Talk:Bappa Rawal

The page is being completely edited with false information and vandalised to claim the Rajput Ruler as theirs,request Wikipedia to protect the information with right info about rajput Ruler bappa rawal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:2D88:385A:2C28:435D:832A:2C16 (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Muslims started attacking India within a few decades of the birth of Islam. For a few hundred years they had no success. Mohammed Bin Qasim was able to defeat Dahir in Sindh but was routed by Bappa Rawal. Qasim attacked Chittore, which was ruled by Mori Rajputs, via Mathura. Bappa, of guhilote dynasty, was a commander in Mori army and so was Dahir's son. Bappa defeated and pursued Bin Qasim through Saurashtra and back to Sindh. After this resounding defeat of the caliphate at the hands of Bappa, for next few hundred years there were no more Islamic incursions into India. (note Muslim historians rarely recorded the defeats of there kings). Then Mahmud started his raids and was successful in looting Somnath.

Cited ref: Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan (2 vols.). Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan; or the Central and Western Rajput States... (Hardcover) by James Tod, William Crooke (Editor) Book Description Relates the history of the Central and Western Rajput states of India; edited by William Crooke. 3 volumes. classic on early Rajasthan (amazon.com) Product Hardcover Publisher: Trans-Atl (1994) Language: English ISBN 8170691281

This is amazing, while the wikipedia article on Rajputs clearly states that the Rajputs were not known before 10th century and they were inferior to Kshatriyas until 15th century, why some paid nut is proving everyone martyr as Rajput? Everyone knows that the Guhils were offshoots of Maitrikas of Vallabhi who were a branch of Chap Gurjar dynasty of bhinmal that migrated southwards. The Real Rana (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add page number for each of your bold and ridiculous claim in your sources. 103.199.169.206 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 06:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

one important part of Bappa's life span was his conquests of Khorasan.As per annals( col. todd),shyamaldas(vir vinod)he marched upto persia and won many battles. Also he had a large progeny from the troffies of war.

one important aspect is his connection with Nushirwan the great . He and nushirwan have the same account of their death.He is believed to have started the branch of gurkhas and naushera pathans.The line of chittor is also traced to one of his muslim wives .

more work to be done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.51.159 (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

James Tod was a fool who wrote at a time before genetic testing.

The area of Naushera in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa did not have any Pathans at the time of Bappa Rawal

It was Gandharan (Punjabi) people

If Bappa Rawal's children with these so called 35 Arab wives became "Naushera Pathans", then we would see Indian man Arab woman DNA in Pashtuns of today.

There is no Indian male or Arab female DNA in Pashtuns of Naushera as per DNA testing, and Pashtuns are Eastern Iranic people 182.48.214.74 (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Legend

I am afraid to say that we are (likely) peddling legendary narratives as history. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The section of legendary account should be shortened as it is mostly rambling and has little historical value. The section was even larger, I myself reduce atleast one para from this section some months back. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits with reason

The content i was added in the article of Bappa Rawal was well sourced which was removed by Kautliya3 Frstly i addd the page number regarding the title "Purana Purusha, so there is no sense in adding "page needed", that is well sourced citation Then i removed "Different historians have identified him with various rulers of the Guhila dynasty, including Kalabhoja, Shiladitya, and Khumana." Because it was unreliable information without any source, the Kaalbhoj was the name of Bappa Rawal, Shiladitya was his ancestor and Khuman was his son, it is a fact Then i added regnal name which was used during the reign of Bappa Rawal, while actually his birth name was Kaalbhoj Also i added Posthumous name "Shriguhil govarendra Chandra" , the posthumous name which was given to Bappa Rawal after his death, i even added source with that Then i added his another name "Kaalbhoj" in led, and then added Udaipur State which itself founded by Bappa Rawal, the Mewar region was unreliable because it was known even before Bappa Rawal, there is not a single source who consider Bappa as founder of "Mewar Region", he was founder of "Mewar Kingdom" not region, the region was kneon even before him I also removed "Arab invasion of Chittod" and added "Arab invasion of India" because he not only repelled Chittod invasion while he repelled Indian Invasion of Arabs, Battle of Ujjain is perfect example of this where Armies of both Bappa Rawal and Nagbhat 1st defeated Arabs (Ummayd Caliphate)

This is my explanation, i added neutral information, there is nothing wrong against the policy Takshak24 (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There is an entire section on Identification. Did you read it? The MOS:LEAD summarises the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There are even many sources of that identification as well, and if we even accept that, then what about other facts i mentioned ? The identification fact is only one among those i raised Takshak24 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No, you can't dismiss it like that. The identification was the central issue, and your whole approach was entirely sloppy. If you believe you have made a mistake, please accept that, and restart. Take two most important issues that you believe are backed up by solid sources and raise them. We can see what happens afterwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not even forcibly talking about identification part, i am saying that what about other facts ? Like, i added the page number regarding the title "Purana Purusha, so there is no sense in adding "page needed", that is well sourced citation, it is a fact Then i added regnal name which was used during the reign of Bappa Rawal, while actually his birth name was Kaalbhoj ( I know that here is also identification problem, but we are only adding one name which is mostly associated with Bappa Rawal and that is Kalbhoja, here also i am not saying that it should be corrected in any way, if you grant this) Also i added Posthumous name "Shriguhil govarendra Chandra" , the posthumous name which was given to Bappa Rawal after his death, i even added source with that Then i added his another name "Kaalbhoj" in led (same reason i mentioned above in bracket) and then added Udaipur State which itself founded by Bappa Rawal, the Mewar region was unreliable because it was known even before Bappa Rawal, there is not a single source who consider Bappa as founder of "Mewar Region", he was founder of "Mewar Kingdom" not region, the region was known even before him I also removed "Arab invasion of Chittod" and added "Arab invasion of India" because he not only repelled Chittod invasion while he repelled Indian Invasion of Arabs, Battle of Ujjain is perfect example of this where Armies of both Bappa Rawal and Nagbhat 1st defeated Arabs (Ummayd Caliphate) Takshak24 (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to redo the edits that do not depend on the identification. Do not add funny fields like Regnal name and Posthumous name, which are not appropriate here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Regnal name and posthumous name are not funny fields, they were used by several kings, why not to add them ? As i also adding source with that, these are main issues which i am raising Takshak24 (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you neglected to check what those fields are meant for. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The posthumous name is simply a title or name which was used specially after persons death, Bappa Rawal was known as "Guhil Govarendra Chandra" after his death, the regnal name was something that was used during their reign, as Bappa Rawal was considered with many names (as we discussed) so it is important to add his regnal name (If not Posthumous name, reganl name is important to mention) Takshak24 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)