Talk:Anangpal Tomar

Article focus
I have just removed a large chunk of genealogy - see this diff. This article appears to be about Anangpal Tomar I but the genealogy meanders all over the place. Was the intention to have an article about the Tomar dynasty of Delhi or what? It seems very messy and confusing, and some of the sources may be suspect. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

After the fall of Gupta Empire, Magadha lost its glory of being the most important city in India for 1000 years. Kannauj took over but got weak with the death of King Harsh Wardhan in 647 AD. That is when Raja Mihir Bhoj of Gurjar Pratihar Dynasty took over Gujarat and one of his descendants Anangpla Tomar (aka Bilandev Tomar) took over Delhi and renamed the city to Mihirawali, meanspath of Mihir Bhoj ( ref: Jats and Gujars by Rahul Khari - pg 22). Vishalmoral (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Anangpal was a gurjar king
After the fall of Gupta Empire, Magadha lost its glory of being the most important city in India for 1000 years. Kannauj took over but got weak with the death of King Harsh Wardhan in 647 AD. That is when Raja Mihir Bhoj of Gurjar Pratihar Dynasty took over Gujarat and one of his descendants Anangpla Tomar (aka Bilandev Tomar) took over Delhi and renamed the city to Mihirawali, meanspath of Mihir Bhoj ( ref: Jats and Gujars by Rahul Khari - pg 22). Vishalmoral (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To you and other users who have recently attempted to insert castecruft in the lead: first of all, the caste bit doesn't belong in the lead sentence, unless it was an important part of the subject's identity. E.g. we don't begin our articles with "Mahatma Gandhi was a Bania political leader…" or "Lal Bahadur Shastri was a Brahmin prime minister of India…". Secondly, in case of 12th century kings, these caste identities are anachronistic, as explained at Rajput. Please take your Rajput / Gurjar / Jat caste wars to your personal blogs. utcursch &#124; talk 18:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Anang pal Tanwar wasn’t a Rajput king because Tanwar is a popular surname in gurjars. Anangpal Tanwar was the founder of dehli ( the actual name of Delhi ). Gurjar population in the city and Tanwars surname along with histories being mentioned by Bhat Pandit’s significantly proves about the gurjar kingdom of Delhi .search the local village folklore and research with the Bhat’s who have written glorious history of these people in their books since centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.176.30 (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Anagpal Tomar was a rajput king, don't steal history. Gujjars was a clan of Ahir (yadavs).

Gujjars are the Descendant's yadavs, later became gujjar.

It's clear that Anagpal Tomar was a rajput. Abhishek Singh III (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Rajput paragraph
I messed up my edit. I was trying to delete the Rajput paragraph, but I accidentally put it back in. However there seems to be an edit war and I don't want to revert again. I'd prefer to discuss on the talk page.

I'd be in favor of deleting the paragraph. It has some clues that make me think it is WP:POV, such as the words "despite" and "actually". There is also a missing space, and an incomplete sentence. I recommend deleting the paragraph, deleting the last 2 sentences of the paragraph, or doing a copyedit to fix the POV issues. – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Attempted to address your concerns. And for what it's worth, I don't believe 2 reverts constitutes an edit war. Alivardi   (talk)  19:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the edit looks good, thanks. Not an edit war? I dunno... that history is jam packed with IP's and reverts. I much prefer the talk page over hopping into that. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Rajput identity
In this page they wrote that "Rajput identity didn't exists at that time, which is totally wrong. I accept that Rajput word doesn't exists at the time of anagpal tomara but it means not that Rajput didn't exists. Rajput's are vedic kshatriya, let me clear the doubt.

At that time Rajput were called "RAJPUTRA", both are the same words, just difference of R+A. Kindly read the history, and add this information ASAP.

Thanks अभिषेक सिंह चन्देल (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The question isn't whether the word Rajput existed, but rather if the Rajput identity did. The following is a few excerpts from The Last Hindu Emperor · Prithviraj Chauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000 by Cynthia Talbot, who cited a number of reputable historians when discussing this issue:

"What the term Rajput meant prior to the Mughal period is a contentious issue, for scholars disagree about how far back we can trace the existence of the Rajputs as a community… Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya suggests that rājaputra was applied to a larger group of high-ranking men who also bore titles such as rāuta, rāvala, and rānaka… In contrast, Michael Bednar's examination of inscriptions from western and central India during the eleventh through fourteenth centuries indicates that thakkura, rāuta, and rājaputra were titles of rank that generally denoted official positions and were often not passed on from father to son. Chattopadhyaya may therefore, be somewhat premature in his assertion that Rajput identity existed in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries… Arguing in a different vein than Chattopadhyaya, Dirk H. A. Kolff claims that the label Rajput had previously denoted an open status identity that any successful warrior could acquire. During the Mughal period, however, the Rajputs closed ranks to form an aristocratic class whose membership was strictly circumscribed by birth… In any case, Rajput was not a term that figured in Indo-Persian texts prior to the sixteenth century, according to Peter Jackson, supporting the view that there was some change in the meaning of the term… As Rajput chiefs were increasingly co-opted into the Mughal system, a sharper line was drawn between them and the other, less elite, fighting men of India. One way of doing this was through acknowledging the kshatriya status of Rajputs… The repeated conflation of Rajput with kshatriya hat can be witnessed in Prthvīrāj Rāso is thus part of a larger early modern trend of stressing the elite nature of Rajputs"


 * Alivardi  (talk)  12:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The matter isn't about meaning of Rajput. For example : I accepted that Rajput word is a issue/doubt for some historians, but you should write that thing which is real. Many historians accepted that Anangpal tomar was a Rajput. This doesn't matter that Rajput is a Degree or Caste, but rajput identity exists at the time of anangpal tomara, so kindly remove that line??


 * Hope you understand my objection
 * Thanks अभिषेक सिंह चन्देल (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you please link the works of the historians you mentioned? Alivardi   (talk)  13:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * According to bardic tradition, the dynasty was one of the 36 Rajput tribes. Kindly Check This https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tomara-dynasty
 * अभिषेक सिंह चन्देल (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * अभिषेक सिंह चन्देल (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * अभिषेक सिंह चन्देल (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm aware that the Tomaras are called Rajputs in the stories of bards. What is the point you are trying to make? Alivardi   (talk)  15:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * } Those bardic traditions you mentioned were composed hundreds of years after the death of Anangpal Tomar. Such later bardic chronicles are unreliable given the long period of time between the events taken place and their composition, especially given the fact that the patrons of the bards, the newly-prosperous Rajputs, used the chronicles to construct an identity and shared ancestry to bolster their status. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If you are aware that tomars are called Rajput. Then why there is a paragraph that "Later writings describe Anangpal Tomar as a Rajput, though the Rajput identity did not exist at this time."


 * Rajput identity exists at the time of anagpal tomar, and kindly check the reference they added after this paragraph. अभिषेक सिंह चन्देल (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am aware that the Tomaras are called Rajputs in the stories of bards, which, as Chariotrider555 has explained above, are not reliable historical sources as they tend to be composed long after the events they describe. In fact, one of the texts you had mentioned above confirms this, having outright stated that the Tomaras "are described by the bards of the late period as one of the thirty-six Rajput clans". None of the sources you provided links for actually state that it was that historian's own belief that the Tomaras are Rajput; they only say that this was the story presented by bards. Alivardi   (talk)  17:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Protection for article ?
Shouldnt this article be protected, it is regularly vandalized by IPs. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"Tomar Ancestry" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tomar Ancestry. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 8 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. noq (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Dwivedi
The Dwivedi source is used extensively and had appeared since I last edited this article. I have never heard of him or the publisher & suspect it may be amateur "local history", in which case it will not be reliable. The Raj era sources which have appeared definitely need to go. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021
Anangpal tomar was belong to the tomar rajput clan and he ruled over delhi(dhillika). Ksumit011 (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022
Jaat shaaaab (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC) There us a mistake for anangpal tomar

There is a mistake Jaat shaaaab (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2022
श्री मान महोदय महाराजा अनंगपाल तंवर दिल्ली के संस्थापक हैं, इनकी राजधानी अनंगपुर थी , आज भी अनंगपुर में तंवर गुर्जर वंश रहते हैं ।आपके द्वारा महाराजा अनंगपाल तंवर को राजपूत लिखा गया, कृपया अपनी गलती सुधारते हुए महाराजा अनंगपाल तंवर जी के इतिहास के साथ अपमान ना करें। कृपया आप गलती को सुधारते हुए तंवर/तोमर राजपूत वंश से तंवर/तोमर गुर्जर वंश लिखने की कृपा करें। — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjaytanwar07 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

कृपया ऐतिहासिक तथ्यों के साथ हुई गलती सुधारते हुए तंवर/तोमर राजपूत वंश से तंवर/तोमर गुर्जर वंश लिखने की कृपा करें। Sanjaytanwar07 (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

महाराजा अनंगपाल तंवर
महाराजा अनंगपाल तंवर दिल्ली के संस्थापक हैं। इनकी प्राचीन राजधानी अनंगपुर थी। इनका शासन काल 1051 ई. - 1082 ई. था। ये तंवर गुर्जर वंश से हैं। वर्तमान में भी इनकी राजधानी अनंगपुर में तंवर गुर्जर वंश रहते हैं। 2405:205:1503:FF73:4FEE:7B43:AF2D:824D (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Please make your request in English. Also bring sources in support of your changes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2022
Please remove rajput word from the bio of anangpal tomer. There are many evidence that they are belongs to jat clans not rajput soo please remove rajput clans word 103.108.5.149 (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Information
King Anangpal Tanwar later changed as Tomar was a Gurjar king and he rolled Delhi from and still the Gurjars are living in the village named Anangpur from which he used to rule whole Delhi 122.177.105.235 (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022
Change Anangpal Tomar, was a ruler from the Tomar Rajput to anangpal tomar ,was a ruler from the tanwar gurjar 103.42.91.32 (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 10:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Ananpal Tomar was Gurjar
Ananpal was a Gurjar who founded Delhi.Rajput era start after 12th century.Everywhere with a plan rajput word is inserted despite of the fact that Rajputs have no connection with Ananpal and also with Pritiviraj Chohan. Ananpal Tomar was also founder of village Ananpur (a Gurjar Village) in Delhi and also constructed a Water storage Dam. All evidences show him as Gurjar. So Rajput word may be removed with Ananpal Tomar. 37.111.140.127 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Misleading
Please remove tomar rajput dynasty. Just keep it tomar dynasty 2409:4053:E87:12DE:C440:D55F:8AD2:8FAF (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2022
2409:4053:2D90:CA8A:FF02:F406:1CFC:A89A (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2022 (2)
{{edit semi-protected|Anangpal Tomar|jat Ankitankit 5112 (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

King Anangpal Tomar was a Jat
King Anangpal Tomar was a Jat Edit Anangpal Tomar (731-736 AD) (अनंगपाल) or Bilan Dev Tomar was a Chandravanshi Kuntal Tomar Jat Kshatriya, descendant of Jat Samrat Parikshit of Mahabharat fame. He was the first ruler to make ancient Indraprastha, modern day - Delhi his capital.

Genealogy( Vanshali) Parikshit – Janmejaya – Ashwamedha – Dharmadev – Manjeet – Chitraratha – Deeppal – Ugrasen – Surasena – Bhuvanapati – Ranjit – Rakshakdev – Bhimsen – Naraharidev – Sucharitra – Surasena – Parvatsen – Madhuka – Sonchir – Bhishmadev – Nrihardev – Purnasel – Sarangdev – Rupdev – Udaypal – Abhimanyu - Dhanapala - Bhimpal - Lakshmidev - Vishrava

Mursen – Virsen – Aangshayi – Harjitdev – Sulochana Dev – Kripa – Sajj – Immortal – Abhipal – Dasharatha – Veersal – Keshorao – Virmaha – Ajit – Sarvadatta – Bhuvanapati – Virsen – Mahipal – Shatrupal – Sendharaj – Jeetpal – Ranpal – Kamsen – Shatrumardan – Jeevan – Hari – Veerasen – Adityaketu – Thimodhar – Maharishi – Samarchi – Mahayuddha – Veernath – Jeevanraj – Rudrasen – Arilak Vasu – Rajpal – Samundrapal – Gomil – Maheshwara – Devapala (Skandadeva) – Narasimhadeva – Achyuta – Haradatta – Kiran Pal Ajadev – Sumitra - Kulaj - Nardev - Sampal (Matil) - Raghupal - Govindpal - Amritpal - Mahit (Mahipal) - Karmapal - Vikram Pal - Jitram Jat - Chandrapal - Brihadeshwar (Khandak) - Haripal (Vaktpal) - Sukhpal (Sunpal) - Kiratpal (Tihunpal) Anangpal I (Vilhan Dev) – Vasudev – Gagdev – Prithvimal –

Jaidev - Narpal Dev - Uday Raj - Aprichhdev - Peepalrajdev - Raghupaldev - Tilhan Paldev - Gopaldev - Salakpal Sulakshanapal - Jaipal - Mahipal I - Kunwarpal Kumarpal - Anangpal II (Anekpal) - Sohanpal --- Jurardev - Sukhpal - Chandrapal - Devpal - Akhaypal – Harpal – Hathipal – Nahar – Prahlad Singh (5 sons (one adopted) – Sahjana (Dungar Singh) – Pala Singh – Karna (Karanpal) – Naudharam – Suratpal – Bhikam – Lal Singh – Bhuria ( Bhursingh) --- Amar Singh – Gulab Singh – Sukhpal – Hathi Singh / Hathi Singh – Shyam Singh – Tofa Singh Prerit Tushir (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You can search Kingh Hathi singh of Sonkh state who is a descendant of King Anangpal and where from I got this genealogy of Tomar Jat dynasty ,,, you can search Prerit Tushir (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No Prerit Tushir, - It is not up to other people to search, if you want the material to be considered for inclusion, it is up to you to provide the required references. As per WP:BURDEN
 * All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. (Bold as per the guideline)
 * Please note, we are only interested in Reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Wtf? He was a Jat Can u give proofs of his rajput origin? Prerit Tushir (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ananga Pala
Because It is very useful 182.65.105.129 (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Ananga pala describe this person
Ananga pala describe this person 49.15.221.70 (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Asigarh-fort.jpg

"dyansty" typo in first paragraph
Should read "dynasty" 110.173.190.62 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022
"change Rajput to Jat" Indianphilospher (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: In source it is clearly mentioned Rajput. RealAspects (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Please Remove Tomar As rajput or ja/jaat
Tomar Dynasty origin from gurjar. Rajput and jat are sub caste of gurjar caste. 2405:204:1082:F133:0:0:188D:E8A0 (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2023
2402:8100:2668:590B:0:0:BB73:CFBD (talk)gurjar samrat anagpal tanwar~
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  14:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2023
i want edit rajput word in this Aditya .Choudhary1 (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights.

== The Jat caste named Tomar is not related to any ancient kuru dynasty, it is related to a massageate which described as mleccha caste,tomar jats and other jats were the descendants of the relatives of their famous queen tomyris, first they slowly slipped/shifted into Khurasan(after defeat of cyrius), then today's sistan and baluchistan, then after Arab attacks over sindh dynasty(712ad) these jats come to today's bist doab(punjab) and haryana,Rajasthan range! Jats have nothing to do with the ancient Kuru dynasty of Haryana. ==

The Jat caste named Tomar is not related to any ancient kuru dynasty, it is related to a massageate which described as mleccha caste,tomar ad other jats were the descendants of the relatives of their famous queen tomyris, first they slowly slipped/shifted into Khurasan(after defeat of cyrius), then today's sistan and baluchistan, then after Arab attacks over sindh dynasty(712ad) these jats come to today's bist doab(punjab) and haryana,Rajasthan range! Jats have nothing to do with the ancient Kuru dynasty of Haryana. Haryanajoin (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2023
Anangpal tomar was an Indian rajput ruler FireAbhi (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Content in paragraph "Founding of Delhi"
This paragraph contains nothing but primary sources like inscriptions and lines from literary works. None of it is from secondary source. Above that it is in Indic script with translation in English. Too much weightage is given it and hence in my opinion this paragraph is best suited for a research book certainly not for such a small article. should be removed in whole, maybe addition of some content regarding actual founding of Delhi would be better. Sajaypal007 (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)