Talk:Yadava

Sorry Abhiras are not Yadavas in the Mahabharata. THey are described as the tribe that kidnapped the Vrishni and Andhaka women and looted the remnants of the Yadavas after their internecine strife that wiped out all their warriors during their journey to Indraprastha. If Abhiras were really Yadavas why would they prey on their own kinsmen. I have tagged prod. Kindly either redirect to yadav or move the material there. Yadav(cast), would be offshooted to a proper namespace. You should have readers in your mind before creating such an article. Ikon ^No-Blast 10:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yadava is a Sanskrit word and In Sanskrit (written in any script, including Devanagari), if a lone consonant is written without any following vowel, it is given a halanta/virāma diacritic below (example: प्). If it not there, it is to pronounced with vowel "a" after it. The citations mentioned in this article also used Yadava, not Yadav. Not a single logic is provided why the article should be either deleted or shifted to Yadav. It is simply unacceptable as Yadav is a Hindi word and it can not be used to describe the ancient Yadavas. Please first discuss in the talk page why a Sanskrit word should be replaced by a Hindi word.

Joy1963^Talk 12:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• • I am surprised. Joy is giving such lame excuses for maintaining this article. I won't discuss with you whether it is Yadav or yadava, in sanskrit, because AFAIK, it is same. In english both terms are used interchangeably, and you are just creating problem for readers who are yet not familiar with what the term is and likely to be confused between yadav and yadava. Also. whether in sanskrit or in Hindi it is always written without halanta. Ikon ^No-Blast 15:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks for your reply. What I could understand from your reply that the only reason behind your proposal for deletion of this article is the possible confusion between Yadava and Yadav by the readers, But, a reference has been made at the top of this article to Yadav (disambiguation) page and Yadav (disambiguation) page very clearly has removed all possibilities of confusion. A similar reference is also there in Yadav article, directing the readers to Yadav (disambiguation) page. Even at the end of the lead paragraph, it is clearly mentioned, "A number of communities and royal dynasties of ancient, medieval and modern Indian subcontinent, claiming their descents from the ancient Yadava clans and mythical Yadava personalities also describe themselves as the Yadavas (or Yadavs)," which I think leaves no room for confusion. A small point I like to mention again. In Hindi because of Schwa deletion in Indo-Aryan languages "यादव" is pronuonced as Yadav, not Yadava unlike Sanskrit and whenever any work in English mentioned about the ancient Indian people, it always used Yadava, not Yadav. Even J. N. Singh Yadav's work is titled "Yādavas Through The Ages", not Yadavs. At the end, the point raised by you seems to be an irrelevant one to me. Thank you again. Joy1963^Talk 05:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • The same author dr Jn singh yadav a famous yadav historian says yadavs is same as yadav so why new article?Raosaab7 (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just to answer the leading sentence of this discussion about Mahabharata that why did Abhira tribe kidnap or loot the Vrishni and Andhaka. As far as I or anyone else can easily understand that Mahabharata is the story of bloody fight between brothers and relatives. Brother killed brother (Arjuna killed Karna or Arjuna killed Duryodhana), A pupil kills his teacher (Arjuna -> Drona). In Mahabharata war only blood related people are seen to fight and kill each other. Then how can one say that Abhiras are not part of Yadavas just for the reason that they attacked andhakas/Vrishnis. That too the episode is part of so called Musala Parv where All Yadavas are seen to fight each other and kill each other. So at least in case of Mahabharata it is simply baseless to say that Abhira are not Yadava because they attacked Andhaka/Vrishni (the Yadava).--MahenSingha (Talk) 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

All these confusion is caused by the British written books, who didn’t have the slightest knowledge about our culture and history

In accordance with the long standing colonial tradition of denigrating Hindu deities, ignoring glaring evidence, about how Krishna was a 'tribal' deity, later appropriated by Brahmins to preserve their ever weakening authority. These colonial masters has not only distorted our history to suit their purpose but also made their slaves psychologically And they knew creating conflicting statement would result in disharmony Utkarsh nagwa (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

please remove non elite word from yadav articles because who is elite or non elite is not decided by you. Those people who proud of his work is always elite. So please sir remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4064:b03:ea9d:1f6c:9a28:5aae:3291 (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=xm2ATbagEYPirAf-8szDBw&ct=result&id=fltuAAAAMAAJ&dq=chudasama+were+abhiras&q=yadavas

• As far as I know, there is absolutely no evidence in any ancient Indian literature that ancient Yadava people were anyway related to the Abhiras. Even the reference mentioned by you is about the castes of Bombay, not about the ancient people. It is quite true that like a number of other communities in South Asia, the Abhiras or the Ahirs also claim themselves as Yadavas or Yadavs and that very fact is mentioned in the lead paragraph. Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, which follows the policy of NPOV, I think you will appreciate that if Abhira and Yadava become a single article, it will be a POV and not supported by facts. If you find any reference in any ancient Indian literature (Hindu, Buddhist or Jain or any secular text), where Abhiras are mentioned as a Yadava clan, you are welcome to incorporate the same in the article with proper citation. Thanks.

Joy1963^Talk 08:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• abhira has yaduvanshi classification link-The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India-page-22

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ri7pgHOQC8UC&pg=PA21&dq=ahirs+of+gujarat&hl=en&ei=rS2MTbuHHsf4rQfOx-XSDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ahirs%20of%20gujarat&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient indian historian (talk • contribs) 05:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC) If you have any doubt that abhiras later called ahirs have a branch called Yaduvanshi Ahirs and yes chudasama a clan of rajputs were caled abhiras and ahir ranas.Raosaab7 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) "Is there any answer to Raosaab7 "38.101.155.250 (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Joy1963 In which place or book it is written that Ahir was not Yadav. Do not write history by yourself. The Yadavas are a dynasty consisting mainly of four groups. You will find evidence in the Puranas - Vishnu, Harivamsa, Padma Purana, Shakti Sangam Tantra etc. Thank you N8 09:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

If it is yadavas then what is Yadavs ?Raosaab7 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yadav is a clan of Yadava (descendants of Yadu). These clans are also descendants of Yadava like Saini, Bhati, Jadeja etc. --¢ℓαяк (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

So why indian govt and constitution accepts all ahirs be it be yaduvanshi , nandvanshi or gwalvanshi to be yadavas ?.

Then why are ahirs called yadavs and why not bhati, jadeja and saini ever used Yadav as last name ?Raosaab7 (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Many kings started there own Dynasties like Vrishni, Bhoja etc. and there descendants are using there name instead of calling themselves Yadu vanshi (descendants of Yadu). --¢ℓαяк (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yadava personalities also describe themselves as the Yadavas (or later Yadavs or Jadhavs).[5][6]

This is what i copied from main article. If i am not wrong then this means Yadavas and Yadavs are same thing. Yadav article says yadavs are shudras then how come these glorified people who were once kings and rulers became shudras?38.101.155.250 (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is no question of yadav being Sudra.If you take four varna ( bhramin, kshatriya, vaishav, shurda)in hindu.Rather Yadav are always been in Kshatriya.It is showing the complete lack of Indian caste system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D murari (talk • contribs) 06:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yadavs are group of peasant- pastrol communities so they comes in shudras. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Shudras also have their chiefs/kings.for example adivasis were also having their kings#rani durgawati. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:DeokalimuskabadWhere is Yadav Shudra written? N8 09:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Shudra is occupation based classification called Varna and is determined by traditional occupation of the community.S ince we 'yadavs were nomadic cowherders,so they come in shudra Varna. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is their any relation to Yadava and Kapu caste ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.202.105 (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

His entourage was attacked by bandits. And why exactly are these bandits equated with Abhirs? Now all along the author seems to be arguing that the Abhirs were Vrishnis, then why would Vrishnis attack their own women? As usual the reader is given no proof in this regard, except for a statement from the pulpit. Utkarsh nagwa (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

In accordance with the long standing colonial tradition of denigrating Hindu deities, Scroll's recent article on Krishna indulges in wild speculation, ignoring glaring evidence, about how Krishna was a 'tribal' deity, later appropriated by Brahmins to preserve their ever weakening authority. These colonial masters has not only distorted our history to suit their purpose but also made their slaves psychologically And they knew creating conflicting statement would result in disharmony Utkarsh nagwa (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear administrator, the central description of article "ancient Indian Kshatriya" should be changed to ancient hindu tribes. As their ancestral king was cursed by his father that he will no longer carry the family lineage/kingdom.So, they are just a Indian tribes. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Deokalimuskabad Removing someone from the state does not change anyone's character. Whether a lion lives in a forest or in a city, it is a lion. N8 09:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Neither someone's status is removed nor decreased , your mindset should be changed, Wikipedia is responsible for giving for giving appropriate information,and that it is doing. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why is this article using very old translations of primary sources? It shouldn't be using any - we should be working off reliable, modern secondary sources. I am inclined to gut it. - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Only primary and old sources are true. Modern sources which are being written today are not considered to be true. They are with hostility. Both old and new sources should be used.N8 09:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

That is not how it works. In fact, it is exactly the opposite - see WP:HISTRS and WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Sitush Sir, I would like to make some argument. In the Padma, Vishnu Purana, Lord Vishnu himself has said that he will be born in the Yadava dynasty of Gwalas and will kill the wicked. Even in the Rig Veda, Maharaj Yadu and his brother Turvasu were called Gwala as a servant of cows. It is mentioned in the Shakti Sangam Tantra that the descendants of King Ahuk are called Ahir (Gwala). It is also mentioned in Harivans and Bhagavata Purana. Ahir is not a caste but a title given to Maharaj Yadu. Then it is said that they robbed women of Vrishni and Andhak dynasty. Why would anyone rob women of their own lineage? Why would the cowherds rob their own women? Clearly, it has been sabotaged in modern India. Made to discredit. If it is assumed that they looted. Arjun used the word 'Loota'. This should also be true, he protected women from Arjuna. When Arjuna was kidnapping and taking Subhadra, all the Yadavas wanted to kill Arjuna including Balarama but he could not do so because of Lord Krishna. This must have been the reason that when Arjuna was taking the women, he thought that he was kidnapping and taking them and he attacked Arjuna and protected the women. Arjuna lost to them, so must have used the word loot. One more thing, when Arjuna defeated the Narayani army in battle, he was proud that he defeated with his power. Lord Krishna promised Indra that he will protect Arjuna as long as he stays on earth. That is why Lord Krishna did this to break Arjuna's pride. It is all written. Now the question comes that the condition you have spoken to see us. According to the condition that any scholar or source of high news which according to Wikipedia, his article can be taken as reliable source of Wikipedia article. He never wrote that Ahir robbed the woman. So why is it written in some Wikipedia articles that Ahir looted? Two sources are telling about A and B, so shall we use them to indicate C? Thank You N8 10:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is your interpretation of the primary sources that leads you down a path of uncertainty and confusion. Those ancient texts were compiled over centuries, exist in many forms and were influenced by the needs of the time (an old but more recent example would be Kalhana, who inevitably had to write to please his royal masters). This is why we should always use modern academic interpretations. We are also not permitted on Wikipedia to make our own judgements regarding which version is "right" - that is what WP:NPOV is for, and if we have various reliable sources saying different things then we should show all of those different opinions. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Sitush Sir, By writing Rama in English to Lord Rama of Hindi, Lord Rama of Hindi language and English language does not separate, he is the same. Similarly, by writing Yadav or Yadva, both will not be separated. Sir I agree that this is about the ancient Yadavas, not about modern Yadavas. but instead you should use Yaduvansh as the main title and not Yadava. Thank You N8 10:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely you said right, if there will be different opinions, then you will show but it does not happen. The 'selective option' is adopted. N8 10:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sir, what I have argued is not primarily mine based on the original article, it is from the scholars.Thank you N8 10:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

It may be from scholars but we're showing very old primary texts and very old scholars. Academic thoughts tend to change over time, sometimes because certain things become more popular areas of study but often because the criteria used for study has tightened up. As an exmaple, this is why we do not use Raj era sources in caste articles - they're hopelessly "amateur" compared to modern sources. (And as an example of the problem relating to primary texts being used by us, consider the northern and southern recensions of the Mahabharata - which do we choose? why are they different? and so on)

I don't do a lot of work on ancient empires/dynasties etc here on Wikipedia but I think Utcursch does a fair bit so perhaps they will have something to say here. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Here the source of the same scholars are being shown who have mostly worked on economic and educational parameters or researched on a particular subject, it is also true that economic criteria and occupation determine the class of any one, but the ancient caste category cannot be changed, and according to modern criteria, the entire particular caste cannot be placed in the class decided in modern times. According to this criteria, they try to prove that you are modern, no relation to the ancient. You take Tulsi Ji's Ramcharitmanas, he says in one place that in the whole world, apart from Ahir, there is no pure clean heart of anyone, then he tells Villain in one place. There has been a lot of sabotage in middle and modern history. Thank you very much sir for answering our questions. N8 12:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

That is why I said that very ancient and modern sources (present ) whose original research is based on very ancient history should be used. N8 12:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Let's see if Utcursch has anything to say. It would help if you could try to indent your replies using ":" in future - if you look at this section when you next edit it, you will see above how I have added a series of ":" before each message, one more ":" for each than existed for the previous message. Indenting can get quite complex but just doing that is a good start. (So, if you reply to this one, which already has one ":", you would start your reply with "::".) - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I will take care of this from the beginning whenever there is a discussion. Thanks N8 13:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure which specific sources are being referred to, but if we're talking about Ramcharitmanas or Mahabharata, I agree with Sitush's assessment -- these are not acceptable sources for this article. Relevant quotes from these texts belong on Wikiquote, not on Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 20:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Packer&Tracker: The sources provided for the ancient Yadavas belonging to Abhira tribe and thus present-day Ahir caste are not reliable in this article. Would request you to look into this. @Joy1963: Can you please look into this? Iamritwikaryan (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vasudeva tells Arjuna about the destruction of Yadavas and Krishna's message.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Chedi section - It is mentioned that Chedis are present day Hindu Ghosi.

It is factually wrong. No historical inscription/ book/ record says any connection between Chedis and Ghosis.

So remove the last two lines from this section.

Infact Ghosis have started connecting themselves with Krishna only in the 30th century.

Remove the mention of Ghosis from Chedis section. Abhimanyu200 (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone change (literally, descended from Yadu) to lit. 'descended from Yadu', thanks. Rau6590 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done AukusRuckus (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yaduvanshi has been converted to a stub article from the existing disambiguation page. (Also was previously done here, here, and here, and then reverted.) My understanding is that the term is another way of expressing "Yadava". If that's correct, having a separate Yaduvanshi article will only add confusion. But perhaps I've misunderstood, in which case I guess the new page is fine. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

No longer applies, as Yaduvanshi has been restored as a DAB page. Apparently, a sock editor has been attempting to create a content fork there. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply