Talk:Rajput/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about Rajput. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Untitled

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 17/Feb/2006 and 20/Mar/2006.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the case associated with this article.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

1) Shivraj Singh (talk · contribs) (and all sockpuppets) is banned from editing Rajput and related articles.

2) DPSingh (talk · contribs) (and all sockpuppets) is banned from editing Rajput and related articles.

3) Gurkhaboy (talk · contribs) (and all sockpuppets) is banned from editing Rajput and related articles.

4) All users listed as the "Hindus only side" at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Evidence#involved_users are banned from editing Rajput and related articles.

5) All editors of Rajput are reminded of the necessity to more or less follow the core Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Advocates of an Islamic point of view are specially reminded that Rajput is a noble Hindu caste and that the bulk of the information in the article should reflect that reality.

Any party banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput#Documentation_of_blocks_and_bans

move and move back

The old article was entitled 'Rajput', but instead of dealing with all Rajputs generally, it dealt only with Rajputs as a Hindu caste. Not only that, but it also had a very slanted POV.

So I moved the old article, unaltered, to Rajput (Hindu caste).

This new article is intended to deal with all Rajputs in general, and not just those who subscribe to one particular religion.

--Bhola 19:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Bhola, that's grabbing the article for one side of the dispute, with a vengeance. Even though Shivraj and his buds are banned, I think they must represent a fairly widespread view in contemporary India, riven as it is by communal controversies. Their view should be represented. Zora 20:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Aha. I didn't mean to step on anyone's toes. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and didn't realize how long and heated the debate over this article has been. In haste, I took the advice of be bold in updating pages without reading the discussion and history of the page. I didn't mean to grab the article for any side of the dispute, nor was my move motivated by any vengeance towards anyone. I don't know Shivraj or his buds and didn't intend to exclude anyone's views. That's why I didn't make any changes to the article when I moved it. For the record I still think that moving this existing communally-exclusive article was a good idea, as was the idea of starting a new non-communal 'Rajput' article at this location. Bhola 21 February 2006

Furthermore, you give absolutely no references supporting your claims to such huge Muslim Rajput populations. Zora 20:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right that I didn't cite my references but it seems to me that a great deal of claims are made by other contributors to this article who don't give any legitimate references either. Are the claims that I made any less credible than theirs? Do my claims need to be singled out for special scrutiny while theirs don't? Nevertheless, I can cite my references if you're interested. I got my figures from sources that I thought were reputable, such as 'The Historical Atlas of South Asia' edited by Joseph Schwartzberg (Oxford University Press, 1992), and from official government publications from pre-partition British India, like 'The Imperial Gazetteer of India' (1909-1922) and from portions of the Ethnographic Survey of India (another official government project), such as 'A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province' (1911-19) and 'The Tribes and Castes of the North-western Provinces and Oudh" by (1896). The data in all of those books come from the results of censuses. Bhola 21 February 2006

Bhola -- if you've got real references, great. They have been in short supply here. Give figures, dates, and then footnote with the exact source and page where you got them. Then if others disagree, they have to come up with competing references. We don't need to come to conclusion -- we can just say "these references imply A and these references imply B" and let readers draw their own conclusions. Zora 03:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is imagined, at this point, that the main Rajput article will reflect only the PoV of those who have been banned yesterday. Extremely counter-intuitive --- anyway, IMO, it is possible to write an eminently NPOV and understated article, making mention of "Muslim Rajputs" while keeping within the Arbcom's admonition that "Advocates of an Islamic point of view are specially reminded that Rajput is a noble Hindu caste and that the bulk of the information in the article should reflect that reality". Let us work on that, and abandon this unwarranted fork. ImpuMozhi 21:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

hm, what's going on? where are all the talk archives? Why the wild forking? I am hoping we will have a chance of disecting the issue in peace now and pinning the various aspects of the term into neat sections, like butterflies, just like we boring encyclopedists like our material, neatly labelled and spread out. "The Rajputs are a noble Hindu caste and that the bulk of the information in the article should reflect that reality" indeed. I think this is undisputed. What we need to do is cleanup the unorganized state of the article, and minimize overlap between this article and the related History of Rajputs and Rajputs and invasions of India. More than half of the present article can be deleted as already covered there. Please do not refactor this article without taking these sub-articles into account also. If we keep Muslim Rajputs as a separate article, it needs its own short section here, and will be a sub-article of this one. dab (ᛏ) 14:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

ah, the archives are now at Talk:Rajput (Hindu caste) thanks to the kneejerk fork. They should be merged back here. dab (ᛏ) 14:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please use your divine admin powers to undo Bhola's rename and move, which was done without any consultation with other editors. Zora 18:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved it back and merged the talk page histories. dab (ᛏ) 21:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Tidy up

I am wondering. This article is focussing on Rajastani exploits of rajputs, but we know rajputs had kingdoms in Punjab also and if we were to include ALL such exploits for fairness then we would have an overly HUGE page. In it's present form it's already too long and not enough elaboration on an actual rajput and the different clans. We could possible include where each tribe ruled majorly in it's times instead as a reference rather than an entire 'article within an article'?

Im also removing the point that no further Muslim conquests took place in the 9th century due to the formidable reputation of the rajputs as there is no proof of this from the middle eastern side to corroborate this, so it's more a 'proud assumption' rather than proof I think? Please feel free to correct me guys. I've also done a tidy up of 'language' in the history section of where unencyclopedic words such as 'treacherously' and 'crushed' have been replaced suitably.

Can other editors help in this respect with other sections?

Looking better guys, let's keep up the good work.--Raja 22:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to cast this into Wikipedia:Summary style. This is the main article and should give easy access to all specialized Rajput-related sub-articles. Specifically, it is about the people (ethnologically). Material already at History of Rajputs and Rajputs and invasions of India should be very briefly summarized, with the use of {{main}}. Please do match the content of this article to the content of the history articles and see how this article may be shortened without loss of information. dab (ᛏ) 22:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Resigning Wikipedia membership

I am resigning my wikipedia membership effective immediately.

Rajputs remember a few things:

Arbcom has decided against me NOT BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT OF RAJPUT ARTICLE but how I dealt with the intervention of Bachman. Arbcom DOES NOT DECIDE ON THE CONTENTS OF THE ARTICLES. So is communicated to me by Charles Matthews of Arbcom.

Also for the record Arbcom never asked me to provide any evidence against Bachman. Infact no body from the rajput side presented any evidence at all. Arbcom unilaterally decided based only on Bachman's one sided evidence! Also at one point arbcom considered desysopping Bachman.

Bachman has a racist mindset as is evident from his comments here so do not let him bully you: [1]

Bachman,Zora and in general the entire muslim side operates without references and pushes references without having read a single one of them.

References on the rajput page (look for my last save) are pretty much complete.

Impumozhi is another person who reads a few websites and thinks he is an expert. See his blatant lies discussed here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Rathore. Read the entire section of the heading "Impumozhi is a liar". So do not let him have a free reign on rajput related articles.

Lastly these were the pages on my watchlist and it would be nice for one of the fellow rajputs to look after them.

Akbar

Ala ud din Khilji

Alwar

Aryan invasion theory

Lalitaditya Muktapida

Maharaja Jaswant Singh

Second Battle of Tarain

Shivraj Singh 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Its a sad day in the history of the Rajputs. Sisodia 02:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

the arbcom found,

The ip addresses used by Shivraj Singh created Shreeharsha123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Srichandp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Alidiare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Shirazian69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sroy05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

so, do you mean "resign", or "change socks"? I am tired of being called names over upholding WP fundamentals, either here or on my talk. Could someone bother removing the PAs above? dab (ᛏ) 18:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppets are back

The sock puppets of old have returned it appears. Can something be done about this as it's not progressing the article at all.

I've removed some bias propoganda material at the end of the article re Muslim conversion as it is irrelevant and antagonistic here. Also contained points that Hinduism was solely saved by rajputs which is in my opinion insulting to the non rajput hindu populace as well as a baseless assumption.

Cross references to other rajastani rajputs is also something I think should be removed as they have their own articles. We can provide names as references instead as a link? They take up too much space and are tainted with propoganda. (Why not mention all of the hundreds of other Rajput kings in that case? Im not recommending this, but displaying my point)--Raja 15:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

This article definitely has the scope to become a featured article. However, massive cleanup of the article is required. --Spartian 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

quite massive, yes. dab (ᛏ) 18:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

images

This article is supposed to be about a people, right? Caste, ethnicity, nation, whatever. I note that there is no single photograph of a person. Instead, people seem to prefer to add architecture, statues and heroic drawings on postage stamps. I happened to add a 19th century photograph of actual Rajputs. Whatever happened to that? There should, of course, be photos of contemporary people. Make sure that the article is not dominated by the "History" section. We have History of Rajputs for that, alright? Give a tight summary of that here, but don't dwell on it. Give contemporary population statistics, folklore and customs etc. instead. Right now, the historical part is about 80% of the article. It should be 25% at most, summarizing. If nothing happens, I will radically export historical stuff to the history article. dab (ᛏ) 18:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Who are you and what are your credentials to make these claims? Statues and stamps are more valuable then living people. History section infact needs to be cleaned and expanded more.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 11:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)+

The main stay of the article is as Dab has stated. I actually had a friend look at it, in it's current form, he still cant understand what exactly a rajput is, lol! The photos provided by Dab should be imported back and although I cleared up some of the poor taste propoganda here, our RSS friends are back with other aliases again. 100 000 rain clouds or storms or something. This was going to happen given the bans. Can we see some enforcements on these extremists? --Raja 21:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you the Jarral contributor? You have put some crackpot assertions on Jarral that I deleted today.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 11:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)+

who am I? I am a rather experienced Wikipedian with some 25,000 edits and hundreds of articles under my belt. My advice was not confrontational or partisan, but matter of fact: This is the article about the Rajput people. Compare, if you like, Greeks or Armenians or Ethnic Germans or Pashtun. Note the {{Ethnic group}} template, note how there is a "history" section typically taking less than 50% of the article, along with sections like "culture", "institutions", "identity", etc.; especially when there is a specialized history article, what is the point of just duplicating information already there?

You proved quality and quantity are not related. In future develop a consensus on this page before you make your edits.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 06:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)+

and who may you be? someone's sockpuppet? we didn't go through this tedious rfar just to continue these childish games. Your article is at "Invasion", where it belongs. If you care about working on it, you are most welcome to. Contribute constructively. If you are not already banned, edit warring is the best way to become banned soon. dab (ᛏ) 09:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

sub-articles

this is crazy. if typhoon has his way, the Rajput article has more information about the invasions than the specialized Rajputs and Invasions of India. At least make plain what you propose. Why are you removing Category:Rajputs? Is the Rajput article unrelated to Rajputs? I see the following possibilities. Express your preference. dab (ᛏ) 09:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Rajput, sub-articles History of Rajputs, Rajputs and Invasions of India

Wikipedia:Summary style. The "Invasions" episodes are part of Rajput history, but since we have most information about them, they get to have their own historical sub-article.

dab (ᛏ) 09:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Rajput, sub-article History of Rajputs

Rajputs and Invasions of India should be a redirect to History of Rajputs and the various invasions should be discussed in detail there.

Rajput, no sub-articles

There is not enough material to branch off specialized articles. Rajput should be the only article on Wikipedia discussing Rajput history and the invasions stuff in particular. Make both History of Rajputs and Rajputs and Invasions of India into redirects to Rajput.

other suggestions

Banned

Gurkhaboy got banned? He is a Western University educated scholar on the Rajputs. People like Dr. King, Dr. McCleod, Dr. Malvika Kasturi and Dr. J. T. O'Connell know him or of him. I think this article is gonna take a really bad turn. ~~ Daniel Ponzi

it couldn't be getting much worse, could it? These people didn't get banned for being clueless, but for misbehaving. dab (ᛏ) 09:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dab, you know fully well I didn't misbehave, nor was I insulting, so get off your high horse. I could have brought a lot to this article but I left when I saw Shivraj and you guys just go at it. But when I saw the Pakistani side not cite even one reference and your comments about Hindus, thats when I got involved. Go through your arguements and I rarely come up, never used a sockpuppet, didi,'t say that its "Hindus only", nor did I revert the article like others did. How old are you anyways? What do you mean by "These people"? Just because you were made an admin doesn't mean you should demean others. You just got away with misbehaving with your comments and being partial. An admin has to be held to a higher standard, something that you lack through your comments. And instead of being gracious about the matter you can't refrain but give snooty remarks. Are you just an angry person? You could have made this article amazing, but because of your disgust for Shivraj you began blindly acting into the hands of one side which does not have an legitimate arguement, thus you compromise your judgement and the integrity of the article. You should learn to keep yourself cool even if the likes of Shivraj.Gorkhali 11:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

wait a minute - I apologize, I didn't mean you. I never even listed you as part and parcel of the "Hindu trolls". You appear on the "good faith Hindu side" in my book. I did not realize before now that you were banned, I mean I saw your name on the remedy, but I didn't check back with the evidence. So I apologize for my statement above as not referring to you. I am unsure why you were banned, in fact I would be prepared to ask for clarification, especially concerning ban expiration. As it is, I certainly welcome you to continue constructively contributing via the talkpage. dab (ᛏ) 12:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dab I would love to work with you, but I am banned and that makes me fear this article being highjacked again by sock puppets and Pakistanis. You understand my concern.Gorkhali 12:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

bibliography

could some of the involved editors please help me clean up with the bibliography? Alphabetize it, sort it, figure out which books are needed as reference to statements in the article and which are just here as reading suggestions, figure out which books would be more at home in the "History" or "Invasion" bibliographies. We don't give reviews interspersed with the bibliography. If you want to make a statement about a book, do it in the article body. Please. I am tired of trying to improve readability of this article if it's just torn to shreds by edit warriors within the hour. I invested in the rfar to enable editors to work in peace from vitriolic pov-pushers, now please take advantage of that by building a great article. (typhoon, get acquainted with Wikipedia:Policy and WP: MoS before edit-warring. dab (ᛏ) 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not delete all of them since it was Shivraj who put them there I think. Personally Dab, I think you guys should rewrite the article without the "Hindu trolls" contributions. They did put a lot of work into it, it was just sad that they didn't know how to work with others or compromise. However, it would only be fair to start from scratch and have eminent scholars like Raja, Supersaiyan and Wisesaber write the article as they see fit. Everyone had a problem with the references before, so unless you can validate them you should revamp everything. Cheers Gorkhali 11:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

we shouldn't delete contributions because the contributor was banned, but keep what is valuable, and discard what is not. The bibliography contains valuable references. However, only those entries both relevant the article and attributable to an author and a publisher/year should be kept, and the non-English ones only if used as references for specific statements, not as general "further reading". I am trying to clean it up, but I keep getting summarily reverted for no specified reason. dab (ᛏ) 12:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dab, don't look at me I never misbehaved as you claimed I did. I am not doing the reverts, I never used sock puppets and didn't take part in some of these nastiest discussions I have ever seen on a historical subject. Since I can't edit, I can't help. I don't want my efforts to be highjacked by a group of teenaged Pakistanis who have their own agenda of demeaning my heritage. Your Rajput article mentions my family in Nepal and Mewar, and yet I am banned so the only thing I can tell you perhaps call Dr. Kasturi at the Univeristy of Toronto and ask her 001-905-828-3748, thats her office number. Zora was reading her book. THe reference to Jatts is incorrect and can be established by a book called "THe origins of the Jats" by Dr. Dhillon, as I recall, he is in Ottawa, haven't talked with him since I entered Meds. I got angry with you because of your anti-Hindu comments. Gorkhali 12:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologized above: I didn't claim you misbehaved in the arbcom case, and did so above only by mistake. My comments were never intended to be anti-Hindu, they were anti-nationalist and anti-fundamentalist, and it seems appropriate to apologize to you now if they appeared otherwise to you. I do not think that there is a higher incidence of fanatism or irrationality in Hinduism than in the other major religions, and the problems we were having here are no different from the problems we get with fundamentalist Christians or Muslims on other articles. My attitude towards Hindu fundamentalists is no more hostile than that towards fundamentalists of other religions. The problems at this particular article are especially severe since religious dogmatism meets ethnic pride, a combination that tends to bring out the very worst in any people. dab (ᛏ) 13:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe you and I could turn out to become very good friends. I have some pressing engagements (ie Licensing exam and organising a Medical relief camp for Nepal) after March 30 I should have more time and will be more than happy to assist you, but please get the ban taken off me since I do not have a clue how this whole Wikipedia really works. Sincerely, Dr. Chauhan Gorkhali 13:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot take bans off anyone any more than imposing them on anyone. But I assure you that if you constructively point out issues here on talk, citing your sources, I will make sure to defend them against "Pakistani teenagers" if such should be trying to sneak in bias. It is true that bad behaviour doesn't make your point any more false than that good behaviour makes it true, but I am not aware that I have taken anything on hearsay even from the most honey-mouthed editor. Both sides need watertight verifiability. Even better would be, however, if there were no "two sides" but a many-faceted collaboration towards exhaustive coverage of the topic. dab (ᛏ) 14:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dab, I believe a great misunderstanding developed between us, but I kindly suggest that the Pakistani side was not citing references and they should have. If you go to the Muslim Rajput site, the have a pic of Bhutto who everyone in the SAS dept knows was not a Rajput. They should also be careful and cite their sources. I agree with you about fanatics and have had my own vicious arguments with other Rajputs who claim things out of thin air. However, if one can truly validate the source and give a good arguement then we should look at it. The Pakistanis were blowing a lot of hot air and claims of this and that, but no references. I know you understand where I am coing from. Gorkhali 21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Images for future use

File:Vijay Sthamb.jpg

Vijay Sthamb (Victory Tower) built by Maharana Kumbha

File:Maharanapratap.jpg

Maharana Pratap of Udaipur

File:Umaid bhawan palace jodhpur.jpg

Umaid Bhavan Palace is the abode of Rathore rulers of Marwar

__________________________________________________________________________________________

A suggestion

Perhaps we could also provide a picture of Maharaja Ganga Singh of Bikaner during his appointment to the British War Cabinet WW1 and as he is presented in the famous painting by Sir James Guthrie "The great statesmen of the war", also we could place a pic of Maharaja Raghubir Singh of Kotah Bundi and also Maharaja Dhiraj Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shahdev of Nepal as well as HRH Sri teen Maharaja Jung Bahadur of Nepal (my great great grandfather). Gorkhali 21:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A separate page on HH Ganga Singh is certainly appropriate, and if you provide an image without copyright issues, we could use it there -- in this connection, GS's grandson, HH Karni Singh, wrote a scholarly dissertation entitled "The Relations of the House of Bikaner with the Central Powers, 1465-1949", for which he received a PhD. This can serve as an unimpeachable source for crafting a section on mughal-rajput relations. I know that a copy is available at the Seshadri Iyer memorial library in Bangalore, and I am trying to get hold of a copy through the library network where I live. If trolls are kept at bay, it is not impossible to write a sensible piece here and also create many other useful articles. This whole era of Indian history cries out for attention. ImpuMozhi 22:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally own a lot of these potraits of Maharajas, my personal collection, so no copyright issues involved, however I am waiting to have the ban lifted so that I may contribute to the article. Gorkhali 22:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Rajputs

I was asked to seek for consensus. See #sub-articles above. No-one bothered to express their opinion. Understandably, since the case is really straightforward, it is not a matter of a controversial position, but a simple matter dividing material into an accessible series of articles. As long as no-one proposes a viable alternative, I take it as self-evident that here just as everywhere else on Wikipedia, sub-articles contain detailed information and are summarized on main articles. I can only imagine typhoon's revert-warring is some sort of sulking since I can see no rhyme or reason whatsoever. I am not even taking any position towards the factuality of the material. Stop it, or propose a coherent scheme of how you see the arrangement of related articles. dab (ᛏ) 13:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your persistent deletions are not cool. Rajput history and character should be the main emphasis of this page. May I ask you again what stake do you have in this page and what prompts you to make massive edits?

+10 000 thundering typhoons 08:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)+

Rajput history is big subject and deserves its own article or sets of articles. Someone using this encyclopedia to find out about Rajputs wants to know who they are, where they live, how many there are ... right now. Then perhaps the reader might explore the history. Insisting that Rajput should ONLY be history smacks of a coverup -- like a homeless man displaying a picture of the haveli (mansion) he owned fifty years ago and insisted he is defined by his haveli and not by his current homeless, impoverished state. If you're not ashamed of the current state of Rajputs, then allow that to be the focus of the main article and let the other material be sorted out into history articles. Zora 08:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow, so much hatred for rajputs that you are brandishing them "ashamed of ......". You better watch out what you say. You also seem clueless about the present state of rajputs in India: with two prime ministers, more then a dozen chief ministers, bunch of industrialists and so on. But all of them put together pale in comparison to a single Maharana Pratap or Prithviraj. So I repeat please contribute constructively and not in a crackpot manner. It will lead to more bickering.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 12:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)+

I am not "deleting" anything. The link to History of Rajputs is plain as day. Not a single shred of information was lost. You are really not getting this, are you? Take a step back, assume good faith, and have a look around the editing process on Wikipedia. Especially Wikipedia:Categories. What do you say to that, Rajputs are so cool and important, they do not just get a single article, they get a whole series, and their own category. dab (ᛏ) 09:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You are deleting whole bunch of stuff which is central theme of this article. Discuss here and come to consensus with all editors and stop revert warring.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 12:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)+

I am not. Just your continued assertion doesn't make it so. I've asked you about four times now to present your ideas of how these articles should be organized. Until you present them here in a proper manner, you will just be rolled back. dab (ᛏ) 08:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have told you a bunch of times that character and history of rajputs should be the central theme of this page. Rolling back is not constructive and is a waste of time. It is better to arrive at a consensus here with all editors. Realize, rolling back is as easy for the "other side".

+10 000 thundering typhoons 11:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)+

so your vote is for merging History of Rajputs back here? Why don't you just say so? Is the character of Rajputs best defined from the 12th to 17th century, or do they have any character at all today? dab (ᛏ) 12:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A man's character comes out either when he has lot of power or he is under extreme stress. Last few hundred years have not been that stressful for majority of rajputs. Average rajput tilled his land, paid his taxes and no one bothered him. British did a fine job in maintaining law and order and rajputs remember them for this. With Muslims it was completely different. Read how Colonel James Tod describes the character of rajput towards the end of rajput page last saved by myself.

Your tenor is a little weird to ask if they have any character today.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 07:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)+

great, so I suggest you head over to History of Rajputs and write a great article about their past heroism. We'll be sure to have a fair summary in the "History" section here. dab (ᛏ) 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you create a page on modern rajputs and say what you have to say there and we will be sure to link it from tis page.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 08:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)+

Who should deside origins of Maratha

While reading history of MY Maratha caste i have became sure that more care is taken while desiding the origin of western dog breeds like Germen Shepard , Dobermen etc . Today in this present world we Maratha's seem to be less than a dog breed in the world dominated by western civilisiation . This American , British civilisations give importance to our Maratha's less than their dogs . Desiding Maratha history , origin is child's play.As we all know that some outcaste social classes of every society of any nation such as Begger ,Criminal , murderer , sluts ,pimps etc have no digniety or value in any society. We all enjoy sick kind of enjoyment in passing comments on them.All western civilisations are enjoying such low rank enjoyment on history of Maratha caste.I want to make aware all the world off all this activities.Now very important question is that all those pepoles who make comments on Maratha history and origin , carries what kind of values , ideology, mentality,gens , .Are they worthy to deside others origin and write history of Maratha caste.What is the history and origin of ther own caste , nation ?? Do they belong to respectable families . Is their mind , soul pure and not full of dirty politics.??? hOW MUCH PURE BREAD ARE THEY ALL COMMENTRETORS Why don't we belive on the history told by Maratha's themselves??? Because western civilisations have gotta all the money , power ,resourcess , army with them.

By Vishal p Dudhane

do you have a suggestion related to this article? Otherwise per "WP:NOT a soapbox" I think this comment does not belong here. We want to avoid the sort of stream-of-consciousness rants that fill archives 1-16 already. dab (ᛏ) 10:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Vishal D.

I support you 100%. Non-marathas, non-rajputs will not define the origins of marathas or rajputs. Is something bothering you on the maratha page?

+10 000 thundering typhoons 11:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)+

Exactly the attitude that got people banned. dab (ᛏ) 12:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please remove Rajput samaj link

Dab, please remove the Rajput samaj link, they have a lot of mistakes and especially their article about my cousins the Phulkian royal family (ie Patiala, Nabha etc), the origins are completely wrong and you can cross reference this with Christopher Buyers of the Royal Ark (he keeps track of descendants of Royal families). Rajput Samaj is very bad and inaccurate, even the Pakistani side had a laugh during the early parts of the debate on this article. Gorkhali 02:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

hm, would you be content to have the link labelled "Pakistan centered account" or something? Is it Pakistan centered? dab (ᛏ) 09:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

ah, no, it is a website by one individual, Chhatrapal Singh Shekhawat of Rajasthan. Unfortunately, it is not very strong on sources either. I cannot judge its accuracy, but I am ready to believe you it is inaccurate, or at best the opinion of an individual. So if nobody objects I will remove the link. dab (ᛏ) 09:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Dab. You see the reason why I say his site is inaccurate is because he has no valid sources on the families he talks about. One of them being the Nabha Royal fmaily, my immediate 1st cousins. He had an article about the origins of the family which was completely inaccurate, myself knowing because its my family. This site doesn't have a good reputation in terms of academia. He shoudl have cross referenced with Christopher Buyers at least. Thank you for removing it.Gorkhali 16:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice article, but too long

Tha article has a lot of valuable information and has nice illustrations. However it is too long, and has too many details. I am afraid most potential readers do not read the article. It should be remembered that most readers are not experts but people with little or no knowledge of the subject.

I would suggest dividing the article into 2-3 articles, and using smaller and well-separated paragraphs.--Malaiya 00:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a work-in-progress and also somewhat contentious. It will be done in due course; I have already moved large swathes of text to other pages -- we should let some of the old text and references remain until they are replaced by the new. ImpuMozhi 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Impumozzhi

is a liar and has been exposed at Talk:Rathore. What will it take to make him stop lying? =Bhannu 14:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

... and Bachmann's truth

I wish my compatriots would stop giving this daily proof of the truth of poor Bachmann's much-criticised comment. ImpuMozhi 15:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

for reference, Rajput/1911, can be worked into the article (public domain). The Britannica is hardly npov (neither "fine and brave" nor "lazy and indifferent" will do in Wikipedia's voice), but we can refer the reader to Britannia's 1911 opinion, and the census data might be handy. dab (ᛏ) 13:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1901 census data:

9,712,156 Rajputs in all [British] India (viz., including Pakistan)
1,875,387 of them Muslim ("the great majority", presumably 7.9 million, Hindu)
620,229 in Rajputana
122,160 Rahtor (largest clan)
100,186 Kachwaha
86,460 Chauhan
74,666 Jadu
51,366 Sisodhyias
43,435 Ponwar
18,949 Solanki
9,448 Parihar

do we have more up-to-date demographic data? These are just the official figures of course, not the "truth", but I'm afraid we won't be able to do better than offer the official figures with suitable caveats. dab (ᛏ) 13:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

article length

the article weighs 44k at present. This is rather too long. For this reason alone, I advise against the merger with History of Rajputs. If you do want to merge them, do a poll, if there is a majority in favour of the merge, I will not object. As it is, the article should be shortened slightly, and made more coherent. I admit that the emphasis will still be on historical events, since the Rajputs have had no official status since 1931, and there is no reliable census data even before that, so that it is questionable how far they are well defined as a group at all. Before 1600 or so I have no doubt the concept was perfectly well defined, and this article has the difficult task to connect the historical caste with ideas of "Rajputness" very obviously still alive today. The "History" article is free to ignore the current complications and concentrate on the glorious past. dab (ᛏ) 09:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you and this fellow zora operating with some religio political agenda? BTW what is your character?

+10 000 thundering typhoons 12:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)+

no, we have an encyclopedic agenda. See WP:ENC. Writing about my character would violate WP:NOR. You should do constructive work here, such as working on the History article. As it is, you are obstructing Wikipedia. This may get you blocked from editing. dab (ᛏ) 12:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

All I have seen you do so far is take out hindi from the page, cut and paste from EB, take out most relevant photographs, allow lies to be pushed on the page, threaten me about some banned user, delete large texts without discussion. I repeat please discuss large edits to the page here. Arrive at a conclusion that all editors agree with.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 09:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)+

Why do you want to duplicate History of Rajputs here? Do you propose a merge? Just answer the question. It is not "deletion" to remove material copied verbatim from another article. It is pointless to host the same text several times over. It is even harmful, by constituting a fork. dab (ᛏ) 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

sprotection

we didn't plod through arbitration to continue playing hide and seeks with people's socks. If you want to merge History of Rajputs here, make a clean proposal. I will not object to such a merger in principle, just do it properly and without all the socks and the edit warring. dab (ᛏ) 09:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My reason for being so lukewarm to this (very logical) proposal to create a summary here and move text to the "history" page is that I am sure the warring will only extend to that page, and there will be less mutual support there; and even in that case, this main page will not know peace, because even bland and uncontroversial additions to it are not acceptable, apparently. Somebody combines 2-penny scholarship and laughable composition skills with unmerited vanity and that accounts for this continued sockpuppetry. He does not realize that creating endless sockpuppets gives other people the wrong impression that all rajputs are like this -- stupid, vain, obdurate. ImpuMozhi 10:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You and your fellow mates Zora/Latinus contributing to edit warring as much as the other side. Can you calm yourself and your mates down? Please discuss and arrive on a consensus that makes everyone happy. No point in bickering.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 09:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)+

We don't know what makes you happy because all you ever do is summary reversion. We don't have to guess what you want. Make it plain or begone. Did you even make an attempt at explaining what you want remotely comparable to the list of options at #sub-articles? Pick one of the options there, or make a suggestion in your own words. Until you do that, you are just a nuisance, not a contributor. dab (ᛏ) 10:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What makes me happy is you and your team not deleting whole bunch of text without discussing and convincing editors on this talk page. Ask your team to stop revert warring. Then we can develop ideas in peace.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 08:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)+

You show no sign of listening or collaborating. Do a strawpoll on whatever it is you propose (like I did above, except that nobody participated). dab (ᛏ) 09:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

stay on topic

Impumozhi and his knowledge (or lack of) about rajputs by Bhannu 10:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

stay on topic. discuss the present article and how to proceed with it. There is no room for anyting else on this page. If you want to talk to Impumozhi, do it on his talkpage. If you want to invite opinions on another user, do a proper rfc. We have to keep this page from descending into a mudslinging discussion board again.

Article reference

The page looks a lot better than it's previous version, hats off to the writer. I make it clear that I do respect this page being a primarily Hindu caste page, but only argued that the language be encyclopedic (i.e not POV with anti Islamic slurs) and a mild reference that there are Rajputs of other faiths. I dont want arguments but I would like to assure Ghorkali both me and Khurram are far from 'Pakistani Teenagers' and such name calling doesn't win him more respect from us either. But, either way, things have no doubt improved, lets keep up this trend.

A reference I have a problem with is on the 'Invasions' section;

"Within a hundred years after his (Muhammad's) death, his followers had invaded the countries of Asia as far as the Hindu Kush... almost from (the) first, the Arabs had fixed eager eyes upon (India). Fifteen years after the death of prophet, Usman sent a sea expedition to Thana and Broach on the Bombay coast (c.647 AD?). Other raids towards Sindh took place in 662 and 664 with no results.

a) This is unencyclopedic language i.e. I question the writers neutrality completely

b) The 4th Caliph Ali took over from Caliph Usman (after his death) approx within 6 years of Muhammed's (pbuh) death. How in God's name could the same Usman now be a Caliph fifteen years after his death? This reference is therefore more agenda and factually incorrect.

Can this therefore either be replaced or removed? Serious ideas please. --Raja 18:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The entire extract from the Walker as also the extract from James Tod is horrendously biased. It should be knocked off entirely. I am retaining it for the moment only to see if any info can be used elsewhere in the article. Whatever I have deleted was utterly useless; not only POV but also nothing to do with rajputs. South India, Marathas, Sikhs, etc. Thank you for the kind words Raja. ImpuMozhi 18:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, Muhammad died in 632 CE. Uthman was caliph from 644 to 656. He was succeeded by Ali (caliph 656-661) and then Muawiya (661-680). So the quote was right in saying that an expedition in 647 would have been on Uthman's watch. However, I agree that the wording is dreadfully POV. Zora 18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, extract the factual info and replace the quotes with Wikipedia's voice. Nice work on the ToC reorganisation. But do we need separate "Islamic invasions" and "Rajputs and Invasions" section? They appear to cover the same period and could be merged. But we should make mention of how impressed Tod and other Brits were with the Rajputs, preferably in the "Character" section. Even the 1911 Britannica has "fine brave men", although "lazy and indifferent" as farmers. dab (ᛏ) 18:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The 1911 thing is written in the grand old imperial style -- I don't know. Also, the demographica of 1911 is not altogether relevant, except in affirming that the British census recognized muslim-rajputs, apart from every other divisive caste-identity grouping. I think these sections need much copy-editing, and the demographics may disappear into another section, is that all right? Also Raja, you will see in the section of on "origins" that there is mention of maratha and Jat claims to Rajput-hood. I am planning to word the Muslim-rajput thing in terms of "similarly, converts are loath to disassociate themselves from the identity and image of the parent community ---- ". What do you think of that? ImpuMozhi 18:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

well, if we had the 1931 census data it would be more relevant. The 1911 demographic data is still of historic interest, especially since "Rajput" is not an officially recognized group or ethnicity today. Much like in my own country where there is no official nobility and I can call myself "Lord", "Duke" or "Count" or whatever without breaking any law. Even before 1931, "Rajput" seems to have become an "embattled identity" with conflicting claims. In prosaic reality, the census guy walked up to your door in 1868, and you were free to tell him that you were or were not a Rajput, so we can pretty much forget about a headcount that is both official and realistic. The admiration of the British for the soldierly qualities of the Rajputs would seem to belong in the "British Raj" section. dab (ᛏ) 19:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

definition

hello everyone.i want to know if dr sumer chauhan can call himself rajput.on his gorkhali page he has claimed that maharaja of patiala is his maternal uncle.he has also claimed that the royal family of patiala is sikh jat.does this not make him a sikh jat rather than a rajput. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.43.235 (talk • contribs)

origins of rajputs. brahmins are descended from brahm rishis(priest prophets).all in all their are seven brahm rishis(priest prophets). rajputs are descended from raj rishis(king prophets).in the bhagvad gita, fourth discourse,shri krishan ji maharaj says to arjuna ji about jnana yoga "in the beginning i taught this imperishable yoga to vivashvant,vivashvant taught it to manu,manu taught it to ikshvaku.this yoga having thus passed in succession,the king sages (raj rishis)learnt.suraj vanshi rajputs are descended from vivashvantji,manuji and ikshvakuji(rajrishis).vivashvantji,s title is surya or suraj(sun).chandervanshi rajputs are descended from somaji.somaji,s title is chander(moon).vivashvantji and somaji were second cousins. both brahmins and rajputs are of divine lineage.that is why they feel so proud of themselves.

                                               hawkraj.

"the moon told us to keep vandalizing Wikipedia" -- suddenly it all makes so much sense. not. dab (ᛏ) 09:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To User:10 000 thundering typhoons

What are you trying to do? You are copying large chunks of text from History of Rajputs. If merging both articles is what you're after, fine, but do take into consideration that this article is over 46 KB long, well over the recommended article length. So far you have not indicated what you want; all you have been doing is revert warring on the article and this talk page! Can't you understand that your views, whatever they may be, are clearly in the minority and until you provide your rationale for them, you will simply be trolling the article. What do you want? --Latinus 12:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

it's just the same game of socks all over again. Shall we block the sock warriors from now on? Some people are trying to write an encyclopedia here. dab (ᛏ) 06:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

i have been going through the archives for the past three weeks.i don,t like what i see.both hindu rajputs and muslim rajputs have made false claims due to ignorance and lack of knowledge.islam was spread with the sword,blackmails,kidnappings and terror.muslim rajputs are excepted as rajputs by majority of hindus.raja jaipal was converted by mahmood ghaznavi by force.raja jaipal reconverted to hinduism again and died as a hindu.in 1922 100,000 malkana muslim rajputs in agra region converted back to hinduism and were excepted as rajputs.in the 90,s 40,000 chauhan muslim rajputs in rajastan converted back to hinduism and were excepted as rajputs.thousands converted in jammu kashmir region.there are only a handful young hindu rajputs on the internet who are carrying on with anti-muslim rajput rhetoric.and their leader is dr.sumer chauhan.i think his mother is a sick jat and that is where he is getting his anti muslim rajput hatred from because sikhs hate muslims and jats hate rajputs. hawkraj.

I never said there were no such thing as Muslims who are descended from Rajput families. Nor do I have anything to do with the sock puppets. Dab and others know I am quite sincere and I have thus not interfered with this article any longer, I simply come and look at its progression and how Impumozhi has done quite a bit of good work to the article. As for Hawkraj commenting on my mother, that is so inappropriate. However in case you were wondering, my mother is not a Sikh Jat, look at my profile, she is the grandaughter of HRH Prince Dhwaj Narsingh Rana of Kaski Lambjung Nepal, which can be confirmed by Christopher Buyers and Dr. Joseph T. O'Connell at the university of Toronto. This is the same family as Rajmata Scindia, Rana of Udaipur, Ranas of Nepal. Dab Don't you think that such personal attacks are inappropriate?Gorkhali 19:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that commenting on editor's mothers and random allegations is going too far. We have a few Hindu kids who make a point of disrupting this article. This is a problem, but nothing out of the ordinary. Wikipedia can deal with it. Gorkhali is not one of these kids, but a well-behaved editor with a pov. This article needs admin attention. The kids indulging in unproductive reverts should be blocked and offtopic trash posted to the talkpage should be reverted. Zora, if you're reading this, or any other admin, please get involved. dab (ᛏ) 19:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The comments about Mr.Chauhan (User:Gorkhali) are so tasteless as to be beneath comment. I urge him to follow the dictum "never explain never complain" when faced with these third-rate types -- do not dignify trolls by bandying words with them. In the light of the public image of rajputs, one may wonder whether these guys are real rajputs. Do rajputs hide behind sock-puppets, play with the truth, use foul language and behave so cheaply? Speaking at their level, as far as I am able to, let me say that these people give rajputs a bad name, and make Indians feel ashamed in front of urbane Pakistanis, who seem to be so much more cultured. ImpuMozhi 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Trollish behavior

Both these user-accounts (and now Chudasama) have the same aim, but Stephanian account is clearly intended to be recognized as a troll and banned, while the 1000 tycoons account tries to build up a non-troll image by making pious calls for consensus (and also by copy-pasting matter in toto from websites). Why not follow the script thus charted out for us? What more is needed before Stephanian is recognized as a troll and banned? Apart from personal abuse, he is also blanking out important sections of the talk-page and now, he is emptying out Category:Rajputs and Category:Rajput clans with senseless vengeance. Why exactly is he still being tolerated? Is it because the blocking of this account will have absolutely no effect on affairs here? ImpuMozhi 12:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - this has been going on for ages. Not considering the obvious sockpuppets involved, the revert warring on the article and talk page is unique. While I have absolutely no problem in reverting and reverting again and again ad nauseam, I don't think revert warring of this scale is allowed (if it is, it shouldn't be). 10 000 typhoons's approach appears to contradict itself: in effect he's saying "do as I say [not revert war and discuss on the talk page], not as I do [revert war and never discuss on the talk page]". The tactics are well known and are outlined in detail at WP:TROLL. Stephanian's approach is blatantly rude and if he doesn't stop, I advise you to take it to WP:PAIN. As for removing the categories - I'd use the rollback script to reverse it, but I'm not sure if it's allowed. The IP check was "inconclusive", but I have a feeling that this is going to reach the extent where they are banned in their own right and their socks are blockable on sight. I requested an IP check for RendezvousSingh a few days ago and there was no response. I'm certain that the same thing would happen if one were requested for Chudasama. --Latinus 13:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"banned in their own right and their socks are blockable on sight" is exactly what is needed -- we already have an Arbcom ruling against User:Shivraj Singh, which has availed us nothing; neither Dab nor Zora nor I have any doubt about where the font of this trolling lies. WP:PAIN can hardly be more potent than Arbcom, and anyway it is at best a personal reprieve and will not help the articles. I think anything less than the hammer will be effort gone waste. We need all the help we can get, Latinus, and I am very glad to have you here. Regards, ImpuMozhi 13:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

imho, the arbcom was doing a sloppy job, they recognized the trolls and summarily banned them (including, without stating their reason, Gorkhali, likely just because they were confused by the numerous sock accounts), but they didn't give us tools to cope with the situation. Now I wouldn't say the situaton hasn't improved. Look at the archives if you want to be remembered of the madness reigning here before the rfar. Now we have a slow revert-war, and all editors participating in constructive debate and editing seem to agree on the "troll" status on the revert crew, be they socks or meatpuppets. We just need to avoid letting this talkpage slip into another swamp of abuse, and stay on topic working on the article. The reverting doesn't prevent us from this, and if the trolls continue, I am confident an admin will step in sooner or later. dab (ᛏ) 14:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

i apologise.i am sorry.in my ear;ier post i deliberately avoided mentioning other members of his family and only mentioned about his maternal uncle.maternal uncle means mother,s brother.if his maternal uncle is sikh jat then he is also partly sikh jat.hawkraj.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.43.235 (talk • contribs)

it's ok - discussion of possible definitions of "Rahjput" is on topic, there is just no need to discuss a Wikipedia editor's family to illustrate the case. dab (ᛏ) 14:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Dab, I appreciate your comments. To clarify, Maharaj Patiala is referred to as my maternal uncle because he is my mother's couisn through marriage, not blood. So much for your accussation. If you do not know anything about how the princely families of India are inter-related then you should refrain from passing judgement over me. Before passing judgement on who is who and who is what, you should clarify it first, or at least take up a course in South Asian Studies. My blood relatives are the Ranas of Nepal and Udaipur, my relatives through marriages of cousins, uncles and aunts is the Patiala and Nabha family. And why are you after me? This a talk page about Rajput, not about my life.Gorkhali 15:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

exactly (meaning your last statement). If we can abstract something relevant to this article from the case study of your family, that's fine; otherwise, if you object to having your family discussed here, I suggest you remove this part of the discussion from the page as offtopic and ad hominem (compare WP:RPA). Incidentially, since the typhoon troll seems to hold you in some esteem, Gorkhali, you may want to attempt getting him to listen to sense on his talkpage. dab (ᛏ) 17:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dab, there isn't a Rajput alive or University Professor in South Asian Studies who doesn't know my family or of my family (meaning the enitre group of extended cousins, its a huge family), enough books have been written. I agree with you that here is not the place to discuss my fmaily, and their are enough articles about my fmaily on Wiki already (some of which have been done by Impumozhi, I was very touched by what he has written). I believe 10,000 typhoon must be a Rajput since he showed me respect. I will try and reason with him and hopefully everyone can work together. However, I will be really active in two weeks. I think a lot of misunderstandings have given way to a huge edit war which has tired out most people. I suggest that if everyone is in agreement, after my hectic schedule for two weeks, I could sit down and see the two versions, from your side and Impumozhi and 10,000 typhoons side and try to combine the two. Whatever is not appropriate we could perhaps place in subarticles and link it to the main article, thus perhaps all groups will be happy and we can maitian an academic article. "Rajputs" is a huge topic but I understand that being an encyclopedia, we need to maintian a certain length. Let me know what you think. Cheers Gorkhali 02:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Full protection

In light of the edit/revert war, I've installed full protection to the article. Please get consensus one a single version, or bring it to WP:RFC, and stop edit warring - it's not conducive to Wikipedia. NSL E _(T+C) at 06:25 UTC (2006-03-16)

that is much better.calling a non-rajput your mama(maternal uncle)is very serious matter.if someone,s mother is chauhan,rathore or sisodia they can principaly call every chauhan,rathore or sisodia their mamaji.next time be specific and give clarifications.this is a public platform.people could get wrong ideas.hawkraj.

khurram,raja,wisesabre pay attention.in archive 17 suryabandhu sahib has quoted a passage from maulana maududi,s book"the fundamentals of islam".you muslim rajputs have claimed that there is no compulsion in islam.but maulana maududi is threatening muslim rajputs,muslim jats,muslim gujjars etc. that if they do not practice inter caste marriages maulana maududi will cut you to peices,disgrace you and humiliate you and dishonour you.if this is not compulsion then what is compulsion.maulana maududi is a sayyid himself.sayyid caste is highest caste in islam.sayyids do not give their daughters to non-sayyids.they say that they are superior than non-sayyids.rajputs and brahmins in hinduism are equivalent to sayyids in islam.rajputs and brahmins are descended from rishis and avtars (prophets and messengers or nabis and rasools)and sayyids are descended from prophet mohammad (nabi and rasool).sayyids do preach equality but they do not practice it.don,t you think this is contradiction?.i bet you people don,t have the guts to marry a sayyid woman.in the koran in surat zakhraf,verse 32 it says that "to some people we have given honour over others and they serve them".rich people all over the world have honour over poor people.in hinduism superiority and honour is based on caste.therefore caste is ordained by god almighty. hindu rajputs pay attention.this passage that suryabandhu sahib has quoted proves that muslim rajputs,muslims jats and muslim gujjars have maintained their purity of blood and they refuse to practice inter-caste marriages and that is why maulana maududi is threatening to cut them to peices,disgrace them and dishonour them.maulana maududi has ulterior motives.by making desi muslims lose their caste identities muslims of arab,iranian and central asian origins want to steal their ruling and warrior caste status and become rulers and warriors themselves.with rajputs,jats and gujjars around muslims of foreign origin cannot claim to be legitimate rulers of society.muslim rajputs don,t need to feel guilty for feeling proud of their rajput lineage.if god has given you honour and made you superior then be proud of it.

Seek consensus?

As I expected, Stephanian, typhoons, RendezvousSingh et al, don't initiate a debate and completely ignore the attempts to start one above. Yes, the article has been protected and in normal edit wars, it is the right thing to do, but this is not a normal edit war. Typhoons specifically, calls for consensus, but he does not co-operate in reaching one. Protection is ideal when there are two or more bone fide factions who do want to co-operate and reach consensus. That is not the case here. While it may stop the edit war, it doesn't keep rants off the talk page and is only temporary. Once it is unprotected, I'm sure, they will continue and typhoons will continue inviting us to seek consensus totally oblivious to the fact that that is what we have been trying to do all this time! I have a feeling that the standard of proof for sockpuppets should be lowered to the balance of probabilities and once that standard is met, they should immediately be reverted and blocked. I have a feeling that measures such as those on force over at Bogdanov affair would be a great asset here. --Latinus 14:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

they are not getting it, no question. see User_talk:NSLE#Rajput. Whatever you do, don't reply to their dreamy rants, we must stay on topic. This is Wikipedia and not a general discussion board. It has been obvious for months that these people are not here to write an encyclopedia (hell, they wouldn't recognize one), I simply don't see why we should play their game, protecting and unprotecting, just ban their socks. dab (ᛏ) 14:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As you wish, switched to sprotection. NSL E _(T+C) at 01:03 UTC (2006-03-17)

Classic trolls

People who revert only and never contribute matter to a page.

Latinus please tell me have you or Zora added a single line to rajput page other then revert it?

Dab has cut and pasted matter from EB.

Mozhi seems to be lying. Can you ask him to give a rebuttal to stephanian's assertions?

+10 000 thundering typhoons 07:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)+

LOL, what have you contributed?? Zilch, except revert-warring. Same goes for Stephanian, Rendezvous, Chudasama....ImpuMozhi 17:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are my contribs so far: [2],[3],[4],[5] and so on. I will admit my knowledge on rajputs is not that extensive, but it is more then all four of you put together. We are trying to figure out who is a bonafide editor and who is a troll. Two of you have not added a single word or useful information to the rajput page. One of you is a liar and unless he/she explains there position on why they lied they cannot be considered serious editors. Last one, Dab, is a cut and paste expert.

A good conversation is only possible with people who are reasonable and konwledgable on a topic. I am afraid none of you posess any knowledge on rajputs. So your contribution can be helpful in page organization and not content. With that in mind discuss further.

Lastly it is almost a sacrilege for a rajput to use someone else'e clan name as there own. Chudasama is a surname of rajputs from Gujarat. I am not a chudasama.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 18:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)+

...which are just a bunch of colourful socks, of course, of a user who did "contribute" (to the sad excuse for a 'debate' now in the archives), only they won't admit to it because they would then admit they are really banned by the arbcom :) dab (ᛏ) 17:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*, typhoons (Shivraj Singh), what changes do you want to make? Is this information really too sensitive to disclose? As I told you before, if you continue revert warring without stating your rationale you will be trolling the article. That's what you have been doing so far, so I think you accusing me of trolling is a bit rich on your part. --Latinus 18:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW we should have a special section on this talk page to store all the rants, because they keep piling up. --Latinus 18:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

re-conversions.dab or zora,could you please go on google search and type in "qalander-article".this article is about reconversions that started in the late 19th century and have continued to this day.some hindus had lost their caste by going overseas and when they came back to india they had to go through a purification ceremony in order to be re-instated to their former caste status.this led to the re-conversions of some muslims of hindu origin and then ultimately to the mass conversions of muslim rajputs,muslim jats and muslim gujjars etc.see if it is relevant to paste here.there is another article on google search called "a forgotten hero named jassa".it is on chowk website.it is about a neo-muslim rajput who fought a geurilla war for 40 years against foreign muslim invaders against the dehli dynasty that was appointed by tamerlane in the 14th century.this article also gives reasons for hindu conversions to islam.can you see if it is worth pasting it here.thank you.hawkraj.

Having read what you put up about Gorkhali, that is completely deplorable. To make that kind of derogatory remark about another with the comfort of a PC is in very poor taste and class (of human, let alone any 'caste'), so an apology was the least that he deserved here. Dab,, you and latinus are on the right tracks here, revert and edit warring and not much else is coming out here from these fanatics. Gorkhali believes that he can talk to typhoon to be more civil but when he's one of the first people to tell him not to be 'bullied' etc and go ahead on typhoons talk page, I dont think he knew what he was doin,lol. Either way, can the reference to Muslim Rajputs be returned in the initial intro (seeing as we know they were accepted in the last census early 1900's) and these sock puppets finally permanently banned for their incivil, intellectually retarded and fanatic behaviour? Im surprised half of them can even type....--Raja 18:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Muslim Rajputs are really that much of a concern for the article now. They are clearly mentioned up front under "Demographics", as counted by the Brits back in 1901. But that's a hundred years ago, and nobody has been counting Rajputs for a 70 years now. The concept seems to have become a bit fuzzy since. We are still waiting for anyone to provide a sourced discussion of the controversy that seems to surround all this. I can only see there is controversy, but unfortunately the Rajput warriors (or 'worriers' as they style themselves in poetic ungrammaticality) plaguing this article are so unintellectual or uneloquent that we still don't know what it is supposed to be about. All we know is they are really proud and angry and manly and uncompromising, but that's about it. We cannot write "Today's Rajputs enjoy pestering people online" in the article, since that would be original research. Until somebody provides a clean paragraph on 20th century history and the current situation, this article is stuck with the medieval Muslim-invasion-cruft. As far as that goes, it looks quite fair now, and I think we can remove the cleanup tag. At least I think the current article manages to convey the rough outlines of what this is about to the novice reader. But it's still not great, of course. dab (ᛏ) 08:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

@Dab, "All we know is they are really proud and angry and manly and uncompromising, but that's about it. We cannot write "Today's Rajputs enjoy pestering people online" in the article, since that would be original research." LOL :) Gorkhali 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

(Final) New Beginning

In this soap opera of edit war that has been going on for months, there are no winners. No one has emerged as a beacon of wisdom or civility, and the ultimate loser has been Wikipedia. It would have been comical, had not the tragic outcome of this farcical drama been that a very important encyclopedic article lies in shambles for months now.

I have decided to take the matter in my own hands. I shall take the article in its present form as the baseline, and accept only those modifications which are acceptable to the majority. In the case of a dispute, I will conduct a simple poll and implement its results.

Calling each other troll or sockpuppet will not achieve anything. Wikipedia by design is open to all, so all sort of blocking and banning is basically non-enforceable. So let’s not waste time over name-calling. I expect more maturity from the editors going forward.

Cooperation from all concerned is welcome.

Medicine Man 04:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Medicine Man, where did you hear about the project? Since the article is semi-protected right now, I suggest you work on uncontroversial topics first, until you get to know how things work. dab (ᛏ) 08:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

And why should medicine man take your advice? Have you offered any thing to this page yet? MMan welcome to the rajput page. We have a serious lack of quality editors who are knowledgable about rajputs. Please explain clearly on this talk page what exactly do you want to achieve.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 18:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)+

"I suggest you work on uncontroversial topics first, until you get to know how things work"

It is precisely this kind of condescending behavior that has made this article a circus. I believe an attitude correction is overdue for some of the editors.

Dear Mr. Bachmann, thanks for your suggestion. I believe that you must spend your energy in deciding what you should work on, rather than advising others what they should work on.

Two things I want going forward:-

(1) For every change any editor makes on the article page, He/she must provide a rationale for the change on the article talk page. Nothing rambling or tortuous, just a couple of sentences will suffice. if no justification for the change is forthcoming is next 24 hours, the modifications must be rolled back.

In the case a justification as been offered, other editors involved decide by straw poll if the changes should stay or go.

(2) All parties agree that all editors are equal, and nobody is more equal than others. If some editors wield admin powers to push their POV or carry on a vendetta, it is not a fair play. That’s just not cricket. So before we start involved parties must declare whether they want to be an editor, or an admin. They can't be both together.

Let’s go. It's time now.

Medicine Man 06:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, Medicine Man, are you affiliated in some way with User:Shivraj Singh or User:DPSingh? --Latinus 12:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No Sir, I am not. Who are these gentlemen and what heinous crimes have they committed?

Medicine Man 19:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

dab sahib,if you go on the website called "operation world" on google search,there you will find figures for muslim rajputs,hindu rajputs,sikh rajputs and christian rajputs and all the rest of the castes in minute details.the figures are for the 21st century.hawkraj.

khuram sahib,i am not happy with the article on bhatti rajputs.it says bhatti is from the word bhatakana.bhatakana means going astray.this is complete nonsense and insulting.bhatti is probably short for bharatri or bhatarak.bhatarak means warrior or lord.i am not sure about bharatri.can you get hold of col.james tod,s annals and antiquities of rajasthan.history of the bhattis is in the second volume.there is a geneological table given beginning from our ancestor brahmaji to our ancestor shri krishan ji maharaj.can you copy the geneological table at the top and then write the history of the bhattis in chronological order.ignore col.tod sahib,s speculations about rajputs being descended from central asians.just follow and beleive the official version of rajput ancestry.people are just so jealous of rajputs that they cannot swallow the fact that rajputs have been wielding power since prehistoric times,for thousands of years.caste system was established by our ancestors so that their descendants(that is us rajputs) will keep wielding power,exercising power and enjoy power and have honour and glory for thousands of years to come.people like ms thapar,mr.jamanadas and mr.mukherji are not rajputs,so do not beleive what they say about origins of rajputs.they are just jealous of rajputs.beleive in the official version of rajput origins,that rajputs are descended from rajrishis chanderji,surajji and avatars ramchanderji and shri krishanji maharaj.jai shri krishna.hawkraj.

are janjuas rajputs?.in col.tod,s book,in the 2nd volume,in annals of jaisalmer,page no.1221 the very first word is janjua rajput.janjua rajputs have been mentioned in the annals of bhattis in the middle of 15th century.khokhars have been mentioned on page 1222.the origin of rajput tribal names in non-rajput castes is due to intermarriage between rajput men and non-rajput women.the origin of khokhars who claim arab origin is due to marriage between arab men and khokhar women.in nepal when hamal brahmins marry thakur women the offspring are called hamal thakuries.the origins of some other tribes who claim arab origin is also due to marriages between arab men and indian women.they are not rajputs,of course.there may be jat khokhars,gujjar khokhars,qureshi khokhars and some other khokhars,but their are also real rajput khokhars.khokhars are a branch of the rathores.all that you people have to do is read the annals of jaisalmer and you will find solutions to all your problems.hawkraj.

Error

You have an error in the Demographics: The successor-states of the British Raj have chosen not to record caste affiliation; present-day estimates are therefore necessarily inexact, and range in the vicinity of 40 million people claiming people claiming Rajput heritage.

This is a clear POV: Hindi, Gujarati, Punjabi and dialects of these languages are the native languages of the Rajputs.

The languages are also incorrect since Hindi and Urdu were languages that developed much later (please consult a lingustic/socio-anthropologist or Indian languages expert). Native languages of the Rajputs can be anything from Sanskrit to Pali to Devnagri to Braj to Nepali (a Rajasthani dialect) etc etc, so I would suggest removing the line about languages since Rajputs can come from as far as Manipur. Be careful not to write down your assumptions but try to keep all claims that can be backed up by credible authentic sources. William Cutbush 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Another point you should be careful about is that in COgnate communities, your line states: "It is interesting to note that by their own definition, every mughal emperor beginning with Jehangir, the fourth of that numerous dynasty, were muslim-rajput. The great bulk of muslim-rajputs are found in Pakistan. Detailed information on the community is available at the Muslim Rajputs page. "

First of all, Jehangir's mother was Jodha-bai, the princess of Jaipur, she was a Rajput, but Jehangir's father was Akbar the Great, thus Jehangir is referred to as a Mughal Prince, not a Rajput, you're playing with the credibility of Wikipedia with such claims that only reflect a POV. Also the comment that the "Great bulk of Muslim Rajputs are found in Pakistan" is quite a claim considering that there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan. In Pakistan, Sindhis are not Rajputs, Baluchis are not Rajputs and Pathans are not Rajputs, neither are the Kashmiri Muslims. The Baluchis and Pathans are great warrior people in their own right but are not the focus of this article. This leaves us with the Punjabis of Pakistan where you have some Rajputs, Khatris (a business community subcaste of the Punjab), other groups but the vast majority of Punjabis are Jats. We seriously need to consult some demographics now. I will try to go to the Pakistani consulate tomorrow or in the coming week and consult them on some facts. For now I will continue to read your "interesting" article. So far have taken a look at:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html http://www.infopak.gov.pk/ http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pakistan

And nothing turned up about Pakistan's Rajput population, there is however mention of Pathans, Baluchis and everyone else.

Another point that could be placed here is that according to the official website for the Pakistani Government: http://www.infopak.gov.pk/public/govt/information_desk_index.htm You can go to the link: http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/main.html then click on "Pakistan Rarely Part of India".

It seems that the Pakistani government wants nothing to do with anything Hindu or Indian. Be careful of pushing POVs and allowing personal opinions get in the way of writing a proper article.

I'm gonna take a look at some other Pakistani related material. Perhaps something will show up that is valid.

William Cutbush 06:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Points

Hi, it is delightful to have some constructive criticism on this talk-page. Regarding the points raised:

I have fixed the typo (double wording)
I have removed the "bulk of muslim-rajputs are Pakistani" sentence as a measure of abundant caution
Regarding languages: My understanding of the term "native language of the rajputs" is that the said language/s is/are the mother-tongues of that community. This is the language they speak at home. The references to Sanskrit, Pali, etc are surely misplaced? Also, Devanagari is a script, and Braj-bhasha is a dialect of Hindi. Nepali is an independent language.
As may be ascertained from the 17 archived talk-pages, the partisans of the muslim-rajput identity base their claim on part-descent from some Hindu-rajput convert to Islam. The idea is that if one of a thousand known ancestors was a rajput, the person is entitled to self-describe as being "muslim-rajput". The patrilineal principle is irrelevant. By this definition, every mughal emperor beginning with Jehangir was certainly a "muslim-rajput".
I am very well aware of the general Pakistani antipathy for all things Indian or Hindu. I am also aware of the championing of that sentiment by the Pakistani government. This was the reason for my initial surprise at the heat with which the MR partisans pursued their objective of securing mention on this page. Perhaps you do not realise it, but the present mention of that community on this page is the result of much stridency on their part. Far be it from me to impose a Hindu caste identity on an unwilling muslim group.

I hope this addresses your points. Please do provide further constructive criticism on this page, if possible. Regards, ImpuMozhi 08:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Shivraj or whoever you are, the sockpuppetry is really getting ridiculous now. Just do yourself and everyone a favour and find another project. As for Devanagari (an abugida) or Sanskrit (6,000 claimed native speakers in to) being today's Rajput's native languages -- well, great, make sure to write that on your geocities page or whatever. Don't waste our time here any more, you are banned. dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Clever, exceedingly clever. The apparent decency, the better language, the slight cluelessness on languages that may not be surprising in someone named "Will Cut bush". Man, you do have a strong will. I should have recognised "too much of a good thing" with the reference to "going to a consulate" -- what a sucker I am for a little civility. One lives and learns. ImpuMozhi 17:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see someone

Glad to see you appreciated my constructive criticsm of the article. Why is Dbachman so hostile and who is Shivraj? I can see that there was a rather lengthy debate on the topic but that doesn't mean anyone should be hostile to someone new to wikipedia. Oh well, thanks for taking my comments into consideration. About the languages comment; what I meant to say was that listing a couple of Indian languages, while not listing the rest may give the wrong impression. Perahps we could say that Rajputs beings natives of India, mainly speak languages of Indian origin, but then again that would be problem since most Indo-european languages find their roots in India. I guess do waht you see fit, Impumozhi. Also it would be more than appropriate to add an additional subsection with demographics of Rajput contirbutions in World War 1 and 2, as well as their role in the indian military forces today.William Cutbush 16:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, are what we on Wikipedia call a sockpuppet. You know it, I know it, so who are we fooling here. dab (ᛏ) 18:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Bachmann, you are again descending into petty name calling and issuing threats. May I request you to be more constructive in the future? We are trying to create an encyclopedia here, in case you are not aware.

Medicine Man 19:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of a dream (nightmare) I once had: I was surrounded by sockpuppets... --Latinus 19:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

do we continue playing, or will we just slap them as they come in? Tony, are you watching this at all? dab (ᛏ) 20:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Talking about sockpuppets, what was the name of the famous one that was dressed like a sheep, it used to be popular in the 1960s and early 70s? Gorkhali 01:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is really unfortunate that some editors are showing inexplicable hostility to an offer made in good faith and persist in issuing threats. In the name of a higher goal, we should ignore such semi-literate editors and work with conscientious and educated editors only.

Dear Mr. William, it is heartening to see you take interest in this besieged page and offer your valuable insight into the demographics and linguistics of the Rajputs. You are a good man and we can surely work together to get this article back to its feet.

The article in its current form is erroneous from the opening sentences itself.

(1) It gives the impression that Rajput term is applied primarily in Hindi or Gujarati languages only. This is kind of misleading. As far as I am aware Rajput word is equally frequent in usage in Rajasthani, Awadhi, Bhojpuri and many other languages. Statements like "the Kshatriyas of Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh still do not generally self-describe as rajputs" are plainly wrong. Also, opening para gives the impression that Kshatriya and Rajput words are synonyms. In reality, Rajputs are a subset of Kshatriyas; Jats, Yadavs, Marathas etc being others Kshatriya castes.

Lies of Mozhi are numerous. If Mozhi is an Indian would he like to go to Bihar and tell rajputs of Ganga belt, on there face, they are not rajputs? Rajputs of Ganga belt are the most fierce in eastern UP and Bihar.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 06:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)+

(2) The article insinuates that Rajputs may have achieved Rajput status through the process of Sanskritization, which is highly disputable. In fact the phenomenon of Sansktrization is still not understood properly, and researches on this phenomenon are frequently fraught with the political biases of the researchers. Hence, it is best to avoid making such debatable claims in a callous manner.

Let’s begin by fixing these deficiencies for a start. We shall go step by step over this entire article.

Medicine Man 03:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

go ahead, feel free to make step-by-step edits. If they are uncontroversial or well sourced, they will be left standing. But, again, you are obviously not new to Wikipedia, so please use your normal account. dab (ᛏ) 10:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)