The project
How we research, label, review and correct every entry, so you can judge what you read.
To document Rajput history, culture and heritage accurately, neutrally and openly, so that readers can always tell what is documented, what is tradition and where historians disagree.
Every entry, and every statement that needs one, carries one of five labels:
| Label | What it means |
|---|---|
| Documented | Supported by primary evidence, such as inscriptions, contemporary records or archives, or by clear scholarly consensus. |
| Interpretation | A historian’s reading of the evidence. |
| Tradition | Genealogical or community tradition: khyats, vamshavalis, bardic accounts and family memory. |
| Legend | Mythological or legendary accounts, valued for culture and identity, not as proof of events. |
| Contested | Credible sources disagree. We give each view with its source. |
Every substantive claim needs at least one source from the first two groups, and contested claims need a source for each view. Blogs, social media, uncited websites, AI output and Wikipedia are never used as sources; at most they help us find the real ones.
We never invent quotations, citations, page numbers, dates, inscriptions or genealogies. If something cannot be checked, it is left out.
We may use AI tools to help find sources, summarise texts we hold and draft wording. AI output is never treated as a source, and nothing drafted with AI help is published until a reviewer has checked every claim against its source and approved it.
We do not republish information simply because it is widely available online. Each entry adds sourced research, historical context and citations. Every entry, article and source record moves through these statuses:
Only approved material is public. Each published page shows its author, reviewer and last-reviewed date, and is reviewed again every 12 months. On every page, labels show what is documented fact, interpretation, tradition (including oral and family tradition), legend, or contested.
Reviewers list the factual claims in an entry (names, dates, places, relationships, events, numbers), check each one against an independent source, and record a verdict: Documented, Partially accurate, Disputed, Tradition, Unverified or Incorrect. An entry cannot be approved while any claim is marked Incorrect. Where evidence is lacking, a claim is marked Unverified and is not presented as fact. Published pages show how many claims were checked and their revision history.
A “Verified contributor” badge means we have checked the person’s identity and the credentials they state, for example through an institutional email address, an ORCID record or a letter. It does not certify that what they write is accurate: every contribution is checked against its sources in the same way, whoever sends it. Social media profiles identify people; they are never treated as evidence.
[Owner to add: the name(s) of the historical reviewer(s).]
Anyone can request a review, submit a correction or contribute new information through our evidence submission form. Please include the source: author, title, publisher or issuing authority, date, and a link or archive reference. Scans of original documents are best; the form accepts PDF, Word, Excel, CSV, text and image files.
Every submission goes through the same statuses as our own entries. We keep the evidence, reviewer comments and decision history for future checking and audit. Your personal details and documents stay private and are never published without your permission. We correct mistakes promptly, record them in the revision log, and never change the publication date to hide an edit.