Talk:Rajput

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2026

Please add information about Bengali Rajputs Kshatriya100 (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You would need to specify the text that you propose to add. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Bengali Rajputs

Many Rajputs migrated to Bengal from other regions, mostly from the army of Man Singh of the Kacchwaha dynasty of Amber Kshatriya100 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

removal of stable text and violating the arbitration rule

@Ekdalian, RegentsPark, Sitush, and Abecedare:, this edit removed a text that has been on this relatively stable page since 2025. The page was further edited in 2026 , the edit was not objected to, even though the editor who removed it very active on wikipedia for last several months. However, 2 days back they removed it without any explanation. It was not even a contentious statement - it stated that although the word Rajput derives from son of King, it cannot be applied literally to the community i.e. Rajputs are not literally sons or descendants of kings but there were some ruling clans and others engaged in agriculture. This has been discussed before. Since the clarification added in 2025 was removed 2 days back by an editor, I reverted this removal based on the arbitration policy on this page. However, another editor reverted me saying that there was no discussion about this. I do remember discussions on this topic. Has there been no discussion that Rajput is not literally son of king, only that the word is derived from it? I believe the version before that text was deleted was a consensus version since it was not challenged for 9 months and edits were made to the page. Also, the issue has been discussed. Can I not challenge a 2 day old removal from a stable page using "consensus required for removal" as per the arbitration page. Not sure if this is related, but I read a very recent discussion on reddit where a user has said that they are a wikipedia editor and they are inviting other Rajputs to join wikipedia as editors when another Rajput user complains of the peasant mention. I do not want to post a link to reddit but you will be able to find it. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the arbitration rule.LukeEmily (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not see the consensus for the revert you made. (See also WP:WEAKSILENCE) Any edit that has been challenged can not be restored without consensus. Zalaraz (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I challenged the edit made two days ago based on the arbitration rule but you reinstated the two day old edit. Are you saying there is no consensus on wiki (based on academic literature) that when a person calls himself/himself a Rajput, it does not imply that he/she is descendant of the king irrespective of what the word means? Anyway, lets wait for others to reply.LukeEmily (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes there is no consensus for that particular lead edit anywhere. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It was in the lead for about 9 months, and no one objected although the page was actively edited and you also edited other pages in Wikipedia. Does that not imply consensus? Not every line is discussed. Anyway, what is your objection? We mention occupation in the lead and farming is not derogatory. If we mention in the lead that Rajputs is derived from a word that means sons of kings, we need to clarify that this is not be taken literally. We cannot delete everything that is not flattery. Any reader without context will misunderstand the community. We have mentioned rulers and warriors so we need to mention what the majority of community members did - farming. I am not understanding the objection. Why did you remove it?LukeEmily (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted the same; it is a clear violation of the Consensus Required clause applicable to this article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The content breaks the flow of the lead and is outright POV pushing, when we have an entire section dedicated to the debate on the topic, it cannot be summarized in such a POV way. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Rajput community is not literally what the word means (son of king) - it is not a subject of debate. Not mentioning that the word is not to be taken literally would be misleading to a reader especially since we are mentioning the meaning of the word in the first sentence itself.LukeEmily (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

That statement is argumentative, contradictory to the body ("derivation from Rajaputra is misleading" makes no sense when the term is absolutely derived from it) and has nothing in the introduction itself. We already have a section detailing the history of the term, which means it does push a POV and maybe violates WP:LEAD because that wording is not supported by the body. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there are two facts that all scholars agree on. First, the word "Rajput" is definitely derived from the word "rajaputra"(son of king). The second fact is that someone who identifies or identified as a Rajput (the community), was or is not necessarily son or descendant of some King. This is also not disputed. Stating one in the lead without the other would be misleading. For example, please see Rajbanshi_people. It also means Royal lineage but we do not specify the meaning of the word in the first sentence itself, nor do we have a section on what Rajbanshi means (like we have a section on Rajaputra). The derivation from Rajaputra is misleading in that sense. The second part of the sentence clarifies what exactly is misleading. However, I agree with you that the phrasing can be corrected as Rajput is definitely derived from Rajaputra.LukeEmily (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@LukeEmily - I suppose you would find this edit fine then? @Abhishek0831996 Care to explain why you reverted it? — Longewal (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

The sentence is subject of active discussion. Do not edit it without "affirmative consensus". Chronos.Zx (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Longewal (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion is to keep the wording as close to the source as possible.@Longewal:, I was mostly ok with your edit - would have suggested minor changes to more closely match the source.LukeEmily (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make the change. I think we have agreement in principle. — Longewal (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 9 August 2026

Description of suggested change: Remove bold from the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXNAME.

Diff:

−

'''Rajput'''

+

Rajput

~2026-43696-24 (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)