Jump to content

Talk:Rani Padmini: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Talk:Rani Padmini/Archive 1) (bot
m →top: Oral tradition taskforce tag, Added {{WikiProject Anthropology}}, replaced: WikiProject Anthropology|class= → WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yes
 
(21 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|living=no|listas=Padmini, Rani|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|class=c
{{WikiProject Biography|royalty-work-group=yes}}
⚫
{{WikiProject India|importance=low|rajasthan=yes|rajasthan-importance=low|assess-date=December 2021}}
|listas=Padmini, Rani
⚫
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=low}}
|living=no
{{WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yes
}}
}}
⚫
{{WikiProject India|class=c|importance=low|rajasthan=yes|rajasthan-importance=low|assess-date=November 2017}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=c|importance=low}}
}}
}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{Annual readership}}
Line 19: Line 18:
}}
}}


==[Untitled]==
== Rani padamini ==
Rajkahini in bengali by Rabanindranath Tagore contains a more vivid picture of the hstory


⚫
Rani padnini [[Special:Contributions/113.11.5.89|113.11.5.89]] ([[User talk:113.11.5.89|talk]]) 15:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
==Untitled==
Khilji wanted to win [[Chittor]] because [[sisodiya]]s of [[Chittor]] never accepted the rule of Islam. Another reason was [[Rani Padmini]]. He laid a siege but [[Chittor]] would not fall. Then he requested [[Rawal Ratan Singh]], husband of [[Rani Padmini]], that if he is allowed a glimpse of Rani he would leave. By this time the situation inside the fort was getting bad. Rawal discussed this with his advisers and they agreed that they can show Padmini's face in a mirror to the sultan. The meeting took place and afterwards out of courtesy when Ratan Singh was walking Khilji out of the palace, Khilji's men captured [[Rawal Ratan Singh]]. Khilji sent a message to the fort that Rawal can be spared by exchanging [[Rani Padmini]]. Padmini discussed this with [[Gora]], her maternal uncle, who was a [[Chauhan]] rajput. Gora told her not to worry and that he would go and bring back [[Rawal Ratan Singh]] and Sultan is not brave enough to stop him. Padmini's nephew [[Badal]] who was just sixteen also assured her. A message was sent from the fort to Khilji that Padmini would come with 700 of her servants in "palanquins" (palki in [[hindi]]) and that no Muslim soldier should peek inside the palki to outrage the modesty of the women. Letter also said that before Padmini meets khilji she would like to talk to Rawal. Khilji agreed. All the palki's had the best rajput warriors with two swords each. When Padmini's palki, which was occupied by Gora, reached Rawal's tent he asked Rawal to mount the horse and go back to the fort. Then Gora gave a signal and every rajput came out of the palki and attacked the Muslims who were cut to pieces. [[Gora]] reached Khilji's tent and was about to kill the sultan when khilji moved his concubine in front of himself. Gora, being a rajput could not kill an innocent women and these few seconds were enough for Khilji's guards to kill Gora from behind.


== Utcursch is changing Wikipedia page as per his interpretation ==
==What is her name?==
Is it Padmini or Padmavati? The article keeps switching between the two in different places. If her name is Padmavati, why is the article titled Padmini? Or if her name is Padmini, why is Padmavati used in most of the article? This is confusing. [[Special:Contributions/2.51.20.210|2.51.20.210]] ([[User talk:2.51.20.210|talk]]) 09:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|2.51.20.210}} Padmavati and Padmini, both are her names so the article called her both names. '''[[User:HindWIKI|HINDWIKI]]''' • '''[[User talk: HindWIKI|<span style="color:#035">CHAT</span>]]''' 13:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
::: In the ''Padmavat'', ''padmini'' is a category of women (see Notes under [[Rani Padmini#References|References]]), and Padmavati is the name of the queen who belongs to this category of women. In some of the subsequent adaptions, "Padmini" is the name of the queen. This article should probably be moved to [[Padmavati (queen)]] or something similar. [[User:Utcursch|utcursch]] &#124; [[User talk:Utcursch|talk]] 16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


I had added some comments in the historicity section. But later on I found that a Wikipedia editor named "Utcursch" had reverted it back to older version .
== Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017 ==


This is so wrong.He is just adding his own version and his perception of history.
{{edit semi-protected|Rani Padmini|answered=yes}}
Change from "According to the Islamic mythology (Quran 27.22-28), King Solomon once set out on an expedition...."
to
"According to the Quranic narration (Quran 27.22-28), King Solomon once set out on an expedition...." [[User:Ajazio|Ajazio]] ([[User talk:Ajazio|talk]]) 16:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:FlightTime|<span style="color:#800000">'''FlightTime'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FlightTime|<span style="color:#FFD700">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 16:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


This person is influenced by leftist ideology and doing bullshit on Wikipedia. [[User:Abhimanyu200|Abhimanyu200]] ([[User talk:Abhimanyu200|talk]]) 19:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
== Corrections in the article (Section: Read Also) ==


: You [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rani_Padmini&diff=1190173605&oldid=1178523666 added] unsourced content, and removed sourced content. Please see [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Utcursch|utcursch]] &#124; [[User talk:Utcursch|talk]] 17:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
It was Kamala Devi who was forcibly married off to Khilji not Deval Devi who was her daughter with Karan Vaghela. Fix this please.

⚫
And also it is *Drank not Drunk[[Special:Contributions/115.97.36.254|115.97.36.254]] ([[User talk:115.97.36.254|talk]]) 07:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

: {{Done}} [[User:Utcursch|utcursch]] &#124; [[User talk:Utcursch|talk]] 15:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

== Why is it more important to say the invader was Muslim than write his name. ==

I have changed a edited this wiki Page. The edit made was changing the "Muslim invader" to "an invader" and a few times "the Sultan of Delhi Alauddin Khalji". This is seems has been a huge issue because it keeps getting changed back to "Muslim" I have asked the question it seems in a private grouo.woth the people who are changing it back. But only one person has been decent enough to respond. The change was to remove Muslim and replace with the Sultan of Delhi, which directly explained who the invader was, I think this was rather more relevant than just a "Muslim invader" which means the identity of the person wasn't known just his religion. However his identity is known, and his name was added. This seemed to be unacceptable and "Muslim" was a requirement. So I used "an invader" this would again highlight the point Aswell. For an unknown reason many users where adamant the name of the invader wasn't pertinent but the religion was. I'm hoping this will explain the reason for the change. If any wishes to add the name of the invader fanstastic, his religion has no bearing on the story, unless it's being intimated that because the Sultan was a Muslim the invasion took place, and his religion was to blame not him as man.. Thank you for your time. [[User:Pakmanuk786|Pakmanuk786]] ([[User talk:Pakmanuk786|talk]]) 23:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
:It's "an unknown reason" because you never bothered to discuss it here, and now you've simply gone ahead and made the same revert. My patience is at an end. Reported for edit warring. [[User:The Mighty Glen|The Mighty Glen]] ([[User talk:The Mighty Glen|talk]]) 01:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
::The Sultan is mentioned, by name and title, in the previous paragraph. It shouldn't show up in two successive paragraphs at the top of the article. It seems as if the theme of the story requires that the antagonist be a foreign ruler. What if we replaced "Muslim" with Sultan? [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 03:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
::: That sentence in the lede:
:::''{{quote|Several subsequent adaptions of the legend characterised her as a [[Hindu]] Rajput queen, who defended her honour against a [[Muslim]] invader.}}''
:::...is merely talking about later versions of the legend, and is supported by sections of the article below. What exactly is the problem with saying that people told the story in the context of the centuries of periodic religious, cultural, linguistic, and military contention, too well known and too well documented to dispute here? By all means add "Sultan" too if you wish, but the lede is describing a version of the legend with a religious element introduced by later tellers of the story, and the assertion that the Sultan's religion has no bearing on any versions of the story is incorrect. [[User:The Mighty Glen|The Mighty Glen]] ([[User talk:The Mighty Glen|talk]]) 09:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

: {{ping|Pakmanuk786}} The relevant sentence is talking about ''modern characterization'' of the legend, not the historical reality, or as it is described in the original ''Padmvat''. This modern 'Hindu Rajput vs invader Muslim' characterization, whether one disagrees it with or not, is an important aspect of the topic. It is directly supported by an authoritative source cited in the article:
: Ramya Sreenivasan, p. 3
:: {{tq|These Bengali narratives reinterpreted the legend yet again to celebrate a Hindu queen who had immolated herself to defend her chastity against a lustful, treacherous Muslim invader. }}
: Ramya Sreenivasan, p. 19
:: {{tq|The story of a heroic Rajput queen immolating herself rather than surrendering to a lustful Muslim conqueror gained new significance within the heroic traditions of a largely Hindu nationalist historiography.}}
: Besides this, several recent news/magazine articles (e.g. ''[https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21731831-no-protest-too-absurd-no-surrender-too-craven-film-about-heroism-brings-out-coward The Economist]'') have also covered the 'Hindu vs Muslim' ''characterization'' of the legend. [[User:Utcursch|utcursch]] &#124; [[User talk:Utcursch|talk]] 14:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
::Since "sultan" is an exclusively Islamic term (or at least that's what our Wikipedia article says about it), I had hoped to finesse the issue raised by our new editor; a successful collaboration might help put them on the right path here. But I understand your point and won't continue on that score. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 15:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

* "your patience is at its end"... "didn't bother to ask"..

:The latter statement as antagonist is it is, I was unaware of the rules.

:As for you patience, that's of no concern.

:To the issue at hand. Regardless the RELIGION HAS NO BEARING!. We've established the religion earlier on, explains the differences and issues etc however the need to have "Muslim invader" doesn't... I've made this point on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. Sommething is seriously worrying if that's acceptable to you.

:The speed in which and the anger this has ruled up in most of the users, especially after I explained my position. Yet no one seems to take on board what is said. It's more acceptable to wrote "Muslim invader" than invader or "Sultan of Delhi"
:One can't help think the racist undertones in this page.

:One to think about, hopefully the decency will allow this change to to be made.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pakmanuk786|Pakmanuk786]] ([[User talk:Pakmanuk786#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pakmanuk786|contribs]]) </small>
::Hi, welcome back from your block for edit warring. The rules about edit warring were repeatedly explained to you at your talk page, and you chose to ignore them. Also, kindly refrain from making any further offensive and pointless accusations of racism. Please also read Utcursch's explanation above on why the word "Muslim" is entirely appropriate, as is the word "Hindu" in the same sentence. [[User:The Mighty Glen|The Mighty Glen]] ([[User talk:The Mighty Glen|talk]]) 14:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' - The historical sources were clearly stereotyping, which is inappropriate in a modern context. I think we shouldn't make these comments in Wikipedia voice. If a [[WP:HISTRS]] can be found that comments on these issues, we can cite it and suitably attribute it. Otherwise, this is completely inappropriate. Pinging {{U|RegentsPark}} and {{U|Vanamonde93}} for additional input. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I agree with utcursch. From what I see (e.g., [https://nyti.ms/2Dn8kT0]) she may not have existed at all and, whether she did exist or not, she is merely a placeholder for the ongoing Hindu-Muslim troubles in India. Given that, as long as it is clear in the article that this is the stuff that myths are made of, we should point to the Muslim vs the Hindu subtext. What else is there when you have an elusive figure who exists in modern times only to make a point? Ideally, the article should identify her as the protagonist of a poem and state clearly that she may or may not be based on a real person. Currently, our article overemphasizes her rather doubtful existence. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 15:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I believe the point you are referring to in regards to the Muslim issue is the word Sultan, it's a Muslim king, which has been the basis if the point. We know he's Muslim, we know she's Hindu, thats been well established. The point is is by using terms such as "Muslim invader", repeating myself once again, has no bearing no the story. Tue story is she was a beautiful queen, and the Sultan wanted her for himself, even though she refused him.. Now the story is the story, there is no issue here, in this instance he was the aggressor, no issue. The issue lies when you attach the aggressor to his religion as though it's connected. They are not. The appropriate use of the word "racist", is warranted as my explanation on this issue has lasted longer than I could have imagined. The speed and the anger over my removing the word Muslim with a name, a designation was never the issue it seemed. Why was Muslim removed. I have not removed Muslim from any other part of the article/page only in one instance and the push back has been surprising.
:The have been many points raised valid ones and ones I agree with, however none of them have touched on the original point. Tue mighty Glenn made a point of Hindu ans Muslim is in the same sentence and there's nothing wrong with that. I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS, NOR HAVE I MADE OR EVEN INTIMATED SUCH A POINT.
:Side skirting or even confusing the matter will help no one.
:Again I hope my comments are met with open minds and hopefully you all could understand my point of view. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pakmanuk786|Pakmanuk786]] ([[User talk:Pakmanuk786#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pakmanuk786|contribs]]) </small>
*: Yes, Alauddin being a Muslim and Padmavati being a Hindu has no bearing on the ''story'' (''[[Padmavat]]'' or its adaptions), but this article is not about the story. This article is about Padmavati, and covers her portrayal in various medieval legends as well as modern culture. Alauddin being a Muslim and Padmavati being a Hindu is an important aspect of her modern characterization, as evident from the sources cited in the article, as well as recent news articles (e.g. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/17/bounty-placed-bollywood-actress-head-hindu-muslim-film-outrage/][https://twitter.com/theeconomist/status/937215184996896768][https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/world/asia/india-hindu-muslim-padmavati-movie.html][https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/16/indian-film-padmavati-sparks-protests-over-hindu-muslim-romance]). [[User:Utcursch|utcursch]] &#124; [[User talk:Utcursch|talk]] 21:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
:::Reply:- you statement has nothing to do with the discussion. This isn't a Hindu / Muslim issue.
:::Not sure what the point of your comment is. if you are confused about it, if be happy to explain. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pakmanuk786|Pakmanuk786]] ([[User talk:Pakmanuk786#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pakmanuk786|contribs]]) </small>

Latest revision as of 19:40, 14 October 2024

Rani padamini

[edit]

Rani padnini 113.11.5.89 (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursch is changing Wikipedia page as per his interpretation

[edit]

I had added some comments in the historicity section. But later on I found that a Wikipedia editor named "Utcursch" had reverted it back to older version .

This is so wrong.He is just adding his own version and his perception of history.

This person is influenced by leftist ideology and doing bullshit on Wikipedia. Abhimanyu200 (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added unsourced content, and removed sourced content. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. utcursch | talk 17:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rani_Padmini&oldid=1251170274"