Talk:Seuna (Yadava) dynasty

Nothing disgusting about History if you open your eyesDineshkannambadi 14:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing disgusting nor is their any Kannadaization of this article as you claim. Read books and then talk. People without knowledge or the habit of acquiring it should not post blatant comments. All info has been sourced from reliable reference source which has been provided. In fact I intend to work on this next more closely, with an additional source (scholarly ofcourse). Your lack of historiacal knowledge is your loss. If you try to remove any material without arbitration, you will find youself in a soup and quit cribbing about Vijayanagar empire, you cant do anything there. I am fully sourced from 4 different sources of research.

Maharashtra history is intimately tied to Karnataka History129.42.208.182 15:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The day you guys realise this, much of the disputes will go away. Unfortunately as I have stated earlier, politicials and false history propaganda machinery has I believe hidden much of real history from Indians. I am not saying this with malice against any particular state.

Regarding the Yadavas or Seunas, remember that they were feudatories first of the Rashtrakuta (late period of Rashtrakuta) and all the way thru the Kalyani Chalukya rule before declaring independence. I have quoted the names of the Kannada scholars in the Suena court, their works etc. I have also given balanced info about the arrival of Marathi literature only because thats what the source says. I have done this without any prejudice or personal gains. Its upto you to see this with an open mind. Feel free to bring other sources. In fact I can quote you a source other then Kamath (Since you hate him). Please take time to read history first and discuss and Tag. Creating alternate pages for the same topic based on challenge and ego is not acceptable to either history or probably wikipedia.

Dinesh Kannambadi

InsecurityDineshkannambadi 15:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to log in earlier. Lets not forget you received a similar message from your friend Arya also when he came across the Seuna page.

Common historyDineshkannambadi 13:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
When I said the history of Karnataka and Maharashtra are tied together, it was meant to be a Phylosophical statement to help develop friendship and appreciate history and discard acrimony. It was not meant to be a derogatory statement. I would not take it as one if the same statement had come from one of you guys. Infact, India is a product of a Sum Contribution and thats what I was trying to emphasise on. Being neighbouring states, this is all the more true. Did you know that Purandaradasa, father of carnatic music was born in Pandharapur, Maharashtra. Dont we consider him our own?. I did not realise that being tied to Kannadis was such an offence to you guys. However whatever may be your reaction, I intend to complete this page in detail from other sources. There are always people who acknowledge and others who dont. Also, regarding my article on Belgaum page, I have always regretted having written that.

Dinesh Kannambadi

merge rationale
Please see Talk:Yadava Dynasty. utcursch | talk 11:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Any attempt to merge this page with Yadava dynasty page without broad consensus and any attempt to remove any material regarding Kannada on thsi page will go for arbitration. Please be adviced.

Dineshkannambadi
 * There is no attempt to merge the page without broad consensus, and no material regarding Kannada has been removed.utcursch | talk 08:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

decency
Please have the decency to intimate the person (myself) who has taken the trouble to put together this page before making large scale modifications and Fact tags. I understand we all have the right to make edits, but that does not mean you get together and just start doing things because it suits you. The least one of you could do (not the two illmannered guys Mahawiki and Arya Raajya whatever...) is intimate me so I could be involved. After all, there is nothing you guys can do to disprove the facts I have put there.

Dineshkannambadi

intimated admin
I have gone ahead and intimated Blnguyen, the admin, of behind the scenes edits that have taken place over the last day or two without discussion. Any attempt to do any reverts will bring in more admins if necessaryDineshkannambadi 01:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

dineshkannambadi

Sure. Mahawiki 03:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Seuna vs Yadava
Let me first explain why the name "Seuna" was used. The word Yadava has a caste connotation. There are no shortage of kingdoms whose kings come from the Yadava clan. look at the book:'''Yadavas Through the Ages--from ancient period to date/J.N. Singh Yadav. 1992'''. It claims there are so many kingdoms whose kings were Yadavas. So calling Seunas as Yadavas does not make them unique. Of course you could call them "Yadavas of Devgiri" but even that is not really accurate because there are other Yadavas like Satavahana-Yadavas who also ruled the same areas. I understand Muslim writers called them Yadavas, but my source said most inscriptions called them Seunas. That was the reason I called the page Seuna. It has no Kannada connotation to it.

Also, I have gone ahead, revertde and provided citation for all the fancifull put in there. Now we can start from the begining and see what is ok and what is not OK.

Dineshkannambadi

The fancifull fact tags were placed by a responsible person.I or arya did not put it.Walk before u run,dear Kannambadi. Mahawiki 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Seuna Yadava is the correct word and makes the article more meaningful in terms of history and also makes the page more approachable to the people seeking historical information on wiki.--Mahensingha 11:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

walk before you run
Read the book. All references have been provided. It does not matter who changed it. We all make mistakes.

Dineshkannambadi

Seuna merge
Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri sounds fine to me.

Dineshkannambadi Agreed. Seuna Yadava is the correct word and makes the article more meaningful in terms of history and also makes the page more approachable to the people seeking historical information on wiki. Thanks. --Mahensingha 18:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

communicate when communicated with
I am communicating with the admin. Please refrain from making silly, uneducated statements in between. Your anti - Kannada prejudice is showing.

Dineshkannambadi

It is not addressed to u.Also learn to sign ur comments by 4 ~s.That too at the end of ur post. Mahawiki 09:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of transliteration
Please stop meaningless removal of Kannada transliteration and harping on trivial issues. I don't see such edits adding any value to the article.-- Naveen  (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Earlier discussions inh this talk page tells the whole story. Still, the section of Karnataka and kannad script needs more citations to verify the contents. Mrtag 04:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Kannada citations
The Seuna page was built at large by admin:Utcursch who has been intimated about the blatant tagging by this novice user "Mrtag". Lets hope you can explain your actons to him.Dineshkannambadi 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Its a pity that u deleted the fact tag and the other which asked more sources. Your actions speak in volumes about ur motive here. U know nothing of Yadavas. U r clearly 'novice' here. Unless u bring some sensible sources, the lies whoever has wrote here will be removed. Mrtag 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Rathors of Baglan
It is probable that at this date the Rathors of Baglan were tributaries of the Yadavas of Deogiri.

Imperial gazetteer of India: Provincial series, Volume 8

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=V8OiTc2eJ4vQrQen85D7Ag&ct=result&id=Ph62AAAAIAAJ&dq=yadavs+are+rathors&q=Rathors+of+Baglan+

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Seuna (Yadava) dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927220913/http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/nasik/005%20History/001%20AncientPeriod.htm to http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/nasik/005%20History/001%20AncientPeriod.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Origin
Why is the origin of the dynasty being claimed as uncertain, when epigraphic evidence clearly points to it's Kannada origin? Chippy pest (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You claim that citation provided does not state that their origin is uncertain and statement doesn't exist in the citation. It's pretty obvious that you haven't read the book, because T. V. Mahalingam clearly states on page 137 that "nothing certain" can safely be said about the dynasty's origin.
 * Your other edits (which include calling another editor "uncouth Marathi mongrel") suggest that your idea of personal identity is a linguistic one. But that's not the case with the rest of the world, and certainly not with good historians.
 * The word "origin" covers aspects far broader than one's language. Even if we all agree that the dynasty emerged from a Kannada-speaking background (which is a pretty good theory), we don't know how the dynasty's progenitor ended up being a chief in the Nashik region: was he a Rashtrakuta feudatory who once served as a governor there? Was he the descendent of a Vatapi Chalukya chief who migrated northwards to escape the Rashtrakutas? Was he related to the Chalukyas of Navasarika? Was he related to the Shilaharas, another Kannada-origin dynasty of present-day Maharashtra? Why does Jain tradition connect him to Dvaraka? Why did Hemadri chose to whitewash their Kannada origin? The answers to all these questions is uncertain at this point. utcursch &#124; talk 14:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

This is what happens when you do not quote exactly from the citation. I am sure you know that Google works on an algorithm. Would be easier to verify if you quote it as it is. I agree with your other points. And yes that guy was an uncouth Marathi mongrel. If he shoves his identity on Wikipedia and scoots away, then of course I'll mock him. I just described him for what he was. I had read all comments. They infuriated me, so I reacted. Now if that makes you think that I too am a bigot, I frankly don't care. Don't splice a comment from the context in which it is being made.

Also, it's not me who's narrowing down the concept of origin to language, but this Wikipedia article. Just take a look at how many times the words "Kannada-origin" and "Marathi-origin" has been used. And in the literature section it's been explicitly stated that the Yadavas weren't of "Marathi-origin." Now if their origin is indeed uncertain, why that statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chippy pest (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately, it all boils down to language. The term origin usually suggests one's lineage or homeland. In this case, it is true that the dynasty's progenitor ended up being a chief in Nashik, but most inscriptions as mentioned in the article are in Kannada. Linguistic reconstruction attests Kannada to be far older than Marathi. Marathi as a language that's spoken today began to flourish only after the 11th and the 12th centuries. Now inevitably if Kannada was a common language during the dynasty's reign, then they surely had had a "Kannada-lineage." The questions you've posed have nothing to do with origin actually, other than the one on Jain tradition. Chippy pest (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Despite what you may personally believe, the word "origin" has several aspects, including geography, time, pedigree etc. Contrary to your claims, the article does not use the word "Kannada origin" even once, and uses "[not of] Marathi origin" exactly once - in the Literature section, which is obviously about language. The origin section has a lot of content on the language aspect, because that's all historians can conclude with some certainty (from inscriptions, the rulers' names, coins etc.), and then use it to make conjectures about the dynasty's homeland, exact period of origin, ancestry, former overlords etc.
 * As for the citation, one can't "quote exactly", because that would be copyright violation. And that does not excuse your failure to read the cited source before making a false claim twice. I'm not going to spend more time arguing here: the fact that you're still arguing that "it all boils down to language" makes it clear the source didn't really matter to you. utcursch &#124; talk 17:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood my point, and neither have you answered my question. I already have conceded that term "origin" is not confined to merely one aspect. However, the one element, language, can be used to determine anything, including the dynasty's reign, its place of origin, and also its former overlords, if ever mentioned. You can't do that with any other element up to the extent of certainty that language provides you. And yeah, I do care about the source, and therefore I pointed out the contradiction. All the same, I admit that I was being very parochial in interpreting the article, but that's because of the nature of the article and the recurrence of language as a singular variable of origination. I don't need to convince you of my inadvertent failure to verify a statement from the source and neither do you need to excuse me for it. Furthermore, literature is not just about language. It too has various aspects, but you can't know that unless you read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chippy pest (talk • contribs) 05:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

When did Yadavas became Jains???
Yadavas from the beginning of Yadu dynasty, always stayed one of the principle Hindu Kshatriya(Ruling) dynasty. Their history was always been with wars and political power. While Jainism religion is totally made up of Jain monks and business class people. The religion is made up on the very base of staying away from War and Political greed. Where does it mention that Seuna Yadava Dynasty were not a ruling dynasty or where Jains? HinduKshatrana (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yadavas of devageriwere Digambar kannada jains Dridhaprahara (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

In regards to this... And it should be added to the article.
Traditionally, Seuna Yadavas are called "Gavli Kings". Until Bhillama V (A.D. 1185-93) moved their capital from Sinnar, near Nasik, to Devgiri. Like Hoysala Yadavas, Seunas Yadavas were also originally pastoralists or cattle-herders. The Yadavas often proudly claimed their pastoral ancestry. HinduKshatrana (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Etymology section - need more clarification
In the etymology section, Bhillama V is mentioned for moving capital from Sinnar to Devagiri, but for the reader its link with the previous sentence of Yadavas being called Gavli kings seems disconnected. That sentence needs more clarification, how is Bhillama moving capital connected to being called Gavli kings? Dhere's source, which is already cited, has explained this connection but editors have not added it. Here is what Dhere says: "At Sinnar today a deity named “Gauḷībovā” is still worshiped. Y. R. Gupte states (1948: 25; see also Gupte 1930): “There is a famous temple at Sinnar called ‘Gauḷībovā.’...In Khāndeś and Nāsik districts, the Yādavas are called ‘Gauḷī Kings.’ So ‘Gauḷībovā’ refers to an extremely famous Yādava king who was as powerful as a god in this town. Gauḷībovā's image is a huge boulder. Hundreds of coconuts are broken here. There has been no other king at Sinnar as famous as Bhillama V. He was a great emperor, and during his time the Yādavas’ capital moved to Devgiri. So it is quite likely that this enormous Gauḷībovā represents him.” This supports my theory that the Seūṇa Yādavas who rose to power in Seūṇa Deś (the area around Ahmadnagar and Nāsik) were pastoralists." We need to add one sentence summary in Etymology "Gavli kings" section from Dhere's source. Would like to hear other's opinion. Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC). Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
 * More information to add about the Gavli origin of the dynasty and their traditional name "Gavli Kings". This is in addition to other theories of origin in the article. From these sources: "According to the traditional sources Devagiri, capital of the Yadava dynasty, was founded by a king who was a Dhangar Gavli. Sontheimer emphasizes that this information is important in understanding the origin of the dynasty. Defending and rescuing cattle was a successful way to begin a dynasty. Such a feat would make the defender a hero and secure him prosperity - or, if he was killed in battle, bring renown to him and his descendants. Thus, according to a Jain tradition, the first of the Yadavas of Devagiri, Dridhaprahara, entered history by recapturing stolen cattle. The Brahmins and other residents of his city made a guardian (Dandanayaka) of the city and recognized him as their ruler by paying a tax as tribute."


 * I might have an answer for you over here ;) --HinduKshatrana (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sontheimer mentions (page 100 of the already cited source) that "Abhira Gavlis built fort of Songir at Dhule (Dhulia district) and the Hemand Pant temple (Gondesvara) at Sinnar, near Nashik, which is supposed to have been built by a Gavli King (Rav Govinda)". I think we need to summarize both the information about Sinnar and Devagiri, and the Gavli origin of the dynasty. All of these sources are from renowned researchers and publishers. Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
 * Found more sources that might help with that over here and here. --HinduKshatrana (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See if you can find Enthoven source being used as a secondary source from a reputed researcher/publisher. We cannot cite it as a primary source. Let's wait for others to weigh in and we can then add the content. Thank you! Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
 * Look's like no one wants to weigh in for discussions. Well, I found history regarding a fort built by Devgiri Yadava Dynasty Family. Fort goes by the name of Gawilgarh or Gawilgurh and there are resources stating that it was built by a Gavli Yadava of Devgiri. If you want to research more, then this might help with the research. --HinduKshatrana (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)