Talk:Rajput/Archive 12

message: In a few days, I will be removing all entries in the "References" section that lack publication information. Please see here for correct reference style guidelines. --goethean ॐ 17:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of poor bibliographic information 

message: I have added the name Janjua as a prominent clan of Rajputs seeing as they were the clan who were known as Hindu Shahi by Ghazni and fought him repeatedly.
Khurram, I'm glad things are getting into more tolerant and neutral environment now, the article is already alot less offensive.Excellent work, keep it up.
--Raja 15:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Raja, we must cite sources for all additions to the article. This is the only fair way to police it and keep the unencyclopedic text out. — goethean ॐ 15:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Khurram, I will again emphasize that all additions to the article, whether controversial or not, must cite a source. Please read Wikipedia's policy on citations. — goethean ॐ 17:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Looking at the article, that looks like a pretty obviously accurate edit. I guess that I overreacted above. I'm really talking about adding content to the article. Thanks for working with me here. — goethean ॐ 19:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It looks like an administrator has locked the article from being edited to protect it from 203's vandalism. After the article is unlocked, go ahead. You can also put the weblink that you provided above next to the link as a source. I'll help you do it after the page is unlocked. — goethean ॐ 20:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition. 

message: Folks, I believe this issue is a bilateral dispute between indians and pakis. So I ask all self-appointed mediators to lay off from this page. Let indians and pakis resolve their disputes on their own. -- unsigned comment by IP address 24.39.114.30
:That's a racist comment. Go away. — goethean ॐ 17:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bilateral dispute 

message: You have been thoroughly exposed as a hindu hating muslim. You have been diligently deleting stuff from hindu rajputs and have not done the same to crap from muslims. Can u explain this duplicity? If your memory needs a kick I can provide you with many instances. Also stop hiding behind pseudonyms and come out with ur real name. I will wager 10 cents that u r a muslim.
Do not act like a child and have the guts to accept criticism. I have had enough of your biased clueless behavior.  I can also start deleting the crap that you write from now on and revert your edits .
-Shivraj
:: Whoa hang on here Shiv, where the hell did you come up with that assumption? There is absolutely no proof of this point anywhere here so why become so abusive? Take a look at Gothean's history here and you will see from his work that he is dedicated to religious tolerance. This new abusive from you is quite concerning...I'm not happy about this at all. --Raja 21:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gothean

message: If you read my answers you'd realise that I question your queries relevance to this page? You can question a hundred times we always answer, yet when we question you, you merely evade. Why? Rajputs ARE NOT and NEVER will be an ethos against Islam and there is no paradox called Muslim Rajput, period.
Answer my questions, which I believe are more relevant to your propoganda here if you really want a debate. 
I also abhor your abuse towards Gothean who's just here to stop YOUR edit war from escalating. He hasn't been anti Hindu or Islamic in anyway so why the abuse? Let's be clear about one thing here, if you look at the previous histories Shiv, I haven't deleted anything from your article (except where earlier you were being prejudiced against us by calling us outcastes) and I havent deleted any of your posts on this discussion, please go ahead and verify. 
PS I know you wont sleep at night unless I answer some of your questions directly so I have done. Now answer mine if you can. (I am not challenging you here, it is a polite request.) --Raja 21:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shiv 

message: I have discovered that an article caled Hindu rajputs was created. It is probably a POV fork of this article, and something should be done about this. Nothing links there accet now this talk page. Academic Challenger 17:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One vfd, coming right up...— goethean ॐ 17:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu Rajputs

message: It would be great if you could all cooperate and write an article. I think it is not so hard; just let there be sections on each view point and the differing authors should not edit each others work but focus on their own. It is embarrassing to watch adults fritter away an opportunity to write useful history when both sides of the story are worth looking at and represent important historical points of view. I think at this late date it is also reasonable to have both Hindu and Muslim Rajput articles if that would solve the contention.  Kindly try to work together in some meaningful way so that others can profit from the Wikipedia on this subject. Look at it as helping other people to understand (which most assuredly they do not).   Sevadar 21:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this point. I'm sure other Non Hindu Rajputs will also agree this too. I'm up for helping wherever required.--86.2.105.229 13:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds reasonable until both versions stick to proven facts and refrain from promoting religious rhetoric and agendas. The purpose of the article writing should be to present the others with an unbiased view of history not a distorted one and this is what this debate is all about so far.
خرم Khurram 13:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's The Article

message: Shivraj, how does this language sound?
:Although the vast majority of Rajputs have been strongly Hindu, there have been a few tribes throughout the past few centuries, including some Bhatti Rajputs, that have converted to Islam and yet still consider themselves Rajputs. Hindu Rajputs generally dispute this claim.
— goethean ॐ 16:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible compromise language? 

message: As this article has been protected for ten days now--an unhealthily long period on a wiki--I'm unprotecting.  There does seem to be a certain amount of reasonably polite discussion on this talk page, which I hope will translate into reasonably polite editing. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Babysteps. — goethean ॐ 19:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: Tom, regarding this, I had moved that information to History of Rajputs. — goethean ॐ 16:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 20:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  tom's edit 

message: Shiv has editted the page again in his "fashion". Can someone take the "Anti-Muslim" bias out of him since I am tired of it?
خرم Khurram 14:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Goethean.
خرم Khurram 16:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shiv in Action Again

message: Shiv, Your righteous stand is very much appreciated by all Hindus who are closely following this war of attrition on the Internet. I am really touched by the fact that at least one Hindu is fighting a lone battle against the Muslim vandals in wikipedia doamin. Way to go brother. keep it up. All the Hindus looking up to you.
Best Wishes
Sisodia
---------
Sisodia,
There are some interesting things I learned here.  Every muslim who won a war in India, his descendants , according to muslims on this wikipedia are rajputs e.g Ghori, Khilji's followers etc.  No one on wikipedia, including the charade of admins questions such assertions.  I wonder why?
And they are "hiding behind the veil" again.  When u ask them questions they just dodge. Perhaps it is in there genes.  When Amar Singh Rathore attacked Shah Jahan many who came to defend ShahJahan were cut to pieces.  ShahJahan ran into the "janana" i.e the women's quarter to save himself.  Amar Singh followed him but when ShahJahan's wife pleaded for his life Amar Singh decided to let him live.  Otherwise one blow of the mighty Rathore's sword would have ended the mughal empire right then and there.
Let us see what new twist to our history these guys bring up now.  I would encourage you to visit wiki more often.
- Shivraj Singh 09:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jo dridh rakhe dharm ko, tihi rakhe kartar