Talk:Abhira people

Untitled
someone trying to distort the identity of abhira by calling them invading tribe.Abhira presence in india before 1500BC According to historian Bhagwan singh suryavanshi.

Unexplained removal of content
To the unregistered user making the edits, please use this discussion section as a place to explain why you feel the changes must be made. I notice you are removing any referenced mention of the tribe not originally being from India, do you have a reference that you can show us that suggests otherwise? - SudoGhost (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Abhira as Yadav
when Abhira present in mahabharat period(900BC)
 * I hope you don't mind, I cleaned up the formatting for you so that it would be easier to read. :) - SudoGhost (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Abhira/Ophir
The statement that some (old) sources thought Abhira = Ophir is a mis-statement and I am going to remove it. For example, see this, which mentions all sorts of theories for Ophir as a place - including the people named in our statement - but does not mention the tribe. In fact, I can find no reference that makes the connection to the tribe other than the single old source provided. Given the sheer uncertainty of the location of Ophir, I think we are stretching a point here. - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Abhira = ophir finds its place in many documents of varied time periods and of various authors. JudeanCohen (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Abhira as Vratya Kshatriya
Romila Thapar narrated that some sources mention Abhira as Vratya Kshatriya and gives an account that how the mlechhas rose to attain the supreme political power and to the status of Kshatriya. here is the link- Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations By Romila Thapar I am surprized that why this view is not included in the article.-- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 19:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why this information should not be included in the article. Romila Thapar is perfectly acceptable as a source. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ahir Vs Abhira
I need little information on this issue. The article very well falls into the 'Category:Ahir history', because in the Ahir history Abhiras are mentioned as ancestor of modern Ahir race and most of the Historians agree on this resolution. In the process of Sanskritisation, the Ahir and allied castes connected them to the old Yadava dynasty, which entirely is a separate issue. Can anybody please give me a link where it has been discussed specifically that Ahir and Abhira connection is an outcome of Sanskritisation.--MahenSingha (Talk) 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a bit like the mess involving the modern-day Yadavs and the ancient Yadava tribe. While some people do make a connection, most reliable modern sources refuse to do so. It has been discussed before somewhere and the article itself explains the massive uncertainty regarding origins. As a rule, when things are so uncertain it is not a good idea to categorise because categories tend to give black-or-white impressions. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, most of the historians and the article Ahir suggests that modern ahirs have originated from the old Abhira and that is the only reason of adding Ahir category to the article. Anyway, I am not much aware of these old discussions and consensus issues on wikipedia and that's why I asked. Thanks for the information.--MahenSingha (Talk) 21:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ahirs were Yadavs since before any concept of Sanskritisation came up. This very term is a conspiracy by communist intellectuals with zero solid proof. JudeanCohen (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

NPOV
This page has a NPOV problem. The lede is a single sentence that does not explain who the Abhira tribe was. I suspect, given that they are called "A Vedic people", that they are from the epics. Section one begins by linking them to the Ahirs, which is fraught with problems, as the Ahir page itself explains. There's at least 4000 years between the Vedic period and now. Scripture is quoted as evidence rather than secondary material - and to reference modern ethnic claims. Rather than discuss the Abhiras or explain the topic of the page, the paragraphs go on to discuss the Ahiras completely ahistorically - they are Rajputs, they are Ahirs, they are the origin of Herat's name. It is a complete jumble, half of it from unreliable sources. This article needs to decide what it is about, skip the nationalism and talk about the Vedic-era people. Theories about who they are connected to four thousand years later is secondary to what the actual topic is. There's a section on Abhira's allegiances to Duryodana, who I can click on to learn he's a mythological figure from the Mahabhara, right before a section stating the Abhiras ruled the Deccan in the third century. It's a nightmare trying to understand what is going on.

This page, in short, is like reading about the Britons and discovering the page is using the Arthurian romances straight-facedly, only instead of like a thousand years of ahistorical confusion it's four times as much. Ogress smash! 01:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well said. This is one of those articles where I keep intending to clean up but never get round to it. - Sitush (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I have the spoons to work it over properly but perhaps we could gut the bits about the Ahirs and the modern day at least? I can work on sorting things into two sections because it seems like we really need an article on the Abhiras of the Vedas/ancient scriptures and Abhiras the historical people if it turns out there's enough evidence as we absolutely cannot use the Vedas to talk about the inheritors of the Satavanas... Anyway I'll do what I can to sort information but as for confirming or adding it, I'm limited by lack of scholarly materials. Ogress smash! 01:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
I am not engaging in vandalism. I kept an existing cite you keep removing. That is not vandalism, that is a conflict between editors. Page 115: "The fact that the status of the śūdras was low is clearly indicated by their association with the Niṣāda, the Ābhira and the Malla..." It is also mentioned in, page 37. Sharma believes the śūdra in question was a tribal name. Ogress smash! 23:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that it was WP:NOTVAND. That said, having looked at the Thapar source, which you quote, I do wonder about ambiguity: association with Abhira is not the same as being sudra. In fact, that she names one group - sudra - and compares to other groups might suggest that they are distinguished rather than the same. I can't see the relevant page of Sharma. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The hassle of google books is their stupid randomness: I couldn't see page 115 when I was writing the above comment even though I could earlier in the day. (I went into my cache history to get it.) Ogress smash! 01:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ogress, please read the book understand the context and only write direct reference. All indirect reference should be minimized to ensure edits are not reverted as vandalism. content not from learned historian can be safely avoided. as Sitush did for some SDS Yadava author, retired army writer. SeaHawkDan (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * SeaHawkDan, please will you stop referring to reverts as vandalism until you have read and understood WP:NOTVAND. The reverts in question were not vandalism. It is a serious charge and anyone levelling it needs to be very sure of their ground otherwise it can be considered a personal attack.
 * Can anyone see the Sharma book? Regarding Thapar, I just think that is a tad ambiguous - it might mean that the Abhira and the sudra were the same or it might mean that they were similar. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see Sharma. It is not any clearer than Thapar - like I said, Sharma believes the śūdras were a tribe and the Ābhīras are paired with them (and specifically not with groups considered non-Aryan).
 * "That the Śūdras appear as a tribe in the earliest part of the Atharva Veda can also be inferred from the third reference, in which the fever takman is asked to attack a wanton śūdrā woman along with the Mujavants, Balhikas and Mahāvṛṣas. All these peoples seem to have been inhabitants of north-western India, where, in the Mahābhārata, the Śūdra tribe is described as living along with the Ābhīras."So the Ābhīras appear in the Mahabharata, not in the Atharva Veda. Ogress smash! 09:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. This looks like it may be a messy issue. I will see if I can find anything that clarifies, online or otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Blanking entire page, without adding any acceptable content is act of vandalism. However my vandalism is more closer to dictionary meaning related to public property in good sense.
 * (cur | prev) 02:16, 31 July 2015‎ Ogress (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,344 bytes) (-62)‎ . . (→‎History=: cleanup) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 02:15, 31 July 2015‎ Ogress (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,406 bytes) (-12,630)‎ . . (massive cleanup: sooooo many unreliable sources or sources that patently do not say what they are claimed to) (undo | :::::: thank)
 * (cur | prev) 06:42, 30 July 2015‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,036 bytes) (-287)‎ . . (→‎Rule of Konkan: tagged as unsourced for long enough) (undo | thank)
 * If Ogress is interesting in cleanup. he should read the existing reference, raise question on specific links, understand the context and contribute in factual manner. Most of the India history related topic older than 200 years are messier than toilet sink, with so much overlap with mytho and history.
 * Sitush, I appreciate your significant contribution in policing similar articles and I would like to thank you for your sincerity and dedication. SeaHawkDan (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Shalomim Y. Halahawi book cannot be used as reference
Shalomim Y. Halahawi book cannot be used as reference since he is merely quoting wikipedia. He mentions very clearly that wikipedia states these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanakaur (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It is also self-published through Lulu. We never allow that stuff. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Origin section
Please discuss and reach consensus on support for the "Origin section" as determined by {Diff|Abhira tribe|988980203|988974399}}. If I understand it there are good faith claims A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province: A.-K, Volume 2 (H.A. Rose,1911) is suitable to source and support the content sited and there are opposing good faith claims claims that that source is not suitable for use per Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 172. Please discuss and reach consensus. Without prejudice to either position this should have been a WP:1RR WP:BRD not an acrimonious edit war and I am backing out the Origin section as if a simple BRD had occurred. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Abhiras have nothing to do with Chudasama dynasty
Why Chudasama rajputs mentioned here, they have nothing to do with Abhiras , as Chudasamas assisted by Abhira that why they were called as Abhira Rana kindly update the same Navghana (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Source? Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Kindly Check @Chudasama_dynasty page's origin section, you can find the truth Navghana (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

user:chariotrider555 Here

The Chudasama kings of Junagadh Navaghana and Khengar described as Ahirna Rana, Abhira Ranaka in Hemchandra's Dvyashraya and Merutunga's Prabandha-Chintamani because the Ahir tribe were close confidante of Chudasama rulers and Devayat Bodar had sacrified his son to save life of King Navaghana. The Chudasama Rajputs used title of Ahirana Rana, which translates in Gujarati language to the King of Ahirs, this title was later adopted by Muslim Sultans, who conquered Junagadh.

Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahirana Raja means king of ahirana-the country of Ahirs. It doesn't mean ruler of Ahirs. Ahirana just like rajputana(country of rajputs) means country of Ahirs. And this title was only used by Muslim rulers, not by GRaharipu. He was called aherana which means Ahir king. JudeanCohen (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

All these theories about assisting and being close confidantes is a cover up to hide their Rajputization. JudeanCohen (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Please revert to old version
Considering Chudasama as Abhira is totality wrong abhiras have nothing to do with Chudasama dynasty of Junagadh, it was just title which was also adopted by muslim sultan of Junagadh , pseudo nihilistic was right.. Navghana (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Navghana, can you provide any references regarding that Muslim Sultan of Junagadh who adopted the specific title "Abhira"? Thanks. HinduKshatrana (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

here User:HinduKshatrana 106.195.8.99 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say anywhere about the specific term "Abhira", rather it mentions their use of AhirnaRanas or AbhiraRanaka. Can you please provide a source where it says they used the title "Abhira" specifically? And which particular "Sultan" or "King" used the title "Abhira" specifically and at which period of time? Thanks. HinduKshatrana (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Etymology
I have added clarify tag to this section, because the single sentence Etymologically, he who can cast terror on all sides is called an Abhira, as well as being an unattributed direct quotation from the cited source, is not an etymology (whatever the source might say).

Does it mean "one who casts terror on all sides"? If so, in what language, and from what root? Or is the source saying that that word was used to refer to that tribe, and came to have that meaning? ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I again added the clarify tag, as it seems to have been removed? Yogabear2020 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The source citation might also need a page number. Yogabear2020 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)