Snowspinner wrote:
>But apparently moving in this direction gets you RfCed with an
>intention of being taken to the arbcom, so there's some logistical
>problems to work out, it seems.
And don't forget! When someone says you've violated an unwritten
policy by enforcing the ratified one and should promptly relinquish
your adminship, you should do so immediately and not think they're a
tad clueless about the project, because that would be rude.
- d.
Blargh, I don't know. I was talking more about AfD, though.
Nevertheless, the FAC process needs to go faster. Look at last week: we gained four and lost three FAs. That comes out to a total gain of one. This is unacceptable.
> From: Phroziac <phroziac(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: RE: Re: Taking your eyes off the ball
>
> Ryan W. (Merovingian) wrote:
> > I have to admit to being guilty of oppose-and-run. :(
> Why would you even consider that?
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
I am simply worried about the ratio of featured articles to non-featured articles. As I see it, FAs would be the first to go straight to Wikipedia 1.0, so why not produce more high-quality articles?
--Ryan
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Taking your eyes
> off the ball
>
> If you think they're too slow maybe you need to learn a little
> patience. What's the rush?
> Ec
>
> Ryan W. (Merovingian) wrote:
>
> > I can see that; it's not that I think the standards are too
> > tough, more like the process is too slow.
> >
> >
> >> From: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Taking your eyes off the
> >> ball
> >>
> >> On 10/2/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki(a)earthling.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Blargh, I don't know. I was talking more about AfD, though.
> >>>
> >>> Nevertheless, the FAC process needs to go faster. Look at last
> >>> week: we gained four and >lost three FAs. That comes out to a
> >>> total gain of one. This is unacceptable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> The standards for a FA are increaseing.
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> Im naive and idealistic, so Ive been trying reason and
> responsiveness. I guess you could say it hasnt been
> working, so maybe youre right and now its time to
> finally form that anti-tyranny/pro-liberty cabal that
> people have been waiting for.
But isn't that conceding defeat, forming a collective to fight collectivism?
Almost as much a contradiction as having conscripts fight for
"freedom".
-- Silverback
> Folks, let me suggest that there's a trick to avoiding this kind of hassle.
> Don't edit war.
That is my philosophy too, but when facing editors that fail to respond with valid points on the talk page and just want the page their own way, I revert, so as not to allow their behavior to be rewarded. I attempt to scrupuluously avoid a warlike demeanor, in the face of unreasonable behavior. Perhaps technically it is edit warring. 8-) Stopping the war would reward the behavior of the other party in starting it, and such reinforcement of the behavior after such long persistance would unfortunately be the strongest possible reinforcement. One must either give in right away to those presuming ownership of a page or commit to warring forever or reach a compromise that is not too rewarding. Unfortunately, the current text is already too great a compromise, which I mistakenly offered too early in the process, but it is where I must draw the line.
sincerely, Silverback
I can see that; it's not that I think the standards are too tough, more like the process is too slow.
> From: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Taking your eyes off the
> ball
>
> On 10/2/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki(a)earthling.net> wrote:
> > Blargh, I don't know. I was talking more about AfD, though.
> >
> > Nevertheless, the FAC process needs to go faster. Look at last
> > week: we gained four and >lost three FAs. That comes out to a
> > total gain of one. This is unacceptable.
>
> The standards for a FA are increaseing.
>
>
> --
> geni
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Dear Wikipedia,
Brian has blocked me from editing and Tom has been
reverting my edits. Tom's knowledge of rajput history
is very shallow and when I corrected him he wants to
create a new page with my edits instead of the rajput
main page itself.
I have given a list of more then 2 dozen books which
are my sources and Tom has not given any sources. It
seems that he is relying on the internet for his data
or atbest(this is my guess because he has not provide
any bibliography) some disputed historians like Ms
Romila Thapar from India.
This is unjust censoring of my argument. I have
attached discussion between myself and Tom R.
-Shivraj
>From Tom Radulovich:
POV pushing and speculation
Shivraj's claims on this page cannot be proven, and
don't belong here. The burden of proof in a Wikipedia
article is on the one who claims something to be a
fact, not on everyone else. If I write "it is proven
that the moon is made of green cheese", I should be
able to provide documentation that the moon is indeed
made of green cheese; it is not up to everyone else to
prove to me that it is not. To say that "if there were
no Rajputs in India then India would be just like
Iraq/Iran/Turkey/Pakistan in terms of religion" is not
a "fact", it is just speculation. There are many parts
of india--most of India, in fact--where there are few
or no Rajputs, yet the these regions do not have a
Muslim majority today; if Rajputs are the only thing
keeping a country from becoming Muslim, then why is
South India, with no significant Rajput presence,
still Hindu? What about Spain, or Serbia, or Bulgaria,
that were subject to centuries of Muslim rule, who, in
the absence of Rajputs, didn't become Muslim? And what
about Sind, which was ruled by Rajputs before the
Muslim conquest--why did it become Muslim, despite the
presence of Rajputs? If one wanted to prove one's
theory that the presence of Rajputs is the only thing
that prevented mass conversion to Islam, it would be
necessary to prove that 1) No region with Rajputs ever
became majority muslim; and that 2) all regions
without Rajputs became majority muslim. The historical
record doesn't support either claim; furthermore it is
extremely insulting to the vast majority of Hindus who
happen not to be Rajputs to claim that, but for the
Rajputs, they would have given up their religion. Lots
of non-Rajputs showed enormous bravery in keeping
Hinduism alive during periods of Muslim rule, and it
is also well documented that many Rajput leaders
showed less bravery in collaborating with their Muslim
rulers.
Second, to assert that "A point to note here is that
lot of Muslims and some hindu historians like Romila
Thapar think that Islam/Muslims did not do conversion
of Hindus by sword. The argument they give is that
there are so many hindus still today in India. This is
completely wrong because most muslim rulers in India
tried to convert as many as they could but it was the
strength of rajput sword that kept hinduism alive in
India." is patently absurd. What makes Shivraj the
definitive authority on Indian history, able to
dismiss scholars such as Romila Thapar as "completely
wrong"? It is totally fair to say that scholarly
opinions differ, or to avoid speculation altogether,
but to state that eminent historians "are completely
wrong" without offering some compelling evidence is
sloppy scholarship that has no place on Wikipedia. Tom
Radulovich 07:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
>From Shivraj:
Tom,
Fundamentally you do not understand Hinduism and
Rajputs. Hinduism is a religion which does not have
any way of making somebody a hindu. Once you are
converted to someother religion that is it. That said
in last few decades some organizations in India have
invented ways to make people Hindu primarily as a
backlash against christian missionaries who were
converting tribals.
Reason why Spain/Bulgaria/Hungary/Serbia are not like
Iraq/Iran etc is very simple. These regions were
conquered by christians after muslims and since
christianity preaches missionary zeal this led to
reconversion of muslims back to christianity. If u
look at DNA data muslim serbs and other serbs are the
same stock, similar thing in Hungary etc. Find out the
census towards the end of muslim rule in these
countries. Iraq/Iran/Turkey etc remained under muslim
rule for more then thousand years and the result is
that >90% of these countries are muslim. Now why did
this not happen in India? It was because of rajputs.
Muslims realised very early that rajput men, women and
children cannot be subdued at any cost and the wars
were constant between rajputs and muslims since the
birth of Islam till British came in India i.e almost a
1000 years. This was the resistance which kept
hinduism alive and not the benevolence of muslim
rulers in India. Though muslims would want you to
believe that no conversion ever happened in India on
the edge of a sword. If muslims had no resistance in
India, like they had none in Iraq/Iran etc India would
be like these countries. I do not understand why this
is speculation or POV (whatever that means).
Regarding South India the first real muslim empire
building that happened in deep south was under
Aurangzeb and he had his hands full with both Shivaji
and Rathores in the Indian heartland. Also what you do
not realise that his incursions into south India were
led by Hadas of Bundi and Kotah who are still regarded
as the bravest rajputs in rajasthan. Yeah Aurangzeb
was the emperor but he could not order these Hada
Chauhans to convert south indians into Islam and thus
south remained largely hindu, though there are pockets
in Karnataka (because of backstabber Haider Ali and
Tipu) and elsewhere where there are large number of
Muslims. (When Jodhabai died Akbar's generals said to
him that every man in his empire should shave there
moustache in honor of the departed soul and Akbar
agreed and he passed an order to this effect. Man
Singh and Akbar had just managed to befriend Hadas and
some Hadas were in Delhi during this time. The order
reached Hadas that they have to cut there moustaches
they laughed at the messenger and asked him to go
back. Then Akbar's muslim generals sent barbers with
muslim army to there palace. Hadas decided that they
are going to fight and to hell with Akbar and
Jodhabai. Realise Hadas are less then hundred in
number, sitting in Delhi which is teeming with Muslims
soldiers and they are defying Akbar's direct orders.
Word reached Akbar that Hadas are about to start
bloodshed in Delhi and Akbar was shellshocked. He
reached there palace and bowed to them and asked for
forgiveness. Akbar understood that if Surjan Hada was
alienated and if Surjan combined with Maharana Pratap
that would be the end of Akbar's rule).
Afghanistan/ Sindh was ruled by Hindus/rajputs since
time immeorial but after Dahir's death Sindh was
largely under unbroken muslim rule and no major wars
were fought in Sindh between rajputs and muslims
there. After Dahir's fall his son moved himself as
commander under the Mori prince of chittore and hence
Dahir's progeny were uprooted from Sindh and settled
in Rajasthan. As a consequence muslims did not
encounter resistance in Sindh after Dahir's fall and
hence the result of Sindh being largely muslim.
No Indian is insulted because rajputs helped preserve
hinduism in India. Perhaps Romila thapar and her ilk
might be. Yes there are a handful of non-rajputs who
fought well but that was an exception rather then the
rule. Fighting was only meant to be done by Kshatriyas
and nobody else.
Romila thapar, has written that Prithviraj Chauhan
begged Ghori after he lost. She has also written that
Ghazni broke Shivalinga at Somnath not because he was
against Hindus but some other bullshit.
You as a non-hindu and a non-rajput cannot comprehend
how insulting these statements are. When one of us
hears such untrue propaganda it makes our blood boil.
These things along with a whole bunch of other lies is
being taught to young Indians today in our shcools and
these history books have been edited by Ms Thapar. Why
does Romila behave like this? So that she can present
papers in western conferences and travel abroad. Make
westerners feel good yeah there was an Aryan invasion
and yes Indians and everything coming out of India is
inferior to the west. Porus lost, pythagoras
discovered the theorem, Pi (circle area constant)
invented in greece etc. If u have scientific
background read Donald Knuth's(Stanford Prof)
algorithm books where he has a done a better then
average job in telling the world these things were
known in India as common knowledge before Greeks even
knew what Maths was.
Sloppy scholarship is what I saw on wikipedia a few
weeks back when I first visited this site. A rajput
site bashing rajputs!! Reading history from books
written by biased historians does not make you a
scholar. It also does not give you free ticket to
spread the false propaganda to rest of the world. I
will not allow this to happen and I have been editing
the junk on wikipedia that existed before I looked at
this site.
If you truely want to learn more and are not arguing
for the sake of arguing as others on this discussion
are here is a brief list of books that are in my
library.
Maharana Kumbha : sovereign, soldier, scholar
Maharana Pratap
Maharaja Mansingh : the mystic monarch of Marwar
Maravara ka itihasa
The glory of Ranthambhor
Rathaura rajavamsa ke riti-rivaja : 1600-1850 I.
Maharana Hammir of Mewar : Chitor's lost freedom
restored
Maharana Pratapa : eka aise vira yoddha ki
jivana-gatha jisane svatantrata ke lie apani akhiri
samsa taka visala Mugala samrajya se janga ki
Maharana Pratapa : aitihasika adhyayana
The genealogical survey : Royal house of Marwar and
other states
Unveiling Ajitsingh's Sanskrit biography : issues in
Marwar history and Sanskrit poetics
Marwar-Jodhpur
The house of Marwar
Relations between Marwar and the Marathas, A.D.
1724-1843 A.D.
Maravara ke thikanom ki puralekhiya sampada
Durgadas Rathor : [national biography]
War strategy of Maharana Pratap, its evolution and
implementation
Maharana Pratapa
Poems of Mewar
The johur of Padmini : the saga of Chitor's deathless
heroine
Maharana Pratap : a biography
Maharana Pratap, the hero of Haldighati
Maharana Kumbha and his times : a glorious Hindu king
Maharana Pratap & his times
The luminous life of Maharana Pratap
Maharana Pratapa
Hindupati Maharana Sanga : sacitra
Rashtra-gaurava suravira Maharana Pratapa
Sirohi rajya ka itihasa
Essays on Bardic literature : Professor V.S. Bhatnagar
felicitation volume
Bhati vamsa ka gauravamaya itihasa
Annals of Jaisalmer : a pre-mediaeval history
Rajput tales : adapted and abridged from Tod's Annals
and antiquities of Rajasthan
Svatantrya vira Rava Candrasena : Jodhapura ka sasaka
1562-1581 I.
Maheca Rathaurom ka mula itihasa : Ravala Mallinatha
ke vamsaja - Maheca, Baramera, Pokarana, Kotariya aura
Khavariya Rathaurom ka sodhapurna itihasa
Amara Simha Rathaura
Folk tales of Rajasthan
Panna dhaya : prabandha kavya
Mevara jagiradaram ri vigata : Maharana Amarasimha
Dvi. evam Maharana Bhimasimha
Maratha confederacy : a study in its origin and
development
Vira siromani Rava Amarasimha Rathaura : Nagaura ka
sasaka, 1638-1644 I.
Vira Durgadasa Rathaurha
Svatamtrata-premi Durgadasa Rathaura
Prithiraja Rathaura
Bharata ka Liyonidasa, Sonigira Virama de Cauhana,
Jalaura = : Lionidas of India Sonigira Viram de
Chauhan,Jalore : a history of greatest patriotic saga
of Chauhan clan
Folklore of Rajasthan
Rise of the Maratha power
Studies on Maratha & Rajput history
Pranapala Durgadasa Rathaura
Rathaura rajavamsa ke riti-rivaja : 1600-1850 I.
Gogunda ki khyata
Rathaudam ri khyata
Early Chauhan dynasties : a study of Chauhan political
history, Chauhan political institution, and life in
the Chauhan dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D.
Survey of Kheechi Chauhan history, with biographical
notes
Folklore of Rajasthan
Maharana Pratap & his times
Rashtravira Durgadasa Rathaura
The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan (2 vols.)
Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan (2 vols.)
-Shivraj
>From Tom:
"POV" means point-of-view, and understanding the
"Neutral Point of View" is official policy at
Wikipedia. All wikipedia editors should be aware of
the three policies regarding content:
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia: No
original research and Wikipedia: Verifiability.
I think part of the confusion here is the distinction
between the article and the article's talk page. To
say "Romila Thapar is a completely wrong" on the talk
page is rude and intellectually dodgy, but acceptable;
to say so in the article is another thing, since it
violates all three policies. It is not appropriate to
rebut theories about why Hindus converted to Islam and
advance your personal theory in the article, because
the article doesn't advance ANY theory on why Hindus
converted to Islam, and because 1) the NPOV policy
would require that competing theories be presented
dispassionately; and 2) it is your opinion (no
original research); and 3) it cannot be proved or
disproved (verifiability).
The Rajputs weren't able to prevent the conquest of
most of India by either the Sultans of Delhi nor the
Mughals, nor were they even able to prevent Muslim
domination of most of Rajasthan at the height of
Muslim power. The argument that Rajput military
prowess was the only thing that prevented India from
becoming Muslim is a pretty dodgy assertion, as the
record shows that the Kshatriyas weren't always
successful against Muslim armies (which were often led
by Rajputs, as you point out). Nor were the Rajputs
present everywhere in India. so some resistance (not
armed resistance, but cultural resistance) on the part
of non-Rajput indians was essential to preserving
India's Hindu character. I agree that Rajputs played a
very important role, but to say they were the ONLY
reason that India isn't now Muslim is a hightly
questionable assertion.
Also, your argument that "Regarding South India the
first real muslim empire building that happened in
deep south was under Aurangzeb" is factually
incorrect; the Muslim conquest of India south of the
Narmada began with Ala ud din Khilji in the early 14th
century, a little over 100 years after the defeat of
Prithviraj III. Rule by the Delhi Sultanate expanded
over the next half decade, and was followed
continuously by the Bahmani Sultanate and later by the
Deccan sultanates in the region between the Narmada
and the Tungabhadra, and extended further south after
1565. When Aurangzeb campaigned in southern India in
the late 17th century, it was mostly Muslim-ruled
kingdoms that he conquered. Tom Radulovich 22:49, 30
September 2005 (UTC)
>From Shivraj:
There are bugs in your logic regarding Romila. How is
it OK to spread one sided history of rajputs just
because historians like Romila have written it? What
is rajput history? Is it just what some westerners
wrote about rajputs and then some Indian historians
who towed the British line? Or is it what 99% of
rajputs beleive and has been passed down to them from
generation to generation? If one visits a rajput
village and talk to the elders on any topic that I
have written you would get much more data then I have
been able to collect so far from books I mentioned.
This is the history which is true and not the versions
of Romila and a few scholars from Rajasthan are
penning this correct history into books. Some of the
books have been mentioned earlier.
It is intellectual stagnation to not point the flaws
in history presented by Ms Thapar and other editors.
How can we trust there research when most of there
presentation is false.
Prithviraj could not beg a muslim for his life. Any
historian who claims that has a bias against rajputs
and it is unacceptable for us to beleive an iota
coming from there pen.
It is absolutely correct on my part to point out Ms
Thapar is completely wrong. (BTW this discussion is
akin to the aryan invasion theory which has been
completely debunked. Nobody in rajput country side
beleieved Aryan invasion theory ever. It is just
modern english educated Indians who were made to learn
this stupid theory and sadly is still the case in our
schools today thanks to Ms Thapar).
Conversion of Rajputs only happened due to a flaw in
there own character where they wanted to retain there
kingdom or remain an important general or the
relatives of this king or general who converted.
Rajput would not be converted by sword or how the
ordinary hindus were converted as explained below.
Conversions of ordinary hindus in India happened:
a) After a war was lost.
b) When a principality was ruled by a muslim ruler for
an extended period of time thru systematic pressure on
hindu population by threats of torture/inhumane
treatment/excessive taxation/women abduction/rape etc.
e.g. old delhi / mysore/ hyderabad/ rampur/ golconda/
saharanpur/ kashmir/ bengal/avadh (lucknow) etc. have
a very high density of muslim population. Wherever
there were hindu kings ruling there own kingdom these
mass conversion only happened if a war was lost on
there soil. I fail to understand why it is difficult
to judge the density of muslim population in muslim
ruled areas as an example of conversion by the sword.
Some Islamists say that Hindus converted to Islam
because of virtues in Islam. If that was the case we
should still see ordinary Hindus converting to Islam
today. But that is not the case.
Again you are wrong in stating that Rajputs could not
stop muslim invasions. This is myth that has been
created that somehow muslims were invincible and ruled
India for 800 years.
How Alluddin won has been mentioned in the "Battles"
section. Within 50 years of Chittore's fall Hammir
regained it by capturing Tughlaq and for next 250
years or so Muslims had no real success against ranas
of Mewar. Yes there were pockets where Muslims ruled
unopposed in India and these regions have highest
density of muslims. During Babur's time Rathores had a
completely independent kingdom which almost touched
borders with Delhi. During Akbar's time pretty much
entire rajasthan was ruled by rajputs. Akbar taxed the
ones who surrendered but his dictat did not run in
rajput strongholds. During his time and later also
there regions ruled by muslim generals of his and
these parts have a very high density of muslims.
This is another example of how the world has been fed
an incorrect assesment of history that muslims ruled
India for 800 years. This again shows how less people
understand rajputs, including all the non hindu/non
rajput editors of wikipedia. A rajput would only
conquer his paternal territories. Since Prithviraj's
direct lines ceased to exist there was nobody who
wanted to regain Delhi. It was not on any rajput's
radar screen. World has crowned muslims as Indian
rulers just because they were in delhi. Fact is Delhi
was just like Mewar another Indian state in middle
ages and happened to be ruled by Islam.
You talk about cultural resistance. Are you suggesting
zoroastrainism is culturally weaker then Hinduism? How
did Islamists convert entire Iran into a muslim state?
This was done on the edge of the sword because they
did not encounter a sustained resistance in these
countries as they did in India.
All Islamic rulers in India had experienced the might
of Rajput sword and this was the ONLY reason why India
remained largely a hindu country. We can keep arguing
about it but there is no other reason. I agree that
you have not read it in a book but it is the truth.
Regarding deep south exccursion I meant Mughal
excursions. Though some were launched under Man Singh
of Amber during Akbar's time but they were not
sustained operations as happened during Aurang's time.
-Shivraj
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Snowspinner_2
I wish to apologise for and retract calling this "RFC abuse" in the
original subject line. That implies Blackcat's action in bringing the
RFC was in bad faith, which I don't think is the case. I do think he's
*dead wrong*, however, and that twenty people working in concert to
violate the deletion policy is not somehow less bad than just one
doing so.
- d.
dpbsmith wrote:
>I'd like to redefine "vanity" as meaning "an imbalanced mix of motives in
>which serving the needs of the contributor outweights serving the needs of
>the reader."
Apart from the problem of unnecessarily redefining a word in English
as a jargon term of quite different meaning, I really don't see how
this will lead to *less* subjectivity and contentiousness.
Hagiographic fan writing is a problem to deal with at editorial level.
It is *not* something the deletion process can reasonably be twisted
to deal with.
- d.
While it may be annoying when a favorite type of article is listed for
deletion, it's best viewed as a chance to argue your case to not delete it.
Remember that the case for deletion needs a consensus, which is actually
pretty hard to raise if an article has any merit.
In particular, the notability argument is extremely weak, and in most cases
directly contradicts deletion policy.
Deletion policy states explicitly that if the only problem with an article
is that it's on a branch of a subject so trivial that it doesn't merit an
article, it is *not* a candidate for deletion, but should be merged to a
more comprehensive article.
This isn't only policy, it's also a pretty sensible argument for merging.