Talk:Kingdom of Amber

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's the difference between a Titular Ruler and a Ceremonial Ruler?[edit]

I am sure this is standard understanding amongst students of the region, or even of India, but making this distinction clear in the text would be useful. Found the following at https://brainly.in/question/1792153 and given it is an Indian website, it seems likely that the answer conforms to a broader Indian understanding. But, I'd like to be sure. It reads to me that Governors took over as the Titular heads of Indian states leaving the old Royalty as the Ceremonial heads, that titular heads have "in theory" power (everything is still done in the Governor's or Queen's name even if she just "takes the advice of _her_ government"), whereas ceremonial heads have just the ceremonial position and zero actual or de facto power.
Nominal head-
a. A nominal head is the Constitutional head of the country who represents the country but does not rule the country.
b. In a parliamentary form of Government, the President is not directly elected by the people, hence he remains the nominal head.
c. Nominal head, is the ceremonial head who stands at the apex of country's political system, all decisions are taken in his name. The decisions though are taken by the Prime Minister and his council members.

But a titular position is a position with just the title, but without the power or responsibilities that the position carries. A titular head is someone who is the official leader or ruler of a country without enjoying the power or the authority of the leader or the ruler.
For example-
1. The queen of England is a titular ruler of the country. She just has the title of the queen without the power or the authority of a ruler of the country.
2. State Governors in India are titular heads of the state. They are Governors only for name but in reality they do not have the power or the authority to govern the state.
101.181.174.230 (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edits to "List of rulers" subsection[edit]

I am opening this discussion to address edits by a logged out user which, in my view, are problematic:

  • In regards to this edit, they removed the citation for A History of Jaipur: C. 1503–1938 by Sir Jadunath Sarkar, claiming that "Jadunath Sarkar work didn't mentioned timeline of kings". This is false as Sarkar provides the dates of ascension and death of many of the monarchs throughout the text. To quote a few:

Prithvi Raj Kachhwa ( the son of Chandrasen ) sat on the throne of Amber from 17th January 1503 to 4th November 1527…Prithviraj was succeeded by his son Puranmal , who ruled from 5th November , 1527 to 19th January , 1534. This rajah fell in battle on the side of Humayun's brother Hindal.7 After him came his step - brother Bhim ( the eldest son of Prithviraj's Rathor queen ) , who reigned for three years and a half ( dying on 22nd July , 1537 ) , and was succeeded by his eldest son Ratan Singh …Ratan Singh was killed on 15th May , 1548 , and Askaran was crowned the next day , but enjoyed power for sixteen days only , after which the nobles joined to depose him . Bihar Mal , the fourth son of Prithviraj and his Rathor queen Apurva Devi or Bala Bai , was crowned on the first of June , 1548. (pp. 31-33)

  • In regards to this edit, they cited pages 103-04 of the 1949 edition of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, stating that it says that "the list is based on Raj Prasasthi in Amber which is considered unreliable by some other notable scholars like GH Ojha and RC Majumdar who proposed that Kachwahas migrated to Rajputana in late 11th century or in 1137 to be exact". Here is page 103-04 of that text and it says no such information.
  • In these edits they attempted to cite content they had added with a work by Gopinath Sharma and provided the following alleged quote from the text: "The migration of Kachwaha kings in Rajputana is attributed to 966 per Raj Prasasthi however GH Ojha who is major scholar in Rajasthan history mentioned this list unreliable which was composed in later times, Ojha quoted that it mentioned Palhan deva as ruler who fought with Prithviraj in Tarain but in history of Amber no ruler exist with this name". However, as can be seen here, no such quote exists in this book.
  • In this edit, they added an unreliable source template to Raja Man Singh of Amber by Dr. Rajiva Nain Prasad, stating that the information in the text is "disputed". However, this isn't what this template should be used for. Instead it is supposed to show that a cited work is of questionable reliability. As I have stated in my previous edit summary, the author of this text is a Reader in History at a prominent Indian university; there is no obvious reason to claim this work is unreliable.

Due to the above reasons, I have reverted the edits and restored the previous version of the article.
Alivardi (talk)

@Alivardi: Ok, let me answer you one by one here. Firstly Jadunath Sarkar work mentions only list of few rulers like Prithviraj Singh his father and Bharmal. The controversial part here is the migration year which is different in many sources some said 966, others 11th century and some in 1137 and so on. Sarkar didn't mentioned their migration. He briefly concluded them like Pajjun Singh who fought with Prithviraj Chauhan, Prithviraj Singh fighting with Rana Sanga and Bharmal submitting to Mughals eventually.
    • Next is R.C Majumdar work clearly mentioned the entire timeline of many Rajput kingdoms like Chauhans of Ajmer, Guhilas of Mewar including Kachwahas of Jaipur where he attributed their migration in 1137 on last pages of book.
    • Lastly Gopinath Sharma's work clearly mentioned this part but you obviously don't know the way to find quotes in books. There can be problems in formating thats why it didn't appear.

It contains the same and for Gopinath Sharma, Well he is a Indologist and Scholar on Rajasthan past

    • I added tag of Unreliable because of contrasting views on their migration. Please see your own article Timeline of history of Rajasthan where it's attributed to 1137 C.E.
    • This entire section seems controversial to me, So don't add it. Raj Prasasthi was composed in later times, way after their migration in Rajputana.
Anyway, You seems to be very hurried in pressing the revert key, don't do that in every article.2402:8100:2168:DE8F:A6B2:8718:3B2:3E77 (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​I'm not going to comment too much on the fact that it is the job of the editor to ensure that a quote is correct in order to allow for verification. Or that one scholar's opinion does not invalidate another's. Nor that the content of one Wikipedia article cannot be used to back up that of another.
What I am going to ask though, is that you please clarify the page numbers for the texts you have cited. In your citation for the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, you had the pages as 103-04. I had provided a link to these pages above, yet as I have already said, the information you mentioned is not present there. I have also checked the last few pages of this book (which you had mentioned above) and again this content is absent. Could you please therefore state the exact page you were referring to?
I would also ask that you provide the page for the Gopinath Sharma quote, which you did not give previously. Since I am seemingly unable to locate the quote, I will require this assistance.,
Alivardi (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When and how was the Kachwaha dynasty established?[edit]

When and how was the Kachwaha dynasty established? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sources on Jaipur State[edit]

Moved from User talk:Shanusar
 – Discussion supporting Special:Diff/1060427887. In hindsight, I should've started it here. --Hemanthah (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit from November that I came across, you removed multiple references without so much as an edit summary. The refs were books that appear to be scholarly and have no apparent issues at all. Could you explain why you thought they needed removal? Hemanthah (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some reference and information because the information provided and the link given were not matching. I have provided correct information from some of them and edited it with reference that match the information provided. Shanusar (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about "Raja Nal and the Goddess" book, it appears to have been added incorrectly. But the text before it, Rathores' opposition etc are all supported by Sarkar's book. Hemanthah (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No the edits and the information do not match also from the book. The present info which is there says Raja Bharmal made treaty with Akbar Because of the Rathores but the book doesn't say it. You can check. I didn't removed this source but provided correct page number and correct citation for that. According to that when Bharmal made treaty with Akbar and it was due to Mirza Sharfuddin Husain and his own divided clansmen. Shanusar (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does say so in page 35. Son of Puranmal, "Suja had taken shelter with his mother's family, the Rathors. He now came to the court of Mirza ... Akbar's governor ... and bought his support for winning the Kacchwa chieftainship for himself". Mirza didn't go on his own, he went at the request of Suja. Hemanthah (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes but when he made treaty it was due to the Sharfuddin hussain and shuja not because of Rathores as they were at that time were not able to help him so he joined Sharfuddin. The books never says the treaty was done because of Rathore . Shuja was his clansman and that is why I didn't removed the "clansman".Shanusar (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right since in page 36, it quotes Chaghtai Khan as saying "in fear on account of Husain's bad treatment of him". Since the original edit broke some sentences, I assumed you hadn't really consulted the sources. I am very sorry for that and also sorry for reverting before hearing your explanation. You can add it back and I'll restrict myself to copy editing here. Hemanthah (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Jaipur State[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Jaipur State's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "RZ":

  • From List of battles of Rajasthan: Sarkar, Jadunath (1994). A History of Jaipur: C. 1503-1938. Orient Blackswan. p. 162. ISBN 9788125003335.
  • From Rajput Rebellion 1708-1710: Sarkar, Jadunath (1994). A History of Jaipur: C.1503–1938. Orient Blackswan. p. 162. ISBN 9788125003335.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 January 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Kingdom of Amber. Rough consensus to move although no clear consensus on the new title. Per WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE a new discussion can be started at any time with any of alternatives. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jaipur State → ? – The topic of this article was not primarily a state, but a Kingdom.
A bunch of info was transferred from List of ranas of Mewar to Udaipur State which was renamed to Kingdom of Mewar last year. The Jodhpur State was renamed to Kingdom of Marwar a few months back. So currently, out of the 3 main Rajput Kingdoms of medieval India, 2 are named as Kingdom of [Name].
I believe this should be done to this article as well and Kingdom of Amber or Kingdom of Jaipur could be a suitable choice. >>> Extorc.talk 11:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Packer&Tracker, @Sajaypal007 >>> Extorc.talk 11:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to ping) I personally don't have any major issue with this move, although let me add something - Kingdom of Jaipur probably isn't ideal as Jaipur came into existence much later and the Kachwahas established themselves in the 11th-12th century in current-day Rajasthan itself.
Alternatively, couldn't we move it to Kachwahas of Dhundar or Kachwahas of Amber, just like the other medieval Rajput ruling dynasties - Chahamanas of Shakambhari, Paramara dynasty, Guhila dynasty etc. (by removing the chunk of content attributed to British period to another article with the title Kingdom of Jaipur ? Would't it be more cogent with this title ? No ?) Packer&Tracker (remark) 15:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like your suggestion, and If we were to separate the British era and the remaining sections, then I believe we can leave Jaipur state as Jaipur state and move appropriate information to Kachchwahas of Amber. >>> Extorc.talk 16:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Extorc: Go-ahead with Kachchwahas of Amber prior to the period of Britishers and let the chunk of British period stay here with this article title
In coming weeks, I will also improve and expand upon it. (Kachchwahas of Amber) Cheers. Packer&Tracker (remark) 17:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this move to the suggested page name by Packer&Tracker but do not understand the need to separate the British era state. I find it much better if this stays as a single article. Editorkamran (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move to either of the four combinations "Kingdom of Dhundhar/Amber" or "Kachchwahas of Dhundhar/Amber". But I agree with Editorkamran that we should not make two separate articles, period of Jaipur State under British can be kept as a large section in the article about the kingdom itself afterall its the same kingdom and same dynasty. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in favor of keeping it in the same article as well. >>> Extorc.talk 13:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we choose one of the suggested names, I'd go with Kachchwahas of Amber as Dhundar is not as common. >>> Extorc.talk 17:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to turn this article into a Dhundhar. Dhundhar is the right place for this, because the rest have been its capitals. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Clear common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you share some prominent sources on the topic which use the name Jaipur state commonly? Jaipur as a city didn't even exist for most of this Kingdom's history. >>> Extorc.talk 17:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amber has been a Meena state, not a Kachhwaha state. Before Amber, Khoh used to be the capital of Dhundhar. That's why Dhundhar is the only state which runs the Kachhwahas in a single thread from the beginning to the end. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Amber&oldid=1202315408"