Pakistan: Sindh Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Sindh.

	India Template‑class
This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Greetings fellow editors. Any assistance organising or adding to this template for completeness and accuracy is welcome. --Diannaa (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The Gurjars and Ahirs should not be listed in this template; provided that the Gurjars and Ahirs are two ethnic groups and not two clans/gotras (in Hindu society, the term gotra means clan). Rajput people do not have Gurjar and Ahir as their surname, even. Does anyone thinks otherwise ?! ← Abstruce 17:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The terms Ahir and Gurjar have been developed as ethnic groups much after the invention of the Rajput Theory. Just study concentrating on origin of rajputs and you will find the facts. And if you judge the terms in present scenario then why only these Ahir or Gurjar, you will find even Chauhan,Rathore and almost all the Rajput clans present among various ethnic groups.

An IP keeps adding Yadava to the template. Please can we see some reliable sources for that ancient community being Rajputs. Please note that they are not the same group as Yadav and that even that other group are not Rajput. There was much discussion of the issues over a prolonged period on both those article talk pages but things have been settled for months now. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, Greetings!! I have no doubt that you have gone through the reliable sources before deciding but still I feel that the material available on the titles like "Rajput", "Kshatriya", "Yadavas", "Jaats", "Gurjars", "Chandravansh", "Suryavansh" etc., is far away from the ground realities and the so called Indian Mythology. When you say "The Reliable Sources", I understand that the mythological or religious text cannot qualify as to be the reliable one, the reliability of the foreign writers may also be questioned on the issue of poor understanding of indian culture of which they were not a part. But, still in fact, the Mythological scripture and sculptures are the prime source of the Indian cultural history and hence cant be totally ignored. In fact all these mentioned titles of cultural categorization of indian people is nothing but based on myths only. The origin of all even of the Rajputs is marked under doubts by almost all the famous historians as their openions differ from one anorher. Where ever we study about the Kshatriya class of indian society we definitely come across the words like "Yadava", "Jats", "Gujars" as the people who later lost their ancestral status or in some other context. I with respect submit the following links which I found page 315 page 44 link link2 there are many more which can be mentioned here..........Mahensingha I am no way interested in who is included and who not but to say that the wiki articles shall be reliable and i request all the writers and editors to please keep wiki near to historical and cultural realities. The articles on wiki shall remain informative and should not be misguiding. On this ground of Reliable Sources, these mentioned categories are excluded from this list and at all other places but I am really surprised that How "Lodhi" is part of this list can anyone please clarify this by giving some reliable source so that it can be added to my personal knowledge as well. Thanx Mahensingha (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your sources, you are in fact conflating Yadav and Yadava and this alleged connection was specifically referred to by me because it has been rejected by the community. I've no idea about Lodhi, sorry: that is one of the communities that I've got on my to-do list. - Sitush (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

template name can be Rajput people and their clans, and List of Rajputs should be inserted in it. after all the purpose of template is to carry as much information as more it is related. and list of rajputs is obviously related. 182.189.82.185 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a navbox linking articles about specific groups, List of Rajputs is not about any specific group but is about all Rajputs. noq (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Lodhi is noway considered Rajputs. If at all someone thinks that they are Rajputs, Please submit the reliable sources acceptable as per WP:RS. In future dont add Lodhi to this template please. You may go for a separate template for caste who claim to be rajput and still you are required to provide the sources.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The enough efforts have been made for this entry into the template. I humbly request that find the reliable sources to establish the independent identity of the community. Till the time sources say that they claim to be descended from Bhatti or Jadaun, who are already added to the template, Taoni find no separate scope. Still any of the source proving independent claim of Tauni without support of Yadu, Bhati or Jadaun, is most welcome. Please admit it here, discuss and if passes then add.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that they are a subclan of the Bhatti and/or Jadaun, who in turn are a clan of the Rajputs? If so, I'm not sure how best to treat this. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that the entry for Yadav is repeatedly being removed on the basis of long controversial article Yadav. But browsing the various sources I still find that there is at least a section of superior Yadavs which is often reflected in the sources as Yadav Rajputs. I am sorry to say that we can not go for our personal assumptions about the caste, at least on wikipedia we need to follow what the sources suggest. Please go through the following sources-

• Rajasthan,Volume 1/page-44
• Memoranda ontheIndianStates,Page-272
• Political and Administrative_Integration_of_Princely_States,Page-33
• People_of_India,Page-786

So, Please add them back, if you agree.--SMahenS (Talk) 17:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The links given do not show anything but the books they refer to might. However, this is a navbox and is used to link to existing articles about Rajput clans, continually adding a link to an article that is not about a Rajput clan is not helpful. If a Rajput clan of that name does exist and is notable enough for its own article then a link to that would be appropriate. A link to the existing article is not. noq (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Ujjainiya, since they are an offshoot branch of the Parmars, wouldn't that make them Agnivanshi as well? Burbak (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure that the article must have a source claiming their origin from Agnivansh. At present it is not so. Linking Ujjainiya to Parmar and then Parmar to Agnivansh amounts to WP:OR. Hence find and cite the source that say Ujjainiya are Agnivanshi.--SMahenS (Talk) 02:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, in that case a lot of those clans should be moved to the "other" section as many of them are offshoots of bigger clans and don't have any references to a particular vansh. Burbak (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the source which states Ahirs are descants of Yadavas. And are derived from Soomra Dynasty. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=4Cy_-FXW9BQC&pg=PA46&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=Descended%20from%20Yadava%20Sumra%20Dynasty&f=false

And here's the source for Soomra being Rajputs. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sumra-family

And they are mentioned as Yaduvanshis in many books. One example here:- https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Nvl1SFI1T8QC&pg=PA52&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Yaduvanshi%20Ahirs&f=false

And here's what Yaduvanshi means and how they are Rajputs. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=HLfUAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

And last but not least:- Several Chandravanshi castes and communities in modern India, such as the Sainis of Punjab Province,^[1] Yadav,^[2] Ayar,^[3] Chudasama,^[4]Jadeja,^[5] Bhatti Rajputs,^[6] Jadaun,^[6] and Ahir^[7] claim descent from Yadu.

I didn't got reply from any admin on my talk page so I came over to leave this here. Please if you may add Ahir back to Chandravanshi Section of Template Rajput or make a new section with heading Yaduvanshi if you still don't believe any connection between Chandravanshi and Yaduvanshi. Thanks. HinduKshatrana (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HinduKshatrana, first, you are doing WP:SYNTHESIS, which is not allowed on this project, i.e. you should not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. In fact, I have already mentioned this to you in an earlier post.

Second, the main source provided by you – i.e. state series by K. S. Singh – is considered unreliable on this project, as it was written by a non-academic, and it openly plagiarized the unreliable Raj-era material. And I have repeatedly clarified this to you already, e.g. see here and here. In fact, even that unreliable source doesn't mention that Ahirs are Rajputs.

Finally, you will have to provide academic sources, which state that Ahirs are Rajputs. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book "Final Report on the Settlement of Land Revenue in the Delhi District, Carried on 1872-77, by Oswald Wood, and Completed 1878-80, by R. Maconachie" states Ahir's traditions claims them a Rajput origin.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=23EIAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA3-PA90&dq=ahir+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic0_HH5fTnAhUEjuYKHQKZADoQ6AEIMjAB#v=snippet&q=The%20Ahirs%20their%20traditions%20claim%20for%20them%20a%20Rajput%20origin&f=false HinduKshatrana (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Yaduvanshi Kshatriyas has there origins from Ahir or they were originally Ahirs.^[1] HinduKshatrana (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhira Rajputs:-

Soni, Lok Nath (2000). The Cattle and Stick. Anthropological Survey of India. p. 12.

https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=wT-BAAAAMAAJ&dq=abhiras+kshatriyas&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=abhira+rajputs

But as the article is not about them, that reference is not relevant. noq (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]