Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved the below from main page. —Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment below was presumably added as a misunderstanding
  1. Sundar \talk \contribs 07:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC) It's unfortunate that he used those words. (we can issue a gentle warning.) However, I don't see this as a generic statement intended to refer to all ethnic Indians. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not get the presumable misunderstanding. Just to be sure, let me reiterate that I support Dbachmann's case here and oppose the above mentioned charge that he has expressed his contempt for Indian users of Wikipedia. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bachmann's single objectionable comment

As detailed in his evidence, Bachmann made many patient and well-intentioned efforts to seek to educate a recalcitrant group on the norms of civilised discourse. I was amazed in equal measure at his patience and at his naivete in imagining that his efforts would avail him anything. Racism entered the picture since Bachmann's European heritage was a red rag to the "Hindus only side":

  • here is one example.
  • "Westerners" (in general) are called "b*s" here; Bachmann, the only westerner around, was also heaped with other epithets like:
    Whiteboy;
    Racist bigot (and told to mind his "f*g business");
    one who "talks out of (his) ass" here;

If accusations of racism are to be leveled against Bachmann, is there nothing to be said about the racism evident in the above? At no point does Bachmann use any word stronger than "clown" during these exchanges (and that word is used only once). He also uses his "Admin powers" only twice:

  • once to block an exceedingly abusive user for all of 15 minutes
  • again to block a compulsive revert-warrior for no more than 30 minutes

Was it humanly possible for him to display greater restraint and mildness than this? And yet Bachmann held his peace. Only after he was hectored out of the rajput page, stalked and reverted at every other page that he edited, and harassed with an RfC did he make the one single comment that is earning him such opprobium. A reading of the entirety of his message to Zora which contained that offensive half-sentence does much to mitigate our consternation at those words, and I join User:Sundar (who, like me, is both Indian and Hindu) in declaring myself "not offended" by the same, given the extreme provocation. I strongly feel that Bachmann deserves every commendation for his thankless intervention in the page. I urge the committee not only to withdraw every adverse comment against him but also to do whatever is possible to strengthen his hands, enhance his powers and equip him better to deal with trolls in future. Regards, ImpuMozhi 06:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another matter

The other good reason to overlook that one intemperate comment is Bachmann's knowledge and interest in many matters Indian, including the Sanskrit language and ancient Indian history. It is impossible to make the case that Bachmann has studied Sanskrit and Indian history only in order to depracate them -- nobody in his right mind could say so, and Bachmann's record of edits is proof against it. This fact negates the possibility that Bachmann's comment constituted a racial slur. It should be recognized for what it was: a manifestation of his extreme frustration at recent events, and at receiving little help from others, since they did not want to get involved in slanging-matches with a foul-tongued group.

The "another matter" I wish to bring up is how starkly the "Hindus only side" contrasts with Bachmann on the yardstick of scholarship. I cannot forbear from trying to get something done on a permanent, or atleast long-term basis, about the activities of that group -- activities that can rightly be termed depradations. These depradations are by no means confined to the pages listed here; they now pervade a whole bunch of articles dealing with Indian history and even such somewhat peripheral pages as Max Muller. Read this page for a little entertainment -- in particular, the last three sentences, setting out the historical repurcussions of that hilarious (and probably fictitious) incident. Is this fit for an encyclopedia? Leave aside veracity, just the choice of words? Yet nobody dare change one comma or fullstop in that page: it is "owned" by that presiding deity of obduracy, the learned protagonist of every page with a remote "rajput" connection. The Babur page is one of the least controversial in that group, but it bears witness to:

  • how the smallest changes are impossible to make on any page ever visited by this group,
  • how the very concept of objectivity is alien to them,
  • how requests for citations are simply erased,
  • how every entry they make is informed by bombastic caste-pride.

Certainly, these people genuinely believe what they write, even on the Hada page -- they would not know otherwise, their views being informed mainly by an execrable set of caste-glorificatory pamphlets. My views on the famous and oft-cited list of 65 reference-books is available here (please scroll to the red-lettered section towards the end of the "changes comparison").

I have previously expressed the same views, for instance here, never to any effect, and I despair of ever obtaining recourse if nothing avails me on this forum. I think it is essential that, rather than confine their final decisions to the Rajput and associated pages, the arbcom should take a broader view of the contributions-record of the protagonists, and encourage the permanent departure of those who simply are not equipped to contribute to an encyclopedia. The sad alternative is to have less belligerent, more bookish people gradually depart WP in despair and disgust. Regards, ImpuMozhi 08:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I will have to disagree with Impumozhi. Impu, in my opinion, represents a group which on reading a few internet sites think they are experts on the topic. His claim about Hada's character being funny and un-encyclopaedic (Cut and paste from Impumozhi's comments above: "Read this page for a little entertainment -- in particular, the last three sentences, setting out the historical repurcussions of that hilarious (and probably fictitious) incident. Is this fit for an encyclopedia? ") is actually taken from James Tod's Annals and Antiquities page 384 and 385 Vol-II:
On the death of the queen Joda Bae, Akbar commanded a court mourning; and that all might testify a participation in their master's affliction, an ordinance was issued that all the Rajput chiefs, as well as the Moslem leaders, should shave the moustache and the beard. To secure compliance, the royal barbers had the execution of the mandate. But when they came to quarters of the Hadas, in order to remove these tokens of manhood, they were repulsed with buffets and contumely. Then enemies of Rao Bhoj Hada aggravated the crime of this resistance and insinuated to the royal ear that the outrage upon the barbers was accompanied with expressions insulting to memory of the departed princess, who it will be remembered was a rajputani of Marwar. Akbar, forgetting his vassal's gallant services, commanded that Rao Bhoj should be pinioned and forcibly deprived of his moustache. He might as well have commanded the operation on a tiger. The Hadas flew to there arms, the camp was thrown into tumult, and would have soon presented a wide scene of blood-shed, had not the emperor, seasonably repenting of his folly repaired to the Boondi quarters in person. He expressed his admiration (he might have said his fear) of Hada valour, alighted from his elephant to expostulate with the Rao...
If James Tod thinks this incident is worthy of being mentioned in his book, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, what is wrong in this incident being mentioned on Wikipedia?
Impumozhi on rajputani page deleted the name of Maharani Gayatri Devi [1]. and then I asked him on his talk page why he did so: [2]. He replied on my talk page : [3]. Then I countered his assertion on his talk page: [4] and till date he has not responded. The reason he did not respond is because he just read some internet site and thought he has complete knowledge on the topic.
In another incident he put a tag of db-nonsense on the article Hammir Dev Chauhan : [5]. Then I asked him on the talk page of this article on why he put the CSD tag: [6]. No reasons given till date. Another user, Dvyost, had to remove this db-nonsense tag: [7]. Here again Impumozhi had no idea about the subject matter but just because I had created this article he put the db-nonsense tag.
Then he has been chiming that I have used pamphlets to create the rajput page. In the reference section of the current rajput page there are chapters, page numbers, publication houses and ISBNs for the books used to create the rajput page. Please click here to see them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput#References. These books are written by eminent historians who have Phd's from universities. To claim there books are useless, without reading a single one of them is a grave insult to these learned people.
People like Impumozhi are upset because there version of history is being challenged by what is written in books. When this group is asked to provide there citations they just remain quiet. This is true for Bachman also. He has been pushing references on rajput page of which he has not even read a single one : See here [8]. Is this really scholarship? Shivraj Singh 20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)