| Revision as of 10:34, 22 June 2006 editY not (talk | contribs)366 edits →Hello to all!← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:04, 22 June 2006 edit undoDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 edits →Hello to all!Next edit → | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| :] what is this you have made so many edits in one go and all citations too have gone away,template too is not visible.Admins may not approve your action.] 08:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | :] what is this you have made so many edits in one go and all citations too have gone away,template too is not visible.Admins may not approve your action.] 08:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Arjun Singh, if you feel strongly about this article, you should review the talk archives for an overview of its history. Reverting to the sock version outs you as another rajput sock. With the dozens of socks unleashed here, I am banning new socks without warning by now. You are welcome to work on this article, but this necessarily means that you ''collaborate'' with other editors here: discuss ''each'' change you wish to make to the current version and see what people have to say about it. You have a fair chance of changing the article, step by step, but doing major reverts is a waste of your time: they are just reverted again. This is how Misplaced Pages works: live with it, or put up a private homepage somewhere instead. ] <small>]</small> 11:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:04, 22 June 2006
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Template:Wikiproject History of India
 | Hinduism Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Hello to all!
Hello to all. It has really been a matter of great concern that this page has remained subject to repeated edit-warring and repeated insertions of unencyclopediac contents. Such actions lower the credibility of wikipedia and results into wastage of our resources. I have always refrained from involving myself with the modification of contents of the page as I found a number of editors were already involved with the page. While I would not like to comment on the current quality of contents of the page, I quote below certain excerpts written by J. Todd in 1920. They have been since been reproduced in several contexts and texts, and also find mention in a book named Dictionary of Hindu Lore and Legend (ISBN 0500510881) by Anna Dallapiccola.
- QUOTE
Rajput(s) ‘king’s son(s)’. Collective name designating a large number of KASHATRIYA clans, which settle in Rajasthan, and were famous for their chivalric behaviour, the prowess of their heroes and their unswerving allegiance to Hindu tradtion. Among the various legends surrounding their origin, one maintains that the Rajputs were created by the gods from the sacrificial fire pit of the sage VASISHTHA on Mount Abu to help the BRAHMINS against the onslaught of the barbarians. Thus, their lineage is known as Agni—kula or ‘fire family’. However, the Rajputs probably descend from warrior groups that invaded India from the 4th to the 7th centuries. These eventually settle and married into local families creating new clans, replacing those celebrated in the epics. Despite their various origins, Rajput clans claim to be of ARYAN descent tracing their families back to the Solar and Lunar dynasties. They played a pivotal role in fighting the Mughals and entered their service, while others persevered in their desperate resistance. The history of the Rajput clans is filled with tales of violence and warfare of celebration of heroism and martial tradition. Their strict code of honour dictatedthat, when a fort was about to fall, the men would come into the open and die fighting, while the women would commit jauhar, i.e. mass SUICIDE, to avoid being capture alive. In questions of ceremony and purity they were as strict as the most orthodox of Hindus. They took pride in their ART and ARCHITECTURE, as testified by numerous monuments, such as Hindus and Jain TEMPLES, forts, and their superbly decorated palaces. The Rajput tradition of Indian PAINTING is among the finest in India.
- UNQUOTE
I would like to take this opportunity to wish that the contents of the page get suitably modified to reflect the reality. The claims of certain social groups who may have been descendents of Rajputs after some of their forefathers underwent voluntary conversion or were forced to convert to other religious faiths, to stake a claim to be part of the Rajput and share their cultural and historical heritage, without sharing their culture, tradition, and religion, is not acceptable and can safely be termed as a self-befooling process, particularly so when such conversions happened centuries before and the converts actively participated in destroying and defiling the Rajput’s cultural and historical heritage instead of enriching the same. We the wikipedians, as editors to an encyclopedia, must avoid such self-befooling process. Regards. --Bhadani 12:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- So what is new that needs to be added,Bhadani must specify which conversion he is talking about--Conversion of Indo-scythic into Rajput or Rajput converted to Islam.Indo-Scythics had their own independant history which in noway is inferior to any race in the world that they would seek connection to other people.Holywarrior 13:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Bhadani is correct. This page as created by trolls is not a fair refelction of rajputs. It reflects only the whims and imaginations of a select few who are completely clueless about rajputs and there history. BTW if you did not get it he is talking about Muslim conversions. Y not 10:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is a matter of gratification that the Rajput page, as it now stands, corrosoponds sentence-by-sentence, every sentence included, to the quotation from James Tod supplied in the preceding comment. Indeed, the corrospondence would be eerie were it not the case that much of our perception of Rajput history, much of the image we have of the community, is informed by James Tod's works of the early 1800's, which were based on an extensive survey of bardic literature and of official records maintained by various Rajput courts.
- As far as I can make out, the desired "suitable modification to reflect reality" could only be in reference to the comments following the quotation and not pertaining to the contents of the quotation itself. Regarding the disputed claims of certain social groups, please note that the present wording does not declare that these claims are valid; it only documents the fact that there exist such claims, as evidenced by a census report: there are people who claim to be Rajputs but have social identities distinct from the mainstream community, which is of Kshattriyas belonging to 36 defined clans. This is clearly stated in the Cognate Communities section, which documents the claims of several such communities, whether Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. I had to struggle to ensure inclusion of this nuance in wording, which sets out the exact truth of the matter, and I do not know how the matter can be dealt with any better.
- I agree that the CC section may seem a 'collection of oddities' at first glance, but while reading an encyclopaedia, one must not be surprised at having learnt something new
. I myself was initially astonished that such claims were being pressed. It may seem incredible now, but my initial interventions on the talk-page were actually in favour of not undermining credibility by including these claims, which I regarded as untenable. One lives and learns. Regards, ImpuMozhi 14:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
ImpuMozhi has restored the Scientific Hypothesis version which I had called Scientific view.Will he explain how come with plethora of evidences Their view should still be called hypothesis.Are you not trying to derate the scientific works done on Rajputs. And what do you mean by ----Many people don't see...... Sounds POVish should be removed.Holywarrior 05:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
ImpuMozhi if you don't reply as usual, I will revert your edits and you will not complain.Holywarrior 07:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
==
- user:Arjun Singh what is this you have made so many edits in one go and all citations too have gone away,template too is not visible.Admins may not approve your action.Holywarrior 08:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Arjun Singh, if you feel strongly about this article, you should review the talk archives for an overview of its history. Reverting to the sock version outs you as another rajput sock. With the dozens of socks unleashed here, I am banning new socks without warning by now. You are welcome to work on this article, but this necessarily means that you collaborate with other editors here: discuss each change you wish to make to the current version and see what people have to say about it. You have a fair chance of changing the article, step by step, but doing major reverts is a waste of your time: they are just reverted again. This is how Misplaced Pages works: live with it, or put up a private homepage somewhere instead. dab (ᛏ) 11:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)