Talk:Rajput - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Goethean (talk | contribs) at 16:28, 4 November 2005 (removing rant). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:28, 4 November 2005 by Goethean (talk | contribs) (removing rant)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Previous discussions:

Revert war

A user was recently blocked for a three-revert rule violation on this article. Please could involved editors drop the issue and start gathering consensus here? I don't want to have to have the page protected again. Thanks, Rob Church 17:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Rob, We have asked repeatedly to point out historically incorrect statements in the article. No one has come forth. Admins seem to be rubbing each others back because they all tend to support one view point which they like.

Also it seems providing references is meaningless here. What seems to be working is how many people one has on there side. i.e what matters on wikipedia is outshouting the other.

These muslims have repeatedly made suggestion that the muslim rulers who won a few wars in India, there progeny are rajputs. This is the most preposterous assertion one can make. None of the admins have taken notice eventhough I have pointed it out. Looks like admins do not have enough knowledge on the subject and are relying on which group has more people.

Shivraj Singh

It is clear that there is some dispute regarding who is to be considered a Rajput -- is it a description of lineage, or of caste? Shivraj, you insist that caste is the only criterion and call those who want BOTH positions represented, Muslims. I want both positions represented and I'm a Buddhist. You betray a partisan agenda by calling everyone who opposes you a Muslim. You are unconcerned with academic discussion of the matter, even if it goes directly to questions of caste, lineage, and identity. You are trying to use Misplaced Pages to advance your partisan definition of Rajput. Misplaced Pages has to be fair to ALL sides of the issue. You cannot censor alternate viewpoints; you should only make sure that your own position (if it's a position held by others than you) is stated correctly. Zora 04:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora a discussion without citations is unacademic. That is what Muslims and gothean have been doing. You yourself have looked the other way when asked precise questions. Population link was provided it did not register with you. You were asked to provide anti muslim bias/ POV pushing / hindutva wadi in the article that I wrote and after a week you are still mum. You have trivialized Tod/Dashratha Sharma/LS Rathore based on your western prejudice i.e I did not see any supporting argument from you.

You claim to know India, Hindus and Rajputs. I can say from what I have read of your writings so far you know very little. You mentioned books that are irrelevant and then QSQT which is even more irrelevant.

Rajputs are identified by vansha/cula/shakha and gotra-acharya. To call all this "confusing/irrelevant" is trying to redefine who rajputs are.

Dispute with muslims on rajput claim is very one sided. Let us analyze facts. A very very small minority amongst rajputs converted to Islam to save there kingdom. (Many references in James Tod's book). Some , they say, were converted by saints (This number has to extremely small because if saints were the major reason for conversion we would still be seing rajputs converting to Islam in India today. There are still muslim saints in India and Hindu rajputs.) Though muslims want to push this saint conversion as the main conversion vehicle. These guys have been told, multiple times, a character weakness is the only reason that can result in a rajput embracing islam.

Very interesting. Infact in one colonialists book (obviously your choice of authors clearly) called 'Rulers of India-Lord Lawrence and the reconstruction of India under the Crown by Sir Charles Aitchison, K.C.S.I, M.A., LLD. (formerly lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab) (oxford Clarendon Press 1897) cites a very interesting case on page 122-123. He mentions a state called Rajghar. The ruling chief was a Rajput, but had begun to show tendencies towards what he called (I quote) 'Muhammadanism), and thefreby got into difficulties with the brethren of his caste. Other Hindu nobles and his brethren became so staunchly against him on account of his rumoured circumcision that he proposed to abdicate his title and Kingdom and retire into private life for his faith. Inquiry by the Viceroy Lord Lawrence showed that there was no charge of misgovernance by him, his people found him a just and fair ruler and therefore his 'dissenters' were told that they must be loyal to him regardless of his creed. This Rajput later openly professed his adoption of Islam along with his sons. This was a landmark case and was very recently in the time of Raj. It showed that this Rajput OBVIOUSLY under no compulsion (of foreign invaders) was even prepared to leave his birth right kingdom, his power, prestige and wealth for his faith. It sort of destroys the Hindutva myth a little doesn't it?-Raja

Go find a better argument. It is clear you have not read statistics. You mention once case what about the other 99? Shivraj Singh 03:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What you cannot see thru is that Muslims are trying to push an agenda that Islam is greatest of the religion and rajputs converted hook line and sinker to this religion thru there saints. No rajput in India subscribes to this claim. Muslims feel ashamed that there ancestors converted to save there ass.

Ofcourse YOU aren't pushing any extremist view are you? Comical in the least... Anyway please cite where we have alleged that Islam's superiority over all the world's faiths here. You wont be able to because we haven't so please refrain from falsehood.-Raja

In addition they claim Ghori's/ Khilji's descendants are rajputs. More cluelessnes.

Kindly provide proof of where this assertion was made in clear quotation- Raja

Lastly these guys are unhappy with descriptions of wars between rajputs and muslims. A little amount of googling would satisfy any body's cursiosity if they so desired.

Shivraj Singh

No, these 'guys' are amused by your averting the topic of what any of this makes one more or less a Rajput. You sadly cant see that and have derived a strange conclusion. -Raja

re: tom's edit

Goethean,

I know that, and I appreciate your efforts to combat zealotry, incivility, and bad writing on this page. However I think that previous versions of the article contained a lot more useful information than the current one, yet weren't over-long, and that splitting the page in two has diminished the amount of useful information here for readers. No one really argued that the history section I restored was factually incorrect or biased, or irrelevant to the topic, and removing it from the article hasn't protected the page from continued abuse by semi-literate chauvinists. The History of Rajputs article is subject to the same abuse, so I am not sure that anything has been gained by omitting the history section from this page. Tom Radulovich 20:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest that the History of Rajputs article be SUMMARIZED on the main Rajput page, in one para, and the reader pointed to the breakout article. I believe that this is the usual Misplaced Pages practice. Zora 20:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the only controversy on the History of Rajputs page is whether Akbar is to be called "the Great". That seems minor to me. — goethean ॐ 21:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

In that case I think I will go with the popular notation. If 80% of the world calls one person "The Great" I will write him so at least.

خرم Khurram 21:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

In the same vein, I have absolutely no idea how calling Akbar great or not makes one a greater or lesser Rajput. --Raja 14:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Shivraj Singh

Excellent work! Each and every one of us agrees with what you have written.

Digvijay Pratap Singh Deora Sirohi

Now this is silly. I claim that Shivraj is the only editor here who's insisting on his version, and we immediately get a brand new user, who professes to be five people sharing an account and who all support Shivraj. Coincidence? I think not. Zora 11:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

:: Zora can you put your money where your mouth is? I negate Zora's claim that I and any of these users are same people.

If there is any admin watching this discussion they should suspend Zora's account for making such false accusations against other editors of wikipedia.

False accusations without proof is zora's motto. Then she asks why is she considered biased. Go figure.

-Shivraj Singh 03:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora can something be done about these silly sock puppets? He cant win the argument on debate grounds, so he's resorting to this childish behaviour. But can I just add a very mportant point here. Shiv has just confirmed here that;

Rajputs are identified by vansha/cula/shakha and gotra-acharya. To call all this "confusing/irrelevant" is trying to redefine who rajputs are.

This clearly proves that Rajputness is lineage based. He's not mentioned religiousity as being an integral affiliation at all. I believe this summarises the argument against him now that he has finally agreed to this. - Raja

-Shivraj Singh 03:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:

Misplaced Pages controversial topics