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) 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)

• Being a history lover, I too supports the notion of adding Rajput bit in lead itself. Cheers. FooberFan77 (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

References

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

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

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)