Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2)

message: I think the best solution to this conflict is if all parties talk it out. Those who accuse the other party of incivility are also themselves guilty of incivility. I have requested a mediator to look into it. Radiant_>|< 23:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

message: I think it's true that dab formed a third corner to the debate -- as I tried to do, briefly. The problem, it seems to me, is that both the original participants in the debate, the "only Hindus can be Rajputs" and the "I am a Muslim of Rajput lineage", were insisting that their position was TRUE, that any other position was both wrong and offensive, and that their opponents' views should not be included in the article. Both dab and I tried to get both parties to accept formulations of the nature "X believes this and Y believes that" but were ignored. Both sides seem to want to capture the article for their POV and thus "win". I have the impression that the "Muslims of Rajput lineage" would be somewhat more amenable to a "there are different POVs" treatment, but I could be wrong.  
I haven't meddled with the article much of late because I feel that I need to do more research in order to be sure of my ground. But I do feel that some firm authority MUST be exercised to get both sides to allow the other to present its position. Zora 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwillingness to allow statement of alternate POVs 

message: dab is a breath of fresh air against your POVism, it is sad that you can not see how he wishes simply to have a neautral POV.
Brinlarr
::The Singhs are both racist and pig headed, dad should be commended for such wonderful forbearance against such abuse. Well done dab. Brinlarr
I think the idea of a Rajput-Muslim or any other non-Hindu hyphenation is a complete farce. Seeing that Muslim posters cannot till to date, voice, 
1)resolution of rajput creation myths and islamic ones,
2)what value that hyphenation 'Rajput-Muslim' has, when Islam violates and stands in opposition to the very tenets of Rajput ethos,
3)any shared historicity with hindu-rajputs,
4)significant contributions made by so called Rajput-Muslims to overall Indian heritage,
...all these call for stating the obvious, that Rajput-Muslim is an oxymoron.
One is either a Rajput, or a Muslim(though he comes from a Rajput line).
To say all this, is NOT a "hindu" view, much less a "hindutva" view! (like Dbachmann obfuscates the matter), but plain and straightforward understanding of the word Rajput. 
61.247.243.87 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: why do you guys discuss Rajput issues here, and attack me on Talk:Rajput? This page is about my behaviour. Talk:Rajput is about Rajputs. Why is this so difficult? Cannot you stay on topic for one minute? dab (ᛏ) 21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I wish you would have taken a "little time" to learn about Wikipedia before spilling your vitriolic hate all over it. dab (ᛏ) 09:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: the only pov I am pushing is WP policy (viz., Npov). Extremist povs have a place on WP, but extremist editors should not, at least not if they show as little restraint as this crew. When I have time, I will take this to RFAr to clear the air for the reasonable editors at the Rajput article. dab (ᛏ) 13:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A fair number of us who are involved are NOT PAKISTANI. Zora 08:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: "your presence is sorely needed here. I don't expect you get many Hindu trolls on ur:, but they really seem to flock to en:. Ultimately, they will end up at WP:RFAr if they go on like this. Their behaviour is more than enough for the arbcom to ban them, but somebody has to take the time for an arbitration case. I am committed to restoring a sane working environment at en:, where Hindus, Muslims and "whiteboys" can work together in peace. dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is a quote from DBachmann on Wisesabre's talk:

message: bro i cant cite any refernces because first of all my university library does not hosts any book on these sort of topics, secondly Punjab public library is not going to issue me any books (they dont issue to under graduates).thirdly I myself is not much intersted in Rajputi. 
That is why im Counting on You. I assure you that im not going to edit Rajput article again and I wont indulge my self in any edit war there, other then if you request. 
I totally Agree with you Wisesabre 18:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From Khurram's Talk:

message: Re categoty
I think Pakistani wikipedians is much better . Since there are a lot of Pakistanis out there who arnt in Pakistan , they are Pakistani Wpedians & Wpedians in xxxxcountry . We have similar categories for India & Israel too . Farhansher 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From Wisesabre's Talk:

message: : A fair number of us who are involved are NOT PAKISTANI. Zora 08:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ZORA writes in the middle of my message above:

message: Dear Zora,
After seeing how I was treated in the beginning of the edit war on Rajputs and by your quick judgments of my comments both in the past and presently, I really don't expect to get any kind of justice here. It seems that in your frustrations and Dab's frustrations, both of you have overlooked what was really going on. 
I have read through some of your conversations with Dab and Khurram and its pretty insulting. In all my years of inter-religious forums or working with different religions during medical relief programs, only here do I see so much contempt for Hindus.
Without having Khurram, Raja or Wisesabre cite any references, you allowed them to take open field against Rajputs. Enough articles, books, papers are out there that Shivraj would look more sane, believe it or not, than any of the guys who were arguing him. Shivraj and his group may not be tame or know how to write an academic impartial article, but they know the truth, the same truth that was recorded by Islamic historians for centuries. And yet, when Khurram and his group casually brushed off the references and historical accounts, both from an Islamic and Hindu perspective, none of you had a problem with that. 
Did you ever stop to think that perhaps yopu and your friends have made an error in judgment? I recall that when you first arrived in the debate you immediately stated that Communalism had no place in Wikipedia, and I totally agree, so why is the hatred geared towards Hindus? 
A full analysis of the debate will show that Khurram, Wisesabre and Raja had a complete disregard for references and citations, casually brushing everything off as if they had a University education on the topic and had read every book. And now in their Talk pages you see that they are deciding on where to find sources since they had none from the beginning but were just riding the Anti-Hindu wave, and that is Communalism, a very light shade of it, but Communalism none the less.
You always reply to me as if I am an idiot, and perhaps you will never bother to read my profile to understand who I am and where am I coming from. Perhaps I know more about this topic than the whole group combined. And yet, you found it important to state to me that you were not Pakistani, believe me, I already knew that. However, you assume that I am responding and writing in such tones because I have some "problem" with Pakistanis, that is not true, but I do have a problem when people are trying to spread false information and simply hijack articles for their own political agenda.
Rajput: 
A member of any of several powerful Hindu landowning and military lineages inhabiting northern and central India.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. 
Rajput: member of high Hindu caste: a member of one group of the Kshatriya caste, the second of the four Hindu castes
Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Rajput
/raajpoot/ 
noun a member of a Hindu military caste. 
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rajput?view=uk
Gorkhali 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: all I am asking is that people explicitly recognize Wikipedia policy, and make an effort to stay on topic, taking personal issues to personal talkpages if they must. Yes, Muslims must cite their sources just like Hindus. If the Hindus had just insisted that the Muslims cite their academic sources or shut up, we would have gotten somewhere. Instead they decided to troll the talkpage in droves, chanting battle hymns and what not. Thus, we never even got to the point of nailing down what exactly the "Muslim side" was claiming. The "Hindu side" can make policy work for them just like everyone else. If you disagree with some statement, insist on precise attribution, but don't embark on lengthy essays to the effect that you just know because it's in your blood. If the "Muslim side" had misbehaved to the extent the "Hindu side" has, I would have addressed them exactly alike, and if they had shown similar contempt towards policy, I would have ended up exactly as curt with them. I do hope for your constructive collaboration, asking for precise attribution of statements you think problematic, and being prepared to be asked the same for your own statements. If you can do that, I will consider you an excellent and most welcome editor on Rajput or any article. dab (ᛏ) 22:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Hindu Troll

message: Dab can be hot-headed, sometimes irreverant (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiva#the_name  and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raj2004&oldid=8299780#sri_rudram but at times is quick to apologize. He has flaws as we all do. He sometimes relies too much on Western sources when he argued about the meaning of Vishnu; the meaning known in the Hindu community is all-pervading one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vishnu#etymology and for his apology.
I can't comment on the Rajput issue as I am not knowledgeable about the subject. But I think both sides should try to compromise. Sometimes his comments are constructive as in Rudram when he distinguished correctly between interpretation and actual language (i.e., translation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raj2004#sri_rudram He can be correct as well when pointing out Devanagri is relatively recent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vishnu#Devanagari.2Fpronunciation But He can be slanted towards a Western point of view but when appropriate he can counterbalance other views. It was interesting to know other meanings of Vishnu although very minor. Perhaps at times, his view should be pointed out as a minority point of view. In another example of Western bias, he paints Vishnu solely as a minor deity as shown in the Vedas when there are other points of view that states the opposite.
At least he tries when challenged by appropriate sources as in Vishnu etymology. 
Dab, I think you do constructive work but please be a little more sensitive. Religion and ethnicity are hot topics. I think you also have to look at Indian sources, not just Western sources. For example, Monier-Williams, although respected, may be biased.see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vishnu#God_vs._god In the 19th century, many Western scholars were anti-Hindu given the times. Look at both sources.  I don't know if Dab is anti-Hindu but I know at times he is misguided or perhaps naieve about Monier-William's lack of neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vishnu#God_vs._god Even if he's not anti-Hindu, some of his comments may be construed as derogatory and would NOT be tolerated by a Christian or a Muslim. I think he may think he can get away with Hindu wikipedians because he perceives them as more passive than a Muslim or a Christian.
Also sometimes, please don't characterize anything that may challenge your point of view as Hinduvta. some comments in certain cases can be legitimate. Dab, please be polite as you can. 
The good thing about Wikiepdia is collobration. Hopefully, we can learn something new.
Raj2004 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See [] for detailed comments about Dabs lack of neutrality. In the comments, he is commended for excellent edits in some articles but is also clearly biased in others. In the Michael Witzel page he has argued consistently against adding critical links or criticism against witzel - he also defends user:witzel when he aribitrarily deletes all criticism added to the page. --Pranathi 20:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An Outside View-Dab: Pros and Cons