Talk:Rajput/Archive 18
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 26/Dec/2005 and 17/Feb/2006.
Announcement
Can you all try to rebuild this article at Rajput/temp and Talk:Rajput/temp? I can assure you this article is not going to get unprotected until a final version of the page is settles at Rajput/temp and I know that a lot of people aren't happy with the current state of this page. I hope you can all make an article that all of you (or at least a vast majority) are happy with. It wouldn't be a bad idea just to restart the article from scratch as a group, but at least find a version of the page that you are all happy with and we can unprotect the main article. As a side note, the amount of unrelated junk arriving on this talk page is unbelievable and is clogging up the page. FireFox 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Firefox did you warn Bachman for his insult against Indians? Should he be banned for NPA? Secondly having a separate page,logically, does not seem any different then the main page. People can disagree on this page also. For once Bachman is correct that issues need to be resolved. Let us take issues one by one. 1) Should rajput muslim be mentioned on rajput page?
--DPSingh 14:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- No I didn't. No he shouldn't. And it is different. You can edit it all you like whilst it is out of public view. It's only your fault if you can't agree on a suitable verson. FireFox 16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you explain why you told me about NPA and not him? It seems he being an admin knew about NPA and still willingly broke the rule. Or do rules apply differently to admins?
Lastly, just look at the archives. If people here could not agree by filling up 17 archives do you really think they will be able to reach an understanding. Now the time has come to take some decisions. Sticking point is inclusion of musalman rajput.
Also Raja has called Suryabandhu, Surya Bandar. This is highly derogatory. Since it is not English you would not understand it. I am feeling like replying to him here unless I hear something from you.
--DPSingh 17:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- If whatever you want to reply has nothing to do with article, use his talk page. The NPA rule does not not-apply to admins, it is no different at all. If you want to risk reporting him for a personal attack, take it to the administrators noticeboard. I warn people when I see it, not when someone tells me to. FireFox 17:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- this is offtopic, DPS is referring to a sarcastical remark of mine on Zora's talkpage; the only personal attacks I pleaded guilty of were "clown" and "incompetent", which perfectly pale in comparison with the vitriolic mudslinging from the part of their addressees. I realize there are some editors here who are uninterested in a solution. I will ask the arbcom to review the matter as soon as I can spare the time. dab (ᛏ) 17:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Solution is not forth coming because of your lack of knowledge bachman. When you can claim that muslims started claiming rajput status during the time of British, just to justify the fact there names started appearing in british books, this is pits of ignorance. This time your muslim friends will also disagree with you.
And you remark is racist and not sarcastic.
--DPSingh 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- yawn, I was referring to the sources brought forward. stop cursing me, start citing sources. We know there were "Muslim Rajputs" at least from the time of the British Raj. If you want to insist they existed even earlier, point us to your sources. dab (ᛏ) 18:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
That is the point no source before british calls them rajputs. Website link you pushed, iso* also mentions the fact that some rajputs converted to Islam but these converts are not rajputs. Problem is people like you are supporting a POV which has no basis and the dispute is continuing.
--DPSingh 18:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
RFC
Firefox: What is the next step of RFC? Do I need to do anything? I see bachman has mobilized his supporters to the fullest even scaring away some hindus.
--DPSingh 18:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Look. If you knew what you were doing you would read up on WP:RFC, it's all there. FireFox 18:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Indologist
It is unfortunate that the page on the most valiant community of India has been blocked. The main reason for this incodent seems to be the obduracy of certain interactors to list 'Muslim Rajputs' on this page. Well Sir! I just checked that Muslim Rajputs have their own page, full with cock-n-bull stories of Sufi conversions and egalitarianism etc. Please allow this page out of the slammer and limit it to discussion about the honourable Rajputs only.
Thanks!
Raja you are a Suar ki aulad
--DPSingh 17:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Means. "Raja you are a son of a pig" - blocked for 100 hours for a personal attack. FireFox 18:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Im confused here. I have geneological records attaching me to the Pururava dynasty, their later descendants the Pandava prince Arjun and King Janamejaya who created a Hindu custom of Naag Panchmi. DPS you have just insulted my ancestors for sure, but more concerning here is you have insulted your own Hindu deities too who are heavily reverred and followed by my Hindu counterparts. And you claim to be protectors of Hinduism by insulting such luminaries? Very sad to see this contradiction on your part. -Raja
Clans
Brothers I have created small stubs for each of these clans. Some have more info then the others. Sisodia can you add more sisodiya gotra/shakha and also expand on them? Suryabandhu would you like to expand on Pundir kula? SS/Shonan what would you like to focus on? Digvijay can you add some more chauhan gotra and see if you like Deora page?
Also if you have more info on any other shakha/gotra have a go at it.
Does anyone know if Sumrendra is around?
Shivraj Singh 20:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Shivraj, Here is info on Sisodias
Vansh Suryavansh
Kul (clan) Guhilot
Shakha Sisodia
Khamp/Gotra Chandawat, Ranawat, Shaktawat, Sarangdevot, Sangawat, Chandrawat, Kshemawat, Suhawat, Ahariya.
Notes:
(1) Sangawats are sometimes considered a division of Chandawat and sometimes a separate gotra.
(2) The Royal House of Mewar belongs to the Ranawat gotra.
-- sisodia
Shivraj, I will add some more chauhan gotra. Deora looks decent. I will add description of Surtan Deora, a teenager king who defeated many armies that Akbar sent against him. Problem was not bravery or sinews but money to mobilize big armies.
--DPSingh 18:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Wow, this page will probably have this dispute going on for a long time to come. Most people are not even realising, let alone acknowledging the slippery grounds on which the muslim rajput 'claim' is being made. Its a grey area to say the least. Shiv, I really am interested in the hindi version of this page....thats my main aim, when I have the time. I would like all to add any info, hindi web site links etc. to that page too. Please make uttarakhand -> uttaranchal. I already corrected on the Rajput clans page. Ss india 11:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration filed
this has been going on for months now; several administrators have tried to intervene, and while they could contain the edit-war, no progress has been made. My hope is that the arbcom will be able to enforce policy more effectively than individual admins. Refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Rajput. dab (ᛏ) 18:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration accepted
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Workshop. This arbitration may affect all editors of this article whether they are named in the arbitration or not. Fred Bauder 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Katoch
Katoch are not from Uttarkhand, they are from Kangra (Royal family of Kangra is Katoch and happens to be by Nanji's family) and originally their ancestry is from Pehelgam, Kashmir.
Gorkhali 01:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC) -Dr. Chauhan
I also find it interesting how this site has become very Anti-Hindu since no one is questioning the authenticity of the other's claims but simply bashing the Hindu perspective of the article. I have seen many inaccuracies especially the claims put forth on the supposed Janujua clan which is really a farce.
On one hand you see people bashing the Rajputs and asking them to provide evidence, and yet when the Muslim side is making their claims without citing sources, it is simply accepted as fact. Where is the justice in that?
I stopped taking part in this article for several reasons and seeing the obvious anti-Hindu bias especially by specific individuals has seriously put Wikipedia’s validity into question about its ethics.
There were enough insults thrown at the Rajput Royal families throughout the early part of this dispute by the same people who are claiming to be Muslim descendants. I have already been recording these discussions to be presented at upcoming Rajput conferences to show how our history is being hijacked and abused. Gorkhali 01:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yawn. Let's hope the arbitration can decide on a better solution for this page. --Raja 12:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Raja, Must feel good to be protected and allowed to insult Rajputs with your comments knowing full well that you can get away with it. Nice Yawn, I guess that is a part of your academic upbringing.
Malavika Kasturi
Embattled Identities: Rajput Lineages and the Colonial State in Nineteenth-Century North India by Malavika Kasturi -- originally mentioned by Dieter Bachmann.
Got my used copy of Kasturi in the mail the other day. I've gotten 15 pages into it and it's hard going. This is a revised version of a PhD thesis and it's written in horrid clotted PoMo-speak. On the other hand, it has lots of citations of other recent works.
This is going to be relevant, but it will take a while. Zora 10:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Zhora you are wasting your time with this book. If you are interested in rajputs then get James Tod's Annals.
- Blanket dismissal of any sources later than the 19th century is extremely problematic. It sounds to me as if you're saying, "I haven't read it, I won't read it, therefore it's not relevant." That is not a scholarly attitude. The Kasturi book abounds with references to various recent publications, many of them by contemporary Indian scholars. You can't dismiss them as "goris" or "Pakis".
- I don't understand refusing to learn. Learning is fun. I've decided that even if my contributions to Wikipedia get shredded by POV warriors, I'm learning enough that it's worth it to keep trying. I think I've done an MA thesis worth of work on Islam-related articles, and now here I am launching into Indian history and sociology/anthropology. Wowee zowee! Zora 20:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI I have read Kasturi and I will opine you will not be able to comprehend majority of it.
-
- Really. What do YOU think about her theories that caste boundaries were much more porous before the Raj, and that concern with caste, lineage, and sharp boundaries intensified under the Raj? Zora 08:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
As she says they are theories. Question is how she arrived at them while studying at JNU. By asking muslims who converted? To me answer is clear. She is confusing rajputs and kshatriyas.
-
- You can't have read the book. This is a book about the 19th century. She didn't do any interviews. She couldn't. Instead, she did original research in eight different archives, most of them in India. That's historical research. Zora 20:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You wan't me to quote passages out of it? "By asking muslims" was supposedly a humorous remark dumbo.
--DPSingh 12:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Many people are kshatriyas like lodha, meena, koli etc. They are not rajputs. The term muslim rajput, as sisodia rightly pointed out came into being only after census/pop counts were started by british. Prior to them none mentioned muslim rajput. Even rajputs who converted to Islam lost all rights of patrynomic inheritance. Many examples given in Tod. These convertes were referred with different names like ranghar/kaym khanis etc by Tod. This is how these converts are referred to today by other Indians. Though as in census anyone is free to call oneself anything.
--DPSingh 13:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
And reading this book will not give you the expertise that you are looking for on this topic. You jump to conclusions rather quickly shall we say. I have more books on rajputs then you can even imagine. So lack of learning is a sign of your group and not ours (Read Bachman's RFC where Gorkhali posted conversations of taoo and sabre showing they are not willing to cough up citations).
What will happen now is after reading this one irrelevant book you will claim "I know the universe" and hence accept my word. Here in lies the problem.
Lastly you are not doing us a favor by reading books on rajputs. Getting more knowledge is good for you on a myriad of topics because it should cause you to not go about desecrating pages.
In your own admission this is the first book you read on rajputs and yet you have been engaging in a partisan revert war for weeks now. Shows that ignorance on Wikipedia abounds. Can you explain your behavior?
--DPSingh 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
From: this link
I will look at rajputana page. Battle brewed because people are pushing POV's without sourcing any books and one of them thought, being an admin, he could twist arms and get his POV accepted. Most references pushed by Bachman are irrelevant and I doubt if he took the pains to turn a single page of these books mentioned. I will grant you he read a few pages of Kasturi. I have that book and in that entire book there is no focus on muslim rajputs. There is one sentence which states in some ridiculously worded english that rajputs converted to Islam. --DPSingh 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
--DPSingh 11:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
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) . Hmmm..Of course , we were ruled by the British and Pakistan was an independent nation since the inception of Islam. what else ? Pakistanis invented the electric bulb,television,telephone,computer etc etc . and perhaps the english language too ?
2) that the area of geographical space known today as Pakistan and paki muslims were always an independent force since muhammed's time ? Do they teach you that in Pakistan's schools? Too ridiculous to didnify with a comment...--Raja 17:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Less Ridiculous than your specious pandav claim to fame. :)
Yes I am. And a Pandav descendant by that too. You must br from Duryodhans/blood stock. If you are, then your defeated ancestral bad blood is marring the victors (hmm...us!) of the Mahabharat even today :) --Raja 17:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Alas, were you'r proclivities for genuine scholarship as intense as your chest thumping rants..It would have been so much nicer.
allow me to enlighten you , moron :
BOTH the sides of the mahabharata ,.i.e -the Pandavas as well as the Kauravas were descended from the Kuru dynasty.
BOTH the sides
Lord Krishna speaks to Arjun:-- -- Here, O son of Kurus, there is one thought of a resolute nature. Many-branched and endless are the thoughts of the irresolute---(Bhagavad Gita Chapter 2.41)
Proves the point, that lineages were fabricated by muslim rajputs.
(Son of kurus 21:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)) Regards Kuru-nandana.
- Hmm. which part of my assertion denied that Duryodhan was a Kuru and the victorious Pandavas were not? Thats my point regarding understanding English, rather than your's of fabricating lineages. I'm afraid other than names on a page even YOU cannot prove 100% who you are a direct descendant of. It is not 100% guaranteed and no dna scientist will stand with you on that one at all. BTW, if Maharaja Janamejaya (my ancestor) was referred to as the 'King of the Kurus' then that would indicate that he was King over ALL kuru's. Even your exiled ancestors too :) So less attacks, less provocation and let's for the sake of the article do some decent groundwork and clean it up. This page has deteriorated enough. - Raja
Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the father of Pakistan, Qaid-e-Azam has written: “Pakistan started the moment the first non-Muslim was converted to Islam in India long before the Muslims established their rule. As soon as a Hindu embraced Islam, he was an outcaste, not only religiously, but also socially, culturally, and economically. As for Muslims, it was a duty imposed on him by Islam not to merge his identity and individuality in any alien society. Throughout the ages, Hindus remained Hindus and Muslims remained Muslims, and they had not merged their identities; that was the basis for Pakistan.” Source: Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Address to University Students, Impact International, Islamic Journal, Aligarh Muslim University, March 1944. Gorkhali 09:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Wrong link
The "Gor" link in the article as it stands now is to a completely different and incorrect topic. AnonMoos 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. which part of my assertion denied that Duryodhan was a Kuru and the victorious Pandavas were not? ..BTW, if Maharaja Janamejaya (my ancestor) was referred to as the 'King of the Kurus' then that would indicate that he was King over ALL kuru's. Even your exiled ancestors too :)--Raja
Abey Chutiye @ Raja ( Eng.Trnsl = Hey Pussy ! )
Before you ride into battle, learn to walk first.
1)you earlier termed me as duryodhana's descendant..claiming yourself as arjuna's SON ! ! Then you say now..that my ancestors were exilied.
News for you ,son : The Pandavas (Arjuna + his brothers and wife)were exiled & not the Kauravas.
_So I suppose Duryodhan never left the battlefield with his fallen remnants of an army for hmm...maybe Sri Lanka? Get real. Arjun was temporarily exiled. Duryoshan's never came back to Hastinapur. Read your own texts better please, if for the sake of your own religious credibility :) - Raja
2)King Pururava had 5 sons out of which one was the legendary Kuru. The Pandavas and Kauravas were both born in the dynasty which King Kuru started.
Hence King Janjameya who was the great grandson of Arjuna could not have been King of Kurus..he too was a descendant of the Kurus.. So he too would have been called "A son of Kurus" just as his Grandfather Arjuna and Granduncle Duryodhana were too once before him.
So you see..you'r still wrong/ lying...
- Really. Guess waht. I have found some basic links of other people who are also wrong [1] The Atharvaveda refers to Parikshita as the king of the Kurus, Janamejaya was his son and your lord according to that...here's that link also [2] and to make lucky number 3, this point states "golden age of the Kurus under their King ParikSit, the ancestor of the well-known Janemejaya PArikSita of brAhmaNa and mahAbhArata fame and of the PArikSita dynasty of the Kurus. The most important political result of the reform carried out by the dynasty of ParikSit was the formation of the Kuru tribe and the permanent establishment of the BhArata-Kuru chiefdom. The formation of the Kuru state" [3] now this doesnt mention any other non entity sons of the Kurus, who you may claim descendancy from, so dont attach yourselves to OUR achievements. It's a bad look for your own ancestors :) -Raja
yea and listen you whore from Lahore.. I don't need to prove anything to cocksuckers like you..understood.
- Obviously not. You dont seem to be proving much of anything accept your an extensive range of poor language. -Raja
My community and caste lineage is recorded in the Hindu scriptural records ( the puranas).....Hence I dont feel the need for aggrandization here or to take DNA analyses.I know where I come from. Unlike you..I don't rely on grandmother's tales to remember my lineage.
- I think thats MY point proven that there is no way you can prove it. The Puranas you stated only prove up to the Pandavas and Janamejayas line. Your line up to you doesnt exist I assume hence you only stated Kuru's to the Mahabharat age? Sort of doesnt disprove me there does it eh? - Raja
Your arguments have been effectively derailed You have no locus standi to be here in the first place.
- Yawn. Read above. Non entity sons trying to glory hog the others doesnt provide you the approval from us here either. ;) - Raja
Im not here for consensus, neither am I here for civil dialogue..Once the main page gets unlocked...there will be no trace of your "muslim rajput" nonsense.the page started deteriorating after your kind started sneaking in.
I hope the moderators etc ban me.LOL
- So after all those swear words you are here for civil dialogue? Comedy at it's best I guess from our 'ancient enemies' according to your Puranas and Mahabharat anyway - Raja
So stop being an apologist and get yourself and your cronies packing.
best regards, Son of Kurus 10:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yawn. How about we dont? - Raja
Point 3
Kinship and descent groups
Monier-Williams an outstanding Sanskritist and compiler of the standard sanskrit dictionary translates a series of terms essentially connected with descent groups and kinship relations: - vansha, kula, jati, gotra, jana, varna. [Page 652] M Monier-Williams A Sanskrit English Dictionary New York 1976.
Rajput claimants have to adhere to this ancient classification system of India and have to be bound by and beleive in each one of vansha, kula, jati, gotra, jana, varna. Rules are clearly laid out and cannot change if muslims or westerners are not happy with them.
--DPSingh 11:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Sez who? Your statement comes down to "The rules exist, and you must obey them!" But who makes the rules? Who enforces them? Rules are ideas held by humans and enforced by humans, and humans often change their minds about rules. Or fight over what they are, which is what is happening here. Zora 13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Answer to all your questions is obvious: Indian society. Every individual is bound by the rules of the society and these rules were laid down when the first cultures arose in antiquity. To every Indian they are very obvious but to outsiders they are arcane. You should read some literature of the British time, who were baffled by kinship and castes in India and tried to write books on this subject.
--DPSingh 11:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Continuing from kinship discussion I feel there is lot of confusion in the minds of non-Indians.
Kinship and descent groups in India are based on the rules laid out for vansha, kula, jati, gotra, jana, varna. Every hindu adheres to these regardless of being a Kshatriya/Brahmin/Vaishya or Shudra (ancient classifications of Indian society). For example Shudras worship there kuladeva and kuladevi and so do Brahmin,Vaishya and Kshatriya. Religions which arose in India like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism which had lot of voluntary conversions of practising hindus into there fold are still viewed as "same" by other hindus from a day to day point of view.
In Indian society acceptance is measured by a desire to forge a new relatioship with a person i.e marriage. Marraiges between all combinations of Jains,Buddhists,Sikhs and Hindus are acceptable. Indian society does not accord the same equality to followers of other religions like Christianity and Islam though they have been living in India for many hundreds of years. Followers of these religions do not fit into rules of Indian society and are hence considered "without jaati". Consequently Indian society does not accept Hindus/Jains/Sikhs/Buddhists marrying Christians or Muslims.
There are Buddhists outside India also and these rules do not apply to them for example in Japan, China or Thailand.
When some rajput women married mughals rajputs did not marry muslim women deliberately because this union would have produced children which could not have fit into the rules of Indian society. Such children could not continue with the jaati of there father. Similar transition of jaati took place if a brahmin married a vaishya. Parent's jaati could continue in a child if and only if both parents belonged to the same jaati to begin with.
--DPSingh 13:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Ibbetson
Let us discuss Ibbetson because they had been using that source for there claim to fame so far and Ibbetson states hindu rajputs ceased to be rajputs because of the practice of widow-remarriage. Muslim being rajput is a figment of there imagination.
* Denzil Ibbetson, "Tribes and Castes of Punjab and NWFP" (1892) ISBN 8120605055
I dusted off ibbetson that someone has been citing here and on para 446 in census report of 1881 he mentions that Gaurwa rajputs of Gurgaon and Delhi, though retaining the title of Rajput in deference to the strength of caste feeling and because the change in their customs was too recent for the name to have fallen into disuse, had for all purposes of equality communion or intermarriage ceased to be rajputs since they took to Karewa or widow marriage. These muslims have been touting Ibbetson. When Gaurwa ceased to be rajputs just by changing the custom of widow-remarriage the retention of rajputi by conversion to islam is ape-shit.
--DPSingh 16:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
James Tod on rajputs (Annals and antiquities of rajasthan)
What nation on earth could have maintained the semblance of civilization, the spirit or the customs of their forefathers, during so many centuries of overwhelming depression, but one of such singular character as the Rajpoot? . . . Rajast’han exhibits the sole example in the history of mankind, of a people withstanding every outrage barbarity could inflict, or human nature sustain, from a foe whose religion commands annihilation; and bent to the earth, yet rising buoyant from the pressure, and making calamity a whetstone to courage. . . . Not an iota of their religion or customs have they lost. . .
James Tod knew rajput history and thus wrote this piece. People here should do the same and STOP claiming that rajputs did not defend there religion against Islamic onslaught. And it is a pipe dream that from people whom rajputs were defending there religion, i.e Islamics, those same should be accepted as rajputs now.
--DPSingh 13:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Today's new reference
DPS has today added a reference (W.W. Hunter), placed naturally at the head of the list, to the 65 works cited on the page. Dare one presume to enquire what information from the said work has been deemed condign to find place on this page? The fact that Bin Qasim's first name was Mohammed? ImpuMozhi 16:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Anything wrong with the reference? Are u trying to be sarcastic? Get into a habit of reading links on the rajput page. [Anyway here it is]. Shivraj Singh 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
unprotection
Rajput/temp has been stable for four days at unprotection. I presume this was Dmcdevit's rationale for unprotecting. Naturally, at unprotection, civilized editing should continue from the basis of the temp version. No more revert wars please. dab (ᛏ) 18:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong presumption. Before you make large reverts justify them on this page. Also most of your sources seem useless. Have you read any of them? Shivraj Singh 03:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
arbitration
I concluded my presentation of evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Evidence. If anybody involved wants to add material for consideration, do so at that page, in a separate h2 section. dab (ᛏ) 18:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you hold off for a few days (2 weeks)? I would so like to have my say, and am afraid of the decision coming through before I get around to it. I firstly have a really major exam at hand, and secondly I find it impossible to be brief :) Regards, ImpuMozhi 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Son of Kurus: > Hence King Janjameya who was the great grandson of Arjuna could not have been King of Kurus..he too was a descendant of the Kurus.. So he too would have been called "A son of Kurus" just as his Grandfather Arjuna and Granduncle Duryodhana were too once before him. So you see..you'r still wrong/ lying...
Raja: > Really. Guess waht. I have found some basic links of other people who are also wrong [1] The Atharvaveda refers to Parikshita as the king of the Kurus, Janamejaya was his son and your lord according to that...here's that link also [2] and to make lucky number 3, this point states "golden age of the Kurus under their King ParikSit, the ancestor of the well-known Janemejaya PArikSita of brAhmaNa and mahAbhArata fame and of the PArikSita dynasty of the Kurus. The most important political result of the reform carried out by the dynasty of ParikSit was the formation of the Kuru tribe and the permanent establishment of the BhArata-Kuru chiefdom. The formation of the Kuru state" [3] now this doesnt mention any other non entity sons of the Kurus, who you may claim descendancy from, so dont attach yourselves to OUR achievements. It's a bad look for your own ancestors :) -Raja
This is the kind of smirked slavish self-debasing ignorance that comes from a few hours of third rate web-browsing to compensate for any knowledge of history, of which this agnus dei Raja, is a clear example here. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is the King, and after passages like the above, we know how "Raja" got his name! lol That pretty much sums up his genealogy.
Lets see if we can educate a dog like you.
-If you havent been able to produce a single valid case for the admins in a non derogatory way, I cant see how you'll be able to educate me with your witless style ;) -Raja
"During the war, his father Drona was killed by Dhrishtadhyumna by underhanded means. After the war was over, Ashwatthama avenged his father's death by killing Dhrishtadhyumna in the dead of the night, by kicking him to death without allowing him to draw a weapon. He also murdered all the upa-pandava's (sons of the Pandavas by Draupadi) by setting fire to their tent. His crimes did not stop there, he launched the most potent missile, the Brahmastra, aimed at utterly eradicating the line of the Pandavas. This missile went and struck the womb of Uttara who was carrying the child that was the sole heir of the Pandavas. The child was born dead, but was fortunately revived by Krishna. This child was Parikshit, who inherited the kingdom after the Pandavas.
"A certain brahmana of pious vows, beholding Virata's daughter who is now daughter-in-law to Arjuna, while she was at Upaplavya, said, "While the Kuru line will become extinct, a son will be born to thee. This thy son for that reason, will be called by the name of Parikshit." The words of that pious man shall become true: the Pandavas shall have a son called Parikshit. The holy one said, "The fall of this mighty weapon will not be fruitless. The foetus will die. But being dead, it will live again and have a long life! The heroic Parikshit, attaining to age and a knowledge of the Vedas and the practice of pious vows, shall obtain all weapons from the son of Sharadvata. Having obtained a knowledge of all high weapons, and observant of all kshatriya duties, that righteous-souled king shall rule the earth for sixty years. More than this, that boy shall become the mighty-armed king of the Kurus, known by the name of Parikshit, before thy very eyes...
And he was born in the womb of Uttara when the Kuru race was almost extinct. And, therefore, the mighty son of Abhimanyu came to be called Parikshit (born in an extinct line).
Installing Parikshit also on their throne, as king, the eldest brother of the Pandavas, filled with sorrow, addressed Subhadra, saying, ‘This son of thy son will be the king of the Kurus.'
And he then died, mourned by all his subjects. And, after him, O first of men, thou (Janamejaya) hast acquired this hereditary kingdom of the Kurus for the last thousand years."
- From the Mahabharath. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/maha/index.htm
Parikshit was called King of Kurus in the sense of his being the sole heir of the Pandava-line; it was from him, that the Kuru race was saved from extinction, and revived again. As you can see, in the Mbh., Yuddhistir addresses Parikshit as "this son of thy son" will be "the king of the kurus", and he is to inherit the "hereditary kingdom of the Kurus for the last 1000 years". So, Parikshit, Janamejaya are ALL SONS OF KURUS.
One of the epithets or synonyms for Arjuna is "Kurunandana: son of Kuru, or joy of Kuru"; [Bhagvatam; 1.15.18]
In the Gita, in the very first line, the Kuru field is called "the field of righteousness" -
"Dhritarashtra said: What did the sons of Pandu and my men do, O Sanjaya, when, eager to fight, they gathered together on the field of righteousness, the Kuru field?"
Gita locuta est. Causa finita est. (Gita has spoken. The cause is finished.)
- All the above is inconclusive...at best. Your texts refer to them King of the Kurus, not just Pandavas, but Kurus. The Pandavas although being Kuru, defeated the opposing Kuru's, thereby asserting their own authority with no less than Lord Krishna at their side, providing morale and religious support. Either you are a better authority of the texts than the writers themselves (which I seriously doubt, BIGTIME)or you are re shaping the truth here yet again, like you are trying to with the Rajput discussion. Which BY THE WAY IS STILL ONGOING and not yet resolved. You arent a Kaurav or a Pandav, so let's get realistic. I'd hate to repeat your nick name again ;)-Raja
You are a dog like creature longing to be whipped. However, your mangy coat doth not permit such lacerating strokes as mine. your bloodied ribs are beginning to show through your excuse for a thorax! Be gone dim shade!
- Come on, we've had enough of your fanatical extremism here without adding your sexual fantasies of whipping me here too! ;) -Raja
Islami ite domus! Prospice tibi - ut Gallia, tu quoque in tres partes dividareis. (Islami go home! and Watch out-you might end up divided into three parts, like Gaul.)
61.247.244.45 09:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Suryabandhu
_____________________________________________________
Raja: > :I have yet to see one case of a Rajastani take on the Punjabi Rajas and defeat them. Considering that many a Punjabi Raja has militarily aided many a defeat against you guys historically. Kinda leaves your last extremist poem flat doesn't it? - Raja
Hey, I thought you might have more original ideas than "divide and conquer",,,but its perfectly natural plebians should have plebian thoughts. Nice try. Why don't you take your ninny pen and go do some useful research for your desert friends and then you can crown yourself as the prestigious Sharih for the camels!, seeing how well you blend in with such herd, even Averroes might just turn the other way for stealing his title!
Absconde illegitimo!
203.101.39.126 08:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Suryabandhu
_____________________________________________________________________________
Raja: > -If you havent been able to produce a single valid case for the admins in a non derogatory way, I cant see how you'll be able to educate me with your witless style ;) -Raja
I have addressed every single false statement made by you and Khurram, and its open for everyone to see, you and him could not answer a single one back. Alas! if only style were enough to educate an inscrupulous one like you...
Raja: > All the above is inconclusive...at best.
Mahabharath Inconclusive? One could say the Quran was actually inconclusive (they don't tell the martyrs what happens after the 72 virgins appear!, isn't that why your jihadis die anyway - to satisfy their sexual fantasies?!, lol, the deprived ones of the desert - ahhhh they can't get enoughh! poor sods)...
Raja: > Your texts refer to them King of the Kurus, not just Pandavas, but Kurus. The Pandavas although being Kuru, defeated the opposing Kuru's, thereby asserting their own authority with no less than Lord Krishna at their side, providing morale and religious support.
Our texts refer to them as King of Kurus, Son of Kurus, Joy of Kurus, Kurus, etc. So, what's your point? Wag your tail like a grateful little thing and thank me for educating you with a little history.
Raja: > Either you are a better authority of the texts than the writers themselves (which I seriously doubt, BIGTIME)or you are re shaping the truth here yet again, like you are trying to with the Rajput discussion. Which BY THE WAY IS STILL ONGOING and not yet resolved.
All big talk, no substance. Not a shred of answer to any of the questions put at you or Khurram. Why don't you show a little honesty towards your own self and stop cocooning your answers in between lines. As stated, all the excerpts are directly from the Mbh; if you see conspiracies everywhere, that's your mental problem.
Raja: > You arent a Kaurav or a Pandav, so let's get realistic. I'd hate to repeat your nick name again ;)-
Why? Are you afraid I'll repeat yours?!
Get realistic by all means and admit you are not a true Muslim, calling yourself Son of Arjun! Arjuna would turn in his grave, if there were one!
61.247.241.21 08:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Suryabandhu _________________________________________________________________________________________
Raja: > Either you are a better authority of the texts than the writers themselves (which I seriously doubt, BIGTIME)
and you are a fucking idiot. Hilarious actually....
Of course you will refuse to admit it , but initially you had an impression that Kuru was synonymous with Kaurava .
Later on you go on to justify it by people not "understanding" english and blah and blah and blah
actually My sub caste has descended from the same lineage in which Lord Ram was born.
so dear Paki , you may continue ranting. dont worry,I'll always yawn if Im interested.
Son of kurus 14:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Jahangir
Jahangir had a Rajput mother. Can he be considered a Rajput? deeptrivia (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Is this a trick question? Shivraj Singh 18:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Funny stuff (Article for deletion)
Please go to this link and vote to keep this article. There is a group trying to get it deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Organization_of_Indian_kingdoms_during_invasions_and_facts_related_to_the_wars.#.5B.5BOrganization_of_Indian_kingdoms_during_invasions_and_facts_related_to_the_wars..5D.5D
Wikipedia is definetely not interested in historical accuracy but wants to push widely held beliefs as gospel. Also go through this article while you are at it:
http://www.iskcon.com/icj/6_1/6_1klostermaier.html
Forgot to mention what I find funny: First there was a clamor, "all of you rajputs have a POV which no sane person supports. Find us a reference and then we believe you. Ok here is the book. Nope this book is also POV!. Why? Oh! because it does'nt jive with my western POV!". Note, these guys will not challenge historical veracity of hunter. Shivraj Singh 18:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- it's on AfD because it's a pov fork. Still haven't learned to collaborate with people, have you? Your book is fine, as a reference among others, on the Islamic invasion article. Just because it was printed, you wouldn't create an article entitled Each of these groups of kingdoms, alike in the north and in the south, had a certain power of coherence to oppose to a foreign invader. Or if you would, you shouldn't be surprised if it was AfD'd. dab (ᛏ) 19:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- People who push references, in an encyclopedia, without reading them should refrain from becoming preachers. Shivraj Singh 18:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Rathore genealogy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathore#Rathore_Genealogy
Any suggestions on how to beautify the tree? Shivraj Singh 20:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Toors not mentioned?
Where are the Toor Rajputs?
