Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

King vs Emperor

Bringing end to a rank ridiculous discussion. To reiterate Johnbod, There's really no point arguing from the historical facts between these two titles, neither precise nor of Indian origin. We have to use what most modern WP:RS use. Which is "king" or "ruler" afaik.TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker You are clearly showing your personal view by rejecting the view's of Richard Eaton, Audrey Trushchke and even James Tod, It's your personal view but why to put this view in this article ? In many works including contemporary sources he was mentioned as an Emperor , you are clearly rejecting this fact and making your own fact , also he was mentioned as " Maharajadhiraj " which has higher position then a King , how can you write King in the presence of such vast information ? The contemporary peoples like Ferishta mentioned him as an Emperor , you can't just put your view in the name of so called modern works , If we even talk about Mughals and Mouryans , the later Mughals were also Emperor's but they had no empire like their ancestors , as you said they have even South India but the later Mughals and Mouryans have not , then why to call them Emperor's ? Go and write " King " there , if I go through with your logic that his ancestors like Vigrahraj Chauhan were Emperor's then he also deserve to be known as Emperor just like Mughals and Mouryans ? why not ? even he had more area then Vigrahraj Chauhan , as you said about Rana Sanga , first of all Rana do not have such empire like Prathviraj Chuahan , even the contemporary writer Ferishta mentioned Rana Sanga as the bravest of all Rajput's after Prathviraj Chuahan , now you will think what was the position of Prathviraj Chuahan in those times , sorry but I can't see such type of vandalism when we have lots of counter arguments against calling him a King but we do kot have such arguments to " not calling him an Emperor " Now talk about the area , I didn't wrote that he ruled North India don't try to make false arguments , i said he ruled much of North India , he ruled entire Rajasthan (not only eastern , if he ruled only eastern then provide source for that , according to you then he didn't ruled Ajmer which is not in the eastern part of Rajasthan) much of Madhya Pradesh after defeating Chandela's and Paramara's and Haryana, He ruled parts of Uttar Pradesh , Gujrat (after defeating Chalukya's) , This perfectly makes much of North India Asr99.0979 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC) There's really no point arguing from the historical facts between these two titles, neither precise nor of Indian origin. We have to use what most modern WP:RS use. Which is "king" or "ruler" afaik. His pretty brief period at the top of the pile, and that he died as a captive of a more powerful ruler doesn't help. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Johnbod: I agree this is really a pointless discussion about historic tittle. IMHO, King/Ruler are more appropriate. Packer&Tracker (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Johnbod: This two users are pushing for emperor and one of them even made personal remarks on me. Can you please act as a moderate and conclude this basless discussion ? Packer&Tracker (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Yes all modern source written on Chauhan history, mentions him as an emperor, Cynthia Talbot, Dashratha Sharma, R.B. Singh, in slightly old sources, RV Somani and HB Sarda, in fact these are all the major scholars who specifically wrote about Prithviraj Chauhan or Chauhan dynasty, there is no other detailed work on Prithviraj which doesn't call him an emperor, besides dying in captivity is a different thing, Ottoman ruler Bayezid died in Timur's captivity, many empires suddenly collapsed like a deck of card even at the height of their territorial extent say for example Khwarazmian, what happens afterwards can't change what he was before that. Anyway if all the major works modern and old mentions him as an emperor then what is harm in mentioning him an emperor on wikipedia. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC) @Sajaypal007: Stop using or misusing Talbot views on his kingdom and dynasty. The tittle of book is quite misleading to original context as I previously mentioned she actually mocked how over the years memories desribe him as emperor or powerful ruler before Muslim era but there were many rulers in Northern India who were just as powerful as him (none of them is described as emperor) Prithviraj has been described as "the last Hindu emperor" in eulogies. This designation is inaccurate, as several stronger Hindu rulers flourished in South India after him, and even some contemporary Hindu rulers in northern India were at least as powerful as him. Nevertheless, the 19th-century British officer James Tod repeatedly used this term to describe Prithviraj in his Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han. Tod was influenced by the medieval Persian language Muslim accounts, which present Prithviraj as a major ruler and portray his defeat as a major milestone in the Islamic conquest of India But as I said, I personally rate scholarship and authority of Ojha, Sharma (Dashratha and Gopinath), Upinder Singh, even R.B Singh on much higher plane in regards to Rajput past then Talbot, Eaton, Trushchke, Ludden and these authors who carry more or less same school of thoughts. In any case Dr. Sharma was not final authority on Chauhan Rajput history, most modern author simly call him a ruler/king which three of them (among many) I quoted in one of replies here as well. PS:- RV Somani work is actually more recent then Dr. Sharma whom you find among slightly older authorities. @Packer&Tracker: You should read again the quote you provided. You clearly missed Talbot's point here, she is talking about the word "Last", she is saying Last word is wrong because there have been many rulers like him or even stronger after him. Read it again. And you are wrong about Tod, Tod was mostly depended upon rajasthani bards and not persian or muslim accounts, also don't throw discussion in tangent. Dr Sharma was one of the most reputable historian of his times specially on rajasthan history, and if he was not final authority, I mentioned all the scholars who wrote about Prithviraj Chauhan in detail, there was hardly any modern historian who can be said to have final authority on Chauhan history more so than Dr Sharma or RB Singh, I also added others like Somani, all call him an emperor. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC) @Sajaypal007: Well for Talbot she indeed wrote that there were as powerful rulers even in Northern India at time (focus on ruler term and none of them is mentioned as emperor) But, I personally don't find that book in same echelon as Dr. Sharma which I mentioned even in that reply. I didn't mention Tod name, quote of Talbot did that. At last, I agree completely on Dr Sharma authority on Rajasthan history. His book on Rajput origin was excellent one as well where he ably rejected theory of foreign and tribal origin but unfortunately main article of Rajputs didn't use his work. Dr Sharma and even G.H Ojha, G.N Sharma were equally good in their research area. PS:- But authority of many more scholars who in more voices used king/ruler for him can not be dismissed. (three of them are there in my reply as well) Packer&Tracker (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The term ruler and emperor are not mutually exclusive, any emperor can be called ruler. Anyway your comment is not about the topic at hand, I agree with your point on Rajput page which is underepresented by native scholars who studied the subject more thoroughly but yet ignored, which is also my concern if you wish you can improve that article. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Packer&Tracker (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: Check your facts again, you mugged up a lot of bardic tales in his praise. First of all Eaton and Trushchke (Talbot, Ludden, Doniger etc) are from that branch of scholars that glorify and pacify period of Islamic invasion. Most of them even claimed that temples sacked by them were not of religious bigotry. Aurangzeb Man of the myth is premier example of glorifying a religious bigot. Firstly, I never compared him with Rana Sanga in that case Sanga was much more capable king then this overglorified king whom Rajput bardic tales made a hero. Rana ruled large territory also most of Rajasthan, Northern Gujarat, parts of M.P and Sindh Cholistan too. Infact Babur called him and Deva raya as greatest hindu kings of that time with vast kingdoms. Even Maldev Rathore turned small jagir of Marwar into almost an empire. Neither Prithviraj's rivals praises his rule like Babur did for Rana Sanga or Sher Shah Suri/Ferishta did for Maldev Rathore. Ferishta was not a contemporary historian, check your facts again. He was a sixteenth century historian and you copied this from Sanga's article which is about Abdul Qadir Badyuni. (who was Akbar's historian) For his domain, He couldn't capture much of Chandela Rajputs kingdom but lost many of his soldiers there and after Tarain disastour they recovered their kingdom again only to be humilited by Aibak again. Apart from bardic and unreliable Prithviraj raso all records suggests he lost to Solanki's and can never capture their territory as well. I never claimed later Mughal kings expanded in South frontier but the comment was about Alauddin Khalji. His territory doesn't include much of Northern India again. Packer&Tracker (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: As Johnbod mentioned there is no point in arguing over such topics but your cherrypicking of bardic Rajput tales are now getting into different zone. I mentioned about biases of these scholars just to elaborate the fact that they never could potentially called him a emperor. Just for your poor knowledge of the past, Didn't you wrote in your early reply that The contemporary peoples like Ferishta mentioned him as an Emperor , you can't just put your view in the name of so called modern works ??? How much nuance such statements have ?? Check it again as I suggested Ferishta didn't praised Sanga either this praise was by Al Badayuni for both Sanga & Prithviraj. For their comparison, those were not my general views but this was his depiction according to Dasharatha Sharma. Sanga didn't inherited a large kingdom like him infact faced brutuality by his brother (ironically named Prithviraj) who nearly killed him. I don't know how much difference is there in territories but sure for someone like Babur who wrote about India in such a bad light for him to acknowledge him as Greatest Hindu king with vast kingdom and comparison with Devaraya arguably among five best kings of South indeed talks about his leadership despite being a physically invalid person. He did won costly victories over Chandela's which I did mentioned in my earlier replies but it's a fact that he can only conquer small domain of their kingdom that too for short duration of time. In case of Solanki Rajputs of Gujarat, Dr. Sharma believed that he gained some advantage in treaty but failed to annex any of their territory. At last apart from me, you & Sajaypal007 only two editors discussed these usless topic and both of them inserted that King/Ruler are more appropirate. Please don't make personal attacks too. Packer&Tracker (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker Don't try to manipulate the main topic , we don't care what Eaton and Trushchke said about islamic rule don't change the topic, this time we only care about what we are discussing right now , i didn't mugged from bardic taels don't bring this when you don't have any counter argument , and by calling him " overglorified king " you are sharing your personal problem and view , the facts work on information not on your personal view's , The emperor don't need any praise to call himself an emperor again you shared your personal belief , Rana Sanga may be more capable but he had no such vast territories like Prathviraj Chuahan , talk about Ferishta then i meant " contemporary of Rana Sanga " not Prathviraj Chuahan , Ferishta himself said that Rana Sanga was the bravest of all Rajput's after Prathviraj Chuahan , just read this " after Prathviraj Chuahan " Now comes to the Chandela kingdom then he defeated Chandela's in Mahoba War and captured Chandela Kingdom , don't make your own History when you don't know anything , he even defeated Solanki's , please read about his campaigns , if the sources are clearly mentioning his conquest then you don't have right to give excuse when you don't have any counter argument against that He was an Emperor and many king's serve him , it's not logical from any side to call him a King , he was even known as "Maharajadhiraj" and "Samrat" which is much higher position then a King and equivalent to an emperor , as i said the later Mughals were also known as Emperor's while they were only puppets of neighbouring kingdom's and empire's , if you want to change then go through their articles and write " King " there then i will never argue in this Prathviraj article but atleast don't be hypocrite , come again with logical arguments not with excuses like bardic tales , Islamic rule blah blah Asr99.0979 (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker Your all comments are filled with lies whether you accept or not , for example once you said that you believe in the works of Dashrath Sharma , i recently checked the " Early Chauhan dynasties" of Dashrath Sharma and he clearly used " Chauhan Emperor " for Prathviraj Chuahan on page no. 84 (and many times), He used Sapaldaksh Empire on page no. 81 , now ? this is from that Historian whom you believe most , i know that still you reject because you don't want to accept the truth , i know that it's a childish thing but i have many sources if I have to cite with Emperor , You said that he was mentioned as a King in modern works but now i have shown you still he is mention as an Emperor , When you know that you can't hide your lies atleast then you should have to accept the truth , for sake i hope now you can't call these modern works as so called " Bardic tales " (may be after this you call) , There are literally many many sources including medival and modern who call him an emperor , if this can't fit with your personal view then we can't do anything , now conclude we both have works to do , we don't have time to waste in such silly thing's, i only want to say that he should be called an Emperor , There are many arguments against calling him a King which I have shown you earlier Asr99.0979 (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: You really need to stop your personal attacks. Lie is a big word indeed. I am not cherrypicking sources like you to push a certain school of thoughts. Yes, I respect Dr.Dasharatha Sharma's credential and authority on Chauhan history and in general Rajput history. His work was from 1960 or so. I didn't called his works bardic tales but used this cotation for some of the primary source he quoted like Raso (early recession), Hammir Mahakavya, Prithviraj Vijay which are indeed bardic tales composed in Rajput courts. Your knowledge about history is evident from the fact that you claimed Ferishta as his contemporary who called him a emperor. For all practical purposes their can not be much arguments against calling someone a King/Ruler or Emperor. Most, other modern works simply mentioned him as a ruler/king in general. As, I said in my last reply this is simply a futile discussion which won't go anywhere. PS:- At last as I said in my last reply that only two other editors joined this chat and both suggested tittle of king/ruler to be used. This will probably be my final comment regarding this article & epsecially about this pointless debate of historic tittles. Packer&Tracker (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker atleast i represented the source unlike you just repeating the same thing without any proof , your every argument is baseless first you said about Dashrath Sharma then i have shown you that even Mr. Sharma called Prathviraj as Emperor , you are only shooting arrows in free space you don't have any argument against calling him an emperor while I have every single argument against calling him a King , like he was known as "Maharajadhiraj" which is much higher position then a king , not only the contemporary sources even i have shown you from the modern works such as from Dashrath Sharma , i am not doing any type of personal attack i am only showing the reality , i don't want to see the article working on your personal opinions but want to see working on the sources , you don't have anything to prove except giving excuses like "don't believe in bardic tales...." and i mentioned Ferishta in the sense of Rana Sanga , either you failed to understand or i didn't wrote well PS. there is no such rule in wikipedia that someone can't debate if the matter was closed , i don't care about those two editor's (i will check after this), i only care about facts , probably those editor's don't know these fact or they don't have counter arguments just like yours,the debate is not pointless it's seems like pointless you don't have point's to put , may be it's pointless for you but not for me, this is my final comment and i am changing the title , i am doing this step after this long discussion , anyone can check in this talk, still if you have any counter argument you will present , What are my arguments ? He was mentioned as an Emperor in his contemporary sources as well as in modern sources , He was known as "Maharajadhiraj" and also "Samrat" which are much higher positions then a King, Many king's serve him so it's not logical to call him a King , now even if we reject these 3 facts then i have 4th argument, his decendents like Vigrahraj Chauhan were Emperor's and Prathviraj 3rd was the last Emperor so again he should be called an emperor just like later Mughal's and Mouryans (if we reject those 3 arguments) , now what is your argument ? Modern works which I debunked , calling bardic tales means rejecting the entire fact and ? If you still have any argument then reply Asr99.0979 (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: This is final warning for you to not make personal attacks & assume good faith. I am not intersted in wasting time on such kind of issues but that doesnot meant in any way that you debunked scholars or anything like it, you are aggresively pushing your preffered version and even edited the article without any consensus So, without wasting time and on stupid reasons like Maharajadhiraj, Here are modern academic sources which call him King, 'here he is reffered as a chieftain' 'here is another one from Satish Chandra who called him most famous among Chauhan rulers', 'another one where he is reffered as a ruler' This list is endless and more & more modern authors used king/ruler. Packer&Tracker (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker Give warning when you can't prove anything , did you answered my questions which I asked ? you are acting like a small kid , I didn't debunked any scholer i am only debunking you fake information and what you mean by " stupid reasons like Maharajadhiraj " ? You don't have answer of the question that why he was known as Maharajadhiraj and here you are giving such a childish arguments ,do you even what you are saying, the article you mentioned doesn't mention a single word " King " for Prathviraj and you itself edited the article without any consensus , that article mentioned ruler only few times but not king ,the emperor can be called as ruler but the emperor can not be called as a King remeber this, first check your wordings , neither Satish Chandra nor Dashrath Sharma both didn't mentioned " King " and you are still arguing like a kid , see this is Early Chauhan dynasties by Dashrath Sharma and how many times he used Emperor amd Empire https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.65321/2015.65321.Early-Chauhan-Dynasties_djvu.txt Not me but you are agressively opposing the view's of historians by giving fake arguments which are not even present in the source , I know that you are not interested then why you are arguing , you don't even have a argument to prove yourself moreover you didn't answerd what i have asked (answer of my arguments to calling him an Emperor) , You didn't prove yourself not even a single time, the wikipedia is not a video game , this is my final comment regarding this, just give answer what i asked or give proof why he should not be called as Emperor Asr99.0979 (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.119620 This is book " History of the Chahaman's " by Historian Sir Rb Singh , see how many times he used Emperor and Empire for Prathviraj , on page number 187,189,192,198,201,204,205 and many times , this is my another proof Asr99.0979 (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: You are just too naive to understand Wikipedia's policies about good faith and on not hurling insults by commenting on contributor rather then content leave that alone, I asked administraitor to take a look on it. Now, you seriously think I have any problem in countering your over the line puffery ? I quite clearly know What I am saying as well. I also belive you have some serious reading disablities here especially regarding Satish Chandra source which I presented in my previous reply, these was source of Satish Chandra, since you have issue going through the work, I present exact quote here:- The most famous among the Chauhan rulers was Prithviraja-III So, here for your ill manered reply on Chandra not calling him a ruler. You avoided the other sources from Kaushik Roy and Sugata Bose as well where they both called him ruler & chieftain separarely Next, Why he should not be called emperor, there are dozen of reasons for that. His territory was just too small to be called as emperor of Northern India. As pointed out in earlier replies there were Hindu rulers at time in North those were atleast as powerful as him (none of them are called emperors) Maharajadhiraj ? Seriously did I really need to debunk it ?? Even Kachwaha kings of Amber who ruled small principlity of Dhundar region were hailed as Maharajas, then what ? They were emperors as well. At last, there were several Delhi Sultans whether Mamluk's, Khalji's, Tughlaq's who control much bigger territories then him but were still called as rulers or Sultan in annals of their historians ? Illtutmish, Ghiyasudin Balban control far bigger territory then him and even repelled mongol attacks so push for emperor tittle for him as well ? Get your reading abilities in place before making vague claims like Chandra never called him ruler infact he never call him emperor either like most scholars. Packer&Tracker (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker How many times from the sources of Dashrath Sharma and Rb singh i proved that he should be called an Emperor ? Did you even readed those sources which I have shared ? I think you to have some reading disabilities , i previously said that there should be difference between ruler and a king , the emperor can be called ruler but the emperor can not be called King, it's inappropriate , the sources you shared didn't even mentioned word "King" for him and what you have edited just see the article Not only these two sources i still have more sources then you to prove him as an Emperor , the Sources i have shared clearly mention him as "Emperor" , this also proves that who is right and who is wrong Do you even know the difference between Maharaja and Maharajadhiraj ? This literally show's your history knowledge They were known as Sultan's and Prathviraj was known as Samrat , did you wrote Samrat there ? If not then please don't give such baseless arguments , Sultan was designation used for them , as i said you didn't answerd , these later Sultan's as welm mentioned as Emperor's , if I go with your logic where you said that his ancestor Vigrahraj Chauhan was an Emperor then Prathviraj Chuahan should be called as Emperor , if not then why later Mughals and Mouryans known as Emperor's ? It's a very logical question , you will definitely changed the title for them as well First improve your reading abilities as well and just go through the links which i have shared , i have literally dozens of sources to prove but i don't want to take this small issue so seriously , if someone is mentioning him as an emperor then there is reason for that , according to Historian Rb singh The power of Chahman Empire was at peak during Prathviraj 3rd , i have shared you can see, I have seen your history knowledge when you said that he hold only Eastern Rajasthan, so this thing "Territories" didn't suits on you , there were Hindu king's in those times but mostly they were under Prathviraj, rest of them were defeated by him Asr99.0979 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: If someone is not replying that doesn't mean they don't have counter arguments which you concluded here Special:MobileDiff/1082713939 & even published your version without any consensus hailing him as Indian Emperor. Yup, A ruler who just ruled part of Northern India is indeed Emperor of India which is more applicable on somebody like Ashoka or Aurangzeb. I don't think there is much difference while applying king/ruler any tittle but emperor that's gross exaggeration at very worst. You again haven't read Satish Chandra source which called him among most famous ruler of Chauhan clan. Do you know difference between Maharaja and Maharajadhiraj ? This shows your knowledge of history Was this insult ? In any case Maharajadhiraj a tittle given to him by bardic tales composed by Rajputs (which Sharma quoted) doesn't prove anything. Although, I agree I am not a very strong authority on history but still better then declaring Ferishta (16th century author) a contemporary of Prithviraj Chauhan. The contemporary peoples like Ferishta mentioned him as an Emperor , you can't just put your view in the name of so called modern works Special:MobileDiff/1081930905 I pointed out reference to Delhi Sultans because of territory they ruled compared to what Chauhan Rajputs ruled. Sultan doesn not mean emperor either. What do you meant by these things territories doesn't suit you Let me re elaborate here, I said that core of Chauhan Rajput kingdom was based in Hadoti region. In any case what was your source for controlling most of Northern India which you added without any reference ?? As far as my knowledge is concerned about the topic, Northern Indian states also includes J & K, Ladakh, Uttrakhand & Himachal Pradesh but he didn't even control a jagir there, so how he came to control most of North India ? As for your continous comparison of Mauryans and Mughals to Chauhans. Let me tell you something Chauhan Rajputs don't even rule 25% of the territory which Mauryans and Mughals do. (At their prime) This comparison is absurd to say the least. Peak of Chauhan kingdom was not under him it was under Bisaldev Chauhan who wrestled some territories from Ghaznavids raiders as well in Punjab. Next point about there were as powerful Hindu kings at time even in Northern India, this statement is taken from Legacy part of section which is sourced as well. Yes, he defeated Chandela's but failed to claim any substanial part of their kingdom same goes with Solanki's of Gujarat. At last, I pointed out three sources which refers to him as Chieftain, ruler & king from acclaimed authors. So, here is few more for the same:- This is work of Dr Nizami on basis of all contemporary records in Persian texts of the time translated now and published in Oxford University press:- This is work of Dr Nizami on basis of all contemporary records in Persian texts of the time translated now and published in Oxford University press:- The Rajput ruler carried out extensions to the structure at Lal kot. At the time, Delhi does not enjoy status of capital city. He posted his brother, Govind Rai as the head of state . At end of it main point was exaggeration a ruler who ruled just a part of North India, how much nuance will it be to call him as so called Emperor of India is open to question and How he ruled most parts of North India when he failed to conquer even a jagir/village of J&K, Uttrakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Ladakh etc ?? Please read about WP:CONSENSUS as well before making a change.Packer&Tracker«Talk» 2:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC) Re, Since you asked about him being called as a king there we go, I found a source published is Oxford Univerity Press who quoted Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani Upinder Singh (1999). Ancient Delhi. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-564919-2. Minhaj us-Siraj's in his work about Ghurid dynasty; narrates the defeat of Prithviraja in Second battle of Tarain. He presents that The Rajput king who was riding an horse Packer&Tracker«Talk» 02:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding territories in North

Close lengthy, repetitious debate that's impossible for anyone to follow. Note to everyone involved: Cite sources more. Editorialize less. And be concise. Abecedare (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker Applying word indian that doesn't mean that guy ruled entire India , by that logic Ashoka and Aurangzeb were also not indian Emperor's because there were many remaining territories in modern India which they didn't ruled , then why to have apply " Indian Emperor " on these Emperor's as well? This is baseless thing , applying indian doesn't mean you have to rule entire India , that only shows your nationality as per modern era The Maharajadhiraj was not such title which was given to a random person specially not in early medival era , you can not reject facts by calling them bardic tales as i said earlier , there is difference between Maharaja and Maharajadhiraj , Maharaja means Great King and Maharajadhiraj means King of Great King means equivalent to an Emperor , In History such type of titles never given to normal rulers , like Prathviraj Chuahan he was Maharajadhiraj but the rulers under him never used this title , show me one ruler under Prathviraj who used this title ? for example Pajwan Kachwaha, he was the most powerful allie of Prathviraj , he was a ruler of Aamer kingdom but he never referred as Maharajadhiraj, you can not find a single ruler , the Maharajadhiraj title is even more older then Rajput era , so here also you can not say that it was initiated by Rajput's to glorify themselves Although I have not a very strong authority on History but still better then calling facts bardic tales , still better then calling a large empire as parts of merely hadoti region I said most of the North India not entire North India , he ruled Rajasthan , Punjab , Delhi , Hariyana and parts of Madhya Pradesh , Uttar Pradesh and Gujart , this perfectly makes most of the North India and there should be no reason in denying this fact I still suggest you to read my previous comments , i hope you know how to read , i said that later Mughals and Mauryans were also known as Emperor's , the later Mughals who had Mughal Empire in the form of nearby area's of Delhi , the Mughals who later became puppet rulers of Marathas , Rajputs etc were also Emperor's, they do not even have 1% of Chauhan Rajput Empire then how they were known as Emperor's if area is concerned ? Prathviraj had Largest empire of all Chauhan rulers but STILL if i agree with your argument that Bisaldev was Emperor and he had more territories then Prathviraj then Prathviraj still deserve to be known as Emperor if we apply this condition with later Mughals, if you don't accept Prathviraj as an Emperor (in the sense of Bisaldev Chauhan) then you should have to remove this "Emperor" tag with later Mughals and later Mauryans , i said "later", do not confuse again Prathviraj did defeated Chandela's of Bundelkhand and appointed his allie Pajwan Kachwaha as ruler of Mahoba , again Prathviraj defeated Chalukyas of Gujrat in Battle of Nagaur and conqured Chalukyas territories , later peace treaty made between Prathviraj and Jagaddev Pratihar , the prime minister of Chalukyas Asr99.0979 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker See this https://books.google.co.in/books?id=m3DjCgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y Asr99.0979 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.119620 This is History of Chahaman's by Sir Rb Singh , see how many times empire and Emperor used for Prathviraj Chauhan Asr99.0979 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.65321/2015.65321.Early-Chauhan-Dynasties_djvu.txt This is Early Chauhan dynasties by Dr. Dashrath Sharma , see how many times he used empire and Emperor for Prathviraj Chauhan Asr99.0979 (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: I won't waste my time further on extending the baseless argument of using historic tittle. As it stands, the discussion is closed above by Trangabellam with a agreement/consensus for using king/ruler, here Special:MobileDiff/1082967191 Now, for valid points regarding his territories, before that I quickly adresses the point about usage of term Indian in modern historical light. There was no geographical binding of India in those days that's why several scholars hesitate to use term India for kings/courtiers/confederacies of those times as geographical defination of current day India is way different in these regard. I never claimed he didn't defeat Chandela king, he did but couldn't wrestle much of their domain and those miltary expedition proved to be very costly for him, further against Rajputs of Gujarat, Satish Chandra take on his wars with Solankis & other Rajput powers at page no.23:- We can conclude that Prithviraj gained a significant victory against Chandela Rajputs. Though he could not aquire additional territories, he come home after aquiring considerable booty. Between 1182 to 1187, Prithviraj turned his attention towards his ancient rivals Solankis of Gujarat. The struggle was long drawn out and it seems Gujarat ruler Bhima II who had earlier defeated an invasion of Mu'izz al-Din defeated Prithviraj also. This forced him to turn his attention towards ganga valley and Punjab region At last on his domain, provide a source which precisely with some nuance mentions that he ruled most of North India. To counter your argument his territories are sourced in first para of legacy section by R.B Singh According to historian R. B. Singh, at its height, Prithviraj's domain extended from Sutlej river in the west to the Betwa river in the east, and from the Himalayan foothills in the north to the foot of Mount Abu in the south. Thus, it included parts of present-day Rajasthan, southern Punjab, northern Madhya Pradesh, and western Uttar Pradesh (R.B Singh, 1964, pp-182) This territories are not even 60% of present day North India, so how he controled most of North India ? Most means to great extent and with as powerful kings as Prithviraja even in North, It won't be historically correct to claim that he ruled most of North. If you have a source that mentions clearly about him ruling most of North feel free to discuss about it. Packer&Tracker (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker I previously said that don't edit without consensus on talk page but still you are editing , that legacy part also included word " Empire " did you wrote that ? the legacy part didn't mention "kingdom" but you added that i still don't agree to use king or ruler because there are many proofs which i shared to call him an Emperor , the word King or ruler was also used for Ashoka many times but that doesn't mean you have to write King there No one hesitate to use word Indian , for example just go through the article of " Shivaji Maharaj " there is clearly written indian As i previously said he did defeated Chandela's of Mahoba and appointed Pajwan Kachwaha as ruler of Mahoba , you should have to read about that war , Pajawan remained ruler of Mahoba until it was again recaptured by son of Parmardi dev (after Prathviraj death) , again he did defeated Chalukyas of Gujrat in Battle of Nagaur (in other battle's as well) , the peace treaty made between Prathviraj and Chalukya prime minister , hence war stopped after ceding the chalukya region's and peace treaty Now you are quoting Rb Singh , Sir Rb singh who called Prathviraj Chuahan an Emperor several times , who called Prathviraj domain as Empire, just check legacy section , If you are adopting the statements of Rb Singh on such huge margin then you also should have to accept that he mentioned Prathviraj as an Emperor not once but several times as i mentioned in my previous comments , if you don't then it's against reliability of an article means you are accepting one side of source but not accepting the other side , if you quote reference from his source then quote same thing which he wrote , recently you edited without consensus , Mr. Rb Singh mentioned "Empire" in legacy section but you mentioned "Kingdom" i don't know why you are doing this Now most important part , see this for reference again , this is history of Chahaman's by Rb singh https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.119620/page/n201/mode/1up?view=theater in the same page number you mentioned (Page number 181 and 182) , he mentioned that Prathviraj defeated the Chandela's , Chalukyas etc and extended his territories , this means that he conquered the territories of Chandela's and Chalukyas as well , he further mentioned Prathviraj domain as "Empire" many many times , again he mentioned word " Himalaya " for Prathviraj domain , he also mentioned Tehri-Gadwal so here we are clear that his domain also included Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh, just check source again , he mentioned many things which you didn't readed or you are ignoring , if you quoting him them should also adopt his 100% not 50% by seeing half thing's Asr99.0979 (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packer&Tracker (talk • contribs) @Asr99.0979: Please stop pasting your comments again and again in previous section where the discussion is already closed by TrangaBellam. It doesn't matter whether you agree or not, fact of the matter is that basless discussion of historic tittle is now closed by TrangaBellam (quite rightly so) So, I won't be replying again on it. Firstly, I found it bit absurd that you claimed that I edited the page without consensus Special:MobileDiff/1083118608. But, I dug deep and found this Special:MobileDiff/1068323946 that it was originally you who added most of North India without any source clearly claiming this (Did you tried for consensus here) Now about R.B Singh, I didn't quoted him I quoted Chandra in different context altogether that he probably lost to Solankis, anyway I just took Singh's quote for idea about his territories without even looking at source but when I found any time, will surely look into it as I am quite aware that you must be cherry picking few lines here as well. He didn't gain any territory of Chandela again as Chandra mentioned he was sucessful in taking some of the booty from there and Pajwan you added in clearly original search which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. (Pajwan exploits came from later account Prithviraj Raso composed 400 years after the event only certain part is that he joined Rajput alliance in Battles of Tarain) If you are quoting him quote 100 % not 50% ?? What do you mean by this ? The articles are written from neutral point of view by considering viewpoints of all historians and none of them is quoted 100%. We can't mention every single word in lead, although you already did that. When Ghurids were slaughtering Rajputs left, right and centre, the Rajput hero cowardly fled from battlefield but Ghurids caught him in Sirsa and executed him. Should we mention that he flee as well ?? I am pinging veteran editors like @Kautilya3, Fylindfotberserk, Extorc, Utcursch, and TrangaBellam: who edited articles related to Rajput history or South Asian history in general that how much right will it be to claim that he ruled much of North India while as powerful kings exists even in North ? I tried to get broader input by posting at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics but to no avail. Thanks. Packer&Tracker (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC) Re : The recent content addition where it cross all limits of pufferies (even exapnd his rule till Pakistan although Sirhind fort was the ending point of his domain, main reason that leads to Battles of Tarain) let me present and exact wordings of author so that other editors can verify it as I personaly found this very tedious to keep reverting POV edits of his glorification. The extent of his empire can thus be ascertained by fine spots of his inscriptions. It includes the modern divison of Amabala divison of Punjab, Patiala, Nabba, Faridkot and Simla states and North Eastern parts of Bhawalpur state, Alwar, Bikaner, Ajmer, Marwar, most of Johdhpur, portion of Mewar and Malwa, Bundi, Kota, Tonk, Dholpur, Kaaruli states in Rajasthan, Bharatpur and Gwalior states, portion of Jhansi and Agra division, whole of Merut divison along with Tehri and Garhwal in U.P Point to be noted here is that author already consider modern geographical boundries to conclude his territories and nowhere mentioned Himachal Pradesh, Uttrakhand, Pakistan. (Modern geographical boundries are quite different) This quote was for easy and quick verification of participants instead of going through whole archieve. Thanks. Packer&Tracker (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC) Since yesterday I was quitely assessing Singh's work on Chauhan clans. Even as per his statement sourced in legacy section of it he never mentioned any territory in modern day Uttrakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Pakistan. I already added exact quotes in my previous reply (about his territories) The author mentions: North Eastern parts of Bhawalpur state, Alwar, Bikaner, Ajmer, Marwar, most of Johdhpur, portion of Mewar and Malwa, Bundi, Kota, Tonk, Dholpur, Kaaruli states in Rajasthan (focus on term Rajasthan, modern geographical boundries are quite different from those days thats why author probably didn't mentioned Pakistan, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Uttrakhand precisely in their work) In any case if we claims that he controlled Pakistan region that seriously dismantle our creditionals. Since, we know Pakistan region was under Ghaznavids control since Mahmud Ghaznavi reign from whom Mu'izz al-Din captured North west frontier including Punjan and reached till Bhatinda which was part of Prithviraja's domain, the fort of Tabarhindah fort. @पाटलिपुत्र: you quite actively edit maps regarding domain of South Asia dynasties, can you please tell us about domain of Chauhan Rajput kingdom under Prithviraj. Isn't current lead gross exaggeration. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 3:52, 18 April, 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker I am not cherry picking any line , i only clearified from the same writer whom you quoted AND YES you quoted him do check first , when you edited article without consensus that time also you quoted the legacy section inspired from the same writer Pajwan Kachhwaha was mentioned in all of the contemporary sources of that time he wasn't a later addition , he was the general of Prathviraj Chuahan , i think you mistaken somewhere, do check again You definitely quoted him only 50% , he mentioned word "Empire" while you wrote "Kingdom" in previous edit , he used Emperor and Empire for Prathviraj Chauhan several times not only once , but you didn't accepted that , that's i said 50% , it's may be 25% , who knows; Moreover he defeated and captured Chandela Kingdom and that's mentioned in the source of Rb singh and many sources , you can consider view's of some historians but can not neglect of other's You really need to read article and source before giving such useless and baseless statments ,that flee part is also mentioned in the reign section of an article , same you did with the previous sources of Rb Singh Important thing , what if you are exhausted and surrounded by an enemy ? You will submit yourself as they kill you ? This is foolish thing to do , definitely you tru to escape and Prathviraj did same , his army was previously exhausted by night attack of Ghori , the retreat is just part of stretegy it's not cowardice , by that logic Ghori was even more bigger coward as he run away from the battlefield in previous battle with Prathviraj , nd this thing is not even important to say , these are our own opinions and we should have to kept this at own, otherwise peoples will understand that this guy has some problem with this perticular ruler or king or personality, its also against wikipedia policy, it has no link with the article as well Remeber that the Pakistan does not only share border with Punjab but also with Rajsthan and Gujrat The author didn't even mentioned all state's then why do we have name of states in legacy section ? You are definitely ignoring the main things , The author clearly mentioned Bhawalpur state for Pakistan , Simla for Himachal Pradesh and Tehri - Gadwal for Uttrakhand ( we know that , that time Uttrakhand was in Uttar Pradesh but now Uttrakhand is separate state and Tehri Gadwal is ik uttrakhand , we do not have right to still mention this region as part of Uttar Pradesh , the geographical boundaries may different but we should have to talk in modern perspective , if we are still considering Tehri Gadwal as part of Uttar Pradesh it's completely wrong thing Read that quote again , the author first mention Bhawalpur state and then start Rajsthani region's from Alwar, The Bhawalpur state was the princely state during British and the author observed Prathviraj region with the modern perspective of those times , that why I wrote " some parts of Pakistan" Moreover , Pakistan was not in full control by Gaznavid's during Someshwar and Prathviraj reign Asr99.0979 (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: Please do not mention this territories (lead) till discussion is going on and originally I never quoted R.B Singh's work it was actually quoted by Utcursch as can be seen here: Special:MobileDiff/740238251 that's why I pinged him here but since they aren't editing regular these days we failed to get a good response. I never acused anyone of cowardice but just took those quotes exactly from one of the source cited. I won't accuse Shahbuddin of cowardice as well here, he got defeated but return with bigger army and far more disciplined then Rajputs can ever assemble. Several even Hindu kings did that same during medieval times, like Shivaji got defeated even agreed on Raja Jai Singh terms but revolted & led the foundation of Maratha Empire and dissolution of Mughals. The Great man Maharana Pratap also retreated from battlefield in Haldighati but came back and regain his ancestoral kingdom when Mughals were at their zenith. In case of Prithviraja, he fled and quite possibly accepted Ghori supremacy as well. This is needless discussion so lets come back on topic. I already quoted Chandra, that he can not annex any of Chandela territory and was probably defeated by Gujarat king as well, since Chauhan records also remained silent on these subjects along with his failed campaign at Abu indicates he probably failed there. I never said Pajawan is legendary/imaginary figure, he was indeed historical but this claim that he fought in Mahoba wars against Chandela's and Prithviraj stationed him there are pure nonsense that came from later bardic tales like Prithviraj Raso later versions. He fought in Battles of Tarain thats it like other Rajput princes did. What leads me to seriously doubt the credibilty of these historian is vague claim of even mentioning that Prithviraj ruled Simla states (if indeed he is refering to HP) because there are no records that he ever fought any war till there or even made a alliance with ruling kingdom of Katoch Rajputs, you even mentioned Gujarat but the author did not mention Gujarat as well, FYKI Bhawalpur is in Rajasthan as well near Tonk and it was a state as well. Since, author never mentioned precisely about Pakistan, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttrakhand even Madhya Pradesh this is clear case of original research which is not allowed here on enclyopedia that claims to be neutral. Ghaznavids indeed rule all of Pakistan and Chauhan Rajput kingdom bordered at Bhatinda whose fort was bone of contention for historic battles fought near Karnal. Shahbuddin captured those frontiers from them not from Rajputs he did captured Multan from Bhatti Rajputs though who had no allaince with Chauhans of Sambhar. Plus, he mentioned Mewar and Malwa portion in Rajasthan, there was portion of Malwa that is in Rajasthan as well. His expeditiom against Abu rulers was failed one which is mentioned in our article as well so don't know how Singh includes Abu in his domain as well. At the moment, I am removing contentious and exaggeratory bit about territories from lead section till all editors join this discussion and we have long term consensus. At the moment, I am removing contentious and exaggeratory bit about territories from lead section till all editors join this discussion and we have long term consensus. Happy editing. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 2:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker: don't selectively quote from R.B. Singh, you are saying he didn't mention any territory in Uttrakhand and Uttar Pradesh, while he clearly wrote, " ... Whole of Meerut division alongwith Tehri and Garhwal in Uttar Pradesh ...." This he mentions in the extent of his empire on page no. 182. This outright lie will not get you anywhere, your agressive and disruptive editing has already been noted, stop this before you get blocked. Sajaypal007 (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Dear @Sajaypal007: being quite junior to you in terms of editing experience on enclyopedia, I respect your contributions towards Wikipedia. I agree some of earlier comments may have been violation of assuming good faith in heated debates but I improved my conduct a lot and didn't even touched the article after getting reverted once. Now, I didn't quote R.B Singh selectively, I presented his full quotes without any personal views of mine. Please read my comment again, I mentioned he did not named any of his territary in current day Since, author never mentioned precisely about Pakistan, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttrakhand even Madhya Pradesh this is clear case of original research which is not allowed here on enclyopedia that claims to be neutral I just raised the point that if our article claimes he ruled parts of Pakistan, Uttrakhand, H.P then it's not only factually incorrect but also case of WP:Wikipuffery. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 04:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker: here[1] you clearly wrote Uttrakhand is not mentioned by the author, you are talking about geography since long regarding his territory and north india etc, don't you know where Tehri Garhwal is, of course R.B. Singh didn't mention Uttrakhand, as Uttrakhand was not even formed when he wrote this book, Tehri garhwal was part of Uttar Pradesh. But he does mention Tehri garhwal, doesn't he, you must know this because you read page 182 as you wrote in edit summary here [2]. Other thing is AfD closing without consensus doesn't mean you can consider it as approval of your claim, as apparent from your edit here [3]. In the name of nuance you wanted to replace emperor to more neutral like ruler, while here [4] you are replacing a neutral word like territory with kingdom. Don't presume such things will get unnoticed. Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC) @Sajaypal007: Well, let me again clarify this, that this is clear issue of puffery at it's worst. Ok, I might have been wrong about Uttrakhand and U.P here but again where did he mentions modern day Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Pakistan or even Haryana & Delhi precisely ? In any case, the authority of Singh is open to question when he claimed that he expanded till Abu ? How ? He attacked their kingdom in night and suffered a reverse there as well. Dashratha Sharma also mentioned Gujarat kingdom as empire in his work. PS: Bring any other academia who argued that he controlled territories in so called Simla states, Uttrakhand ? (Gahadavals ruled there, don't they) Packer&Tracker «Talk» 01:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker Chauhan records clearly mention his conquest over Chandela's and Chalukyas and it was accepted by many historians including Rb Singh , Chandra also theorized he didn't concluded Pajwan was appointed as ruler of Mahoba and it was accepted from most of the sources, that is not a later addition at all , if it was a later addition them explain how and where There is limit of lie, there is no such Bhawalpur state in Rajsthan , Bhawalpur was the princely state in Pakistan and author clearly mentioned that state, nd its not necessary to wage war to conquer territories at any cost , by that logic you can question with every empire that " which war you fought for this region " , this is very useless argument, moreover the Gadwal was not mainly united before 12th or 13th century, if it was united then possibly we have seen any type of war or treaty The Gazhnavid empire did didn't ruled all of Pakistan,they didn't ruled portions of Sindh as well as that Bhawalpur state about which we are discussing here (specially during the reign of Prathviraj, Gaznavid's shrinked to Afghanistan), so don't link two different times He diversely mentioned the regions and you failed to understand that First he started with Bhawalpur state of Pakistan and then he started the Rajasthani regions from Alwar, then he interrupted by mentioning the Mewar and Malwa state, then he started the Rajasthani princely states during British with Bundi , now again go and read that, you are ignoring everything Ps. As Sajaypal said , you are clearly selectively quoting the information from RB singh, don't do that and do research first , he clearly mentioned the regions of Uttrakhand , Himachal Pradesh and also Pakistan, here you are going against that author whom you himself quoted Asr99.0979 (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: Please try to be bit more civil in your comments. Doesn't matter what Chauhan records mentioned, most modern authors like Chandra, Talbot argued that he could not add any territory of Chandelas to his kingdom. Even Singh mentioned he probably conquered some of his territories for a short time though. Pajwan was never appointed ruler of Mahoba, If yes please bring a modern academic work in these regard. Kachwaha only ruled till Dhundar area as vassals of other Rajput powers like Chauhans & then Mewar family under Sanga, Kumbha, Hammir etc before they start to serve and send their sisters to Mughal Harem. Please don't bring Prithvirajraso which even claimed that Prithviraj killed Ghuri in Ghazni. Yes, Ghaznavids declined in later half of 12th century but that doesn't mean Chauhan Rajputs annexed their kingdom from Pakistan. Ghuri captured their kingdom from Pakistan, Sindh, Uch and most of Afghanistan to strong his base and that brought him till Punjab which part of Prithviraja's territory. Please try again, there is Bhawalpur region region in Rajasthan as well near Tonk. Since, author did not mentioned Pakistan clearly it will be original search to include it as well. Beside all these where author mentioned about territories in Harayana, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat precisely ?? His expertise is clear when he claimed Simla states (although he never reffered to Himachal Pradesh) part of their domain. If any other modern academic source claimed he ruled those territories as mentioned in this POV stricken article, feels free to be proven wrong. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 01:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC) PS:- I never quoted R.B Singh and probably never read his work before. This content was originally added by Utcursch in 2016 as can been seen here Special:MobileDiff/740238251 where he added Thus, it included parts of present-day Rajasthan, southern Punjab, northern Madhya Pradesh and western Uttar Pradesh Considering the age of the editor and experience in South Asian related articles, I found it hard to believe that they misinterpreted/misrepresented author's work. Till, they don't reply it will be very contentious to mention this in lead summary. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 3:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker: If you do not have any geographical or historical knowledge about indian state then perhaps you should not edit that section. You have already been asked to refrain from it, if you do not know about the subject, firstly about Tehri Garhwal, which you admitted that you didnt know about that. Secondly here [5] again you removed Madhya Pradesh after saying in summary that Madhya Pradesh is not named by the author, when he clearly wrote Gwalior state and Malwa, Gwalior state was totally absorbed in today's Madhya Pradesh and most part of Malwa is now in MP. If you again started making such half-read or uninformed edits without any consensus despite twice being warned, you will be reported. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC) @Sajaypal007: So more insults ? Leave it so start with the main points again. Yes, I removed Madhya Pradesh because this author whose credibilty looks dubious now never precisely mentioned Madhya Pradesh in his book. There is Gwalior in Rajasthan as well again, for Malwa he mentioned Mewar and Malwa portion in Rajasthan. Next, you failed to answer where did he mentioned Gujarat, Pakistan, Delhi or even Himachal Pradesh ?? (despite all of them were formed by 1960) This POV stricken article mentioned Gujarat, Delhi and Pak too even Madhya Pradesh which the author never mentioned. You even removed my other edits like mentioning him fleeing from Tarain and all other possiblities around his death were added in footnotes instead of direct claim that he was executed right after the battle. At end of the day, this territories are far far exaggeratory in light of any other academic source or even Dashrath Sharma's work. I did not make half hearted edits, I just refered to Utcursch addition of content about his domain and he relevently added about him domain. Thus, instead of mentioning this unreliable piece lets wait for them to participate in this debate. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 14:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker You again edited without consensus • Why Chauhan records not matter , those historians wrote those books based on those records , why to say such thing against the credibility of the original records , Singh clearly mentioned that he defeated Chandela's Pajwan was appointed as ruler of Mahoba and i already explained that, Ps. it's not our work to discuss that who sent daughters to whom, you can discuss this on another place , this time we are discussing territories and it has no relation with sending daughters via bluetooth Rajputs and other tribes definitely captured their region's , still we are not talking about others , what i said the Bhawalpur state was under Prathviraj Chauhan and i hope you also accept that Just answer me , the author already pronounced "Tonk" why he has to include Bhawalpur region which is near Tonk ? this is completely illogical , also he said "Bhawalpur State" can you tell me the name of any " Bhawalpur State " in india ? you know this thing but still you are arguing because you don't want to accept this fact , he clearly mentioned "Bhawalpur state" just search and then see what you got by that logic he didn't said name of all state's then why we are considering the state's ? He said Malwa Region and Malwa is in Madhya Pradesh but he didn't mentioned Madhya Pradesh (also sometimes before you removed Mp before consensus) ? why to go with states if he already mentioned cities and region's , this is very childish thing to say that he didn't mentioned states precisely, there is no need to proved you already proved by sharing the source of Rb singh Asr99.0979 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker He mentioned Malwa and Mewar portion separately not in Rajasthan also he didn't mentioned Gwalior in Rajasthan , he didn't mentioned thsoe states but he mentioned the regions , you can't make Tehri Gadwal as Part of Rajsthan , you can't make Simla state as part of Rajasthan , you can't make Delhi as part of Rajasthan, it is very childish argument to say that if he didn't mentioned states then we do not have to add states So , this exaggeration comes from renowned historians like RB singh whom you itself mentioned in your early comments regarding territories? If not then from where this exaggeration comes from ? Asr99.0979 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: You kept repeating exaggerating accounts again and again but failed to provide any academic reference to it. I mentioned R.B Singh because he was quoted by a veteran editor Utcursch, He is not a renowned historian at all, I can not found any reliable mainstream articles from reputed outlet about him that explained his expertise in the field. Pajwan was apopointed ruler of Mahoba and I already explained that Where & How ? By repeating it again and again ? Please add a scholarly source for the same and I won't argue over it (not Prithviraj raso) I won't argue about territories part and geolocation because the amount of exaggeration here is quite compeling which any decent student of history will not disagree with. Why he did not mentioned Madhya Pradesh and Pakistan separately then ?? He did so for Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh & Punjab though, again Malwa portion is in Rajasthan too and author not mentioning Malwa, Gwalior separately with M.P made it clear that adding it will part of original research which is prohibited. At last you failed to mention where he talk about Gujarat and Delhi though ?? Which you apparently added in his so called empire though it was a kingdom of poor resources contray to what modern people think as part of Presentism. Bring any other academic reference that said he dominated those territories expliticly and appinted Pajwan ruler of Mahoba. I won't argue over it much and let User:Utcursch add his comment since they quoted Singh at first place and never mentioned this exaggerating account of territories. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 0:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC) Packer&Tracker This is not an insult but a suggestion, if you do not have knowledge of geography, don't try to edit about territory. There was no Gwalior state in Rajasthan during independence, whole of Gwalior kingdom during re-formation of states was merged into Madhya Pradesh. Stop with outrught lies. And about Pakistan, well he clearly mentions Bahawalpur State, which also during partition, totally absorbed into current state of Pakistan. You are wasting your own time and other editors' as well, either you start doing fact based debate or leave it. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC) A couple or days before was describing R.B. Singh better authority on this subject than other modern works like Talbot [6], now your claim of territory controlled by Prithviraj Chauhan was challenged by this very source, you started describing this source as poor. [7]. This coupled with feigning ignorance earlier regarding Tehri Garhwal and now about Gwalior state and Bahawalpur State which you started to claim in Rajasthan, while both state have its own wikipedia page where anyone can read where both states were, is case of WP:GASLIGHT and Gaming the system to not reach consensus. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC) @Sajaypal007: Lets discuss on facts then:- Firstly, Singh (if he does indeed) refered to part of Madhya Pradesh as his domain. Since modern authors like Satish Chandra and others concured that he could only loot the booty in his expedition against Chandelas then How he captured Gwalior state ? Firstly, Singh (if he does indeed) refered to part of Madhya Pradesh as his domain. Since modern authors like Satish Chandra and others concured that he could only loot the booty then How he captured Gwalior state ? Secondly, In Himachal Pradesh from my knowledge; Kangra kingdom was established by Katoch clan of Rajputs in eleventh century A.D, there are no reputed sources that claimed Chauhans had taken any militaristic action against them or had matrimonial alliance with them either. So, how they captured that domain ? You need more fact based points ? Delhi was never part of his kingdom, it was still ruled by Tomar Rajputs; further contemporary historians like Minhaj-I-Siraj and Hasan Nizami only mentioned Govind Rai as king of Delhi not Pithaura. In any case, even Singh did not mention Delhi in his domain. At last, If he really ruled part of Pakistan then how did Shahbuddin captured this region from Ghaznavids and starts raiding Punjab region around 1190 A.D, Why Prithviraj took so long to march against them only when they captured Tabarhind fort in Punjab ? PS:- The lead also mentioned Gujarat and Delhi which Singh never refered in his work. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 16:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC) Since Sajaypal007 & Asr99.0979 appealed for a fact based debate instead of any vague claims; here I am quoting one of the most respected Indian historian in R. C. Majumdar In his work on Ancient India wrote about Prithviraja-III on page no. 338-340 that Prithviraja probably assume the rein of government in his own hands by 1178 A.D; According to literary texts he set out for a digvijay yatra but apart from some minor conquests the only important expedition he which he known to have led was against Chandela. He defeated Parmaradi dev and ravaged his kingdom in 1182 A.D but could not hold it for too long. In 1187 A.D Prithviraj invaded the kingdom of Gujarat but could not gain much sucess and concluded a peace treaty with Solanki Bhima II. It does not appear that Prithviraj enlarged the boundries of his kingdom or achieved any conspicious military sucess like the distinguished India kings of past two centuries did. There is no ground to suppose that he was either the most powerful Indian king or a great general. The almost contemporary Muslim historians do not give such impressions. It is really the romantic tale of Chand Bardai that cast a spell around him Thus, it was not just me who thought that Prithviraja valour came from Rajput tales but even Majumdar concured with me here; he even adressed about traditional Chahaman territory as per epigraphical evidences not some legendary tales under rule of their finest ruler i.e. Bisaldev Chauhan here:- Vigharaja whose known date ranges between 1150 A.D and 1163. A.D was a great conqueror who turned the traditional state of Chauhans into an imperial power. The epigraphic evidence of his reign proved that his kingdom extended in North as far as Siwalik hills and in South ateast as far as Jaipur district in Udaipur Packer&Tracker «Talk» 01:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC) You have been asked to follow WP:INDENT atleast 6-7 times, its confusing to read without indent. Anyway, as the raid and conquest question is for Chandela territory not Gwalior state which didn't exist at that time and neither their territory matched with each other, Chandela ruled far east then Gwalior, their capital was Mahoba and Kalinjar. Either your are doing this willfully or you have no understanding of the history of the time period and not even geography. And regarding conquest of other territory, the topic at hand is not conquest but territory controlled by Prithviraj, whether he conquered or he inherited which was conquered earlier by his uncle Vigraharaja, doesnt matter when we are talking about territory controlled. Don't try to mix these things up to further make matter confusing when there it isn't. As i said earlier this is WP:GASLIGHTING. Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC) @Sajaypal007: Well, I was the one who is trying to bring more reliable sources to the table to tone down clear cut puffery here. Territories are also obtained from conquests; In any case Singh mentioned that he controlled Himalayan foothils in north to the Mount Abu region in South this is contested by Majumdar who explained logically that his uncle Bisaldev at his peak controlled region from Satvik till Udaipur in south. Indeed, considering he failed in his military expedition against Parmaras of Abu then how his territories expands till their domain ? Secondly, Malwa was controlled by Parmaras and Chandelas from my understanding of the past; He hardly gain any territory from either of them. So, how he controlled Malwa (according to Singh) is open to question. At last; Don't avoid the main question where author mentioned Gujarat and Delhi ?? Please bring any other academic source which states he controlled region in Uttrakhand, Pakistan etc (which even Vigharaja did not) then I will not argue further more. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 08:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC) The content was already cited when you tried to remove it, it is your WP:BURDEN to provide sources that oppose this view. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC) @Sajaypal007: It was indeed cited but definately in that version it did not exaggerate extent of his kingdom like it was done a week or so back. Please, take a look here: Special:MobileDiff/740238251 I quoted Majumdar for the same who mentioned that he did not enlarge his kingdom much. (as I quoted from pp;338) At last, Please reply where he mentions Gujarat and Delhi even in his exaggerated accounts ? You avoided these quite a few times I let Utcursch to atleast make a passing reference to their edit which I pointed out early. Thanks. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 17:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC) So, do you want to take the version to before this borderline edit warring started between both of you? Regarding his conquest, this page itself has more than his mentions of war and conquest, why only bother with Majumdar, there are many sources cited here which talks about it, which is again not the topic as I mentioned above. Regarding Gujarat, I think it is not mentioned by R.B. Singh but Dashratha Sharma do mention that a peace treaty was concluded with solankis the gujarat ruler which was favorable to Prithviraj. I have to see more of it but prima facie, I don't have any issue in its removal, if its not backed up by source, you should talk to that other editor who added it, so matter can be concluded because modern Gujarat touch its border with Rajasthan in both towards Jalore/Barmer and Mewar, Mewar was under Chauhan is quite evident and what was exact border can be discussed. Regarding delhi, well there was no need to mention delhi by R.B. Singh, he already mentions Meerut in east, and delhi lies to its west and whole of that area was under Chauhan rule. I am sure there are other historians too who mentioned delhi under chauhan because it is well known that Ghurids took delhi from Chauhan. Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC) @Sajaypal007: I don't want to take this article to any version but these is clearly exaggeration at it's very worst which anyone with decent knowledge about history will concur with. Yes Sharma concluded that Gujarat treaty most probably ended in his favour; but other scholars like R.C. Majumdar and Satish Chandra believed that Bhima II defeated him and was sucessfull against him. Majumdar is atleast as credible as Sharma given Chandra leftiest bias lets ignore it though even he is a strong authority on the subject. In any case neither Sharma claimed that Prithviraj ruled parts of Uttrakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Pakistan. Prithviraj ruling Delhi is very contentious; it might sounds strange but this is fact that Delhi is probably added to his domain by Colonial writters on basis of unreliable Prithviraj Raso. The near contemporary persian authors like Hasan Nizami and Minhaj-I-Siraj also never mentioned him as ruler of Delhi, they instead mentioned Govind Rai (Rai Gola) as Rai of Delhi and Pithaura as Rai of Ajmer. Let me quote scholarly work of Harihar Niwas Diwedi tittled Dilli ke Tomar 1973 which is in Hindi but let me transcribe it briefly in English and I will add page numbers so that readers can verify or cross check it too On testinomy of persian as well as other Indian sources including the numismatic evidences of Tomar coins of that period, It is now clear that Prithviraj Chauhan III never ruled over Delhi which continue to be under Tomar rule till it was finally conquered by Shahabuddin Ghori on 17 March 1192 A.D. the victor of the Second Battle of Tarain (Feb 1192) while returning from his conquest of Ajmer (Source:- Dilli ke Tomaras by Harihar Niwas Diwedi (1973) pp:275-298) Packer&Tracker «Talk» 06:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC) You are discreding and comparing historians as it suits you. It won't change anything. Of course Prithviraj was called Rai of Ajmer, his capital was at ajmer, why would he be called Rai of Delhi? Delhi was under Chauhan since times of Vigraharaj IV and Ghurid took delhi from Chauhan. I don't think there is any iota of doubt about it. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC) @Sajaypal007: I am not discreding any historian here. I haven't claimed anything yet that is not sourced. Even for Delhi claim; I added a reference to it. But, I personaly believes that it won't be correct to remove Delhi either, though this was genuinely interseting findings. The Persian authors of that age did not said him as ruler of Delhi which is a fact. H.N Diwedi streched this argument after examination of inscriptions and copper coins issued by Tomaras. Yes, there is no doubt that Vigharaja conquer Delhi from Tomaras which is confirmed by 12th century inscription as well but there were three rulers between him and Rai Pithora. Anyway these debate won't go anywhere; I tried my best to assume good faith and remove his territorial expansion in lead to legacy part with tag of better/more sources needed but you even removed that as well. Did any source other then Singh mentions about his kingdom expansion in Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh ?? No ? Should we use him in lead ?? Probably not as we do not mention territory of most of rulers in lead itself. Anyone with decent knoweldge of the era will definately raise objections over the current state of lead; that's why Utkarshraj Atmaram translated his territory with nuance here Special:MobileDiff/740238251 and added only those domains which most scholars concur with:- Thus, it included parts of present-day Rajasthan, southern Punjab, northern Madhya Pradesh, and western Uttar Pradesh My last proposal to end this discussion will be to not mention any territory in lead (apart from ruling their traditional core kingdom) and retain this details in legacy part with a tag of better/more sources needed ?? Perhaps add Utkarshraj translation of his territory expansion (secondary proposal) If not, then only way to resolve this will be at WP:DR. Lets give one more crack to fix it by ourself. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 11:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC) @Sajaypal007: You claimed that he probably inherited those territories from Bisaldev Chauhan because Majumdar pointed out that he failed in several of his expeditions and could not expand his kingdom and achieved any major military success. Here is source from an archaeologist, historian Rima Hooja about extent of his kingdom A History of Rajasthan The details about him starts with a heading The AGE OF PRITHVIRAJA III from pp:260 onwards:- Meanwhile Prithviraja III (probably born in c. VS 1223 or 1166 A.D) had asecended the throne of Shakambari-Ajmer as a minor in 1178 A.D after death of his father Someshwara. He inherited a kingdom that streched from Thaneshwar (the famed capital of seventh century emperor Harsha) in the north to Jahazpur (Mewar) in the south Since it was my burden to point out that he did not inherit a large kingdom and perhaps did not expanded much afterwards; I perhaps shrugg off my burden fair a bit. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 05:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC) don't put words in my mouth, I said whether he inherited or conquered doesnt matter, when we are talking about the territory he controlled. And I also mentioned that on the artivle itself there are mamy subsection for his conquest, contrary to what you are trying to claim. Regarding Hooja, you are trying to create WP:OR if you take one thing from a ref and another thing from other reference and trying to conclude something out of it by mixing both Hooja and Majumdar, that too is selective as I already pointed out that this article is filled with his conquest and wars. Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC) @Sajaypal007: I am not creating any kind of original research here neither I put words in your mouth. It's a fact that Singh is exaggerating about his territorial expansion. Hooja mentions his kingdom boundries which all modern scholars concur with; Majumdar is in different class altogether then R.B Singh and still is one of the most respected historian of our past despite his hardcore nationalist appraoch. Secondly, Dr Hooja also mentioned in subsequent para's that he could not gain any major territories as his sucess over Chandela's were short lived, nothing much is known about his Gujarat expedition but he most likely suffered a reverse and his failed night attack on Abu kingdom. Lastly; I proposed a neutral perspective to resolve this issue by mentioning that he inherited a kingdom that stretched from Thaneswar till Jhazpur (as Hooja claimed) and led several expedition against neighbouring kingdoms including defeating a Ghurid army in Tarain. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 07:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker Some days ago you were repeatedly mentioning the works of Rb Singh regarding Prathviraj territories and now you are saying that he is not a renowned historian , you are continuosly changing your opinions Pajawan was the general of Mahoba and he was appointed as a ruler of Mahoba , i know that the incription of Pramardi was issued just one year after the Prathviraj conquest of Mahoba but that doesn't mean that he didn't won Mahoba , i even shared sources you need to check before asking for source , ok now we assume that Pajwan was not appointed as ruler of Mahoba , then what ? even if we accept this then we can't deny this fact that Prathviraj won territories of Chandela's, before the battle's with the main armies of Chandela's he defeated Malkhan Singh the one of the general of Chandela's in Battle of Sirsagarh (or Sieze of Sirsagarh), Prathviraj sent his general Chavand Rai to capture Kalijar fort in which he succeeded, if we not entire Chandela Kingdom , according to Rb Singh Prathviraj was successful in conquring the parts of Chandela's https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.119620/page/n201/mode/1up?view=theater There is even Madanpur incription of Mahoba of Prathviraj Chuahan which also proves that he captured Chandela territories Rb Singh diversely mentioned the territories and yoy can not argue that why he didn't mentioned seprate state or country for that , he clearly mentioned name of cities and region's and that is enough to prove his territories , he mentioned Bhawalpur State which is in Pakistan and also share border with Indian state of Rajasthan which make it clear that Prathviraj ruled that region, Rb singh clearly mentioned Gwalior and Malwa for Madhya Pradesh so here also you try but you can not argue but there is clearly written He clearly mentioned Delhi and not only one but several times in his book , see carefully first , Delhi was under Prathviraj Chauhan and literally every source accept this fact talks As i said the Chahman-Chalukya conflicts ended with Chahaman's victory , so definitely not entire Gujrat but the parts of Gujrat were under him , however this is course of further research , i will conclude after sometime Asr99.0979 (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker Let's further more discuss on facts, these are answers which you asked from @Sajaypal007 He not only capture the booty but also conquer territories as i previously explained , Gwalior state was under him and it can not be denied , first give counter fact to deny this fact * For your kind information ,the empirebof Vigrahraj 4th was upto Himalayan foothills as accepted by almost all historians (from incriptions as well) , can you please tell me which Katoch Rajput ruler was defeated by Vigrahraj 4th ? Is there any matrimonial alliance ? Then how his empire reached Himalaya foothills , you also mentioned this thing? As i previously said there should be no reason of everything, by this logic i can question with every empire that how you won these territories ,as i also said neither Gadwal nor Katch were so powerful during the Rajput period, they were chief's who unified mainly during the Sultanate rule, if they were strong rulers we may have seen some type of conflicts or alliance Yes many times Govind Rai was mentioned as ruler of Delhi but even he was under Prathviraj Chauhan, according to Turkish sources as well (if we reject so called rajput tales) then Govind Rai was fought under the banner of Prathviraj Chauhan and they also mention Prathviraj as main ruler of Delhi , Delhi was just like Ajmer in those times It's unfortunate that you are unaware of Pakistan map, i clearly mentioned Bhawalpur state which shares border with the Indian state of Rajasthan, The Bhawalpur state was in the South portion of Punjab, you need to know that Tabarhind was much ahead of Bhawalpur state Asr99.0979 (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: I think its sheer wastage of time in arguing with you who use original researches to push their POV; I already presented source from reputed academics like Majumdar that he was failed king who could not expand his kingdom much; in case of your reference you are still arguing with a 17th century Prithviraj raso recession who dubious reliability is dimissed by every scholar. He never captured any Chandela territory for long as can be seen from the fact that Parmardi was still issuing inscriptions after his fictional conquest or short lived. His failure in expedition of Gujarat is already pointed out by me quoting Majumdar and Chandra in previous replies. At end of day all you have is a single source of R.B Singh whose reliablity is already in question for such extraordinary claims. None of Persian chronicles mentioned Govind Rai as his vassal; this is pointed out well by H.N Diwedi from pp-275-298. You will fail to provide a source even for this claim apart from R.B Singh. In any case, I won't waste further time in arguing on basis of fabricated claims with you as I got a better or say more recent source for exact extent of his territory when he inherited the kingdom and will discuss with Sajaypal007 about it. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 05:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker I already presented the sources from reputed historians like Dashrath Sharma , I don't know why you didn't see that (may be you don't want to see) , you should have to check first it is you who first quoted (and even edited the article) Rb singh , I only presented the source from the same author , now you are saying that " whose reliability is already in question for such extraordinary claims. " , If he was unreliable then how you edited the article on the basis of Rb Singh ? this literally show's you don't want to accept even after knowing facts , Rb singh was the only one who openly discussed Prathviraj territories by mentioning the regions and cities, this is the reason why his references were mentioned in the legacy section, this was the reason why you edited and now questioning the reliability, i already explained how he conquered Chandela territories and still you don't have a single counter argument against what i said, as i already said the incription of Parmardi was granted much time after conquest, also i didn't quoted from Prathviraj raso not even a single time regarding territories Fron recent times you were repeatedly giving manipulated and wrong arguments regarding his territories which were bursted many times, now all you have only such blames instead of counter arguments, sources and facts, do discuss with anyone you want i already proved what i have to prove, so i can not allow any type of edit, you itself didn't presented any reputed source , what you mentioned were only those sources who had no link with what we are discussing right now, i already presented the sources and with links as well unlike you just giving view without any logic, argument and source, it is better if you again come with proper arguments otherwise we don't have time to discuss on such pointless discussion where the thing was already proved (even by Sajaypal 007 whom you are mentioning), also do follow WP:SCHOLARSHIP, You are continuosly questioning the authority of author's and even those you itself quoted Asr99.0979 (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: Stop making vague claims. I said this about 10-12 times that I never edited using R.B Singh source; he is not in same class of authors I quoted either. You indeed presented facts like:- Pajawan being the ruler of Mahoba (factual indeed) His kingdom expansion till Abu in south despite suffering a reverse against Parmaras (factual indeed) At last, I presented source for my each and every claim whether a failed expedition against Gujarat, (quoting Majumdar, Chandra) short lived if any sucess against Chandela, (quoting Chandra, Majumdar) inhertiting a territory of Thaneswar in north till Abu in south (quoting Hooja) As, I said in previous reply there is no point in wasting time with you by writting long paragraphs again & again to no futile result. I will look for WP:DR anyway. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 07:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker First of all you edited after giving the reference of legacy section and that contains citation of RB singh means you openly supported the reference of Rb singh, if not that means you were editing without checking reference which shows you don't care of facts Now i am quoting Majumdar ( and please don't say this next time thar Majumdar is not a reputed historian just like you did with Rb singh, you openly quoted Majumdar, remeber that) Majumdar is his book " History of Indian Peoples and Culture, Volume 5" chapter - The age of Prathviraj 3rd, had clearly written on Page number 108 that Chahaman's maintained their control over Jejakabhukti for long time (however in 1183 Chandela's retakes many lost territories and made full control over Jejakabhukti after Prathviraj death) This was from Majumdar whom you itself quoted Also Prathviraj empire reached Mount Abu which was under the chalukya territories , Those long paragraphs also contains arguments, it is better if you say you don't have counter arguments I quoted from the same Historians whom you mentioned, now there is no sense in debating with you when your own arguments don't match with the source you are giving, you are just narrating the fantacy tales without any proof Asr99.0979 (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC) @Packer&Tracker Why you are editing without consensus ? The same Historian Majumdar whom you mentioned called Prathviraj as " The last great Hindu Emperor of North India " on the same page number 338 which you mentioned in your recent edit, don't be one sided please, he mentioned North India means he ruled much of North India, now i am quoting the same Historian you quoted Asr99.0979 (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: Please stop with your original research and cherry picking or misrepresentation of source I did not edit in article anything controversial; the content is backed up by scholarly work which present counter view of it. Now on cherry picking Majumdar quote; you claimed that he mentioned him as so called Emperor of North India on pg. 338 (which he rightly did) but can't you figure out what he mentions afterwards ? That who claimed him an emperor ?? i.e. As the last great Hindu emperor of North India, his memory has been embolished by popular legendsand theme of many of popular bald. The famous poet Chand Bardai immortalised him in his famous epic Prithviraj raso, but the book in its extant form can not be regarded as an authentic or contemporary source Majumdar clearly mentioned that his memories as so called Emperor of North India are propagated through. Majumdar clearly mentioned that his memories as so called Emperor of North India are propagated through popular legends and bald which are not among authentic source. He did not expanded till Mount Abu which was under Parmaras of Abu who were under supremacy of Solankis of Gujarat, his failed expedition against them while night attack is well known. Even here Majumdar did not claimed that his expeditions over Chandela kingdom were not successful but could not retain it for long. (You claimed that Majumdar mentioned he retain it for long; provide the link to it with quotes like I did, Also controlling till 1183 AD. does not fall in category of for long he invaded their kingdom in 1182 AD, I present more verifiable source and not fantasies) PS:- Why you ruled out the part where Majumdar mentioned:- It does not appear that Prithviraj enlarged the boundries of his kingdom or achieved any conspicious military sucess like the distinguished India kings of past two centuries did. There is no ground to suppose that he was either the most powerful Indian king or a great general. The almost contemporary Muslim historians do not give such impressions. It is really the romantic tale of Chand Bardai that cast a spell around him It does not appear that Prithviraj enlarged the boundries of his kingdom or achieved any conspicious military sucess like the distinguished India kings of past two centuries did. There is no ground to suppose that he was either the most powerful Indian king or a great general. The almost contemporary Muslim historians do not give such impressions. It is really the romantic tale of Chand Bardai that cast a spell around him It does not appear that Prithviraj enlarged the boundries of his kingdom or achieved any conspicious military sucess like the distinguished India kings of past two centuries did. There is no ground to suppose that he was either the most powerful Indian king or a great general. The almost contemporary Muslim historians do not give such impressions. It is really the romantic tale of Chand Bardai that cast a spell around him Packer&Tracker «Talk» 00:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC) This article is at best exaggerating the territory of Prithviraj. Many sources states Prithviraj ruled over Ajmer and Delhi only. Can some one correct it, Article seems to be over exaggerating Prithviraj who at best was one of the many rajput chiefs who fought with each other and lost to invaders. page 502 https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=sjscEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA502&dq=prithviraj+chauhan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9pInvxLD3AhWnl-AKHXivDFA4FBDoAXoECAsQAg#v=onepage&q=prithviraj%20chauhan&f=false Page 34 https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=ejxyDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&dq=prithviraj+chauhan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9pInvxLD3AhWnl-AKHXivDFA4FBDoAXoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=prithviraj%20chauhan&f=false Page 24 and 25 https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=GQR_DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA25&dq=prithviraj+ajmer&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi79r3MxbD3AhUxc98KHYiOBNo4ChDoAXoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=prithviraj%20ajmer&f=false Thakurgul (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Thakurgul @Thakurgul: Please take a look at talk page guideline of Wikipedia. Prithviraj who at best was one of the many rajput chiefs who fought with each other and lost to invaders this is not the bone of contention here either. Thanks Packer&Tracker «Talk» 02:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Packer&Tracker with your recent addition seems like you are doing WP:TE, in quote of you added long unrelated lines but it nowhere mentions what you claimed he said that he was defeated. Either re-write the whole thing or it will be reverted. And remember to maintain WP:NPOV while making such additions and removal.Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC) @Sajaypal007: Please read the quotation properly before making vague accusations. You claimed that I added unrelated long lines which do not pointed out that he was defeated. Have another good look at it again; Author is Satish Chandra who wrote on last paragraph of page no.23 that:- Prithviraj turned his attention towards his ancient rivals, the Solankis of Gujarat. The struggle was long drawn out and it seems that Gujarat ruler, Bhima II who had earlier beatun off an invasion by Ghurid ruler, Muizzuddin, defeated Prithviraj also Packer&Tracker «Talk» 08:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC) The sentence is totally wrong|| He controlled much of North India and some parts of Pakistan, his empire included parts of present-day Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi, Punjab, Uttrakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Gujrat. || Many sources mention Prithviraj ruled over Ajmer and Delhi only. Can some one correct It should mention that Prithviraj ruled over Ajmer and Delhi only. Thanks I will read about discuss better page 502 https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=sjscEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA502&dq=prithviraj+chauhan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9pInvxLD3AhWnl-AKHXivDFA4FBDoAXoECAsQAg#v=onepage&q=prithviraj%20chauhan&f=false Page 34 https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=ejxyDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&dq=prithviraj+chauhan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9pInvxLD3AhWnl-AKHXivDFA4FBDoAXoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=prithviraj%20chauhan&f=false Page 24 and 25 https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=GQR_DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA25&dq=prithviraj+ajmer&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi79r3MxbD3AhUxc98KHYiOBNo4ChDoAXoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=prithviraj%20ajmer&f=false Thakurgul (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Thakurgul @Packer&Tracker See this is the link of Rc Majumdar's books https://archive.org/details/struggleforempir05bhar/page/107/mode/1up?view=theater He clearly mentioned how Chahaman's took possession of Mahoba (not for long period but atleast conquered) (also you didn't shared any link like i shared, those books from Google books can't show such accurate information because of sell and privacy) Secondaly , In war with Chalukyas, Prathviraj was dominant over Chalukyas, it result in peace treaty as well as the territories won by Prathviraj (as also accepted by Majumdar in his Book History and culture of Indian people's (not in Ancient India) and it was the reason why Rb singh mentioned Prathviraj domain upto Mount Abu, Rb Singh openly discussed about his territories and that's why his work was added in legacy section regarding territories, on the basis of that we are maintaining the article if you have any source regarding his territories you can present, but atleast don't put these things by yourself Asr99.0979 (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC) @Asr99.0979: Please be more cautious while interpreting a scholarly work. I never edited anything in this article regarding his expeditions against Mahoba rulers. Just elaborate on point that Majumdar never wrote that he could held their kingdom for long. (Same is quoted from Ancient India book, pp-338) You again cherry picked Majumdar source in same vein as it suits your perspective. You avoided that in very next page he wrote:- All these wars waged by Prithviraja against his neighbours do not seems to have resulted in any aquisation of territory. He inherited from his predecessors a kingdom which extends upto Hissar and Sirhind in Patial, on the north-west, and Delhi on the north. It was bounded on south by the kingdom of Guhilas of Mewar, and the territories of the Chahamanas of Nadol; who were vassals of the Chaulkya Bhima II, on the east by the kingdoms of the Yaduvanshi of Bayana-sripatha, the Kachchhapaghats of Gwalior and Gahadavals of Kanauj; and on the north west by the kingdoms of Yaminis of Lahor (pp-109, same book) This source itself talks about his territories in nuance and differs greatly from R.B Singh's source. In any case, I also pointed out earlier source of archeologist Rima Hooja in my earlier replies; diff A History of Rajasthan The details about him starts with a heading The AGE OF PRITHVIRAJA III Meanwhile Prithviraja III (probably born in c. VS 1223 or 1166 A.D) had asecended the throne of Shakambari-Ajmer as a minor in 1178 A.D after death of his father Someshwara. He inherited a kingdom that streched from Thaneshwar (the famed capital of seventh century emperor Harsha) in the north to Jahazpur (Mewar) in the south Packer&Tracker «Talk» 03:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion re raised

Since above discussion is marked as closed by Abecedare (quite rightfully so, as it was not heading towards any consensus) I decided to re raise this issue considering the entire factual accuracy of the article is in question in light of such extradordinary claims.

Sajaypal007; You claimed in one of your above replies that I double quoted Majumdar and Hooja to reach a particular conclusion. This was not the case here is Majumdar source (which blocked user pointed towards) where Majumdar mentions about his territorial expansion along with adding that All these wars waged by Prithviraja against his neighbours do not seems to have resulted in any aquisation of territory

THE HISTORY & CULTURE OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE

All these wars waged by Prithviraja against his neighbours do not seems to have resulted in any aquisation of territory. He inherited from his predecessors a kingdom which extends upto Hissar and Sirhind in Patial, on the north-west, and Delhi on the north. It was bounded on south by the kingdom of Guhilas of Mewar, and the territories of the Chahamanas of Nadol; who were vassals of the Chaulkya Bhima II, on the east by the kingdoms of the Yaduvanshi of Bayana-sripatha, the Kachchhapaghats of Gwalior and Gahadavals of Kanauj; and on the north west by the kingdoms of Yaminis of Lahore

(pp:-109)

I already pointed out Rima Hooja's thesis diff regarding his inherited domain. R.B Singh can very well be dismissed as a fringe here for such extraordinary claims. If not, we should keep his quote in Legacy part with a tag of more sources needed/better sources needed/disputed factual correctness etc. We should use in lead that he ruled Chauhan-Sambhar kingdom with his base at Ajmer in current day India and led miltary expeditions against his neighbours. Please try to make this new discussion as precise and factual it can be, Thanks. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 00:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence is not valid and wrong "He controlled much of North India and some parts of Pakistan, his empire included parts of present-day Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi, Punjab, Uttrakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Gujrat." valid sentence is Prithviraj ruled over Ajmer and Delhi with Ajmer as capital. check below — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thakurgul (talk • contribs) 00:27, April 29, 2022 (UTC)

Since, there is hardly a fruitful counter argument in last few days in these regard, Let me again propose my changes in more clear terms

I am proposing to change the article lead text from Prithviraja III (IAST: Pṛthvī-rāja; reign. c. 1178–1192 CE), popularly known as Prithviraj Chauhan or Rai Pithora, was a ruler from the Chahamana (Chauhan) dynasty who ruled Sapadalaksha, the traditional Chahamana territory, in present-day north-western India with his capital at Ajmer. He controlled much of North India and some parts of Pakistan, his empire included parts of present-day Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi, Punjab, Uttrakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Gujrat to Prithviraja III (IAST: Pṛthvī-rāja; reign. c. 1178–1192 CE), popularly known as Prithviraj Chauhan or Rai Pithora, was a ruler from the Chahamana (Chauhan) dynasty who ruled Sapadalaksha, the traditional Chahamana territory, in present-day north-western India with his capital at Ajmer. He led several expeditions against neighbouring kingdoms something like this. Thus, moving the exaggerating account of his territories to later section like Legacy with tag of better/more sources needed. If needed can add Majumdar quote as pointed above. Please point out any objections regarding this change

Packer&Tracker «Talk» 00:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Johnbod:, regarding you recent changes to lede diff, Prithviraj being executed by Ghurids is covered in later lead, I think this will be repetition of text.

• Secondly, as per source of Majumdar 2001 in legacy part, all his military actions do not resulted in territorial expansions either. Please point out your changes so that we can add better and more neutral lede regarding his millitary campaigns. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 02:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Regarding recent revert

Let me explain my revert briefly here to avoid any controversy; Special:MobileDiff/1087355023, In these revison, I already quoted Rima Hooja for his inherited relam which is sourced with quotations in legacy part. Tarain-1191 got nothing to do with his inherited domain, he was already king of Sambhar-Ajmer fourteen years prior to the combat. I won't going to argue over king/ruler tittles. Just because one more account revert ruler to king,Special:MobileDiff/1087157840, to avoid edit war, I locked king which the article used from over a decade before now blocked user Asr99.0979 inserted Emperor, Thanks.

Meanwhile Prithviraja III (probably born in c. VS 1223 or 1166 A.D), had asecended the throne of Chauhans of Shakambari-Ajmer as a minor in VS 1234. AD. 1177, upon the death of his father Someshwara. He inherited a kingdom that stretched from Thaneshwar (the famed capital of seventh century emperor Harsha Vardhana of the Pushyabhuti line) in the north to Jahazpur (Mewar) in the south

Packer&Tracker «Talk» 01:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker if Sirhind included in north west then we should have to mention Delhi in North not Thanesar (as mentioned in legacy section as well) , regarding south, Mewar is appropriate to use because his domain in South was upto the Chahaman's of Nadol, the jahazpur domain contradicts with Udaipur incription (as both are in Mewar so we should have to use Mewar only for his South domain Saviour 244 (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker Thanesar itself seems to be in North-west if we include Delhi in North, Hisar is mentioned in the legacy section which is nearer to Thanesar Saviour 244 (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Packer&Tracker «Talk» 11:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Saviour 244: Please try to reply in sub section which I started, to avoid another bulky thread which becames hard to read. The previous addition before your edits, actually mentioned Jahazpur (Mewar) diff, so don't know How you claimed that we didn't use Mewar. Jahazpur is in Mewar, and this abstract is taken directly from Hooja whom I quoted and provided the quoations again in my last reply on this thread.

Why not Thanesar ?? Rima Hooja source very clearly states Thanesar in the north to Jahazpur (Mewar) in the south, we can't write a lengthy lead, as it is summary of content cited in article's body.

The quote of Hooja explicitly mentions the territory he inherited from Someshwar and I see no reason to remove Thanesar and instead add Hissar or Delhi (which are covered in detail in later sections)

:::@Packer&Tracker The Sirhind and Delhi were mentioned many times and in many sources , we should have to conclude from all Historians not from only one, i removed Jahazpur only because of his udaipur incription and his south territories which touches borders of Chalukyas of Gujrat and also Chahaman's of Nadol, i found only Mewar as accurate because it can't shows particular place of his South territories (the south territories are very diverse if check the sources not only from one source) Saviour 244 (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Packer&Tracker «Talk» 11:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Saviour 244: Just like your previous account you don't care about factual accuracy of an article, all you care is by exaggerating territorial expansion of your king. Like through your original account you were pushing for emperor and the fact that he controlled all North India along with Pakistan, Uttrakhand etc.

Now, you are making your own synthesis of sources by quoting so called Udaipur inscription which most probably never existed just like your claim about Pajwan Dev ruling Mahoba.

• Please stop it, I consider it waste of time arguing with a likely sock account of Asr99.0979.
• In any case, Sirhind is in northwest which is in Punjab and the frontier north of it. No, Delhi can not be considered in North neither, Thanesar is in north not northwest by any means, it's disputed whether they actually controlled Delhi or not as Harihar Niwad Diwedi work states (which I quoted earlier in archieves)
• At last, It's impossible to quote all scholarly thesis in lead of a article, Majumdar source talks about all his predecessors while Hooja source clearly talks about inherited domain from Someshwara and no way it seems incorrect considering Hooja qualifications.

I still suggest you to wait for few months, edit constructively on other projects (through your original account of Asr99.0979) and then try to request for unblocking it will give more fruitful results, instead of using alterate accounts for deception. Thanks. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 10:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2022

Hello Can anybody plzz make a small change for me in the second lead; Current version as it stands it states that:- Prithviraj unified several Rajput clans and defeated the Ghurid army led by Muhammad Ghori near Taraori in 1191 AD. Please change it to:- Prithviraj led a coalition of Rajput kings and defeated the Ghurid army of Muhmmad Ghuri near Taraori in 1191 CE. The four sources which are attached actually says that he lead an army of 100-150 Rajput chiefs/rajas in battle not the he requested. Please make this small change soon. 2409:4051:2D92:C520:9489:5B32:8385:7446 (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. He didnt really "unify". Instead he led a coalition which is more accurate. >>> Extorc.talk 11:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc: Thank your for adding informative text to this article. However, the number of Rajputs who joined him is bit uncertain as Rima Hooja and Dasharatha Sharma estimate the number as 150, while K.S Lal simply asserts that he was sucessful in enlisting support of over 100 Rajput rulers with their armies. Romila Thapar gave no specific number but states that Rajputs get together as best they could. Thus, it was a decent coalition of Rajputs indeed.

Do you want to suggest anything else in regard to my recent edit ? Special:MobileDiff/1090621994.

Cheers. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 13:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh thanks for telling me that. I acted at that time only with the inline citations in front of that sentence. I am completely fine with your edit. >>> Extorc.talk 14:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Caste of Pruthviraj chauhan

Pruthviraj chauhan was rajput warrior every one know but here on wiki page this is not mention anyware except battle with Mohamad gouri. Please add Rajput cast. 2405:204:800D:F2C3:B05B:A907:84C3:FE17 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please learn how to talk on Wikipedia pages, take a look at our talk page guidelines as well for better conduct in future, this Special:MobileDiff/1091167399 is not acceptable.

• Regarding his caste, this is already covered with scholarly citation on his dynasty article, take a look there as well. We don't use castecruft in lead summary on a ruler's article. Our later lead already mentions that he lead coalition of Rajput rulers (with 5 academic citations) in his successful battle against Ghurid conqueror and his forces were smashed a year later where Prithviraj lost, fled but was overtaken near battlesite and executed. Unfortunately, the myth of 17 failed Ghurid invasions is not backed up by any historical evidence neither does the version of Prithviraj beheading the Sultan. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 17:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding recent revert

In my recent revert, diff, I removed both the contrasting statements regarding Rajput identity where scholars like Rima Hooja, Nandini Sinha Kapur, Upinder Singh etc were quoted. I do feel that adding anything regarding Rajput identity belongs at main Rajput page not on a article of a random ruler. Since, I restored content on main article where the debate regarding this was going on, I am pinging those involved editors to give their opinions here; whether they concur with me or not. Please do share whether we should add contrasting statements about Rajput identity which to me isn't relevant here or let that stay on main Rajput page where already different scholarly monographs are quoted. Thanks. Packer&Tracker (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2022

Prithviraj Chauhan not died in1192 AD but in 1206AD. 43.248.74.162 (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. >>> Extorc.talk 07:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2022 (2)

Change Prithviraj led a coalition of several Rajput kings and defeated the Ghurid army led by Muhammad Ghori near Taraori in 1191 AD. However, in 1192 CE, Ghori returned with an army of Turkish mounted archers and defeated the Rajput army on the same battlefield. Prithviraj fled the battlefield, but was captured near Sirsa and executed to Prithviraj fought Ghauri and defeated him several time but later Ghauri collided with Jai Chand (Father in Law of Chauhan) and several other rulers who were against Chauhan.Because of unexpected attack Prithviraj got defeated and was later taken to Afganistan where it is claimed that he killed Ghauri. 122.161.50.78 (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please understand the nuances between history and legends. This version has no historical backing, it's a legendary version of bardic & unreliable Prithviraj Raso.

• There are no historical evidences which suggests that Jai Chand allied himself with Ghuri conqueror, he has no reason to do so, infact the contemporary texts of that time praise him as a capable ruler. He fought against Mu'izz al-Din very next year at Chandawar 1194 and nearly carried the day before a arrow pierced his head and his armies were routed.
• No, he never killed Ghuri, this is part of Indian folktale which is not backed up by any historical evidence. Ghuri returned to his base and joined Ghiyath in their campaigns towards West and after his death became sole ruler of Ghurid Sultanate, this are documented facts. He died much later in March 1206 after he crushed a Khokhar revolt and while returning he was assasinated by them or by a fanatic Muslim of rival Shia branch. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 12:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Seeking real information about the text .

Can you please provide info. from the books you followed for the reference . 2409:4041:2E8D:19A5:C176:1466:7304:3297 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Click at view source option in case you are using a PC/Laptop which I use. If you are using a Mobile device, then click on right most edit part, Since the article is semi-protected you will get the option of view source directly from there and then you can view and copy the source of this article.

Please take a look at Bibliography section. Thanks. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 14:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk to improve the page.

Historians are confused about the history of Prithviraj Chauhan. Books which do not match with history should be removed from this page. That's why it is necessary to have this conversation. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: You are welcome to improve this page constructively by adding reliable history related references. Though, we already used best available scholarly thesis on Chauhan Rajput past from Dasharatha Sharma, R.B Singh, Satish Chandra, Rima Hooja etc. Please point out where we used books that do not match with history as you claimed. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 04:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI, Trivedi is not a historian but a jouranlist (who wrote this BBC piece); Please use competent historical sources to support your addition. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 04:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

References

@Packer&Tracker: This page of Prithviraj Chauhan is based on the story of Prithviraj Raso. Historians consider Prithviraj Raso to be an incredible book tinkering with history. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: How you concluded that our page is based on Prithviraj Raso ?? Infact in very first section, it's already added that the book is not based on authentic information and is unreliable in context of history.

Prithviraj Raso, which popularized Prithviraj as a great king, is purported to be written by his court poet Chand Bardai. However, it contains many exaggerated accounts, much of which is not useful for the purposes of history

R.B Singh 1964, pp:-162

In every section, we contest Raso as unreliable text even about his ancestry where Raso mentions Tomar princess as his mother though it was Karpuri Devi from Kalachuri dynasty.

There is no point in discussing vague claims made by you that this page is based on Raso, which states he killed Ghuri after Tarain 1192. We, however clearly mentions that this is fictional narrative. Our article and generally all Wikipedia articles base their content on reliable secondary sources, not on primary texts. Now, unless you can pinpoint specifically where we use Raso as reference without backing of other reliable secondary source, feel free to discuss. Otherwise, can't see any point in arguing.Packer&Tracker (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The book describing Prithviraj Chauhan as Rajput is also Prithviraj Raso. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

I noticed a slight spike [8] in viewership, is this guy in some current tv-drama or something like that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: This guy is a popular folk hero in India & especially in northern plain among the Rajputs and basically amongst all communities here. I am unsurprised by the viewership spike though; Cheers. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 12:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of the spike is coming from the film Samrat Prithviraj about him that was released over the weekend. Ravensfire (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

Can anyone plzzz add correct link to late historian Satish Chandra page in the section War in Gujarat section. Currently it open into this page. So add correct link to this article of late Satish Chandra. Thank u very much. 106.78.41.8 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Done and thanks for noticing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

Can anyone revert the recent content addition here by Amitized where they added about the recently released movie on him. But this is already mentioned few lines before

These include: Prithviraj Chouhan (1924), Prithviraj Sanyogita (1929) by Narayanrao D. Sarpotdar, Prithviraj (1931) by R. N. Vaidya, Prithviraj Sanyogita (1933), Prithviraj Samyogita (1946) by Najam Naqvi, Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan (1959) by Harsukh Jagneshwar Bhatt, Rani Samyuktha starring M.G. Ramachandran, Samrat Prithviraj (2022) by Chandraprakash Dwivedi

So to avoid repetition, please undo this edit by him/her. Thank you very much. 2409:4051:2D96:4903:951F:8454:FF59:F718 (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2022 (2)

I am requesting a minor change again, Since I failed to get any good response. Please revert the recent content addition here by Amitized where they added about the recently released movie on him. But this is already mentioned few lines before

These include: Prithviraj Chouhan (1924), Prithviraj Sanyogita (1929) by Narayanrao D. Sarpotdar, Prithviraj (1931) by R. N. Vaidya, Prithviraj Sanyogita (1933), Prithviraj Samyogita (1946) by Najam Naqvi, Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan (1959) by Harsukh Jagneshwar Bhatt, Rani Samyuktha starring M.G. Ramachandran, Samrat Prithviraj (2022) by Chandraprakash Dwivedi

So to avoid repetition, please undo this edit by him/her. I will appreciate if anyone publish this change sooner then later. 2409:4051:2D96:4903:CE6E:74A8:924A:B0A3 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

With apparently no answer still, I am pinging editors who used this talk page quote often to please undone the edit I requested as it is repetition coz the mention of movie is already covered in earlier lines. @Extorc, Sajaypal007, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Packer&Tracker: 2409:4051:2D96:4903:9C0B:DCA2:E42:4379 (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. In the future, give these requests at least 24 hours to get some attention before repeating them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2022

Hello, I have two minor requests regarding this page:-

1. In Citation no.1 where multiple citations are cited, Can anyone please add wiki link to the articles of historian K.S. Lal and Sugata Bose.

2. In Citation no.78 attributed to Rima Hooja, seems that term Rajasthan is misquoted, Hooja, Rima (2006). A History of Rajasthan. Rajasthan. pp. 260–262, here Rajasthan seems to be copied wrongly (Correct me If I am wrong)

Also, Rima Hooja book is there in bibliography section, plzz add this citation and quote in harvnb like other citations attributed to Hooja are quoted in this article. Please, establish this sooner then later My earlier edit request took a lot of time, so I am pinging @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Extorc, and Packer&Tracker: to soon establish these minor changes. 2409:4051:2E89:37E0:6EF5:3C5:89C6:2F25 (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: - Thanks. I have completed your first request. Will also confirm the second one and make edits accordingly. >>> Extorc.talk 10:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

What mistake do you find in the 78th citation? The PDF version that I have doesn't have page numbers, but the paragraph does exist in the book. >>> Extorc.talk 10:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc:- Sir, Please add link to Mr Lal and Bose article.

2. In regards to the second one, I think instead of publication name there, Rajasthan is probably copied wrongly no issues with paragraphs or anything.

Hooja, Rima (2006). A History of Rajasthan. Rajasthan pp.260-262

Here, again Rajasthan is written after the text A History of Rajasthan, this is probably wrongly copied. Thanks for positive response. 2409:4051:2E89:37E0:FF8A:B397:CDD8:407C (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I see that. I have added the publisher there. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 11:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks.

@Extorc: Thanks Sir. I think you forgot to add link to Sugata Bose article that day. Also The joint writter of the book his wife Ayesha Jalal is not mentioned in citation no.1 where many of citations are sub merged. Please do it sooner sir. 2409:4051:4E15:508E:4583:2415:8EA7:B9EE (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I hope this edit fulfills the entire requirement. >>> Extorc.talk 14:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2022

Rajput history 53 (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I want to help wikipedia to shown correct history about prithviraj chauhan dead's,please give me opportunity to edit this page Rajput history 53 (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Cannolis (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2022

Change "Prithviraj fled the battlefield, but was captured near Sirsa and executed." to "There are multiple accounts of his death. As per Prithviraj Raso he was taken as a prisoner of war to Ghazni where he died after killing Muhammad Ghori. Some other accounts as per historians of the Delhi Sultanate suggest that he was killed soon after battle."

Kindly remove the part in the first paragraph which says he "fled the battlefield but was captured near Sirsa". Romila Thapar's book is mentioned as a reference, however this line cannot be inferred from anything in the book. Even Rima Hooja's book never mentions that he "fled" the battle. Additionally while Rima Hooja mentions that Prithviraj leaving the battle is supported by Tabaqat-i-Nasiri written by Minhaz-us-Siraj the historian of the Delhi Sultanate, RB Singh's has stated that no such conclusion can be drawn from Minhaz-us-Siraj's work (this is mentioned in this article itself). Further while we are giving some credence to the writings of the historian of the Delhi Sultanate, the same must be given to the writings to the historian of the Chauhan dynasty who have written Prithviraj Raso. While the article states that Prithviraj Raso is the most prolific work about Prithviraj, the article hardly takes anything mentioned there in and constantly underplays several facts mentioned therein. Clearwater9 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Prithviraj fled the battlefield, but was captured near Sirsa and executed. is definitely a bad take in the lead. Ill try to fix it.
In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. >>> Extorc.talk 05:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 05:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, We can't present fictional tales in lead of the article, Prithviraj fleeing the battefield is attested by many other evidences as well.

Clearwater9: No R.B Singh didn't said this in context of fleeing the battlefied, he claimed this in different vein, as Minhaj stated that Pithora was sent to hell, this has been taken by scholars that he was killed subsequently though Singh doubted this claim.

Extorc: We can't present in lead the fictional tale of Raso that he was killed in Ghazni, no historian backed this funny claim. Infact, the epigraphic evidences confirmed that he was killed in Ajmer. Now, there are indeed many versions of his death, most likely he was killed after sometime, When Shahabuddin thought he was plotting against him. Infact, Ghurids installed his son as their puppet ruler and quite probably he too ruled aa their vassal. All this versions are presented in later sections, but most common conclusion of scholar is that he was killed not long after Tarain-1192 rout. Please, don't mention this dubious Raso version which no historian (not even a nationalist like Sita Ram Goel) backed up. Ghori died in March 1206 by a group of rival Ismail Muslims in his tent after he crushed Khokhar rebellion. Packer&Tracker (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are few academic references which attested the part that Prithviraja fled the battleground amidst the rout of Tarain-1192:-

• The Rajputs were completely routed, Govinda-rāja, the Rājã of Delhi, was among the slain. The Sultân recognised his head by the absence of the teeth that he had himself knocked out. Prthvīrāja, who must have joined the battle only very late, tried to escape on a horse, but was recognised, parsued and overtaken in the neighbourhood of Sarasvati

Dashratha Sharma, Early Chauhan dynasty, pp:-59 (Best authority on Cahamana Rajput history)

• Muhammad Ghori’s mobile cavalry finally overpowered the Rajputs. The Chauhan forces were routed; with the ruler of Delhi,Govindraja, amongst those slain. Prithviraj left the battle-ground, but was eventually overtaken and captured near Sursuti modern Sirsa, the place seems originally to have been ‘Saraswati’. This is supported by works like the Prithviraj-Prabandh, Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, and Hammir-Mahakavya, which also state that he was later put to death after a spell in captivity

Dr. Rima Hooja, A History of Rajasthan, pp:-269

• The superior organisation skill and speed of movements of the Turkish cavalry and their mounted archers and heavy cavalry ultimately decided the issue. A large number of Rajput soldiers lost their lives. Prithviraj escaped, but was captured near Saraswati (Sirsa). The Turkish armies captured the fortresses of Hansi, Saraswati and Samana. Then they attacked and captured Ajmer. Prithviraj was allowed to rule over Ajmer for some time, for we have coins of this period giving the date and the legend 'Prithvirajadeva' on one side and the words 'Sri Muhammad Sam' on the other

Satish Chandra, A History of Medieval India 800-1700, pp:-70

• Mu'izzuddin's tactics succeeded and Rai Pithora suffered a defeat. He got down from his elephant, mounted a horse and fled from the feld but was caught near Sarsuti. Minhaj says that he was immediately executed, but according to Hasan Nizami he was taken to Ajmer and was allowed to function for a time. But he was put to death on being found guilty of treason

K.A Nizami, Foundation of the Delhi Sultanate (editor:-Mohammad Habib & Nizami) pp:-171

• The Rajputs were completely routed. Govind Rai was killed. Prithviraj was captured in the neighbourhood of the river Saraswati and put to death

Kishore Sharan Lal (K. S Lal), Legacy of Muslim rule in India, pp:-77

• Now, regarding Raso variant, albeit no need to press upon something which no historian (not even a nationalist Hindu like Sita Ram Goel) concured with, still:-

• Interestingly, it is this version that today finds popular expression (including in its film rendition) whenever the tale of Prithviraj is retold. As far as historical facts go, however, it is well known that Muhammad of Ghor did not die until 1206, and that too not at the hands of Prithviraj III. Rather, he was assassisnated on 15 March 1206 at Damyak. The assassins, according to some sources, were Hindu Khokars, and according to others, Ismailis

Rima Hooja, A History of Rajasthan, pp:-365

• The suppression of revolot in the Punjab occupied Mu'izz al-Din's closing months, for on the way back to Ghaza he was assasinated, allegedly by emmisaries of the Isma'ils whom he had often persecuted during his life time (602/1206)

CE Bossworth, THE POLITICAL AND DYNASTIC HISTORY OF THE IRANIAN WORLD (A.D. 1000–1217), pp:-168

Thanks. Packer&Tracker (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

Please add correct disambiguation link to Satish Chandra (historian) in the Bibliography section. CURRENTLY, this link opens into this. So, add correct disambiguation link to this page. 2409:4051:4E15:508E:A6D9:27A8:E32:4DE4 (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2022

Prithviraj Raso is not a fictional book. It has been used as a historical artifacts based on many evidences of Prithviraj's life. The death of Gohri by Prithviraj's arrow is also an alternately accepted view accepted by Indian historians. Muslim historians dismiss this view to glorify Ghori. However, this might be true. Wikipedia should present the facts rationally without a bias towards Muslim historical narrative. JamesSmithIndia (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)