Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan/Archive 2

prithviraj chauhan was gurjar

Please see links to the pages of Prithbviraj Raso that I had given in another section of this talk page for confirmatiobn. its clearly written at many places in the book that Prithviraj and his family were Gurajrs and not Rajputs. Even the wikipedia page of Rajputs and Chauhans cleary mention that There was no Rajput identity at the times of Prithviraj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.250.9 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Gurjar Pratihar For Father of Rajput

 Historian Sir Jeriwiz Athlestein Baines was the ancestor of Gujjar to Sisodias, Chauhan, Parmar, Parihar, Chalukya and Rajput.

Gurjar author K M Munshi said that Pratihar, Parmar and Solanki Shahi were of Gujjar dynasty.

Vincent Smith believed that the Gujjar dynasty, which ruled a large empire in northern India from the 4th to the 11th century, and is mentioned in the inscription as "Gurjar-Pratishar", certainly the Gurga Was of origin.  Smith also said that there is a possibility of the formation of other genera Kshatriya clans.

 Dr. K. Jumandas also says that the Pratihar dynasty has emerged from the Gujjars, and it "raises a strong impression that other Rajput groups are also descendants of Gujra or affiliated foreign immigrants.

While considering the origins of Gujrars of Dr.R Bhandarkar Prataharas, other Agnivartic Rajputs are also called foreign origins.

The Nilkanth rulers believe in the principle of sanctification by the fire of foreigners because even before Prithviraj Raso it is found in Tamil poetry 'Purananoor'. Bagchi Gujjars are regarded as the caste Vusun or 'Gusur' of Central Asia because the third century Abbottabad - article mentions 'Gushur' caste.

Jacqueson has first described the origins of Agnivanshi Rajputs from Gujjars. Panwar and Chauhan are found nicknamed Gurjaras of Punjab and Khandesh. If Pratihar and Solanki were not themselves Gujjars then they came to India in the foreign team whose leadership was Gujjars.

Rajputs were the peasants of the Gujjar-Pratihar empire. After the fall of the Gujjar-Empire, these people established independent states.

Inscription of Gurjar clan

Neelkund, Radhanpur, Devli and Karadah inscriptions have been called gurjars. Pratahars have been called Gurjar in the Rajaur inscription. The mention of the Gurjar caste in the Ehol record of the Chalukya Naresh Pulcashian II of Badami is mentioned in the archival form in the first form. An inscription of Gurjar caste has been received in Rajgarh (Alwar district)

Nagbatta's uncle Dadda I is called "Gurjarra-Nripati-Vamsa" in inscription, it proves that Nagabhata was a Gurjar, because Vamsa is clearly a family means.

Mahipala, who was ruling on a large empire, is called "Gurjarra Raja" by the pump. Why should an emperor be called a king of only a small area, it is more understandable that this word depicts his family.

Mehrauli, formerly known as Mihirawali, was established by Mihir Bhoj, the house of Mihir, the king of Gurjar-Pratihar dynasty. The construction of Lal Kot Fort was made around 731 by Gurjar Tanwar chief Anangpal I and was expanded by Anangapal II in the 11th Century, which shifted its capital from Kannauj to Red Coat.

Historian Dr. Augustus Hornley believes that Tomar was one of the ruling dynasty of Gurjarra (or Gujjar).

 Abdul Malik Masharmal, the author of Gujarati History, writes that according to General Sir A Cunningham, the author of passing history, passing the rulers of Kanaujaj (history of passing P-213) 218). His tribe was Tomar and he is the descendant of Hoon Chief Torman.

Gurjar Pratihar Empire was divided into many parts. These parts were administered by the feudalists. The main parts of these were:

Chakman (Chauhan) of Shakambri (Sambar)

Delhi's Tomar/Tanwar

Gurjar Pratishhar of Mandore Bundelkhand's Kalachuri

Parmar of malwa

Guill of Medpatt (Mewar)

Maha-Kalijner's Chandel

Chalukya of Saurashtra

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanishk tanwar (talk • contribs) 04:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Periodically, a group of accounts appear on Wikipedia and try to "push" claims of Gurjar status across a range of articles. That is what appears to be going on at the moment, here and elsewhere. Most sources say Prithviraj was a Rajput and I've yet to find one that says he was a Gurjar. I recently removed the Rajput claim itself because the cited sources were either unreliable or didn't in fact verify the claim. However, I'll be reinstating it shortly and referencing eminently suitable sources.

If the Gurjar POV-pushers want to take me on then now is the time to provide your evidence. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Examples supporting Rajput claim include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. There are in fact hundreds of them. It is this ridiculous POV-pushing that caused the article to be protected in the past and it really does need to stop. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. I see that you are assisting in protecting this page against unreliable sourced edits. Thank you for that. I am also trying to locate if there is any verifiable "Gurjar" comment. Although, I myself would have stated something else, but lack of verifiable stuff is not worth adding. That too something in relation to clan. However, I tried to find some references to it, and landed at some history pages, which briefly state the "Gurjar" clan lineage, and also some places state him to have been adopted as a "Gurjar", although he was a "Rajput". However, since there was no concrete proof in any of them, I am not linking them here. If you find something, please add here to cross check. Jai Jinendra. Vishal Bakhai - Works 14:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ethnography: castes and tribes, Volume 2, Part 5, is not viewable and therefore not verifiable.[7]
• Some Problems of Ancient Indian History. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland). XXIII: 651. This checks out, however, Hoernle states, the "Chohans" were a prominant clan., then why are the "Chohans" only mentioned once in the entire journal? This appears to be an arbitrary statement without any real linear pattern. This coupled with the date of this journal, 1904, is reason enough to doubt its veracity.
• Early Chauhān dynasties: a study of Chauhān political history, Chauhān political institutions, and life in the Chauhān dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D., is not viewable and therefore not verifiable. According to a number of scholars, the Agnikula class were originally Gurjaras. Which can not be used as a source, unless that source also states the Agnikula were Rajputs(ie. Prithviraj Chauhan). To use one source to establish the Agnikula were Gurjaras and another source to establish Agnikula were Rajputs is synthesis.
• The Glory that was Gujardesh, (1943), Indian writer K. M. Munshi. This author is not an academic historian, he was a lawyer and politician, and therefore has no specialization in this field and is not a reliable source.
• Chota Nagpore, a little-known province of the empire, Francis Bradley Bradley-Birt, was a diplomat and writer, not a historian, and therefore not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The sock (a sock?) has been blocked now - see Chauhan1192 (talk · contribs). - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Having Gurjar clan origin makes Prithviraj Chauhan no lesser rajput. If that way clan origin of an individual has to be considered, than origin of this Mankind will reach to ancients to Adam and Eve. Lets not fight-over with these facts as clan origin will lead nowhere, and consider the what he was called during that ERA. Most of the ancient books found called Prithviraj as Rajput, origin may defer based on findings. Lets keep history of identity(which says PRC as Rajput) seperated with origin(be it gurjar/rajput).--Himanshu

privithviraj chaohan was gurjar u saying rajput ? how u guys are playing with history?? see the reference here --kggochar http://www.scribd.com/doc/37781766/Prithviraj-Chauhan and http://www.gujjarnation.com/articles/gujjar-history-by-ali-hassan-chauhan-gurjar.html and one more https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12058655-prithviraj-chauhan the rajput page also http://rajputras.blogspot.in/2011/02/prathviraj-chauhan.html

Thus Narayan was a famous town, from where roads were going on all sides, It was destroyed by Mahmud of Ghazna. Afterwards, Ajmer was founded which was conquered by Muhammad Ghauri in 1192. Ranthambhore the last stronghold of Chauhan Gurjars fell into the hands of Alladdin Khilji in about 1300 A.D.

A group of Chauhans migrated to Multan but they were not allowed to settle there by the Muslim Governor of Multan. The party crossed the river Sutlej and marched towards the East along the Southern bank of the river. Near a rivulet Markand, they found Rajpura now a town in District Patiala. Two or three years later, Muslim Governor of Sirhind ousted them from Rajpura. The party marched further East. One family of theirs found a village Nav Rana on the western side of the river Jamna (Yamuna) now district Panipat (Haryana) India. They call themselves by the same old name Chhamn or Chauhan. Three brothers namely, Kalsha Raj, Deo Raj and Deep Raj Chauhan crossed the river Jamna.

In those days there were forests on both sides of the river which lasted to the beginning of the twentieth century. Kalsha Raj Chauhan, the eldest brother founded Kai-Rana and possessed an area of 83 villages called Chaurasi. The affix Kai means great. Kai Thal means great or vast campared to high land. The great Thal has a town by the same name Kai Thal (India). In Persian, which is a branch of Sanskrit, the affix Kai is used in the same sense. Khusro means small ruler (Rana) so Kai Khsurao is synonymous to Kai Rana. One of the sons of Kalsha Raj Chauhan namely Rao Kumbha found Khandraol (Khand-Rao-Ii ie Rao wali Khand or Rao’s share of land) on Sunday the 10th Sudi Phalgun 1421 V.E. corresponding to the last week of February. 1364 A.D. (probably 26.2.1364). In 15th Century A.D. conversion to Islam ensured. The eldest brother in every house embraced Islam, one Muslim Gujar of Mandawar found a village namely Rana Majra which is now on the western bank of river Jamna due to the diversion of the river.

1. http://www.scribd.com/doc/37781766/Prithviraj-Chauhan is a mirror site of Wikipedia. Wikipedia can not be used to reference Wikipedia.
2. http://www.gujjarnation.com/articles/gujjar-history-by-ali-hassan-chauhan-gurjar.html , no citations, no background on the author, unpublished. Gujjar website making claims someone is Gujjar, not very original.
3. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12058655-prithviraj-chauhan also information from Wikipedia. See 1.
4. http://rajputras.blogspot.in/2011/02/prathviraj-chauhan.html , blogs are not considered reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

ok blocks are nt considered first u see the ur reference link which one is too a wikipedia based link lol now i m giving u a link , 1. #you read the histoyr at page no 36 and 87 , then decide what is right and what is wrong with coming out from castes http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-aw3hRAX_DgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=prithviraj+chauhan+was+gujjar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=auZ0VMq-KoGhugSMkIKgCw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false #kgmotsar

FYI, Horace Arthur Rose was not a historian and his writing(s) are clearly outdated. And, "Moreover to be perfectly frank, the present writer is not quite as convinced as he was of the Gujar origin of the Rajputs", directly quoted from the pages you mentioned. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

actually you guys are paid by someone dont wants to show correct history according to you all history writers were fool who ever wrote prithivraj as gujjar ethinic group , carry on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kggochar (talk • contribs) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Then whomever is paying you should learn how to find reliable sources to push their POV. Happy Thanksgiving! --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2016

Prithviraj Chauhan's year of birth is recorded as 1149. The citation for the entire sentence has been given as Encyclopedia Britannica. While checking the same source it was found that the date mentioned there is 1166 CE. Thus, a difference of 17 years is reflected in the age due to this error. Hence, it is kindly requested to change the date to the one in Britannica or provide a separate reference for the date mentioned here in Wikipedia. Britannica

Krishkochi (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You're bringing up a very interesting case of potentially false information on Wikipedia. For other editors, please see Special:Diff/376908693 and Special:Permalink/276466757, which has dates around the late 1160s. I'm tempted to believe that 1149 was a piece of vandalism back in 2008 or 2009 which has persisted to this day. Someone else should take another look. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done: It may not have been vandalism, because I have found the birth years 1149, 1166 and 1168 in separate sources. This is a bit ticklish; however it needs attendance, so I have returned the c. 1166 date to this article. The Britannica source along with several Indian story pages, which sometimes also use 1168 or 1149, should support and justify the use of the Circa template.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  12:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2019

Add the following to the "Bhandanaka" section. Note: I have created an article on Bharawas, whic is currently a draft and hecne appears as redlink. Once approved it will apepar as bluelink. Dr. Buddha Prakash mentions the seat of "Bhandanaka Kingdom" at the Bharawas village which offered resistance to the Chahamana. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please reactivate the request again, once the draft is approved. DBigXrayᗙ 21:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

Ronak kyada (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

the prithviraj chauhan was death in Afghanistan..not in Ajmer , he was last hindu king, and he is related ajmer chauhan house, but his death place in Afghanistan.At last hi is a muhammad ghori prisoner,and ghori tack him of Afghanistan,and king prithviraj death in same place mains death in Afghanistan not in ajmer ,,,,,,so please correct your information and mistake......

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 10:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

He was a Gurjar king. which is given in prithvi raj raso and rajput identity was not at that time. Preetamsinghgurjar769100 (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

We'll not let you play with our history. Prithviraj Chauhan was a rajput emperor. Don't change your fathers. Abhishek Singh III (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Rajput Identity AT THAT TIME

There was no any word like Rajput at the time of prithviraj chauhan is true. Because at that time Rajput was called "Rajputra". Abhishek Singh III (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

We are already discussing this in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan#Rajput_as_an_identity_has_existed_since_the_times_of_ramayana brother Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock 02:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Rajput as an identity has existed since the times of ramayana

"although the Rajput identity did not exist during his time." This statement is false and misleading rajput as an identity has existed since the times Mahabharata

in Mahabharata 3.266.61 (Ramopakhyana), lord Rama and Lakshmana are called rAjaputras when they bid farewell to vānara rāja Sugreeva:

राजपुत्रौ कुशिलनौ भरातरौ रामल मणौ सवशाखा मृगेद्रेण सुग्रीवेणािभपािलतौ And also The Prashnopanishad (dated 1st century BCE or earlier) has the following words for rajaputra of Kosala country. भगवि हर यनाभः कौस यो राजपुत्रो मामुपे यैतं प्र नमपृ छतShankaracharya in his commentary of this Upanishad has explained it as ‘a Kshatriya born in Kosala’, probably because it doesn’t read as ‘Kosala Rajaputrah’ for it to be called ‘Prince of Kosala’. The phrase used by Shankaracharya is: कौस यो राजपुत्रो जािततः ित्रयो i.e. a Rajaputra of Kosala who was kshatriya by birth.

This proves that this statement is false and should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sungpeshwe9 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Al Masudi from Arabia visits India in mid 10th century and mentions in his work dated 953 AD that – Kandhar was the country of Rahbuts i.e. Rajputs.

Muruj ad Dhahab wa ma’adin al jawahar i.e. Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems, Pg 381

Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Heres the archive.org link to al masudis work mentioning rajputs https://archive.org/details/elmasdshistoric00unkngoog/page/n460/mode/1up Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Heres googlebooks link to Ramopakhyana (3.266.61) https://books.google.co.in/books?id=lfoJBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA514&lpg=PA514&dq=Mahabharata+3.266.61&source=bl&ots=lmC2yx09_e&sig=ACfU3U1jJGaiM5ilNWmAtimTu7s5YoNIHg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj68YuQrLbtAhV4yTgGHW7SD8IQ6AEwC3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Mahabharata%203.266.61&f=false Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sungpeshwe9: I have no strong feelings regarding whether the statement in question is included in the article lead. However, I think it's worth noting that the question here isn't whether a Rajput identity existed at that point, but rather whether what we now consider to be the Rajput identity existed and what it meant. The text referenced in the article, The Last Hindu Emperor · Prithviraj Chauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000 by Cynthia Talbot, cited a number of reputable historians when discussing this issue:

I believe the Rāso contributed to the consolidation of an aristocratic Rajput identity beginning in the late sixteenth century. What the term Rajput meant prior to the Mughal period is a contentious issue, for scholars disagree about how far back we can trace the existence of the Rajputs as a community… Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya suggests that rājaputra was applied to a larger group of high-ranking men who also bore titles such as rāuta, rāvala, and rānaka… In contrast, Michael Bednar's examination of inscriptions from western and central India during the eleventh through fourteenth centuries indicates that thakkura, rāuta, and rājaputra were titles of rank that generally denoted official positions and were often not passed on from father to son. Chattopadhyaya may therefore, be somewhat premature in his assertion that Rajput identity existed in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries… Arguing in a different vein than Chattopadhyaya, Dirk H. A. Kolff claims that the label Rajput had previously denoted an open status identity that any successful warrior could acquire. During the Mughal period, however, the Rajputs closed ranks to form an aristocratic class whose membership was strictly circumscribed by birth… In any case, Rajput was not a term that figured in Indo-Persian texts prior to the sixteenth century, according to Peter Jackson, supporting the view that there was some change in the meaning of the term… As Rajput chiefs were increasingly co-opted into the Mughal system, a sharper line was drawn between them and the other, less elite, fighting men of India. One way of doing this was through acknowledging the kshatriya status of Rajputs… The repeated conflation of Rajput with kshatriya hat can be witnessed in Prthvīrāj Rāso is thus part of a larger early modern trend of stressing the elite nature of Rajputs

This changing in the meaning of the term "Rajput" is also shown in the example that you yourself have provided from the Prashnopanishad, given that being a "Rajaputra of Kosala" is no longer a requirement for being a Rajput.
Alivardi (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

See al masudis work too it mentions khandar as a country of rajputs al masudi lived 150yrs beofre pritihvi raj Chauhan hence the rajput identity existed then so pls dont revert it Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources state that what is now considered Rajput did not even exist at that time. Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

What reliable source? Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=XG76DwAAQBAJ&q=Rajput#v=snippet&q=Rajput&f=false

Prithviraja vijaya composed around 1191-1192 CE by Jayanaka, a Kashmiri poet-historian in the court of Prithviraja mentioned prithviraja as a rajput Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Zcyho16xzWEC&q=Rajput#v=snippet&q=Rajput&f=false Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This book mentions rajput become prominent in 11th-12th century then how can you say rajput identity didn't existed during his time? Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfEarlyIndiaFromTheOriginsToAD1300Thapar/page/n464/mode/1up

Romila thappars work also mentioned chauhans as rajputs during the time of Prithviraja Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please properly cite your sources and give page numbers first. Read WP:CS. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=XG76DwAAQBAJ&q=Prithviraja-vijaya#v=onepage&q=Rajput&f=false Chariotrider555 (talk · contribs) Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Chariotrider555 (talk · contribs) heres a reliable source mentioning prithviraja as rajput based on prithviraja-vijaya (composed during 1191-1192 by prithviraja's own court historian ) Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/speechesandwriti030754mbp/page/n275/mode/2up Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

These sources don't claim that the word "Rajput" was used to describe the subject of this article during his lifetime, or that the word "Rajput" has existed "since the times of Ramayana". No one is contesting the fact that Prithviraj Chauhan has been described as a Rajput by later writers (including modern historians): we are talking about the nuance that he did not identify as a "Rajput", and that word did not exist as the identity of a social/ethic/caste group during his lifetime. utcursch | talk 17:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Samrata Prithviraj

Samrata prithviraj killed Mohammad ghori , there's no doubt in that. JAI BHAVANI . Potusa1 (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Alleged NPOV issues

@Rayabhari: Regarding edits like these: your understanding of WP:NPOV is flawed. Multiple reliable, modern history books support these statements. The statement that certain legendary texts contain anachronistic and exaggerated accounts is a fact established by multiple mainstream historians, not an opinion of an author. Also, it is important to mention this (like the cited sources do), because otherwise, the reader may assume that these accounts are factual. If you insist on characterizing these statements as "opinions", please cite reliable sources that contest these statements (e.g. a reliable historian who insists that Prithviraj Raso is factual history). utcursch | talk 15:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your advise. I also claim that your style of reverting and understanding of the contents is flawed and does not give scope for neutral discussion. In any encyclopedia, exaggeration is now allowed, the language should be neutral. I donot want to argue and revert with you continuously. (sorry for addressing personally). My request is, kindly develop wikipedia pages as encyclopedia and not like pages from newspapers. In an encyclopedia, neutral language is most important. But in newspaper articles, original research and opinion of writer is allowed. Donot thrust such aggression in encyclopedia like wikipedia. Further, at the cost of repitition, I state that your understanding of nuetrality, sources, POV is flawed. And this I am putting politely, so that you can correct yourself in future, for the benefit of this encyclopedia. Thanks. Rayabhari (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rayabhari: Perceived non-neutral language is not an automatic justification for removal of content. Since the content was well-cited, the appropriate action would instead have been to correct the wording (as stated in WP:NPOVHOW).
Alivardi (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Small edit in war with chandelas

Forgot to give summary of the edit. Basically I gave a different view of RB Singh with source and also changed the language of other views a bit according to the existing sources. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Sisirkumar Mitra's source on Chandela war

@Alivardi: regarding your first edit, thanks for improving that, I only wanted to write that Cynthia Talbot says this and RB Singh says this. And the word "appear" was already there hence to restructure the sentence for making Cynthia the subject I changed it to apprently. Now I saw that appear Cynthia has no doubt about her claim. If there was any bias, it wasn't intentional. Now the second edit you made the removal of the sentence you say is contradictory but this contradiction is given by Mitra himself on the same page. He says, Chauhan didnt annex any territory of Chandela and even if he did it was for a short time. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: I didn't think you are biased. I've seen your previous edits and they've always seemed impartial. I was just concerned that the language which had been added could have been perceived as biased.

Regarding the other edit, looking at the source, it seems like Mitra presented the idea of a short occupation of Chandela territory as just a possibility devised by him rather than something that is implied by historical evidence (which is what the language of the article would have stated if that sentence was kept in). Also, the statement by R.B Singh which you added at the end of the paragraph essentially states the same thing. It therefore seems a bit repetitive to keep them both in the paragraph.
Alivardi (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alivardi: Okay, I understand. Sajaypal007 (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The Great Rajput King Prithviraj Chauhan

Please don't edit this page because it's soure are fully verified by historian

Rajput

Please don't edit-war and discuss possible grievances TrangaBellam (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Disparaging an academic

An editor, @White Horserider: been disparaging Cynthia Talbot, a historian of medieval India at the University of Texas-Austin, and the author of widely-respected books. Says this editor:

• "Hmm..Tablot never used any primary or inscriptional evidence for her spectulation that this identity doesn't exist during Chauhan's reign. Michael Bedner works are not available anywhere, so can't say how his rebut of B.D Chattopadhyay is an excellent one, his work is promoted by Cynthia just because it fits her narrative. BTW, Cynthia never came to India so how on earth she can examine inscriptions is beyond me neither her nor Kolff quote any primary concrete evidence which supports their claim. (diff)
• "Lmao... You are obviously in love with Tablot's work that is the sole reason you are going this far to state that don't challenge her authority on these topic. It's humourous that neither Tablot nor Bedner came to India to examine this inscriptions but you are believing there speculation as a gospel."(diff)
• After my prodding them, "Ok, Fowler&fowler Tablot travelled India only once and What about scholars who spent hours and hourse working on primmary evidences ????" (diff)
• "Your love for Cynthia is surely one for the ages. It's funny how you end up presenting sources which themselve mentioned that by time of Prithviraja-III a proper Rajput clan structure waa established." (diff)

Talbot has been going to India for some 30 years for the purposes of researching her books. Her joint work with Catherine Asher, India before Europe, moreover was written with the aim of providing due weight for controversial topics in medieval Indian history.

It is possible that this editor is not a toxic POV-pushing editor, only a new one who is unconversant with Talk Page Guidelines and conflates talk page conversations on WP and chat room conversations elsewhere, but obviously, he needs to keep Cynthia Talbot out of his ambit of somewhat immature speculation. Can an admin talk to him? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Fowler, it's also possible he has been led into bad habits by reading your talk page trashing of academics who you think disagree with your pov. Pots and kettles. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

But I don't belittle women by calling them only by their first names. He couldn't have got that bad habit from me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

To be frank her surname can be confusing for Indians, I myself made mistake of writing Tablot instead of Talbot on more than one occasion. No disrespect to her, of course. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: The last name is hardly the issue. Do you think, speaking equally frankly, your username can never be confusing for me? Per Wikipedia policy, we all make an extra effort to get it correct. We don't call authors we are disagreeing with by their first names (also misspelled). But the bigger issue is the despicable and repeated disparaging of her expertise. It is immature and borders on xenophobia—the assertion that she has never been to India, then grudgingly changed to she has been to India once. The reality is that she has been going to India most likely every year for the last 30 years. Please don't make silly defenses. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I was only talking about the surname point, because I myself experienced that, sincerely speaking. I am not defending anyone. Pardon me if it hurt you. Hope you have a good day. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

* I went through all of their works and biographies and still found out that she only toured India once during 2015 that too for few odd hours. I can't found anything about Michael Boris Bedner yet but they shared same school of thoughts like Cynthia, Audrey Truscke, Dirhik Kolf, David Ludden, Richard Elaton and others. Nope !!!! She never came to India for 30 years but came here only once. Anyway how on earth this bit is relevant here. I am still intact she never quoted any primary inscriptions from that age of these part of the world but instead quote thesis of other authors. White Horserider (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• @White Horserider: You are apparently unable to realize that you are continuing to disparage a well-respected academic. I have produced in the references below the Acknowledgements of her books, the first published in 2001, the second in 2006, and the third in 2015. She came to India the first time in 1991 on a fellowship. Here it is:

  My interest in medieval Andhra was first stimulated by V. Narayana Rao, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and led to a doctoral dissertation on the topic of religious gifts in Kakatiya Andhra, much of which is incorporated in chapter 3 of this work. A Fulbright-Hays doctoral dissertation grant funded the initial period of research in India. I am grateful to Sri Venkateswara University in Tirupati for providing an institutional affiliation, and to the directors and staff of the Chief Epigraphist's Office at Mysore and the Andhra Pradesh Department of Archaeology and Museums in Hyderabad for allowing access to many unpublished inscriptions. I especially wish to thank Prof. S. S. Ramachandra Murthy of Sri Venkateswara University for the many painstaking hours he spent reading through Telugu inscriptions with me. My doctoral research was summarized in the article “Temples, Donors, and Gifts: Patterns of Patronage in Thirteenth Century South India,” published in the Journal of Asian Studies (vol. 50, no. 2 1991, pp. 308-40)

And again in 2015:

A senior short-term fellowship from the American Institute of Indian Studies in 1999 made it possible for me to start research in Rajasthan, while research in London was facilitated by a Franklin Grant from the American Philosophical Society in 2000. On a fellowship from the American Council of Learned Societies during the 2000-1 academic year, I was able to read portions of Prithviraj Raso and other relevant texts. After a hiatus of several years, I resumed progress on the book thanks to a Guggenheim fellowship in 2007-8, conjoined with a membership at the Institute for Advanced Study, and a subsequent fellowship from the National Endowment of the Humanities in 2008-9. I am also grateful for various forms of assistance from my home institution, the University of Texas at Austin, including some release time from teaching on an Institute for Historical Studies fellowship in 2011-12. This book could not have been written without the resources at various manuscript archives and libraries, including the Jodhpur and Udaipur branches of the Rajasthan Prachyavidya Pratishthan; the Maharaja Man Singh Pustak Prakash in Jodhpur; Rajasthan Shodh Sansthan in Chopasni, Jodhpur; Pratap Shodh Pratishthan at Bhupal Nobles Sansthan, Udaipur; Sahitya Sansthan of Rajasthan Vidyapith, Udaipur; India Office Library and Records at the British Library; and most of all, the Royal Asiatic Society of Greater Britain and Ireland, in London. My thanks to the directors and staff at these research collections for allowing me access to their valuable materials. I am indebted too to the late Rajendra Joshi of the Institute for Rajasthan Studies, Brajmohan Jawaliya of Udaipur, and Hukamsingh Bhati of Jodhpur.

What is it you do not understand? Why are you continuing to bluster, to disparage an author in a manner that is immature and violates Wikipedia policy? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This article should be renamed to Cynthia Tablot and her legacy rather than Prithviraj Chauhan; I think Horserider user might be right; we are in digital age no need at all to travel to these part of world for reading this; I too found it unlikely that she travelled India more than once or twice. On!! On!! 2402:3A80:1055:3B50:8393:157F:72C2:81F2 (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

References

References

Legacy section of article

@Shinjoya, Abhishek0831996, Ratnahastin, Ranadhira, and Sajaypal007: Due to consistent revert, revert and revert, I brought this issue at talk page; main issue here is about a statement in legacy section. i.e.

Prithviraj's dynasty was classified as one of the Rajput clans in the later period, including in Prithviraj Raso, although the "Rajput" identity did not exist during his time

What I did is adding contrasting views from atleast 8-9 learned scholars who staged Rajput existence as a caste group since seventh century. (Some staged it in 12th century; anyway before reign of Prithviraja-III. Minhaj-us Siraj a historian who lived in Ghur region (in same time) also mentioned Prithviraj as a Rajput king who was riding an horse, this statement is academic work of Upinder Singh published in Oxford University Press.

But some senior editors and admins are hell bent on removing contrasting scholary views (I presented full quotes for verification too). Do note that I never removed any existing content but just add much more. (To make it neutral)

I got a solution; Since editors doesn't seem very happy about contrasting views to make it neutral then remove this statement from legacy section as well. I read history from Persian sources from last 30 years and nearly all scholars staged Rajput emergence as a community since Harsha's death.

I pinged all intersted editors regarding the topic; make sure to give your inputs here. Thank you very much. White Horserider (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• You can discuss removing the "although the Rajput identity did not exist during his time" bit. But what you were doing was adding a huge chunk of irrelevant content and references that don't even discuss the subject of the article. Your additions don't belong in the article lead (or even the article body): they belong at Rajput. utcursch | talk 23:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:*Support to Utcursch; If we can't add contrasting scholary views from top publishers. Then surely; I support removing this line as well. Also Utcursch; I still think we should add that Minhaj-us-Siraj mentioned him as a Rajput. (on page no. 98 from Upinder Singh book published in OUP) White Horserider (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The "Rajput" identity, in the sense of an elite group with "Kshatriya" status did not exist at the time of Prithviraj. The Rajputs were originally non-elite groups, which under Mughal rule were granted elite status, and eventually came to be identified as kshatriyas in the varna system. Similarly, the Marathas were non-elite groups for which Shivaji, by staging an elaborate coronation with a "royal Brahmin" in tow attained a kind of caste upliftment. Susan Bayly has written about this; Barbara D. Metcalf might have as well, at least about Shivaji's upward mobility. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

:*@Fowler&fowler: No that isn't true at all, you didn't mentioned about the work at all secondly I am proposing to add contrasting views from atleast 10-12 modern scholary sources. The Rajputs never aquired Kshatriya status at all, infact they originated from tribal chiefs during seventh-eight centuries AD. Anyway, there is no point in objecting without a source. I still stands that it's better to add contrasting views of scholars. Tablot never quoted footonotes or any inscriptional evidence for her claim. White Horserider (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Further, none of the work (Bayly &Barbara D. Metcalf) states the same that Rajput identity didn't exist in twelvth century, I went through the books and it states that Mughals came to honour warriors whom they called Rajputs in 16th and 17th centuries typical of left inclined historians to praise Mughals for everything that exists in India. I also have inscritptional evidences backed up by Indologists that Rajputs as a caste group opposed Ghaznavids during 11th century AD. After going through your edit history you aren't familiar with these issues at all and just use few historians to back up your bogous claims on every article like you did at Mughal Empire (even those source don't support your claim), anyway you are yet to answer me even there. So better don't just oppose for the sake of doing it. White Horserider (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: I don't know much about Shivaji's ancestry but surely these two authors never stated that Rajput didn't exist in Prithviraja-III reign. I have more sources to support my content. White Horserider (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Rajput identity pretty much existed before Prithviraj. A majority of RS say so. According to Barbara N. Ramusack, there are historical evidences to state that people calling themselves Rajput had begun to settle in the Indo-Gangetic plains by the 6th century. Citing the 1234 CE inscriptions found in the Mahoba fort, Irfan Habib concludes that a Rajput caste had established itself well before the 13th century. I have highlighted these two RS because they say that there are "evidences" to support their statements. Apart from these two, we have notable historians like Upinder Singh, Eugenia Vanina, Hermann Kulke, Alain Danielou, Satish Chandra who write that Rajputs had emerged as a socio-political class well before Prithviraj.

On the other hand, we have writer Cynthia Tablot who thinks otherwise. Her writings seem to be based on mere speculations rather than historical evidences as she never visited India. She should be considered unreliable in context of Indian history.

I also suggest to add the term "Rajput" in the "Early life" section. It should begin with something like "Prithvi was born in a Rajput family" as we have plenty of RS to support this statement. Shinjoya (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose but add a note - Our article states the Rajput identity, in its current sense, did not exist in early medieval India (when Chauhan ruled); our article does not state that people referring themselves as Rajputs did not exist. Talbot notes What the term Rajput meant prior to the Mughal period is a contentious issue, for scholars disagree about how far back we can trace the existence of the Rajputs as a community. and concurs with Kolff’s assertion that “since the late sixteenth century, something like a new Rajput Great Tradition emerged which could recognise little else than unilineal kin bodies as the elements of which genuine Rajput history ought to be made up.” Raso's Chauhan fits into this refashioning of Rajput identity.

Chattopadhyay mentions that many scholars doubt whether Rajput identity had developed by tenth-twelfth centuries but goes on to reject them. This is cited by Roy. I urge you all to read Michael Boris Bednar's excellent rebut of Chattopadhyay, in this regard. Which has already been pointed to by Talbot. Tanuja Kothiyal stresses on these aspects too.

You have cited Irfan Habib and Ramusack but without understanding these nuances. Please read [Essays in Indian History: Towards a Marxist Perception Irfan Habib. Anthem Press, 2002. p. 89-90] for yourself. And, please do not use sociologists, who have no training in Indian history. Upinder Singh's rethinking Early Medieval India has no p. 567; please mention the chapter or author. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

::@TrangaBellam: Hmm..Tablot never used any primary or inscriptional evidence for her spectulation that this identity doesn't exist during Chauhan's reign. Michael Bedner works are not available anywhere, so can't say how his rebut of B.D Chattopadhyay is an excellent one, his work is promoted by Cynthia just because it fits her narrative. BTW, Cynthia never came to India so how on earth she can examine inscriptions is beyond me neither her nor Kolff quote any primary concrete evidence which supports their claim. Irfan Habib ref. from Anthem press dated to 2002 (originally published in 1997) whereas the source which I add dated itself to 2008. (Historians change their narrative very frequently).. Also, even in 2002 one; Habib mentioned that the term was used in persian texts during 16th century. (even this is dubious; Al-Masudi, eight century scholar labelled Qandhar as country of Rajputs, Even Minhaj-us-siraj (lived in 12th century) mentioned Prithviraj as a Rajput king who was riding an horse.

Don't try to overrun my sources and FYI sociologists too are learned scholars who are pretty much aware about caste-related issues of South Asia. Same author is used on Rajput article to mention them illiterate warriors. White Horserider (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

We cannot use primary sources. Also, please do not challenge Talbot's authority on pre-modern India; her publications speak for themselves. She need not cite primary sources because she is sourcing from Bednar, who has already scrutinised prim. sources. Bednar's thesis is available over Proquest.

Habib did not change his narrative; you fail to understand him because to you, any inscription that mentions a lingustic variant of Rajput, confirms a Rajput identity. I don't care what other article uses what kind of source and this talk-page concerns with this article.

You have obviously not replied to my (or (Fowler&fowler's) main argument. Also, please mention the chapter from Upinder Singh's work. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

::Brajadulal Chattopadhyay is far more known scholar than Bednar, I tried my level best to acess Bednar work but failed to do so. What's more intersting here is that even Bednar never came to India so how a individual who never came to this part of world examine inscriptions and dismiss other scholars authenticity. B.D Chattopadhyay work is upvoted by several scholars including Peter Jackson, Irfan Habib etc. There are more scholars who staged Rajput emergence as a community since seventh century A.D. White Horserider (talk) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

How do you know that Bednar or Talbot never visited India? You are wrong, as evident from a cursory reading of their works. I urge you to see the scholars who have cited Bednar.

Also, what do you mean by "community"? These words are not to be thrown about lightly. Why are you using scholars of religion or sociology (or undergraduate textbooks) to discuss Rajput history, when there are specialist scholars? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@ TrangaBellam: In his 2002 book, Irfan Habib said that the Rajputs emerged as a caste community in 16th century. However, on accessing new evidences like inscriptions from Mahoba fort, he corrected himself and concluded in his 2008 book that a Rajput caste identity had been formed well before 13th century. His old statement of 2002 book itself becomes obsolete and meaningless now. Shinjoya (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Theres only one source which supports the "claim rajput didn't existed at the time of Prithviraja." Is of Cynthia talbot ,As per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE and Minority views like these should not be given undue weight in the lead. White Horserider has provided multiple scholarly citations which states Prithviraj was a rajput so i say we should remove the Cynthia source since Consensus among scholars seems to be that Prithviraja was rajput.RatnaHastin^talk 07:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

*@TrangaBellam: Lmao... You are obviously in love with Tablot's work that is the sole reason you are going this far to state that don't challenge her authority on these topic. It's humourous that neither Tablot nor Bedner came to India to examine this inscriptions but you are believing there speculation as a gospel. I mentioned Upinder Singh's statement with quote on page number 567 (which i read few years back). As for Irfan Habib, no mate he indeed states the same fact in this book which I quoted that the Rajput caste established itself well before 13th century. White Horserider (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Please be more formal in your replies. Upinder's book has no Pg. 567. It consists of 367 pages. Anyways, please read Aparna Kapadia's "Praise of Kings" for more context. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

White Horserider, Let me suggest politely that you cease your exhibitionistic commentary on scholars with whom you disagree and generally stop behaving in a way that make your statements appear absurd or immature. I do understand that you are new to Wikipedia and unconversant with its ways, but please don't abuse that privilege. Please don't call Cynthia Talbot "Cynthia" in a WP talk page discussion (even if you are on first names basis with her, nor claim vacuously that she has never been to India. Most likely she does seem to have spent time in India, "My favorite research site was a memorial park for Prithviraj Chauhan constructed in 1996 at Ajmer, his former capital. Rarely visited, it is a quiet spot that offers a panoramic view of the city from its position halfway up a hill." (here) Please cease unless you are looking to be penalized. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Using "rajput" to characterize the lineage of Prithviraj is anachronistic usage. The kshatriya or kshatriya-like status associated with Rajputs dates to Mughal times. What the rajputs (from Skr raj (kingly) putra (son)) were before the Mughals is not clear. They were a dubiously inferred mixture of armed peasants, aboriginals, Indo-Scythians, who had succeeded to chieftaincies. North Indian socio-cultural history is chock full of caste upliftment—armed peasants from non-elite pastoral (Rajput or Jat) or tiller (Kurmi) backgrounds aspiring to Kshatriya status. See my Jat people and Kurmi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: What you are now trying to do is deflecting from the topic. Whether or not "Rajputs" had Kshatriya status during Prithviraj's period is immaterial here. What matters is that sources including contemporary ones like Prithviraj Raso and Minhaj-i Siraj Juzjani identified him as a Rajput king and hence, he should be mentioned as a Rajput king in "Early life" section of the article. Writers like Cynthia Tablot should be considered as WP:FRINGE and hence should not be given undue weightage in the article. The same Cyntia Talbot wrote about destruction of Hindu temples during Muslim rule that they were destroyed in retaliation and had no religious motivations. This clearly shows that she has a little knowledge of Indian history and she writes with a leftist bias. Shinjoya (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shinjoya: Prithviraj Raso is a late 16th-century bardic tale. There is no mention of the word "Rajput" in contemporary (13th-century) or earlier Muslim sources. Among India's newly arrived Muslim conquerors to whose swift-horse cavalry Prithviraj had no response (see the Medieval history section of the India page, which I have written) there was a tradition of writing history and travel literature. On the other hand, Rajasthan, formerly Rajputana, was a vast intellectual desert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

::::Ok Fowler&fowler; Tablot travelled India only once and What about scholars who spent hours and hours working on primary sources???? Anyway, I am not saying to remove her work but rather mention other side of coin too. Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

::::Got one more source:- Somānī, Rāmavallabha (1981). Prithviraj Chauhan and His Times. Publication Scheme. ISBN 978-81-85263-02-1.

This is also a scholary work on Prithviraj Chauhan life, I am quoting well known Indologist Dasharatha Sharma here from this book by Somani (a historian too)

Quote:- The local Rajputs residing on the borders of Rajasthan also measured sword regularly thinking it's their duty to rescue the womens, cows and other religious shrines. As pointed out by Indologist Sharma that Goverdhan inscriptions of V.E. 1060 (1003 A.D.) of village Olla, V.E. 1070 (1014 A.D) and an undated inscription attributed to first quarter of 11th century AD of Ajmer contains the account of heroic death of several member of Rajput community

Now, If 11th century inscriptions mentioned that Rajput died fighting invaders then how did they didn't exist as caste group till 16th century ??? And, No Cynthia seems fine to me this is first name of author.White Horserider (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@White Horserider: Please don't continue to deliberately violate talk page guidelines. Her name is "Cynthia Talbot," not "Cyntia Tablot," and you know it. She is one of the leading historians of early medieval India. Rajasthan, on the other hand, was a monument to feudalism, inequality, illiteracy, misogyny, female infanticide, and gender inequality, which it remained well into the modern era, documented in every census of the British Indian Empire from 1871 to 1941. Even today, it is at the near bottom of the Human Development Index among Indian states and the absolute bottom of female literacy. It was an ahistorical early-medieval culture. In any case, please be very careful in not repeatedly violating talk page guidelines. You are looking at being blocked, even banned, as several admins have already informed you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler You seem to be violating WP:TALK#TOPIC by making these unnecessary off topic politically motivated comments about Rajasthan (Utterly irrelevant here) and making a unnecessary issue out of calling Cynthia talbot by her first name.stay on the topic which is Prithviraja 's Identity .RatnaHastin^talk 13:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: I am not. Rather I am pointing out that there was no historiography in a region that had remained a poverty-ridden, intellectual desert for upward of eight centuries. There were only legendary bardic tales, all unreliable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shinjoya: As for your interpretation of off-topic, female-infanticide was an integral part of Rajput culture, of a piece with it overall functional illiteracy and inability to record history. See Tim Dyson's A Population History of India, Oxford, 2018.

*@Fowler&fowler: Sorry If I confused any page numbers but definately this is work of Upinder Singh anyway I will mention correct page number too very shortly...., Got it !!!!! page number is 137.. I confused this with Upinder Singh's 2008 work, Appology for it.

Bayly Susan never stated that Rajput identity didn't exist during Prithviraja reign. She stated that Mughals honuored them as Rajputs, they may not be descedents of Rajasthan meant they can be from Central asian invading tribes (Huns). Peter Jackson himself quoted B.D Chattopadhyay for Rajputs in footnotes (who himself placed Rajput emergence as a community since 12th century), There is definately work of Tablot available but again She isn't end all and be all on PRC and Rajputs, we should add contrasting views too. TrangaBellam: Hermann Kulke, Upinder Singh, Satish Chandra, Romila Thapar, Eugenia Vannia are not undergraduate historians by any stretch of imagination unless someone is slightly nuts, they are scholars of highest class. White Horserider (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• It is quite impossible to be an undergraduate historian. What I said was S.N. Sen's work is an undergraduate textbook.
• Ramya Srinivasan notes in her award winning work on Padmini, B.D. Chattopadhyaya demonstrates the mixed origins of the Rajputs of Rajasthan between the seventh and twelfth centuries, he argues that a distinctive Rajput clan structure was in place by the end of this period. Please stop substituting class, clan, caste, community and what not with each other.
• The point of Talbot is that Raso's fashioning of Prithviraj aligns with a Rajput identity, characteristic of the Mughal Span. Which is hardly surprising because Raso was not a contemporary in all likelihood.
• Prithviraj might have self identified as a Rajput (whose meaning would be something very different than what is currently understood today). If you have sources claiming so, please use them. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Agree generally about Sailendra Nath Sen. There is nothing wrong in using a reliable modern undergraduate textbook published by an academic publisher (for as a tertiary source, it is often useful in assigning due weight (see WP:TERTIARY)). The problem with Sen's book is that it is not modern (he wrote his first book in 1937). Along with R.C. Majumdar et al's Advanced History of India it is a dated work of the nationalist school. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam:, B.D. Chattopadhyaya demonstrates the mixed origins of the Rajputs of Rajasthan between the seventh and twelfth centuries, he argues that a distinctive Rajput clan structure was in place by the end of this period.

Even this quote suggests that a proper Rajput clan structure had been built by Prithviraj's era (12 th century).

Prithviraj might have self identified as a Rajput (whose meaning would be something very different than what is currently understood today).

Again speculations. Not all historians can have exactly same views on a subject. There will always be some contradictions. You are trying to skip the question citing these contradictions. The discussion about the status of term "Rajput" during Prithvi's time is immaterial here because this is the talk page of Prithviraj Chauhan rather than Rajput. What matters here is that a majority of RS including the contemporary Minhaj-i Siraj Juzjani identify him as a Rajput and a very few WP:FRINGE sources like Cynthia Tablot has questioned his Rajput identity. Shinjoya (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sreenivasan then goes on to comment about how Chattopadhyay and others have missed the forest for the trees. Obviously, you haven't read her work. My point was about you three substituting class, clan, caste, community and what not with each other.

Talbot is not fringe, by any definition of the word. She is a very reputed academic with about 1000 citations and has an entire monograph on the subject, which is much recent than your cited sources. The monograph won the 2018 Ananda Kentish Coomaraswany Book Prize by Association for Asian Studies and went on to receive very favorable reviews.

And, nobody is speculating anything. The Rajput identity, as fashioned by Raso (my emphasis), did not exist during his time. He might have been a Rajput, for all I care. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice for all involved editors
Let other editors too give their inputs here; I provided 12-15 high-quality source for my claim although I still suggests to not remove Tablot work but also add contrasting scholary views or remove this contentious line too. White Horserider (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• White Horserider, Indian historian Romila Thapar too identifies Prithviraj Chauhan as a Rajput king. Shinjoya (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shinjoya: And how. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

* To all of those who labelled who labelled Sailendra Nath as a tertiary author. He is a former Professor of History, University of Calcutta, an Honorary Professor of History there since 2005. The work which is used as a citation here is from decent publication and was published in April 1987 not some 1939. I added a source from OUP where Minhaj-us-Siraj mentioned him as a Rajput. It's a request to let other contributors to participate in this discussion too. Still; I am supporting to add contrasting views rather than removing Tablot's work; If not so remove this controversial line. I am busy in these tough times so don't make these thread a fish market. Anyway, Fowler&fowler you are yet to answer me at Mughal Empire talk page. Night all White Horserider (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC) @White Horserider: I know about him. Please carefully read what I have written. Sailendra Nath Sen wrote his first book, his Leeds Masters thesis in 1937. See also here. Using the age of 23 as the median age for a Masters then, he was very likely born before 1915, making him at least 105 today, if he is alive. In the instance that this was not him, there are certainly more tell-tale references to him from the mid-1950s in the Proceedings of the Indian History Congress (here). His best known-book on Anglo-Maratha Relations was published in 1961 (see here) He is dated today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Your love for Cynthia is surely one for the ages. It's funny how you end up presenting sources which themselve mentioned that by time of Prithviraja-III a proper Rajput clan structure waa established. I never opposed her work, (but it's highly dubious) but We should have contrasting views. I read history in last 40 years; nearly all authors who lived from 13th century till now labelled Prithviraja as a Rajput ruler. I was first one to oppose edits of Ratnahastin & Shinojya on Rathore article when they removed scholary work about Rajputs originating from tribals and being illiterate. You are again & again bringing irrelevant things here, Please FFS; let other editors participate. Your latest comment doesn't make any sense at all that he was a Raso styled Rajput. White Horserider (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler Sorry but I am tired in this meaningless discussion with you which are not related to topic in any form. S.N Sen work is from April 1987 that's what i can gather from all available links and threads, stop adding your personal commentary here. Earlier you said that India and Rajasthan are poor third-world country, blah blah !!!! Ok, then don't participate in discussion of rulers from these part of world. Did I ask you ??? We seriously need a neutral moderator here because it's getting really annoying and time-wasting process. I just proposed one thing that removed this highly dubious statement (Only in case If you don't like contrasting scholary views) But these discussion went on at Rajasthan being poor and so on..., Anyway, I am busy in these tough times of Covid-19 therefore let other editors too participate and then wait for consensus. Please answer me on Mughal Empire talk page too with concrete evidences not vague claims. White Horserider (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@White Horserider: I have written the article Company rule in India, I am aware that SN Sen's area of specialization was India under Company rule, more specifically Anglo-Maratha relations, not early medieval India. As for "fish market," you have as of (16:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)) written 1659 words here. I have written 794, which is less than half yours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@ @Fowler&fowler, White Horserider, TrangaBellam, and Ratnahastin:

Apart from Minhaj-i Siraj Juzjani, I have now got two more important sources ie writings of Muslim historians of early medieval era which prove that Rajput identity pretty much existed in those times :

1. The renowned 10th century Arab historian Al-Masudi described Kandahar as a country of Rajputs.

2. In the battle between Prithviraj Chauhan and Muhammad of Ghor in 1192 A.D., the historian Firishta stated that "Hindu Afghans were fighting on the side of the Rajput Chief".

Please close this debate and remove the controversial line now, as per admin Utcursch. We have had enough of discussion on this. Shinjoya (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Utcursh did not support any edit. He said only, "You can discuss removing the "although the Rajput identity did not exist during his time" bit. But what you were doing was adding a huge chunk of irrelevant content and references that don't even discuss the subject of the article." Were he supporting an edit, he'd have to submit reliable sources like the rest of us. In other words, he might be an admin, but that does not make him automatically an unchallengeable expert on Indian history

There is little chance that line will go, or that this page—already a fawning monument to Hindu majoritarian fantasies which has managed to fly under the radar—will become one even more so. The weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. You can't scrape the bottom of the barrel, and claim equal status of the sludge with Asher and Talbot, who don't mention anything about Prithviraj being Rajput, only that his army was walloped by the Ghurids. (This is mentioned also in the medieval history section of the India page, which I have written: "After the 10th century, Muslim Central Asian nomadic clans, using swift-horse cavalry and raising vast armies united by ethnicity and religion, repeatedly overran South Asia's north-western plains, leading eventually to the establishment of the Islamic Delhi Sultanate in 1206. The sultanate was to control much of North India and to make many forays into South India. Although at first disruptive for the Indian elites, the sultanate largely left its vast non-Muslim subject population to its own laws and customs.(cited to Asher and Talbot, 2008, p 47 and Metcalf and Metcalf, 2006, p 6)" No mention of Prithviraj anywhere, nor Rajputs. Rajputs are mentioned only in the early modern section of India, which also I have written: "Newly coherent social groups in northern and western India, such as the Marathas, the Rajputs, and the Sikhs, gained military and governing ambitions during Mughal rule, which, through collaboration or adversity, gave them both recognition and military experience." (Cited to Metcalf and Metcalf, pp 23-24). Both have stood the test of time for more than ten years. India, Wikipedia's oldest country WP:Featured article (now 17 years) until the pandemic was receiving on average 30K+ page views a day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

See also the extended quote from Asher and Talbot's book, India before Europe, Cambridge, 2006. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

See also: Audrey Truschke's The Language of History: Sanskrit Narratives of Indo-Muslim Rule, Columbia University Press, 2021, which says, "In the 1190s, the term “Rajput” as we mean it today had not been coined."

@Fowler&fowler: on what basis does that writer claim that the term "Rajput" had a different meaning in Prithvi's time? I mean, what evidence has been cited? None. On the other hand, noted Indian historian, Irfan Habib (who has certainly spent more time in India), in his 2008 book, cited an inscription found in Mahoba fort and concluded that a Rajput caste (or jati) had been formed well before the 13th century. Its obvious that he has more weight in his claims than foreigner Cynthia who seems to be speculating and citing other writers rather than doing her own WP:OR.

Its clear that you are trying to deflect this discussion to the larger Rajput subject to maintain the status quo. Quotes from Firishta and Minhaj-i Siraj Juzjani were enough to close this debate as they are contemporary ones but you want this discussion to not stop anytime as you want to keep your preferred version. Shinjoya (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

:  Note: This discussion as of now due to consistent irrelevant talks by two editors is not going in any way. One user is so much is in fascination with Cynthia that they are consistently bombarding me with talk page warnings. They made so many comments with little to no use in this thread. Anyway they are accusing me of not providing a WP:RS it's humourous that I add 18 high quality sources from top scholars which supports my claim. After going through their comments it seems that they hate India and anything related to it. They are again & again adding sources from Tablot book with different quotes now about Rajasthani Rajput have superiority complex. They add work of Audrey Truscke now who herself quoted Cynthia. Anyway Audrey reputation as a distorian is well-known to all. Please a civil administrator or senior editor join these discussion. I am waiting for more editors for their views. Anyone who is neutral (which no one is at Wikipedia these days will get about nuance of my sources) White Horserider (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

See also, Richard Eaton, India in the Persianate Age, Penguin-Random House, 2019, which also asserts that the Rajput identity in any recognizable form did not emerge until the 16th century. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting views too exist and are more in strength than these foreigner writers. Also note that this article is titled Prithviraj Chauhan rather than Rajput.Shinjoya (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler read your source carefully you're misrepresenting it talks about rajput status being not necessarily hereditary in 13th-14th century and term rajputs acquired a hereditary connotation in 16th century its not about rajput identity. Let alone Prithviraja chauhan. RatnaHastin^talk 02:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: You are welcome to change it to, "Prithviraj Chauhan was an armed peasant—alternatively he was a clean Shudra in the manner of the British census characterization of 1891, i.e. a man from whom Brahmins could accept water—who in retrospective ballads of grief and nostalgia about the loss of the Hindu way of life to Muslims, came to be called a Rajput." I'm the one who is gathering the modern reliable sources. You have nothing but authors with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, Aditya Behl, Love's Subtle Magic: An Indian Islamic Literary Tradition, 1379-1545, Oxford University Press, 2012, considers "Rajput" to be a retrospective invention dating to between the mid-15th to mid-16th centuries. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, Norbert Peabody, Hindu Kingship and Polity in Precolonial India, Cambridge University Press, 2003. He considers patrilineal descent, and thus a notion of a "caste," to have been inculcated among the Rajputs only after the 16th century. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

* Hmm... Richards source mentioned that Rajput begin calling themselves as one in 16th century this itself is contradicted by Ramansauck source which mentions that there are historical evidences of people calling themselves as Rajput by sixth century AD setlled in Indo-Gangetic plain. Anyway Richards himself elaborated that records exist of Rajput existence earlier too. Another clever misrepresentation. Aditya Behal himself quoted Kolff and this is in notes not in main article. Untill a moderator arrives this won't go anywhere. You presented several missimg and half quotes too.White Horserider (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

* I also observed that two editors who are using one lobby of historians who copied each other material also claims that Prithviraja Vijay (contemporary text) was not part of Rajput text. Let me tell you here too that Prithviraj vijay is part of Rajput epic composed under patronage of Rajput rulers.

It's also funny how you ignore 18-20 sources of mine and labelles it as silly defense, This quote that term Rajput is not a heredity one during 14th century is from Tablot book itself which is copied by you. FYI Minhaj-us-Siraj was a contemporary author who mentioned Prithviraj as a Rajput. White Horserider (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Also; Burton Stein explained as per examination of S.K.T inscriptions that The Rajput claim as a community were recorded in Sanskrit inscriptions that consituted as well as recorded in Rajasthan during the seventh century, when Rajputs begins to make themselves lords of various localities

• Also, arguing in little bit similar vein Romila Thapar, Satish Chandra and Kaushik Roy too agreed for Rajput emergences as a community since later half of 12ty century AD.

• Minhaj-i-Siraj, a historian of Ghorid and later Mamluks in his account of defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan in Second Battle of Tarain also presented Prithviraj as a Rajput king.Thus, claim of persian authors not mentioning term of Rajput for Prithvirajnis another bogous claim.

• Yet another modern scholarly source: Nandini Chatterjee, Land and law in Mughal India, Cambridge University Press, 2020, about late medieval emergence of Rajputs. Btw, do you have anything from the 21st century? Your sources appear to be mostly cherry-picked archaic views (e.g. early 20th-C notion of Rajputs as migrants; note in response: "Among the various theories regarding sources of such nomadic warrior groups, the Central Asian theory was popular in the early twentieth century (Chatterjee, p. 50)"? Kaushik Roy, by the way, is a military historian of the Indian military of the 20th century, not a medievalist, not even remotely. He might have said something that he skimmed off secondary sources to add the obligatory background paragraph. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh!!! Now this lame excuse of archaic source. BTW this are ref. from 1980 onwards not from 1880. Got one more academic work of professor Indrani Chatterjee from Oxford university press. She concluded that The Rajputs rose to prominence after seventh century onwards and dominated im region of northern and north-western India. There is a significant controversy about their origin; Although modern scholars concluded that they originate from a miscellaneous groups. Towards the end of twelfth centuries, a distinctive Rajput clan structure was established". White Horserider (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

One of the greatest authority on Indian past Sir Jadunath Sarkar too has something to say about it who placed Rajput emergence as a caste around Ghorid invasion of India.

This was 27th source presented by me. But now; I am going on a brief break as my family is suffering from deadly coronavirus. White Horserider (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your family and I wish them all the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

PS Your references and posts here, however, are substandard, the result of desperately cherry-picking for an earlier origin of Rajputs among any sources, especially older sources. Jadunath Sarkar was born in 1870. He'd need to be the Guiness Book in order to have published something in the 21st century. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I kind of agree with @utcursch' proposal, @horserider if the line is already removed then why is there any need of mentioning when rajput identity was formed. The question becomes moot point. The section you were adding even after removal of the line is not needed, I think. Besides such long description about rajput identity is not suitable in the lead of an article called Prithviraj Chauhan, it could be added on Rajput wiki page but not in the lead of Prithviraj Chauhan. Anyway my proposal to all the editors is as below, please give your honest opinion on this.

The proposal is this, why cant we use Rajput for Prithviraj Chauhan without saying when rajput identity was formed. Earlier mughals never called themselves mughals, it was europeans who started calling them mughals that too later. So how come we are calling Babur a mughal on wikipedia. Because it is standard history writing practice. Modern historians who understand the identity question still call Prithviraj Chauhan, a rajput. So why not on wiki. Earlier mughals are all similarly called mughals even though they didnt know what mughal is. They called themselves Gurkhani or Timurids not Mughals but all modern writers call them mughals. Thats how it works even on wiki so why is this double standard for Prithviraj Chauhan. Indian history on wikipedia page has history of India even when it was not called India. For Prithviraj Chauhan's case why can't the approach be similar. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: I agree with you on these although I will not be very active again for a weak or so, but still can't figure out that How after presenting 25 academic work from some of the leading scholars even with Minhaj-us siraj who mentioned Prithviraja as Rajput: every historian till day labelled him Rajput. Stay safe !!!! White Horserider (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support in favour of removing this line from legacy section. 2402:3A80:1055:3B50:8393:157F:72C2:81F2 (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

* Support As far as I am concerned; I too support the removal. Parker User 81819 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Bednar

Bednar's thesis is available here. TrangaBellam, can you point me to where the critique of Chattopadhyaya is? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Page 161 onward.

Talbot, p.119-20 writes

However, Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya suggests that rājaputra was applied to a larger group of high-ranking men who also bore titles such asrāuta, rāvala, and rānaka. His study of inscriptions primarily from Rajasthan led Chattopadhyaya to the opinion that "by the twelfth century the term rājaputra had come to acquire the later connotation of the term ‘Rajput’," who were associated with fortified settlements and the division of land among kin, among other features. Chattopadhyaya also believes that "an element of heredity" was involved in the transmission of the title by 1300 or thereabouts.

In contrast, Michael Bednar’s examination of inscriptions from western and central India during the eleventh through fourteenth centuries indicates that thakkura, rāuta, and rājaputra were titles of rank that generally denoted official positions and were often not passed on from father to son. Chattopadhyaya may, therefore, be somewhat premature in his assertion that Rajput identity existed in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, if one understands “Rajput” to designate a clan-based community with a distinctive warrior ethos, rather than a term denoting individual political rank.

TrangaBellam (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam is correct. It is the section "Rajput in pre-Sultanate inscriptions," which begins on page 161, and examines inscriptions for various titles "Rajputra," "Raut," and "Thakur" (not nec in that order). The Conclusion is on page 185 (or thereabouts). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't see his work being better than Chattopadhyaya; If you want to present your speculation as a gospel then obviously you have to give undue weightage to the authors who supported your claim. Just for a few correction Chattopadhyaya himself examined all inscriptions from Rajput clans northern India. (Chandelas, Parmaras, Gahadavals etc) White Horserider (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

White Horserider, it is easy to see the state of knowledge about the subject is rapidly progressing and the conclusions are being revised. It is not proper to state the older scholarly views as facts in this situation. Moreover, they should not appear in the lead. Since this is a page on Prithviraj Chauhan, not on Rajputs per se, spending excessive spae on that issue here is also UNDUE. Those discussions can go in the Rajputs page. Here, just a footnote would suffice, and Chattopadhyaya can be taken to summarise all the old views. (No need to cite dozens of them.) Cynthia Talbot and Brednar can be cited for the current views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: So, I can't see any point in having Tablot and Bedner thesis too; anyway these editor didn't present meaningless source it's from different authors atleast 20 odd academic works. I too support removing this dubious line from Legacy section since she also presented Upinder Singh's work about Minhaj-us-Siraj presenting him as a Rajput in his account of Battles of Tarain. 2402:3A80:1055:3B50:8393:157F:72C2:81F2 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any opposition to a footnote describing the opposite camp. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Minhaj

It was said that Minhaj-i Siraj Juzjani, a contemporary historian, had mentioned Prithviraj as a Rajput king. This was correctly sourced to Upinder Singh; however, her line is not sourced.

Notwithstanding criticism of his textual apparatus (W. Barthold, Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, 3 ed., 1968 and David C. Thomas, The Ebb and Flow of the Ghūrid Empire, 2018), Henry George Raverty's translation remains to be superseded. As far as I see, Pithora is not described as a Rajput in his work. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wow !!! Hypocrisy at it's supreme best; If the likes of Tablot's, Kolffs, Truscke's aren't quoting any source then we shouldn't challenge their academic but not so in case of Upinder Singh's work as said by a opposer We cannot use primary sources. This work is also published in OUP and those two works not contradict Singh's work and said that Minhaj-us-Siraj didn't mentioned Prithviraj Chauhan as a Rajput infact the latter one published in SUP itself presents that

Quote:- The frequency of Mucizz al-Dīn's dozen or more campaigns also indicates in part their lack of success in subduing the northern Indian Rajputs forget contradiction he himself present Chahmanas kings as Rajputs.

• As for Upinder Singh's she had done archaeological discovery of ancient and medieval India so it's actually her who don't need to quote anyone it's her extensive research which are neither hated by Right or left wingers. 2402:8100:2165:F8EF:3A7A:A3A:BDF6:6962 (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

References

References

Meat puppetry?

Three editors, White Horserider (talk · contribs), Ratnahastin (talk · contribs), and Shinjoya (talk · contribs) are making the same or very similar edits on a host of Rajput-related articles, all very similar to their POV expressed here, and generally in my view aligned with the POV of Hindu chauvinism which has attempted to recreate false histories of Rajputs as bulwarks against Islam. Ratnahastin appeared on WP in April 2021 (and has already engaged in ANI threads) and White Horserider in May 2021. On Rajputs, for example, I have just reverted their edits (diff) to the last edit of @Sitush:, WP's resident expert on Rajputs and caste, and author of an FA on James Todd. The frenetic POV-ridden feeding frenzy displayed by these editors can't be good for WP if for no reason other than becoming an outsized time sink for editors such as I who have the unenviable task of maintaining NPOV on Indian history-related articles. I'm posting here so that NPOV editors who have watchlisted this page, or similar ones, are aware of these edits. I have left a note for admins on one editor's user talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

: These lad is seriously funny 😂😂😂😂; He can't challenge my sources (apart from few authors who quoted each other) that's why accusing me of complete trash like calling Cynthia Tablot just Cynthia; labelling Rajasthan as poor state and so on... He has serious biases here against Indian and it's civilization. Still found it hard to belive that Why he is still not going off from ruler of this part of world whom he loves to hate. Anyway; none of his source (Apart from Cynthia) termed that Rajput identity did not exist during 12th century; They just quoted D.H.A kolff about Great Rajput tradition I quoted historians from Asia, Europe for my claims but now I am going off for a break as my family is suffering from COVID-19. Stay safe folks. White Horserider (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, you are engaged with three users including me in a content dispute here. When you started losing debate, you began harrassing me with comments like this, this and this. Then, you did WP:HOUNDING and reverted my edits here. You also made false accusations on me for making POV edits without any due explanation. User:TrangaBellam supported your stance in the said content dispute but none of us accused you two of doing meat puppetry. Then, on what basis do you make false accusations on us? It was you who made objectionable remark on Rajasthan and its people and you also "praised" cavalry of Muslim forces here and here. Then on what basis, are you accusing me of POV editing?

You are an experienced writer. If you are not satisfied with the ongoing debate on content dispute, you always have other options like WP:Dispute resolution. Such misbehaviour towards other editors who don't disagree with you is simply uncalled for and not in line with WP:CIVILITY. Shinjoya (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, for whatever it is worth, user:Shinjoya, user:Ratnahastin will not be taking part in this discussion for a while; user:White Horserider is also taking some time off. So, I expect, discussion on this specific topic (of whether Prithviraj Chauhan was himself a Rajput) will need to proceed without their contributions. Meanwhile, I have taken a look at Chattopadhyay's essay on the Origin of Rajputs. Although it appeared in a book published later by OUP India (the 1980s? 90s?), it seems to have been written in the late 1970s (judging from the references from the 1960s and 70s and the cited historians). It has originality but is quite dated methodologically. Neither does it seem to have the rigorous textual analyses that accompany the works of younger historians of quality today. Chattopadhyay is best interpreted for Wikipedia's purposes in the form of assessments of his work by younger modern historians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Chattopadhyay work is from 1994 which was upvoted by several modern scholars even till this day. After so many editors gave their inputs almost all of them are in favour of removing this highly dubious line which can be contradicted by so many sources, Apart from the user who acussed us of meat puppetry and one more user almost every other supports in removal. It's funny how racist one can get in an enclyopedia article talk page and getting user topic-banned or something like it. He hates me since the day I added in Mughal Empire that Babur's victory over Rana Sanga was more historic than Lodhi with multiple academic works and is yet to answer me on that talk page instead objecting my all edits. Anyway it's no wonder Larry Sanger slams Wikipedia due to contributors like him and calling it a big fraud

I strongly can't participate frequently now so don't let colonial masters dictate terms on article of third-world state rulers. White Horserider (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@White Horserider: Chattopadhyay's book, The Making of Early Medieval India, Oxford India, New Delhi, 1994, is a collection of reprints of old essays. The book was published in 1994 but the essays had been published earlier: Chapter 2: "Irrigation in Early Medieval Rajasthan," was first published in Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, volume XVI, parts II–III, 1973; Chapter 3: "Origin of Rajputs" in Indian Historical Review, volume 3, no 1, 1976; "Markets and Merchants in Early Medieval Rajasthan," in Social Science Probings, volume2, no. 4, 1985, and so forth. Of the 220 cited books in the bibliography, maybe five or six are from the early 1990s; the rest are from the 80s, 70s, 60s, and even 50s. It was an original contribution but is now quite dated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI - White Horserider has been blocked as the latest sockpuppet of Showbiz826. Ravensfire (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Prithviraj chauhan was a Gurjar king

Prithviraj chauhan Was a Gurjar king निखिल चौहान (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

please provide academic sources to support your assertion.LukeEmily (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I did a quick search in the news in India and it seems that these two communities (Rajput and Gurjar) are fighting about his identity(caste).Perhaps, both should focus on producing historic sources.LukeEmily (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: Well, It's funny that you call yourself a history lover and still don't know the fact that almost all historians identify this ruler as a Rajput. 2402:8100:216D:F16B:993F:A911:FBAC:9F02 (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know that he was identified as Rajput by historians. But when I read the discussion in the section above by other editors -it has completely confused me as both sides have a point. Anyway, I do not think that there are any good sources that identify him as a Gurjar king. There is only one "travel book" that I found that identifies him as Gurjar and it is not WP:RS. But at the same time, my only intention was to tell the editor that we do not add any claims without WP:RS. Otherwise he or others might keep posting repeatedly on this page. Also, talk page is just a discussion about the topic, Gurjar has not been written on the main article page. Generally, we do not delete talk page comments if they are relevant to the topic. It does not mean that I support his assertion. I do not have much interest in the page anyway, I do not know much about the topic.LukeEmily (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily, fyi - this is just another Showbiz sock, deal with that as you see fit. Ravensfire (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

He was not Gurjar king and Gurjar-pratiharas have nothing to do with modern day Gujjars he was a rajput king. However claiming him Gurjar come from recent times just because Gurjar and Gujjar are same sounding words. Bharat0078 (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

2409:4041:6EBF:66C4:44CE:65FF:FEF0:8F7D (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Kindly remove the word exaggerated accounts if you do not have a strong evidence that claims it waa exaggerated.

The cited source material states (when referring to Prithviraj Raso) "It is full of exaggerated accounts of his personal achievements which are evidently useless for the purposes of history." There is extensive coverage of this at Prithviraj Raso § Historical reliability. I see no reason under Wikipedia policy to remove this statement here. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Caste question

Pritiviraj Chohan is Gurjar by caste and have no relation with Rajpoots. In Pritiviraj Raso he father name is Somashwar Gurjar. If his father is Gurjar he would be Gurjar. There is no doubt about his Gurjar origan.

Pritiviraj Chohan father is Somashwar Gurjar. He has no relation with Rajputs. Infact Rajpoots came in to existance after 12th century. 175.107.3.207 (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not how it works on wikipedia. A person can also say there was no Gujjar caste, and there are written works pointing to difference between Gujjar ( a community) and Gurjara ( a region). On wikipedia, you should present facts with proper written works. FYI Chauhan as clan was not even found in Gujjar community. And you are misquoting Prithvirajraso, the word Gurjara there is used for Gujarat. You need to provide evidence for your extraordinary claims.

RS6784 (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2022

{{subst:trim|1=

Kshatriya samrat Prithviraj Chauhan Ji He is Rajput

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding recent changes

@Packer&Tracker: See History of Chahamanas by historian R.B. Singh where he specifically mention Prithviraj Chauhan as an emperor and his territory as an empire, [8]. And regarding your claim of Prithviraj heading confederacy of any sorts comprising Rathore, Kachhwaha and Guhilots, please provide WP:RS for the same because I couldn't find any. Also you are continuously making reverts for your favourable version of the page, without even once trying to discuss the matter on talk page, this is not a good way of resolving dispute and may end up in WP:EDITWAR. Please avoid such practice in future. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sajaypal007, It's very subjective to classify him as a king/ruler/emperor etc, although most modern scholars simply call him a king and that was the case with this page from several years before a user changed it without consensus. His territory was basically Eastern Rajasthan,Norther belt of Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and some parts of Uttar Pradesh and small fort of Bhatinda in Punjab. His uncle Bisaldev Chauhan ruled a far bigger territory then him and was rightly called emperor by all scholars. Later Rajput kings like Rana Sanga & Maldev Rathore also ruled similar territories.

• I already provided two reliable historic source from Sugata Bose and Romila Thapar that he led a large Rajput confederacy. (I will add few more if you like)

• Kachwahas of Amber were his allies; that fought with him in many of his millitary expeditions, I will add source for Chittor Kingdom and Rathores too.

I am not that keen in history either but some of this articles are written with one sided narrative and missing many key points. Packer&Tracker (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Baij Nath Puri (2003-01-01). Comprehensive History of India. Sterling Publishers Pvt., Limited. ISBN 978-81-207-2545-4.

After being defeated by Rajput Sultan Returned with a grand army On Other hand Prithviraj Chauhan request Rajput Rulers for his assistance and acc to Contemparary muslim historians over 150 Rajput Rulers joined him most notably Kachwahas of Amber, Rajputs of Mewar under Mathan Singh,Ajaydeva Rathore of Pali as noted by Historian R.V Somani.(See: RV Somani,Prithviraj Chauhan and his times,1981)

• Rama Shankar Tripathi (1989). History of Kanauj: To the Moslem Conquest. Motilal Banarsidass Publishe. p. 327. ISBN 978-81-208-0478-4.

When Sihabuddin was about to return to Ghazni, the Rajput king, assisted by other Rajput princes, marched against him with a mighty army consisting of 200,000 horse and 3,000 elephants.The great debacle consistently troubled the Ghori, and the very next year, in 1192 A.D he again procceded towards Hindustan with a reorganised forces of 12,000 horse to avenge his defeat. War was the very element of Prithviraja and he wrote for succors to all the neighbouring princes to repeat as it were the celebration of his victory. The Rajput chiefs to the number of one hundred and fifty enthusiastically responded to his appeal

• Romila Thapar (2015-06-01). The Penguin History of Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. Penguin Books Limited. ISBN 978-93-5214-118-0.

An attack was launched on the Rajput kingdoms controlling the western gangetic plain. The Rajputs under banner of Prithviraj Chauhan gathered as best as they could and Prithviraja defeated Muhmmad Ghori at First battle of Tarain north of Delhi. Prithviraj was defeated on same place next year

Packer&Tracker (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: firstly, please see WP:INDENT. Now the territory of Prithviraj was larger than his uncle Vigraharaja, as he also defeated Chandelas of Jejakbhukti and there exist Madanpur inscription of Prithviraj as a testimony to his conquest. Madanpur by the way is in modern Bundelkhand. I must advise you to read History of Chahamanas by R.B. Singh from page number 160 to 182 so you could understand what am I talking about, as you yourself said you are not that keen in history. Anyway both Romila Thapar and Sugata Bose, nowhere says anything about any confederacy let alone saying about Rathores, Kachhwahas and Guhilots being part of it. The details of the campaign of Prithviraj is available in quite detail, do read from historian R.B. Singh and Dashratha Sharma who specifically wrote about Chahamana history. Let me tell you one more thing, at the time of Prithviraj Chauhan, there were no rathores in modern day rajasthan or even north india. Rathores claim descend from Jatachandra Gahadavala who was contemporary of Prithviraj and was not in good terms with him. To make matter easy for you, here I am giving you the list of neighbours of empire of Prithviraj, in the south it bordered Chaulukyas and their feudatories Chahamanas of Nadol and Paramaras of Abu. In west it bordered earlier with tottering Ghaznavids and later with Ghurids, in the north it bordered Himalayas, in the east it bordered Gahadawalas in North east and Chandelas in east whom Prithviraj defeated. In the south east it bordered weakened Paramaras of Malwa. Prithviraj fought battles with everyone of their neighbours and was not in good terms with any one of them. Regarding both Tripathi and Puri's work you added late, please se Second battle of Tarain page, both of these person wrote this account from Ferishta. Ferishtah wrote his account almost three centuries later and it is highly exaggerated and made up, as i described earlier there were no rathores in Rajasthan at that time and neither Kachhwahas, both of which migrated from modern Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh quite later. Thats why I am asking you to refer, the works which directly dealt with the subject, they critically analyzed these fake claims.Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Here I am copying content from second battle of Tarain page, "Strength of Prithviraj: Probably numerically superior to Ghurid forces.
83,000 men according to Prithviraj Raso 300,000 men and 3,000 elephants according to highly exaggerated account of Ferishta (This was probably the theoretical strength that could be engaged by all the Rajput polities in India rather than the forces actually deployed on the battlefield)." Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: Quite wrong on multiple fronts, firstly Thapar source very clearly mentioned the fact that The Rajputs gathered under Prithviraja as best as tbey could not forgetting internal rivalries as a result he defeated Ghori in 1191 at Tarain, north of Delhi Only you can figure how this is different from leading a confederacy of Rajput rulers. Puri didn't quote Ferishita he quoted RV Somani detailed work called Prithviraj Chauhan and his times 1981 Yes he was in bad term with some of neighbour Rajput kingdoms but there were several Rajput clans in Rajasthan itself. Mewar own historians who wrote detail of their day to day work mentioned their participation in Tarain war (Mathan Singh) and quite rigthly they had good relation with Chauhans.

• By all means Bisaldev was more competent ruler then Prithviraja who even annexed territory from Ghaznavids unlike Prithviraj who wasted his resources in purposeless battles with powerful Rajput kingdoms like Solanki and Chandelas. Instead he should have recaptured Punjab and north west frontier which became weak after decline in Ghaznavids who were on their last legs and it from them Shahbuddin captured fertile Punjab and raised a strong army of Turkic horses and ables archers.

• Rathores never claimed their origin from Gahadavals, only Marwar kingdom of Rathores did and that too post 15th century by Muhnoot Nainsi and then in Prithviraj Raso, their origin is fairly older then Gahadavals. Rathores established their kingdom in Pali region or Hasthkundi in ninth century and Puri quoted their ruler named as Ajaydeva. Gopinath Sharma pointed out this that Rathore Rajputs themselves have a fairly older origin then Kannauj rulers. But there is section who said they might have relation with Rasthrakutas as well. In short Rathore exist in Rajasthan from ninth century.

• Lastly, though I am not a history student of late but this is well known fact that Kachwaha Rajputs already established themselve in Rajasthan by 11th or early 12th century by crushing meenas. Tejkaran or Dhula rai was their first ruler who was a friend of Chauhan Rajput rulers himself. They exist and indeed took part in all major Rajput battles like at Taraori, Singoli and at last at Khanua before joining Mughal courts, they got a bad rent from hindutva biggots for supporting Mughals but despite being so close to tyrant Delhi Sultans and never that strong like other Rajput kingdoms they put a decent resistance themselves.

I have source for their participation, I will add it for sure. Packer&Tracker (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I am sharing a book on Kachwaha kings where you will get details about their migration into Rajasthan and part of Rajput army that foiled first of Ghorid invasions. Very surprised how you claimed that Kachwahas and Rathores werent around by then.

• Sarkar, Jadunath (1994). A History of Jaipur: C. 1503-1938. Orient Blackswan. pp. 20–33. ISBN 978-81-250-0333-5. Packer&Tracker (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: As I asked you earlier, firstly please see WP:INDENT. It seems from your language as if you have some personal problem with Prithviraj that he should have done that and not that, wikipedia doesn't work on sentiments. Now earlier you were saying only his uncle Vigraharaja was called emperor and not Prithviraj, now when I shown you that he was also called emperor, you stopped addressing that point by changing the goalpost that it is just a minor thing. About Rathores being present in Rajasthan before Prithviraj, Rashtrakutas of Hashtikundi never called themselves Rathores, only Rashtrakutas and Rathores of Jodhpur never called themselves Rashtrakutas. So stop changing nomenclature for you own sake. And finally you still didn't give a single evidence of these clans helping Prithviraj in the battle which was the main point. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

RfC on Confederacy of Prithviraj in the battle with Ghurids

Please go through the discussion above, and provide comments on whether Prithviraj indeed headed a confederacy or not in the battle against Ghurids. Another smaller part is whether he was called an emperor or not by historians. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: Don't worry, this usless discussion was further continued in another section of this talk page. Ironically only two editor participated in these discussion and both rejected your and Asr99.0979 continue push for emperor and obvious puffery.

Stop using confederacy again & again as I never added confederacy in my only productive edit. The content which I added was backed up by modern academic source 'Special:MobileDiff/1078380200'

The fact that only two editors joined this discussion do tell a thing about how usless this discussion actually is on historic tittle but even two of them clearly favoured to use king/ruler. Packer&Tracker (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: Follow WP:INDENT, I am saying this like sixth time, do you have any comprehension issue or what? Also did you see where you were replying, read WP:TALK to learn. [9] This was added by you, the Romila Thapar book you added quote from [10] doesnt mention he unified several clans, only that other Sugata Bose book has that quote, and for this specific reason I started this RfC, there is no evidence whatsoever that he united any clans to fight Ghuri, that Sugata Bose most probably taken that from Ferishta or maybe it took from another secondary source which took this from Ferishta. Sugata Bose' and others' who copied Ferishta's content are general works dealing with wide subject of which Chauhan history is also a part. Specific study done by Dashratha Sharma, R.B. Singh and others explains every minute point in detail, doesnt mention any unifying of clans. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: You really need to back up your words before accusing me of WP:Indent again & again. The works of Sugata Bose and Romila Thapar are far far more recent then archaic but original works of Sharma and Singh (completed over half a century ago). In any case take out some time to read Dr. Sharma book Lecture on Rajput history and culture where he mentioned that he leads several Rajput clans from Rajasthan in Tarain battles. (I provided source even for that too despite adding authoritive modern works) (Even Ferishta took his chronicles from Hasan Nizami, Minhaj and other contemporary authors as well)

You really need to take a look at Thapar's quote before accusing me again

Although, I did the same thing in my very next reply by adding quotes

'Special:MobileDiff/1078381382'

Just you missed out there, here are those quotes again for you:-

An attack was launched on the Rajput kingdoms controlling the western gangetic plain. The Rajputs under banner of Prithviraj Chauhan gathered as best as they could and Prithviraja defeated Muhmmad Ghori at First battle of Tarain north of Delhi. Prithviraj was defeated on same place nextyear

The Rajputs gathered as best as they could under his banner, you are smart enough to understand nuance of this statement.

At last, If you going to stretch this argument again, neither me nor my sources claimed he led all Rajput clans of India at the time even Ranga Sanga who led similar alliance years later against Babur could not bring several rulers under his banner.

PS:- If I placed some of my comments in wrong folder it's polite request to pardon me for it as sometimes it's hard to judge it while editing through computer as compared to Mobile web edit. Packer&Tracker (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Asking you to follow WP:INDENT is not an accusation, my concern was simple, without people following indent, the discussion becomes too confusing, above that you random replied to my question on some old comment. I understand it sometimes become confusing but that is exactly why I asked you to read WP:INDENT. Anyway as I already said being modern doesn't always mean better, Sugata's work is in general work consisting of large period of history while those who studied the subject more thoroughly obviously deserves to be at better position to know the subject, unlike generalist who may not even had consulted primary sources and based their book on other secondary sources. Regarding uniting clans again you are confusing your sentence which is taken from Sugata Bose is not backed by Dr Sharma. Also I never said and don't put these words in my mouth that he united "all" the clans of north india, this is classic case of strawman fallacy, don't make up things and attack it which is not said by next person in the first place. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sajaypal007 I don't have personal issue with Prithviraj. Lmao, You are avoiding sources from Thapar which very clearly mentioned he gathered Rajputs as best they could. Also, Pali region rulers never call themselves Rasthrakutas they were from Badayun. Pali was small region where Rathore ruled and possibly founder of Rathores in Marwar, Rao simha was related to them. Puri quote talk about their participation. You still havent read book which I shared about Kachwaha Kings in my previous comment. Please go through it and then reply. Packer&Tracker (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007:, @Packer&Tracker:, hello. This is not my direct area of expertise — that lies over the Indus at this point and time, but I will do my best.

Firstly, on the subject of king vs emperor, it appears to be a non-starter. Yes, R.B. Singh uses the word empire to refer to the state; he also uses the word 'king' in direct reference to Prithviraj. Unless specific evidence can be provided which explicitly refers to him as an emperor, I do not see how it is a better option than 'king'.

On the subject of 'confederacy', it (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be an argument on whether one source (Ferishta) is reliable enough to cite as having all the 'Ranas of Hind' assemble. In such a case, it is far more encyclopedic to state both sides, and cite, impartially, the respective reasons for believing them. That is neutral and fair, no?

@Packer&Tracker:, please take this as a request to abide by WP:INDENT. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding emperor word, while all emperors have been interchangeably mentioned as king, ruler, monarch etc by same historians who refers to them as emperor, this doesnt change the fact that they were emperors, now coming to the point, R.B. Singh in his history of Chahamanas not just mentioned his territory as an empire but him as emperor too, so did Dashratha Sharma in his Early Chauhan Dynasty, and so does Har Bilas Sarda in his many works. Talbot's book on Prithviraj has in title itself words last hindu emperor. RV Somani who also wrote a book on Prithviraj also mentions him as emperor. These are almost all major works on Prithviraj Chauhan and all explicitly mention him as an emperor, there is no debate to it, the editor was trying to engage in WP:EDITWAR after he himself removed word emperor from the article without providing any source or only based on his understanding, WP:BURDEN of which he had to provide but he made no comments on sources even after I started this RfC, anyway regarding Confederacy part, Ferishta wrote many centuries after the event and he is known to make many mistakes. All the neighbours of Prithviraj Chauhan as I mentioned in discussion above were hostile to him/he was hostile to them. See the article itself, it is filled with his war with all his neighbours whether Chaulukya, Chandelas, Bhadanakas, Ghazanavids, Ghurids or cold relations with Gahadavalas. No contemporary sources mention any such confederacy, neither islamic nor hindu sources such as Prithviraj Vijay. Regarding secondary sources, I listed above all the secondary sources and historians who specifically wrote about Prithviraj Chauhan or Chauhan dynasty, unlike mention of him in generalized work like cited by the editor which took story from Ferishta. All these historians listed above specifically mentions him leading his army in battle not a single other ruler helping him or forming any confederacy. This was a needless discussion which I wanted to avoid but since not many commented and the editor again started his disruptive editing for similar disruptive editing elsewhere he is currently partially blocked too, I had to make these things clear. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: You should refrain yourself from calling my edits as disruptive again and again. Just for emperor, as you accused me of removing term emperor. It was not me who added/removed the cotation at first place either. It was again Asr99.0979 who added the tittle emperor 'Special:MobileDiff/1065409335' and changed years old version without any source. Regarding all historians who called him emperor, Well for Cynthia Talbot she actually mocked poor understanding of history of Indian contigent (according to her) like his associate professors Richard Eaton, Audrey Trushchke etc do. She used Todd who refered to him as Hindu emperor although there were Hindu kings at the time who were as powerful as him and even in later years. I personally thinks Dasharatha Sharma, R.B Singh are better authorties on this subject.

• I like to elaborate on miltary campaigns against Ghorids and his armies. I add two modern scholarly sources for the same so don't think I should really waste time again on it. But, Ferishta writting actually came from sources of that time like Hasan Nizami and other persian authorities with obvious exaggeration to make Ghorid victory more monumental. I never said he had good relation with neighbour Rajputs like Chaulkyas, Gahadavalas, Parmaras etc. So, these are only Rajput powers at the time ?? It's a fact that Amber family were close allies of Chauhan Rajputs through marriages and joined them in many battles which is mentioned by Dr. Sharma as well in his work Lecture on Rajput history & Culture, I earlier shared a book as well on Kachwaha Kings which mentioned same. Mewar family also took part in the battle under Mathnasimha (RV Somani 1981, Gopinath Sharma Rajasthan ka ithihas, GH Ojha Udaipur rajya ka ithihas) that's the reason I added content with source unlike other users who just insert any addition on their own. Thank you.

PS: I am She not He. Lol Packer&Tracker (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: Whoever added it, must have added it on the basis of sources as i described above all the secondary sources on Prithviraja mention him as an emperor as I mentioned above. It is you who without any backing of sources removed it. Also as I mentioned above these were all his neighbours if there were other rajput clans they were part of his empire, give source for any single sovereign ruler (i am stressing this part, sovereign ruler and not some clans or vassals who were part of his empire) who helped Prithviraj in the battle against Ghurids. Just provide sources, as you still didn't provide any single source. His territory touched Chandelas and Gahadavalas in east, if kachhwahas were living in modern Amber then they were part of his kingdom, in south his territory touched other Chaulukyas and other Chahamanas like Jalore and Nadol, if there were Rathores in between living there then they would have been part of his empire, I am not claiming any of this,just provide sources of separate and sovereign existence of any such clan which also helped him in the battle of Tarain. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: I am not going to waste my efforts again and again on same issue multiple times. You even claimed in your earlier replies that Kachwaha kings came into existence after his reign. Here is the book on Kachwaha rulers

Sarkar, Jadunath (1994). A History of Jaipur: C. 1503-1938. Orient Blackswan. pp. 20–33. ISBN 978-81-250-0333-5.

• Secondly about Mewar family, already named three sources for same, so 'these blog written in light of famous Rajasthan scholars'
• Secondly about Mewar family, already named three sources for same, so 'these blog written in light of famous Rajasthan scholars' I was preparing for Rajasthan civil service exams so I went through these site along with Study Iq. Packer&Tracker (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: I don't know what study iq is but these Rajras sources are blogs and not at all reliable, only source of value is Jadunath Sarkar's History of Jaipur which specifically mentions that this bardic version was taken from largest recension of Prithviraj Raso, Raso firstly was written quite a late, secondly largest recension is even less reliable than short recension. And neither the source even say he was independent or anything, since Prithviraj's territory wholly engulfed later Kachhwaha kingdom and there is no contemporary mention of it. Read all the sources I mentioned above which critically study Prithviraj Chauhan's rule, none mentions any confederacy of any such rulers. Also read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, you can not make up anything on your own. You didn't comment on emperor point, we can discuss every point in detail separately so I can pin point exact problem and the sources backing it up. PS: These coaching notes, blogs etc are not at all reliable, these cant be used on wikipedia. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Any vassal or subjects of any kingdom participating in the battle is not called confederacy. Confederacy has specific meaning, there were many hindu rulers who fought under Mughal empire, against their enemies, this is not called Mughal confederacy. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: Nobody can accuse me of adding any WP:RS. infact only content addition by me in this article is sourced by top-notch scholarly material published by reputable university publishing houses.

'Special:MobileDiff/1078380200 so as I said, I don't need to explain this by quoting primary ref which I already did. (Since you were going gaga over term confederacy, Didn't even use confederacy but actually added he united Rajput clans backed up by source)

• The relation of Kachwaha Rajputs are well known with Chauhan Rajputs even before birth of Prithviraj as they migrated there in 12th century or some say even in 11th. Since you dimissed my source so easily, here is another one for you from Professor Refaqat Ali khan 'here' which mentioned on page 94 that:-

It's a well known fact that Pajjun was a contemporary of Raja Prithviraj Chauhan who ruled during twelfth century. In later page he also mentioned Kachwaha Kings participation in Battles of Tarain

(I am stressing on their participation as you claimed that Kachwaha came later after his death, from UP-Bihar belt) (even earlier source I added clearly mentioned that Kachwaha's were part of Rajput alliance in Tarain which was main point)

• I know Study iq or these educational blogs are not reliable as per standards of Wikipedia but just for quick accessiblity I added it (although these educational sites use sources from high end scholars to not misguide students), For Mewar family participation, I already mentioned two sources in my earlier replies. (Udaipur rajya ka Ithihas by G.N Ojha (rajrajas site used his book as source there)
• At last for King vs Emperor, I didn't add this label here, I am answerable to my content addition which I added with reliable sources. There are no reason why Emperor is any better then King either which a user pointed out earlier too but as I said I only added content here once and did that by using secondary source from reputed publishing house. Packer&Tracker (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: follow WP:INDENT, let's talk one by one to make matter less confusing, firstly about Emperor word, yes it is your WP:BURDEN, even removal should be backed by some reasoning, yours was that he was not an emperor, his uncle Vigraharaja was. Against which I provided all the sources which explicitly talks about Prithviraj and mentions him as an emperor. Let's discuss this point first then we will come to the next point. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: Yes, as you said to make matter less confusing. I brought another source from a Military historian Kaushik Roy 'here'

The total strength of Ghurid army is 120,000 including Turks, Tajiks and Afghans. The Rajput confederacy was led by Prithviraj Chauhan, the Chauhan ruler of Ajmer

As for emperor, I will take that issue by tommorow or If I got spare time will comment on it in few hours. (For reading king there, all previous revisions (check them) mentioned king. In any case king seems far more nuance and modern scholars used the same) Packer&Tracker (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: Are you willing to discuss Confederacy part first then? Earlier you said he was not an emperor but his uncle was, later you shifted goalpost and after knowing he was called Emperor, you changed reasoning and started talking about nuance and wording. Wikipedia is not static and that is why it is edited, if something was written for long doesnt mean it was holy truth. Anyway lets not stray from topic and start confederacy part first, shall we ? Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: Well, If you want to turn this article into one sided commentary in his praise you can, I won't object then. Yes, Wikipedia is not static but these isn't any improvement. Several kings before and after him ruled such territory and none of them were called emperor either like Maldev Rathore & Rana Sanga (may be some texts do but they also used king too). A ruler who ruled a part of Northern India can not be called Emperor either. Neither modern scholars use emperor with him in same frequency as they did with Mughals, Ashoka or even Allaudin Khajli whose expansion was in much of Southern India too. You requested for comments (RFC) but only one editor comment that too opposing your pushing of Emperor instead of King. Packer&Tracker (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC) PS:- I never used confederacy in my one & only edit on this page either (regarding content addition) Packer&Tracker (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: I have asked too many times in good faith to follow WP:INDENT, you are making the discussion look much confusing. Again, you instead of relying on facts, started with random opinions, I won't address them as it will again create digression, just talk about subject on hand. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: You still replied on this discussion. You said I will discuss King-Emperor point tomorrow, when I asked you about the confederacy point to discuss then, you didn't reply on that point. You are clearly reverting back and forth and engaging in WP:EDITWAR on the article. In the edit summary you are calling the discussion useless, yet you want to keep your preferred version of the article. Start discussion here and don't change back and forth to your preferred version, it was your edit change which was opposed hence it is your WP:BURDEN to prove the point. Please tell which point you want to discuss first, confederacy or emperor one. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Packer&Tracker , it is for you

1. As I said he was mostly mentioned as a "Samrat" which is equivalent to the emperor 2.He controlled much of North India , Even if I go with your logic of Bisaldev Chauhan who is the ancestor of Prathviraj Chuahan then again we have to call Prathviraj Chuahan an Emperor , it is because later Mughals after decline of Mughal Empire were also known as Emperor's who were the puppets of Marathas and Rajput's , the later Mouryans were also known as Emperor's while they had no such terrorises like their ancestors , it is obvious to call Prathviraj as an Emperor 3. Shashivrata was may be debatable but not Sanyukta , she is well known historical figure in Indian history , also icchani kumari parmar Asr99.0979 (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Asr99.0979: He is not mentioned as emperor in modern scholarly works (1950 onwards), As AirshipJungleman29 inserted that I do not see how it is a better option than 'king'

• He never controlled much of Northern India, The core territory of→ Chauhan Rajput kingdom was based in eastern Rajasthan area of Hadot (Kota, Bundi, Jhalwar and Baran) Prithviraj ruled what is now eastern Rajasthan, northern Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Upper part of Ganga-Yamuna Doab. You need to present sources where it states that he ruled all of North India and firstly know What is North India. Thanks Packer&Tracker (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)