User talk:Satbir Singh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Satbir Singh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  deeptrivia (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] ChandraGupta Maurya

This is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of bseless rants and views. You can join some forum which suits your requirements. An encyclopedia must have accurate and reliable information. Not fraud and speculation. I will report you to the administrators next time. SanjayMohan 05:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-sense. What fraud. Man, you need to be open-minded and need to widen your knowlege of Ancient Indian History. Knowledge is not stratic but is dynamic one. Every day, there is new research and new view-points. You need to note, there is absolutely no cerainty about Chandragupta Maurya's origin and ancestry. Read my latest response in the diuscussion forum in Chandragupta Maurya. How do you know that the ancient Buiddhist, Jaina or Brahamanical sources on Chandragupta Maury'as ancestry are correct? Which of them you believe to be more reliable?. Why each one diferes from the other? Which one do you take correct from amongst them?. Even these ancient sources are very specualtive. Note that the contributors on this article have not cited their personal opinions in the article-- as I can see, the views in article are from "one school of scholars covering wide-spectrum". What you need to learn is to respect the views of others.

You definitely need some rest. Now have a peace and enjoy a good sleep.

Satbir Singh 05:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh.

[edit] Rajat here

Hi. You should have told me earlier that it was you. I went through some very good articles on Kamboj personalities that you wrote such as Saka Nanakana, Baba Amar Singh Nibber, Bhai Mahi Singh Sunam.

Will Ancient warrior tribes suffice? I am acceptable to that. Tell me about your opinion and let's stop this damn and silly revert war that we have got into.

By the way, I am really surprised by all this. Most orthodox Sikhs say that they don't believe in the caste-system. This little "thing" that we had is indeed a slap in the face of those who say that Sikhs don't believe in caste.

Regards. Rajatjghai 17:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


I am waiting for your reply, mere chote veer.Rajatjghai 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rajatjghai S. S. Akal: By the way, I'm not an orthodox Sikh so your comments sure lie outside my sphere of activities here.

Though I consider the caste irrelevant, but I do have a intense craze for knowing and presenting the RREALISTIC information about the ancient people of Punjab. Unlike most Punjabis writing here, I always try to backup my articles with highly reliable references as for as possible and welcome the readers to discuss the correctness of my sources. But many of the articles or data one sees here on Punjabi people, castes or tribes is very unrealistic and highly misinformative...and contain a load of unsubstantiated and made-up information. But, if we go on analysing critically each and every such article, there is going to start yet another war I have been subjected through. But must remember sir, it is SIN to suppress true inforamtion and facts for fear of some future trouble though you might turn out to be politically correct.

And remember, I only corrected your misconceived notion about some Kshatriya tribes like the Abhira/Ahir, Gurjara/Gujjar, Yadavas, Khasas and Kamboj etc. These are undoubted relics of ancient Kshatriyas who still survive with their ancient ethnic identity intact and it is SIN UNEXCUSABLE to suppress this fact for fear of caste-war or some other lame excuse and classify this people into castes or some other bal bla bla groups. If some other so-called caste/group has an objection to this, they should present facts and if those are convincing, they should get included in this category. Mere claim to Kshatriyas or to some ancient Kshatriya lineage without supportive facts is highly undesirable.

Have a great day.

Regards

Satbir Singh 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My notion about tribes such as Abhira/Ahir, Gurjara/Gujjar, Yadavas, Khasas and Kamboj was not at all misconceieved. I agree wholeheartedly with you that they are Kshatriyas.
But the fear of caste-war is not a "lame-excuse" at all. It is a very probable reality and outcome. If you don't believe me look at the following pages: Bhumihar, Kayastha, Khatri, Rajput, where "caste-wars" have been raging. And why? Because Khatris choose to call themselves Kshatriyas and Rajputs object. Because the caste-status of Bhumihars and Kayasthas is disputed. Because Rajputs and Jats are disputing the other party's claim to greatness.
I, too started that tempalte with an objective similar to yours: to study Punjabi castes, tribes and clans on a purely anthropoligical purpose. However, I always knew that I was treading on soft ground. Today, that fear has been realized. Today it's you. Tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Anyway, I surely am not a quarrelsome character. Threfore go on and write whatever you want to. I won't object. If you think that the reasons I am offering are lame and not genuine, continue that. I won't mind. I can only put my view forward; I can't force you to accept my point of view. This is after all a free encyclopaedia. Why should I object?

Ciao. Rajatjghai 19:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a numder-game. It depends upon how many votes you muster. If you have a landslide, you can bull-doze and turn the black into the white and vice versa.

History teaches us that once the ancient nomads got settled, they stepped towards civilization, held sway for a while then they got disintegerated. Most of the powerful ancient Kshatriya tribes we know from ancient sources have likewise got disintegerated and melted into other caste-groups we see in northern India today. Most of the people living in northern India are Caste groups rather than tribal. Even the Rajput is not a tribal term, it is occupation and hence a caste though of recent phenomenon and thus its achievements still within the primary memories of the people .

Rajput is only a mediaval age phenomenon. The Kshatriya phenomenon is more ancient one. It's human psychology to remember, indulge and take glory in most recent historical events in preference to older and fossilized ones which get more and more fainter and out of sight and memory with the passage of time. The time has worn out all the luster and glory of the ancient Kshatriyas like Kurus, Kosalas, Magadhas, Yadavas, Gandharas, Kambojas, Madras etc. Except for Gujjar (Gurjaras) Ahir (Abhira), Yadav/Yadava (Yadu), Kamboj (Kamboja), Khash (Khasha), Pahlav (Pahlavas, Iranians) all other ancient Kshatriyas have become extinct. The Kamboj strength has also gone down to microscopic since much of their pouplation has shifted/got downgraded from tribal domain into caste domain down the road. Many of their clan names still overlap not only with Khatris but also with Rajputs/Jats though, suggesting thereby that some of the mediaval era Rajput population must have descended from this people, especially from those Kambojas who migrated to and settled in Gujarata/Saurashtra......other contributers of course were Kurus, Panchalas, Kosalas, Avantis, Vatsas, Sakas, Hunas, Kushana and some aboriginal tribes.

Sze cavalry01 20:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Hey Rajpat,

If you anticipate your pages are likely to create controversy and you have to resort to suppressing historical facts to avoid some kind of threatened war and are affraid to face it, it is better for you to stop editing on the Punjab topic or creating pages for the same.

Regards

Sze cavalry01 20:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes what is it? "From the Vandalist" Rajatjghai 23:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Prove that it is NOPV. You are vandsalising against known historical facts. As some one else has also put it, Numerous Ancient Sanskrit Texts use the word Kshatriyas for these surviving tribes. They do not use Warriors (English Word). So you are simply vandalising against known historical facts on political grounds. Do you have any Poltical Agenda?

Satbir Singh 23:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For God's sake, I don't have any political agenda. It is you who might be having one since you are hell-bent upon glorifying your group (Kambojs). Let me put some things straight here:

  1. First of all here are some basic things for you to learn: POV means "Point of View" and NPOV means "Neutral Point of View". Also learn the proper meaning of "Vandal" and "Vandalism" from Wiktionary before hurling that epithet at me.
  2. So when I say NPOV, I am simply adhering to a Neutral Point of View. I have learnt this in my four months at this portal from the very first administrator I met: ImpuMozhi. Look at my talk page to get to know his views.
  3. You keep on drumming the term "historical facts". Okay, they are historical. Accepted. But are they really true? Look at the Yadav page and tell me. In most Indian states, Ahirs, Gujjars and Yadavs are considered to be OBCs.
  4. If you look at the Gujjar page, you will see that their Varna status is written as Brahmin as well as Kshatriya.
  5. I know that your "historical facts" are true. Yes the Kambojas, the Abhiras, the Gurjaras and the Yadavas were ancient Kshatriya tribes. But then, I ask you aren't Rajputs, Jats, Khatris, Tarkhans also Kshatriyas? Am I a duffer that I did not create a category called "Kshatriya groups" in the first place and put the whole lot in that?

No, I did not. And why? Because I know the passions and the emotions that the Varna System arouses in this country. You yourself have proved it. Look at the pages of Khatri, Rajput, Kayastha and Bhumihar and see how they have been ruined because of the disputes arising over their Varna status. Surely you won't like it if tomorrow, some madcap comes and challenges you over the caste status of groups such as Ahirs, Gujjars and Yadavs, would you? You would no doubt fight with him, but in the process, this template that I have created (Yeah, let me take the credit for that please) will be ruined as it is being ruined now.

  1. Another important point is the Varna System itself. We know that there were four Varnas in the Vedic and Mythological ages:Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. And there was a fifth group called the Dalits which was beyoond the pale of Caste.

Cut to today's India. If you look at the caste organization in various states, you will find that it varies. Thus, Jats who are a "high caste" in Punjab and Haryana are considered to be "low" in Rajasthan. They started as workers and hence should be placed under Shudras in the Varna system. But to themselves, the Jats are the best of Kshatriyas, even superior to Rajputs. Similarly, my caste, the Khatris and related groups consider themselves as Kshatriyas. But because of their long association with trading, many consider them as Vaishyas. Even theories about the martial origin of Rajputs are debunked by other groups and are subject to controversy. Ahirs, Gujjars and Yadavs, inspite of their impressive historical background are contemptously referred as "Gwalas", "Cowherds", "Shepherds" et al. Point that I am making is that the Varna System is subject to lots of controversy. I and you may be knowing about a certain group's history but there are hundreds of ignoramuses out there who have their own ideas on caste.

  1. As it is, the respective pages on each group mention that they are Kshatriya tribes. Is there any need to metion it explicitly? I or any other editor did not make a "Vaishya groups" or "Shudra groups" category either.
  2. Another point is that Yadavs as a modern group are not found in modern-day Punjab. They do inhabit Haryana, but not Punjab proper or Himachal Pradesh. The ancient Yadus did inhabit the ancient Punjab region, but today they are more concentrated in the Hindi belt.
  3. All I am asking is that just mention these groups under the category of "Ancient Tribes". It would keep all sorts of impending controversy at bay. Once again I am reiterating that I don't at all doubt your "historical facts". But others may.

These are my points of view. I am not a vandal. I am just trying to put forward a nutral point of view. And I assure you that the historicity of facts is not being compromised by what I am doing. Thank you. 203.187.239.90 00:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am really sorry if I had lost my cool in the above post. It is not usually in my nature to quarrel and argue. If I have offended you in any way, I apologize profusely for it. Regards. Rajatjghai 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have come up with a solution to this problem. I will put forth this issue to some of the best-known Indian administrators such as Bhadani, Nicshalp and Gurubrahma. Whatever they say, I will agree too it. Thanks. Rajatjghai 01:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have put forth the issue before Bhadani. You can have a look at his talk page. Rajatjghai 02:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also informed Gurubrahma. Look at his talk page. Rajatjghai 02:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


There is no need to write a Ramayana or Mahabharata to put farward your point of view here. WE are referring to these people (Gurjaras, Abhiras, Yadavas, Khasaas etc) with reference to their ancient Backgrounds. Whatever may be their present status, they indeed were Kshatriyas by background. This what the heading "Ancient Kshatyriyas Tribes" means here. That's is the end of the story.

Have a great day

Satbir Singh 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Satbir,It was good to know about you.I just wonder why this Rajatgahi guy never dared to mess with me.He would have got a good lesson from my side.He says he has seen many of my comments .what made him to keep mump????He has very poor knowledge on kshatriya issue.Holy---+---Warrior 07:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Castes and Tribes of the Punjab

I have, as of now, protected the page to prevent this major revert war. Please discuss changes and reach consensus on the template's talk page.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 04:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi Satbir - I think you should have asked for other people's intervention much earlier. It is indeed unfortunate that you were involved in extensive revert-warring, which might result in a temporary block for you and your opponent. My advice is never think that your work is hijacked, because everything works by community. Please commit yourself not to revert war and hopefully admins who see this will not block you over WP:3RR. Rajat obviously must do the same. This Fire Burns Always 05:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Yadavs, Gujjars, Khash, Kamboj, Pahluv etc are indeed the modern relics of ancient Kshatriya Tribes of the Yadavas, Gurjaras, Khasas, Kambojas, Pahlavas respectively. It is not irrelevant if their ancient identity is reflected in this Template. Either this template must reflect this ancient identity for these few surviving ancient tribes or ELSE IT BE DELETED FORTHWITH. AS someonle else also stated here, it is not fair to suppress the historical facts contained in ancient texts like Manusmiriti (X/43-44), Kautiliya's Arthshastra(11.1.1-4), Mahabharata (13/33/20-21; 13/35/17-18), Harivamsa (14.1-19) and Numerous other Puranas, Ashtadhyayi (4.1.168-175) and other ancient Sanskrit literature.

The template must be taken out from the view until the issue is resolved.

Satbir Singh 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horses in Warfare

Hi Satbir, and thank your for your excellent contribution to Horses in warfare. We needed more material on East Asia. Your contribution is much appreciated. Because it was pretty extensive, I broke it out into a separate section with its own subheading. (named Cavalry in ancient India for now, you can change the title a bit if you want, but it parallels other subsections in the article such as "Islamic world" and "European knights") I do, however, have a couple of requests. First, can you provide just a wee bit more bibliographical material on a couple of your cites? I tagged them with hidden text, if you do a diff between your last edit and those subsequent, you will see the tags more easily. (I wasn't logged in when I tweaked the edit, so it shows up as an anon IP, but it was me). Second, can you add some more dates to these events, so that we can see a timeline progression? People reading this article might not really know precisely when Heroditus wrote, or when Alexander invaded India, for example. Third, can you maybe take a look at what you wrote and tighten it up just a bit? It's a little long and a wee bit wordy. I edited out a few peacock words that were a bit unencyclopedic, but I hesitated to cut much because I don't know the material. Some of what was written sounded a bit redundant, but that may be due to lack of dates making different situations sound like the same one, not sure. Remember Neutral point of view of course. Finally, can you also be sure to format your cites a little more like the rest: Author name (last name first), "Periodical Title in Quotes," Publication title italicized, Publisher, date, page numbers. Some of your cites are already in this format, but not all.

Gosh, that may have sounded a little critical, it wasn't intended as such. I really like the material you added, just want it cleaned up a bit to flow with the style of the rest of the article. Say, if you wanted to write a breakout article that went into more detail, like "Horses in Ancient India" or something, that would also be very cool. There is a model you can look at as an example, see Horses in the Middle Ages, a breakout that focuses on Medieval Europe. That editor that led that project did a great job with citation as well.

Another thought: We had a request for more info on the Mongols. Have you any material on that? Montanabw(talk) 03:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks Montanabw(talk) 03:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC) you can edit at will. no problem for me. And I will try to edit as per your suggestions.

Satbir Singh 16:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions, now can you source some of the others? For example, when did Kśatriya hordes (Kśatriya ganah), capture the throne of Ayudhya, etc.? What I realize is bugging me here when I said things were "wordy," is that this section shouldn't be so much a battle history, but rather a discussion of when various people first used cavalry, any innovative tactics they employed, etc...does that make sense? For example, the Persians fought many battles, but for this article, what matters is that they were the first to employ heavy cavalry as opposed to light cavalry. The section on India needs to pinpoint when cavalry was first used, any innovations in tactics, etc., and how it spread to the rest of the world. Some of what is there now perhaps should be moved over to cavalry. Does that make sense? Montanabw(talk) 23:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. Now, we have to get the length down a bit. I am going to take the section and put it at Talk:Horses in warfare to work on it. I'd like you to observe what I have cut (I will cut a lot, I fear) and restore anything that got too drastic...note the length of parallel sections on the Islamic world and Europe, I'm shooting for a similar length. And seriously, I really do think that you may want to look at cavalry and see if you could spin off a whole article on this topic. You really do have enough material and a separate article would give you the room to explore the topic in depth. Montanabw(talk) 06:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw(talk) , go ahead and edit at will to refine the article and make it encylopedic. Thanks. Satbir Singh 00:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What I will do is swap out the shortened version I have in the sandbox for the longer version in the article, but will keep your original one in the sandbox in case you need the refs. Do check over what I did and correct references if I cut something and left in the wrong ref or something. Also, we would be quite grateful for any help you could offer per the comments by User:Wandalstouring, as far as what things might have been particularly innovative about the tactics or techniques of central asian cavalry. Also, do you want to create a new article out of your longer version? I can help if needed. Montanabw(talk) 05:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stirrups

Do you have sources on the early stirrups invented in India? That would be great for the Horses in warfare article. Thank you Wandalstouring 14:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that would be nice, it was a type of toe loop, I believe... Montanabw(talk) 00:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kambojas

Satbir, why are you reverting my attempts to clean up the appalling (very) state of the Kambojas articles? Seriously, the sad state of them must be obvious? Dealing with this is difficult enough without pointless and unexplained reverts. Pray try to contribute constructively and present your concerns on article talkpages. dab (𒁳) 16:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation?

The purpose of this edit[1] is puzzling. Was it an accident? If not, what was your intent? Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Raymond arritt

[edit] This is not an accident

Some of the sections/articles on Kambojas, as being edited and altered by Debachmann, are getting utterly confusing and more messier, and, I'm afraid, may lead to erroneous conclusions by the readers. As he has started editing/altering them en mass, either he should improve the articles by editing them suitably so as to keep them clear, logical and readable and at the same time, also maintain/keep intact their integrity and factuality (let's us if he can do it), or else, I will have no alternative except to revert them back to their original versions. For example, the article Language and ethnicity of Kambojas, in its current form which he has edited, is utterly terrible. I don't think he and other editors on kamboj articles of his kind are quite familiar with the Kamboj history, so as to render them a justice. Further, please make a note that, none of the information, in any of articles on the Kambojas, is a original-research as Mr Debachmann continues to allege. All the Kamboj information is in the books and only he and other people of his ilk may not be aware of it. I have sent this note to him not with any intention to enter into a futile argument with him, but simply to let him know that all the information on the Kambojas..ancient/mediaval or modern, as inserted in any Kamboj related article here, is well-documented and has been taken from reliable references/sources from notable scholars.

Cheers and have a nice day.

Satbir Singh (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, there are two problems: (1) You didn't merely add your comments, but you inserted an unnecessary duplicate copy of all the other material that had been on his user page, and (2) Your comments were placed on his user page, rather than his talk page. Those things were what I meant by "accident." I was not referring to the substance of your comments about Kambojas, a topic in which I have no knowledge. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tocharians

Dear Satbir Singh: It seems we are getting into an "edit war", something I would very much like to avoid. You have already noticed the many edits I have been making to your work on the "Tocharians in Indian Literature" section - and, as I know well, this is always an uncomfortable experience - I am sorry about this - but feel that to bring this section of the page up to Wikipedia standards we need a proper rigorous account with full and reliable references.

Now, I am in agreement with you on many points but, it seems to me, we need to provide the reader with a brief account of the references in Indian literature which may refer to "Tokharians" which allows for the great uncertainty that exists regarding the identification of almost all these ancient peoples. It is fine to say that some scholar believes that, say, the Asiani (of the Western sources) = the Wusun (of the Chinese sources) - or that the Tochari = the Yuezhi, but it should also be pointed out that these identifications are not accepted by many other scholars and so, in fact, must remain in doubt.

Also, some of the references you have given are not complete (for instance, not including the author's name, etc) and you have obviously taken romanised Chinese names from various authors who have used different (and usually now defunct) systems of romanisations - so I have been changing them to Pinyin, which is the most common system used today - and the one preferred for the Wikipedia. However, please do not think I am being critical - I am really just trying to be helpful.

On more minor issues, it is not usual to include an author's title in a reference - therefore one might refer to Victor H. Mair, but would not normally refer to him in a reference as Professor (or Prof.) Victor H. Mair. I believe this is Wikipedia policy as well.

I am going away for about 3 weeks and will at times be out of internet contact. Though I will check for new notes when I can - I may not have the time or opportunity to reply until I return home early next month.

Finally, I am very pleased to see that the references in Indian literature are being dealt with - and I do hope that together (and with help from others) we can make a really useful, accurate and interesting contribution to this page. I will contribute further whenever I can spare the time. All best wishes for the New Year. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, I do appreciate your edits and I think, and acknowledge that they are helpful. I believe, we can work together on this page. Cheers!

Satbir Singh (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Satbir! Thanks for that - I was worried I had hurt your feelings. I look forward to working with you - but probably not until after I return home in early Feb. Cheers and all best wishes, John Hill (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)