Jump to content

Talk:Rajput

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DPSingh (talk | contribs) at 11:28, 2 January 2006 (→‎Malavika Kasturi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Announcement

Can you all try to rebuild this article at Rajput/temp and Talk:Rajput/temp? I can assure you this article is not going to get unprotected until a final version of the page is settles at Rajput/temp and I know that a lot of people aren't happy with the current state of this page. I hope you can all make an article that all of you (or at least a vast majority) are happy with. It wouldn't be a bad idea just to restart the article from scratch as a group, but at least find a version of the page that you are all happy with and we can unprotect the main article. As a side note, the amount of unrelated junk arriving on this talk page is unbelievable and is clogging up the page. FireFox 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Firefox did you warn Bachman for his insult against Indians? Should he be banned for NPA? Secondly having a separate page,logically, does not seem any different then the main page. People can disagree on this page also. For once Bachman is correct that issues need to be resolved. Let us take issues one by one. 1) Should rajput muslim be mentioned on rajput page?

--DPSingh 14:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. No he shouldn't. And it is different. You can edit it all you like whilst it is out of public view. It's only your fault if you can't agree on a suitable verson. FireFox 16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you told me about NPA and not him? It seems he being an admin knew about NPA and still willingly broke the rule. Or do rules apply differently to admins?

Lastly, just look at the archives. If people here could not agree by filling up 17 archives do you really think they will be able to reach an understanding. Now the time has come to take some decisions. Sticking point is inclusion of musalman rajput.

Also Raja has called Suryabandhu, Surya Bandar. This is highly derogatory. Since it is not English you would not understand it. I am feeling like replying to him here unless I hear something from you.

--DPSingh 17:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If whatever you want to reply has nothing to do with article, use his talk page. The NPA rule does not not-apply to admins, it is no different at all. If you want to risk reporting him for a personal attack, take it to the administrators noticeboard. I warn people when I see it, not when someone tells me to. FireFox 17:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
this is offtopic, DPS is referring to a sarcastical remark of mine on Zora's talkpage; the only personal attacks I pleaded guilty of were "clown" and "incompetent", which perfectly pale in comparison with the vitriolic mudslinging from the part of their addressees. I realize there are some editors here who are uninterested in a solution. I will ask the arbcom to review the matter as soon as I can spare the time. dab (ᛏ) 17:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solution is not forth coming because of your lack of knowledge bachman. When you can claim that muslims started claiming rajput status during the time of British, just to justify the fact there names started appearing in british books, this is pits of ignorance. This time your muslim friends will also disagree with you.

And you remark is racist and not sarcastic.

--DPSingh 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yawn, I was referring to the sources brought forward. stop cursing me, start citing sources. We know there were "Muslim Rajputs" at least from the time of the British Raj. If you want to insist they existed even earlier, point us to your sources. dab (ᛏ) 18:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


That is the point no source before british calls them rajputs. Website link you pushed, iso* also mentions the fact that some rajputs converted to Islam but these converts are not rajputs. Problem is people like you are supporting a POV which has no basis and the dispute is continuing.

--DPSingh 18:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Firefox: What is the next step of RFC? Do I need to do anything? I see bachman has mobilized his supporters to the fullest even scaring away some hindus.

--DPSingh 18:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look. If you knew what you were doing you would read up on WP:RFC, it's all there. FireFox 18:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indologist

It is unfortunate that the page on the most valiant community of India has been blocked. The main reason for this incodent seems to be the obduracy of certain interactors to list 'Muslim Rajputs' on this page. Well Sir! I just checked that Muslim Rajputs have their own page, full with cock-n-bull stories of Sufi conversions and egalitarianism etc. Please allow this page out of the slammer and limit it to discussion about the honourable Rajputs only.

Thanks!

Raja you are a Suar ki aulad

--DPSingh 17:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Means. "Raja you are a son of a pig" - blocked for 100 hours for a personal attack. FireFox 18:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Im confused here. I have geneological records attaching me to the Pururava dynasty, their later descendants the Pandava prince Arjun and King Janamejaya who created a Hindu custom of Naag Panchmi. DPS you have just insulted my ancestors for sure, but more concerning here is you have insulted your own Hindu deities too who are heavily reverred and followed by my Hindu counterparts. And you claim to be protectors of Hinduism by insulting such luminaries? Very sad to see this contradiction on your part. -Raja

Clans

Brothers I have created small stubs for each of these clans. Some have more info then the others. Sisodia can you add more sisodiya gotra/shakha and also expand on them? Suryabandhu would you like to expand on Pundir kula? SS/Shonan what would you like to focus on? Digvijay can you add some more chauhan gotra and see if you like Deora page?

Also if you have more info on any other shakha/gotra have a go at it.

Does anyone know if Sumrendra is around?

Shivraj Singh 20:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shivraj, Here is info on Sisodias

Vansh Suryavansh

Kul (clan) Guhilot

Shakha Sisodia

Khamp/Gotra Chandawat, Ranawat, Shaktawat, Sarangdevot, Sangawat, Chandrawat, Kshemawat, Suhawat, Ahariya.

Notes:

(1) Sangawats are sometimes considered a division of Chandawat and sometimes a separate gotra.

(2) The Royal House of Mewar belongs to the Ranawat gotra.

-- sisodia


Shivraj, I will add some more chauhan gotra. Deora looks decent. I will add description of Surtan Deora, a teenager king who defeated many armies that Akbar sent against him. Problem was not bravery or sinews but money to mobilize big armies.

--DPSingh 18:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this page will probably have this dispute going on for a long time to come. Most people are not even realising, let alone acknowledging the slippery grounds on which the muslim rajput 'claim' is being made. Its a grey area to say the least. Shiv, I really am interested in the hindi version of this page....thats my main aim, when I have the time. I would like all to add any info, hindi web site links etc. to that page too. Please make uttarakhand -> uttaranchal. I already corrected on the Rajput clans page. Ss india 11:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration filed

this has been going on for months now; several administrators have tried to intervene, and while they could contain the edit-war, no progress has been made. My hope is that the arbcom will be able to enforce policy more effectively than individual admins. Refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Rajput. dab (ᛏ) 18:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Workshop. This arbitration may affect all editors of this article whether they are named in the arbitration or not. Fred Bauder 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Katoch

Katoch are not from Uttarkhand, they are from Kangra (Royal family of Kangra is Katoch and happens to be by Nanji's family) and originally their ancestry is from Pehelgam, Kashmir.

Gorkhali 01:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC) -Dr. Chauhan[reply]


I also find it interesting how this site has become very Anti-Hindu since no one is questioning the authenticity of the other's claims but simply bashing the Hindu perspective of the article. I have seen many inaccuracies especially the claims put forth on the supposed Janujua clan which is really a farce.

On one hand you see people bashing the Rajputs and asking them to provide evidence, and yet when the Muslim side is making their claims without citing sources, it is simply accepted as fact. Where is the justice in that?

I stopped taking part in this article for several reasons and seeing the obvious anti-Hindu bias especially by specific individuals has seriously put Wikipedia’s validity into question about its ethics.

There were enough insults thrown at the Rajput Royal families throughout the early part of this dispute by the same people who are claiming to be Muslim descendants. I have already been recording these discussions to be presented at upcoming Rajput conferences to show how our history is being hijacked and abused. Gorkhali 01:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Let's hope the arbitration can decide on a better solution for this page. --Raja 12:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raja, Must feel good to be protected and allowed to insult Rajputs with your comments knowing full well that you can get away with it. Nice Yawn, I guess that is a part of your academic upbringing.

Malavika Kasturi

Embattled Identities: Rajput Lineages and the Colonial State in Nineteenth-Century North India by Malavika Kasturi -- originally mentioned by Dieter Bachmann.

Got my used copy of Kasturi in the mail the other day. I've gotten 15 pages into it and it's hard going. This is a revised version of a PhD thesis and it's written in horrid clotted PoMo-speak. On the other hand, it has lots of citations of other recent works.

This is going to be relevant, but it will take a while. Zora 10:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Zhora you are wasting your time with this book. If you are interested in rajputs then get James Tod's Annals.

From: this link

I will look at rajputana page. Battle brewed because people are pushing POV's without sourcing any books and one of them thought, being an admin, he could twist arms and get his POV accepted. Most references pushed by Bachman are irrelevant and I doubt if he took the pains to turn a single page of these books mentioned. I will grant you he read a few pages of Kasturi. I have that book and in that entire book there is no focus on muslim rajputs. There is one sentence which states in some ridiculously worded english that rajputs converted to Islam. --DPSingh 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

at least I can quote books, unlike people who apparently think "Maheca Rathaurom ka mula itihasa: Ravala Mallinatha ke vamsaja - Maheca, *Baramera, Pokarana, Kotariya aura" is acceptable as an encyclopedic reference. dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


What is wrong with this reference? This is a well researched book on Mallinath a very famous Rathore and his descendants. There origins, there wars, there relations with present rulers of Jodhpur and Bikaner are described in this book. This prejudice that you bring here because history in other then English does not make sense to you is the source of all problems. Dude I think we have had enough of you here. You better find a different page where your views might make more sense. Shivraj Singh 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


--DPSingh 11:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&oldid=33587299"