Revision as of 15:08, 2 December 2020 edit LukeEmily (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 4,306 edits →‎History ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:09, 2 December 2020 edit undo Abhishek0831996 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 6,410 edits →‎History Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Next edit →
Line 841: {{ping\|LukeEmily}} You are wrong to believe that you are not responsible for restoring what "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=prev&oldid=991904427 has been there long before I joined Wikipedia]". You are responsible for all edits you are making. Furthermore, per [[WP:BRD]], you are supposed to justify your rejected edit on talk page. [https://books.google.com/books?id=MMFdosx0PokC&pg=P441#v=onepage&q&f=false The source] refers to a 1924 publication by Vaidya, but you are misrepresenting his conclusions. :What really Vaidya wrote? He discusses all of the possible scenarios but what he actually believed is different than what you are trying to tell. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ujAhAAAAMAAJ&q=the+Rajputs+that+they+are+the+representatives+of+Vedic+Kshatriyas+it+also+shows+how+the+now+generally+accepted+legend+about+Agnikula+Rajput+families+is+twisted+into+a+support&dq=the+Rajputs+that+they+are+the+representatives+of+Vedic+Kshatriyas+it+also+shows+how+the+now+generally+accepted+legend+about+Agnikula+Rajput+families+is+twisted+into+a+support&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDl9XPua_tAhWAqksFHRv3CVgQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg He writes that]: "the Rajputs that they are the representatives of Vedic Kshatriyas it also shows how the now generally accepted legend about Agnikula Rajput families is twisted into a support for the theory of foreign descent started by western scholars have tried 'in our first volume to refute many of these arguments. We have shown, in that volume how Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar's theory that the Gnjars are foreigners (Khizars) who came along with the Huns in the beginning of the fifth century is baseless, inasmuch as it is admitted by even Smith that there is no historical evidence either of native tradition or foreign record to suggest, much less to prove that the Gujars came into India from outside about this time and further because we find that the history of the Khizars proves that they never left their own country."▼ :Other reliable source by [[Vidya Dhar Mahajan]] concludes that "The theory of foreign origin is not accepted by scholars like C.V. Vaidya and Gauri Shankar Ojha. Their view is that ethnology, tradition and probabilities all point to the conclusion that the Rajputs were pure Aryans and not the descendants of the foreigners."[https://books.google.com/books?id=JQ5dtF73WEoC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=probabilities+all+point+to+the+conclusion+that+the+rajputs] ▼ :For what it is worth, the basic view that Vaidya believed that Rajputs are descents of Vedic Indo-Aryans has been already mentioned, rest of the cherrypicked points are not needed and are definitely [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Abhishek0831996\|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996\|talk]]) 14:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)▼ ▲:What really C.V. Vaidya wrote? He discusses all of the possible scenarios but what he actually believed is different than what you are trying to tell. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ujAhAAAAMAAJ&q=the+Rajputs+that+they+are+the+representatives+of+Vedic+Kshatriyas+it+also+shows+how+the+now+generally+accepted+legend+about+Agnikula+Rajput+families+is+twisted+into+a+support&dq=the+Rajputs+that+they+are+the+representatives+of+Vedic+Kshatriyas+it+also+shows+how+the+now+generally+accepted+legend+about+Agnikula+Rajput+families+is+twisted+into+a+support&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDl9XPua_tAhWAqksFHRv3CVgQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg He writes that]: "the Rajputs that they are the representatives of Vedic Kshatriyas it also shows how the now generally accepted legend about Agnikula Rajput families is twisted into a support for the theory of foreign descent started by western scholars have tried 'in our first volume to refute many of these arguments. We have shown, in that volume how Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar's theory that the Gnjars are foreigners (Khizars) who came along with the Huns in the beginning of the fifth century is baseless, inasmuch as it is admitted by even Smith that there is no historical evidence either of native tradition or foreign record to suggest, much less to prove that the Gujars came into India from outside about this time and further because we find that the history of the Khizars proves that they never left their own country." ::[[User:Abhishek0831996\|Abhishek0831996]], First of all, you need consensus to remove sourced material - not the other way round. Second, Vaidya himself is [[WP:UNDUE]] as per [[WP:HISTRW]] as he died about 100 years back and modern research has shown his ridiculous theories about nose shape and Aryan race etc. to be false - these were theories that the racist British like Risley propagated and some Indian writers fell for those. I am surprised that Vaidya is even quoted here. The author who is quoting Vaidya himself is saying that this was nationalistic view so we need to add that otherwise it is cherry picking. Mahajan is simply quoting Vaidya's view so quoting him he does not add anything to the discussion. Anyway, I will add more edits from the text later - busy for some time. Please see [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(history)#Reliable_sources_for_weighting_and_article_structure]] to see reliability of sources. This is the first line: ''To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order: ~~::Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic''~~ ~~::Not a single modern scholar agrees with Vaidya and there are many examples to contradict him in any case. Will add more on talk page in some time. And here's more from the wikipedia page:~~ ''Historians produce material after the fact. Recent scholarship is scholarship which displays the currently acceptable methodological practices, and that refers to other recent material. This constitutes a shifting window of "recentness" that depends on the area of historical studies, and changes in historical scholarship. The only way to judge this is by becoming aware of the higher order debates within a field of history, this can be done by reading the reviews. Analysis of his views by other reliable sources: The main driver for new ideas is the opening of new primary sources, such as archives. Also new historiographical models come into use. They are usually added to old models, but sometimes older models are rejected or abandoned. ▲:~~Other reliable source by~~ [[Vidya Dhar Mahajan]] concludes that "The theory of foreign origin is not accepted by scholars like C.V. Vaidya and Gauri Shankar Ojha. Their view is that ethnology, tradition and probabilities all point to the conclusion that the Rajputs were pure Aryans and not the descendants of the foreigners."[https://books.google.com/books?id=JQ5dtF73WEoC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=probabilities+all+point+to+the+conclusion+that+the+rajputs] ~~For example, scholarship before 1990 will not include post-modern or narrativist methodologies. See also historical revisionism.~~ :"C . V . Vaidya attempted to prove that Rajputs were fully identical to the Kshatriyas of ancient India , and that only the purest of Kshatriya blood flows in the veins of the Rajputs ."[https://books.google.com/books?id=tosMAQAAMAAJ&q=%22Vaidya+attempted+to+prove+that+Rajputs+were+fully+identical+to+the+Kshatriyas+of+ancient+India+,+and+that+only+the%22&dq=%22Vaidya+attempted+to+prove+that+Rajputs+were+fully+identical+to+the+Kshatriyas+of+ancient+India+,+and+that+only+the%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI28Wfwa_tAhWHbysKHetdAFcQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg] by [https://www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/travel/dr-rima-hooja Rima Hooja] ~~In Holocaust studies, as the Cold War ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, scholars began to gain access to the archives of former communist countries, which offered new perspectives''~~ :"as late as 1924 that C.V. Vaidya came out to refute the theory of foreign origin of Rajput races in strong terms in his work on Early history of the Rajputs."[https://books.google.com/books?id=PXstAAAAMAAJ&q=%22C.V.+Vaidya+came+out+to+refute+the+theory+of+foreign+origin+of+Rajput+races+in+strong+terms+in%22&dq=%22C.V.+Vaidya+came+out+to+refute+the+theory+of+foreign+origin+of+Rajput+races+in+strong+terms+in%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVmIeQwK_tAhX1zTgGHZriAYoQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg] ~~[[User:LukeEmily\|LukeEmily]] ([[User talk:LukeEmily\|talk]]) 15:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)~~ ▲:For what it is worth, the basic view that Vaidya believed that Rajputs are descents of Vedic Indo-Aryans has been already mentioned, the rest of the cherrypicked points are not needed and are definitely [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Abhishek0831996\|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996\|talk]]) 14:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Rajput: Difference between revisions