Talk:Bappa Rawal

message: 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)

message: 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 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Once again, you neglected to check what those fields are meant for. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding recent edits with reason