goli.[100][101] "
although sources (books ) have been cited .but it is well known that it is not difficult to pick books with shady or biased writers and to believe their nonsense and putting that on something as illustrious as wikipedia is not prudent in fact the book cited "Handbook on Rajputs"by A.H Bingley calls Rajputs
bastards ,born of brahmins (page 28)
https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.219902/2015.219902.Hand-Book_djvu.t how can one believe one statement and not believe another from the same book,one cannot quote selectively
again there is another s o called historian Robert Montgomery Martin in his book Behar (Patna city) and Shahabad (page 159 and 160) calls "rajputs bastards" and "offsprings of persians" https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CumEvq2n5RQC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=bastard+rajputs&source=bl&ots=XgjW7q_lrQ&sig=ACfU3U10kZlNUpv2XzuqAOTfee05xdauAA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlk8ncoIrkAhWK6nMBHWZDByg4ChDoATADegQICBAB
Again vidya dhar mahajan mentions "The word "Rajput" is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar." [Mahajan Vidya Dhar, "Ancient India", Fifth Edition, Reprint 1972, Chand and Co., New Delhi. p. 550 moreover some of them have even called rajputs to be "descended from gurjars" -Niharranjan Ray and Niharranjan Roy Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Vol. 12, No. 2 (1931), pp. 117-122 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41688201?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
these all are ridiculous utterances ,the reason i am mentioning them is that there is enough of bullshit written about everyone and it would be pity if such references are put on a site like wikipedia ,moreover some sensitivity need to be factored in when discussing entire communities whose numbers run in tens of millions of people.further it breeds hatred among communities ,weakens the social fabric .there are enough of this slugfest on many private webpages ,let it remain there. let's not pit one community against another,those who have personal enmity should find other avenues wikipedia is a powerful tool and with power comes responsibility.let us not spread malicious defamatory misinformation i request the admin to remove the names of both the communities mentioned under webpage "Rajput" sub heading 'Rajput lifestyle"
regards -- Raakkeesh ( talk) 16:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rajput has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
deletion of names of communities "jats and gurjars "mentioned in webpage" Rajput " under subheading "Rajput Lifestyle"
i read wikipedia page RAJPUT - under heading RAJPUT LIFESTYLE -in which there was mention of two different communities the jats and gurjars in disreputable terms.to put it verbatim it reads
"Until recent times polygamy was common among Rajputs also concubines were kept freely depending upon economic status of a person, particularly in Rajasthan where there were three class of concubines first were called khawals generally jat and gurjar women they lived in harem and children were treated par with 'pure' Rajputs except few restrictions. The other two classes were called Darogi and Goli.[100][101] "
although sources (books ) have been cited .but it is well known that it is not difficult to pick books with shady or biased writers and to believe their nonsense and putting that on something as illustrious as wikipedia is not prudent in fact the source cited above i.e the book"Handbook on Rajputs"by A.H Bingley calls Rajputs
"bastards ,born of brahmins" (page 28) https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.219902/2015.219902.Hand-Book_djvu.t how can one believe one statement and not believe another from the same book,one cannot quote selectively
again there is another s o called historian Robert Montgomery Martin in his book Behar (Patna city) and Shahabad (page 159 and 160) calls "rajputs bastards" and "offsprings of persians" https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CumEvq2n5RQC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=bastard+rajputs&source=bl&ots=XgjW7q_lrQ&sig=ACfU3U10kZlNUpv2XzuqAOTfee05xdauAA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlk8ncoIrkAhWK6nMBHWZDByg4ChDoATADegQICBAB
Again vidya dhar mahajan mentions "The word "Rajput" is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar." [Mahajan Vidya Dhar, "Ancient India", Fifth Edition, Reprint 1972, Chand and Co., New Delhi. p. 550 moreover some of them have even called rajputs to be "descended from gurjars" -Niharranjan Ray and Niharranjan Roy Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Vol. 12, No. 2 (1931), pp. 117-122 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41688201?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
these all are ridiculous utterances ,the reason i am mentioning them is that there is enough of bullshit written about everyone and it would be pity if such references are put on a site like wikipedia ,moreover some sensitivity need to be factored in when discussing entire communities whose numbers run in tens of millions of people.further it breeds hatred among communities ,weakens the social fabric .there are enough of this slugfest on many private webpages ,let it remain there. let's not pit one community against another,those who have personal enmity should find other avenues wikipedia is a powerful tool and with power comes responsibility.let us not spread malicious defamatory misinformation i request the admin to remove the names of both the communities mentioned under webpage "Rajput" sub heading 'Rajput lifestyle"
regards Raakkeesh ( talk) 17:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
+ + Beginning in 1561, the Mughals actively engaged the Rajputs in warfare and diplomacy. [1] + Toward the end of the 16th century, the Mughal emperor Akbar entered into a series of alliances [2] [3] [4] [5] with numerous Rajput ruling houses, arranging marriages with Rajput princesses for himself and for his heirs. Mughal-Rajput marriages continued until the early 18th century, bringing many Rajput states into the imperial fold without costly military subjugation. The Rajput practice of giving daughters to the Mughal emperors in return for recognition as nobility and the honour of fighting on behalf of the Empire originated in this arrangement and thus the Mughals were often able to assert their dominance over Rajput chiefs in north India without needing to physically intimidate them. [6] [7]
Furthermore, the Rajput relations with Mughal were consolidated by marriage and blood ties; the Akbar's successors, Jahangir and Shah Jahan were sons of Rajput Princesses is therefore not insignifant. [8]
The political effect of these alliances was significant. [4] The interaction between Hindu and Muslim nobles in the imperial court resulted in exchange of thoughts and blending of the two cultures. Further, newer generations of the Mughal line represented a merger of Mughal and Rajput blood, thereby strengthening ties between the two. As a result, the Rajputs became the strongest allies of the Mughals, and Rajput soldiers and generals fought for the Mughal army under Akbar, leading it in several campaigns including the conquest of Gujarat in 1572. [9]
Further Reading-
1. Singh, Nau Nihal (2003). The Royal Gurjars: Their Contribution. Anmol Publications. pp. 329–330.
ISBN
978-81-261-1414-6.
More books--
NO link between Vedic Kshatriyas(old Rajas) and medival Rajputs in many cases. [10]
The story of agnikula is not mentioned at all in the original version of the Raso preserved in the Fort Library at Bikaner.
[11]
According to the book,a glimpse of medieval Rajasthan by Naravane & Malik the Agnikula theory for Rajputs was invented in 16th century to legitimise the “conversion” of foreign people as pure Kshatriyas. [10]
In the book by Satish Chandra, [12]
In fact, according to a number of
scholars, the agnikula clans were originally
Gurjaras (or
Gurjars)
[13] and [[Chauhan] was prominent clan of the
Gurjars (or Gujjars).
[14] Several scholars including D. B. Bhandarkar,
Baij Nath Puri and
A. F. Rudolf Hoernle believe that the Pratihara were a branch of
Gurjars.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
Prithviraj Chauhan,according to several scholars, was a
Gurjar.
[21]
[22] Historian Sir Jervoise Athelstane Baines states that the
Gurjars were forefathers of the
Sisodiyas.
[23]
,
Rajputana was essentially the country of the
Gurjars.
[24]
[25] Historian
R. C. Majumdar explained that the region was long known as
Gurjaratra (Gurjar nation), early form of Gujarat, before it came to be called Rajputana,later in the
Mughal period,16th century.
[26]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
It has been reported that the story of agnikula is not mentioned at all in the original version of the Raso preserved in the Fort Library at Bikaner.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
According to a number of scholars, the agnikula clans were originally Gurjaras.
By that marriage Harsha had contracted an alliance with the dominant race of the Gurjaras, of whom the chohans were a prominent clan.
Jamanadas
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The Parihars (Pratiharas), as Mr. Bhandarkar rightly points out, were one of the divisions of the Gurjaras.
Al-Masudi who visited his (Gurjara mahipala) court, also refers to the great power and resources of the Gurjara pratihara rules of Kannauj.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
According to a number of scholars, the agnikula class were originally Gurjaras.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
By that marriage Harsha had contracted an alliance with the dominant race of the Gurjaras, of whom the chauhans were a prominent clan.
Sir Jervoise Athelstane Baines 1912 31
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Rajputana was essentially the country of the Gurjaras, Gujarat came to be called after...
But this much is certain that Rajputana was essentially the country of the Gurjaras
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
R.C. Majumdar 1994 263
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
Rajput has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jassapatti2 ( talk) 08:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Request for edit Jassapatti2 ( talk) 08:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I am from the town near to Harsol, where these copper plates were found but never knew until recently. I want to know where are they now and in what condition. I can probably do some research on that locality and find out more information. Mihir.261 ( talk) 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Sitush: caste glorification can be seen from list of notables.And possible WP:BLP violation is there as many people listed are not self recognising themselves as Rajput. Heba Aisha ( talk) 19:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rajput has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{subst:trim|1=
There are many more sources but these are very high quality. There seems to be a consensus among modern scholars about the origin. LukeEmily ( talk) 15:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
A: Eugenia Vanina(Historian, Indologist) : Almost all Rajput clans originated from the semi-nomadic pastoralists of the Indian north and north-west [1]
B : David Lorenzen, Daniel Gold [6] "Rajput" was a more ascriptive term, referring to all kinds of Hindus who lived the life of the adventuring warrior, of whom most were of peasant origins [2]
C: Dasharatha SharmaAccording to some scholars, the so-called Agnikula clans, the Pratihāras, Paramāras, Solankis and Chauhāns were originally Gurjaras.so-called Agnikula clans, the Pratihāras, Paramāras, Solankis and Chauhāns were originally Gurjaras (Gurjar is a pastoral group) [3]
D: Andre Wink [7] very probable that fire-born Rajput clans like the Caulukyas, Paramaras, Cahamanas, as well as the Tomaras and others who in the eighth and ninth centuries were subordinate to the Gurjara-Pratiharas, were of similar pastoral origin, that is, that they originally belonged to the mobile, nomadic groups [4]
E: Doris Marion Kling, University of Pennsylvania: Rajput: Pastoral , mobile warrior groups... [5]
F ...these new Rajput aristocracies quickly obliterated their obscure, often pastoral origins in the expanding agricultural society of early medieval North India.As a rising agricultural gentry and ruling elite, the medieval Rajputs differed widely from the urbanized and highly educated classical varna of kshatriyas, at least as they are depicted in the literature. The largely illiterate warrior groups of Rajputs, adopting landholding along with their newly found kshatriya identity and dharmic code, associated... [6]
Citations
|
---|
References
|
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
User:Sajaypal007 is persistently deleting new academic content to promote the caste. Please help. LukeEmily ( talk) 14:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
On balance, I agree with this deletion. When Dasharatha Sharma is saying, "according to some scholars", we can't change it to "according to Dasharatha Sharma". -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
we have no alternative to the words like very low origin and these words have been used in the context of caste hierarchy only as it is done on pages related to other backward communities.So removing it implies we should remove that from all caste articles.If you all want that then bring out the consensus of other caste editors so that in future they donot bother our removal of low origin low categorized and untouchable words from all caste articles as there is no social stratification on wikipedia that these words should be used only in lower caste articles.Also the high and low categorization in our society is solely on the basis of occupational background not on the basis of race or economic status And since Rajput clan emerged from peasant and pastoral background we should have no issues in using that words for their origin.Since i m less active on wiki thats y putting my view in advance. Heba Aisha ( talk) 05:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
In the process of stratification that developed within the Gurjara stock some families attained political dominance and became ruling lineage.
Kautilya3,
WP:Primary can be used when supported by other reliable sources.
Earlier Sajaypal removed a note of ferishta as it was sourced directly from his book.But there is restriction on use of Raj era sources.But i can see Todd who is unreliable and the stanza also say that is here with his glorifying words in the form of quote.so either we should add ferishta along with tod or to remove tod as well.
Sajaypal007, @
LukeEmily: what do u think?
Heba Aisha (
talk)
04:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
While bernier will always criticise india comparing it to europe.Barani and ferishta will be biased towards Hindus and Shams siraj afif would have problems related to chronology.I m thinking whether to talk about ferishta's account or not.Sajaypal and others may give suggestions. Heba Aisha ( talk) 10:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok don't add ferishta i also agree Heba Aisha ( talk) 17:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Heba Aisha As we discussed in other thread, the same line is getting repeated in origin section. Last line of first para and first line of 3rd para they both have same sources as well. Except Talbot's source which doesnt even mention what is written in that line. My suggestion is to remove the redundancy and get one line removed. If we remove last line of first para which I believe was added quite recently in this controversy and major edits. That way the para will be in chronological order too, because if remove the other line then chronology would break. From British period to modern period. Kautilya3 Sajaypal007 ( talk) 18:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
For example the line says...they include various group including shudra and tribals. Let us know.
So i support to Keep. Heba Aisha ( talk) 01:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
In name of improving the article the castemen are active in removing all the things they found inappropriate despite of it being sourced.I m tired of discussion now as new users come on and all just have the same purpose i.e glorification as they have problem with the line that have Shudra term and also i am sure they will also have problems with other words like varna shankar.Only reason is that they don't like .I am moving to other articles as i had not joined wikipedia to woo just one particular caste as many people are doing in name of editing historical topics but i m and will remain opposed to the removal of origin image and according to me origin section is also fine right now.Everyone who earlier participated moved from here i guess just because of stiff resistance from casteist and personal attack by creating redirect to our accounts and trolling.This is what user:LukeEmily》 and me both of us faced. So if edits are done in future to glorify the caste by removing terms castemen find inappropriate you can see reversion from my side.(Not quickly but they're not gonna remain here forever as wikipedia is a living entity and subject to change)
Heba Aisha ( talk) 09:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Moving to other articles Heba Aisha ( talk) 09:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Heba Aisha I think this is a complex issue , as you mention there is caste boosterism , but also attempts of disruptive editing to remove things that do not conform to traditional relegious narratives ( like saying people from shudra varna also formed part of an upper caste ) . More importantly there are also attempts to humiliate other castes , this I believe is a very serious issue , as it is done to reinforce toxic caste narratives to humiliate a particular caste ,this sometimes is done quite blatantly and sometimes by citing selectively , giving a false impression of what was actually intended to be said by an author. I am no expert at Wikipedia editing and made the mistake of engaging in edit wars , but now I have come to an understanding that ultimately things will move in the correct direction , if not now then later . The disruptive editors in this case should clearly be blocked. But I am not aware how that would be done. But hope people who can , become aware . Meethamonkey ( talk) 07:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)