User talk:Tom Radulovich/Archive2

Laurisilva, Laurel forest
Hi Tom - Laurisilva and Laurel forest, two articles about the same thing. Want to merge them? - MPF 00:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks; yes, that sounds a good idea - MPF 01:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thinking a bit more - what would a Lauraceae-dominated forest in South or Central America be called? Would that not also be Laurisilva? Should the Macaronesian example be area-identified (e.g. Atlantic Laurisilva/Atlantic Laurel forest or similar)? - MPF 16:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Vaigai river
Hi Tom, you might want to have a look at my queries at Talk:Vaigai River. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:06, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Will you accept adminship?
Hi Tom, if you're interested in becoming an administrator, I shall nominate you. Please indicate your willingness or otherwise. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would organise the info that I put in the talk page into the article along the lines of Narmada River once I find some time. Regarding the adminship, do ping me once you're willing to take it up. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:29, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Punjab Map in Public Domain?
Hi Tom, in Punjab_region article, the 1903 map is from the Library of Congress Geography and Map Collection. is it in public domain? i failed to locate its copyright/public domain status on http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/gmd:@FILREQ(@OR(@field(AUTHOR+@od1(Dodd,+Mead+++Company+))+@field(OTHER+@od1(Dodd,+Mead+++Company+)))+@FIELD(COLLID+gnrlmap))

IJ. --202.5.128.10 10:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Very Concerned about Rajputs
Dear Tom,

I am very concerned about the artical on Rajputs since I was recently debating with an individual named wisesabre. Now, this article hits me personally since it is my identity and I feel that because I cannot take part in this debate any longer, as well I find his arguements and the arguements of the other chap completely ridiculous, since I am preparing to write my licensing exams soon, I feel really frustrated.

Does Wikipedia simply allow anyone to put stuff up even if its not backed by authentic academic knowledge or research? Is this something I should just forget about since it seems that the article is going to be hijacked and the entire concept of the Rajputs will be distorted.

It seems that anything held sacred can simply be distorted in this encyclopedia. If anyone wanted to know how legitimate my sources or claims are, at least I can say "Just show this to Dr. Joseph T. O'Connell, Professor Emeritus, South Asian Studies Department, University of Toronto" and he'll easily recognise my writings and even tell you my name and lineage on the spot.

I guess I turned to you, since I saw how passionate you are about your work and how well you presented the articles on India.

Sincerely Gorkhali 05:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Amazing Work
Dear Tom,

Let me begin by stating that you are doing an amazing job with the Rajput Article. I also wanted to thank you for the advice you gave in the past. I took a deep breath and realised what you say is true.

I was reading up on the Neutrality Policy, and was wondering if you knew whether I can remove that tag off the aritcle since in the discussion page the argument seems settled.

Thank you again for your amazing work.

Sincerely, Gorkhali 09:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The Rajput Article
Dear Tom,

You are right, the aritcle is going to need a lot of work to integrate the two history sections together. I have requested the person who posted it to also supply us with the bibliography. I am in the middle of my licensing exams, but once I get some free time I will definitely help out.

I saw that Wisesabre has once again added his so-called clan 'Naru' to the list, at this point I couldn't care, however when he and his friends were really trying to distort history and fact, it was (as you know from my previous messages) alarming. They were making some pretty erroneous claims, such as being allowed into temples and being given respect as Rajputs by the temple preists, where in reality I know it is discriminatory but no non-Hindus are allowed into Ekalingji, Pashupatinath, Jagganath temples and a few others. I do know of actual families who were Rajput and were forced to convert (in Pre-1947 India), however even though their Purohits would come to collect money to maitian the ancestral Hindu shrines, they would only accept money and not any food since the fmaily had converted and were now referred to as Malechas and not Rajputs.

They were even trying to distort historical facts and claiming that Jodhabai, the wife of Akbar was a Janjua (never heard of them) when in fact she came from the Jaipur family and was Man Singh's Sister. This being one example, but then their whole policy of trying to deny atrocities was a little annyoing to say the least.

Perhaps he and his friends can set up a completely seperate article, however I really do not think it si appropriate that they include themselves in the Rajput article since it is clearly a clash of civilisations. Furthermore, they just don't understand the concept of what is a Rajput and what isn't. Although bloodlines are very important, you can still loose the Jati of Rajput and be from the bloodline. Anyways, I am just rambling away.

I have brought up this article as an issue for the next International Rajput conference to be held in November, as well as sending a copy to the Maharana of Mewar, Maharaja of Jodhpur and the Maharaja of Nepal. This whole "muslim rajput" idea was never a problem before, and in the past people understood what it meant to "lose your Jati" but these days it seems there are those who want take advantage from both sides of border.

I am not sure how we should approach this. Perhaps we could speak with Wisesabre/Khurram and ask him to remove the label and start up his own article somewhere else and leave this article alone if they have any respect for their so-called Rajput ancestry.

Anyways, I ramble on for too long. Thanks again for your work, your passion and concern.

Gorkhali 06:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Kannur&Malappuram
Can you help me out on Kannur ,Malappuram & Nilambur. Considerable work has been done on Kannur, a bit on Mallapuram and nothing on Nilambur. In fact the last one has been voted for deletion.Can you help me out on this? sumal 07:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Rajput page
Dear Tom,

I think the discussion has finally come to an end since Wisesabre (real name: Saqib Saud, Lahore ,Pakistan) claims that he has made his final post.

I guess I will then remove the tag, and that is that. As for the POVs that are showing up. I think I know who is doing it and I am trying to contact him (although I don't personally know him), as to explain that POVs are not what should be included in the article since it is not an essay.

Hope all is well with you.

Gorkhali 05:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Morasu Nadu copyvio
Hi, you added a copyvio notice for Morasu Nadu, but you forgot to add the URL of the source article and the page & link to Copyright_problems/2005_September_22. -- Pamri &bull; Talk 16:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Rajputs
I ddnt knew so many people are discussing me :) i added muslim rajput clan's more then twice but other hindu user removed my edits, and i quit discussing it because they are not listening and im also not that much intersted in putting arguments for baseless arguments... (another user discussing it now) could you please put this cat. there

anyways, Good luck الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 17:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Districts of Indian states
Hello, perhaps we are talking after a long time, and thanks for the message. As regards your message, I may state that I thought that as there were separate stubs for the districts, hence the district category may be removed from the page which should basically pertain to the city. I notice that the pages which you may be referring to have information about the cities, as also about the districts of the same name. It appears that you desire that the category for district should also remain along side the categorization for the cities.. I will redo them accordingly, if you so desire. However in that case in the category district, several districts having the same name as their district headquarters will find a place. For example, both Agra as well as Agra district will find a mention under the category :Districts of Uttar Pradesh. I removed the district category in view of my interpretation of information as per WikiProject Indian districts and WikiProject Indian cities. I now feel that you are right in pointing out that for better retrieval of information the removed category should be restored. Ok, I will shortly add the district categorization also, wherever the same were removed. And, thanks for improving the template - Districts of Jharkhand --Bhadani 14:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And, I got all the points and the implications. And now I would surely collect sufficient information before creating tiniest of the tiny stubs. One more request - please clean the Template:Districts of Chhattisgarh, which I have created somehow (smiles) and more thanks. --Bhadani 18:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Length of Rajput Article
Dear Tom,

I must say, hats off to you for seeing this article turn into a “Typing frenzy Mahabharata" and still sticking with it.

I understand your concern about article length, however I hope you don't let certain individuals highjack the article.

I saw that you also worked on an article about the Janjua, and this is an example of where my concern lies. The Janjua article claims that Jodhabhai, Akbar's Rajput wife was a Janjua, however historically speaking and also through academic references, everyone knows she was the princes of Jaipur, Man Singh's Sister. Thus the article here on Wikipedia already has a huge inaccuracy, furthermore during my thesis work which was on Rajputs, no where were these clans listed in any text, even when it came to books listing Clans which were once Hindu and then converted, thus I have serious reservations about people high jacking the article.

If the Muslims wish to have an article on "Muslim Rajputs", then why not have a separate article and simply link it to the Rajput article so that it can be shown as another side of the argument, because by mixing the Muslim Rajput theme into the original article will seriously damage the integrity of the article. It’s almost like sticking the Professor Oak theory that “Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple” into the original Taj Temple, instead they mention it as a separate idea and placed a link.

I know that anyone can do whatever they want to articles on Wikipedia (remember how you showed me the light when I first appeared on the scene), however if the other side wishes to further their argument then why can’t they cite sources. We all know there were Rajputs who were converted, but Islam does not recognize Jatis, and once they left and no longer have a clue about Rajput culture or history, then truly one can claim they have descended from the Rajputs but they are no longer one since they don’t follow any of practices.

When I read your comments on the POV pushing and speculation, I totally agree that it wasn’t only Rajputs since India has other martial groups and people who fought (ie, Gondas, Bhils, Tamils, Brahmins, Sikhs, Garhwalis and many others like the Vijayanagar Empire or Jats and Khatris of Punjab). I also agree that there is a very dark chapter in Rajput history when the vast majority collaborated with the Invaders. And yes, there are no Rajputs in Serbia, Spain or elsewhere which helped stopped the Islamic advance, instead those nations had their own people to thank for that, but your comment totally cracked me up, good point but funny. You are right, people should state facts and be able to back them up with evidence, however this is where I am really concerned.

It seems that Khakhan, Khurram, and the lot can simply claim that pigs can fly without citing evidence and yet they think that everyone should just accept it. They have their idea that pundits are the supreme authority and that whatever they say is the only point of view, furthermore their lack knowledge about the Hindu faith at its social dynamics is utterly disappointing since they lecture on it as if they did graduate studies in it (it kills me that none of them realize that the chief Pundit of Ekalingji temple is the Maharana of Mewar and not a Brahmin, its even listed and stated on Mewar’s website). My point being that if they want to throw around their POV then they should also cite their sources, and when you corrected Shivraj it applied to everyone, he just happened to be in the line of fire since he made the claims about the Rajputs based on POV without citing sources.

There is a really good book that you can probably find at a used bookstore called “A matter of Honour; An Account of the [British] Indian Army, Its officer and Men” by Philip Mason isbn:0333-41837-9, in the book they mention that their were Muslims who claimed to be Rajputs, but they were not of the caliber of the Hindu Rajputs, Jats, Sikhs, Gurkhas etc. Thus the British seriously suspected the authenticity of many of them (Muslim Rajputs), further adding that although it is quite possible that there are those who could be descended from Rajputs, but now they lacked the mentality, practices and frame of mind of what could have made them Rajput and thus were not of very good stock for the Army.

Another thing I find frustrating is the latest tactic that once you start stating what ISlam done where it went, you are suddenly labelled Anti-Islamic, I guess in that case the Jews, Serbs, Russians, Gypsies etc shouldn't complain about what happened at the hand of the Nazis since they could get labelled Anti-German. I find that tactic ridiculous, especially when their is evidence glaring you in the face.

Another good book on the recruiting criteria for the British Indian Army is a book called “Armies of the Raj” by Byron Farwell, I’ll try and get you the ISBN number, its around here somewhere, I am just so swamped with my licensing exam that I simply come on the Rajput discussion start arguing in the most undignified manner and then hit the books again. However, I find it interesting how the other side wishes to try and distort history. There was actually an article in India Today Magazine about Muslims who claim to be Rajputs but are not accepted in Rajput society. I will try and locate the article.

Hope all is well with you. And as always, hats off to you for sticking with it.

Gorkhali 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR
You recently reported a 3RR violation. Please read the instructions at the top of the article on how to report a violation. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Punjab redirect
Will do. That was probably an ill-advised project in the first place. Personally, I think that "Punjab (India)" is a better article naming style than "Punjab, India"; however, on further review there doesn't seem to be any Wikipedia consensus on this, and there's not much point to having articles point to a redirect in this situation. --Russ Blau (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Rajput article
I appreciate your desire to retain any useful information for the benefit of Wikipedia. Much of the historical information that User:Shivraj Singh continues to insert into the article has been moved to History of Rajputs, where it is presented in a less-hysterical and better edited fashion. Not much in the way of accurate content is lost by the removal of Shivraj Singh's edits, but much is gained in terms the article's neutrality and readability. Tom Radulovich 07:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh I see whats going on now... Hmm... You seem to have it covered then. :) -- Cool Cat Talk 07:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Pinus lagunae
Hi Tom - I was in effect taking the 'middle of the road' option on this one, also followed by e.g. Farjon & Styles, Flora Neotropica 75 (1997); this seems to me to be the best rank to use here, as while it differs from P. cembroides, it doesn't do so by very much (it shares e.g. the unusual pink endosperm of P. cembroides, has a similar stomatal pattern, and the cones are not readily distinguished). Some others still keep it as just a variety, but it does appear to be more distinct than that. - MPF 09:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Too many Barnstars
Tom, I had checked your talk page archive but not your user page. Wow, you've got a many-starred barn! Pass them out freely, too. We need more barns starred! (Say, how come all the cool editors edit Pune, of all places?) Cheers, -Willmcw 11:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Peer review
I've been working on the Malwa article, and would like to request you to review the article. Seems like we can easily make it into a featured article. Any suggestions and/or contributions will be highly appreciated. deeptrivia 06:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Redundant categories
Tom, No problem. I will revert them back. I was adding the Major cities template to all AP cites. - Cheers, Ganeshk 20:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Goa vs. India
Administratively, Canacona is a taluka of South Goa District, per the South Goa District web site:. Tom Radulovich 21:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that "fact". For my reasons, see Goa vs. India. I am amazed that no one has dared to contest what is posted there. Perhaps you would like to refute it? WikiSceptic 06:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

BR Hills
I had been working for over 2 months on the Biligirirangan Hills and brought it to a minimum standard of quality. The entries are not seen on the history page anymore. Was it because of the renaming? Prashanthns 17:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wynadd
Your Wynaad re-direct that I saw in RC, based on how I thought it was pronounced, was something I thought was going to be related to WINAD, a 5-letter-combination that stands for a famous phrase about Wikipedia. You should have clarified that it is not. Georgia guy 02:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Dry Valley
I realise that the original article might well have been all about the McMurdo Dry Valleys, but the term itself is not confined to that one example. In geography it refers to one time river/stream valleys which have lost their water for one reason or another. It is particularly relevant in the North and South Downs in southern England, where the uplifting of the chalk bedrock, as a result of the Alpine movements further south in Europe, have brought them about. It seems a pity not to have the reference. I have just amended the article Alkham Valley which is a case in point. Do you agree to revert the redirect? Peter Shearan 16:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

your claims on rajput archives
Tom I went through rajput archives and saw you claimed rajputs could not prevent invasions. This is factually incorrect. So is your claim that rajputs sikhs and marathas were not the sole reason for preservance of hiunduism in India. You also talked about Spain and Portugal and how they were once muslim countries and now are not. Read Spanish Inquisition and in Portugal an option was given to muslims that parents can remain muslim but children will have to convert to Christianity.

rajputs and non-rajputs differ on how easily India was conquered
This point is addressed by W.W. Hunter, THE INDIAN EMPIRE, ITS PEOPLE, HISTORY AND PRODUCTS, First published: London: Trubner & Co., Ludgate Hill, 1886, ISBN 81-206-1581-6. [CHAPTER X. Page 268].

'''Within a hundred years after his (Muhammad's) death, his followers had invaded the countries of Asia as far as the Hindu Kush. Here there progress was stayed and Islam had to consolidate itself during three more centuries before it grew strong enough to grasp the rich prize of India. But almost from first the Arabs had fixed eager eyes upon that wealthy country. Fifteen years after the death of prophet, Usman sent a sea expedition to Thana and Broach on the Bombay coast (647 ? AD). Other raisds towards Sind took place in 662 and 664 with no results.'''

[ Skipped a para where attack on Sind and its recapture by rajputs is described]

'''The armies of Islam had carried the crescent from the Hindu Kush westwards, through Asia, Africa and Souther Europe, to distant Spain and Gaul, before they obtained a foothold in Punjab. This long delay was due, not only to the daring of individual tribes, such as Sind Rajputs, just mentioned but to the millitary organization of the Hindu Kingdoms.''' [ Para continues where Hunter goes on to describe various Rajput/Hindu kings of this era throughout India. There were very many of them. ]

'''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; while the large number of groups and units rendered conquest a very tedious process. For even when the overlord or central authority was vanquished, the separate units had to be defeated in detail, and each State supplied a nucleus for subsequent revolt. We have seen how the brilliant attempt in 711, to found a lasting Muhammedan dynsaty in Sind, failed. Three centuries later, the utmost efforts of two great Musalman invaders from the north-west only succeeded in annexing a small portion of the frontier Punjab Province between 977 and 1176 A.D. The Hindu power in Souther India was not completely broken till the battle of Talikot in 1565; and within a hundred years, in 1650, the great Hindu revival had commenced which under the form of Maratha confederacy, was destined to break up the Mughal Empire in India. That Empire, even in the north of India, had only been consolidated by Akbar's policy of incorporating Hindu chiefs into his government(1556-1605). Up to Akbar's time, and even during the earlier years of his reign a series of Rajput wars had challenged the Muhammadan supremacy. In less than two centuries after his death, the succesor of Akar was a puppet in the hand of the Hindu marathas at Delhi.''' '''The popular notion that India fell an easy prey to the Musalmans is opposed to the historical facts. Muhammadan rule in India consists of a series of invasions and partial conquests, during eleven centuries, from Usman's raid, circ.647, to Ahmad Shah's tempest of invasion in 1761 A.D.''' '''At no time was Islam triumphant throughout the whole of India. Hindu dynasties always ruled over large areas. At the height of the Muhammadan power, the hindu princes paid tribute, and sent agents to the Imperial court. But even this modified supremacy of Delhi lasted for little over a century (1578-1707). Before the end of that brief period the Hindus had begun the work of reconquest. The native chivalry of Rajputana was closing in upon Delhi from the south; the religious confederation of the Sikhs was growing into a military power on the north-west. The Marathas had cobmined the fighting powers of the low-castes with the statesmen ship of the Brahmans, and were subjecting the Muhammadan kingdoms throughout all India to tribute. So far as can now be estimated, the advance of the English power at the beginning of the present century alone saved the Mughal Empire from passing to the Hindus.'''

role of rajputs/marathas/sikhs as vanguards of hindu religion. Contrast with Zoroastrians/Persia under Yezdezird during Invasion of Persia
This section is from THE PARSEES, THEIR HISTORY, MANNERS, CUSTOMS AND RELIION. DOSABHOY FRAMJEE. First Published LONDON: SMITH, ELDER and CO., 65, CORNHILL: 1858. [Page 3]

'''Suffice it to say, that with Yezdezird, the forty-fifth king in te descent of the race of Kaimurs, ended the ancient Persian monarchy. The neighbouring and wealthy empire of Persia presented too tempting a prize to the fanatic and ambitious spirit, evoked by Mahomed, to remain long unmolested, and in the middle of the seventh century of the Christian era, the Arab sword invaded Persia, under Caliph Omar. In a fierce and well-contested battle with the Persians at the village of Nahavand, about fifty miles from the ancient city of Ecbatana, the fate of the empire was decided.....Yezdezird, abandoning his kingdom as lost, fled the country; and after wandering in solitude and disguise for a period of ten years, was at last treachersously slain by a miller to whom the secret of his identity had been confided (651 AD).'''.... '''Thus on the conquest of Persia, the Mahomedan soldiers of the Caliphat of Baghdad traversed the length and breadth of the country, presenting the alternative of death or the Koran, and compelling the conquered nation to accept the one or the other. By these oppressive and cruel means, a hundred thousand persons are said to have daily abjured the faith of there forefathers; and the fire-temples and other sacred places were destroyed or converted into mosques.'''

Same intensity of conversion by sword could not occur in India because of rajputs,marathas and sikhs at different periods of last 1100 years.

--DPSingh 11:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)