Talk:Yadav/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

how bout adding some genuine pictures...

i was wondering why some one would add such bizarre pics ??????

how about adding some pics of yogendra singh yadav (who won highest gallantry award) and capt umrao singh(VC)....i hope this plead would be taken care of by concerned people...thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.222.83 (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

They did exist here but were removed, I think because they are not representative of the Yadav community. Also, if I remember correctly, there was no verification that they were in fact Yadavs. Bearing the "Yadav" name is insufficient. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

sitush@ buddy yadav is used by yadav caste only.... http://books.google.co.in/books?id=p69GMA226bgC&pg=PA46&dq=yogendra+singh+yadav+an+ahir&hl=en&ei=R03HTpoiwsmsB4qu7asO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=yogendra%20singh%20yadav%20an%20ahir&f=false that proves him of being yadav.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.189.125.149 (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

and this links proves umrao singh being an ahir(yadav)...

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=yXdLAQAAIAAJ&q=%22umrao+singh%22+ahir&dq=%22umrao+singh%22+ahir&hl=en&ei=UyiUTs7fJszirAeo9dW9Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg

so please try to add these pics....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.189.125.149 (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 

(edit conflict) I see nothing in that (somewhat unreliable) source that confirms his caste origin as being Yadav. I also seem to recall that particular source has actually been determined to be unreliable. Look, I know that it must seem odd but just because someone bears a particular last name does not necessarily mean that they are of a certain caste or community. An example that I often give is that of people whose last name is "Nair". There are thousands of Nairs in Scotland, and elsewhere in the world, who have absolutely no connection to the Nair community of India. Then, on top of all this, you still have not addressed the issue of how these people are representative of the community: it is just piggy-backing glorification, as far as I can see, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You added a second source after I started writing, this one being for Umrao Singh. I cannot see it all but it certainly looks better if you can confirm that he was a Yaduvanshi Ahir. As I understand it, there are other classes of Ahir who do not claim descent from Yadu etc and therefore are not Yadav. - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In India only the YADAV community uses YADAV in their last name.Its shows clearly that he does not have any understanding of indian customs , traditions.
This is a sad day for wikipedia. WIKIALITY - is what three users  as fact without considering actual fact.  YADAV name is only used by YADAV community. Its really funny..

wow what an ignorant construction. yadav is a name used only by yadav community and no other caste wants to use yadav name since each one in india is proud of their caste/community/origin. WOW AMAZING, unbeleivable such ignorance.. This is the reason why scholars, professors say not to refer wikipedia when scholarly work ( now i understand )... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia does not go on personal knowledge, or on what you yourself might think obvious - and it does not allow personal synthesis (ie it does not allow us to deduce that a person is a Yadav based on our personal understanding - saying "yadav is a name used only by yadav community and no other caste wants to use yadav name since each one in india is proud of their caste/community/origin" is your own deduction, which cannot be used even if it's correct). What need here is reliable sources, as that's the only thing that can be used to support a claim on Wikipedia (which, after all, is an encyclopedia which aggregates what other sources have published). If you can provide such a reliable source for what you say, then you should be able to add it to the article.

Also, I need to caution you against making personal attacks and uncivil comments - if you continue, and you fail to show good faith, you are likely to end up blocked - please have a read of WP:RS, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny once again. YADAV as last name is only used by yadav community. thats a fact and there is millions of evidence for it ( which wiki will accept ). It really shows the ignorance.. This is what happens if wikiadmin does nto agree they will block the user.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you do not provide reliable sources, we cannot help you. What if I said, "All Yadav are vegetarians, it's common knowledge, everyone who lives in India knows that." Would you believe me? No, you wouldn't. By the same logic, we need evidence from you in the form of reliable sources, or there is no way to know what is or isn't appropriate for an article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I could legally change my name tomorrow to "Humphrey Yadav", but would that make me a Yadav? No, of course it wouldn't, so the assertion that *all* people called "Yadav" are guaranteed to be Yadavs is a logical fallacy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: Re "there is millions of evidence for it ( which wiki will accept )" - it should be easy enough for you to provide us with some then, shouldn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is no one here understands how names are kept in India. India the land of mystery , the cradle of civilzation is hard to understand my friends. YADAV name is only used by YADAV community. please dont joke guys.

you want proof.. Studies in Indian history: with special reference to Tamil Nādu - Kolappa Pillay Kanakasabhapathi Pillay,, Indian history and epigraphy: Dr. G.S. Gai felicitation volume - K. V. Ramesh, S. P. Tewari, M. J. Sarma,, History of Tamilnad: to A.D. 1565 N. Subrahmanian,, A social history of the Tamils, Volume 1 - Kolappa Pillay Kanakasabhapathi Pillay,, The Tamils eighteen hundred years ago By V. Kanakasabhai,, Kerala State gazetteer, Volume 2, Part 1,, Social history of India By S. N. Sadasivan,, Studies in Tamil literature and history V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar,, Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu By T. Padmaja,, MSA Rao has written lot of books. ,, Social movements and social transformation: a study of two backward classes movements in India,, go to a library and read these books. Thats how articles are written. millions and millions of books in library.

http://books.google.com/books?id=F-_eR1isesMC&pg=PA94&dq=t+padmaja+krishna+temples&hl=en&ei=_vmYTtiEGIv8iQKRr7GbDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=mullai&f=false

a visit to a library is all it needs. HALF KNOWLEDGE IS DANGEROUS. well my friends reality is reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We have been through this time and again. Not one of the sources that have previously been provided state explicitly that the Yadav name is used solely by members of the Yadav community. Now, are you telling me that you have anything new to add to that? I ask because the list which you provide has pretty much all been covered previously. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And what about Humphrey Yadav? If I changed my name to that tomorrow and provided a deed poll as evidence, that would conclusively disprove all claims that *all* people called "Yadav" are Yadavs -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

£33 by deed poll, I believe. A couple called Pugh and Griffin have recently conjoined their names as Puffin. Anyway, I've been arguing this point on at least two other articles & will continue to do so (people called Nair in Scotland, for example, are often not related to Nair). The simple solution is to find some reliable sources 'for each individual whom the contributor(s) believe to be of the Yadav community. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

One thing is clear all the users have a clear lack of understanding of the indian castes, customs, traditions, naming. what a ignorance. I can only laugh at the explanation given. YADAV name is only used by YADAV community. its a clear lack of knowledge. I suggest everyone to first understand the traditions and the indian culture. so much ignorance in one place ,, wow amazing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

last but not least in india the name YADAV is ONLY USED BY YADAV COMMUNITY. the explanation given by other users show their lack of intellectual ability. funny, ,, bunny.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Singh is commonly associated with Sikhs ... but apparently Yadavs use it also. Regardless, if you do not like the Wikipedia system then you are free to go elsewhere. No-one is forcing you to contribute here. Repeating yourself and SHOUTING is not going to change a thing: you'll have to work with the policies etc, or get them changed by the wider community, or give up this campaign. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this thread now that the two major contributors who have been debating from a non-policy compliant viewpoint have been confirmed as sockpuppets? - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Lot of contentious labels citing unrepresentative evidences:Removing a few words like non-elite WP:LABEL

No doubt the article is written in a highly negative manner.A few authors may have described yadavs as non-elite but these publications should be read fully as they are referring only to some sections of yadavs.There are many sections in this umbrella group which cannot be called non elite. Invoking WP:LABEL ,I am removing non-elite which doesn;t deserve to be an opening statement for describing a community e.g. if u write an article on Pakistan,you don't start with :Pakistan is a country suspected of having terrorist affiliatins(just an example.There is much more to a community and the opening statement is pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cultcontri (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not do this. The issue has been discussed at length on this talk page. If you have already removed that information then I suggest that you self-revert. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read the discussions and the matter was not closed till the last post.You removed a lot of posts from discussion page,one of which I tried to undo(nothing else).Cite a reason for reverting my edit.I am doing that again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cultcontri (talk • contribs) 09:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed nothing from this page other than personal attacks and soapboxing. The discussions about status are littered throughout both the visible and archived content. WP:LABEL is not a satisfactory reason for removal of sourced content and indeed to remove such well-sourced content verges on a breach of WP:CENSORED. You cannot open a discussion, receive a response and then just go ahead and do your own thing. - Sitush (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What justification you have to say that WP:LABEL is not a valid reason.Just because you said it??Please don't undo my edits without citing proper reason.That is tantamount to abuse of the rollback powers.I'm not opening a new discussion.I am just invoking the right policies for proper edits.Just because a content is sourced doesn't make it valid to be put anywhere.I have cited a reason for removing non-elite.WP:CENSORED is a wrong invocation of policy. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cultcontri (talk • contribs) 09:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim appears to meet the requirement of WP:LABEL which says that such words "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." As the information is reliable sourced, and comes from a variety of sources, the term is appropriate. I'm going to revert you Cultcontri, though you are welcome to continue discussing here. You are also welcome to start dispute resolution on the matter. Since the labelling is an issue regarding POV, you could try WP:NPOVN, or you could open an Request for Comment here to get more editors involved. If you need help starting one of those, please let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

According to puranas and vedas,Yadavas are demi-gods ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotmaleBalram (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Two problems with that: first, sourced claims stating that "Yadav" is not the same thing as the group called "Yadava"; second, the puranas and vedas are primary religious documents, which are not reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Will you ever give some citation for your claims???? You should 1) give a valid source that yadava and yadav are two different things. 2) anybody except for Susan Bylay has used the term non-elite. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yadav/Yadav has been discussed ad inifinitum, including at a withdrawn merge proposal that you chose specifically not to participate in. It is done and dusted unless you have any new sources which you wish to introduce. You know all this, so whinging and/or stirring the pot as above seems intended to be disruptive rather than a positive contribution to development of this article. Please do not do it.

We could use "shudra" rather than "non-elite", if you would prefer that. It is, after all, the other commonly used term. Non-elite is favoured as it is the one used by the most recent scholars and because there is a subtle difference: not being elite means what it says, without the overtones of the ritualised varna system and all the baggage that has carried. If modern scholars such as the internationally respected Susan Bayly use it to describe Yadav etc then it will do for me.

Anyway, my basic point is that your habit of wandering away for a few weeks and then coming back to revitalise old discussions without advancing anything really isn't a great idea. I appreciate that real life gets in the way of Wikipedia contributions, but in your case you are always aware of the backstory & you should by now be well aware of WP:CONSENSUS - live with it, or take it to a higher level such as WP:NPOVN or even an RfC as has previously been explained to you on several occasions. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Page missing a lot of positives of yadavas

The page seems to be written with an agenda(of course not a positive one).What about abhira dynasty, devagiri yadavas and yayati narrative.Well I studies Indian castes for a long time and the references cited are not the ones generally well respected in academic circles.Also evaluate the conflict of interest of the authors and editors.Will try to positively contribute to article soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorpan (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Before you contribute, please try to read the extensive discussions on this talk page. I think that you will find that most of the points you might be wanting to raise have already been covered here. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A lot of cites has been discussed and Pak army is still occupying a vast territory inside Kashmir. it is highly unlikely that peace talks are any solution. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Present status as dominant rural peasant caste and removing traditionally non-elite as per WP:REL TIME

I am editing the opening statement to state the present status of being a rural dominant caste and removing traditionally non-elite as per WP:REL TIME to remove the bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cultcontri (talk • contribs) 10:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not, please. I think that would result in you being blocked for a breach of WP:3RR, regarding which you have already been warned. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you warning him like this.He has made a valid edit.He has cited a reference as well(that too very respectable).Yadav are a dominant caste as per six conditions of Srinivas.I myself attended a lecture by Srinivas mentioning yadavs as dominant caste a few years back.Will soon post the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorpan (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, since an sockpuppet investigation has suggested that you are "highly likely" to be a sock of Cultcontri, please forgive me if I do not place too much faith in your comments. Honestly, the amount of socking that goes on here is ridiculous and it makes it very difficult to assume good faith about any fairly new contributor, which is both sad and unfortunate because some will probably be genuine. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't make a direct personal attack without evidence.Your personal faith is largely immaterial.I was just helping a person who made a valid edit.I watched the article a couple of days back and I'm wathching it since then.How can you personally attack a person who is finding time to improve an article.I am no socket of anybody.Don't vandalise the article please by rollbacking valid attacks.The article has been brought to the notice of some Indian academicians and they are expected to intervene or contribute in a more strong way soon.Invoking a request to ban you for WP:NOT YOU and using rollback unnecessarily without proper reason Utmost Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorpan (talk • contribs) 11:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dewan357 - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow!I don't mind any fair investigation

To be honest, every message you leave here is tending to prove the point further. I cannot elaborate on that, however. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's really weird.I joined wikipedia for constructive contribution and i'm now a highly likely match to somebody.I don't have any vested interests in editing these articles(some may have).Write whatever u want to.Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorpan (talk • contribs) 12:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sockpuppeting is done by admins on wikipedia. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that to be the case, you are very welcome to present your evidence at WP:SPI -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yadav is not Yadav!!!!!!

@ sitush, f&f, qwerxian, ikonoblast etc etc.

Talk about logic: If you dont believe that Yadavs are not Yadavs, then you question their very contemporary existence. How do you define who are Yadavs?? Who are yadavs? where are yadavs? what is their population? Whom are you trying to write about? Get your fundamentals clear people!

Some more funny aspects: -> Pictures posted in this page are of bona fide yadavs - as certified by our editors -> A "Yadav" is different from a "Yadava" - just like Britain is different from England -> All other versions of Wikipedia (see history of this page before August) were trash. They got published not by references to authentic sources, but they were "original research" - or "unreliable" -> Dissenting voices are suppressed

Have you guys ever tried working on pages called Democracy and Freedom?? I am sure that will lead to a better wikipedia - in its truest spirit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.74.181 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia - if you want to learn about what is needed to support material added to articles, you might want to have a look at our reliable source policy, and at the requirement for verifiability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the Article

I have added the work of Meenakshi Jain, who is an eminent Historian at DU. I would also be contributing on Demographics. Since, caste based population figs, are not available officially, we can rely on sociologists. An insight had been provided by Yogendra Yadav, which is quoted by many scholars now, was in my hand.I would try to find it again and put here. K.C. Yadav and JNS works too need inclusion. Phrases like "reconstructing the history", "redrawing from past" were actually first introduced by KC yadav which already has place here. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted you - see below. You are well aware that this is a contentious article, that the points you raise are particularly contentious and that therefore you should discuss here first. - Sitush (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS is all one sd care. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Jain's view

Jain says

According to the late Prof. M. S. A. Rao (on whose work this article is largely based) two specific principles were used to incorporate various related castes into the larger Yadava category. The Ahir, GayIi, Golla, Gopa and Goala castes were stated to have an affinity to the Abhiras and Gopas who in turn were associated with Lord Krishna and the Yadu dynasty to which he belonged. All these castes were regarded as Yadavas and were free to follow any profession.

In fact Yadavs had served as kings, chieftains, soldiers, zamindars, owner cultivators in addition to being cowherds and cattle breeders. There is ample historical evidence of their political dominance in many parts of the country from around the second century B.C. right up to the 14th century A.D. when the rise of Muslim power put a check on their power. But even under Muslim rule Ahir and Golla chieftains remained important power centres. A Yadava kingdom flourished in Devagiri as late as the 13th century. The most recent Ahir kingdom centred around Rewari in the 18th century.

in the Indian Express here. The claim is that the full article is based largely on the work of M. S. A. Rao. Fine, except we have already determined that Rao is utterly incomprehensible in his meanderings between Yadav and Yadava and, furthermore, the second paragraph above reads more like Jain contesting Rao than accepting him. Who is Jain? What academic qualifications does that person have? And, crucially, what connections (if any) might they have to the Yadav community? - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BTW, the added point was also a copyvio - something that the contributor does a lot and appears to consider acceptable despite past warnings. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have problems related to comprehension then you should stop posting here. Meenaksi Jain is a very well qualified Historian and Jains are not Hindu Ikon ^No-Blast 21:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are being obtuse. I know that Jainism is not Hinduism. But who is Jain. Just having that name does not make them a follower of Jainism. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually know someone whose surname is Jain - and he's not a Jain -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually know Meenakshi Jain is Jain by religion. Herfather was editor of Times of India. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm off out to walk my dog. I expect your contribution to be replaced per copyvio policy by the time I return, then I'll sit down and try to fathom out who Jain is and why his view is so different to that of everyone else. - Sitush (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OMG! Her view is in noway different from anybody. It is you who has misunderstood Everybody. Ask me if I can help you, starting from Jaffrelot itself. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Me and a lot of other people then. There are a lot of people using her name per this, and I've no idea if she is the one whom you think it is. She does seem to be contrary, per her other three articles listed in the archive to which you linked. That in itself is not a problem, except that we would need to get the balance right. Off out. - Sitush (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I am fully aware, only Meenakshi Jain, Faculty DU, has written this article for Indian Express. After a point of time she had stopped writing for that newspaper, but that is an entirely different issue, perhaps sd be discussed in an article on her. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It is late but I have done some digging. Assuming that the column is written by the DU Jain (and, yes, it is reasonable even though an assumption), it appears that Jain's father was sacked from The Times of India for excessive promotion of Hindutva concepts, and that she and her sister have since (unsurprisingly, as his children) protected his Hindutva views. This is slightly worrying because that movement is a nationalist, revisionist movement. It does not make her views "wrong" but it does present issues of weight, just as would happen with alleged Holocaust deniers such as David Irving. No-one in their right mind promotes the position of Irving to the head of a section, other than in an article about the man or controversies surrounding him.

It is also seems that she is a controversial character, as is Romila Thapar, among at least the Indian academic community. I'll do some more digging tomorrow because, as I suspected, this really may be a weighting issue. However, if you can provide some support for your "OMG" comment that Jaffrelot agrees with the kingship etc stuff then obviously I will re-read those sources also. You should note that no-one is saying there was never a Yadava ruler somewhere, but rather that the reality was that the Yadav community comprised principally of people involved in various ways with cattle. Even prior to its expanded, Sankritised, state, it is clearly a fallacy to lay weight on the Yadavs having been rulers - if it were true then they were a remarkably numerous failure. And there remains the awkward Yadava/Yadav issue, which all appears to revolve around Rao's hopelessly confusing text.

And it remains a copyright violation. This situation has been explained to you previously - including close paraphrasing - and as such you should revert your contribution or drastically modify it. Repeated inserted of information that breaches our copyright policies could lead to a block. And you have already demonstrated numerous instances of such insertions. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

For those who are unfamiliar, the ToI editor referred to by Ikonoblast appears to be Girilal Jain. I may be wrong, but that is how my trace is working using Google and WP. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the Meenakshi Jain who wrote some history stuff on medieval India the same as the Meenakshi Jain who is described as a political scientist and has written a lot of controversial newspaper articles etc in that sphere? The latter is certainly Girilal's daughter, eg here. Furthermore, I think that perhaps we do need to know why she stopped writing: some of her opinions seem pretty wayward and if, for example, that is the reason why she fell out with Indian Express and perhaps other newspapers then it could be relevant for weighting purposes. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The medievalist, btw, is described as "an obscure college lecturer" in a snippet view of Outlook from 2004, here. Many of you will know that I dislike snippet views but the picture that is emerging here is not great. We really do need to pin down who the person is that was being cited and where they fit in the academic fundament. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Point to be noted:

1) Satish is correct in his assumption that meenakshi Jain is indeed the daughter of Girilala Jain. 2) Criticism from an obscure journo in snippet serves no purpose so plz don't bring it here. 3) Girilal jain was not sacked. he retired at the age of 58. sorry I can't correct your entire wikipedia. 4) Jaffrelot has been severely criticized by academicians for wholly relying on secondary data and no original work. 5) It is you who have brought the dubious distinction between yadav/yadava. Give me a single valid citation. 6) Stop asking your cabal to rv in your favor. this may bring perma ban for you instead. Ikon ^No-Blast 19:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional note: Neither Romila Thapar nor Meenakshi Jain are controversial. These things are spread by RSS people, from whom sitush seems to be borrowing views. Romila Thapar has served on UGC board and has written NCERT text books. She was only opposed by right wing fundamentalist Historians of BJP regime. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Mandelbaum's Book - has called yadavs - YADAVAS at 7 different instances and calls them yadav only twice. Splitting YADAVAS and yadav , is like splitting Lord Ram and Lord rama as two different entities.

There is a lot wrong about this article, beside being prejudiced against a community. Anyhow, I have read Mandelbaum's Book, which is a neutral commentary of what different so called quasi indian socialist like rao think about people of other community.

The Reference of Mandelbaum is misunderstood and misconstructed piece of what he wrote.He talks about Yadav caste first time on page 442, where he is merely referencing rao's text. He doesnt say he is talking about facts or anything. AND HE DOESNT SAY THAT 'the association of the Yadav (and their constituent castes, Ahir and Gwala) with cattle has impacted on their commonly viewed ritual status (varna) as Shudra' He merely states that cowherders were not conventional, as selling milk was not considered good/brahmanical/pure. He doesnt CALL Cowherders Shudra, as this has never been the perception. Not all Yadavs were cowherders, most of the traditionally are farmers.

Please remove the misconstructed and fabricated Mandelbaum reference, which is a pathetic attempt to community hatred.

Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkapil86 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, This is what Mandelbaum says (although he says more thereafter)

A modern instance of this traditional process, that of the Yadavas, has been illuminatingly described by M. S. A. Rao (1964). This example illustrates a mobility effort which combines traditional and modern modes of disengaging from degrading customs and associating with respectable practices. The term Yadava has been taken by many different jatis, mainly of North India, whose traditional occupation was cattle keeping. They now maintain a national organization which has published a well-edited and well-produced volume entitled The Divine Heritage of the Yadavas (1959). The book was originally written by V. K. Khedkar, a schoolteacher who rose to be private secretary to a Maharaja, and was later revised and enlarged by his son, who was a surgeon. It argues that the jatis whose occupation was cattlekeeping and milk selling are descended from the deity Krishna through a number of royal dynasties.

These jatis, among whom the Ahirs are a widespread and numerous contingent, have usually been held in considerably less glorious repute by their neighbours. While an occasional warrior of a pastoral jati did establish his own state and dynasty, cattlekeepers are ranked in many localuties among the lower blocs of the Shudras. This was partly because they wandered about with their cattle and so their purity practices (so the explanation ran) could not be checked; partly because they performed castration operations on animals, and, perhaps mainly, because they were involved in the sale of milk (Baines 1912, pp. 56-58). The production of milk for one's family is entirely proper but economic transactions in the sacrosanct product are thought to be unseemly. A cow's milk, like mother's milk, should be for one's children, not for customers and cash.

I wrote the section regarding which you are unhappy; it was reviewed by User:Fowler&fowler and indeed I think F&f may have temporarily removed it because of the Shudra reference, after which they reinstated the thing with an approving comment that it did indeed represent what Mandelbaum says. I am struggling to see what it is you feel is misrepresented, aside from the old chestnut of Yadav vs Yadava which I am not prepared to argue at length about once more. That those terms are used internchangeably by the modern community is not disputed. - Sitush (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 January 2012

Since this is being used as a discussion of an editor (Sitush) and not the article, I'm collapsing it. If someone has something constructive to say about the article that is based on reliable sources and policy, not based on your personal opinions, then please open a new section. If you want to criticize Sitush, try WP:WQA for etiquette issues, WP:ANI if you think he's violated policy in a way that requires administrative action, and WP:RFC/U if you want to file a more lengthy criticism of his work. Be sure to read the rules of those forums if you do so, and you may want to take a look at the numerous times its been tried in the past to absolutely no effect

There is a lot wrong about this article, beside being prejudiced against a community. Anyhow, I have read Mandelbaum's Book, which is a neutral commentary of what different so called quasi indian socialist like rao think about people of other community. The Reference of Mandelbaum is misunderstood and misconstructed piece of what he wrote.He talks about Yadav caste first time on page 442, where he is merely referencing rao's text. He doesnt say he is talking about facts or anything. AND HE DOESNT SAY THAT 'the association of the Yadav (and their constituent castes, Ahir and Gwala) with cattle has impacted on their commonly viewed ritual status (varna) as Shudra' He merely states that cowherders were not conventional, as selling milk was not considered good/brahmanical/pure. He doesnt CALL Cowherders Shudra, as this has never been the perception. Not all Yadavs were cowherders, most of the traditionally are farmers. Please remove the misconstructed and fabricated Mandelbaum reference, which is a pathetic attempt to community hatred. Mandelbaum's Book - has called yadavs - YADAVAS at 7 different instances and calls them yadav only twice. Splitting YADAVAS and yadav , is like splitting Lord Ram and Lord rama as two different entities. Drkapil86 (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC) You have duplicated your comment while I was replying - see my reply at 05:00 in the section immediately above. - Sitush (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Mr. Sitush, I have not duplicated, if you look closely, I have added a request to edit the article in second part, with same reasoning. so, the first part was discussion, and second part is request to edit due to same reason. As far as my comment, THANKS for quoting mandelbaum.I rest my case as right and justifiedAs i said, mandelbaum's writing doesnt use the term Yadav and shudras in same sentence. If you dont want to misrepresent the fact . please paste Mandelbaum's ORIGINAL reference as it is in the article, instead of fabricating words. In simpler terms, write the context from his book page no 442, as it is, instead of trying to change its meaning. I dont understand why this article is locked and so prejudiced. You, Sir, definitely have some enmity against this community and try to malign the image on wikipedia. I have some humane reasoning and concerns. 1. You will find, millions of reference to Muslims, by different prejudiced writers as ' terrorist' Suicid ebombers- BUT THISIS NOT TRUE FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, so, wikipedia so justly mentions the page as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim , clear of all the negativities, You know sir , why??? Because references like this would be representive, of prejudice against community My other examples is Meenas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meenas They are a caste classified lowest as STs They were documented as Criminal tribes by a british act in 1920s and are considered as shudras in all india. However thir page is full of Glorious tales, I mean targeting a community based on citation from 'out of publication' books, whch basically just copy each other is a very diabolical way to malign image of a community. 3.My final suggestion, instead of long debates posted about the negativities or positve inferences of the article, I think it is best to reduce the article to a small passage - citing the disambiguation that caste system in India is. - We have no means to justify what any caste says about itself, for eg- We cant prove or disprove that Lord Rama was a Kurmi In other words , indian castes developed, 2,400 years agoa, and has gone through various undocumented changes. We cant cite quasi- sociologist from california, because basically they have no citation but ORAL tradition. If we start treating every published word legitimate without any proof- we are a long way from scientific inquiry. Anyhow, friends..... Let's stop maligning communities based on heresay. Drkapil86 (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC) (thanks for the insight dude) I think that some basics need to be explained, although if you look through this talk page and its archives you will see that it has all been said before. Wikipedia is not censored The fact that other stuff exists on other articles is not relevant We are subject to the laws of Florida, USA and not those of India. But even if we were subject to those of India, no-one has ever been able to provide evidence that using the "shudra" word is illegal in that country and, indeed, many Indian news sources, authors and even the government itself do use it. It is my belief that you have misunderstood Mandelbaum, or at least our obligation to paraphrase him. Your suggestion that we quote him in full contradicts your suggestion that we turn this article into a stub. Nor is quoting such a large passage really feasible, and it may contravene the "fair use" rationale. Despite your opinion, the article is not based on "heresay". In fact, I have worked long and hard to keep the hearsay of the Yadav community out of it. We have policies such as reliable sources verifiability and original research precisely in order to maintain the encyclopedic nature of this project. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Sitush, It is hard to understand a culture or community , by using racial prejudices. I suggested you to quote the author ( just like you did in talk), instead of changing words> We all know how interchanging a few words make a big difference in meanings. I have gone through the edits,and therefore seeing that you have due to some idosyncrasy of yours have deliberately wasted so much time to malign a group of people, you have no idea about - decided you will NOT FoLLOW my request to include Mandelbaums original words. For the above reason, as a final reference suggested that this article should be converted to s stub. As far as your efforts to eliminate hearsays is concerned, I just want to request to remove the rest of heresay ( as at the end the references made by you citing random articles, dont themselves have a reference) - In short, end the long war and convert this sensitive topic as a stub. I am sure converting this article to a stub, will eliminate all heresays, whether they are by the community members or thir sworn cyber haters. Peace . Drkapil86 (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkapil86 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC) It is not going to happen. I am marking your edit request as resolved because you are contradicting yourself. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC) It seems since sitush knows that wikipedia is bound under the laws of florida, he thinks that it is read only in florida. And the hardwork he has put in keeping up the glory of florida is evident in this hardwork he has done. kudos to him. no doubt, he is a scholar of irrefutable reputation and knowledge in his own right by the virtue of this hardwork. And he therefore, is a competent authority to post or delete articles in wikipedia under WP:RS, WP:3RR etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.183.28 (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC) nairs in kerala also interest sitush a lot for some unknown reason. When are you going to write a wikipedia entry of yourself???

Edit request on 14 February 2012

yadav's are also called reddys in andhra 117.192.249.190 (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source for that statement. We have an article - Reddy - that appears to say that some Yadavs have adopted the Reddy name, which is not quite the same thing as being of the Yadav community. See sanskritisation for some issues relating to this. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2012

first it is demeaning to use words like non-elite for a particular community. also yadavas are not mythological. the word mythological is derived from myth but the writer needs to understand that yadavas still exist in the community and it cannot be a myth so how come it is mythological. I think the writer needs to brush up the knowledge from some reliable sources before writing an article. It is good to share knowledge but little knowledge is dangerous.

Bestknowledgebank (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say Yadava are mythological, it says that Yadu are mythological. However, it's you that needs to provide reliable sources: specifically that 1) Yadava still exist and 2) that the people called Yadav are the same people. You may first want to read some of the extremely extensive discussions in the article's talk page history, because many many people have said the same thing but no one has ever been able to provide reliable sources that contradict what is currently in the article or are at all definitive. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ram Baran Yadav

Isn't Dr. Ram Baran Yadav, the president of Nepal a Yadav? Then how come his name has been removed from the List of Yadavs? Malaiya (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Is he? Has he self-identified as a member of the Yadav caste/community, as our WP:BLP policy requires? Find some sources for that and his name can be reinstated to that list. Simply bearing the last name "Yadav" is insufficient, as has been discussed on many occasions here and elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sitush: Have you checked List of Jewish scientists and philosophers? Are you sure they are Jewish? What about List of Mulukanadu Brahmins and numerous other lists? Was Jesus Christian? Malaiya (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to admire your speed. You are lightening fast.<non-English redacted>|Malaiya (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Malaiya: WP:OSE. There's almost 4 million articles in English Wikipedia. No editor is required to watch all of them. If you are concerned about whether or not the people on List of Jewish scientists and philosophers meet the inclusion criteria, you're free to raise them on that article's talk page. Note, though, being labeled as Jewish is a bit more complicated than caste, since Judaism is consider both a religion and a social identity, and thus Wikipedia consensus regarding who to include is a bit more complicated there. But anyway, the correct solution to articles that don't meet policy is to fix those articles, not try to argue that you should be able to make other articles worse to meet the flawed articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Malaiya, I had to remove the Hindi part of that comment. Google Translate was a bit awkward, but it looked like it might be a personal attack, though I'm not certain; in any event, since this is English Wikipedia, you need to contribute in English on article talk pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent removal of info wrt Nepal

I have just removed this edit relating to Yadavs in Nepal. Taking each source in turn:

• The Unmaking of Nepal, R. S. N. Singh, Lancer Publishers, Dec 19, 2010 p. 143 - Lancer books are often a bit dodgy but in this instance there were two issues. The first was that our statement said that the Yadavs "form one of the major communities", whereas the source is a table showing them as constituting 3.94% of the population, with nearly 62% of the total being represented by more populous communities. We could say 3.94% but "one of the major" might be pushing it a bit.

Shouldn't you spend some time reading and parsing the text? The Yadavas are the second largest community in the Terai region.Malaiya (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The more serious issue, however, is that the table is undated and - as with the entire book - unsourced. The book can be viewed here.

• Seminar: the monthly symposium, Issues 569-580, Pub. Malvika Singh, Romeshraj Trust, 2007, p. 1048 - Seminar is an odd publication & I have been tempted before now to query it as WP:RSN. However, the immediate problem is the incomplete citation: which issue is being referred to here?
• Nepal, Conflict Resolution and Sustainable Peace: Public institutions reform,Nilambara Acarya, Institute for Integrated Development Studies, 2006, Page 37 - I can see this in snippet view here. From that view, it appears to be a table concerning the ethnic composition of some parliament. Can anyone see the entire shebang?

Furthermore, regarding the latter two above, I think that we would need some clarification of the relationship between Yadav and the Madhesi people. - Sitush (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sitush: You seem to imply considerable expertise in the field, judging the validity of recognized scholars. Are you a researcher in the field? A professor?

You should know that Madhesi is a regional term, implying people from Madesh, the terai region of Nepal.Malaiya (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your reinstatement of the material mentioned above. You have not addressed the issues raised & the alternate source - yadavhistory.com - is not good. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Another citation added. Malaiya (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sitush: How about respecting fellow Wikipedia editors? You claim have expertise in field (you don't have). You raise frivolous arguments. You imply great familiarity with Wikipedia rules (with your personal interpretations) to intimidate others. You act as a self-appointed judge of the citations. No citation is good enough for you. Please don't be so closed minded.Malaiya (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted you again because you are continuing to cite sources of dubious merit. I claim no expertise but consider much of what you say to be pretty close to a personal attack, albeit one that is fairly minor compared to some that I have received in the past. Now, please will you discuss the sources which you continually reinstate. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Malaiya, I'm sorry that you're having difficulty understanding what how the Wikipedia reliable sources policy works. If you think that somehow the above listed sources meet that policy, please take your question to WP:RSN, and then notify us here that you have done so. I can say without a doubt that yadavhistory is definitely not a reliable source, per WP:SPS. The Singh book is more borderline; given Sitush's explanation above, it also seems to be unreliable, but I can see a reasonable argument being made for its use, and thus it would be up to a consensus of editors to make a decision. As a general rule, we should avoid using sources that are likely unreliable until we can get a consensus that the source is okay. So, like I said, ask at WP:RSN, and we can see if we can get uninvolved input. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Malaiya has provided a copy of the article "Muslims of Nepal",'s Terai, which was published in Economic and Political Weekly. While the WP description of that journal sounds a little suspect, I don't see any outright reason to reject the source. I've read and re-read it a few times, and I think that (assuming we accept that the source is reliable), and I believe that it does support part of what Malaiya wanted to add, though not all of it. The relevant quotation is, "Muslims in Terai constitute 3.28 per cent out of their total 3.53 per cent representation in the whole of Nepal. Among the Terai caste/ethnic groups, they form the third largest group, coming only after the Tharus (6.46 percent) and Yadavs (4.01 percent)." If I understand the earlier part of the article, this use of Terai corresponds to Inner + Outer Terai as described in Terai#Terai in Nepal, which represents 55% of the Nepalese population. I think we can mention this information, but only very carefully circumscribed

Additionally, I would be willing to accept the CIA WorldFactbook as a source. It lists the following ethnic groups in Nepal: "Chhettri 15.5%, Brahman-Hill 12.5%, Magar 7%, Tharu 6.6%, Tamang 5.5%, Newar 5.4%, Muslim 4.2%, Kami 3.9%, Yadav 3.9%, other 32.7%, unspecified 2.8% (2001 census)"

If my analysis is correct, I would support a section titled "Nepal", with the following sentences:

According to the CIA WorldFactbook, as of 2001, Yadavs formed 3.9% of the population of Nepal.(CIA REF) In the Terai region of Nepal, the Yadav are the second largest caste/ethnic group.(EPW REF)

Regarding the rest: the "yadavhistory" site, of course, does not meet WP:RS; additionally, if memory serves, just having the last name "Yadav" does not make one a "Yadav" member (we've had this out before, right?), so without a reference, we can't include the claim about Ram Baran Yadav. Input from others is appreciated (and lets no one edit the article just yet). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute template

I see that Sitush has already re-removed the template, but I want to clarify here why that is correct. Maintenance templates are not badges of shame; they are also not a way for a non-consensus position to register indefinite disagreement with an article. A template like "disputed" must be in current discussion on the article's talk page or elsewhere (like a noticeboard, mediation, etc.). If there is no current discussion that establishes what in the article is disputed, then the tag should be removed. As Sitush's edit summary said, the current version of the article has a decent consensus. I'm sure it's not perfect, but, in general, the suggested alternatives have been based on unreliable sources, misreading or intentional misinterpretation of sources, original research, and a general "I don't like it" attitude. And that position is not entitled to keep the template up forever. The tag has served its purpose, and can now be removed--just like how we remove an "orphan" template once an article has a multiple incoming links, or an "essay-like" template, once the article has been rewritten in proper Wikipedia style. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This page is very mistaken!

Shitush is highly mistaken and biased.

He clearly is using this wikipedia page to attack Yadav's.

The phrase "non-elite" is bigoted and racist. Such an attack is unwarranted.

There is a multitude that is wrong with this page and I will not stand for this. The page should be restored to the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.19.163 (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Which reliable sources do you have to revise the article based on? —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I mean, the phrase "non-elite" is based on four sources, so I'd hardly call it an attack or unwarranted. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? you think non-elite isn't unwarranted? That has an extreme negative connotation associated with it. You are evidently unaware of anything about "Yadav" history. Two of the four sources are identical. Ahir and Yadav ARE NOT the same. Sources 3 and 4 do not declare non-elitism. Type in "Yadav" in Google Search and you will see the truth. There are multiple Yadav's in the olympics and professionals. Yadava's are the same. Martial class. Rajput similarities. DO ACTUAL RESEARCH. This is by far up there with the worst wiki articles. Nothing true about Indian Culture. States are different from origin. This is pathetic.

REDO ARTICLE

Are you kidding me? you think non-elite isn't unwarranted? That has an extreme negative connotation associated with it. You are evidently unaware of anything about "Yadav" history. Two of the four sources are identical. Ahir and Yadav ARE NOT the same. Sources 3 and 4 do not declare non-elitism. Type in "Yadav" in Google Search and you will see the truth. There are multiple Yadav's in the olympics and professionals. Yadava's are the same. Martial class. Rajput similarities. DO ACTUAL RESEARCH. This is by far up there with the worst wiki articles. Nothing true about Indian Culture. States are different from origin. This is pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.19.163 (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You raise a lot of points that other people have raised before, and, like them, you provide zero sources to support your claims. No one has yet provided a single piece of reliable evidence that Yadava=Yadav. Heck, I think we've even shown pretty conclusively that you can't even say that "Yadav communities" necessarily equals "People named Yadav". Since numerous editors agree that the current article is well-sourced and represents mainstream academic views (rather than the views of those who simply wish to promote or denigrate one or more communities/castes), the burden is on you to "DO ACTUAL RESEARCH". If you would like to present some research with different conclusions, you're welcome to do so, but you may want to read the many many pages of discussion already on this topic. Finally, note that just because some Yadav's have been in the Olympics or occupied professional positions doesn't not change how the group is generally described in good research. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This is essentially a waste of my time, since you evidently believe every word that you type (and essentially everything you read as well). 1st) Anyone who knows anything about India understands the surname workings. Yadavs=Yadavas undoubtedly.For you to argue for such a distinction is laughable by educated and uneducated folks. 2nd) You should revisit your own sources to understand some truths. 3rd) You seem to have deliberately ignored MANY points made by myself and previous posters. 4th) Personally, I don't understand why you are "against" Yadav's perhaps your own inferiority lends towards such traits. Yadav's (as well as ANY race/ethnicity/etc) are not "non-elite." Such subjective language indicates your own weakness in elementary education and social awareness. Nonetheless, live your life and the rest shall live ours. Enjoy editing Wikipedia pages, a free web service which I have, and will continue to enjoy, however I will not trust everything I read on here knowing well and good people like you are out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.19.163 (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I am greatly amused

This is essentially a waste of my time, since you evidently believe every word that you type (and essentially everything you read as well). 1st) Anyone who knows anything about India understands the surname workings. Yadavs=Yadavas undoubtedly.For you to argue for such a distinction is laughable by educated and uneducated folks. 2nd) You should revisit your own sources to understand some truths. 3rd) You seem to have deliberately ignored MANY points made by myself and previous posters. 4th) Personally, I don't understand why you are "against" Yadav's perhaps your own inferiority lends towards such traits. Yadav's (as well as ANY race/ethnicity/etc) are not "non-elite." Such subjective language indicates your own weakness in elementary education and social awareness. Nonetheless, live your life and the rest shall live ours. Enjoy editing Wikipedia pages, a free web service which I have, and will continue to enjoy, however I will not trust everything I read on here knowing well and good people like you are out there.

I suppose this is meaningless coming from a "non-elite." (which has many negative connotations)

Thanks! You truly are helping humanity come together in our search for equality. Good Job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.19.163 (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lastly

Although, part of me feels defeated due to the lack of justice in this article, I will finally speak of this

"Central to this rhetoric are Krishna’s muscular pro-socialist deeds, Yadav martial qualities and heroic traditions." REFERENCE:Wrestling with (body) politics: understanding ‘goonda’ political styles in North India Lucia Michelutti, University of Oxford

Also there is something known as Mahabharata and something else known as Ramayana...I think these might dispute many of the claims...but WHO CARES we are "non-elite" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.19.163 (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The Mahabharata and Ramayana are very old primary sources of dubious provenance and stacked full of mythology etc. I rather think that they also refer to Yadava rather than Yadav - and that is an issue which has been discussed to death on this talk page and also in various dispute resolution forums over a long period. If someone can make that connection then great, but so far nobody has been able to do so in accordance with the requirements of Wikipedia's policies..

Michelutti is already cited in our article. In this instance, Michelutti appears to be referring to Krishna - a single, mythological individual - rather than to Yadavs as a whole. As a political scientist whose primary field of study is present-day scenarios, their understanding of the claimed Yadav/Yadava connection is unlikely to carry a weight as significant as that of some other authorities. I really do urge you to read the past discussions, as your lack of appreciation of the Mahabharata etc situation seems to indicate that you have not done so. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

FACT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED

You should include him as a first polotician even ras behari mandal should be included

Chaudhary Brahm Prakash Yadav (1918–1993) played an important role in the Individual Satyagraha Movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi in 1940 and was among the leaders of the ‘underground’ activities in Delhi during the ‘Quit India’ movement. He was imprisoned many times during the freedom struggle.[1] [2]In the post-independence era, he served as Minister in charge of Planning and Development as well as the first Chief Minister of Delhi from 1952-55.(source: wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaudhary_Brahm_Prakash

Pacherya (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You would need to provide some reliable sources, and Wikipedia articles are not deemed to be reliable. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush:Look at the source for that wikipedia article. Or edit that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.19.163 (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm tempted to strike the word Yadav from Prakash's name in that article, since none of the cited sources mention it as part of his name. —C.Fred (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I will do that strike for you. It is a common issue, unfortunately. And we also get related issues such as that which I have raised at Talk:Dalal Singh Ror. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Current details of Yadav page are not close to reality.

I believe this page is nowhere close to facts. I used Wikipedia as best reference for most of my day to day queries but I am surprised to see this article. I remember the information on this page was something else may be 1-2 yrs back. I don't think anyone can bring written proofs of everything presented. Most of the times these books were written by communities who had not been living close to actual environment. Or in most of the cases foriegner authors were misguided and misinformed by these people. I still remember how , 'JAT' community was badly represented in NCERT books which serves as primary reference for young generations. No doubt that those who contribute to these books and articles have hatred with people from these communities. These intellectuals are living in apartment in posh cities away from real social structure of India. They see Yadav/Jats/Gurjar as illiterate and poor people but thats not the case. Yadav/Jats/Gurjar actually represent true rural India, they still believe in preserving traditions, customs and culture. No doubt the divide b/w rural and urban is too wide which is why we see misunderstanding on many things like Same gotra marriages, honour killings and many more. Communities so called cultured and forward are actually nowhere following indian culture, they prefer to live in apartments where there is no social boundaries and away from all rural social structures. Because of this divide those who actually contribute to writing such articles and books have different perception about Yadavs. They seems to be scared of these communities.I see the article "Yadav" as one of such attempt.

Coming back to Yadav = Ahir but not kshatriyas. I can find contradictory abstract from Wikipedia itself. I request author of this article to check history of Yadav's (Ahir) in rural southern Haryana, western UP, some part of MP. These are the places which I am aware of real Yadav status.

I request Author to search for "AJGAR" communities of India.Request you to do research on "Martial races of India","kshatriya caste system", "chandravanshi rajputs(Wikipedia)", "Yadavas of devagiri(Wikipedia)"

From Practical examples : 1) In whole Northern India( Except Eastern UP + Bihar, as I am not aware of that area), Ahir, Jat , Gurjar and Rajputs share hookah(smoke) and have bhaichara(Brotherhood). You may not find this is books but this is practical practice prevailed in social systems since ancient times.

2) Brahmins of Haryana/UP makes Horoscope of Ahirs based on kshatriya varna.

3) Ahirs have multiple same gotras as Rajputs/Jat/Gurjars.

4) Contribution to India Army is tremendous. Rewari (main hub of Ahirs in Haryana) is also known as veer bhoomi(Land of braves) due to its contribution to Indian Army.

5) Search Article on "Rezang la(Wikipedia)"

I can add many more articles to prove about Ahir clan being Kshatriyas. When a common can add so many things, I am sure a historian can do a lot better.

Now coming to Yadavs not same as Yadava's. Its more of related to different dilects or pronounciations in North and south. It differs on 100s of words, like Ram/Rama, Savita/Savitha, kavita/Kavitha, santosh/santhosh and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshay1107 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I realise that this may sound strange, but we cannot rely on our own content to verify statements in other articles here. To do so would involve circular referencing. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like answers please

Please stop being biased and ignoring facts (directed to Sitush)

1) Why are you being biased? 2) Every positive source about "Yadavs" that has been introduced is seen as a "poor" source by you. This is obviously unjust. 3) For that matter I believe your sources are poor and out of scope. You are interpreting them poorly. 4) This entire situation is extremely frustrating. 5) Please, I would urge you to try to bring equality among society, so please display some integrity. 6) Can you please explain to why ALL the sources that illustrate positive attributes of "Yadavs" are considered poor? 7) Can you please explain why Boyle's source is so vehemently supported? 8) Please do not delete my post, because of your inability to answer them clearly. 9) I will gladly speak with you for further discussion. 10)Understand the realiy 11)I understand that this is your job, so I do not want to sound like I am mocking it, but please bring some respect to your profession.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.19.163 (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 16:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

One additional note--none of us at Wikipedia are employed--this is not Sitush's job, nor is it yours or mine. We're all volunteers. As for points 5 and 6, when evaluating a source, we don't say "This is positive/negative, so...". Instead, we look at the source itself--who wrote it, when was it written, whether or not it was under the purview of editorial oversight, etc. Wikipedia requires sources to meet WP:RS, our guideline on reliable sources. If you produce sources that meet those guidelines, then they can be used. Regarding this particular topic, a good rule of thumb is to look for modern sources (say, the past 20-30 years), written by specialists (historians, sociologists, investigative reporters, other relevant experts), published by reliable publishers (academic journals, good newspapers, university presses, etc.). Other sources may possibly be okay, but often not; for example, religious documents never count as RS for an article of this type, ancient sources are likewise out, even sources from the colonial period are highly questionable, and books from publishers like Gyan (which have a history of distorting facts and copying their books from WP) are not going to be allowed. Finally, one thing that you have to be aware of when looking at sources is that you can't just home in on a single quotation--you need to look at information in the context of a paragraph, a chapter, sometimes even a whole book. I hope this helps. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Sitush and Co are part of the "Projet Joshua" aimed at discrediting Yadavs' history and rewriting crap; a job which has been a passion for Western authors of dubious merit have performed to perfection. I am sure that Sitush and Co who otherwise should have no interest in the internal workings of a country that they have never visited; would have some other vested interest [read Project Joshua]

To the uninitiated, pls read this : http://www.joshuaproject.net/people-profile.php?peo3=16187&rog3=IN

An article that can include other relevant stuff like their population, important people, role in economy, economic and social status and other modern demographic indicators; indulges in unwarranted mudslinging.. What else could be a possible inspiration?

If anything, the authors and the supporters of this article can be called "non-elite"; based on a book I plan to write in future as per WP:RS. [PUN INTENDED]

IF this were not wikipedia my language would be been much much better and suited for the authors. I regret that this is not the case. adieu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.117.226 (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the IP above thinks that Sitush et al are connected with the Joshua Project; I sure don't see a connection. I do see that the Joshua Project is part of a church's outreach/missionary efforts, so I would call into question the validity of using that site as a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the JP is unreliable and this has been determined at WP:RSN on several occasions. I remove their stuff on sight. Go figure. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Par for the course, I guess. I think you've been accused of every other POV, why not the Joshua Project? I can, however, concur that I've seen SItush aggressively remove JP sources from other articles as soon as they appear. Of course, I'm sure that must just be part of a subtle plan, a little reverse psychology. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i too heard about this when i being wondered about what is visible on this page. in fact this page is also part of the said Project and these people are constantly trying to modify the other contents available on internet by negotiating different websites to remove facts.mahensingha 18:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

This page is badly edited. Content is missing important information.

Hi I am Baaz Bahadur. I have read the complete set of archived talks about this topic, and I have gone through all the references too. I have some points to make.

1. The page says "This article is about modern communities claiming descent from Yadu", but it seems to be only about Aheers(especially people associated with Yadav Mahasabha only, and even they are not represented well), and hence not about other people who also claim descent from either Krishna or Shoorsen or Yadu. Which is unfair to these castes like Bhatti, Bhatia, Jadaon Rajputs, Sainis, Jats, etc. It has been concluded in one of his comments by the page admin that people who use the surname Yadav are not necessarily yadavs and are not the only yadavs, hence please mention about each group of people claiming descent from Yadu in this page.

2. The distinction that Yadav is different from Yadava is without proof, I have read all the referenced material, in those nowhere has it been mentioned that there is a difference in the spelling of the two. They might have been used interchangeably but not as specifically distinguished separate entities. Also even If you wish to separate them, then also you should either use "Yadav and Ancient Yadav", or Yadava and Ancient Yadava, coz there seems to be a language divide on this subject same as "yog and yoga", "ram and rama".

3. You have used images that show the yadavs in 1868 in poor condition, which is not representative of Yadavs today who have been chief ministers like amongst aheers(Laloo, Mulayam, Babu lal gaur, Rao Birender Singh, etc.), Jats(Devilal, Chautala, Bansilal).

4. And from where you have taken these pictures, i.e. the 1868's "The people of India, Photographic Illustrations", there it is clearly mentioned that King Asa Ahir was a Aheer, Grahripu was a Aheer, The Golcunda, Aseergarh fort, etc. were built by Aheers.

5. In the referenced articles either it has been doubted(because of the current state of yadavs) or it has been established with linguistic and inscription proofs that Yadavs are Kshatriyas, nowhere has it been denied with proof, but you choose to go with the Doubt(without proof) theory. It is Wikipedia policy(or so have I read) to provide both point of views, like in case of Holocaust both support and denial have been included in the page, unlike here where proofs are removed.

6. An example of Aheers being affirmed kshatriya status is in "India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India, By Christophe Jaffrelot". First is Page 195 "In the late 1990ś, the Antropological survey in India published several volumes on ¨Indiaś communities´ where it was said that the clans of the Ahirs ´recognise the varna system, six of them identify themselves as Kshatriya and five as Vaishya." which is written in context of current yadavs if you read lines below and after it. Second is Page 194 "K.C. Yadav and J.N.S yadav two of the most intellectuals, based their claims on inscriptions which may suggest that the Abhiras were the main ruling dynasty of North India as early as the second century BC.". Third is "The senior Congress representative then in the House, the Defense Minister, R. Venkataraman objected that the essence of Hinduism was found not in Manu but in Gita whose hero, Krishna was a Yadava¨, an attempt at flattering the Sanskritazation tendencies of the Yadavs.", here the Defense minister(who is a commendable reference himself) said Krishna was a yadava, and the author tried to attach it to sanskritization. Also nowhere has it been definitely denied that either Krishna was not a yadav, or whether Yadavs Had never been Kshatriyas(only it is mentioned that during and after mughal period they were working as peasants till they created Yadav Mahasabha ).

7. In another of your references "The tribes and castes of Bombay", It is clearly said about aheers "Chudasama prince styled Graharipu and ruling at vanathali near junagarh. Yadavs of Devgiri. It is therefore not unlikely that, according to popular belief, these yadavas were Abhiras.". Nowhere it has been established with solid proof that Aheers have never been Kshatriyas or They are not the same as Ancient Yadavs. Even if there is doubt, it is whether they are aryans, whether Aheers have descended from krishna, but it has never been concluded with any linguistic or inscription based proof, all propaganda. Therefore reaching a conclusion that the ancient yadavs and the current yadavs are different is a wet dream of the haters.

8. Also claim that After creation of yadav mahasabha yadavs started to associate themselves with ancient yadavs and Krishna, is a blatant lie. Yadav mahasabha was created in 1907, and in your 1868 referenced book "The people of India, Photographic Illustrations", it is clearly mentioned that aheers claim descent from Krishna and Yadu. Hence the theory that in 1907 yadavs claimed descent is negated by the 1868 published REFERENCED book. So remove this thing that yadavs started claiming after forming yadav mahasabha. There is strong continuity in the history of yadavs.

9. Page admin denied that Chaudhry Bramha Prakash is yadav because it has not been referenced and he even removed yadav word from his page, I would request him to please check the references already given before asking for new references.. In your referenced book "India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India, By Christophe Jaffrelot" it has been mentioned on page 365 "Brahma Prakash Chaudhry was a yadav, B.P. Mandal was himself a yadav, Laloo prasad yadav, mulayam singh yadav, sharad yadav, are yadavs". Please add pictures of these yadavs and krishna as the front picture of Yadavs like other communities such as Jews have used jesus einstein pics, gujjar have used, etc.

10. One request to page admins, please check already existing references before asking for further references, and check whether there is a negation of any point before asking people like me who have an earning to make by doing some work, we can't just keep on searching for affirmative opnions. Like in the case of Yadava vs Yadav, there is no written document that says there is a difference in spelling of these two.

11. Also you have used a flickr picture of a woman posted by some "MeanestIndian", what kind of a reference is that, what proofs are given that it is a picture of yadav woman. Why can't you use picture of a famous yadav woman? Please stop this propanda posting. Ekta chaudhry is a famous yadav who became Miss India, and if you are going to ask for a reference then god be on your side for posting "MeanestIndian's" picture. Ekta chaudhry was miss india, and it can be well established that she is a yadav. Please change this if possible.

I have a big list of suggestions. Please correct these few, more are lined up. Sorry to all if I have said something that hurt you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaazBahadur (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

These are my detailed explainations for editing of this page. None of the points have been contested by now. And every single change is with references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BaazBahadur (talk • contribs)

Probably because your information above is not at all referenced. Furthermore, you have several ideas completely backwards--you seem to think that other editors have to prove Yadava does not equal Yadav, when, in fact, if you want to add that information to the page, you need to prove it with reliable sources. Additionally, you talk about "page admins", when, in fact, there are none--everyone on Wikipedia works together to improve pages. Finally, your point 5 makes it basically impossible to listen to the rest of what you say, since the article provides quite a number of sources that clearly show that Yadav varna status is not clear. I've found in the past that editors who insist that Yadav are kshatriya despite the plethora of sources saying otherwise often have problems with basic source analysis--both identifying reliable sources, and with reading them in their entirety, including the surrounding context. Editors who've made that point in the past had a habit of simply cherry-picking a quote or two from a source and not noticing what the rest of the page said. So, apologies, but it's a bit hard to take this seriously. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

All the information is referenced, and all the references are already present on the page itself, all the book names and page numbers and quotes are clearly specified.

1. Since wikipedia needs references, I have failed to see a single reference which says "Yadav is different from Yadava". So this sourceless information should be removed, if no reference to it has been provided. 2. And I haven't picked single quotes, I have thoroughly read all the references and have provided only those that support the proposed edits. Otherwise I could have provided 1000s of meaningless ideas without proofs like "Yadav is different from Yadava", which would only help clutter the page with garbage information. 3. And please do reject my points with some proofs, simply saying that you don't find them serious is rather offending and an incomplete reply. Thanks for replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaazBahadur (talk • contribs) 15:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You will find many discussions in the archives of this talk page. The issues have also been raised at community-wide noticeboards such as WP:DRN. Unless you have compelling new verification for your statements then I am afraid nothing is likely to change here. And even if you did, we would almost certainly have to show all of the various viewpoints, not just your preferred version. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies Baaz, but, like I said, we can't provide proof that "Yadav doesn't equal Yadava". That's just like I could not find a source that says, "Apples and platypuses are two different kinds of living species". No source would say that exact fact; this is the commonly stated point that we cannot prove a negative. It's up to you to prove the positive. As for the rest, well, take a look through the archives, and see what's been said before on the subject, then let's talk. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2012

Yadav community has been described as coming under soodra in the picture and possibly elsewhere. I feel aghast that this warrior Yadav community has been shown as soodra. Much to the contrary, this is the kshatriya class and the literature abounds. The author of the article is much ill-informed and should know the history of the community better. I suggest that the soodra tag of the community be removed promptly. Anyone can write anything about any coomunity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.77.11 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 19 August 2012‎

Sorry, but you would need to provide reliable sources to support your claim, and provide reasoning why the currently used sources should not be considered reliable - see WP:RS for details of Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is really almost a crap. You, the writer, is certainly trying to defame the Yadav Clan. These kind of rubbish makes wikipedia a non-reliable source. I request wikipedia to remove this article when they have a better entry under "Yadava". prefix:Talk:Yadav/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilendra (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but we do not listen to editors who make accusations against others. If you want changes made to this article, ask for them civilly and respectfully, and provide Reliable sources to support your claims. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013

Dear Sir I sincerely feel the article is not neutral.It homogenises the whole community with the views of a few writers.The traditionally non-elite tag should be immediately removed as the whole community was not traditionally non-elite.Various sections of ahirs/yadavs were rulers in past.Apart from that I request to put a "neutrality disputed" section above the article. The first line "Yādav refers to a grouping of traditionally non-elite pastoral communities, or castes, in India and Nepal that since the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has claimed descent from the mythological King Yadu as a part of a movement of social and political resurgence." should be changed to Yādav refers to a grouping of pastoral communities, or castes, in India and Nepal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiansociology (talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The header "This article is about modern communities claiming descent from Yadu" doesn't serve the purpose as a lot of traditionally elite sections also claim descent from Yadu.In fact all the pastoral communities like Gujjar Ahir claim descent from Yadu.

I have a lot of references to support this.I am putting this by Sir Philip Meadows Taylor where he mentions about various kingdoms of Shepherd Kings. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=EBMFAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PT28&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false This should be sufficient to edit the first line. Indiansociology (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that all of these issues have been discussed previously and you are saying nothing new in terms of argument. You are also conflating Yadav with Aheer in your example source (written by Philip Meadows Taylor, a scientific racist and gentleman-scholar of the Raj period). It is not good enough, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Trash

I humbly request to remove this content which makes a bad and wrong impact about the yadav caste — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.20.25.54 (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014

Hmmm.. who owns this page? Do you know Indian history? I think the given information about Yadav is not completely full filled and misleading.

I would like to make changes can you give access please. Srini UK Acnu99 (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. @Acnu99: Because so many new editors have made disruptive edits here, all such edits must be vetted by a more experienced editor. Rather than giving you access outright, please state a specific item you want changed and cite the reliable source(s) that support the change. If it checks out, such an editor will make the change for you. —C.Fred (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead Section

The negative terms like "Non-Elite" may be avoided in the lead section. There is no harm if the same is included in the following sections of the article. It gives an appearance as if the article is written to highlight negative features of the caste. The article includes people from various categories like herdsmen from different parts of India and other countries along with the royal families of Haryana. Its well understood that the term Non-Elite does not match with these royal people of Yadav dynasty from Haryana . As far as, I remember the same caste appears as Elite Proprietors in the Book "Elites of Asia". Hence the negative terms may be avoided in the lead Section. Thanx Mahensingha 20:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The lead requires a reliably sourced succinct NPOV definition. The reliably sourced (scholarly) definition says, "traditionally non-elite." There is nothing negative about non-elite. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)