Template talk:Ahir clans

Untitled

Dear Editors North Indian Ahirs are divided in to Yaduvanshi, Nandvanshi and Gwalvanshi categories. Yaduvanshi and Nandvanshi share the common Gotra and belong to a common origin. Gwalvanshi have no further sub-divisions. Gujrati Ahirs have different clans like Sorathia, Machhoiya etc. Maratha Ahir Gawli have different sects and like wise the ahirs from other areas. The template shall be categorized accordingly and give meaningful information -- Mahensingha _Talk 12:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babria Ahirs

According to Matthew Atmore Sherring, The ahirs of Babariabar region, also called babarias, "The ahirs who occupy babriabar are different from shudra ahirs although bearing the same name, they profess to be connected with somrahs of scind, solanki rajputs of div and Ujjain and therefore to be of royal blood". Hindu Tribes and Castes as Represented in Benares, Volume 2,(1974) page 215

Also note The Rajputs of Saurashtra By Virbhadra Singhji(1994), the source mentioned in the article Babaria points to the same origin i.e. from Soomra and solanki.

Also, few sources like Gazetteer, Volume 8 Bombay (India : State) page 134 suggest that Babaria are offshoots of Ahirs.See here

Rao

The article Rao (surname) mentions Ahirs in the subheading India, the statements are sourced also. Although the term Rao is used as a surname in other countries as depicted in the article, but in India it belongs to Ahirs.

Khosa

Sources about Khosa Ahirs are there, but I cant see the reason why the Article Khosa is blank about Ahirs. Source1 Kumar Suresh Singh Source2 H.A. Rose

And about Sadgopa I find no reliable information except that the term is synonymous to Gop (another name for ahir) and few unreliable sites where it is mentioned as ahir subcaste. -- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 14:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template tile

In my view title of the template should be "Ahir Groups", because the term clan does not suit to the present inclusions. All the clans does not have articles or references. However the list rightly represents various groups of Ahirs. Must be done if there is any possibility. -- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 14:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purposeless Talk page

Dear User:Sitush, have you ever seen this talk page before making a number of edits. Did you notice the view of other editors and will you please explain that how the reverts made by you are attributed to WP:V. I accepted all of your changes, also please don't take the thinks otherwise, but if you think appropriate then please at least state the reason of making group reverts and if possible then try to understand other's view also. I am asking you because you are the only major contributor to the template but none of my previous queries and views on this talk page are answered/redressed. Simply, a request. Thanks.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 17:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is very simple, ie: WP:V. If there is no support for affiliation with Ahirs in the linked article of a group named in this template, it shouldn't be in the template. We've had a lot of problems with Ahir-related articles, largely because of a tendency to mix them up with Rajputs (a seemingly unacceptable claim, pushed only by the Ahir community themselves) and with Yadavas, who were an ancient ruling dynasty and not the same as the modern Yadav. These specific issues have been dealt with at length on the various article talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me very clearly say that you are mixing the myths and reality. in reality, Yadav or Yadava is simply a myth and Abhira or Ahir the reality even existing at present. The term Yadava, has historically first time as a separate concept appeared on the Wikipedia only. There are some sources suggestive of a common mythological origin of Abhira and Yadava. The problem started when the modern Yadavs started including the the castes which were engaged in similar traditional occupation of herding. Please note that the ancient Yadav or Abhira are engaged in herding the holly cow only, but present Yadavs include all types of herding communities. Yet we shall not forget that the category includes other castes but it does not exclude its original Abhiras as they are still in the same category. Anyway, In India, even the national political administration is affected by the caste issue and so the wikipedia is no exception.

Presently, I just request you to please go through the titles you removed. Most of the Indian castes share similar name of clans, and it is particularly significant in case of Ahir, Jat, Gurjar and Rajputs. Many of the clans removed by you mention Ahirs in the Articles as sourced statements, and if you find it reasonable then consider adding those who qualify. The caste issues in India are very confusing and the fact is that the mythologically Jat, Ahir, Gurjar and Rajputs are not different as they claim to be from common origins but the facts are turned into the favour of Rajputs because in recent past the Present Rajput category is formed out of mostly recently ruling dynasties but it is originally immersed out of at least Ahir and Gurjar castes, if not from Jats but from many others and certainly none of them was or is son/daughter of Sun, Moon or Fire as claimed.

I expressed my views as a scholar and researcher of Indian History but I trust that you are the best Wikipedian. Discussing anything with you is always advantageous for me. So no issues. Thanx.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 20:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]