Talk:Banaphar

message: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=MMFdosx0PokC&pg=PA133&dq=ahirs+the+history+of+rajput&hl=en&ei=Q3FwTY3CNIeGvAOs2Im-AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ahirs&f=false
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=MMFdosx0PokC&pg=PA133&dq=ahirs+the+history+of+rajput&hl=en&ei=Q3FwTY3CNIeGvAOs2Im-AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ahir&f=false
book--Rethinking India's oral and classical epics: Draupadī among Rajputs, Muslims ...
 By Alf Hiltebeitel  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.71.160 (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: banafar Rajput vans hi mp mahoba ka 106.204.212.124 (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banafar were half ahirs and half rajputs 

message: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=INEnJvlv6JsC&pg=PA132&dq=ahirs+,Alha+and+Udal&hl=en&ei=rP-GTZ2kMIaycPnm8IYD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=snippet&q=ahirs%20&f=false
page 97
http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=rP-GTZ2kMIaycPnm8IYD&ct=result&id=GBRuAAAAMAAJ&dq=ahirs+%2CAlha+and+Udal&q=ahirs
William Crooke
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=hHM6baknNRIC&pg=PA138&dq=ahirs+,Alha+and+Udal&hl=en&ei=rP-GTZ2kMIaycPnm8IYD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=ahirs%20%2CAlha%20and%20Udal&f=false
page 73
http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=LAKHTebAAoX5cfv2rf8P&ct=result&id=rG8IAAAAQAAJ&dq=ahirs+%2CAlha+and+Udal&q=ahir
page 50
http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=QgOHTf76LYG8cZvhoJ4D&ct=result&id=JDfaAAAAMAAJ&dq=ahirs+mothers+of+Alha+and+Udal&q=ahirs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.182.12 (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banafar Ahir connection 

message: Please change this name banaphar to banafar Vaibhav Singh banafar (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Going by Google Books result, "Banaphar" is far more common spelling. See WP:COMMONNAME. utcursch | talk 17:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  For change name banaphar to banafar 

message: Some authors say that Alha was half ahir (which is not true) but even if this is true how can whole banafar community become ahir? Banaphars/Banafar are Rajputs only . I am myself a banafar, I am 100% Rajput .My mother is a chauhan Rajput while my father is a banafar Rajput. There is nothing like 49% or 72% Rajput LOL. In past ,Mahil Parihar used to hate Alha so he used to call his mother "low class ahir" out of jealousy. That was pure jealously and I invite everyone to UP, MP and Uttrakhand and see yourself that Banafars are Rajputs. There's nothing like 51% of 73 % Rajput, that's ridiculous. 
P.S. I don't support any kind of discrimination on basis of caste . Thakur Singh (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:V. We're not going to say anything that isn't in a reliable source, and we're not going to deduce based on personal knowledge. Basically, without some books etc to support your claim, you've just wasted your time posting here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Rather than provide your own reasoning and deductions about what something might suggest or what might or might not be possible (which is prohibited by WP:OR), you need to provide reliable sources (see WP:RS) that contradict the sources used in the article and which support the change you wish to make. Wikipedia goes on what sources say, not on unsupported claims made on talk pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banafars are Rajputs 

message: Volume - 6 Ksr31 (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. QueerFilmNerdtalk 08:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2020 

message: Banaphar is a Rajput clan and they are related to the Rajput warriors alha and udal. Alha's father (dassraj) married to devaki which is the sister of mahil parihar (parihar is also a rajput clan).In 12th century both shows the Rajput bravery in the medieval period. According to legends and folklores that alha was made immortal by goddess sharda and undefeated but his brother udal was died in the war between the great chandel king paramdidev or parmal and the prithiviraj chauhan (king of chauhan dynasty).It is wrote in the alha kand ( referring to poetic works  in hindi which consists of a number of ballads describing the brave acts of banaphar heroes alha and udal) that alha and udal are rajput. Bruce nilon (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to provide reliable sources (see WP:RS) if you want to include any of that in the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banaphar are a clan of Rajputs 

message: Ahir to Rajput 2409:4043:2B08:FDDB:392A:5FF1:B898:8FC1 (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please state exactly what change you wish to make, and provide a reliable source for it (see WP:RS). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020 

message: Ahir to Rajput Ultimate survi (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unclear what change you are seeking. Please clearly state your request in the form "Change X to Y" and please provide reliable sources. Without reliable sources, the change will not be made.--RegentsPark (comment) 13:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020 

message: Banaphar is a Rajput clan and they are related to the Rajput warriors alha and udal.In 12th century both shows the Rajput bravery in the medieval period.
Articles (reliable sources):1.https://books.google.co.in/books?id=pR5uAAAAMAAJ&q=banaphar+rajput&dq=banaphar+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIxsqQy7brAhVdwzgGHcedBHc4ChDoATAEegQIBBAB
2.https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ob7UAAAAMAAJ&q=banaphar+rajput&dq=banaphar+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIxsqQy7brAhVdwzgGHcedBHc4ChDoATAFegQIAhAB
3.https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0-6fAAAAMAAJ&q=banaphar+rajput&dq=banaphar+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIxsqQy7brAhVdwzgGHcedBHc4ChDoATACegQICBAB Ultimate survi (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already says "Ahir and Rajput" and I'm not sure why you're asking us to add Rajput when it is already there? --RegentsPark (comment) 15:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Regarding the suggestion to include something about "Rajput bravery in the medieval period", we would not include that kind of praise in Wikipedia's voice in a Wikipedia article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

text: The cited source says mixed Ahir and Rajput.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, if someone could explain what the second sentence (the Udal one) means, that would be great!--RegentsPark (comment) 15:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed – it is pretty much impossible to understand this stub. Who is Udal and his descendant, and what do they have to do with Banaphar? In fact the third sentence is also hard to understand – who is Alha, and what does Ahir bravery have to do with it? This is much more important than what the clan origin is!  --bonadea contributions talk 10:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020 

message: Banaphar is a clan of Rajputs Liger1203 (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to provide a reliable source if you want the article to say that. Raj-era "ethnographers" like Robert Vane Russell are not reliable sources, as they were not professionally trained and were heavily politically influenced. There's a very good essay at User:Sitush/CasteSources regarding sources for caste-related articles. It doesn't specifically mention Russell, but at the Wikipedia article about him you can see "The Castes and Tribes of the Central Provinces" described as a "highly anecdotal book". He was possibly better than the likes of Herbert Hope Risley (mentioned in the Russell article and in the caste sources essay), but I really don't think we could use "The Castes and Tribes..." as a source here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Saying "According to Cynthia Talbot, that they are related to the Rajput warrior alha and udal" is not sufficient - related to Rajput warriors is not the same as saying the Banaphars are exclusively Rajput, and it does not contradict the source you tried to remove - and you should not remove existing sourced content without a valid reason. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

text: And in what way is saying "According to the book written by A.H.Bingley that they related to the Rajput warriors alha and udal" any different? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong information on the page 

message: It is biggest misconception in the history is that every kshatriy and every king were raajput, it is not soo. Rajput is mediaeval terminology.. 
Historians used common term rajpoot for various kings belonging to ahir, jat, gujar,bhar, gond, pasi kings. Satyitihas (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banfar were full ahirs 

message: I have rewritten the article a little bit so it makes more sense to those who do not know the names Alha and Udar. I also removed the reference to "Udar's descendant" which was very unclear – no descendant was mentioned in the source, nor in the article about Udar –  and to Krishna, who does not seem directly relevant to this article. --bonadea contributions talk 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to clarify the topic a bit 

message: I saw that you have removed my edits, did I do anything wrong, tell me, I will correct it because I edited it according to the WP:RS. Sumit banaphar (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You replaced an academic source with two sources that don't appear to be RS and/or are only tangentially related to the article topic. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Asha Gupta's source appears to be in Hindi. When we have an academic source in English for the rajput claim, there is no need to add a citation to something that cannot be verified as a reliable source and is also in a non-English language. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

text: You already knew that the primary source Alha Khand cannnot be used to make this claim, and you also knew that Alha Udal Ki Veergatha is not a reliable source.  Adding those two sources  and then asking about them first at RegentsPark's talk page and then here is not constructive. It takes up the time of your fellow editors who (unlike yourself) might not have been aware of previous discussions. That you also messed up the existing reliable source and removed well-sourced information is also disruptive; you are very well aware of the fact that edits against an existing consensus must be discussed first. --bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Depends on what you're citing but the source itself looks fine to me. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid the source is not fine – please see this RSN discussion about the People of India series of books (Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles being one volume in that series).  See also this RSN discussion, where the OP specifies that the information he or she wants to add is based on information from the 1920s, which is not something we can use for caste related information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I assumed that the only thing that was being cited was the rajput claim (which already has a citation) but the discussion does give me pause.  Generally, if Fowler and Sitush say a source is not reliable, then it isn't. Sorry!--RegentsPark (comment) 22:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alha Khand source (moved from [[User talk:RegentsPark]]) 

message: banarfer is only Rajput clan Kshatriya. 2405:204:A682:DDD2:B8EB:937D:FB0A:6408 (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 18:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021 

message: This question comes up so often in my watchlist that I actually went to my local library to re-evaluate this in good faith. I read these books in their full, original glory instead of through Google Books' limited page previews. TL;DR: The case that Alha, Udal, and the Banaphars are all mixed Rajput and Ahir is still the strongest. 
Alha and Udal are mixed Rajput and Ahir. Hitelbeitel describes how different versions of the epic explain this differently, but the basic gist of it is the same: Alha and Udal's father Dasraj, and another Banaphar named Bachraj, run into two Ahir women named Devi and Birmha and marry them. The context of this story-in-a-story is that the antagonist, Mahil, mentions this to dissuade Rajput leaders from marrying their daughters to our two heroes, so I've seen an argument that Mahil is lying and that the brothers are only Rajput. However, I have yet to find a reference supporting this, and considering how their part-Ahir nature is repeatedly mentioned in the epic, I find this argument hardly convincing.
We know that the Banaphar clan claims to be Rajput,: "The Banaphars also identify themselves as Rajputs." and this makes sense because you'd obviously want to be part of a better caste. The current consensus on Wikipedia is that they're also Ahir because Hitelbeitel (1999) explicitly says so. The reference from Google Books only includes a limited number of pages, but that book actually mentions this multiple times.: "Presumably it is an issue that would interest Alha audiences sensitive to the mixed-caste Ksatrya-Ahir identity of the Banaphars.": "The Banaphars' pastoralist (Ahir) links and opposition to the last Chauhan king make obvious parallels." An editor brought up another reference by Hansen that calls the Banaphars Rajput only, but that reference mentions this in passing as an example of literary texts with inter-caste love and does not elaborate, and is therefore of little value here.
The funny thing is that all this information is already in the article Alha, even though much of it is a copyvio (I'll clean that soon). I must stress that finding "Rajput" next to "Banaphar" and claiming that it proves that the Banaphars are not simultaneously Ahir is very flawed logic. I must also mention that Raj-era sources are generally pretty bad; you might want to read the essay WP:RSCASTE. I tried to look for more references, but couldn't; if you do find a quality reference, let me know.
Pings: , , 
* I managed to delete a paragraph. I've put it back. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you for this concise and informative summary!  It's excellent that you had a chance to read the books themselves.  I have had access to Hiltebeitel's book though I can't get hold of it right now, but you confirm my recollection of what it says. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm not quite sure I understand your arguments, but I think it is made pretty clear in the articles that Alha and Udal are legendary figures. The ballads about them are primary sources, so we want to base the Wikipedia article on what scholarly secondary sources say about the ballads. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

text: That encyclopedia entry is based on William Crooke, a Raj era (and pretty unreliable) "ethnographer". I'm also struggling to understand your argument. People don't get to cherrypick their heritage; if they were mixed-caste in the past, they're mixed-caste now. Hiltebeitel wrote his book in 1999, which is pretty recent, and we're using it because it's the best source we have so far. Please find a source of equal or better quality. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

text: What you say may be true, but you'll need a reliable source to back it up. The consensus is to not use Raj-era sources because they're unreliable, and I don't see a reason to make an exception here. Alf Hiltebeitel does not use the word "allegedly", but says it explicitly. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the origin of the Banaphars, Alha, and Udal 

message: *
*
*
Dear Ganbaruby!
The whole story of them is based on ballad. The point would be if ballad or epic considered as reliable because there is no mention of it in any historical sources except the folkloric ballads as per which two Dachhraj and Bachhraj took women from other community for which they were criticised by the members of their community. RS6784 (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you for this concise and informative summary!  It's excellent that you had a chance to read the books themselves.  I have had access to Hiltebeitel's book though I can't get hold of it right now, but you confirm my recollection of what it says. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm not quite sure I understand your arguments, but I think it is made pretty clear in the articles that Alha and Udal are legendary figures. The ballads about them are primary sources, so we want to base the Wikipedia article on what scholarly secondary sources say about the ballads. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

text: That encyclopedia entry is based on William Crooke, a Raj era (and pretty unreliable) "ethnographer". I'm also struggling to understand your argument. People don't get to cherrypick their heritage; if they were mixed-caste in the past, they're mixed-caste now. Hiltebeitel wrote his book in 1999, which is pretty recent, and we're using it because it's the best source we have so far. Please find a source of equal or better quality. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

text: What you say may be true, but you'll need a reliable source to back it up. The consensus is to not use Raj-era sources because they're unreliable, and I don't see a reason to make an exception here. Alf Hiltebeitel does not use the word "allegedly", but says it explicitly. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: Banafar is a Rajput clan. It is not a mixed clan. Please remove this reference of mixed race from the origin and introductory section.
Alha Singh and Udal Singh, the famous generals of Chandel Rajput King Parmardi Dev belonged to Banafar Rajput clan.In the Puranas it is mentioned that mother of Alha Singh and Udal Singh was a Ahir.So,it does not make the whole Banafar clan Ahir in any sense. Abhimanyu200 (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Alternatively, you can give reasons on why the currently cited source is not reliable. Note that there has been significant discussion above about this topic, and current consensus seems to be in favour of the current statement. Liu1126 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2023