User talk:Ravi Chaudhary
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Ravi Chaudhary, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! DaGizza Chat (c) 07:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Jat
You can edit it, maybe all that happened was a Wikipedia error. It is being updated at the moment so sometimes after you click "Save Page" it says "This page can not be viewed" or somthing similar. It that happens, click back on the internet screen, then click "save page" again. It generally works the second time. DaGizza Chat (c) 05:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] India related links
 |
Links for Wikipedians interested in India content | |
|
Newcomers: Welcome kit | Register: Indian Wikipedians | Network: Noticeboard | Discussionboard Browse: India | Open tasks | Deletions |
||
Pamri • Talk • Reply 04:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hi Raviji
You have started liking wikipedia. You have good knowledge of History. We need to improve some sections in Indian history. I have provided some photos in Jat article. Hope you like them. burdak 15:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Greetings
Holi greetings. --Bhadani 11:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shekavati
I'm good, just make sure you can give a good citation for your material. Can you also try to match up the loose references with their parts in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lbmixpro (talk • contribs).
Lbmixpro;
Thanks
we have good citations. the problem is that some people who are writing on Shekhawati article, seek to see the material removed, using 'good'citations as the excuse. Their idea of 'good' citations seems to be Western published citations, an dthat by default seek to portray the Indian citations in Indian languages as less than "good".
This is not and should not be an acceptable paradigm
There is reference in publication from the University of Chicago. Should that supersede or be superior or more acceptable than the works of Indian historians published in India?
One would think not!
We will patient with Shekavati and other articles, where the only scholarship that shows up, is the abilty to remain anonymous and the abilty to revert and re-revert.
Ravi Chaudhary 15:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tomars are Rajputs and Correcting is not Vandalism
Tomars are Rajputs.
You are making all Rajputs, gujjars, yadavs and other ancient kings Jats. Have u any logic behind it,
Just by providing some linkages of jat history pages u are proving your point.The pages ceated by you yourself on yahoo groups.
The First jat king was Surajmal. And Tomars ruled far before him in history.
Just because few jats have common Rajput surnames, u think u are right.
I am only correcting what is wrongly witten, and it doesnt amount to vandalism.
Rishab Singh Solanki
Response>>
This is better.
First you must stop these mindless reverts.
they will do you no good.
The Jathistory group is an archive for material that is relevant to Jat history. The forum is academically oriented. The sources and references are given.
There is also considerable pro and con discussion.
I suggest you join the group, read the material, and then let us see if you can keep your current views.
You may wish to read R S joon's book , whihc is on line in the files section.If you can read Hindi also read Desraj's book, also online
For that membership is needed, that is only a click away!
Ravi Chaudhary 02:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Books written by Jats ??
You are suggesting books and articles written by Jats. Which will alos have same reasoning as you. This way I can also suggest books written by Rajput authors or promoted by them.
Why dont u see a logical reasoning to the situation. I clearly said no Jats were ruling when Tomars ruled. And present day Haryana at the period of time was not a Jat stronghold like today.
Historians say that Surajmal was the forst Jat king, and sinsinwars is the ruling clan of Jats. The Jats are primarly farmers and used to till land.
When Rajput powers were weak and Mughal power was also declining, jats under Surajmal revolted agaisnt mughals and started their expansion. They captured forts of Bharatpur, Dholpur and also Alwar. Naruka Rajputs ousted them from Alwar and checked their expansion. Most of Jats migrated to Haryana and West Up, which were mostly ruled by muslim Nawabs.
You say that Jagir of Bairath were given to Deshwal Jats. Now my mother is a Chauhan Rajput and her ancestoral village is Bairath. And her forefathers were having jagirdari of number of villages there. This the most real and pratical example of how grossly u have mispalced history.
The meaning of the word jat is Zammen Jotne wale i.e. one who tills lands.
Now since when in Ancient history jats become rulers?
Give me logical refrences and discuss with logic not with books written by jats with a biased view.
Response>
You are upset at Jats writing their history, from their perspective?
You should not expect, that the Jats will write their History from the perspective from Islamic/British invaders and their allies.
I do suggest that you go through the extensive material, and then discuss the matter.
I am sure that the authors will be happy to correct themselves!
Ravi Chaudhary 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Solanki/Chauhan
I was wondering what you found so controversial about adding an infobox which basically gave an introduction to the caste and notified the reader that this article is about the Indian caste system? Is it the Kshatriya/Rajput part that people will dispute or is it the Rajasthani origin? I will not re-add it until you reply of course, I'm simply curious as I have seen similar disputes on pages like Khatri which have turned into chaos full of personal attacks etc. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Response>
Dear Noble Eagle,
The Hindu system is a complex affair, and it is certainly mot reduced to the 4 fold caste/varna system- Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, a hierarchical system where by one’s birth one will fall into the above four categories, with the most desirable the first.
There are many communities/groups who do not agree with this hype, which is being pushed in Texts/books/net by interested groups.
We also find a lot of rhetorical abuse, with the abuse of groups who do not accept the above hierarchy. The rhetoric, not unsurprisingly, comes from the groups who wish to main such distinctions.
Among the Jats, these hierarchies do not apply and are rejected, yet the Jats would largely say they are Hindus, and trace their philosophies and traditions right back to Vedic times.
It is just that they do not accept the Hierarchy Hype.
The Jat produce people who fall into all these categories- priests, warriors, traders, and providers of manual labour.
Chauhan, Solanki, etc are Jat clans, in the vernacular; these are called Goths (Hindi modern Hindi- Gotra/Got/Goth).
For a partial list of Jat clans see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jat_Clans
Many of these clans overlap other social groups- Gujars, Rajputs etc.
A Rajput Solanki will tout that he/she is a Kshatriya, because the ‘rajput’ accepted and follow the Brahministic(Hindu) orthodox hierarcy, the Jats do not.
So where would you, unambiguously, correctly place these clans?
I hope you see the difficulty.
Hence putting a caste box- is simplistic and gives an incorrect, unbalanced, picture
I hope this helps. If you need further clarification, please do ask!
Ravi Chaudhary 15:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bains and Ghumman
Ravi,
What sources of info do you have regarding these two tribes?--Raja 12:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do I assume you have no information about these two Jatt tribes?-Raja
>>>
My aplogies
I will respond with info.
Ravi Chaudhary 03:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ganesha
Hi, the portion of the article was poorly written, and by WP guidelines, I thought it would be best to revert it. It appears that another user has reverted it now. Please include appropriate sources/references and format as per WP guidelines. BTW, I've been in IISc since 2003 Aug
- -Karthik.raman 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi.. cool.. this is fine.. go ahead and post it.. please put the references.. that's always important...Best Regards--Karthik.raman 05:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cheema article
OK do you know any Cheema Hindus? you're just trying to imply that the Cheema clan also followed Hinduism when this is far form the truth, infact they were opposed to Hindus. This is an encyclopedia its supposed to document historical facts. We know there are Cheema Sikhs, and Cheema Muslims. We haven't and don't know about any Cheema Hindus and its pretty obvious why. Until you can provide evidence of Cheema Hindus the article is staying as it is. The Cheemas before Islam followed Buddhism, and then some converted to Islam, when they helped Muhammad bin Qasim conquer Hindu strong holds, and the main reason was the Cheema were being oppressed by the Hindu's and always opposed them and when the Arabs came they had the perfect opportunity to make strong alliances with the Muslim Arabs. Infact Jatt (Buddhist) a physician treated the prophet Mohammed's wife Aisha when she was not well, its documented by early Arab chroniclers. So the Jatts knew about Islam way before c. 695, many even settled in Madina as that was the center of trade at the time. So the Jatts were familiar with Islam, Arabs and their great conquest they were impressed and and converted to Islam out of free will, because they loved the concept of Islamic Jihad and how Muslims beat army's 3 times (Battle of Badr) their size so much.
--Street Scholar 11:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
response:
Mr Cheema
Are you suggesting the Cheema clan came to India with the Arabs?
If they were Buddhists before, do you have any evidence for the same?
There are plenty of similarities between Buddhist concepts and Vedic/Hindu concepts. Along with Jainism, they have always existed side by side, and intertwined with each other.
Have you studied any aspects of Buddhism?
Does your clan have any follow any Buddhist norms today?
Sindh where the first Muslim Arab/Indan wars occured, was a mix of Jats and non jats. They all followed various beliefs- Buddhism, Vedic, Jain, Hindu.
If your clan joined Mir Qasim( of free will or not) to fight the Indians( circa 700 CE) they were fighting fellow Jats, - who were Buddhists too, destroying their universities, and vihars( monasteries)- Vallabhipur, and Taxila( Takshashila) being two good exampples.
Is your Islamic identity getting the better of you?
You do need to sort your concepts out.
Let us keep this discussion on your page, I have put your page on watch.
If you wish to go deeper, I suggest you discuss this on the Jathistory group. That is what that forum is for, for serious discussion of Jat history.
Regards
Ravi Chaudhary 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC) This response and the rest of the discussion is on the page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Street_Scholar
Ravi Chaudhary 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jat clans
Namaste, Chaudhary Sahib. There is this worrying development that I wanted to tell you about. A number of pages related to Jat clans have come under the scanner. Why? because, they are usually of a single line and thus are in line with the deletion policy of Wikipedia.
I would urge both, yourself and Mr. burdak to look into the matter. Agreed, the pages are of one line. But they can be expanded overtime.
It would be a pity if these pages are deleted.
Regards.Rajatjghai 11:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Raviji, a number of Jat clans have been listed for deletion, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abusaria Kindly go there and vote note to delete. It will be a bad trend. Kindly do some thing. Tthanks burdak 13:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
I saw you at the AfD, and just dropped to say you hello. Please try to expand those tubs if you have information. --Bhadani 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Restoring info on Sikar
Thanks Raviji for correcting vandalism on Sikar. The user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=218.248.65.65 is engaged in deleting info from Pilani, Churu, Jhunjhunu as well. I have restored them. Please also keep vigilance on these articles also. If he continues we will recommend for blocking him. He has been warned many times for vandalism. Thanks --burdak 04:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Were the Mauryas, Kanishka, etc., really Jats?
I am getting even more concerned about some of the claims made in this article about historical figures such as Ashoka and Kanishka being claimed to be Jats. First of all, I wish to make it crystal clear that I have no proof or even evidence that they were NOT Jats. Alos, I am in no way trying to be difficult or argumentative. What I am uneasy about is that I have yet to see any credible evidence that they WERE Jats and, until credible evidence is presented I don't believe this claim should be made as established "fact" in a Wikipedia article.
I have been waiting for a reply to my query above (see previous note in the Jat Discussion page) to Shree Burdak for the source of the reference he gave which he said was from the Mahavamsa, and which, if correct, would indeed seem to imply that the Mauryas (or at least some of them) were Jats.
Today I happened to spot a note from Ravi Chaudary, dated 14 November (see above), which says:
- "There is plenty of evidence from the Jat historical traditions pointing out the Kaniska is a Jat and recent historical research confirms, not negate that.
- It you wish to counter that, then you must provide solid evidence to the contrary."
As far as I know, the ethnicity of Kanishka and, for that matter, all the Kushans, remains in doubt. Some scholars assert that they were of Yuezhi stock originally from the region of Gansu and the Tarim Basin (basing their case on the rather unclear evidence of the Chinese histories). Others suggest that they may have been descendants of the indigenous rulers of Guishuang or Badhakshan and others again, suggest they may have been a mixture of both (and even, perhaps, part Bactrian Greek), and that the later Kushans may have been part Indian.
Probably, when they invaded and conquered much of northern India they would have been accorded Kshatriya caste status - like many later foreign conquerors. However, I am sure you will agree with me that not all Kshatriyas are Jats.
I am sorry, Ravi, but I think the "burden of proof" is, rather, on you to present the evidence that Kanishka was a Jat, rather than for me to try to disprove this assertion (which would, of course, be impossible for me to do). "Jat historical traditions" are just that, "historical traditions" - not established historical information. Please also give the references to the "recent historical research" you mention, so that it can be accessed by other scholars.
Until this information is available for examination in peer-reviewed journals or the like, I suggest that the statements that Ashoka, Kanishka, or other early monarchs were Jats should be prefaced with a statement such as "Jat historical traditions assert that . . . " John Hill 02:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
John
This is getting repetitive
You need a deeper understanding of Jat History and culture
There is no point in your simply repeating the standard refrain. Your assertations do not hold water.
If you claim the are part Greek, then prove it!
Since you cannot prove that Kaniska was not a Jat,( based on your knowledge) then on what basis do you seek to disregard the Jat historical tradition????
Equally why should the Jats of that era not be considered as Indian, when the cultural contect of "Indianess" extended into the Oxus valley?
The Jats do not claim Kshatriyahood. That is a late hindu term, for those who accepted the varna paradigm.
That is not to say that some jats did not accept the orthodox Hindu system.
We have evidence that some families of some clans did.
As for Kaniska and co, they were worshipping Shiva, and Nandi his bull is very much on their coins, as is the moon, the Aulikara symbol.
Besides if you claim that they accepted kshatriya staus, then please provide the evidence.
I can on on,. I suggest you visit the Yahoo Jahistory group, and re read the material
Best regards
Ravi Chaudhary 03:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reply from John Hill
Dear Ravi:
Just this morning I discovered you had written the above note on your Discussion Page on the same day as another (rather different one) on the Jat Discussion Page which I have already replied to. We obviously we have very different ideas as to what constitutes a "tradition" and what constitutes "history" and how these should be handled in the Wikipedia.
I agree with you that this discussion seems to be becoming very repetitive and I would like to make this my final comment unless you raise something new. Before I leave it, though, I would like to set the record straight by including here the comments you made to the Jat Discussion Page and my reply to them:
Response>>
Dear John
You are obfuscating the subject.
We are also students of history.
History does include Historical Traditions, not exclude them as you would assert.
Do try and stay with the topic
Nothing you have posted so far, shows that you have any information that would convince anyone that Kaniska and the Kushans were not Jats.
Simply casting doubt, does not a rational argument make.
As a side note, you are using late chinese terminology for a much earlier non chinese people.
This causes considerable confusion.
Hence it becomes even more important to examine the " Kushan' question from a non chinese view.
I will suggest you shift this discussion to the Jathistory group.
Best regards
Ravi Chaudhary 15:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Ravi Chaudhary
Dear Ravi:
You are misrepresenting my statements and I would ask you to please stop doing so. I have never said or even implied that history cannot include historical traditions - but I have said that historical traditions are not necessarily history.
I am only asking you to clearly state when you are dealing with an historical tradition and not a matter of established and widely-accepted fact. So, if indeed there is a tradition that Ashoka and Kanishka (and/or other early famous monarchs) were Jats, there is nothing wrong in presenting them as being Jats according to Jat traditions and, wherever possible, giving the references for this. However, I do strongly object to them being presented as established historical facts - even if some Jats accept them as such - unless you are able to present convincing evidence.
Often there is more than a grain of truth in historical traditions. However, historical traditions on their own are not usually considered to be "history" - as I am sure you are well aware. They need to be checked against as much reliable data as can be gathered and, even then, they are often unable to substantiated thoroughly enough to be generally considered as historical "facts."
A case in point - many Christians literally believe that Jesus was the only son of God, was born of a virgin, was crucified and died on a cross, rose again from the dead, and will be present at a Judgement Day when the righteous will be bodily elevated to heaven. Now, non-Christians (and, indeed, many Christians) do not believe this is literally true (which, by the way, is not necessarily saying there is absolutely no truth in it).
So, in a work like the Wikipedia one would expect a balanced approach to this account and to preface it with something like: "Christian traditions state that . . . ." Or: "The new Testament says that . . . .."
And, of course, this exactly kind of qualification you will find if you go to the Wikipedia article on Christianity, which opens with the passage: "Christianity is a monotheistic[1] religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, and on his life and teachings as presented in the New Testament.[2] Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and the awaited Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, therefore they call him the Christ."
All I am asking for is a similar regard for presenting an accurate, balanced, well-referenced account on Jats and their history.
Now, to a couple more minor points which you raised. You state:
"Nothing you have posted so far, shows that you have any information that would convince anyone that Kaniska and the Kushans were not Jats.
Simply casting doubt, does not a rational argument make."
I have never tried to convince anyone that Kanishka and the Kushans were not Jats - only that I have yet to be shown any convincing evidence that this was the case. It is, indeed, quite possible they were Jats, I just don't think a convincing enough case has been made to assert this as fact.
I might also add, as a reply to your comment that - simply because someone states that something is true does not mean others should necessarily accept that it is true.
You then say:
"As a side note, you are using late chinese terminology for a much earlier non chinese people."
Please remember that I was primarily discussing Kanishka and the Chinese names I was using are based on a document which is specifically stated to have been presented to the Chinese Emperor by one of his senior generals in the early 2nd century CE - precisely the period in which it is thought Kanishka was alive.
Other names which have been commonly associated with the Kushans (such as "Tokhara") are still being hotly debated by historians and are not as well attested as the Chinese names.
Finally, you suggest we move this discussion to the "Jathistory" group. Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate this group - would you please give me the directions to find it?
Sincerely, John Hill 01:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome to Wikiproject India
Hi, and welcome to the India WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Please participate in any of our descendant workgroups that might interest you.
- The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
- Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every India article in Wikipedia.
- Can you code? The automation department uses automated and semi-automated methods to perform batch tasks that would be tedious to do manually.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! -- Lost(talk) 17:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 
WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume I, Issue 3 - December 2006
|
|
|
[edit] WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume II, Issue 1 - January 2007
|
|
|
[edit] Request for an apology by Ravi Chaudhary
Ravi Chaudhary:
Thank you for your recent invitation to join your Jat History Yahoo group (at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/) to present my “arguments” regarding my comments on articles relating to Jats on the Wikipedia. Regretfully, I must decline as I am already over-committed to a number of on-line groups as well as working on Wikipedia articles and preparing three books for publication. I really cannot take on more at this time.
What I would like to say to your readers, and readers of the Wikipedia, is that I am more than happy to discuss the reasons for any suggestions or changes I make to Wikipedia articles on the appropriate “Talk” or “discussion” pages in the Wikipedia itself.
I should also add that any comments I have made in the past or may make in the future have been and will always be signed by me, with my real name, John Hill. You can be assured that any remarks or changes made in the Wikipedia without my name attached were not made by me.
Now, I would like to reply to the comments you have posted today (3rd March, 2007) on your group’s discussion page about me and my work which I think are unfair and offensive.
Someone wrote in to your group suggesting that I am “basically a good scholar” and that I have posted a [draft] translation from the Hou Hanshu on the internet. You have replied: “Unfortunately, he has become so enamored with those manuscripts that he has started to believe them to be the gospel truth. There is a difference between making a translation and then reinterpreting \ the translation. . . .”
I am at a loss as to what could possibly have led you to make this false accusation. If anyone would like to go back over my discussions on the Jat “Talk” page (and the archives) they will find that I have only once made a very brief reference to the texts I have been translating (and never even mentioned them by name). All my other remarks are based on, or refer to, other sources. And to say that I “have started to believe them to be the gospel truth” is a most unfair and unwarranted attack on my integrity as a scholar and, indeed, as a person.
Mr. Chaudhary, I ask you for a public apology both on your list and in the Wikipedia. John Hill 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume II, Issue 2 - March 2007
|
|
|
