Talk:Gahadavala dynasty

Red paint on coins

Was this coin always painted? Or is this an artifact of being used as jewelry? Either way, a comment would be appropriate.

Also, a couple citations in the article body would be nice.

67.180.48.33 (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources and copyright

It appears that much of the article was copied from another source, including the citation numbers but without actually providing original sources and should be considered for a rewrite. Editfromwithout (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no action. @harej 02:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Gahadvala → Gahadvala dynasty — No reason stated. @harej 21:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sourcing

Unless this article gets some decent sources soon I am inclined to take it back to a stub. There is also too much in it that appears likely to be close paraphrasing etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2016

write down suryavanshi ,mirza pur gaharwars have always been mentioning themselves as suryVANSHI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhatkoiyan (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is not about the Gaharwar zamindars of Mirzapur or the Gaharwal clans of that area. It is about the Gahadavala dynasty, whose inscriptions do not claim any connection to the legendary Suryavansha. The claims connecting them to Suryavanshi Rathores first appear in the historically unreliable medieval legendary texts such as Prithviraj Raso and Alha Khand. Others, such as the Kantit feudal estate rulers, claimed descent from Gahadavalas through Yayati, thus implying a Chandravanshi origin. Kṛṣṇāmśacarita claims that the Gahadavalas were part of the Agnivansha. See Rethinking India's Oral and Classical Epics, Page 232. These all are, obviously, mythical legends: no human kings were born from the Sun, the Moon or the Fire. utcursch | talk 17:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hindu Khatik Jati

@Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat:: I've removed the Hindu Khatik Jati reference added by you: this is not at all a reliable source for a history-related article (or anything else). It's a Khatik caste glorification booklet, full of pseudo-historic revisionism and bad scholarship. Some examples (translated to English):

• The important speciality of the Khatik caste is that they are brave and self-respecting... they are a warrior caste (p. 35)
• They [the Khatik caste] have always been eager to make the demons of Islamic power the victims of their revenge (. 39)
• To protect Hinduism, the Khatiks domesticated pigs, the sworn enemies of Islam (p. 40-41)
• The Khatiks had been entrusted with preventing the Arab-Persian Muslims (who had banished by Aryans for being uncultured, irreligious, lazy and robbers) from entering India (p. 54-55)
• The Khatiks were called Kath in ancient times... Kathopanishad was composed by the scholars of this clan... there is no doubt that Kathiawad was also named after them (p. 66)
• The socio-economic conditions of Khatiks has been bad because they were always occupied in wars to protect India... e.g. against Tamerlane, for Rana Pratap and Shivaji... The British had heard about their bravery, that's why the British tried to suppress them by classifying them among the criminal tribes (p. 68)

These kind of books are not acceptable as sources on Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 04:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)