Talk:Yaduvanshi Rajput/Archive 1

Archive 1

Arbitrary heading

Yadav Rajputs were Yadavs only.Sumitkachroo (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)'
Madhuriputra, Ishwarsena and Shivdatta were well known Yadav(Ahir) kings from this lineage who mingled with Yadav Rajputs.[2]. the mentioned source refers these kings as Ahir kings.Mahensingha (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India By S. D. S. Yadava--page -10Sumitkachroo (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=p69GMA226bgC&pg=PA10&dq=ahir+yayati&hl=en&ei=Qni2TdjoOJHsrQe0opHLDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=yadav%20rajputs&f=falseSumitkachroo (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Rajput are not Yadav Randhir Kumar Ray (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC) there was no trace of rajput caste in ancient texts the rajputs who claims to be yadav are started existing in medivial and are foreigners to holu land of india and trying to steal the history of every other in which they infact are succesful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.102.113.118 (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

SOME ONE DESPERATELY WANTS TO PROVE ALL YADAV AS AHIR RULER

Some one trying to prove yadav rulers as 'AHIR'. AHIR can be a sect of Yadav or descendant of Yadus but early yadavs were not Ahirs. The reference numbered as [1] does not say that the mentioned were Ahirs.

And by giving references of some biased Ahir writer he wants to mislead the article. The author is not even a historian and belongs to Ahir community.

Please change the sentence some ahir rulers mingled with Rajputs... as non ahir yadav were assimilated in Rajputs due to their Kshatriya virtue.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.40.104 (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are sources saying that all the yadav rajputs were Ahirs, however vice versa may not be true and also note that the Yaduvanshi is a controversial category among Rajputs. for example this on page-10. Also see this on page 10, this on page 56, and this on p-2771. Please make your thinking broad. All these writers are not ahirs and every writer belong to some or other caste but that does not mean that he/she is biased.--SMahenS (Talk) 17:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Still, please put forward any source mentioning "non ahir yadav were assimilated in Rajputs due to their Kshatriya virtue" and if so then at least I agree for inclusion of this change but without Peacock tone like "due to their Kshatriya virtue".--SMahenS (Talk) 17:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I went through this page and book. First of all the author is ahir himself and belongs to non Historian background.. Any Tom duck Harry writing some thing Un referenced should not be entertained..

this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.187.104 (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Jadaun / yadav Rajputs are descendant of yaduvanshi sursheni.

Hope you know how many branches of Yadav were there during Mahabharata times. One more thing this is a book of British times when ahir ghosi gwala kamariya caste didn't used yadav suffix.

It is clearly mentioned that Ahirs are not Kshatriyas here please site the references also quoted in the book. Now should I review the ahir article based on such numerous proofs or you become unpartial and qoute some good references and make this article of some credibility rather than pasting any reference from a book written by major in an army partial towards his community writing anything stupid without research and findings.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=uKZJAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Jadauns+of+Karauli+book&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicwvGFzLvKAhXBcY4KHcsMAFAQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.187.104 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Some more evidences of non abhira Yadavas. The Yaduvanshi Rajput article is incomplete if it doesn't talks about Jadauns of Karauli and Yaduvati. Ruling Karauli, Chambal and Mathura since 8th Century.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=GYfMDlhyCZMC&pg=PA5&dq=jadaun+rajputs+of+karauli&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFsJSm2bvKAhXFBo4KHf4tDhkQ6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&q=jadaun%20rajputs%20of%20karauli&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.32.106 (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your sources does not prove anything. Both the books are written in British rule era and are not at all reliable. It has been discussed on almost all the caste related articles that we do not use Raj era sources.--MahenSingha (Talk) 15:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir, Many chandravanshi Castes claimed to be descended from Yadu. It's written in Yadu page that should also be stated here to avoid confusion.and there were many Kingdoms of Yadavas in past.So, I think few popular Kingdoms of Yadavas should be written here. Aman Kumar pratapgharhi (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yaduvanshi Castes

There is one more page of Wikipedia on Yadu where it is clearly mentioned that Jadeja,ahir,Saini & Jadaun claim to be descended from Yadu. So why that's not written here. Yaduvanshi Rajputs comprises many Rajput group whi has ruled over different parts of country and there were many Kingdoms that should also be written here inorder to avoid confusion. Aman Kumar pratapgharhi (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Chudasama

As suggested by the sources that Chudasama who claim to be Yaduvanshi Rajputs are related to Ahir or Abhira. Sources also suggest that many well known Ahir Kings have been absorbed/converted/included into Rajput category and are now knows as Yaduvanshi Rajputs. They are now no more knows as Ahir. This is not about the Ahir caste instead about the Yaduvanshi Rajput category which contains part of community with Ahir origin/affiliation. The Chudasama are indeed Rajputs now and they claims to be Yaduvanshi Rajputs. Similar is the case of Sarvaiya and Babaria Rajputs. I request that the recent revert be reconsidered otherwise the information remains incomplete. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 20:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

My removals, to which you link, were about much more than Chudasama. Eg: what possible relevance does it have that some Ahirs "mingled" with Rajputs, whatever "mingled" might mean? I mingle with Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Christians every day but it doesn't make me an adherent of one of those religions. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I actually do not understand the Khanzada and Mysore points that remain in the article, either. "Descent from"? Are they Yaduvanshi or not? If yes then we do not need "descent"; if not then they have no place in the article. It isn't helped by the poor sourcing. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

See, you know more than me on this subject of castes. It is completely impossible to say about a caste/sub-caste that whether they are a particular ancient race or not?, likewise it is impossible to say that whether Mysore or Khanzada people are Yaduvanshi or not? I add something more that claiming to be Yaduvanshi, the Mysore kingdom is not counted among Rajput Kingdoms and certainly they are not Rajputs. As far as Khanzada are concerned they are Muslims now but they claim to be converted from Hindu Yaduvanshi Rajputs. Chudasama are a Rajput clan and sources suggest that their roots or origin is Ahir, Abhira based and they too claim Yaduvanshi or Yadava origin. Sources also suggest that the Rajput race or category is formed out of the mixture of various well to do or royal families and for no wonder if well to do Ahirs were also made Rajputs. Even the recent research of Lucia finds that the Royal Ahirs of Rewari were absorbed into and recognised as Rajputs. The same family however reverted latter to found and lead the Yadav movement. The author (Kumar Suresh Singh) used the term "mingled which may best mean "absorbed/converted/included into Rajput category" in this sense. Thanks for reply. Regards.--MahenSingha (Talk) 23:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If we don't have a source that says X or Y is Yaduvanshi then it is simplest not to mention them at all.

Kumar Suresh Singh wrote/edited a lot of ambiguous stuff and his "magnum opus" is mostly plagiarised from Raj sources - he isn't really reliable and the "states series" of The People of India definitely is not (it has been discussed at WP:RSN).

There have been numerous discussions about putative connections between the ancient Abhira tribe and the modern Ahirs, and also the ancient Yadava tribe and the modern Yadavs. The outcome of those discussions, which should be on the talk pages for those articles, was that the connections are not proven and so to make one is original research. - Sitush (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I know that well but now the subject is not Abhira or Ahir, it is Chudasama who are indeed Rajputs at least. Whatever be the matter but it is true that we can't even prove that X or Y clan of Rajputs is from so called lunar or Solar race, still almost all the Rajput clan pages contain the terms like Chandravansha and Suryavansha origin, which too are simply claims or myths. Then why the same is not applicable to Chudasama, a well known Rajput clan. Should they be ignored just for the reason that they have Abhira or Ahir affiliations. Can't we have a common standard or structure policy to be followed on all the caste related articles. Regards--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm losing track of what the issue actually is. What source were you wanting to use? I removed quite a lot. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Few such facts from sources other than objectionable sources are -"Tha Bhati Rajput royal house of Jaisalmer is also known as Chhatra Yadavpati (sons of Yadavs), reflecting their descent from Krishna, the first Yaduvanshi or member of Yadav clan. The bardic accounts unanimously ascribe origin of Chudasama Rajputs to Chandrachud Yadav of Samma tribe. The Chudasama of Junagarh are considered to be Ahirs and the descendants of Abhira tribe too."

Please note here the term Yadav does not mean the present Yadav caste but the true meaning of the term- Yaduvanshi or descendant of ancient Yadu race as mentioned in the first sentence itself. Or you can even better synthesize these facts in more acceptable form. Thanks--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Several inscriptions links the Chudasama Rajputs to Lunar (Yadu) Dynasty

Study of inscriptions or epigraphy, gives us insight into those periods. It offers information about important people, rulers, cultural status, events existing at that point of time. Several inscriptions links the Chudasama Rajputs to Lunar (Yadu) Dynasty , For example Epigrapher D B Diskalkar had done tremendous job on Saurashtra Inriptions in his book "Inscriptions of Kathiawar" we can found the same thing. Raakuldeep (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. Please explain. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive claims

Yaduvanshi are not chandravanshi, king yadu was cursed that he would no longer carry his family lineage, so he himself left the kingdom and family, and yaduvanshi rajput are no where in the mythology, modern yadavs(ahir, gwala, gope, sadgope) has been listed in mythology. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Kindly revert this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/959708011...960345870

It is reliable Raakuldeep (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit request from an IP editor

An IP made the this request on my talk page. I've asked them to post it here but if someone could evaluate it, that would be great. Thanks --regentspark (comment) 21:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Even 1980s ASI publications often trotted out the opinions of Alexander Cunningham & other early Raj archaeologists, seemingly without review. There is no way we can state with certainty that the origin lies in the Abhira - that is at best a myth propagated by the Yadavs etc. As daft as it may seem, the ASI does not have great academic scrutiny and is largely ignored by historians, anthropologists etc. I wouldn't be happy using it and if we must then it will need significant qualification. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Revert to previous page

@RegentsPark: Can we please revert to this [1] since then the page has repeatedly been vandalised. Regards, TSAray (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

One issue with that version is it mentions Raj era authors (and earlier, such as Tod) - their opinions carry no weight.- Sitush (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: That is true, but here they are being referred to by a source that is considered reliable. Also, the source makes it clear that claims by traditional genealogists in Sindh, Rajasthan and Saurashtra are most likely "origin myths" but I think it is important to provide that information as well because this relates to how Yaduvanshi Rajputs legitimised themselves by claiming this lineage. Regards, TSAray (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That makes some sense. Be prepared for disruptive edits and abuse if you start calling it a myth of origin - ping me if you need help. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Hi, would you be able to revert this page to the one I have suggested above? Kind regards, TSAray (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done--regentspark (comment) 16:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean it was ok to revert it. I meant the bit you were referring to seems reasonable. Now RegentsPark has reverted we have something there that is (a) a copy/paste from the source and (b) not representative of the source because it is taken out of context - Nainsi was writing in the 17th century & is not reliable. The source is discussing changing narratives in "imagined space", not historical "fact". That paragraph needs to go. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean that the current second paragraph needs to go, beginning "According to Nainisi ..." We deal with the origin myths better in the later paragraph anyway. - Sitush (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Removed that. Apologies, I misunderstood the consensus above. --regentspark (comment) 11:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it was me not being clear. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thats perfectly fine. I had been away from Wiki, but all good in removing that second line. TSAray (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Again vandalism need proper actions from Wikipedia editors

There are certain people with malign mindset vandalising this article without any reliable source , recently user heba aisha vandalised this article without any citations Kindly revert to last best version Raakuldeep (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I have removed some bits, copy edited a little & tagged. Some of the sources were terrible, based on Raj era ethnology. However, I am not convinced that what remains in the article is the whole story, nor that what we say is all relevant. There is a whiff of Ahir caste puffery about it. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

rajput are not yaduvanshi

Rajputs are not Yaduvanshi descendants of Pradyumna we Yaduvanshi Yadav are ahir,

not Rajput when you people don't have any proof why are you spreading wrong information whole world knows Yaduvanshi Yadav Ahir are descendants of Lord Krishna then giving wrong information to people This is spreading hatred between two societies, please either remove it or there is wrong information in it, remove it, put Yadav Ahir in it, otherwise we will take legal action, we will take action against all the admin editors. Muslim jadeja banajare jadaun jadam Muslim bhati (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

No your spreading untrue and usurped our legacy of krishna, your ahirs are dasiputras and we bhati rajputs atriya gotra are true descendent of Lord krishna

Ahirs are tribal peoples, they all were dasiputrs and servants of yadavas and now they all are falsely claiming the title. Kunwar virendrapratap singh bhati (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the page about Yaduvanshi rajputs or just chudasama ?

Why this page is filled with description of only chudasamas? Trying to clean it a little bit. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If someone else could add about other clans like Jadejas, Bhati, Jadauns etc, then do add, otherwise it looks like Chudasama centered or maybe I have to reduce the content of Chudasamas to make it look like a balanced article. Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yadavanshi

Yaduvanshi are the people belongs to yaduvansh. Yaduvansh begins from yadu who is son king yayati and queen devyani They are chandravanshi Kshatriya (warrior) . Yadav are also known as ahir. (Aleer). Ahir(Aheer) name to yadavs is given by Shree Hari (swami Narayana dev) or you can god Vishnu when he save yadu from the father of king yayati's second wife. Yadavs are the great vedic warriors. Lord Krishna is also from yaduvansh. The heads of Yadavs can be cut but they cannot bow down. Ankit Nadaura (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yaduvanshi OBC

Does Bhati Jadeja Chudasama Samma come under OBC? Yaduvanshi Ahir Yadav Gwala comes under OBC. 2409:4053:2E04:B8F5:0:0:5749:6A0D (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

Change it from yaduvanshi rajput to yaduvanshi ahir 139.167.254.34 (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 09:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The term "Yaduvanshi" is derived from descendants of King Yadu. Various communities claim themselves to be of yadu clan. So please change the starting word 'Yaduvanshi' to 'Yaduvanshi Rajput' as this page is all about only Yaduvanshi Rajputs not all descendants of King Yadu. So referring Yaduvanshi only to some rajputs is misleading or just redirect this page to Yadu dynasty. Priyanshu.Singham (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

The term "Yaduvanshi" is derived from descendants of King Yadu. Various communities claim themselves to be of yadu clan. So please change the starting word 'Yaduvanshi' to 'Yaduvanshi Rajput' as this page is all about only Yadubanshi Rajputs not all descendants of King Yadu. Priyanshu.Singham (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Article lead / title name and description erroneously associating Yaduvanshi

This article should instead be inclusive of sourced data with title “Yaduvanshi Kshatriyas”. The reliable source I am attaching is as follows:

1) https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=wT-BAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Yadubansi+Kshatriyas+were+originally+Ahirs

2) https://archive.org/details/dli.Report-13-Vol-16.GoI/page/n459/mode/2up Harshv7777 (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Shoorsaini/Saini Rajputs

Shoorsaini/Saini’s Rajputs of Jammu, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Haryana (some Districts) are also belongs to Yaduvanshi Rajputs . Mali, sakaya , Maurya , Bhagirathi , Gola .,etc are using surname of Shoorsaini/Saini’s Rajput from 1900’s . http://www.sainionline.com/neo-saini-groups/official-order-for-renaming-of-malis-as-sainis-in-rajasthan Rahul Jadaun (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)