Talk:Sudra Kingdom

	Hinduism portal 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
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (assessed as Mid-importance).

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal 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.
	This redirect is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This redirect was last assessed in May 2012.

2006[edit]

The actual name was Sura and not Sudra whole article is flawed.(unsigned comments from 210.211.163.177 ) Holywarrior 08:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the two words Sudra and Sura have some what contrary because the word sura often used to describe angel in indian context as oppose to Sudra which is often used to denote people who do not hold higher order of religions practices and norms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvatwiki (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace change recommended

The entire article is misleading. it uses sudra for suras.Ikon ^No-Blast 20:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

Why is the article name not Suras Kingdom as that appears to be used in the article & sources noted in the article? Keith D (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am another who received a message on their talk. Apparently there is also disagreement at Abhira tribe. @SpacemanSpiff: Can you please outline the situation regarding the article title. I see that "Sudra Kingdom" was in the first version of the navbox {{Tribes and kingdoms of the Mahabharata}} in February 2016. This article has been stable until a flurry of edits occurred in the last few days. Before that, the article had not been edited since November 2020 and that version of the article used "Sudra Kingdom". Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq:The problem is caste revisionism. The actual reference in the Mahabharata is as follows:

ततॊ विनशनं राजन्न आजगाम हलायुधः शूथ्राभीरान परति थवेषाथ यत्र नष्टा सरस्वती

tato vinaśanaṃ rājann ājagāma halāyudhaḥ śūdrābhīrān prati dveṣād yatra naṣṭā sarasvatī

And the illustrious hero soon brought under subjection the mighty Gramaniya that dwelt on the shore of the sea, and the Sudras and the Abhiras that dwelt on the banks of the Saraswati, and all those tribes that lived upon fisheries
— Sabha Parva, The Mahabharata

The problem here is that every few years Yadav caste groups try to push their version on to Wikipedia (claiming that they are descendants of the Sudra and Abhira kingdoms of Mbh, and the "Sudra" term is too close to "Shudra" and therefore they want to change the spelling. Sadly, this is not a very well watched article so all these changes go unnoticed and stick on to the article. The page moves have happened at five year intervals! —SpacemanSpiff 11:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to watch future activity. Problem: The article currently uses "Suras" with a confident source. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ganguly source (Ref 2) uses Sudra, not Sura - I accessed it in 2010 when this mess first started, sadly don't have access to the book now. Ref 1, is suspect, it appears to be documentation during the Raj era (reads like a documentation of what the author heard) and I think @Sitush: might have come across this elsewhere and should be able to provide more info. All this appears to be a coordinated effort from yadavhistory.com and it is not the first time and won't be the last either. The problem is one of conflating legend with history!—SpacemanSpiff 02:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the problem is some admin editors hate a community, they are erasing history since last 15 years, wrong history is lying to people, these people never write the truth because this editor is a Rajput community people, like (SpacemanSpiff rajput), (sitush rajput), ( parkagents rajput) All of them belong to Rajput community. विक्रम सिंह बनाफर (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021[edit]

Do not change the title name without the source, if anyone feels that the word Sudra is used for abhira, then show the source. Parkjenmin (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read above before any further vandalism. —SpacemanSpiff 12:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]