Talk:Samrat Prithviraj

Issue on caste Identity
What I found that there is No need to mention any caste of Prithviraj Chauhan g. As of now, It is cleared that in older version of Chand bardai, the king has been mentioned Gurjar clearly in various place but later on after the various interpolation till 19th century. finally, Britisher James tod wrote Rajput king to him in his 4th version of Prithviraj raso. So, Don't do caste war on Wikipedia. Thank you. Ravi mavi (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a larger, more nuanced discussion about this on Prithviraj Chauhan. Articles from an entertainment section should NEVER trump scholarly articles for something like this.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Prithviraj Official Poster.jpg

Title Changed
The film's title is changed to Samrat Prithviraj MNWiki845 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2022
Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan was a Gurjar King not Rajput. Today even Honorable High Court of Delhi ordered this. 103.74.145.143 (talk) 19:46, 1 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish, [1], [2]. Here are the reliable sources. Grabup (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Those sources say that someone claimed the character was of one caste, and the filmmakers said that there was no caste represented in the film. The person it's based on appears to be Rajput. The sources don't prove otherwise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Number of screens it is released on
Amar Ujala says 5000 screens. NBT says 3750. What to write? Venkat TL (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Caste
In the Delhi High court the producer said the film is caste neutral, source https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/akshay-kumar-film-prithviraj-rajput-gurjar-king-delhi-hc-200601. The Wikipedia page is also cited. Venkat TL (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2022
Hello Guyzz, a user or say Gujjar caste promoter is deliberately using blogs to prove a point that these king belong to Gujjar caste. In previous replies by a more neutral user ScottishFinnishRadish, here did correctly mention that this claim is made by a community with no scholarly backing. When did these buerocats became a authority on history matters ?? Please add back the term Rajput, I am citing more reliable sources from learned scholars for same rather than random caste pusher organizations. Anyway, as per previous revision by Scottish more reliable sources from Indian Express dont mention that they said anything that Gujjar side won the claim. So, they choose to add sites like Chetan and Live.in Here are sources from learned academics:-.


 * Sugata Bose, a historian and scholar:-


 * Here is another one from Marck Jason Gilbert


 * Here is one more source from historian Peter Robb:-


 * One more from David Ludden:-

Rajput.
 * Beside this let me add a source from Dr. Upinder Singh who in her book published in Oxford University press, quoted Minhaj Siraj a near contemporary historian, who narrated about Battles of Tarain and presented Prithviraj as Rajput king

No reliable historian ever claimed that Prithviraj was Gujjar, with those I brought and thousands other all state him as a Rajput. So, let me make it more clear again:- Please make this section more neutral by adding source from better Media outlets like Indian express instead of sources like Chetan, where it looks a deliberate attempt to prove him as a Gujjar though no learned scholar agreed with this and re add Rajput king in lead (If possible). We believe Wiki as genuine source and If such disruptive pushers be allowed then there your reliablity will be questioned. Thanks. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:E84C:5EBA:2AED:1480 (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are more reliable media outlets from Indian Express and NDTV:- which nowhere states that This clearly looks like a article which pushes this ruler as Gujjar with not even a roadside historian claimed this apart from their own community. In any case who is Justice Sanghi in front of this learned scholars I quoted David Ludden, Peter Robb, Upinder Singh, Marck Gilbert Janson etc ?? Thanks. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:E84C:5EBA:2AED:1480 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you intervened let me draw your attention to other section as well which is Litigation section where they quoted sites like Liveliv.in and Cheta but I quoted Ndtv and Indian express which neutrally did not mention anything like what they added from Justice Sanghi. Also, take a look at sources cited above. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:8260:8B9A:494B:A78A (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This article is about the film. Film makers have clearly stated in High Court. So wikipedia article cannot say the film is about Rajput. Who are you? Venkat TL (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is about the film. Film makers have clearly stated in High Court. So wikipedia article cannot say the film is about Rajput. Who are you? Venkat TL (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I am a Law student from U.P, look at your biased edits quoting bloggers like Chetna. I dont have any problem with adding in later sections that Gujjars won the zeal and a Justice lawyer claiming that he was not a Rajput, which better sources like Ndtv and Express dont back. I wouldnt have said anything had you not add this baseless things. Apart from their Jholachap historians no other scholar backed their claim where they are claiming on every Rajput clans. Thanks 2402:8100:2183:61D6:8260:8B9A:494B:A78A (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article is about a movie but line is not about movie but the person itself which is protaganist of the movie and a historical person at that. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Barbara D. Metcalf a professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Davis.

Page no. 4:- It's you who have been using bloggers for pushing your POV, you are the one who is reverted thrice and instead of talking in polite tone, you start bombarding other with talk page warining of 3RR rule here, this isn't good faith. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:8260:8B9A:494B:A78A (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I simply declined the edit request as the sources provided didn't support the request. I have no other thoughts on or knowledge about this situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Raised at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard Venkat TL (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * IP, there is extensive discussion about this at Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan/Archive_2 where a lot of scholarly sources have been presented for the line Prithviraj's dynasty was classified as one of the Rajputs in the later period, including in Prithviraj Raso, although the "Rajput" identity did not exist during his time. Something similar can be added here as well if necessary. Hemantha (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no conclusion on this talk page rather then a complete mess altogether, morever this statement is very controversial to add as there are atleast a dozen or more sources which staged Rajput idenity existence well after 7th century. Do take a look at other scholarly opinion as well from trained scholars on Rajput article before passing claims. If you want to add these statement then add counter of it as well which will make it another mess as well.

I don't want to add anything regarding Rajput here which belongs at main article not film article and there good amount of sources exist for counter claims as well. My main issue here is overdue to Gujjar claim which no historian ever backed. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:949:BB79:6326:4945 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You've extensively posted both here and at NPOVN, but this section started with a request by you to Please add back the term Rajput. That cannot be done per the discussion I've linked above. Can you please clarify what you're trying to get changed now? Hemantha (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hemantha This IP has carpet bombed the entire talk page thread as well as NPOV thread. He still failed in getting what he wanted. Venkat TL (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no consesnsus at that discussion and adding term Rajput don't make it any less reliable, I already cited scholars published in peer reviewed books that clearly states him as Rajput, beisde the fact that when their caste boundry solidfied is disputed from 7th century to modern times, this doesn't change the very fact that all scholars states him Rajput king.

One of the sources cited above from (Dr Upinder Singh published in Oxford University press) used Minhaj-Siraj a historian of Delhi Sultanate few yrs after the event wrote him as Rajput king, that make this claim of non existence of Rajput identity even more dogdy. As I pointed at NPOVN as well, this statement of the Judge is not sourced by any other reliable outlet which includes Times Now, India Today, News 18, Zee News, Outlook etc, Hence should be removed. Just we should mention no caste to make it neutral. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:B14:BF56:94B7:25E7 (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, this debate is now forwarded by Fylindfotberserk a more sensible user who will make this neutral, I don't have any issue now. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:2664:7800:41E7:9F51 (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Justice sanghi
This line → If your project is being depicted in relation to a Rajput king, which he is not, why should you remain silent ← is supported by only this source. Don't we have other WP:Independent sources for this? I find that much detail to be unnecessary if teh quote is not widely sourced.- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (Responding here since it is tangential to NPOV Thread, may be off topic too, please remove it from there) Livelaw are reliable source for court proceedings and cases. It is an independent source too. There are many other sources to summarizing the same content. I think the quote helps the reader in understanding the court's position. So I kept it. Venkat TL (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If you still wants to push for this quote from this person, We had to publish this scholars view as well who states him as Rajput along with atleast dozen more. Plain and simple. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:A278:264A:60C1:7217 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

As for court position, are they any authority on historical figures ?? Still waiting for sources that alleged debate between historians whether he was a Rajput or Gujjar. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:A278:264A:60C1:7217 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * IP user, there is no need to make personal attacks on the judge and wikipedia editors. comment about the issue. Venkat TL (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Making a few pings for their inputs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, leave caste completely out on this article as it is a nuanced subject that's best left in the person's article.  Ravensfire  (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ravenfire and ScottishFinnishRadish on this, I don't have any issue in removing entire caste war section from Litigations section which this aggressive vandal insterted it. Morever as everyone is claiming that no reviews of the movie use tittle Rajput king for him, here is from a fact checker outlet Scroll.in Just to let everyone Scroll actually has a history of publishing highly negative articles about Rajputs. They even claimed us as ouright loosers who failed against Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Babur, Khilji, Akbar and Marathas

I agree to remove entire cast war section from Litigations section. 2409:4051:2E80:9AFB:9B36:8E76:58E2:1CB7 (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm reading the above consensus as removal of the entire litigations section. If it is reduction, I suggest "In May 2022, organizations from Rajput and Gurjar communities, each of which consider the king to be one of their own petitioned courts demanding changes before the film's release. The producers changed the film's title from Prithviraj to Samrat Prithviraj and said the film portrays him as a Hindu king"Hemantha (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I am ok with it, but is such fringe claims even noteworthy to get mention here ? Many communities make claims on historical Rajput figures but none have historical backing apart from local publication. If you want this article to be caste neutral, remove this all as suggested by Ravenfire. What about two of those scroll articles I posted above ? 2409:4051:2E80:9AFB:992C:E6BF:8656:D764 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm still new on this page (I haven't caught up yet), but looking at the replies, I have to disagree with the removal of caste from the article/litigation section. If that is the dispute, then we follow the sources and describe what the dispute as the sources do. Mere identification that there is a court case isn't encyclopaedic when it isn't described fairly what the case is about. WP:WIKIVOICE says the " Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them" and describing the court case, fairly, if the sources do, would be the end result of that. If the sources didn't describe the caste background, then we don't. No comment on Venkat's line (Haven't caught up yet) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Since there was a dispute that lead to petitions, I believe we can mention it, but should be concise. I'd support 's version above. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hemantha's version is too short. It can be put into the lead as a summary of the litigation section following MOS:LEAD. The litigation section as it stands right now, provides the reader with the necessary details to understand the legal dispute. Venkat TL (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the quote from the Justice is not WP:DUE enough to be in our article. Given that the case dispute is described as to what it is in WP:WIKIVOICE, I'd say we remove the quote — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support to point raised by DaxServer about removing the quote. Not supported by other reliable sources. Shanusar (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Box office section location
@Sush150 Could you say why you've reverted the box office location and placed it back above the critical reception section? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Pinging @Sush150 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer I am not reverted location just corrected as recent release film articles. And also it was easy to update daily collection. Sush150 (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'll be moving the box office location below the critical reception. We get reviews and reception in the early days of the release, while the box office is an ongoing event. Chronologically that makes sense. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Critical response
Notable acclaimed critics should be mentioned first. There is no reason to add positive and favorable (often PR, paid news) reviews to be added first. Venkat TL (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The standard practice is to order reception by reviewer sentiment ie, positive to negative (eg Avengers: Endgame). As there's no way for us to ascertain whether a positive review is paid (or a negative review because unpaid), poor quality sources (whether positive or negative) should be avoided in the reception -- Ab207 (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ab207 Is there any discussion/consensus for this practice? Why should a flop film review section begin with positive reviews. In my opinion, Notable critics who have their own article on Wikipedia, internationally acclaimed critics should be given preference, it should not matter what kind of review the critics have made. Venkat TL (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This source says mixed. And it is being used. So I believe the following paragraph should list mixed/negative reviews. Kailash29792 (talk)  09:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kailash29792 I am fine with that. Venkat TL (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If a film received mixed or negative reviews, then that will dominate most of the reception anyway. But they should be arranaged in an orderly fashion, so that all aspects are covered -- Ab207 (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I understood your point. "Orderly fashion" should not mean praise/paid news first. We need to change this standard practice if it is one. Hope you are aware of the massive PR budgets these films have and the affinity of a large section of Indian media to accept PR as news. Even some of the so called critics are nothing more than PR agents. So instead of listing a critic just because he gave 5/5 stars to the film, we should list notable/trusted critics first. Venkat TL (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

rajtantrtv is not a reliable source
rajtantrtv is not a reliable source. @Shanusar please stop adding it. If you disagree with my opinion, please raise it on WP:RSN and make a case that it is reliable. Venkat TL (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC) : and Chetna manch is Relaible source? and what you replaced it with is? Who said it?Shanusar (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS to understand what kind of sources are considered reliable. If you want to dispute it, post on WP:RSN--Venkat TL (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Chetna manch is owned by a person belonging to gujjar caste. It is not neutral and the information given in article itself is misleading. SO it will be better to remove it. Rajtantra Tv is more reliable than it. Shanusar (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * rajtantrtv is lying in the headline itself. Delhi High court never discussed the title of the film. So why are you adding it. This thread is about rajtantrtv. Please discuss one topic here. Start another thread for Chetna.--Venkat TL (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sir, Read the headline of Chetna manch which is outright lies which also say what you accusing the rajtantra for.Shanusar (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * and to add more the rajntra tv no where lies the title of film is changed and the petition was dismissed. It did not say that court changed the name. The title of film was changed due to karni sena is correct information.Shanusar (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * See three threads on WP:RSN - Chetna Manch and Rajtantra TV reliablity ; Chetnamanch.com ; Rajtantrtv.com — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

removal of sources and WP:OWN the article by user Venkat TL
Venkat TL this user has a old habbit of being aggressive and WP:OWN the articles. I have added source from a news channel ON what basis it was decided that it was not reliable or good when there is source like are called reliable. Shanusar (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

pinging ScottishFinnishRadish Fylindfotberserk  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanusar (talk • contribs) 08:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * See three threads on WP:RSN - Chetna Manch and Rajtantra TV reliablity ; Chetnamanch.com ; Rajtantrtv.com — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Budget
Business Today says it's 150+ cores, Bollywood Hungama says ~200 and Navbharattimes says it's 300. Are there other sources that give a different number or somewhere around the range? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The IB Times source originally present in the infobox says 300 crores . We can have a range. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we can go for range. Should be our last resort ideally but we don't have a choice due to incosnsistent reporting by "reliable" sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Very unfortunate, that Indian media is unable to properly report something as fundamental as film budget. Shows us the state of our Media. We need to follow Conflicting sources and report all. I have Added table a table. Let the reader decide whom to believe. Venkat TL (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You can add the IBT source (originally used in the infobox) when you are at it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Added. Clearly the Mode of this table is 300 crore.Venkat TL (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added it, and the published dates — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Only IB Times reported in 2020. we should skip the dates. Data over load. Venkat TL (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. Quick note: IB Times reported in August 2020, others in June 2022 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Does it help if the table is converted to prose? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I prefer budget table over prose. Less confusing. easy to undersrand. Venkat TL (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Khiladi King, Can you explain why you changed the budget from 150 - 300 crore to 150 - 200 crore? Grabup (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Budget is 300 cr
Since most reliable sources have reported Budget is 300 cr, I believe we should update the infobox to say 300 crore instead of the range. The table should remain. but the sources that call out budget as 150 cr and 200 are not very reliable. I can understand why new users and IP users keep changing infobox to 300 crore. We should stop reverting them. --Venkat TL (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The source we're using for the 150 number in the lead is BusinessToday.in which while business focused, seems to be a good quality source. It's decidedly difficult given the range of budget numbers and it's certainly inappropriate to state only 300 when there is a decent number of sources that have differing values.  I wonder how many of the sources with the same budget are just using the number from another place?  Given the broad range that's highlighted in the reported budget table, I support leaving the range as 150-300.  The template docs say "In case of conflicting reliable sources, list all values or an appropriate value range."
 * It it certainly challenging to see such a broad range of numbers, and you wonder how many of them are just production costs or how many include marketing and promotional expenses. I surprised see this broad of a range on a high-profile production.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And just because internal consistency is clearly overrated ... Indian Express on June 8th says "reported budget of Rs 200 crore" and on June 10th says "reported budget of at least Rs 150 crore". Sigh...  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ravensfire I also notice that as it became clear that the movie has flopped, some of the reports started floating lower budget numbers. Venkat TL (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * An accountancy issue is that of allocating fixed costs. The accountants can change each film's share of the fixed costs of the business. Thus, the budget can be changed after the film's release.  The same thing occurs in all kinds of businesses. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It would be better if the reported budget table in the article (shown above) had conventional citations. Conventional citations have dates of newspaper articles. Bot-editing packages used by some members to complete citation templates do not always do the dates of articles, and give the access-date instead.  Though access-dates are of value when trying to find the version of an article in a web archive, they are not a substitute for dates of articles. Venkat TL's comment makes it clear that dates of articles are relevant. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The movie's budget is around 155-160cr ( personal analysis) !!! The total star cast was hired at ₹95 cr approx. Vfx and cgi and set design is not more than 30cr. Additional misslenious 20-25cr. Skalvanov (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022
I want to edit the budget part of this movie as it is purposefully under whelmed to manipulate the market. HarshRaj09sp (talk) 18:23, 11 June 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

OTT release
After the film flopped at the box office, the production company YRF has planned to recover some of the production cost by releasing the film early on OTT.

@Ravensfire you may be right that many films do it, but why remove it from the article. I suggest we mention it. Venkat TL (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It's utterly routine coverage about something that every film does. It's not tied to the lack of success of the film, it would have happened regardless.  As written, there's a distinct POV tone.  It suggests that if the film hadn't done poorly (and please, get rid of "flop", that's just jargon and unprofessional), it wouldn't be released on OTT.  When it happens, cover it at that point. WP:NOTNEWS and all that. Ravensfire  (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ravensfire can you suggest a more suitable copy edit of this line to be added. I did not know flop was a jargon not used on Wikipedia. I have read hit many times. Strange that Wiki uses hit but does not add flop. Both are antonyms widely used in Indian media. This is the headline in all Indian news sites, we should include this. Venkat TL (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know it's used by the media often, you'll see it in the US as well. Consider phrasing like "After the poor performance in theatres" - or "dismal performance" for really bad - it sounds far more professional in tone. A reader not passingly familiar with jargon found around films would understand what's happened.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)