Talk:Rajput: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:43, 20 December 2005

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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:

non-rajputs

Dbachman do not delete what I write. We are not here to educate you. Go enroll yourself in a course on India. I posted the link of the book to show that majority of non-rajputs are arguing without even reading the material and references provided. This includes you.

Muslims have to give up there claims of being rajputs and then there can be a discussion on how to organize the rajput page. Perhaps Clans can be moved to a separate page with a link from the main page.

--DPSingh 12:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what, pray, did I delete? I did not ask you to educate anyone. If you sit back and enjoy Wikipedia, you'll have no bothers. If you insist on contributing, you will be asked to provide references, not for my benefit, but for that of our readers. If there are Muslim clans claiming to be Rajputs, I don't see how they are any different, from Wikipedia's perspective of WP:NPOV, than Hindu clans claiming to be Rajputs. Both are exactly the same to me. If they disagree, they can go hit each others with pointy sticks for all I care, for the purposes of Wikipedia, we will simply state that there is disagreement. dab (ᛏ) 14:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White Man's Burden

Tears well up in my eyes and my heart is rendered asunder seeing the self-appointed mediators bravely bearing the white man’s burden, which no one asked them to bear in the first place.

-- sisodia the outlaw

This all stems from the fact that racism is still prevalent in the minds of most westerners. Third world population needs to be shown what objective research is , how you cite references and other crap. What these b*s forget is Nalanda and Taxila were giving out doctorates when Europeans did not even know what the word university means. --DPSingh 12:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

did I send you my picture now, or how do you know where my mother was from? And why do you think it is any of your business in the first place? If you could just write encyclopedic text and cite your sources, I would not care if you were a little green man. So they had "Universities" in India, in 500 BC? Good for them; too bad you were not there to get some education. I find it rather amusing to be called a "racist" by somebody as obviously immersed in national mysticism. Look: you are a bunch of so much text on screen to me.good edits, good for Wikipedia; bad edits, bad for Wikipedia, admins will come and block you. Since you are clearly beyond rational argument, I don't think Wikpedia should be held up any longer. I also don't care too much for having speculations about my genome on Wikipedia talkpages. It must be really difficult for you to understand "on topic", by all appearances. So there you go. I'm not paid to babysit you. I'll unprotect the article. Your sourced edits are welcome. Anything else will be rolled back. Be aware of WP:3RR, you will not be warned again should you violate policy. dab (ᛏ) 14:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter You may have meant well but your posts belied this as they sounded very condescending. If you wanted to get some info you should have just asked politely and everyone here would have obliged. If you look at your talk page I did leave a few messages regarding references there. Any way water under the bridge feel free to ask anything you would like to know and I will be happy to answer your questions. Shivraj Singh 18:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, but I'd rather read a book by some authority than being told "the truth about the Rajputs" as eternal fact on Wikipedia talkpages. If you know better than the published authorities, publish your own book. I don't pretend to know about Rajputs. I am here to remind you of what Wikipedia is about, and what the rules are. DPSingh has shown a ridiculous amount of condescension not only towards people with different viewpoints, but even towards the very founding principles of Wikipedia. At this point, I cannot take him seriously enough guide me to the next corner shop, let alone to tell me anything about "India" except his own sad little pinhole view. dab (ᛏ) 18:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Frame your questions and post them. Frustration so far has been people have not been disputing facts with written history from there side. Each point that I have made is backed up a reference from the books in the reference section. ( I know it is missing publisher/author info but I will update this data soon). Shivraj Singh 19:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann: > If there are Muslim clans claiming to be Rajputs, I don't see how they are any different, from Wikipedia's perspective of WP:NPOV, than Hindu clans claiming to be Rajputs.

Whatever do you mean by Hindu clans "claiming" to be Rajputs???! When was any veracity lacking amidst us? Are there any particular Hindu clan claims to Rajputs, you doubt?

> Both are exactly the same to me.

From what point of view? Islam violates the very ethos and essence of a Rajput (reasons cited in earlier post). It would be correct now to only speak of Muslims from a Rajput-line, and not "Muslim-Rajputs". That's an oxymoron. Either they are not Rajputs or they are not true Muslims.

> If they disagree, they can go hit each others with pointy sticks for all I care

Not about hitting each other, but straightforward facts. Some researchers trace the origins of Islam to Shaivism, and some others to other pagan cults. But whatever the origin(s), the Muslim-identity took over as a distinct creed in itself. The case of some Rajput conversions is a similar one and should be treated as such.

61.247.244.252 18:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu[reply]

sigh, that's the "Hindu" pov. We are not about deciding who is "right", we are just about documenting what people claim. When I say that the Hindus and the Muslims are exactly the same to me, I am taking the neutral point of view, which is Wikipedia:policy and not debatable. dab (ᛏ) 18:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit wars (what else)

Messires Singh, you are edit warring. Consider the present (shabby) version our baseline. You may build up a better version step by step, looking for consensus as you go. You may not remove npov tags, "cite sources" tags (unless, of course, you do cite sources for the statement in question), or referenced statements (without giving reasons and looking for consensus first). You may, of course, remove the image if you don't like it, add your points to the present article (one by one please), etc.: this would be good faith editing. You may not insist on major reverts to your preferred version. I know the present version is bad. Improve it, collaborating with the editors whose views are different from yours. Offhand rejection of other views because they are "Muslim" or "Western" is not acceptable. Without readiness for such collaboration, you will acheive nothing at all on Wikipedia except for wasting your own and other people's time. dab (ᛏ) 09:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please dnt blame me for anything, im only trying to keep ur version of article in place, If any SS wants to progress with it I wont hinder him. but they are not trying to listen.Anyways cant we have rule that who ever reverts he should be blocked (including me), unless he cites sources.Wisesabre 10:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the premise is that sane people will outnumber those less so. don't worry, and please stick around and improve the article. dab (ᛏ) 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We will consider our version baseline and you guys point out what you disagree with and what historical text u have to back up ur claim. Also keep your language in check. If you have made up your mind that you are operating from the sane side then that is prejudice. Shivraj Singh 21:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dab, can we see your psychiatrist certificate please? Its your sanity that is pricipally in doubt.

-- sisodia the outlaw.

way to go guys, you really make a beautiful case for the Hindu side having the moral high ground. dab (ᛏ) 13:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you wouldn't call it the "hindu side". What is in dispute is more than the question of whether muslims can be rajput. Reversions by m/s singh also include many historical inaccuracies, which are also (perhaps only by chance) being reverted out by others. Firstly, many hindus would write a more objective history of these events. Secondly, the "muslim-rajputs" seem generally acquiescent to these inaccuracies, for whatever reason. ImpuMozhi 16:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool..lots of talk since I last saw this, but no real progress apparently. The unlettered outlaws have not been chased away by the light of scholarship. And my "clueless asides" on Indologists seem to have spurned someone into giving us some more info on dharm etc. somewhere above on this page...interesting. Anyway Mr. dab, I don't think we're here for a 'shastrarth', but hoping to see an undisputed article. If you would like to insist Ashoka coined dharm, you are most welcome to think whatever you want to think. And at the risk of jeopardizing our wikicareers, I do think it is a funny notion to harbour.

By the way Shiv, what do you think of 'infiltrating'(lol!) the competing page one para at a time. Then doing a diff will highlight just the points under attack (or discussion maybe) and not endless lines of text.

This book may be interesting for a few - "Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, Vol. 2" [1]. Chapter 31 talks a bit of Hindus and Sikhs as well. Ss india 12:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"rāǧpwt" - whats this? At least that how it shows up on my browser even when the encoding is set to Unicode(UTF-8). Anyone like to explain?? Ss india 13:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see Arabic alphabet. dab (ᛏ) 13:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, please, "infiltrate" your content one paragraph at a time. Your additions are welcome. You are reverted because of your removals. We will not clear up your messy "references" section for you, so do your own work, ok? dab (ᛏ) 13:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References

since you (Singhs) are clearly incapable of as much as adding a book to the references section properly, I have done that for you now. See [2]. I don't know why I am still helping you after all the abuse, but you will have to do your own work from now on, people will not clean up after you. If you think your article has a "References" section, I don't know what to say: It is a long unreadable list with boldfaced annotations, and the three books I added were the only ones halfway identifiable (still had to google around for them). Not a single IP was clickable, and one was invalid. Frankly, his is so far inferior to the standard of edits expected from you that I don't get up my hopes that we'll ever see anything usable from you. Being loud and stubborn buys you nothing here. You have to produce decent work. dab (ᛏ) 17:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do I understand wrong, or is it the case that the other books in the "references" section created by Dab are suggestions not actually used in crafting the article? If so, we should move it to a separate "suggested readings" section. I am doing so now, please amend if this is unsuitable. ImpuMozhi 19:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While reading the "Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, Vol. 2 by Sir Charles Eliot"[3], a reference provided by SsIndia, I came across the following lines. I think they are directly related to some of the discussion here.

But as a rule sect and caste are not co-extensive and the caste is not a religious corporation.

Caste in its later developments is so complex and irregular, that it is impossible to summarize it in a formula or explain it as the development of one principle. In the earliest form known two principles are already in operation. We have first racial distinction. The three upper castes represent the invading Aryans, the fourth the races whom they found in India. In the modern system of caste, race is not a strong factor. Many who claim to be Brahmans and Kshatriyas have no Aryan blood, but still the Aryan element is strongest in the highest castes and decreases as we descend the social scale and also decreases in the higher castes in proportion as we move from the north-west to the east and south. But secondly in the three upper castes the dividing principle, as reported in the earliest accounts, is not race but occupation. We find in most Aryan countries a division into nobles and people, but in India these two classes become three, the priests having been able to assume a prominence unknown elsewhere and to stamp on literature their claim to the highest rank. This claim was probably never admitted in practice so completely as the priests desired. It was certainly disputed in Buddhist times and I have myself heard a young Rajput say that the Brahmans falsified the Epics so as to give themselves the first place. [177]

The book also talks in detail about the evolution of Hinduism in its current shape and is an informative read. Thanks Ss.

خرم Khurram 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the Aryan crap. Read the last part of this talk which I posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aryan_invasion_theory

Shivraj Singh 20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remember watching a program sometime back that mentioned that the oldest human link is found in the Pothoar region but how can that nullify the Aryan invasion theory? It might be true that outside Africa, the human race started from India which itself was a part of Africa but that was before the humans came to the planet earth I believe. An absence of a direct land route to India from Africa is, I believe, the hardest point that this theory faces and it still has to prove this and only then it can be accepted. Even if the Europeans and Asians trace their origin to India, still there is ample evidence that shows that the North Western Indians (inhabitants of Indian subcontinent) are genetically different from their Southern counterparts. So it is possible that the humans spread out from India and then at different times the Aryans came back as invaders as the evidences show.

خرم Khurram 20:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop inventing theories about Aryans. No archaelogical evidence for an invasion of aryans exist no matter how deep one digs. BTW this is genetics we are a talking about so if there was a rentry it would show up in genes and it does not. Shivraj Singh 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The genes of North Indians, their customs, their beliefs all are different from those of South Indians. What reason do you have for this?

خرم Khurram 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phenotype (outward appearence) and Genes are two different things. Genes are passed on through selection that happens through marriages. Clearly upper caste marry in upper caste and so on. Upper class men tended to have relations with lower class women and this caused lower class to show genetic lines from upper class as well. Upper class (Brahmins and Kshatriyas) South indians and north Indians are very similar genetically. Rajus from Andhra have same phenotype as Rajputs/North Indians and they are Kshatriyas from Andhra. Whole AIT is junk. This was just an attempt of British towards cultural imperialism i.e subjugate the minds of Indians so that they remain slaves in there heads by showing nothing good came out of there own people but it was all a gift from "smart europeans". Shivraj Singh 22:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also read the chapter I actually mentioned Khurram? The book has views pushing the Aryan invasion(+superiority) myth, sure that was the favourite probably among ALL western historians at that time (we were being portrayed as the long lost 'brothers' of our current rulers), so it is not surprising to see all that in his book. Hypotheses abound on this issue. Let us stay just on course. And yes, thanks for giving that last line about how he heard from a young rajput a comment about the epics, and it becomes part of his book? So much for scientific research. Many young rajputs are also telling so many things here...why don't you believe them?? :) Another link on Indian issues. [4] I hope to have more time to join this discussion later this week. Ss india 10:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What has been achieved?

Interestingly I had been asking for references and now my references are being trashed. Dieter having a word rajput in the title of a book is not a sufficient criterion for it to be added to the references. Somebody has to read it and then cite appropriate parts on the page for it to be relevant.

People who do not even know that Maharani Gayatri Devi is a rajput and Rani Durgavati is a rajput should go back to internet browsing and stay away from this page.

I have read all 61 books I mentioned on the references page. Question is about ISBN and publisher info which is coming soon.

My article is a lot bigger then yours so I am asking you for the nth time to point out what you dispute and cite historical refrences to substantitate ur claims. Mine will be the baseline and not your version.

Khurram and others you all know this very well that word muslim rajput can never be accepted on this page though I have got no problem in having a cup of coffee with you. So get over it and move on. Focus on the page that you want to create for your group. With new admins/participants we have new noise. Singal to noise still sucks.

I am reverting to my version and I again say be constructive and point out what you want to dispute.

Also from the muslim side somebody without mentioning muslim rajput craft a sentence that you all like and we will include that on the page. Shivraj Singh 20:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram and others you all know this very well that word muslim rajput can never be accepted on this page though I have got no problem in having a cup of coffee with you.

I have no problem joining you in a dinner my friend (if they serve Halal in that restaurant) and the bill will be on me but for the Muslim Rajput issue; you please provide me with a historically correct evidence about Muslims not being Rajputs. So far all that I have read points that religion has and never had anything to do with a caste. There had never been a uniform law to exclude someone from the caste and even when there were few, religion had never been one of them.

20:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

your version is evidently "accepted by all Rajputs", because according to your definition anyone disagreeing with you (and, for example, convert to Islam), cannot possibly be a Rajput. Nice. For the nth time, add your sad stuff, but don't remove the precious few sourced statements (yes, even including one about Muslims) that we have so far. dab (ᛏ) 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Situation

I read all 61 of my books and neither westerners nor muslims read any other book (perhaps a few pages of Ibbetson was read) that they are pushing as references. Is this really scholarship? Now this admin blocked me for being disruptive!!! even though they are reverting the hell out of this page, all of them.

I wonder why they do not take up my challenge of proving the facts of my article wrong? Gauntlet has been there for last 4 months now.

This is again turning to be admin abuse just like admin Dmcdevit who blocked me for one week and User:Sisodia indefinetely. And this is not a bias against Hindus!

I am going to allow you all 12 hours to tell me what you find disputable (come with your references) on our version and if nothing comes up I will revert it back to my version.

Shivraj Singh 21:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I am going to allow you all 12 hours": that's just not how it works. This is an encyclopedia, not somewhere for you to promote your POV. Now, you need to work maturely and civilly with others. I understand if you feel frustrated, but for anyone who feels frustrated, WP:DR is the correct route. Edit warring is always bad (which is indeed what the block was intended to show you). Please use the dispute resolution process. What I'm sayng isn't about content. You may well be right (I wouldn't know), but your behavior is entirely wrong so far. Dmcdevit·t 05:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to give you 12 hours (off wiki) if you don't stop this nonsense. I gave you my reasons for blocking you (for 30 minutes, I might add), have a look at your talkpage. Quoting Gauntlet was not among them. Our bias is against trolls and violation of WP policy. I don't even know if you are a Hindu, or a Muslim pulling a nasty caricature of a Hindu in an attempt to make Hindus look bad (in fact, the latter seems almost as likely to me, because you really make no case at all) dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racist bigots should mind there own f*g business. Do you realize you are making all admins look bad with your childish incomptence?

--DPSingh 11:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I have gone ahead and protected this page until disputes have been sorted out here. Please note: Any administrators who are involved in the dispute must not edit this page whilst it is protected - having the ability to is no excuse. Fir e Fox 11:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 157: / Line 157: @@
 :I am going to give ''you'' 12 hours (off wiki) if you don't stop this nonsense. I gave you my reasons for blocking you (for 30 minutes, I might add), have a look at your talkpage. Quoting Gauntlet was ''not'' among them. Our bias is against trolls and violation of WP policy. I don't even know if you are a Hindu, or a Muslim pulling a nasty caricature of a Hindu in an attempt to make Hindus look bad (in fact, the latter seems almost as likely to me, because you really make no case at all) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 11:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
+Racist bigots should mind there own f*g business. Do you realize you are making all admins look bad with your childish incomptence?
+--[[User:DPSingh|DPSingh]] 11:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 == Protected ==