Talk:Chahamanas of Jalor

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

India: Rajasthan / History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rajasthan.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.
	This article was last assessed in January 2019.

Regarding Chahamanas being Rajput

Chariotrider555 Please discuss the issue here before making any changes on the page as the citation you wanted is now clearly provided on the page. The citation is also from Dashratha Sharma, one of the most highly regarded historians of Rajasthan. And the book is Early Chauhan Dynasties, a detailed work on history of Chahamanas/Chauhans. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, take it to Talk:Rajput. The consensus made there is that the dynasties who faced the Ghaznavids and Ghurids are not Rajputs and that it is an anachronism to label them as such. A large number of editors have participated in previous discussions and the consensus has been upheld.Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop assuming things, there is no such consensus at any talk page and anachronism in this context doesn't mean what you think it means. You similarly reverted my content on List of Rajput dynasties and states and when I asked you to participate in the discussion there, you didn't. Now on this page as well you made reverts of sourced content even when discussion is open and I tagged you here to participate.Sajaypal007 (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No-brainer; the Rajput-page clearly states that the designation "Rajput"was anachronistically given to this dynasty. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes with word Hindu, India, Mughal Empire etc. There are many such instances it doesn't change the fact the dynasties were later came to be known as Rajput. Same as Indian History has earlier history as well when it was not known as India. About Rajput identity's evolution there is a bigger debate which remained unconcluded on Rajput talk page as well but even then there is no debate on the dynasties being identified as Rajput. There is not a single historian who don't write them as Rajput. Also see Chahamanas of Shakambhari which was sister branch of Jalore.Renowned historian Dashratha Sharma in his Early Chauhan Dynasty BD Chattopadhyay, another renowned historian Burton Stein Romila Thapar, Among Top Indian historians Hermann Kulke, German Historian and Indologist All of them clearly writing Chauhan/Chahamana as Rajput dynasty. I will add more later.Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]