Talk:Rajput/Archive 20

message: the word Rajput is noway related to arya as suggested by some it is simply Raj+putra.It is recorded in vishnu purana too by that name ruling out any distortion of previous words.People have given several explanation of Raj connection to rajput.Some say it is for king or aristrocracy while some connects it with Rajogun or even male semen is called raj in sanskrit.rajput means derived from raj.Holywarrior 11:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CITE is your friend. dab (ᛏ) 14:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hawkraj, is there any way you can cite references for this 'development' of the original word? It was my understanding that Indus people were referred to as Hindu amongst other theorries. But this isa  new one on me, albeit I'm not questioning it's authenticity as such. The reason I ask is that it would be good to provide some useful info to non Rajputs too. I was always of the understanding of 'Raj Putra' to Rajput. I'm interested in why this reference came about. Also do you have some knowledge relating to Punjab based Rajputs? Perhaps you can add some history to it here also? I believe Khurram may return at some point soon to address your question/request to him. I've noticed you becoming civil now. Let's keep this up and get somewhere with the article now. --Raja 21:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The word Rajput

message: There's a reference on the page by source siddiqui 2004 regarding Muslim Rajputs aren't all patrilineal. This is the only source I have heard this from and in fact in my entire life and humble research I have never come across this point. Any jatt of a rajput mother would vehemently claim his jatt patrilineal descendancy. In fact, in our culture it's most humiliating to claim your matrlineal descendancy over patriline. Can this poor and ill informed source be removed as none of the major Muslim Rajput clans attest to this 'theory' . The Jehangir point is ridiculous beyond reason. But I dont know if this point has been added by anti-MR sentiment or not. Nowhere in the entire archive was a mention made of such an example of non patrilineal rajputs.--Raja 00:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Siddiqui reference

message: All right, we have:
*
*
*
*
*
All these accounts have been blocked indefinitely - I just thought all editors should know. Full details at ANI. --Latinus 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent news. And a positive message to any future sock puppeteers that this is the eventual result.--Raja 21:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your link Hawkraj. I have read that (and a few others provided) but none go into direct details of where this word suddenly came into use/vogue from 7th century onwards, other than theory. I think that some research into this point would beneficial and in future at some point be brought here. We get a lot of contention from others such as juts who question whether Rajputs really have true geneology dating back thousands of years (we all know this is hard to prove anyway beyond a script of an ancestral tree) and that we are descendants of invading elements which were absorbed into the system and 'given' these given genelogies by the Pundits etc, hence our coming of prominence after this period i.e. 7th century. I dont personally believe this, but it is a view none the less. 
Either way, not much is known on India of the 6th and 7th century upheavals, and ceratinly the loss of the word kshatriya clan to rajput clan is an interesting point, no? Whether we like it or not, I do believe in the interests of all views being represented, it is worthy of mention. But only on principle. Cab we poll/debate this also amongst us? 
May I also recommend that you sign up, to keep things in line with wikipedia policy etc.--Raja 23:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppets blocked 

message: Bhola and ImpuMozhi are both good faith editors in my opinion albeit this last criticism above. Bhola, ImpuMozhi has done some excellent work on the article in fixing it from the original POV NIGHTMARE it used to be. My only query to it would have been the siddiqui source which was clearly a non held/non sensical view. To add that wasn't good without debating it here, after all, why not ask us? But he has taken a lot of criticism from his own Hindu peers for upholding wiki values and maintaining our right to be mentioned here and for that I respect him whole heartedly. Bhola, there has been a long and very heated (plus disruptive) discussion here, therefore, as dab recommended, a discussed and debated change is the only option here, with the consensus of the majority. Your views are ofcourse important but a little team work is required. Bhola can I ask that you work with ImpuMozhi and try and use his writing skills and netrality to work on the areas you mentioned? Im quite sure he'll oblige. This would be far more positive and constructive, ofcourse if my friend ImpuMozhi agrees? We need to work together here.--Raja 12:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this seems to belong on caste, and is unsourced. Caste was officially abolished in the 1940s. Of course it lingers on in conservative minds, but claims to the effect that the caste system survives fully intact underneath a thin veil of legislation need sources,  is hardly uncontroversial , and likely also offensive to more modern-minded Indians who believe they live in a secular state. Please do not continue posting tangential and unsourced claims here. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and this page is for focussed discussion of the article only. dab (ᛏ) 20:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative

message: I just deleted the following unsourced statements from the introduction:
:The term  is first found in the 7th century AD. It evidently originated in the areas that form the present-day states of Rajasthan and Gujarat and spread only gradually to other Hindi-speaking areas ; the Kshatriyas of Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh still do not generally self-describe as rajputs; The association of this term with Rajasthan and Gujarat is definite; even in areas where the term is used widely, the people referred to as "Rajputs" tend to ascribe an origin in those areas to themselves.
Some of these statements might be true, but I have evidence that at least one of them is defininitely false (the statement about eastern UP and Bihar). As for the paragraph, I don't think the article will be any worse without it.--Bhola 03:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I don't believe the article is any the better for that change, so I am reverting it. ImpuMozhi 04:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read that providing sources for content is mandated by Wikipedia policy, and that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.--Bhola 04:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced statements in introduction

message: Well, the article has been unprotected. Now the insufferable Bhola can deal with User:Dhruv singh and other such. I do not feel inclined to do anything to help such people any more. A pox on both your houses. Goodbye. ImpuMozhi 04:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: ImpuMozhi changed the opening line from:
:Rajputs ... are people who belong to a loose grouping of clans or tribes originating in India and Pakistan that claim descent from the ancient royal dynasties of the region.
to
:Rajputs ... are a prominent social group of India, Nepal and Pakistan. They claim descent from the ancient royal dynasties of the region.  
and wrote as his edit summary, "even less ambiguity".
In my opinion, calling them 'a prominent social group' is'nt less ambiguous than the text that he deleted, but rather moreso. It's true that they're a prominent social group, but the other version was even more specific. After all, a college fraternity is a social group too, but Rajputs are an example of a particular kind of social group very different from the former, and I think it's better to be more precise. Furthermore, saying that they're 'a prominent social group' is an example of using a peacock term, something that the Wikipedia style guides advise us to avoid.--Bhola 04:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but a site called Rajputsamaj did incorporate Muslim Rajputs and regarded them openly and is actually run by a Hindu Rajput. But I think it was Dr Gorkhali that wanted the link here on the atricle removed because he thought it was poor. Maybe it was because of their tolerance, but either way, Im glad to here of the tolerance of other communties.--Raja 06:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The former version is better. Rajputs are "people who belong to a loose grouping of clans or tribes", they are not a single "social group" in any concrete sense. They don't speak a single languge. They have no officially recognized status. They are millions of people scattered over half of India with the single unifying property that they claim "Rajputness". They do include actual social groups or even ethnicities, such as the itinerant blacksmiths of Rajasthan or that mountain people of Himachal pradesh, but the mention of these few well-defined sub-groups was removed from Demographics. I think it has long transpired that the bulk of Rajputs are just regular Indians/Pakistanis who obsess about their mythic ancestry. dab (ᛏ) 06:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very well said. --Bhola 00:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, but there is just one small quibble. I don't know for sure if we can necessarily say that the bulk of ordinary, regular Rajputs in India and Pakistan is anywhere near as obsessed about, or even cares much about, the mythic ancestry business as certain personalities on the internet or on Wikipedia might make it appear.--Bhola 00:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The opening line

message: and this jihaadi rag tag brigade with there leader bachman are still spreading Islamic nonsense.  Raja and Bachman and this new fellow Bhola go play on muslim rajput page.  You have tried your best and YOU WILL NOT tarnish rajput history here. 
Rajput is a hindu jaati. Read your favorite Ibbetson, whose census survey you are totuing, he gives you the exact grounds on which rajputs lost there hindu jaati and were ostracised from rajput community on practicing widow remarriage.  Muslims are not rajputs no matter how hard you try.
-Digvijay
:Digvijay, I advise you to revert yourself or you will get a long block (longer than you would have got) when the administrators decide to enforce your ban. If you want to modify this page, propose it here - explain your rationale and if a consensus is formed, then someone will make your edit. Trolling and violating your ban will get you nowhere. I've also noticed that you tend to repeat the same edit summaries - 10 000 thundering typhoons did that as well ;-) I guess you both use Netscape... --Latinus 12:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: chuckle, the effect of sprotection: the socks don't work any longer, so the banned account is thrown in for a final heroic revert? I don't give a flying fork if there are Rajput Muslims or Muslim Rajputs, it is really nothing to me, ok? Just cite whoever said that there are or there aren't. See also User_talk:Raj2004#Rajputs. The DPSingh account is going on 5 days' hiatus for violating its arbcom ruling. dab (ᛏ) 16:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't be so sure - I'm sure there are plenty of sleeper socks in the wings, some of which are destined to be blatant revert socks, the others to be impersonators of newbies with an interest in the topic ;-) --Latinus 16:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is, as a rule, extremely easy to recognize good faith newbies. In fact, disconcertingly easy, it is much more difficult to disguise yourself even using the low-bandwith channel of typing on your keyboard, than you'd imagine. What I'd love to see would be some polite, intelligent, erudite and reasonable new editors who argue the case of the trolls, it is ever too easy to dismiss an argument together with its inept proponents. dab (ᛏ) 17:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "impersonators of newbies with an interest in the topic". Aha. Would you be refering to a certain user, with 11 edits in July 2005, and then nothing, who made a resounding advent in February, on the day the arbcom decision was promulgated? ImpuMozhi 17:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three month hiatus

message: Banning the already banned users is all very well, but the page as it now stands is hardly representative of facts and reality, vis-a-vis those whose claim to rajput-hood is disputable. Here is a message I wrote earlier but forbore from posting:
:What grace, what highmindedness, what cordial concord! Only the churlish would point out that the (themselves utterly satiated) assembly-in-favour have not exactly fallen over themselves in a rush to do justice to the (rather similarly situated) itinerant blacksmiths, whose claims of half-blood are what apparently keep the rajputs from being a closely-knit community . Given this happy situation, what prevents unprotection? Why not let the recent immortal rewordings be vetted by the larger community?
When every other claim and POV is receiving play to its entire and stintless satisfaction here, why keep out the views of Those Others? ImpuMozhi 16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: heh. I didn't research these itinerant blacksmiths, keep them or drop them depending on their notability and verifiability. They came up when I looked in SIL whether they list languages that are associated with particular Rajput tribes. It doesn't seem a terribly important point of course. Sure, try and un-s-protect, I predict that we'll have hordes of socks and an unexplained sudden multitude of innocent newbies who just happen to favour the sock version, within the hour. But unprotecting is cheap, we can always just re-protect when we get tired of the sock army. dab (ᛏ) 16:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Need I clarify that I have no more objection to the blacksmiths than to the MR's? Recollect, I had created a section to hold all such claims. But to affirm, in Wikipedia's voice, that all of these ARE rajput, without one word about this being self-reported and disputed, is wrong. ImpuMozhi 17:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Devils advocate

message: It's been my understanding that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official policy and non-negotiable. Yet the vast bulk of this article, full of weasel words and peacock terms, has been written without any sources cited.
The official policy states:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
There are a many statements made on this page that have no source cited for them, and the official policy says that any editor is allowed to remove those statements altogether. But instead of just removing the unsourced statements, which wouln't have been improper of me, I just added  tags to draw attention to the lack of sources, so that anyone else could add the citations if they had any.--Bhola 13:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing sources

message: It is clear that some editors such as zora, impumozhi, ganeshk, dbachmann, latinus and some others are acting as if they legally own the Rajput article. What other conclusion can bw drawn by their zombie-like revert of any changes made in the version they prefer. They are also holding the article a hostage and trying to fossilize it completely. If they can have their way not a single word can be added/deleted from the this fossilized version.
May I remind all the editors, good faith and otherwise, that wikipedia prohibits ownership of the articles . In other words, all the articles are the property of everybody. The irony of it all is that currently the Rajput article is being owned (actually being held captive) by the editors none of whom is a Rajput. At least give the true Rajputs a foothold in the article. May be they can add something constructive here.
As of now I am reverting the last revert made by the user with proven malicious editing record. Take my version as the baseline version. I invite all Rajput and non-Rajput users to make constructive changes in this version.
-----
You are right.  None of them seem to be a rajput.
===LOL===
"Take my version as the baseline version." This, from a user with precisely three edits to his credit, two of them being revertions to this article, the third being the golden words above. This, combined with the general expertise of these brand-new users in WP policy, motivates me to begin compiling a list of dubious accounts:
*User:Saubhag Singh
*User:Namak
*User:Comte De Boigne
*User:Banke
*User:Raj tilak
*User:Hukum singh
*User talk:220.225.171.196
*User talk:202.138.112.252
*User talk:203.135.35.166
All this having come up within the last 70 edits!! ImpuMozhi 14:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you haven't noticed, the reason the names keep changing is because these are all blocked. Most of these are sockpuppets of DPSingh, see WP:RFCU#Rajput_case. Dmcdevit·t 15:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, thank you for the involvement, dmcdevit, I didn't realize you had already taken steps towards (yet another) sockpuppetry test. And even User:Shomu is implicated! Thanx to both you and David Gerard for the fresh round of permablocks. Although I'm sure we shall presently have a fresh crop to harvest anyway. Regards, ImpuMozhi 16:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please respect Wikipedia no-ownership-of articles policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Control_of_Wikipedia_articles] 

message: "Take my version as the baseline version." This, from a user with precisely three edits to his credit, two of them being revertions to this article, the third being the golden words above. This, combined with the general expertise of these brand-new users in WP policy, motivates me to begin compiling a list of dubious accounts:
*User:Saubhag Singh
*User:Namak
*User:Comte De Boigne
*User:Banke
*User:Raj tilak
*User:Hukum singh
*User talk:220.225.171.196
*User talk:202.138.112.252
*User talk:203.135.35.166
All this having come up within the last 70 edits!! ImpuMozhi 14:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you haven't noticed, the reason the names keep changing is because these are all blocked. Most of these are sockpuppets of DPSingh, see WP:RFCU#Rajput_case. Dmcdevit·t 15:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, thank you for the involvement, dmcdevit, I didn't realize you had already taken steps towards (yet another) sockpuppetry test. And even User:Shomu is implicated! Thanx to both you and David Gerard for the fresh round of permablocks. Although I'm sure we shall presently have a fresh crop to harvest anyway. Regards, ImpuMozhi 16:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LOL

message: So Mozhi, Shekhawats are Gohil rajput?
Oh and Tomar's are descendants of Pandavs and are chandravanshi too!
and you should be allowed to edit rajput related articles. Why?
:Such is life. You have been banned from this page, despite claims of fullblooded Rajputhood, so begone. ImpuMozhi 05:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How can WP tolerate consistent spread of misinformation?

message: Attagirl Zora, all credit to you. Sometime yesterday, I wanted to point out Maan Kunwar's efforts as being in the general right direction. It may be incredible that some good-faith editor has turned up at this point with first edits being here, but Faith is about belief in the improbable. This gradual and considered rewording/expansion is exactly how the article can finally reach equilibrium. Maan Kunwar, I would urge replacing 'denouement' with 'culmination' but will not press the point. 
So far from desiring to preserve the article in stasis or atrophy, let me clarify that nobody is more aware than me of its many lacunae. The British-Maratha section is abrupt; the character/ethos needs both improvement and rewording; sections on art/architecture simply do not exist; most glaringly, the article is obsessed with the past. I blame the atmospherics for stunting the article, and I look forward to seeing it amended constructively. Maan Kunwar, feel free to contribute, and please continue to do so meaningfully. I am sure you will not find the good-faith editors on this page either unreasonable or one-sided. Regards, ImpuMozhi 03:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sincerely urge that you leave alone the 'cognate communities' section and the one sentence in 'Demographics' that deals with religion, as the present wording represents a negotiated equilibrium. Regards, ImpuMozhi 03:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress