Talk:Yadu

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Hinduism: Krishnaism High‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles High This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (assessed as High-importance).

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:  • List of ancient Indo-Aryan peoples and tribes Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:  • Talk:List of ancient Indo-Aryan peoples and tribes

Add [1] "Yadu dynasty

the dynasty in which Lord Krishna appeared."

-- 88.72.28.199 (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joy1963 has given a link in the article claiming Yadu is a tribe. Well, it is in english which calls the tribe Yadus. however, Rigveda was not written in English. Would he give Sanskrit equivalent of Plural "Yadus", and show that it exists in rigveda. Considering Yadu as a tribe is conjectural, which scholars do. However, it is not found in rigveda in the same way. Ikon ^No-Blast 09:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Rigveda, another tribe belonging to panchajana, Puru is also mentioned, and a king Trasadasyu belonging to Puru tribe also mentioned. So it is a very clear indication, Yadu also the name of a tribe, not an individual. Secondly, a reference in English does not mean its author does not know Vedic Sanskrit and thirdly wikipedia is not a place to express personal views, every sentence requires citation. If any reference is supporting the view that Yadu is an individual in the Rigveda, same can be mentioned along with citation from the reference work.

Joy1963 ^Talk 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Rigveda, I.108.8, Yadu is used as plural.Joy1963 ^Talk 18:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joy, I appreciate your knowledge. Ikon ^No-Blast 19:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should also see, [2], the first and later part of rigveda are considered to be creation of later days and are generally considered concoctions, e.g., the purush-sukta. The middle part is considered genuine work. As the author shows, Turvasa is an individual who turns into plural into later part, so might be the case with yadu. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cattle and the stick: an ethnographic profile of the Raut of Chhattisgarh

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=VD-QTZagH8qycMXUmYsK&ct=result&id=wT-BAAAAMAAJ&dq=krishna+was+abhira&q=kshatriyas

Handbook on Rajputs By A. H. Bingley--page -82

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Cc2HyXP5dygC&pg=PA105&dq=nikumbh++clan&hl=en&ei=KgKkTaLHJYHYuAPyifGDCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=while%20Arjuna%20was%20escorting%20&f=false

jats are indo-scythian tribe which have nothing to with yadavs.yadav is a indo-aryan tribe and chandra vanshi kasahtriya while jats are shudra.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/lw5v58gm16723786/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k3r48177278105w0/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-3SWT27W-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1192748881&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=71d7cfb87d376e6c202037335ed6e417

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/gb-2005-6-8-p10.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient indian historian (talk • contribs) 01:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancientindianhistorian has recently added

.there is no relation between jats and Yadus because Jat is a well known Indo-Scythian tribe while yadu is a indo-aryan tribe.moreover Jats comes under Shudra while Yadus is Chandravanshi Kahatriya .so above claims of jat is completely false.^[1]

I have moved it from the article to here for discussion, since the last of his three sources does not appear even to mention the Jats. I shall try to obtain the other sources to which he refers. Comments are welcome, of course. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extracting the three sources which are combined in the above citation:

• {http://www.springerlink.com/content/lw5v58gm16723786/]
• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-3SWT27W-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1192748881&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=71d7cfb87d376e6c202037335ed6e417
• http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/gb-2005-6-8-p10.pdf

Can anyone provide copies of these? If not then I'll have to try WP:RX. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let's start with something more simple. Ancientindianhistorian, do any of the three sources that you mention specifically say that the Jats are not connected to the Yadu? Do any of them specifically say both that the Jats are Indo-Scythian and that the Yadu are Indo-Aryan? - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted some additions made to the article by User:Ancient indian historian today. They were cited, but to a medical book and a 1903 source. Neither of these seem to me to be remotely acceptable as reliable sources for the statements being made. If anyone feels otherwise then please could they explain their reasoning here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As i have provided evidences on Kshtriya article that jats does not belong to chandravansh,now i find same historical blunder on this article which mention them yaduvanshi and the sources are same baseless jat historian books which are part of their social status propaganda.references of jats should be removed from this article.Bill clinton history (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are confusing Eternal Truth with the Wikipedia mission of presenting academic observations. The two sources, Wilson and Russel, clearly indicate that some groups of Jats claim to be in the Yadava grouping. Therefore, that mention should stay. It is literally a single word, so by no means WP:Undue, the word claims is explicit (and exactly matches the sentiment of the sources), so I really don't see how there can be any objection to the Jats being on that list, particularly as your argument appears to be centred around the Jats being "wrong" as opposed to a legitimate concern about the sources. If I'm misreading you, by all means let me know exactly what it is you object to about the term and its two footnotes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,all mentioned communities except jats has references by prominent historians in support of their claim in modern period.but jats claim completely refuted by historians in modern period.moreover government of india does not mention them with yadavs.they are considered completely different community in society even today from yadavs.

Moreover ,source based on Tods book which you have already rejected on ahirs or yadavs article.

you were debating with me so much on ahir article and now you are very easly accepting a very poor source and false statement.this is double standard.Bill clinton history (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several mentions that Ahirs too claim to be descended from Yadu. mahensingha 16:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

Rizz1 (talk · contribs) has been removing sourced content today. They've provided a "sort of" edit summary but the material does appear to include reliable sources. WP:NPOV and WP:VNT might apply. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the page Yadu be split into a two separate pages called Yadu (tribe) and Yadu (legendary king). The content of the current page seems split between talking about the historical Rigvedic Yadu tribe, the legendary king Yadu, the later tribe called the Yadavas, and modern castes claiming to be descendants of Yadu or the Yadavas. There is already a page on the Yadavas.Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]