Talk:Yadava

Prod

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)

• 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)

• • 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)

• • • 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)

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)

Abhiras themselves are Yadavas so why new article

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)

• 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)

Yadava and Yadav article creating confusion?

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

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)

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)

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)

Yadava are Yadavs ?

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)

Proposal to merge articles Yadav , Ahir and Yadava

Proposal to merge articles Yadav , Ahir and Yadava

Based on these sources given below the term Yadav, Ahir and Yadava are used synonymously so it is proposed that they be merged into one article YADAVA. All contents of Ahir and Yadav will move to YADAVA.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=4RqGTvHVDYPOrQf59-TrDA&ct=result&id=wWEiAQAAMAAJ&dq=semi+historical+evidences+ahir&q=semi+historical#search_anchor

Social movements and social transformation: a study of two backward classes movements in India by MSA RAO.

Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu " is written by T. Padmaja

http://books.google.com/books?id=F-_eR1isesMC&pg=RA1-PA34&dq=Yadavas+of+South+India+velir&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Impacted articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadav http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahirs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadava — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Both Yadav and Yadava should be combined, but Ahir should be separate. Yadavs did not exist in the Gangetic Plain before 1900. The term was adopted by the some among the former Ahir, Gwalas, and Gopis (herders and milkmen) as a part of a program of upward social mobility. Subsequently a golden age was invented in which they, a non-elite caste, had now magically become kshatriya. The Yadav page needs to explicitly state that and all its history should be post-1900. Here are some sources:

• Pinch, William R. (1996). Peasants and monks in British India. University of California Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-520-20061-6. Retrieved 4 October 2011. Quote: "Gopis, Goalas, and Ahirs, who would by early 1900s begin referring to themselves as Yadav kshatriyas, had long sought and attained (after 1898) recruitment as soldiers in the British Indian army, particularly in the Western Gangetic Plain."
• Bayly, Susan (2001). Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge University Press. p. 387. ISBN 978-0-521-79842-6. Retrieved 4 October 2011. Quote: Yadav: North Indian caste title signifying kinship with the Hindu pastoral hero Krishna; now used in preference to Ahir.
• There are a bunch of pages in Jaffrelot that address this, but I'm too tired to quote them (and it would likely be a copyright infringement if I do). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

msa raos book can be taken as a good source and ahir, yadav and yadava can be combined. please read msa raos book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Two reliable academic sources one by MSA Rao and other by T Padmaja is provided above which clearly mentions Ahir as Yadavs long before 18 or 19th century.

Rao has also stated that ancient Yadav dynasty and Ahir are one and the same. MSA Rao book must be given due weightage.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=4RqGTvHVDYPOrQf59-TrDA&ct=result&id=wWEiAQAAMAAJ&dq=semi+historical+evidences+ahir&q=semi+historical#search_anchor

and then "Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency: Khándesh"

Page 578 yadav or ahir is used synonymously

This book was printed in 1880 by government central by the goverment. The book mentions about a chief Asa the ahir also known as yadav. This is before the 19th century.

People of India: Rajasthan, Part 1 By K. S. Singh published by government of India

It states Ahir and yadav are used interchangeably

Please consider these for article merger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=nqvloPNdEZgC&pg=PA44&dq=ahir+YADAV&hl=en#v=onepage&q=ahir%20YADAV&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have indented some of the comments above as things were getting confusing. I would encourage the IPs to register: merge discussions involving IPs tend to hit problems regarding judgement of consensus. I am not suggesting that any of the above IPs are socks but such activity is quite common on Indian caste articles & it does tend to make life difficult for all concerned.

Where would Abhira fit into this proposal? Some of the above comments seem actually to be using alleged Abhira/Ahir synonymity as at least a partial basis for their position. If there is any doubt then the articles should not be merged: better not to conflate and thereby create potential misinformation. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the merge because of the reasons listed here (with sources). TLDR: (1) A number of castes claiming descent from the ancient Yadavas started doing so in the 1920s. (2) While Ahirs themselves believe that Ahir = Yadav, there are other communities which claim that Ahirs are just one of the several Yadav castes. utcursch | talk 09:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merge because:

• support the "oppose" reasons given by Utcursch and, where appropriate, by Fowler&fowler
• the sourced section Yadav#Sanskritisation explains the creation of a history
• sources such as Jaffrelot, which are already used in Yadav, clearly demonstrate that they have considered the opinions of Rao.
• arguments that the British lumped various groups together at Ahir etc in their censuses are somewhat poor as a basis for conflating the groups noted here: the British methods were generally skewed and this has been commented on by countless modern writers, eg in this. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So UTCURSCH is basically saying that AHIR are the not the only YADAVS but other communties fall under YADAVS too but then why is that the article YADAV only mentions about AHIR. It should also mention about various other communities under YADAV. Bases on UTCURSCH comments the article YADAV needs correction. Also MSA Rao is a source which cannot be ignored. The article YADAV needs correction based on MSA RAos book. In academic world he is a premier historian/scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article here? Yadav does mention Rao and does mention communities other than the Ahirs. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think SITUSH the point here is article YADAV needs some correction based on Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu " is written by T. Padmaja Social movements and social transformation: a study of two backward classes movements in India by MSA RAO. That is the whole point of this discussion. If you feel we dont have to merge it then dont merge it. but core issue is "why is work of so many reputed scholars ignored". kindly look into it. Just a few sentence correction based on MSA Rao book is being expected. The article YADAV is not really neutral. So many books have been provided as reference which mentions about AHIR kings ,,, AHIR and YADAV being synonyms. MSA Rao should be given due weightage ( you had mentioned that ).