Talk:Rajput/Archive 17

message: Dbachman do not delete what I write. We are not here to educate you.  Go enroll yourself in a course on India.
I posted the link of the book to show that majority of non-rajputs are arguing without even reading the material and references provided.  This includes you.
Muslims have to give up there claims of being rajputs and then there can be a discussion on how to organize the rajput page. Perhaps Clans can be moved to a separate page with a link from the main page.
--DPSingh 12:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: what, pray, did I delete? I did not ask you to educate anyone. If you sit back and enjoy Wikipedia, you'll have no bothers. If you insist on contributing, you will be asked to provide references, not for my benefit, but for that of our readers. If there are Muslim clans claiming to be Rajputs, I don't see how they are any different, from Wikipedia's perspective of WP:NPOV, than Hindu clans claiming to be Rajputs. Both are exactly the same to me. If they disagree, they can go hit each others with pointy sticks for all I care, for the purposes of Wikipedia, we will simply state that there is disagreement. dab (ᛏ) 14:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: non-rajputs

message: Dbachmann: > If there are Muslim clans claiming to be Rajputs, I don't see how they are any different, from Wikipedia's perspective of WP:NPOV, than Hindu clans claiming to be Rajputs.
:Whatever do you mean by Hindu clans "claiming" to be Rajputs???! When was any veracity lacking amidst us? Are there any particular Hindu clan claims to Rajputs, you doubt?
> Both are exactly the same to me.
:From what point of view? Islam violates the very ethos and essence of a Rajput (reasons cited in earlier post). It would be correct now to only speak of Muslims from a Rajput-line, and not "Muslim-Rajputs". That's an oxymoron. Either they are not Rajputs or they are not true Muslims.
> If they disagree, they can go hit each others with pointy sticks for all I care
:Not about hitting each other, but straightforward facts. Some researchers trace the origins of Islam to Shaivism, and some others to other pagan cults. But whatever the origin(s), the Muslim-identity took over as a distinct creed in itself. The case of some Rajput conversions is a similar one and should be treated as such. 61.247.244.252 18:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: sigh, that's the "Hindu" pov. We are not about deciding who is "right", we are just about documenting what people claim. When I say that the Hindus and the Muslims are exactly the same to me, I am taking the neutral point of view, which is Wikipedia:policy and not debatable. dab (ᛏ) 18:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suryabandhu "kinsman of the sun" to Dabachmann

message: since you (Singhs) are clearly incapable of as much as adding a book to the references section properly, I have done that for you now. See . I don't know why I am still helping you after all the abuse, but you will have to do your own work from now on, people will not clean up after you.  If you think your article has a "References" section, I don't know what to say: It is a long unreadable list with boldfaced annotations, and the three books I added were the only ones halfway identifiable (still had to google around for them). Not a single IP was clickable, and one was invalid. Frankly, his is so far inferior to the standard of edits expected from you that I don't get up my hopes that we'll ever see anything usable from you. Being loud and stubborn buys you nothing here. You have to produce decent work. dab (ᛏ) 17:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, do I understand wrong, or is it the case that the other books in the "references" section created by Dab are suggestions not actually used in crafting the article? If so, we should move it to a separate "suggested readings" section. I am doing so now, please amend if this is unsuitable. ImpuMozhi 19:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Drop the Aryan crap.  Read the last part of this talk which I posted. Shivraj Singh 20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Phenotype (outward appearence) and Genes are two different things.  Genes are passed on through selection that happens through marriages.  Clearly upper caste marry in upper caste and so on. Upper class men tended to have relations with lower class women and this caused lower class to show genetic lines from upper class as well. Upper class (Brahmins and Kshatriyas) South indians and north Indians are very similar genetically. Rajus from Andhra have same phenotype as Rajputs/North Indians and they are Kshatriyas from Andhra. Whole AIT is junk.  This was just an attempt of British towards cultural imperialism i.e subjugate the minds of Indians so that they remain slaves in there heads by showing nothing good came out of there own people but it was all a gift from "smart europeans". Shivraj Singh 22:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you also read the chapter I actually mentioned Khurram? The book has views pushing the Aryan invasion(+superiority) myth, sure that was the favourite probably among ALL western historians at that time (we were being portrayed as the long lost 'brothers' of our current rulers), so it is not surprising to see all that in his book. Hypotheses abound on this issue. Let us stay just on course. And yes, thanks for giving that last line about how he heard from a young rajput a comment about the epics, and it becomes part of his book? So much for scientific research. Many young rajputs are also telling so many things here...why don't you believe them?? :) Another link on Indian issues.  I hope to have more time to join this discussion later this week. Ss india 10:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I read all 61 of my books and neither westerners nor muslims read any other book (perhaps a few pages of Ibbetson was read) that they are pushing as references.  Is this really scholarship?  Now this admin blocked me for being disruptive!!! even though they are reverting the hell out of this page, all of them.
I wonder why they do not take up my challenge of proving the facts of my article wrong? Gauntlet has been there for last 4 months now.
This is again turning to be admin abuse just like admin Dmcdevit who blocked me for one week and User:Sisodia indefinetely.  And this is not a bias against Hindus! 
I am going to allow you all 12 hours to tell me what you find disputable (come with your references) on our version and if nothing comes up I will revert it back to my version.
Shivraj Singh 21:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "I am going to allow you all 12 hours": that's just not how it works. This is an encyclopedia, not somewhere for you to promote your POV. Now, you need to work maturely and civilly with others. I understand if you feel frustrated, but for anyone who feels frustrated, WP:DR is the correct route. Edit warring is always bad (which is indeed what the block was intended to show you). Please use the dispute resolution process. What I'm sayng isn't about content. You may well be right (I wouldn't know), but your behavior is entirely wrong so far. Dmcdevit·t 05:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to give you 12 hours (off wiki) if you don't stop this nonsense. I gave you my reasons for blocking you (for 30 minutes, I might add), have a look at your talkpage. Quoting Gauntlet was not among them. Our bias is against trolls and violation of WP policy. I don't even know if you are a Hindu, or a Muslim pulling a nasty caricature of a Hindu in an attempt to make Hindus look bad (in fact, the latter seems almost as likely to me, because you really make no case at all) dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny Situation 

message: All Go to this link and voice your opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29
--DPSingh 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Khurram, don't worry about analysing my 'allegation'. The book I sent the link does have a lot in there, did you see vols. 1 & 3 as well? Overall though I hope you do understand that you need to exercise caution in his interpretation of how the people followed their faith... you know that an overwhelming majority of the sahibs did live in isolation from the natives they had been writing about. I think you will agree about this if you read some books (fiction) written by them in the early 1900s. Its a pretty long book, and I havent read it enough to reach any conclusions though. Ss india 10:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint Filed and Link to it

message: We can't keep this page protected forever, so, for now I am unprotecting it. If users continue to make potentially controversial edits without discussing, this page get re-protected for a longer period of time. Additionally, the three revert rule still applies, and anyone who violates that may be blocked without further warning. FireFox 11:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: DPS, since you did both (a) and (b) before I could finish my post above, here's another warning: do it again, and you'll be blocked for 12 hours. dab (ᛏ) 12:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it will appear very "proffessional" if you do the blocking, seeing as you are involved in editing this article. I would suggest let me patrol and do the blocking as I see fit. FireFox 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that's fine with me. I insist I am not involved; I am as an admin because of the edit war, just like you are. I have no opinion on the matter, but I've been targeted by the Singhs for insisting on policy. dab (ᛏ) 12:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to keep an eye on things here... the only times I have edited this article were to add and remove the protected template. Other than that I have had no direct involvment with the article. FireFox 12:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected... 

message: Can one of you look at Bachman's RFC and figure what is wrong with its format?  
Firefox can you give us an idea what is wrong with it?
--DPSingh 14:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_user. FireFox 14:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: sigh, it's close enough now. The sad thing is that it looks like you are really trying, so this must actually be the best you can do. I think in the present form it is close enough to a properly formatted RfC, and I have removed El C's note. You are still required to fill out "Applicable policies" and "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". dab (ᛏ) 16:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Net savvy Rajputs

message: Well, I came here to add a historical evidence regarding Rajpootana state dating 1831. But the place looks like a battlefield. Perhaps, will come back later when/if you guys are done... --Regards. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 15:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well, I contest it. I found a single 2002 reference referring to Muslim Rajputs, and all I am asking is that you don't remove it. The date of the Gita is not an issue here, and used as a red herring by the trolls. dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: at least I can quote books, unlike people who apparently think "Maheca Rathaurom ka mula itihasa: Ravala Mallinatha ke vamsaja - Maheca, *Baramera, Pokarana, Kotariya aura" is acceptable as an encyclopedic reference. dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What is wrong with this reference?  This is a well researched book on Mallinath a very famous Rathore and his descendants. There origins, there wars, there relations with present rulers of Jodhpur and Bikaner are described in this book.  This prejudice that you bring here because history in other then English does not make sense to you is the source of all problems. Dude I think we have had enough of you here.  You better find a different page where your views might make more sense. Shivraj Singh 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not objecting to the book, you clown, I am objecting to the way it is referenced. Are you really that dense? How are we even to know it is a book? Who is the author? Year of publication? Publisher? ISBN? See Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you manage to properly quote your books, I don't care who wrote them. If you can quote it properly, it will still be problematic that it is in Hindi, this being the English Wikipedia, but we will at least know you are not making stuff up. It is permissible to quote non-English sources, but you have to be very specific why you are quoting it, and what you are quoting. If you can get the same information from an English source, use that. dab (ᛏ) 09:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Map 

message: I've been asked to justify my reverts, which is fair enough. DBachmann has made a real effort to open up the non-Shivraj version and insert much of Shivraj's material in it. I see an effort from that side to make progress, and Shivraj and allies refusing to make any concessions at all. I don't think that the version to which I reverted is all that good, but it's better than the Shivraj version. I ordered a copy of that Rajput identity book and when it gets here, and I've read it, I'll feel as if I have something more to contribute to the article. (Yeah, I meant to avoid being drawn into this and spending yet more money on books, but I love learning things.) Zora 08:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which book is that? No one book is of course adequate, but I can point you out to the book that I suspect is at the root of the attitude problem of some people here. 67.20.232.184 14:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last revert 

message: I do not claim to possess the subject-matter expertise on the topic of this article. But I know as much history that the term Rajput draws respect and goes hand-in-hand with dignity and pride. And my appeal is for the kind of mannerism and behavior that does justice to the term.
I would like to suggest a Fresh start for the sake of the future of this article, and would request all present and previous editors/contributors to participate. Please state your agreement/suggestions below. Also, I am sure you would agree that it can be achieved only if the following guidelines are strictly followed by all editors and admin:
* No personal attack of any kind on any individual, group or admin
* No reverts without proper and qualified explanation on the talk page
* NPOV – no single-sourced editing/revert, all verifiable sources of any ethnicity that fall in line with the context of the article can be cited. In other words, everyone has a right to contribute.
* Shared Ownership: Wikipedia says – "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."'
* Adherence to – Wikipedia:How to structure the content, Wikipedia:How to break up a page, use of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)
If required and as suggested by an Admin previously, please feel free to seek help of  Wikipedia_Talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics for procedures, guidelines, consultation, etc.
Please sign your entry with ~~~~.
* Agree. --rgds. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 11:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh start 

message: * Editors not participating here should be considered inactive, with no further interest in the subject. --rgds. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 11:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments/Suggestions 

message: Miljoshi you are mistaken.  People's thinking does not change. I have poured through the archives of disucssions and there seem to have been many "fresh starts".  If there is any group here which supports these muslims when they have equated jiahdis with rajputs and thereby islamic terrorists of this world what else is left?  Cleanest solution is give them there sand box to play in , let them create there own page as some others have voiced before.
This is what M A Jinnah said in 1940: (Some say his ancestors were rajputs.).
The differences in India were far greater then those between European countries and were of vital and fundamental character... The Muslims had a different conception of life from the Hindus. They admired different qualities in there heroes, they had a different culture based on Arabic and Persian instead of Sanskrit origins. There social customs were entirely different. Hindu society and philosophy were the most exclusive in the world. Muslim and Hindus have been living side by side in India for a thousand years but if you went into any city one would see separate Hindu and Muslim Quarters. 
This pretty much sums up the argument so far as well as future conclusion that will be effective. 
Cut and Paste from the RFC :
User:Dbachmann is supporting people on rajput page who have just in the recent past claimed that Islamic Jihadis (by implication Islamic terrorists of the world) are Rajputs.  How can an admin push the POV of such a group of people?
"All these points prove that a Rajput is a product of both nature and nurture. Born into a house of ideals, raised with a Martial upbringing with a strong sense of honour and nobility. Thus we Muslim Rajputs may not be Kshatriyas, but we are Mujahids, which means 'one who engages in Jihad' and the ideals of a Mujahid are much more strenuous and honour bound in the sense that we must act with the knowledge that we will be accountable to our Lord one day..... . It was this similarity that made the transition from Hindu Kshatriya Rajput into a Muslim Mujahid Rajput an easy one seeing as the ideals are extremely similar. A perfect example of a perfect Mujahid Royal can be seen in Sultan Salauddin Yusuf Ayyubi of the Crusades who liberated the Holy Land from the Crusaders."
-Interesting. Considering Im the one that posted that, I still, after several months of your nonsensical and 'un-intellectual' debating, dont understand how this para points to a perfect Mujahid Royal being a Hindu Kshatriya? I believe the question was asked as to how these ideals fitted to Muslims seeing as they had no concept of a Rajput in their religion. I merely proved it was there, similarly, NOT IDENTICAL but similar. Please advise how this made Sultan Salaudin a Kshatriya in this para? It doesn't so please let go of mud slinging and get on with fixing the article. --Raja 03:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  You claimed jihadis are rajputs and now you want to back out.  Your group has been doing this from day one.  Say one thing and then deny it.  Remember rajputs are known for there word.  Constant disowning of your statments is not what rajputs practice.  Shivraj Singh 04:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You must take a lesson or two in English my friend, you seriously lack understanding of this statement. I stated I posted that the ideals are similar not identical. In my view whenever you are found/proven you give an empty sound of victory which is only matched by the comical lack of it. You guys are highly entertaining. Is this entire argument because we Rajputs left your Rajasthan many centuries ago, migrated and conquered a region in Punjab and left you guys in the desert to argue pointless gotras? If it is, then we progressed, you guys clearly regressed. You dont have to accept us, we ruled without your acceptance and didnt care much for marriages with or without your clans as we only intermarried with other Muslim Royals. But The Hindu Rajputs on the other did offer hands of marriage to the Timurid dynasty/Muslim Royals aka the Mughals did they not? Ofcourse they did.
All the above para points to is how one of Rajput lineage can make the transition to Islam and yet still continue his Martial traditions in a honour and faith regulated way, when the question was posed as to how it can be.  --Raja 13:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Rich. Especially when coming from the person who tried to use the Sikh argument that Rajputs and Sikhs identity was that they fought Islam. But when I proved to you the the 10th Illustrious Guru of the Sikhs Guru Gobind Singh had fought with the same Hindu hill Rajputs because they were (and I quote AGAIN) "For they are the idol worshippers and I the idol breaker....". then you guys backed out and never used them again! Fantastic. A Rajput ethic is based in honour, not ego. Duryodhan had ego which was his destruction at the hands of the Pandavs. It takes a true noble to admit where he is corrected. But continue as you are proving our point countless times by preaching ignorance and attacking admins efforts for a page DEDICATED TO OUR ANCESTORS.--Raja 13:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charge 9 From the RFC 

message: I reverted it because muslim POV is debunked by Ibbetson. There was a para posted to that effect earlier.  People touting Ibbetson should read that para.  And also remember statistics. An exception to the rule can always be found.  What you need to show is what the majority was doing.  Exceptions abound: There are people with 6 fingers and so on. So think and then post. Shivraj Singh 04:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If they have left their old faith's core beliefs, then why would they hold on to it's simple traditions? The bigger transition has already been made?! --Raja 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It isn't. If so, then please provide evidence of how a new Rajput race can be created today. It cant. So it's obviously lineage based. This is a talk page on Rajputs in general, not a romanticised Hindutva view on what they should be. --Raja 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Personal attacks. Again. --Raja 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is a discussion page for all to contribute. Read the guidelines before warning admins.--Raja 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well if you travelled outside of Rajasthani rhetoric then maybe you will find some. We Muslim Rajputs have ruled for centuries without the dispute of your ancestors. It's a late argument today dont you think? :)--Raja 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: May I request you to limit the discussion on this page to the Rajput article please? However, you may put your comments on the respective article or user talk pages. Further, it is required to leave out personal attacks in accordance with the WP Policy as stated above. Thanks. --rgds. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 13:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shivraj has reverted the rajput page

message: She has not contributed a single constructive sentence to this page .  Till y'all keep supporting the claims of these muslims where they have equated islamic jihaadis with rajputs you will be reverted.
--DPSingh 13:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted Zhora's Islamic jihadi POV

message: It is becoming quite clear that much of the 'uneducated' and 'ignorant' views here stem from the Rajasthanis ill informed view of Punjab. Punjab has been a melting pot of cultures and tribes. In such an environment the identity of a Rajput or any tribe is even more distinct because they are all either allying with one another or competing. The Rajputs who migrated to to Punjab contributed much to the localities and gave strong personalities in history and gained respect and recognition as strong rulers of many regions within this State. The majority of Muslim Rajputs are all in Punjab and they are almost alien to the Rajastanis by view of progressing into another culture and also because the Rajastanis progressing their own respective culture further. This was natural. It also happened to breed the extremist rhetoric that we are seeing here which I believe is because of their naiver view of Punjab, no matter how many books on Punjab by Hindutva historians they read. They claim that dab cant argue anything because he (and I quote) a 'white boy' but then they also cant argue about Punjabis by that notion as they clearly ARE NOT Punjabi Rajputs at all. 
I think it will be a good idea to include this portion into the article too seeing as Punjabis also vehemently claim Rajput ancestry too but are very distrinct in their practices and even faiths to the old desert dwelling Rajasthanis. They are a distinct group in many ways but also Rajputs who progressed to other regions playing key roles in history too. The article in it's current form is too 'Rajastani' which ofcourse is the origin of many Rajputs but not the 'present' at all.--Raja 13:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try to move away from 'Jihadi' and 'Hindutva' shall we? If you have info on how the Punjabi (Pakistani Punjab, I will assume) Rajputs, have become 'alien' to Rajasthani culture, bring it forward. Adding stuff about customs local to certain regions would be interesting, but I doubt if that is the root cause of the conflict here. Ss india 14:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I mention this because of the narrow minded view of the Rajastanis here of only Hindu, only Rajastan view that is being promoted here. The differences are mainly stemming from religious practices, and the religions themselves adopted by the Rajputs of this region and even down to daily practices which are shared by all tribes of Punjab too. This will be beneficial to the article and will provide a more wider view of the accomplishments, contributions and practices of migrated Rajputs. Hopefully during the holidays I will be able to collate it and indeed post it here for the article.--Raja 14:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it's only fair to say that thus far this discussion is evidence alone of the broadness that is 'Rajput', regionally, religiously and even culturally too. Good ideas Miljoshi, I uspport encompassing the whole range. --Raja 18:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Naivity proven yet again :) --Raja 18:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it has been explained already, please read it Dig. Do you have anything constructive to offer here? Other than name calling? --Raja 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punjabi Rajputs 

message: Denzil Ibbetson, Tribes and Castes of Punjab and NWFP (1892)  
Ibbestson appears to be a citable source that is acceptable to everyone concerned. Shall we start by using his reference in the article? The inference, however, should clearly mention what he captured as a fact, what were the references that he cited for those facts, and what is his (Ibbestson's) own understanding of it.
Here, please be aware: It is very important in citing any source that the editor on WP puts only the citation, and not the editor's own self interpretation entwined within it. This is applicable for any source of material or references for this article as per NPOV policy applicable here. --rgds. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 09:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: why has the precious Ibbetson quote not been inserted weeks ago? I do get the impression people are here for the abuse and the reverting, not for the article itself. There are plenty of online fora intended to be hosting flamewars. WP is not one of them. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I see Ibbetson is mentioned under the references, and so assume that something was mentioned. Was his citation lost during (almost daily) reverts? --rgds. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 11:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denzil Ibbetson 

message: How does the RFC process conclude?  Can anyone shed light? --DPSingh 12:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well, even though you failed to properly format the rfc (why is there no "administrative powers abused" section? why is the "applicable policies" section empty?), and in spite of the "don't feed the trolls" maxim adhered to by many wikipedians, some people commented. You got your motley crew of single-topic trolls endorsing it, while several of the best respected editors around here endorsed my description of "nationalist fanatics". So you can either accept this outcome, or you can proceed to WP:RfAr. I have no doubt that if you do, you will be banned from editing Rajput related articles for a lengthy period of time. dab (ᛏ) 13:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: one editor said I should consider myself held to higher standards than the average editor. While my standard is certainly far above that of trolls, I do accept that I should not have called you "clown" or "incompetent", no matter what. I stand by my description of certain edits as trollish, nationalist, uneducated, and of the quality of sulking 12 year olds, of course. I do not know if you are really too incompetent to cite a book, or if you just chose not to show your competence. My comments should refer to your edits alone, not to you as a person, since I have never met you (nor entertain any interest to). Your online behaviour is terrible. You may be a nice person, I don't know. I accept this criticism, and reassert my dedication to combatting incivil, biased and poorly formatted edits. dab (ᛏ) 13:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: you don't want to be an admin?? You are one of the most saintly Wikipedians I know, with seemingly infinite patience, and great social skills. I can stick around on Rajput, but I felt let down, people on AN told me simply "don't feed the trolls". These are not simply trolls in the narrow sense, they do not pretend to be clueless brutes, it is difficult to believe, but I think they are fully serious. It is pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them. Seeing the state of things, I was prepared to run a tight ship, block for PAs and reverts, which of course resulted in this "RfC" (where nobody bothered to comment) and now FireFox says he considers me "involved". Involved with protecting policy, yes, but I couldn't care less about the topic itself. So unless I get some community backup, I cannot speak the only language these people understand. dab (ᛏ) 09:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: just post the diff, and post it to my rfc. This is Talk:Rajput. I am not a Rajput, so why do you think it necessary to discuss me here? Man, Indians have written me emails to apologize for your behaviour. Unnecessarily, since I am under no misconception of you being in any way a showpiece of this great nation. dab (ᛏ) 17:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Firefox ban Bachman for racial slurs against ALL Indians

message: Reason is muslim jihadi POV is not gonna fly. I welcome discussion on points of this page and I will give each argument made its due weight.
--DPSingh 13:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted again, to what I regard as a more neutral version, and the one that's improving. I'm not a Muslim and I'm not a jihadi. I do have training in social science and history, however, and IMHO, the neutral version does a better job of presenting the academic view. Zora 18:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Miljoshi: I have reverted the rajput page

message: Although you may be trying to justify your reverts, that is all you are doing in the majority, reverting. I'm not saying every single edit from every single editor is a revert, but most are. So, I have protected the page and from now on, you may rebuild the article at Rajput/temp and nowhere else. You may discuss changes at Talk:Rajput/temp or here, but until the dispute has been resolved, this page will not be unprotected. FireFox 18:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The respective temp pages have been initiated: --rgds. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 09:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further protection 

message: Wikipedia is searchable.  If a person types word rajput in search box two pages can pop up. rajput and muslim rajput.  User is free to click on any one they wish. All arguments from all angles has taken place.  It is like religion either you believe it or not.  Best solution is having two pages and a link from the rajput page to the page of converted.  This way each group operates in there own unvierse.  Acrimony will end. Shivraj Singh 11:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont agree. I think that if the so called 'parent page' were not to refer to other clans, other faith Rajputs, then that would defeat the object of 'linking'. --Raja 22:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If you learnt English like my post requested you to, you'd know no distinction was made between them and other groups. You were ruled, strongly, so not worth contesting this issue.--Raja 17:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Too ridiculous to didnify with a comment...--Raja 17:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: GOING FORWARD

message: HEYYYY..LOOK WHAT I FOUND..HO HO HO ..
Dear Santa 
Please put a kharag Khanda in my stocking.Lol
Captain Bingley, writing of the Rajputs, tells of the traditional valour of Rajput Warriors and rehearses some of the past glories of the old Company’s army; he recalls the story of the Queen’s own Rajputs (once the 31st) at Bhurtpore; remembers Nott’s praise for the ‘beautiful sepoy regiments’ when they first went to Kandahar. ‘Our troops carried the enemy’s position in gallant style; it was the finest ting I ever saw. Those 8,000 Afghans could not stand our 1200 men for an hour.”He goes on that the system......Rajputs, he continues, are soldiers by tradition and taught by their religion (Hinduism) to regard the profession of arms as their legitimate occupation.....they form the military caste which should hold its own and bear favourable comparison with the most warlike of the races now serving under our colours’."
PAGE.356, A Matter of Honour, Philip Mason,
isbn: 0-333-41837-9
In this book, as in others about the Indian soldiers who served under the Union Jack, references are made towards the fact that Hindu soldiers were loyal while the Muslims could not be trusted.. On page 365 of the above mentioned book, there is a reference to the martial spirit honour and loyalty of Sikhs, Rajputs and Gurkhas, but not of the Muslims.
Furthermore, many Muslims have started the tactics of claiming origin from Hindu martial groups, for example claiming such things as Muslim Rajputs or Muslim Gurkhas, these abominations neither exist nor are they accepted among the Rajputs and Gurkhas. Although, it is known that because of forced conversions, it is very likely that some Muslims may be the offspring of Rajputs and other groups converted to Islam, however it is also mentioned in many of these books that they no longer contained the quality, spirit or psyche and were inferior in all realms including their sense of honour. Thus, although they may claim descent for the Hindu, and Sikh, martial groups, they are longer fit to claim such honours or are they of the same calibre.
I sincerely hope that the British Government does not take up the practice of recruiting more Muslims into her forces. I hope they study their history once again.
"Bravest of the brave, 
most generous of the generous, 
never had country more faithful friends than you." 
Sir Ralph Turner (former officer in the 3rd Gurkha Rifles).
Carved on the London memorial to the Gurkha soldier unveiled by Queen Elizabeth II on December 3, 1997
-Cheers
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009304.php
Take a bow !
best Regards,
Son of Kurus.
220.227.238.195 07:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bingley

message: ___________________________________________________________________
Dbachmann: > Notwithstanding any amount of repetition that the "Hindus only" view is the only "objective" one, cited sources will be the only way to decide what will be in the article.
I have seen no quote addressing the issue directly, no quote discussing a present-day controversy, and no quote making the "objectively, Hindus only" claim (what is "objective" here? Rajput descent is just a claim, on either side). Suryabandhu, you have been much more reasonable than most of the "Hindus only" camp, but you need to understand that as long as we have no better references, there is no reason not to allow discussion of Muslims who claim Rajput lineages here. We do not even have a source stating that this is controversial.
Very well. 
By "objective", I don't mean a God's eye view, but going by "commonly accepted factual standards". 
Lets hear it from the horse's mouth:
"There are nearly 200 Muslim communities in India which, in many ways, are not yet wholly integrated into the "mainstream" Muslim society. Converted from the tribal or Hindu stock, they retain many features of their earlier life patterns, the system of belief and practices being Islamicised here and there, but retaining many of the clearly discernible features from the past, which they share with people of the same stock who are still in their original faith.
...Some of the points that distinguish these people from the mainstream is their adherence to a "large content of pre-Islamic elements of culture", lack of their socio-cultural development, and isolation from the mainstream Muslim society. ...Notable among them are some of the Rajput groups like Thakurais of East Champaran in Bihar and some other Muslims of Rajput extraction. Their marginality is sometimes self-imposed as they want to retain their exclusivity by deciding not to marry among other Muslims and preserve their distinction. 
This study is an interesting chiaroscuro of lifestyle patterns undergoing changes yet retaining the essential features. It also delineates the breathtaking diversity of Indian Muslim society, which is a convenient label under which come diverse societies bound together by certain common beliefs and practices."
[Review on M.K.A. Siddiqui's 'Marginal Muslim Communities In India', by Mohd. Zeyaul Haque
Institute of Objective studies, Delhi]
http://www.iosworld.org/life_on_the_margins.htm
The fact that they themselves "want to retain their exclusivity" from Islam proper, shows not only that they ARE NOT categorized as true Muslims, but they can't be.
Further, from the very standards of Islam :
The Fundamentals of Islam, by Mulana Sayyid Abul A-la Maududi:
"To be slaves of the three idols, today, is the real Shirk (idolatry). You may have demolished the temples of bricks and mortar, you may have broken stone idols in them, but you have paid little attention to the temples within your own hearts. To smash these idols is the essentials precondition to becoming a Muslim.
This applies to all Muslims throughout the world whatever sufferings you are going through, I am sure, are the result of worshipping these idols. But because I am facing Punjabi brothers here, I have particularly to tell them that the root of all their misery and humiliation is again precisely these three things. There are more than fifteen million of this land. But despite this we have no weight of our own. Some communities numerically far smaller carry much more weight.* and what is the reason? It is solely by beings slaves to our own selves, to family customs and to other human beings in preference to God That our strength has been sapped from within.
Let us look at ourselves. We have created among us many castes, like Rajputs, Gakhars, Mughuls, Jats and many others. Islam asked all these ethnic groups to become one Ummah, to be brothers and to units harmoniously like a solidly built wall of cemented bricks. But we are still clinging to the old pagan ideas. Just as there are separate castes among Hindus, so are we also split. We do not intermarry as Muslims should. There is no trace of brotherhood and fraternity between , but in reality we observer all those distinctions which were prevalent before Islam.
...If we are asked, in accordance with Islamic teaching, to break these barriers and become one again, what is our answer? Just the same as the opponents of all the Prophets gave: We cannot go against the customs which answer was given by God to this obduracy?
Only this: You do not have to break these customs and you do not have to give up following the rites of Hindus. But we shall break you into pieces and shall put you to disgrace and dishonor in spite of your large numbers.
In following your caste system and inheritance customs in such a manner all the three false idols we have been discussing are being worshipped. There is slavery to the self, to society, and to Kafir nations. And at the same time, while serving all these idols, we still claim that we nonetheless somehow belong to Islam!.
...While these idols are being worshipped alongside the claims of allegiance to Islam and God, how can we expect Allah to shower His blessings on us-blessings, which have been promised only to true Muslims?"
http://www.islamic-paths.org/Home/English/Discover/Book/Fundamentals/Part_02.htm
- - -
So you see, that's what I mean by "Objective". Its NOT NECESSARILY and doesn't necessarily have to be a "HINDU ONLY" View, but the very fundamentals of Islam asks,  "while serving idols (a belief in caste, etc.), we still claim that we nonetheless somehow belong to Islam!." ??!!!!!
Muslim-Rajput is an oxymoron; Either one is Rajput (and a fake-muslim, i.e. a muslim in name only) or is a (fake Rajput, a Rajput in name only) and a true Muslim.
Shivraj Singh, I can't promise you anything at the moment, but any information I have, I will put it out on here. Definitely.
Regards, 
203.101.36.171 09:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange. None of us here have asserted any superiority or casteist view that we are above anyone. But YOU guys have asserted superiority (!) over us and many more. We assert tribal identity, not superiority which the caste system demands. Thats something we discarded after conversion. The article points to those people who havent discarded their old Hindu traditions of oppressing the 'lower castes' by asserting their own superiority all the time. Me and Khurram etc havent done that, hence it doesn't apply to us. --Raja 17:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim communities in India