Talk:Rajput/Archive 19

message: I am wondering. This article is focussing on Rajastani exploits of rajputs, but we know rajputs had kingdoms in Punjab also and if we were to include ALL such exploits for fairness then we would have an overly HUGE page. In it's present form it's already too long and not enough elaboration on an actual rajput and the different clans. We could possible include where each tribe ruled majorly in it's times instead as a reference rather than an entire 'article within an article'?
Im also removing the point that no further Muslim conquests took place in the 9th century due to the formidable reputation of the rajputs as there is no proof of this from the middle eastern side to corroborate this, so it's more a 'proud assumption' rather than proof I think? Please feel free to correct me guys. I've also done a tidy up of 'language' in the history section of where unencyclopedic words such as 'treacherously' and 'crushed' have been replaced suitably. 
Can other editors help in this respect with other sections? 
Looking better guys, let's keep up the good work.--Raja 22:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to cast this into Wikipedia:Summary style. This is the main article and should give easy access to all specialized Rajput-related sub-articles. Specifically, it is about the people (ethnologically). Material already at  History of Rajputs and Rajputs and invasions of India should be very briefly summarized, with the use of . Please do match the content of this article to the content of the history articles and see how this article may be shortened without loss of information. dab (ᛏ) 22:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidy up

message: I am resigning my wikipedia membership effective immediately.
Rajputs remember a few things:
* Arbcom has decided against me NOT BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT OF RAJPUT ARTICLE but how I dealt with the intervention of Bachman.  Arbcom DOES NOT DECIDE ON THE CONTENTS OF THE ARTICLES. So is communicated to me by Charles Matthews of Arbcom.
*Also for the record Arbcom never asked me to provide any evidence against Bachman. Infact no body from the rajput side presented any evidence at all. Arbcom unilaterally decided based only on Bachman's one sided evidence! Also at one point arbcom considered desysopping Bachman.
*Bachman has a racist mindset as is evident from his comments here so do not let him bully you: 
*Bachman,Zora and in general the entire muslim side operates without references and pushes references without having read a single one of them.
*References on the rajput page (look for my last save) are pretty much complete. 
*Impumozhi is another person who reads a few websites and thinks he is an expert.  See his blatant lies discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rathore. Read the entire section of the heading "Impumozhi is a liar". So do not let him have a free reign on rajput related articles.
* Lastly these were the pages on my watchlist and it would be nice for one of the fellow rajputs to look after them.
:Akbar
:Ala ud din Khilji
:Alwar
:Aryan invasion theory
:Aurangzeb
:Babur
:Bagelkhand
:Baghel
:Banaphar
:Bappa Rawal
:Bhadail
:Bhaduria
:Bhatti
:Bika
:Birgoojur
:Chandela
:Chhatarpur
:Chittorgarh
:Dahia
:Deora
:Dhandhul
:Dogra
:Durga Das Rathore
:Gaddi (ethnic group)
:Gahadvala
:Ganges River
:Gogunda
:Hada
:Hammir Dev Chauhan
:Idar
:Indo-Aryan migration
:Jadeja
:Jaitawat
:Jasrotia
:Jauhar
:Jhala
:Jodha
:Jodhpur
:Kachwaha
:Kalyanot
:Kanhad Dev Songara
:Karnot
:Katoch
:Kayadara
:Kheechee
:Khokra
:Klaus Klostermaier
:Kshatriya
:Kumpawat
:Lalitaditya Muktapida
:Maharaja Jaswant Singh
:Maharana Hammir
:Maharana Kumbha
:Mandu
:Maratha
:Martial Race
:Max Müller
:Mewar
:Mirabai
:Mori
:Muhammad of Ghor
:Narwar
:Paramara
:Pathania
:Pattan
:Pokhariya
:Prithviraj III
:Prithviraj Raso
:Pundir
:Pundri
:Raisen
:Rajasthan
:Rajawat
:Rajpipla
:Rajput
:Rajputana
:Rajputani
:Rana Hamir
:Rana Pratap Singh
:Rana Sanga
:Rani Padmini
:Rao Ajay
:Rao Asthan
:Rao Doohad
:Rao Jodha
:Rao Maldeo Rathore
:Rao Shekha
:Rao Sheoji
:Rao Shiva
:Rao Sonag
:Rathore
:Rawal Ratan Singh
:Second Battle of Tarain
:Sher Shah Suri
:Silhadi
:Singh
:Sisodia
:Solanki
:Songara
:Taraori
:Tikka
:Tomara
Shivraj Singh 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ip addresses used by Shivraj Singh created , , .  and . 
so, do you mean "resign", or "change socks"? I am tired of being called names over upholding WP fundamentals, either here or on my talk. Could someone bother removing the PAs above? dab (ᛏ) 18:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resigning Wikipedia membership

message: The sock puppets of old have returned it appears. Can something be done about this as it's not progressing the article at all.
I've removed some bias propoganda material at the end of the article re Muslim conversion as it is irrelevant and antagonistic here. Also contained points that Hinduism was solely saved by rajputs which is in my opinion insulting to the non rajput hindu populace as well as a baseless assumption. 
Cross references to other rajastani rajputs is also something I think should be removed as they have their own articles. We can provide names as references instead as a link? They take up too much space and are tainted with propoganda. (Why not mention all of the hundreds of other Rajput kings in that case? Im not recommending this, but displaying my point)--Raja 15:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sock puppets are back

message: This article definitely has the scope to become a featured article. However, massive cleanup of the article is required. --Spartian 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: quite massive, yes. dab (ᛏ) 18:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: this is crazy. if typhoon has his way, the Rajput article has more information about the invasions than the specialized Rajputs and Invasions of India. At least make plain what you propose. Why are you removing :Category:Rajputs? Is the Rajput article unrelated to Rajputs? I see the following possibilities. Express your preference. dab (ᛏ) 09:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sub-articles

message: Wikipedia:Summary style. The "Invasions" episodes are part of Rajput history, but since we have most information about them, they get to  have their own historical sub-article.
*dab (ᛏ) 09:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Rajput]], sub-articles [[History of Rajputs]], [[Rajputs and Invasions of India]]

message: Gurkhaboy got banned? He is a Western University educated scholar on the Rajputs. People like Dr. King, Dr. McCleod, Dr. Malvika Kasturi and Dr. J. T. O'Connell know him or of him. I think this article is gonna take a really bad turn.
~~ Daniel Ponzi
:it couldn't be getting much worse, could it? These people didn't get banned for being clueless, but for misbehaving. dab (ᛏ) 09:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wait a minute - I apologize, I didn't mean you. I never even listed you as part and parcel of the "Hindu trolls". You appear on the "good faith Hindu side" in my book. I did not realize before now that you were banned, I mean I saw your name on the remedy, but I didn't check back with the evidence. So I apologize for my statement above as not referring to you. I am unsure why you were banned, in fact I would be prepared to ask for clarification, especially concerning ban expiration. As it is, I certainly welcome you to continue constructively contributing via the talkpage. dab (ᛏ) 12:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banned

message: could some of the involved editors please help me clean up with the bibliography? Alphabetize it, sort it, figure out which books are needed as reference to statements in the article and which are just here as reading suggestions, figure out which books would be more at home in the "History" or "Invasion" bibliographies. We don't give reviews interspersed with the bibliography. If you want to make a statement about a book, do it in the article body. Please. I am tired of trying to improve readability of this article if it's just torn to shreds by edit warriors within the hour. I invested in the rfar to enable editors to work in peace from vitriolic pov-pushers, now please take advantage of that by building a great article. (typhoon, get acquainted with Wikipedia:Policy and WP: MoS before edit-warring. dab (ᛏ) 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we shouldn't delete contributions because the contributor was banned, but keep what is valuable, and discard what is not. The bibliography contains valuable references. However, only those entries both relevant the article and attributable to an author and a publisher/year should be kept, and the non-English ones only if used as references for specific statements, not as general "further reading". I am trying to clean it up, but I keep getting summarily reverted for no specified reason. dab (ᛏ) 12:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologized above: I didn't claim you misbehaved in the arbcom case, and did so above only by mistake. My comments were never intended to be anti-Hindu, they were anti-nationalist and anti-fundamentalist, and it seems appropriate to apologize to you now if they appeared otherwise to you. I do not think that there is a higher incidence of fanatism or irrationality in Hinduism than in the other major religions, and the problems we were having here are no different from the problems we get with fundamentalist Christians or Muslims on other articles. My attitude towards Hindu fundamentalists is no more hostile than that towards fundamentalists of other religions. The problems at this particular article are especially severe since religious dogmatism meets ethnic pride, a combination that tends to bring out the very worst in any people. dab (ᛏ) 13:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I cannot take bans off anyone any more than imposing them on anyone. But I assure you that if you constructively point out issues here on talk, citing your sources, I will make sure to defend them against "Pakistani teenagers" if such should be trying to sneak in bias. It is true that bad behaviour doesn't make your point any more false than that good behaviour makes it true, but I am not aware that I have taken anything on hearsay even from the most honey-mouthed editor. Both sides need watertight verifiability. Even better would be, however, if there were no "two sides" but a many-faceted collaboration towards exhaustive coverage of the topic. dab (ᛏ) 14:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: bibliography

message: Perhaps we could also provide a picture of Maharaja Ganga Singh of Bikaner during his appointment to the British War Cabinet WW1 and as he is presented in the famous painting by Sir James Guthrie "The great statesmen of the war", also we could place a pic of Maharaja Raghubir Singh of Kotah Bundi and also Maharaja Dhiraj Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shahdev of Nepal as well as HRH Sri teen Maharaja Jung Bahadur of Nepal (my great great grandfather). Gorkhali 21:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate page on HH Ganga Singh is certainly appropriate, and if you provide an image without copyright issues, we could use it there -- in this connection, GS's grandson, HH Karni Singh, wrote a scholarly dissertation entitled "The Relations of the House of Bikaner with the Central Powers, 1465-1949", for which he received a PhD. This can serve as an unimpeachable source for crafting a section on mughal-rajput relations. I know that a copy is available at the Seshadri Iyer memorial library in Bangalore, and I am trying to get hold of a copy through the library network where I live. If trolls are kept at bay, it is not impossible to write a sensible piece here and also create many other useful articles. This whole era of Indian history cries out for attention. ImpuMozhi 22:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion

message: Dab, please remove the Rajput samaj link, they have a lot of mistakes and especially their article about my cousins the Phulkian royal family (ie Patiala, Nabha etc), the origins are completely wrong and you can cross reference this with Christopher Buyers of the Royal Ark (he keeps track of descendants of Royal families). Rajput Samaj is very bad and inaccurate, even the Pakistani side had a laugh during the early parts of the debate on this article.
Gorkhali 02:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hm, would you be content to have the link labelled "Pakistan centered account" or something? Is it Pakistan centered? dab (ᛏ) 09:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, no, it is a website by one individual, Chhatrapal Singh Shekhawat of Rajasthan. Unfortunately, it is not very strong on sources either. I cannot judge its accuracy, but I am ready to believe you it is inaccurate, or at best the opinion of an individual. So if nobody objects I will remove the link. dab (ᛏ) 09:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please remove Rajput samaj link

message: Tha article has a lot of valuable information and has nice illustrations. However it is too long, and has too many details. I am afraid most potential readers do not read the article. It should be remembered that most readers are not experts but people with little or no knowledge of the subject.
I would suggest dividing the article into 2-3 articles, and using smaller and well-separated paragraphs.--Malaiya 00:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a work-in-progress and also somewhat contentious. It will be done in due course; I have already moved large swathes of text to other pages -- we should let some of the old text and references remain until they are replaced by the new.  ImpuMozhi 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice article, but too long

message: is a liar and has been exposed at Talk:Rathore.  What will it take to make him stop lying? =Bhannu 14:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impumozzhi

message: I wish my compatriots would stop giving this daily proof of the truth of poor Bachmann's much-criticised comment. ImpuMozhi 15:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ... and Bachmann's truth

message: The page looks a lot better than it's previous version, hats off to the writer. I make it clear that I do respect this page being a primarily Hindu caste page, but only argued that the language be encyclopedic (i.e not POV with anti Islamic slurs) and a mild reference that there are Rajputs of other faiths. I dont want arguments but I would like to assure Ghorkali both me and Khurram are far from 'Pakistani Teenagers' and such name calling doesn't win him more respect from us either. But, either way, things have no doubt improved, lets keep up this trend.
A reference I have a problem with is on the 'Invasions' section;
"Within a hundred years after his (Muhammad's) death, his followers had invaded the countries of Asia as far as the Hindu Kush... almost from (the) first, the Arabs had fixed eager eyes upon (India). Fifteen years after the death of prophet, Usman sent a sea expedition to Thana and Broach on the Bombay coast (c.647 AD?). Other raids towards Sindh took place in 662 and 664 with no results. 
a) This is unencyclopedic language i.e. I question the writers neutrality completely
b) The 4th Caliph Ali took over from Caliph Usman (after his death) approx within 6 years of Muhammed's (pbuh) death. How in God's name could the same Usman now be a Caliph fifteen years after his death? This reference is therefore more agenda and factually incorrect. 
Can this therefore either be replaced or removed? Serious ideas please. --Raja 18:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire extract from the Walker as also the extract from James Tod is horrendously biased. It should be knocked off entirely. I am retaining it for the moment only to see if any info can be used elsewhere in the article. Whatever I have deleted was utterly useless; not only POV but also nothing to do with rajputs. South India, Marathas, Sikhs, etc. Thank you for the kind words Raja. ImpuMozhi 18:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, Muhammad died in 632 CE. Uthman was caliph from 644 to 656. He was succeeded by Ali (caliph 656-661) and then Muawiya (661-680). So the quote was right in saying that an expedition in 647 would have been on Uthman's watch. However, I agree that the wording is dreadfully POV. Zora 18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: yes, extract the factual info and replace the quotes with Wikipedia's voice. Nice work on the ToC reorganisation. But do we need separate "Islamic invasions" and "Rajputs and Invasions" section? They appear to cover the same period and could be merged. But we should make mention of how impressed Tod and other Brits were with the Rajputs, preferably in the "Character" section. Even the 1911 Britannica has "fine brave men", although "lazy and indifferent" as farmers. dab (ᛏ) 18:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1911 thing is written in the grand old imperial style -- I don't know. Also, the demographica of 1911 is not altogether relevant, except in affirming that the British census recognized muslim-rajputs, apart from every other divisive caste-identity grouping. I think these sections need much copy-editing, and the demographics may disappear into another section, is that all right? Also Raja, you will see in the section of on "origins" that there is mention of maratha and Jat claims to Rajput-hood. I am planning to word the Muslim-rajput thing in terms of "similarly, converts are loath to disassociate themselves from the identity and image of the parent community ---- ". What do you think of that? ImpuMozhi 18:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, if we had the 1931 census data it would be more relevant. The 1911 demographic data is still of historic interest, especially since "Rajput" is not an officially recognized group or ethnicity today. Much like in my own country where there is no official nobility and I can call myself "Lord", "Duke" or "Count" or whatever without breaking any law. Even before 1931, "Rajput" seems to have become an "embattled identity" with conflicting claims. In prosaic reality, the census guy walked up to your door in 1868, and you were free to tell him that you were or were not a Rajput, so we can pretty much forget about a headcount that is both official and realistic. The admiration of the British for the soldierly qualities of the Rajputs would seem to belong in the "British Raj" section. dab (ᛏ) 19:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article reference

message: I would like views on -
*Deletion of the separate "Invasions" page altogether
*Replacement of the bulk of the "History" page with the "Political History" section here. I know that this is basically a summary, and the history page can have much more detail, but nothing further is possible in the circumstances
*Deletion of the "Further reading" section -- not many pages have such a section.
This page needs a great deal more work -- (patronage of) literature, art, architecture etc etc but at present I will concentrate on getting what is already available into acceptable, readable form. Regards, ImpuMozhi 18:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: let's not rush it. The literature section can hang around, maybe useful quotes are forthcoming. Also review the "comments", some of them may be used in the article. After that, there can be a "further reading" section with books about the Rajputs in general. Individual biographies should be moved to the article of the biographee rather than just deleted. The Hindi books should either be used for a specific quotation or removed, it does not do to have a Hindi "further reading" section on English Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 19:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other articles and work

message: hello everyone.i want to know if dr sumer chauhan can call himself rajput.on his gorkhali page he has claimed that maharaja of patiala is his maternal uncle.he has also claimed that the royal family of patiala is sikh jat.does this not make him a sikh jat rather than a rajput. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.43.235 (talk • contribs) 
origins of rajputs.
brahmins are descended from brahm rishis(priest prophets).all in all their are seven brahm rishis(priest prophets).
rajputs are descended from raj rishis(king prophets).in the bhagvad gita, fourth discourse,shri krishan ji maharaj says to arjuna ji about jnana yoga "in the beginning i taught this imperishable yoga to vivashvant,vivashvant taught it to manu,manu taught it to ikshvaku.this yoga having thus passed in succession,the king sages (raj rishis)learnt.suraj vanshi rajputs are descended from vivashvantji,manuji and ikshvakuji(rajrishis).vivashvantji,s title is surya or suraj(sun).chandervanshi rajputs are descended from somaji.somaji,s title is chander(moon).vivashvantji and somaji were second cousins.
both brahmins and rajputs are of divine lineage.that is why they feel so proud of themselves.
                                          
                                                hawkraj.
:"the moon told us to keep vandalizing Wikipedia" --  suddenly it all makes so much sense. not. dab (ᛏ) 09:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: definition

message: What are you trying to do? You are copying large chunks of text from History of Rajputs. If merging both articles is what you're after, fine, but do take into consideration that this article is over 46 KB long, well over the recommended article length. So far you have not indicated what you want; all you have been doing is revert warring on the article and this talk page! Can't you understand that your views, whatever they may be, are clearly in the minority and until you provide your rationale for them, you will simply be trolling the article. What do you want? --Latinus 12:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's just the same game of socks all over again. Shall we block the sock warriors from now on? Some people are trying to write an encyclopedia here. dab (ᛏ) 06:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I never said there were no such thing as Muslims who are descended from Rajput families. Nor do I have anything to do with the sock puppets. Dab and others know I am quite sincere and I have thus not interfered with this article any longer, I simply come and look at its progression and how Impumozhi has done quite a bit of good work to the article. As for Hawkraj commenting on my mother, that is so inappropriate. However in case you were wondering, my mother is not a Sikh Jat, look at my profile, she is the grandaughter of HRH Prince Dhwaj Narsingh Rana of Kaski Lambjung Nepal, which can be confirmed by Christopher Buyers and Dr. Joseph T. O'Connell at the university of Toronto. This is the same family as Rajmata Scindia, Rana of Udaipur, Ranas of Nepal. Dab Don't you think that such personal attacks are inappropriate?Gorkhali 19:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that commenting on editor's mothers and random allegations is going too far. We have a few Hindu kids who make a point of disrupting this article. This is a problem, but nothing out of the ordinary. Wikipedia can deal with it. Gorkhali is not one of these kids, but a well-behaved editor with a pov. This article needs admin attention. The kids indulging in unproductive reverts should be blocked and offtopic trash posted to the talkpage should be reverted. Zora, if you're reading this, or any other admin, please get involved. dab (ᛏ) 19:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments about Mr.Chauhan (User:Gorkhali) are so tasteless as to be beneath comment. I urge him to follow the dictum "never explain never complain" when faced with these third-rate types -- do not dignify trolls by bandying words with them. In the light of the public image of rajputs, one may wonder whether these guys are real rajputs. Do rajputs hide behind sock-puppets, play with the truth, use foul language and behave so cheaply? Speaking at their level, as far as I am able to, let me say that these people give rajputs a bad name, and make Indians feel ashamed in front of urbane Pakistanis, who seem to be so much more cultured. ImpuMozhi 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To [[User:10 000 thundering typhoons]] 

message: Both these user-accounts (and now Chudasama) have the same aim, but Stephanian account is clearly intended to be recognized as a troll and banned, while the 1000 tycoons account tries to build up a non-troll image by making pious calls for consensus (and also by copy-pasting matter in toto from websites). Why not follow the script thus charted out for us? What more is needed before Stephanian is recognized as a troll and banned? Apart from personal abuse, he is also blanking out important sections of the talk-page and now, he is emptying out :Category:Rajputs and :Category:Rajput clans with senseless vengeance. Why exactly is he still being tolerated? Is it because the blocking of this account will have absolutely no effect on affairs here? ImpuMozhi 12:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - this has been going on for ages. Not considering the obvious sockpuppets involved, the revert warring on the article and talk page is unique. While I have absolutely no problem in reverting and reverting again and again ad nauseam, I don't think revert warring of this scale is allowed (if it is, it shouldn't be). 10 000 typhoons's approach appears to contradict itself: in effect he's saying "do as I say [not revert war and discuss on the talk page], not as I do [revert war and never discuss on the talk page]". The tactics are well known and are outlined in detail at WP:TROLL. Stephanian's approach is blatantly rude and if he doesn't stop, I advise you to take it to WP:PAIN. As for removing the categories - I'd use the rollback script to reverse it, but I'm not sure if it's allowed. The IP check was "inconclusive", but I have a feeling that this is going to reach the extent where they are banned in their own right and their socks are blockable on sight. I requested an IP check for RendezvousSingh a few days ago and there was no response. I'm certain that the same thing would happen if one were requested for Chudasama. --Latinus 13:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "banned in their own right and their socks are blockable on sight" is exactly what is needed -- we already have an Arbcom ruling against User:Shivraj Singh, which has availed us nothing; neither Dab nor Zora nor I have any doubt about where the font of this trolling lies. WP:PAIN can hardly be more potent than Arbcom, and anyway it is at best a personal reprieve and will not help the articles. I think anything less than the hammer will be effort gone waste. We need all the help we can get, Latinus, and I am very glad to have you here. Regards, ImpuMozhi 13:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: imho, the arbcom was doing a sloppy job, they recognized the trolls and summarily banned them (including, without stating their reason, Gorkhali, likely just because they were confused by the numerous sock accounts), but they didn't give us tools to cope with the situation. Now I wouldn't say the situaton hasn't improved. Look at the archives if you want to be remembered of the madness reigning here before the rfar. Now we have a slow revert-war, and all editors participating in constructive debate and editing seem to agree on the "troll" status on the revert crew, be they socks or meatpuppets. We just need to avoid letting this talkpage slip into another swamp of abuse, and stay on topic working on the article. The reverting doesn't prevent us from this, and if the trolls continue, I am confident an admin will step in sooner or later. dab (ᛏ) 14:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: it's ok - discussion of possible definitions of "Rahjput" is on topic, there is just no need to discuss a Wikipedia editor's family to illustrate the case. dab (ᛏ) 14:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: exactly (meaning your last statement). If we can abstract something relevant to this article from the case study of your family, that's fine; otherwise, if you object to having your family discussed here, I suggest you remove this part of the discussion from the page as offtopic and ad hominem (compare WP:RPA). Incidentially, since the typhoon troll seems to hold you in some esteem, Gorkhali, you may want to attempt getting him to listen to sense on his talkpage. dab (ᛏ) 17:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trollish behavior

message: You have an error in the Demographics:
The successor-states of the British Raj have chosen not to record caste affiliation; present-day estimates are therefore necessarily inexact, and range in the vicinity of 40 million people claiming people claiming Rajput heritage. 
This is a clear POV: Hindi, Gujarati, Punjabi and dialects of these languages are the native languages of the Rajputs.
The languages are also incorrect since Hindi and Urdu were languages that developed much later (please consult a lingustic/socio-anthropologist or Indian languages expert). Native languages of the Rajputs can be anything from Sanskrit to Pali to Devnagri to Braj to Nepali (a Rajasthani dialect) etc etc, so I would suggest removing the line about languages since Rajputs can come from as far as Manipur. Be careful not to write down your assumptions but try to keep all claims that can be backed up by credible authentic sources. William Cutbush 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shivraj or whoever you are, the sockpuppetry is really getting ridiculous now. Just do yourself and everyone a favour and find another project. As for Devanagari (an abugida) or Sanskrit (6,000 claimed native speakers in to) being today's Rajput's native languages -- well, great, make sure to write that on your geocities page or whatever. Don't waste our time here any more, you are banned. dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clever, exceedingly clever. The apparent decency, the better language, the slight cluelessness on languages that may not be surprising in someone named "Will Cut bush". Man, you do have a strong will. I should have recognised "too much of a good thing" with the reference to "going to a consulate" -- what a sucker I am for a little civility. One lives and learns. ImpuMozhi 17:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: Hi, it is delightful to have some constructive criticism on this talk-page. Regarding the points raised:
*I have fixed the typo (double wording)
*I have removed the "bulk of muslim-rajputs are Pakistani" sentence as a measure of abundant caution
*Regarding languages: My understanding of the term "native language of the rajputs" is that the said language/s is/are the mother-tongues of that community. This is the language they speak at home. The references to Sanskrit, Pali, etc are surely misplaced? Also, Devanagari is a script, and Braj-bhasha is a dialect of Hindi. Nepali is an independent language.
*As may be ascertained from the 17 archived talk-pages, the partisans of the muslim-rajput identity base their claim on part-descent from some Hindu-rajput convert to Islam. The idea is that if one of a thousand known ancestors was a rajput, the person is entitled to self-describe as being "muslim-rajput". The patrilineal principle is irrelevant. By this definition, every mughal emperor beginning with Jehangir was certainly a "muslim-rajput".
*I am very well aware of the general Pakistani antipathy for all things Indian or Hindu. I am also aware of the championing of that sentiment by the Pakistani government. This was the reason for my initial surprise at the heat with which the MR partisans pursued their objective of securing mention on this page. Perhaps you do not realise it, but the present mention of that community on this page is the result of much stridency on their part. Far be it from me to impose a Hindu caste identity on an unwilling muslim group.
I hope this addresses your points. Please do provide further constructive criticism on this page, if possible. Regards, ImpuMozhi 08:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shivraj or whoever you are, the sockpuppetry is really getting ridiculous now. Just do yourself and everyone a favour and find another project. As for Devanagari (an abugida) or Sanskrit (6,000 claimed native speakers in to) being today's Rajput's native languages -- well, great, make sure to write that on your geocities page or whatever. Don't waste our time here any more, you are banned. dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clever, exceedingly clever. The apparent decency, the better language, the slight cluelessness on languages that may not be surprising in someone named "Will Cut bush". Man, you do have a strong will. I should have recognised "too much of a good thing" with the reference to "going to a consulate" -- what a sucker I am for a little civility. One lives and learns. ImpuMozhi 17:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Points