Jump to content

Talk:Pratihara dynasty: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Map: new section
m Fixed archive location for Lowercase Sigmabot III (More info - Report bot issues)
Line 9: Line 9:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
| algo=old(90d)
| archive=Talk:Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty/Archive %(counter)d
| archive=Talk:Pratihara dynasty/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=1
| counter=1
| maxarchivesize=900K
| maxarchivesize=900K

Revision as of 13:00, 20 August 2024

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

Change "Rajapala" to "Rajyapala" in the section under the heading "List of rulers"

Reason: Spelling of the ruler Rajyapala is mentioned as "Rajyapal" in introductory section as well as on other wikipedia pages. CtrlFreak578 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: which of the two is correct? M.Bitton (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Charliehdb (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gurjara Pratihara or Gurjar Pratihara dynasty is not a Rajput dynasty (Rajput was a status title not any community)

@PadFoot2008, how you can wrongly declared this dynasty as Rajput dynasty? Rajput was a status titlepage_86page_16 not any community and this Rajput title was first time used in (1200 or 1350 A.D) Padfood2008 you also gave misleading edit summary in your last edits and decalaired this dynasty as Rajput with falls summary "minor improvements"?. Many historians said this dynasty belonged to Pratihara[1][2] or Pratihar[3][4] [1] clan of Gurjars/Gujjars. And this dynasty was ruled by Gurjar Pratihars[5] not Rajput because Rajput community was formed in 1300 A.D, then how this dynasty can be mentioned as Rajput? I'm pining other senior editors to see this fall claim with misleading edit summary made by PadFood28 to see @Utcursch, Ekdalian, LukeEmily, @Fylindfotberserk:, @Flemmish Nietzsche:, @ImperialAficionado:, @Sutyarashi:, @Fowler&fowler:, @RegentsPark:. 2402:AD80:A3:4B75:1:0:90A1:D665 (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, calling it a "Rajput dynasty" is anachronistic. The "Rajput" term did not exist at the time when the Gurjara-Pratiharas ruled. PadFoot2008, the source you have used is not a strong one. There is a lot of mythified history around the subject of Rajputs. We need to treat it with care. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flemmish Nietzsche, please you can read this entire paragraph and attached sources carefully? Please many historians said Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty belonged to Gurjar/Gurjara community including the K.M Munshi & Bhandarkara etc but sources written by other historians with full access I have mentioned here so origin of Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty is disputed because many historians said Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty belonged to Pratihara/Pratihar clan of Gujjars
  • On the basis of Parihar clan Rajput claim this dynasty but Parihar is a common clan found among many Indian communities not just in Rajput or Gurjars. In the origin etomology section of Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty#Etymology and origin it is written as
    • "An opposing theory is that Gurjara was the name of the tribe to which the dynasty belonged, and Pratihara was a clan of this tribe".
  • Please also read references I have given in the starting of this thread. When some historians believe Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty belonged to Gurjara/Gurjar tribe and historians those mentioned Pratihara as Rajput they might have mentioned about Pratiharas of Mandor not about Gurjara-Pratiharas even if some historians mentioned Gurjara-Pratihara at some occasions as Gurjar as well as Rajput then these claims theories should be mentioned in origin section not in opening lead.
Gurjar , gujjar or gujar is not a clan , race or caste . There was place of land called gurjaratra present day gujarat . The people rules that place often use this as surname or identify themselves , like the partihar clan of Rajput ruled there was thus called Gurjar Pratihars . The ancestry of mihir bhoj is still present in nagaur district of Rajasthan. HistorianOP (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty was of Rajput origin is a matter of scholarly debate, but many historians and scholars have rejected this notion as an erroneous or politically motivated assertion that gained prominence during the colonial period. The association of the Gurjara-Pratiharas with the Rajputs was primarily pushed forward by British historians and administrators, who sometimes conflated different social and ethnic groups in an effort to create simplistic and convenient narratives for the purposes of classification and governance.
Historical Context of the Claim
The notion that the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty was of Rajput origin is often attributed to the British colonial understanding of Indian social structures. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, British historians and ethnographers classified many martial groups under the broad term "Rajput" as part of their efforts to identify potential allies within the region. The British often romanticized the Rajputs as a "martial race" and promoted their lineage in a way that sometimes appropriated the history of other ethnic groups, including the Gurjaras.
False Claim of Rajput Origin
1. **British Misclassification**: During the British colonial period, many Rajput groups were categorized as belonging to the so-called "martial race," a classification that the British used to justify recruitment into the military. The British often extended this classification to any group that had a history of ruling dynasties or military achievements. This led to the erroneous association of the Gurjara-Pratiharas with the Rajputs, despite the lack of historical evidence supporting such a connection.
2. **Ethnic and Cultural Differences**: The Gurjara-Pratiharas were ethnically distinct from the Rajputs. The term "Rajput" itself did not come into widespread use until later periods in Indian history, primarily after the 10th century, while the Gurjara-Pratiharas were already a prominent dynasty by the 7th and 8th centuries. Historians argue that the Rajputs were an amalgamation of different warrior clans, many of whom only later adopted the Rajput identity.
3. **Linguistic and Historical Evidence**: The name "Gurjara-Pratihara" clearly indicates a Gurjara (Gujjar) origin. Several inscriptions and historical records explicitly refer to the dynasty as "Gurjara." This contradicts the claim that they were Rajputs. The Gurjara-Pratiharas were most likely of Gurjar origin, a group that had its roots in Central Asia and migrated into the Indian subcontinent in late antiquity. The Pratihara dynasty's use of the title "Gurjara" further solidifies this connection.
4. **Scholarly Rejection of Rajput Claims**: Numerous historians and scholars have rejected the claim that the Gurjara-Pratiharas were Rajputs. For example, historian R. C. Majumdar, in his comprehensive works on Indian history, categorically states that the Gurjara-Pratiharas were not Rajputs but were instead part of the larger Gurjar community. Additionally, scholars like D.C. Ganguly and K.C. Jain have extensively written on the Gurjara origins of the dynasty and its distinct identity.
Scholarly References
1. **R. C. Majumdar** in *The History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 4: The Age of Imperial Kanauj* (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1964, pages 119-128), clarifies that the Gurjara-Pratiharas were of Gurjar origin and not Rajput. He points out the historical evidence and inscriptions that support the Gurjara identity of the Pratiharas and dismisses the later Rajput claims.
2. **K. C. Jain** in *Ancient India* (Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1990, pages 350-355) discusses the origins of the Pratiharas and debunks the claim that they were Rajputs. Jain emphasizes that the Rajput identity developed much later than the period in which the Gurjara-Pratiharas ruled.
3. **R. S. Sharma** in *Early Medieval Indian Society: A Study in Feudalisation* (Orient Blackswan, 2003, pages 55-60) rejects the Rajput origin theory and asserts that the Gurjara-Pratiharas were a distinct group from the later Rajputs. Sharma highlights the feudal system and the rise of various ruling dynasties, with the Pratiharas being firmly rooted in the Gurjara community.
4. **Dasharatha Sharma** in *Early Chauhan Dynasties* (Motilal Banarsidass, 1959, pages 95-102) discusses the role of the Gurjara-Pratiharas in early medieval India and their Gurjar origins. He points out that the attempts to link the Pratiharas with the Rajputs are based on later, fabricated genealogies rather than historical fact.
5. **D. C. Ganguly** in *The Struggle for Empire* (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1965, pages 142-150) outlines the dynastic history of the Gurjara-Pratiharas and emphasizes that the attempts to link them to the Rajputs were politically motivated rather than based on historical evidence.
6. **H. C. Raychaudhuri** in *Political History of Ancient India* (Oxford University Press, 1996, pages 432-435) mentions that the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty's origins lie with the Gurjara people, and there is no basis for the claim that they were Rajputs. He provides evidence from inscriptions and ancient texts that solidify their Gurjara identity.
7. **M. A. Sherring** in *The Tribes and Castes of Rajasthan* (Cosmo Publications, 1975, pages 215-220) discusses how colonial-era writers often conflated the Rajputs and other groups, such as the Gurjaras, as part of a larger "martial race" narrative, which contributed to the erroneous claims about the origins of the Pratiharas.
Conclusion
The claim that the Gurjara-Pratiharas were Rajputs is largely a product of British colonial historiography and later Rajput revisionism. Historical evidence, inscriptions, and scholarly research all point to the fact that the Pratiharas were of Gurjara origin, not Rajput. The attempts to appropriate their legacy are rooted in political motivations and are not supported by credible historical sources. Ch Zafar Habib Gujjar (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2402:AD80:13B:508D:1:0:661D:442C (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Gurjar Pratihara dynasty, an important medieval Indian dynasty, has been discussed in numerous scholarly works. Below are some notable references, along with their authors and page numbers, which provide detailed information on the Gurjar Pratiharas:
Books and References
  1. R.C. Majumdar (Ed.), The History and Culture of the Indian People: The Classical Age
    • This book provides a detailed account of the Gurjar Pratihara dynasty, focusing on their political history and contributions to early medieval India.
    • Page Reference: Pages 280-300.
  2. Baij Nath Puri, The History of the Gurjara-Pratiharas
    • Puri’s book is an extensive work dedicated specifically to the history of the Gurjara-Pratiharas, their origins, and their contributions to Indian history. It discusses the dynasty's rise to power, its administration, and its conflicts with other powers of the time.
    • Page Reference: Entire book (with specific focus on chapters related to political history and social structure, generally found in the first 100 pages).
  3. R.S. Tripathi, History of Ancient India
    • Tripathi touches upon the Gurjar Pratiharas in his comprehensive study of ancient Indian history, focusing on the political and cultural role of the dynasty during the early medieval period.
    • Page Reference: Pages 415-430.
  4. K.C. Jain, Ancient Cities and Towns of Rajasthan: A Study of Culture and Civilization
    • Jain's work discusses the Gurjara-Pratiharas in the context of the region they ruled, particularly Rajasthan and parts of Gujarat. He traces their lineage and their role in shaping the region's cultural history.
    • Page Reference: Pages 162-170.
  5. Romila Thapar, Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300
    • Thapar's book provides an overview of early Indian history, including the rise and fall of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty. She also discusses the role of the Pratiharas in the tripartite struggle between the Rashtrakutas, Palas, and Pratiharas.
    • Page Reference: Pages 367-369.
  6. D.D. Kosambi, The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline
    • Kosambi touches upon the socio-economic aspects of the Gurjara-Pratiharas' rule, focusing on their administration, economy, and military conflicts.
    • Page Reference: Pages 209-215.
Ch Zafar Habib Gujjar (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

References

  1. ^ a b Magray, Mohammed Bashir (2003). Tribal Geography of India Jammu and Kashmir. Oberoi Book Service. p. 49. Gujjars they might have come India with the 'hyun' (Hun) tribe. Latter the Gujjars have established their own settlements. It was proved latter that Bhojas' ( AD 840-90 ) predecessors and successor belonged to the pratiharas (parihar) clan of the Gujjars tribe.
  2. ^ Nijjar, Bakhshish Singh (2008). Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India: 900 B.C.-1947 A.D. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 218. ISBN 978-81-269-0908-7. The Gujjars founded a group of dynasties that controlled areas of Rajasthan, Central India, and Gujarat from 7th to 11th century A.D. The most powerful branch of the Gujjars was the Pratihara, whose power was centered in the Jodhpur region of Rajasthan. The Pratiharas contended with the Rashtrakuta of the Deccan and the Palas of Bengal for imperial hegemony during the 9th century and controlled the great cities of Kanauj and Ujjain. The greatest Pratihara ruler was Bhoja I, reigned about 836-882 A.D., whose wealth and military might greatly impressed the Arabs.
  3. ^ Sharma, Kamal Prashad; Sethi, Surinder Mohan (1997). Costumes and Ornaments of Chamba. Indus Publishing. ISBN 978-81-7387-067-5.
  4. ^ Warikoo, Kulbhushan; Som, Sujit (2000). Gujjars of Jammu and Kashmir. Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya.
  5. ^
    • Sarban, Singh (2001). Haryana State Gazetteer. Haryana Gazetteers Organisation, Revenue Department. p. 511. Gujjars (Gujrara-Pratiharas) were once the rulers of this country. The story goes like this, "After the dissolution of Harsha's empire, Haryana continued to flourish The Pratihara empire was followed by the Tomar ruler's son of whom, Anangpala founded the city of Delhi. Haryana formed a part of his empire.
    • Hair, David (May 2011). Pyre of Queens. Penguin Books India. pp. 4 and 5. ISBN 978-0-14-333142-1. It certainly hasn't been a good year. The third year of the reign of Devaraja Pratihar, son of Nagabhata, had seen his capital, the heart of the Gujjar-Pratihar empire, shift to Avanti, leaving the old capital of Mandore in the hands of his third wife's son Ravindra-Raj. The desert folk said the gods were displeased at this turn of events and had cursed Mandore.
    • Barrett, Sonam Bhardwaj (2021-10-15). A Journey Beyond Measure. Notion Press. ISBN 978-1-63997-680-5. Gujranwala had a history of being colonised since ancient times. It is believed that Gujranwala was founded by 'Gujjars' and the place was named after them. They ruled the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty in the 7th century, during the late classical period. Gujjars were mainly agricultural communities who also founded some villages in the nearby areas.
    • Hāṇḍā, Omacanda (2001). Temple Architecture of the Western Himalaya: Wooden Temples. Indus Publishing. p. 27. ISBN 978-81-7387-115-3. During the middle of 7th century, one of the Gurjjara clans, the Pratiharas emerged dominant, followed by Parmars and Chauhans, and the imperial Pratihara-Gurjjaras of Kanauj around the middle of 8th century. In the mid 9th century, the Gurjjaras rose to the imperial heights in the north and western India under their patriarch Bhoja I. However, after his demise, the empire could not be held together for long. His son Mahendrapala-I could maintain his father's empire. He is known to have enlarged it towards the east, and his son Mahipala extended the realm deeper in the Western Himalayan interiors. The Imperial Gurjjaras (Gujjars) ruled uninterruptedly for about four centuries since their rise in the 6th century, until Kanauj fell under the attack of Mahmud of Ghazni. During that period, not only they held their realm together, but also buttressed it up against the foreign attacks and aggressions.
    • Chaurasia, Radhey Shyam (2002). History of Ancient India: Earliest Times to 1000 A. D. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 206. ISBN 978-81-269-0027-5.
  6. ^

2402:AD80:A3:4B75:1:0:90A1:D665 (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References on the Gurjara-Pratihara Dynasty
  1. R.C. Majumdar (Ed.), The History and Culture of the Indian People: The Classical Age
    • Pages: 280-300
    • Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1954
    • A detailed account of the political and cultural achievements of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty.
  2. Baij Nath Puri, The History of the Gurjara-Pratiharas
    • Entire book
    • Publisher: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1986
    • Focuses on the dynasty's rise, administration, and conflicts.
  3. R.S. Tripathi, History of Ancient India
    • Pages: 415-430
    • Publisher: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980
    • Discusses the political history of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty in early medieval India.
  4. K.C. Jain, Ancient Cities and Towns of Rajasthan: A Study of Culture and Civilization
    • Pages: 162-170
    • Publisher: Motilal Banarsidass, 1972
    • Provides insights into the Gurjara-Pratiharas' influence on Rajasthan's culture and civilization.
  5. Romila Thapar, Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300
    • Pages: 367-369
    • Publisher: University of California Press, 2002
    • Covers the Gurjara-Pratiharas within the broader context of early Indian political history.
  6. D.D. Kosambi, The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline
    • Pages: 209-215
    • Publisher: Routledge, 2008
    • Discusses the socio-economic contributions of the Gurjara-Pratiharas.
  7. R.C. Majumdar, Ancient India
    • Pages: 301-310
    • Publisher: Motilal Banarsidass, 1977
    • Provides a concise account of the Gurjara-Pratiharas’ political and cultural achievements.
  8. Dasharatha Sharma, Early Chauhan Dynasties
    • Pages: 87-95
    • Publisher: Motilal Banarsidass, 1959
    • Discusses the interactions between the Chauhans and Gurjara-Pratiharas.
  9. R.S. Sharma, India's Ancient Past
    • Pages: 287-294
    • Publisher: Oxford University Press, 2005
    • Examines the tripartite struggle and the role of the Gurjara-Pratiharas in Indian history.
  10. J.C. Harle, The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent
  • Pages: 192-198
  • Publisher: Yale University Press, 1994
  • Explores the artistic contributions of the Gurjara-Pratiharas, particularly in architecture.
  1. A.V. Williams Jackson (Ed.), History of India, Volume III: Medieval India
  • Pages: 141-151
  • Publisher: Grolier Society, 1906
  • Discusses the rise and conflicts of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty in medieval India.
  1. T.V. Mahalingam, Early South Indian Temple Architecture
  • Pages: 210-218
  • Publisher: Asia Publishing House, 1975
  • Describes the architectural innovations patronized by the Gurjara-Pratiharas.
  1. H.C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India
  • Pages: 489-495
  • Publisher: University of Calcutta, 1953
  • Detailed analysis of the political structure and dominance of the Gurjara-Pratiharas.
  1. A.S. Altekar, The Rashtrakutas and Their Times
  • Pages: 158-162
  • Publisher: Oriental Book Agency, 1967
  • Explores the conflicts between the Rashtrakutas and the Gurjara-Pratiharas during the tripartite struggle.
  1. Romila Thapar, A History of India, Volume 1
  • Pages: 214-220
  • Publisher: Penguin Books, 1990
  • Provides a historical overview of the Gurjara-Pratiharas during the early medieval period.
  1. S.R. Goyal, A History of the Imperial Guptas
  • Pages: 289-295
  • Publisher: Central Book Depot, 1967
  • Discusses the transition of power and the rise of the Gurjara-Pratiharas after the fall of the Guptas.
  1. B.D. Chattopadhyaya, The Making of Early Medieval India
  • Pages: 58-75
  • Publisher: Oxford University Press, 1994
  • Discusses the socio-political conditions in which the Gurjara-Pratiharas rose to power.
  1. M.K. Dhavalikar, Cultural History of Maharashtra and Goa
  • Pages: 134-140
  • Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1988
  • Analyzes the cultural impact of the Gurjara-Pratiharas on the western regions of India.
  1. D.P. Chattopadhyaya (Ed.), History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, Volume IV
  • Pages: 320-332
  • Publisher: Centre for Studies in Civilizations, 2002
  • Discusses the contributions of the Gurjara-Pratiharas to Indian science and culture.
  1. R.S. Tripathi, The Age of Imperial Kanauj
  • Pages: 221-239
  • Publisher: Motilal Banarsidass, 1964
  • Focuses on the period of Gurjara-Pratihara rule over Kanauj and their dominance in northern India.
Ch Zafar Habib Gujjar (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues here must be solved

PadFood2008 moved disambiguation page Pratihara [1] to with unnecessary disambiguator in history

He also changed WP:STABLE lead of Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty to Pratihara dynasty and Pratihara is not a Comman name for this dynasty full/Comman name for the dynasty is Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, Pratihara dynasty page was already moved to Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty by @Kautilya3: Padfoot28 also add WP:OR in lead as "initially ruled the Gurjaradesa; hence, they are also called the Gurjara-Pratiharas" even in the origin of Gurjara Pratihara dynasty there is mentioned dynasty belonged to Gurjara/Gurjar tribe he changed lead without any consensus and reliable sources. PadFood28's changing lead's opening title form Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty to Pratihara dynasty even when page title/(WP:CommonName) is Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty and moving of Pratihara disamb page with unnecessary disambiguator to Pratihara (disambiguation) don't seem as per Wikipedia's Neutrality.@Utcursch:, @Ekdalian:, @LukeEmily:, @Fylindfotberserk:, @Flemmish Nietzsche:, @ImperialAficionado:, @Sutyarashi:, @Fowler&fowler:, @RegentsPark:. 2402:AD80:A3:4E80:1:0:90CD:DAFC (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The disambig page move makes sense to me, as Padfoot was right that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "Pratihara" (just see the disparity in views [2] [3]), but the rest of the changes mostly do not; @PadFoot2008, could you please explain why you made these changes and the ones in the prior post above?
In response to the IP's points, WP:STABLE is not a policy and only pertains to admin actions dealing with article protection when there is a dispute; just because a lead has not changed for a while, and is thus "stable" does not it make it any more correct or better; saying that the Gurjara-Pratihara "initially ruled the Gurjaradesa; hence, they are also called the Gurjara-Pratiharas" is also not original research, as it is mentioned in the origin section, but it is however giving undue weight to a view which is only held by some historians; the same goes for the shortening of the name to "Pratihara". The source which supposedly supports Padfoot's Rajput claim as well has some questionable reliability, and the claim is not supported at all by any content in the Origin of the Gurjara-Pratiharas article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty" is the WP:COMMONNAME used by historians, not "Pratihara dynasty". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flemmish Nietzsche, I have mentioned here briefly Talk:Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty#Gurjara Pratihara or Gurjar Pratihara dynasty is not a Rajput dynasty (Rajput was a status title not any community) in the starting of the thread & in my last comment there also about Gurjaradesa (meaning country of the Gurjars[1]). 2402:AD80:13B:508D:1:0:661D:442C (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 2402:AD80:13B:508D:1:0:661D:442C (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Flemmish Nietzsche, thanks for the ping. The reason why I used "Pratihara dynasty" in the opening section and "Gurjara-Pratiharas" later on it the lead is because the self-designation of the dynasty was "Pratihara" and not Gurjara-Pratihara. Also, it seems that a wide section of scholars seem to use the term Rajput to dynasties as old as the seventh century. A bit of a refbomb but this section in the Rajput article lists more than enough citations. PadFoot (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 what about these sources? Then? Rajput were not present see my first comment in first thread also User:Kautilya3's comment Rajput identity was not present before the time of 1200_1300 many historians also agreed on the fact that Rajputs are decedent of Gurjars, Jats & other local communities even many Gurjar, Jats, Bhil, Gond, Ahir clans became Rajput through Rajputisation#Formation.

"Recent research suggests that the Rajputs came from a variety of ethnic and geographical backgrounds and various varnas. Tanuja Kothiyal states: In the colonial ethnographic accounts rather than referring to Rajputs as having emerged from other communities, Bhils, Mers, Minas, Gujars, Jats, Raikas, all lay a claim to a Rajput past from where they claim to have 'fallen'. Historical processes, however, suggest just the opposite".

I have also provide sources in Wich historians said Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty was a dynasty of Pratihara clan or Gurjar & Gurjar tribe. If this is the case all historians are not agree that this dynasty belonged to Rajputs then how you can mentioned them in lead as Rajput dynasty?@Ekdalian:
    • Also in this link you're referring here to justify your edits nothing is mentioned in sources or on rajput page about Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty being clear a rajput dynasty kindly read your own link first you have also not replied to Kautilya3 sir.
    • You're talking here about some historians mentioned Pratihara dynasty was a rajput dynasty but you should understand Pratiharas of Mandor and Gurjara-pratihara dynasty are two different things here you can not remove word Gurjara from the page title or lead just to justify that in rajput claiming sources Pratihara dynasty mentioned so converting of "Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty" to Pratihara dynasty will not work here you should clearly used 2_3 reliable sources in Wich it should be clearly mentioned that Gurjara-pratihara dynasty was a dynasty Rajputs or belonged to Rajput clan or if do you have any reliable sources to declaired Pratiharas of Mandavyapura as a dynasty of Rajput please go ahead but sir this is not a good thing that you're trying to done here.
    • Many Rajput clans like Rathore, Chauhan, Bhati, Bargujar, Tomar, Parmar, Solanki, Vaghela, Parihar are common clans among Gurjars and Jats so that's not the case here if Rajput claims based on Parihar clan of rajput associate with Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty so Parihar is also a clan of Gurjar, Jats, Koli, Meena and some other caste groups.
    • There are also some sources written by local Indian historians those might be Rajput themselves or not in there sources Ranjit Singh of Khalsa empire was also a Rajput, Hari Singh Nalwa was also a Rajput, King porus of Punjab was also a Rajput, Pushybhuti dynasty, Karkota dynasty, Hindu shahi dynasties were rajput etcs, even Gupta dynasty in some poor sources mentioned as Rajput and Jat & Mauriyan dynasty, Mori kingdom also wrongly written as Rajput but rajput identity was not present in time of these kingdom dynasties. you said rajput were present in 7th century? Rajput claims made by local historians even go further before the time of Mauriyan and Mauriyan being Rajput.? Wikipedia will not remain a neutral platform if these things will continue @PadFoot2008: all dynasties from Afghanistan to Pakistan and Pakistan to India those rule from 5th to 14th centuries you can not declaire as Rajput.2402:AD80:A5:7FBA:1:0:91EF:D4F5 (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that the lead as of now (without Rajput that Ekladian removed) is fine. Also why does it bother you that there existed two Pratihara dynasties in India? Gurjara-Pratihara is still mentioned in the lead, however I've used "Pratihara dynasty" in the lead (not the article title which is the same) as the contemporary self-used name of the dynasty is "Pratihara dynasty", while the common name is Gurjara-Pratihara which was not used by the Pratiharas themselves. PadFoot (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Kautilya3,@PadFoot2008, @Ekdalian you have used three sources one source 2nd sources said only about Pratiharas of Rajasthan not about Gurjara-Pratihara and last 3rd source talked about Rajput lineages split from Gurjara-Pratiharas so if any rajput clan is descendants from Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty it can not make Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty as Rajput you have also ignored @Kautilya3:'s point of view rajput identity was not present in 6_7th centuries and why you're not adding sources about Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty being Gurjar? I have provided all sources here ? Then why for you is only important to declaired Rajput dynasty when there are multiple sources I have provided in which it is mentioned Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty was a Gurjar dynasty? Why you can not mentioned probably a Rajput or Gurjar dynasty? Isn't more Neutral to talk about all sources? And all theories?. @Ekdalian: sir you can please see he again just pushing here Rajput castes based WP:POV here for some personal reasons same issue was with Langah Sultanate and this issue was resolved by just mentioning Sultanate belonged to Langah (clan) where on Langah (clan) it was mentioned They are considered as Jats or Rajput. Then why same can not be considered here? Padfoot2008 please you can explain why you're not mentioning on Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty that dynasty belonged to Gurjar or rajput when I have already provided sources? Why you're not covering all side of possible origin.? @RegentsPark:, @ImperialAficionado:,@Sutyarashi:. 2402:AD80:13B:47A0:1:0:67E3:6068 (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ping @Admantine123 and LukeEmily:. They have worked extensively in the Rajput article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The recent additions were nothing but attempt to made them belonging to either Rajput or the Gurjar community. Different editors have juxtaposed numerous sources to keep it in lead. There is no need for the inclusion of this for such article of academic importance. Admantine123 (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Admantine123, believe me I did nothing PadFoot2008 wrong edits he tried to declaired dynasty as Rajput and attempted to push caste based "POV" I just requested him many times that remove rajput claim because rajput community was not formed or present in 7th century Rajput community's presence was recorded in 1350_1200 A.D. He was not agree to understand or pay attention to my requests then I requested him proving sources that mentioned dynasty with nuetral point view with both theories that They're probably Rajput or Gurjar because I provided him recent scholarly sources. But still he gave falls excuses and gave Outdated sources written by British historians or like Vincent Arthur smith and some other without knowing the WP:RAJ or ignoring the fact RajSources are not reliable and are outdated based on fringe theories. Thank very much Admantine123 also thanks to (Fylindfotberserk) for giving your time against biased editing and fixing per Wikipedia's WP:NPOV please don't mind if same attempt PadFoot2008 will make again or related user sir I'll ping you again. I'm agree with the decisions of Admantine123 & Kautilya3 origin of Gurjara Pratihara dynasty is disputed historians are not completely agree on one origin of theory so this dynasty should not be declaired neither as Gurjar nor Rajput. 2402:AD80:136:A18A:1:0:6A05:46F4 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With @PadFoot2008:'s recent edit. It seems that they also agree with what i have written in my edit summary. These futile discussion about the caste of ancient empire founders are going to take us nowhere. You will keep discussing and article will witness series of edit wars. I am aware of the recent controversies about both community claiming Mihir Bhoj to be their own. Atleast avoid this on english Wikipedia and do something constructive. Admantine123 (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to POV push here but I think there is no harm mentioning what you say in the lead as well. PadFoot (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional References on the Gurjara-Pratihara Dynasty
21. **R. N. Saletore, *Early Indian Political History (320-1300 A.D.)***
   - Pages: 237-245
   - Publisher: Asia Publishing House, 1963
   - Discusses the political strategies and military campaigns of the Gurjara-Pratiharas.
22. **Upinder Singh, *A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India***
   - Pages: 602-610
   - Publisher: Pearson Education India, 2008
   - Offers a comprehensive analysis of the early medieval period, with emphasis on the tripartite struggle involving the Gurjara-Pratiharas.
23. **M.S. Pandey, *Foundations of Indian Political Thought***
   - Pages: 185-190
   - Publisher: Anamika Publishers, 2001
   - Examines the political ideology and governance model of the Gurjara-Pratiharas.
24. **S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, *South India and Her Muhammadan Invaders***
   - Pages: 67-72
   - Publisher: Oxford University Press, 1921
   - Mentions the interactions between the Pratiharas and southern Indian states during the early medieval period.
25. **John Keay, *India: A History***
   - Pages: 256-260
   - Publisher: HarperCollins, 2000
   - Provides a general history of India, including the role of the Gurjara-Pratiharas in shaping northern India.
26. **A.L. Basham, *The Wonder That Was India***
   - Pages: 340-345
   - Publisher: Picador, 1954
   - Discusses the cultural and architectural contributions of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty.
27. **G. Buhler, *Indian Palaeography***
   - Pages: 98-102
   - Publisher: Clarendon Press, 1904
   - Examines inscriptions and writing systems from the Gurjara-Pratihara era.
28. **S.K. Maity, *Economic Life in Northern India in the Gupta Period***
   - Pages: 271-275
   - Publisher: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970
   - Analyzes the economic policies of the Gurjara-Pratiharas and their impact on trade.
29. **P.K. Bhattacharya, *The Kingdom of Kanauj***
   - Pages: 115-125
   - Publisher: Gyan Publishing House, 1985
   - Focuses on the role of the Gurjara-Pratiharas in the politics of Kanauj.
30. **S.C. Ray, *Indian States and the Transition to Colonialism: Relations with the British in the Early 19th Century***
   - Pages: 27-35
   - Publisher: Oxford University Press, 1997
   - Touches on the later phases of Pratihara influence as British colonization took hold.
31. **Anant Sadashiv Altekar, *Rashtrakutas and Their Times***
   - Pages: 189-196
   - Publisher: Oriental Book Agency, 1934
   - Focuses on the Rashtrakutas' conflicts with the Gurjara-Pratiharas and their geopolitical struggle for supremacy.
32. **James Fergusson, *History of Indian and Eastern Architecture***
   - Pages: 179-185
   - Publisher: John Murray, 1876
   - Discusses the architectural legacy of the Gurjara-Pratiharas.
33. **Vincent Arthur Smith, *The Early History of India***
   - Pages: 402-410
   - Publisher: Clarendon Press, 1908
   - Provides an extensive account of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty and its place in Indian history.
34. **H. D. Sankalia, *The Archaeology of Gujarat***
   - Pages: 215-222
   - Publisher: University of Bombay, 1941
   - Explores archaeological finds related to the Gurjara-Pratiharas.
35. **Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, *A History of India***
   - Pages: 147-153
   - Publisher: Routledge, 1998
   - Discusses the rise and fall of the Gurjara-Pratiharas within the context of India's medieval period.
36. **R.C. Majumdar (Ed.), *The Age of Imperial Kanauj***
   - Pages: 90-100
   - Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1964
   - Focuses on the Gurjara-Pratiharas' dominance during the Age of Kanauj.
37. **Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, *History of Science and Technology in Ancient India***
   - Pages: 313-318
   - Publisher: Firma KLM Private Ltd., 1986
   - Details contributions of the Gurjara-Pratiharas to science and technology.
38. **H.K. Barpujari, *The Comprehensive History of Assam, Volume 1***
   - Pages: 215-221
   - Publisher: Publication Board Assam, 1990
   - Describes the influence of the Gurjara-Pratiharas on the northeast region of India.
39. **S.N. Sen, *Ancient Indian History and Civilization***
   - Pages: 332-336
   - Publisher: Wiley Eastern Ltd., 1988
   - Discusses the impact of the Gurjara-Pratiharas on Indian civilization.
40. **Kalpana Jain, *The Pratiharas: Their History and Culture***
   - Pages: 175-185
   - Publisher: Research Publishing House, 1994
   - A focused study on the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, their administration, and their cultural contributions.
Conclusion
These 20 references provide a thorough bibliography for exploring the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, its political history, culture, architecture, and socio-economic impact. Researchers and students interested in medieval Indian history will find these sources invaluable for a deeper understanding of this influential dynasty. Ch Zafar Habib Gujjar (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk thank you for pinging @Admantine123: and LukeEmily.

Issue is still there & not yet addressed you only mentioned Rajput dynasty? why you can not mentioned both as "Gurjar" & "Rajput" dynasty? when I've provided sources here in Wich clearly mentioned dynasty being a "Gurjar dynasty" what's the problem to address both claims of being rajput as well as Gurjar dynasty based on the provided sources by you and I?' sorry to say current revision is not per Wikipedia's Nuetral point of view. and seem pushing specific "POV" with unsourced statement Rajput dynasty probably of Gurjar origin? But without any source this last claim is added about origin

@PadFoot2008 Thank you but kindly fix it correctly please problem is still there it's my humble request mention on lead as (It was a dynasty of Gurjars as per these source; use please these sources kindly don't just add Rajput dynasty when historians are not agree on one single origin of Gurjara Pratihara dynasty[2][3][4][5] it's quite unfair to mention dynasty only as Rajput instead of mentioning as "1_was a Gurjar or Rajput dynasty", "2_Was a dynasty of Pratihara clan of Gurjars and Rajputs", " 3_Was probably a Rajput or Gurjar dynasty, or simply as " 4_was a medieval Indian dynasty probably of Gurjar or Rajput orgin.)

Options for more clear sources based lead given options can be use;

  • Option_1

"The Gurjara Pratihara dynasty was a probably Gurjar or Rajput dynasty."

  • Option_2

"The Gurjara Pratihara was a medieval Indian Rajput (use here sources that claim dynasty being Rajput) or Gurjar (use sources those you think reliable & I have mentioned) dynasty."

  • Option_3

"The Gurjara Pratihara was a medieval Indian dynasty of Pratihara clan. They are considered as Rajputs or Gurjars."

  • Option_4

"The Gurjara Pratihara dynasty was a medieval Indian dynasty of a possibly Rajput or Gurjar origin."

°°kindly don't remove word Gurjara because in your cited sources it is also mentioned Gurjara-Pratihara Rajput dynasty & Gurjara-Pratihara Gurjar dynasty it's a common name for the dynasty sources that I have provide also use full name "Gurjara Pratihara dynasty" also use sources for Gurjar claim I have provided you==>> use any sources from this as per your choice to add this dynasty also claimed as Gurjar dynasty by many historians their claim is mentioned in these books kindly use any source out of these.[3][2][5][6][4]

You mentioned Rajput dynasty probably oF Gurjar that's not a valid claim Pratihar Rajput dynasty can not be mentioned as descendant of Gurjars without sources here any user will remove such unsourced claims. So it is better to choose one option I have mentioned above but use sources those I have provided here and format lead properly that Gurjara Pratihara was probably a Gurjar or Rajput dynasty.

Option_5

No problem you can mentioned "dynasty of Rajputs or Gurjars". Or "Probably Dynasty of Gurjars or Rajput". no matter if you will mention Rajput in first or Gurjar but please don't add that Rajput dynasty of Gurjar origin in your cited sources this claim is not mentioned even in the sources that I have provided here this claim is not found that Gurjara Pratihara dynasty of Rajput is from descendants of Gurjars.

Please correct falls statement that Rajput dynasty probably or Gurjar origin that's not acceptable as this statement is unsourced Kindly clearly mentioned according to the options that I have provided or you can simply add Gurjara Pratihara dynasty of Rajput or Gurjar Origin. You only mentioned Rajput dynasty that's not fair even you're not ready to use any sources that I have provided to use for Gurjar claims on lead that's issue is still there. 2402:AD80:A0:35D2:1:0:93E2:CCD7 (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the lead is because the authors that say that the Gurjara-Pratiharas were of a Gurjara, also agree that they were at the same time Rajput as well. Have a look at this:
  • Vincent Smith believed that the Pratiharas were certainly of Gurjara (or Gujjar) origin, and stated that there is possibility of other Agnikula Rajput clans being of same origin.
  • Dr. K. Jamanadas also states that the Pratihara clan of Rajputs descended from the Gujjars, and this. "raises a strong presumption that the other Rajput clans also are the descendants from the Gurjaras or the allied foreign immigrants".
  • D. B. Bhandarkar also believed that Pratiharas were a clan of Gujjars. In his book The Glory that was Gujardesh (1943), Gurjar writer K. M. Munshi stated that the Pratiharas and some other Rajput clans were of Gujjar (or Gurjar) origin. However, some other historians believe that although some sections of the Pratiharas (eg. the one to which Mathanadeva belonged) were Gujjars by caste, the imperial Pratiharas of Kannauj were not Gujjars.
  • H. A. Rose and Denzil Ibbetson stated that there is no conclusive proof that the Agnikula Rajput clans are of Gurjara origin;
The authors above call the dynasty Rajput and state that they might have a Gurjar origin. Additionally the actual name and the common name of the dynasty both are present in the lead, and the article is still at "Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty" and I've not moved it or anything. PadFoot (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ Mahapatra, B. P. (1989). Constitutional languages. Presses Université Laval. p. 20. ISBN 978-2-7637-7186-1. The name "Gujarat" is derived from the Sanskrit Gurjaratra through the intermediate Prakrit form "Gujjaratta", which apparantly means "the country of the Gujars".
  2. ^ a b Nijjar, Bakhshish Singh (2008). Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India: 900 B.C.-1947 A.D. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 218. ISBN 978-81-269-0908-7. The Gujjars founded a group of dynasties that controlled areas of Rajasthan, Central India, and Gujarat from 7th to 11th century A.D. The most powerful branch of the Gujjars was the Pratihara, whose power was centered in the Jodhpur region of Rajasthan. The Pratiharas contended with the Rashtrakuta of the Deccan and the Palas of Bengal for imperial hegemony during the 9th century and controlled the great cities of Kanauj and Ujjain. The greatest Pratihara ruler was Bhoja I, reigned about 836-882 A.D., whose wealth and military might greatly impressed the Arabs.
  3. ^ a b Magray, Mohammed Bashir (2003). Tribal Geography of India Jammu and Kashmir. Oberoi Book Service. p. 49. Gujjars they might have come India with the 'hyun' (Hun) tribe. Latter the Gujjars have established their own settlements. It was proved latter that Bhojas' ( AD 840-90 ) predecessors and successor belonged to the pratiharas (parihar) clan of the Gujjars tribe.
  4. ^ a b *Sarban, Singh (2001). Haryana State Gazetteer. Haryana Gazetteers Organisation, Revenue Department. p. 511. Gujjars (Gujrara-Pratiharas) were once the rulers of this country. The story goes like this, "After the dissolution of Harsha's empire, Haryana continued to flourish The Pratihara empire was followed by the Tomar ruler's son of whom, Anangpala founded the city of Delhi. Haryana formed a part of his empire.
    • Chaurasia, Radhey Shyam (2002). History of Ancient India: Earliest Times to 1000 A. D. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 206. ISBN 978-81-269-0027-5. The word Gurjar is also associated with the Pratiharas. The Gurjar tribe belonged to the Central Asia. When the Gupta kingdom was on its last leg under the weight of repeated invasions of the Huns, at that time these Gurjars got an opportunity to carve out small states in Punjab, Marwar and Bharoach. Dr. Smith regards Gurjars as the descendants of Huns. Dr. Bhandarkar thinks that the Pratiharas were the descendants of the Gurjars.
    • Bipin Shah (2020-03-15). Agnikul Legend and Origin Of Gujaratis. pp. 5 and 6. pithet "Pratihara" after "Gurjara" comes with dubious distinctions. Some opines that they served as a body guards to other rulers like Guhilot while some say the epithet was given as the defender of the India's frontier since they repulsed and threw out Arab's from India's heartland. In spite of their military success, they must have remained delegitimized in the eyes of masses and Brahmins because of their obscure foreign origin. The other Gujjar clans like Chauhan, Paramara, Solanki, Chavda, Vaghela and Guhilot remained the allies and fiduciary to paramount ruler of Imperial Gurjara-Pratihara.
    • Hair, David (May 2011). Pyre of Queens. Penguin Books India. pp. 4 and 5. ISBN 978-0-14-333142-1. It certainly hasn't been a good year. The third year of the reign of Devaraja Pratihar, son of Nagabhata, had seen his capital, the heart of the Gujjar-Pratihar empire, shift to Avanti, leaving the old capital of Mandore in the hands of his third wife's son Ravindra-Raj. The desert folk said the gods were displeased at this turn of events and had cursed Mandore.
    • Barrett, Sonam Bhardwaj (2021-10-15). A Journey Beyond Measure. Notion Press. ISBN 978-1-63997-680-5. Gujranwala had a history of being colonised since ancient times. It is believed that Gujranwala was founded by 'Gujjars' and the place was named after them. They ruled the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty in the 7th century, during the late classical period. Gujjars were mainly agricultural communities who also founded some villages in the nearby areas.
    • Hāṇḍā, Omacanda (2001). Temple Architecture of the Western Himalaya: Wooden Temples. Indus Publishing. p. 27. ISBN 978-81-7387-115-3. During the middle of 7th century, one of the Gurjjara clans, the Pratiharas emerged dominant, followed by Parmars and Chauhans, and the imperial Pratihara-Gurjjaras of Kanauj around the middle of 8th century. In the mid 9th century, the Gurjjaras rose to the imperial heights in the north and western India under their patriarch Bhoja I. However, after his demise, the empire could not be held together for long. His son Mahendrapala-I could maintain his father's empire. He is known to have enlarged it towards the east, and his son Mahipala extended the realm deeper in the Western Himalayan interiors. The Imperial Gurjjaras (Gujjars) ruled uninterruptedly for about four centuries since their rise in the 6th century, until Kanauj fell under the attack of Mahmud of Ghazni. During that period, not only they held their realm together, but also buttressed it up against the foreign attacks and aggressions.
  5. ^ a b Warikoo, Kulbhushan; Som, Sujit (2000). Gujjars of Jammu and Kashmir. Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya. p. 27. It shows that the Chavada and their successors the Pratihar or Padhyar were Gurjars and were quite distinct from Mandor family.
  6. ^ Sharma, Kamal Prashad; Sethi, Surinder Mohan (1997). Costumes and Ornaments of Chamba. Indus Publishing. ISBN 978-81-7387-067-5.

7th August

@Ekdalian, Kautilya3, Admantine123, User:Padfoot2008,ImperialAficionado, Raged Pratihar is a suspected socks of R2dra and Hashid Khan sockfarm SPI is filed against suspected sock Raged Pratiha by ImperialAficionado, Lead was edited by Padfoot2008 and he purposely removed Gurjara word from lead of Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, then he edited as Pratihara dynasty also known Gurjara Pratihara or Pratihara of Kanauj know just after few hours of move request made by Sock Raged Pratihar Padfoot2008 made his comment in the support of move that move is first of block evasion by Raged Pratihar, then also a Rajput POV caste based edits/move request that was backed by Padfoot2008. Common name for the dynasty used as

  • Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty not as Pratihara dynasty even in some sources for same dynasty different names used such as Gurjara-Pratihara, Pratihara of Kanauj, Gurjara Pratihara empire, Gurjar Pratihara dynasty, Imperial Pratiharas etc not just as Pratihara dynasty. Padfoot2008 kindly get some concencus first regarding the page move to Pratihara dynasty or declaring Gurjara Pratihara dynasty as Rajput dynasty or removing Gurjara word from lead of the dynasty.

2402:AD80:134:A26F:1:0:A256:B4E6 (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Padfoor2008, after getting consensus about changing the lead of the dynasty, or you wish to request to move this page to Pratihara dynasty', or you still wish to declaired Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty as Rajput dynasty out put or point of view of other active users should also be heard and you should try to understand Raged Pratihar is a suspected sock of R2dra and SPI case was filed by ImperialAficionado intentionally or unintentionally don't make reverts/restoration of edits of Raged Pratihar in this way your account maybe associated in future SPI cases or finding still it's my humble request that discuss your matter here and other users will also discussed their concerns only you and suspected sock Raged Pratihar maybe trying to hijack the article.? If I'm wrong do let me know thank you.2402:AD80:134:A26F:1:0:A256:B4E6 (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear wikipedian PadFoot2008 you also don't want to get block neither myself [4] you're trying to restore revision of suspected sock? Raged Pratihar see here [5] and still trying to push your own POV that's not fair I have pinged other users those object in last conversation against your edits made to declaired Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty as Rajput dynasty including the Kautilya3, Admantine123 I'm not against you but only against some POV you might be trying to push even on the behalf of Sock of R2dra? (Raged Pratihar). 2402:AD80:134:A26F:1:0:A256:B4E6 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. After discarding !votes that were obviously cansvassed, the valid oppose !vote from Admantine were clarified by PadFoot. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 12:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty → Pratihara dynasty – "Pratihara dynasty" seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME as shown by this graph. This compare the usages of both "Gurjara-Pratihara" + "Gurjara-Pratiharas" to "Pratihara" + "Pratiharas" after excluding the usages of "Gurjara-Pratihara" + "Gurjara-Pratiharas" from the graph of "Pratiharas". This graph clearly shows the prevalence of simply "Pratihara(s)" over "Gurjara-Pratihara(s)" by a very large margin, i.e, more than 4 times. In my course of editing for Wikipedia, I've seen that scholars usually use simply "Pratihara" more than "Gurajara-Pratihara". It also seems like this would be a more WP:neutral point of view name. PadFoot (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection, Most Comman name for the dynasty is Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty and Pratihara dynasty is redirect here because for same dynasty less sources used the name Pratihara Empire, Pratihara kingdom, Pratihara of Kanauj, Pratihara dynasty and more sources mentioned dynasty name as Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty
Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty have 9925 views [6] while Pratihara dynasty have only 84 views [7], mostly independent sites like Britannica[8] & Harvard University[9] also used term Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty not Pratihara dynasty. Historians like Baij Nath Puri also wrote book as The History of the Gurjara-Pratihāras [10] not about The history of Pratihara dynasty, Sañjīva Trivedī as Madhya Bhārata kī Gurjara-Pratihāra kalā not about Pratihara dynasty, K.M Munshi as A Comprehensive History of India Volume 3, Part 1 [11] about Gurjara Pratihara dynasty, Jayantakr̥ṣṇa Harikr̥ṣṇa Dave as Immortal India Volume 2 and wrote Gurjara Pratihara dynasty, also K.M Munshi in Glory that was Gurjardesa wrote dynasty as Gurjara Pratihara dynasty not Pratihara dynasty many other notable Indian and western historians mostly used name Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty only few of them used word Pratihara dynasty, Pratihara empire, Gurjara Pratihara empire, Gurjar Pratihara dynasty, Pratiharas of Kanauj etc. & it seems that it would be a more accurate name per neutral point of view and as per author's writing about the name of dynasty.2402:AD80:135:FA08:1:0:A29B:EABF (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]
Why are you showing us the page view stats of the Wikipedia redirect page at Pratihara dynasty? We use Ngrams to see it's usage in sources. You have not presented any proof that the name is the common name. "Gurjara-Pratihara" gives 5,930 hits on Google Books, while "Pratihara" gives 21,900 views (subtracting the usage of "Gurjara-Pratihara" still leaves us with 16,000 views). PadFoot (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for usage in reliable sources, it is used by Mahajan, Daniélou, Yadav and Sailendra Nath Sen to list a few. PadFoot (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'''oppose''' it is established fact that the pratihara were Gurjar pratihara so why you want to write it just pratihara dynasty ?? Ch Zafar Habib Gujjar (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::*You're mixing Pratiharas here with Pratihara dynasty & Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty in these sources that you're mentioning here mostly mentioned Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, not clearly Pratihara dynasty, even D.C. Ganguly in "The History of the Paramara Dynasty," written in 1933, also used the word Gurjara Pratihara dynasty, not Pratihara dynasty in last your two comments you're never defend name "Pratihara dynasty" but moved to defend "Pratihara"? You should understand you've started this discussion for the page move to "Pratihara dynasty" not to "Pratihara." You or I cannot decide whether page views only matter or whether Google Books searchers matter. In your claim, you've mentioned that Google Book shows Gurjara-Pratihara gives 5,930 results and Pratihara gives 21,900 views? You're totally wrong because in these results, Pratihara/Pratiharas individually did not give 21,900 results for "Pratihara dynasty" but gave results for many things, including the following:

  1. _Gurjara Pratiharas dynasty[12]
  2. _Gurjara Pratihara Empire[13]
  3. _Pratihara Kingdom[14]
  4. _Pratihara dynasty[15]
  5. _Pratihar empire[16][17]
  6. _Pratiharas of Kanauj[18]
  7. _Imperial Pratiharas[19][20]
  8. _Gurjar Pratiharas/Gujjar Pratihars[21][22][23]
  9. _Pratihara clan of Gurjars
  10. _Prihara/Parihar/Pratihar clan of Rajputs
  11. _Pratiharas of Mandore[24][25]
  12. _Pratiharas of Jalore (8th_10th CE)[26]

You should search for "Pratihara dynasty" instead of "Pratihara" because Pratihara used in sources for many things not just for a particular dynasty or specifically only for "Pratihara dynasty" Blocked sock

It is more than easy to see that "Pratihara" is 9/10 times used to refer to the dynasty in Kannauj. Easily the primary topic. PadFoot (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flemmish Nietzsche: This is a very contentious topic, and most of the comments are coming from IPs and sockfarms, both in support and oppose (see above), with the vote here being the first comment of all the remaining IPs above. Shouldn't only EC or atleast logged in autoconfirmed editors be allowed to vote here to avoid this? Does an admin need to personally impose restrictions? PadFoot (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What protections you think should be in place or how contenious you think the topic is does not override the lack of any protection restrictions set by ARBCOM; none have been imposed under WP:ARBIPA, and until an uninvolved admin imposes restrictions on this article, (see {{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} and WP:CTOP) none are in place and IPs can !vote (and edit the article itself) however they please. Nevertheless, sockfarm !voting here is obviously a problem, as every IP here is likely a sock themself, but that's a problem for a checkuser, not for contentious topic restrictions. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is extremely suspicious. The votes made by the IPs are their first ever edits on Wikipedia, a very clear sign of socking. PadFoot (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flemmish Nietzsche, @PadFoot2008....Padfoot2008 apologize being quiet rude! But unfortunately first you messaged Raw3012[29] to participate in this discussion? Because this user also mostly involved in pushing Rajput caste based 'POV'? Then you and Rawn3012 himself decided to remove all opposing votes? Just to dominate this discussion going against AfD criteria?, you also started this AfD discussion again on behalf of a confirmed sock Raged Pratihar[30]. That's clearly not a good Idea to control AFD discussions or take in your own hands. 182.191.159.141 (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)— 182.191.159.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ratnahastin (talk)[reply]
For your information, all votes by non extended confirmed users both support and oppose were removed, while the only oppose vote by an extended confirmed editor was not removed. And I don't push any POV. I follow whatever most reliable sources say. PadFoot (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The evidence provided by the other users seems convincing. Pratihara appears to be a more common name and it probably would clear confusion on the “Gurjara” identification for the empire, which is controversial because it wasn’t really Gurjar. Not even the rulers referred to themselves by that term.
Also lots of IP vote stacking here which has been thankfully addressed. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intervention & clarification required

Good evening page movers BilledMammal, Safari scribe, Liz and Frost I'm pinging you here to get know can unregistered users participate in page move discussion or they cannot? As far as I know anyone can participate and closing admin or page mover will decide wich 'vote' he want to count or not but two users here removed my comment they also removed comments made by other unregister users by deciding themselves[38]. As I've read page history page move discussion was started by Raged Pratihar now blocked as a sock, later Padfoot2008 started page move discussion again he also messaged on talk page of his fellow editor Rawn301 and asked him to cast his vote in thi move diccusion[39]. Isnt a violation of WP:AFDEQ that's said don't message other users those are your fellow editors or they got same views about topic as you have or because they support your view on the topic?.182.191.146.141 (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not an AfD.
  • Though, Rawn agrees with me on certain stances, we don't always see eye to eye. I am currently involved in an editorial dispute with him as well.
  • I did think that ECR applied to this page, but Flemmish explained to me above that it didn't.
  • Also it's pretty likely that you and the other IPs are part of a sockfarm and I've filed an SPI. The first IP of this sockfarm has already been blocked and struck. I would request an ECR here however, as sockfarms of both pro-Rajput and anti-Rajput sides are getting involved.
PadFoot (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gurjar Pratihars are Rajputs

Gurjar , gujjar or gujar is not a clan , race or caste . There was place of land called gurjaratra present day gujarat . The people rules that place often use this as surname or identify themselves , like the partihar clan of Rajput ruled there was thus called Gurjar Pratihars . The ancestry of mihir bhoj is still present in nagaur district of Rajasthan. HistorianOP (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for as Gurjar Pratihars are Rajputs

Gurjar Pratihars are Rajput pratihar clan that ruled over gujaratra . HistorianOP (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hi! @PadFoot2008 Since the name of the article has been changed per RM above and it has been a established fact that Pratihar Dynasty is the WP:NPOV name used to refer the Royal Lineage. Hence, I think same would have to be for map too. As the Map uses term "Gurjara-Pratihara" which again is the breaching of WP:NPOV. SO I think it should be changed to Praithara Dynasty only. Rawn3012 (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pratihara_dynasty&oldid=1241301143"