Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The Great Rajput King Prithviraj Chauhan

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

2401:4900:4112:9935:A144:A684:F55B:132E (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2021 (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. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 13:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Rajput

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

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)

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)

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 her work states the same that Rajput identity didn't exist in twelvth century, I went through her 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 exist 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 2-3 historians to back up your bogous claims 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)