Talk:Lunar dynasty/Archive 1

CHANDRAVANSHI'S KNWON AS SOMVANSHI'S & YADUVANSHI'S AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS SHEPHEREDS - DHANGAR.
Chandravanshi's are known as Gwala/Gadaria/Shephereds. Because Lord Krishna was the shephereds. And we are all knwon as Gwala/Shephereds/Ahirs and very commonly known as Neekhars.

Earlier peoples known and recognised by their linage like Suryavanshi's, Chandravanshi's, Agnivanshi's but later on they adopted the name as Rajputs.

Originally we are SHEPHEREDS / GWALA known as (Chandravanshi' or Somavanshi's and in some part of country knwon as (Yaduvanshi's a part of Chandravanshi's). As regards to Gotra's -  Chandel is a main gotra and again it is further divied into sub gotras e.g. Chandiya Chandel, Rahiya Chandel, Guiya Chandel, Mankiwale Chandel, Basedewale Chandel and Chandrayan.

A large part of Chandels are in PAL COMMUNITY which is known as PAL KSHATRIYA / PAL SHEPHEREDS.

We all have to project ourselves as CHANDRAVANSHI'S ...

MAIN STARS OF CHANDRAVANSHI'S OR GWALA-SHEPHEREDS ;

1)   SHEPHERED SAMRAT   -   BHARAT 2)             "              "         -   LORD KRISHNA 2)            "              "         -   MAHARAJA YASHWANT RAO HOLKAR 3)             "              "         -   DEVI AHILYA BAI HOLKAR 4)            "              "         -   POET  KALIDAS 5)             "              "         -   SANT KANAKDAS 6)            "              "         -   CHANDRAGUPT MOURYA 7)             "              "         -   SAMRAT ASHOK

Many more stars in Chandravansham. For more detail see the wikipedia.org (DHANGAR COLOUM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakhmi (talk • contribs) 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
As far as I remember my reading some of his books, he said that Krishna has belonged to solar dynasty and also to lunar dynasty. I am going to look for it, then I'll come back here.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.72.28.199 (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

somvashi and chandravanshi is same and are not different.These dynasties revolve around yadu and Lord krishna who was from yadav community.

Revamping required
This article needs to be revamped with citations, and inline references need to be provided. Since these are not proven geneologies, a note needs to be made that they are of mythological origin. Also note that cattle-tending and farming are considered professions of the vaishyas by the smrithis of manu, apasthamba, vishu and gautama. It is open to debate if the so-called "lunar dynasty" can be dubbed as kshatriya. Reg vedic or non-vedic origin, please note that the ahirs, abhiras, etc are noted to be indo-scythic non-vedic dasyu mlechha clans by historians (One reference is "The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India, Volume 2" by RV Russell, page 52). Perhaps a case of cow-protectors or cow-stealers (non-vedic) versus the cow-sacrificers (vedic). The tamil word Ayir is supposedly derived from the Sanskrit Ahir. Kindly research further and ammend the article accordingly. --= No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion = (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Redirecting Somvanshi Pathare Kshatriya, Somvanshi Kshatriya, Somvanshi Kshatriya Pathare here
There are very, very few references available online for any of these terms, and the articles were utter messes of dense prose and no WP:Reliable sources. Many had been unref'ed for years, and the main SK article had a proposal to merge to Chandravanshi (which redirects here) for three years. Accordingly, I just blanked each and redirected them here. If anyone is curious to see if any of their data is salvageable, please give them a look-see. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Groups claiming descent
Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability. The most certain way to meet the requirements of that policy is to provide reliable sources to substantiate statements made in articles. In the case of contentious statements this is a "must". We should not rely on other Wikipedia articles to provide verification, and it is frequently the case that we do not even consider what is going on at other articles.

Bearing the above in mind, and given that there is clearly an ongoing dispute regarding some of the communities listed in the Lunar Dynasty section, I think that we need to provide rock solid sources for all of the communities listed there. In addition, repeated addition of unsourced items should be treated as edit warring and dealt with accordingly. This, for the benefit of those who may not already know, means that if someone repeatedly inserts content that is contrary to policy/guidelines (including that of consensus) then they may be blocked from contributing to Wikipedia for a period of time. If they continue with their errant contributions once the block has expired then they would be blocked again, but almost certainly for a longer period of time.

I have a rather strict definition of what constitutes a reliable source for content such as that which is in dispute here. The works of the British Raj ethnologists etc, most of whom were amateurs, fall some way short of being "rock solid". I would much prefer to see sources that are published by university presses or peer-reviewed journals etc, and the more recent is the publication date, the better. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My recent revert
I have just reverted this. It "feels" like a fringe theory and also like a copyright violation. There is clearly some considerable speculation going on and the contributor is known to me. Who is Qanungo? Are there any other people who support this theory? - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Article needs total rewrite, going to wipe most of it now
This article is essentially useless to the average reader, as it is nearly nothing but a huge list of genealogies of no clear context, and for which most of the names don't even have a Wikipedia article. WP articles must be encylcopedic, and there is no way a non-expert reader is going to come away from this article with a good basic overview of what the Lunar Dynasty actually is, and its importance.

Further, and this is extremely concerning, this article is subject to incessant IP fly-by edits, so the veracity of the lists is much in doubt since there's no way of knowing who came by and moved/changed names. So while I appreciate those who spent time making the lists, they are likely hopelessly corrupted, and even if reverted will be swiftly corrupted again. Rather than list them at length here, we should simply provide clear links to authoritative sources holding the genealogies.

Accordingly, I'm going to just WP:BEBOLD and blank most of the article so we can rebuild it with a high bar set for WP:Reliable sources and a low tolerance for unsourced tampering. Looking forward to talking it out with folks, but the chop has to be the first thing as the current contents are simply not usable, and we can always salvage any helpful bits from the History tab. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to link this article with Indraprastha or datas could be used here? 14.99.10.194 (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Article heading change
It is my view that currrent headline is not good.It would be good if it is changed to Chandravansha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.10.194 (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The original term is Chandravansha and the Lunar dynasty is simply its translation into english. -- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 07:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose to merge Aila dynasty into this article since both articles are about the same dynasty as per the content. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  04:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

chandravanshi to chandervanshi
You must replace spell of chandravanshi to chandervanshi. Rahul Chandervanshi (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll ask: why "must" we change it? You've given no explanation at all, so I've reverted your changes. If you feel that one spelling is more valid than the other, you must explain why you think the change is needed. From what I've seen, Chandravanshi gets twice as many hits on GoogleBooks, so appears to be the more-common spelling. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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) 07:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)