Talk:Rajput: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:22, 21 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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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]

Suryabandhu "kinsman of the sun" to Dabachmann

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.[4] 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. [5] 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]

Wow this is my first look at this talk page and I am amazed how much crap the admins put up with and racist the Singhs are. The Sighns exhibit emotionalism over logic. If they could only discuss these matters rationaly there could be a meeting of minds.

Brinlarr

Brinlarr, do you want to know why do I display such emotionism? Try visiting the Chittore fort in place called Rajasthan in India someday. There, three times in history the Rajput women and children walked into their funeral pyre, just because the besieging Muslim armies would not give quarter to even the kids. Three times the men walked to their death in the battlefield in the face of Herculean odds; because they would rather die than live as defeated people. And these horrors were repeated not only in Chittore, but hundreds of times in all over India. Now, try convincing the descendents of these Rajput warriors if they would acknowledge the descendents those marauding Muslims as their kinsfolk.

You want an analogy; try convincing the Slavs of Balkans if they would accept Ottoman janissaries (who were mostly Slavs by genes) as fellow Slavs. This will give you a new perspective.

-- sisodia the outlaw

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]

Seemed natural this would happen when muslim POV mongers and whiteboys who claim Gita was written after Ashoka are allowed a free run on an encyclopedia. How can Shivraj be blocked when his article is the one we all accept? Now I was blocked also.

Firefox is there a redressal system against wayward admins. I would like to file an official complaint against Bachman. --DPSingh 12:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to file a complaint then see WP:RFC and/or WP:RFArb. I am not saying that this is the correct path to take though. Fir e Fox 12:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome such a complaint, in fact I hope you go ahead and file an arbitration case, the sooner you get this over with the better. There are 600 admins here, all of them NPOV mongers, I am glad to say. dab (ᛏ) 12:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, the Gita is approximately contemporary with Ashoka. It may predate him by a century or two. So, I do not claim it postdates him: it may also post-date him by a century or so, nobody knows for sure. I have no opinion on Rajputs, but I do know a few things about the historical grammar of Sanskrit. dab (ᛏ) 13:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the first link is an rfc composed by another choleric that never went live. You see, this is not the first time I have to deal with people who Just Don't Get It (TM). Create your rant at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_(2) please. dab (ᛏ) 14:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, of course you will need help in compiling it, seeing your failure at much more elementary tasks. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_user for a template (Does it qualify as irony to assist trolls in filing an rfc against you?) dab (ᛏ) 14:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dab how do i qualify for trollish behaviour? Infact i've one of the most sanest guys here ready to meaninfully discuss Muslim Pov. As for templates... you dont need to be a rocket scientist to modify the page. If you are soo fretful about the template then modify it yourself. Got better things to do..अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 15:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to write my own RfC now? Whoever is eager to present a decent RfC to the community, I recommend they bring it into proper form.

Yes, I am not saying you are the same as the Singhs and their IPs. If you concentrate on solving content issues rather than composing RfCs, I do have hope you may defuse the situation. Just don't be fooled into endorsing the Singh's behaviour just because you share their general pov. Khurram seems most ready for a reasonable debate. He is even prepared to document povs that are not his own. I am sure you can come to splendid results if you adopt his attitude and collaborate with him.

Are you sure you want to "endorse" the RfC as worded? It looks like you wrote it now, while originally you just posted the rant left by 211.118.172.74 (talk · contribs). I am afraid that if you endorse "charges" against me like "consistent vandalism", "total contempt for civil behaviour", and "very poor knowledge", I am afraid you will look no better than the troll. If you want to mediate, you could help the Singhs inserting their piece into the present article (i.e., keep additions and removals separate. They seem to be unable to understand that their edits are reverted for the removals they contain, not the additions). dab (ᛏ) 15:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken... i suggest you tone down your language a bit. You are bound to alienate Hindu/Indian contributers here. Lastly you must accept the fact that this article and for that matter any disputed article cant be toned down to complete neutrality (being Swiss you might find it hard to understand). My friend the problem is that most of medieval Rajput history is about Rajputs fighting Muslim conquerors and thats how their historic contribution to Indian and Hindu civilization is seen. I'm ok with Muslim Rajputs getting their due in this article. But no historical revisionism please for the sake of neutrality. अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

by all means! By saying "I'm ok with Muslim Rajputs getting their due in this article" you are of course already a traitor to the Rajputs in DPSingh's book, but this is precisely what we want. If the bullies had been on the Muslim side, my RfC would now be filed by Muslims. I am most ready to concede your point about medieval Rajputs. I think the references to Muslim Rajputs are intended to refer to the present, and to the British Raj. NPOV does not mean "toning down" at all, btw. It means presenting povs side by side, see WP:NPOV.

Somebody is afraid here and trying to influence people to not go against him. Not gonna work you rascist bigot. People from our side can see through your farce . You are praising Khurram when his gang equated rajputs to jihadis and mohammed's cousins. Amay I did not realize you had already filed the RFC. Thanks. --DPSingh 16:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't apply the terms like "you rascist bigot" to any wikieditor, let alone to such a respectable person as Mr Bachmann. Also, read WP:Civility before posting further comments. If I see you insulting anyone again, I will have to file a RfC against you. --Ghirlandajo 09:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and do whatever you feel like. I will say it again. Bachman is a racist bigot. Get more of his clones to waste pages and WP will grind to a halt. Before anyone opens there mouth on a topic on a talk page, where experts flock, you better be armed with real knowledge. All his statements till date are childish, historically incorrect and denigrating to rajputs and hinduism. Personally he is disresepctful to Hindus holy book, Gita and in common parlance he is condescending.

I could care less about all these but on a page of history people better show some depth before they be allowed to edit or voice there POV.

--DPSingh 12:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so far for "toning down", ey? do keep concentrating on me, please, maybe AMbroodEY and Khurram can get a minute of peace to work on the article together. dab (ᛏ) 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree AMbroodEY that most of the achievements of Rajputs is thought to be fighting the Muslim invaders since Muslims of Central Asia were the only force to invade India after the appearance of Rajputs in 6th Century A.D. But even in fighting with the Muslim invaders the Rajputs never were on one side. There were Rajputs fighting for the Muslims (both Muslim and Hindu Rajputs) and there were Rajputs fighting against Muslims (both Muslim and Hindu Rajputs again). We cannot single out one sect of that fighting force on the basis of religion and completely deny the other who fought alongside them. Also it is not the Rajputs fighting against the Muslims who mostly contributed to the history and civilization of India, it were the Rajputs in the Muslim Emperor's camps who contributed more to the Indian civilization in terms of art, architecture and literature and ideas. Also we need not only mention their ferocity in fight, we need to mention their inability to form a cohesive force to oppose their opponents. We need to tell that besides being praised for their courage and bravery, they largely allied themselves with anyone who guarantees their rule. A very recent example of this was them allying with the British to keep their rules save from Marathas. I myself feel it is a pity that instead of talking and bringing out a comprehensive article about the achievements and contributions of Rajputs, we are engaged in a non-existing debate of whether or not Muslims are Rajputs. خرم Khurram 16:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Far from sucking up anyone, I have no idea if this is correct. Just keep everything closely referenced, and I'm sure the two of you can beat out a way to word it. But it is true that apart form the repetitive assertions of "we all agree with this" on this talkopage, we have seen no indication that a "Muslim Rajput" question even exists. For all I have seen, it is a non-issue (except maybe in DPSingh's village, I am prepared to take his word for that, but not for more) dab (ᛏ) 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint Filed and Link to it

All Go to this link and voice your opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29

--DPSingh 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram: > Also it is not the Rajputs fighting against the Muslims who mostly contributed to the history and civilization of India, it were the Rajputs in the Muslim Emperor's camps who contributed more to the Indian civilization in terms of art, architecture and literature and ideas.

A Rajput allied with a Muslim does not make that Rajput himself a Muslim!

61.247.243.87 19:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu[reply]

Extremely sorry to be posting this, but I thought it rather disturbing to note our Mr. Dab's sudden interest in the Bhagavad Gita page precisely when the talk here was on that topic. And the 'date' of its being written in particular. If he had been working on it since Oct, Nov, I would have thought nothing...but this is rather strange.... [6]. Later on he modified it further to tell us when 'Scholars' think it was written. Not showing you in a positive light Mr. Dab....and ofcourse no-ones accusing you of anything but it was just too wierd not to note. Ss india 19:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surya A Rajput allied with a Muslim does not make that Rajput himself a Muslim! Off course my friend. I never claimed or implied that.

Ss, I feel strange about the above allegation my friend and am not able to understand what is the objection here? I think there is much to learn from the book that you provided the reference of. Isn't it?

خرم Khurram 19:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how is this weird? When we were talking about the Gita here, I went to look at its article, and saw that it could be improved. What's your point? dab (ᛏ) 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected...

We can't keep this page protected forever, so, for now I am unprotecting it. If users continue to make potentially controversial edits without discussing, this page get re-protected for a longer period of time. Additionally, the three revert rule still applies, and anyone who violates that may be blocked without further warning. Fir e Fox 11:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 201: / Line 201: @@
 ::Please don't apply the terms like "you rascist bigot" to any wikieditor, let alone to such a respectable person as Mr Bachmann. Also, read [[WP:Civility]] before posting further comments. If I see you insulting anyone again, I will have to file a RfC against you. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] 09:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
+Go ahead and do whatever you feel like. I will say it again. Bachman is a racist bigot.  Get more of his clones to waste pages and WP will grind to a halt.  Before anyone opens there mouth on a topic on a talk page, where experts flock, you better be armed with real knowledge.  All his statements till date are childish, historically incorrect and denigrating to rajputs and hinduism.  Personally he is disresepctful to Hindus holy book, Gita and in common parlance he is condescending.
+I could care less about all these but on a page of history people better show some depth before they be allowed to edit or voice there POV.
+--[[User:DPSingh|DPSingh]] 12:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 :so far for "toning down", ey? do keep concentrating on me, please, maybe AMbroodEY and Khurram can get a minute of peace to work on the article together. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)