Talk:Yadav/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Clean up

I've just done something very unusual by reverting to a much older version of this talk page. It isn't something that is encouraged but I have several reasons for doing so:

• the talk page headers were removed
• a whole series of new accounts all making the same point using the same sources suggested sock- or meat-puppeting
• the same accounts really screwed things up by not signing or indenting their posts
• I see that someone else had recently semi-protected the page, which I think reflects similar concerns.

Please note for future reference:

• do not edit the posts of others (even though I just did) and don't change your own post after someone has replied to it (start another reply)
• always sign your posts - see WP:SIG
• always indent them - see WP:THREAD
• read WP:SOCK before posting for the first time
• do not cherry-pick your sources, eg: Michelutti may indeed say one thing on one page but we have to read sources "in the round"
• do not repeatedly cite the same thing - it becomes tendentious
• read WP:NPOV and consider whether your relationship to the Yadav community may be biassing your thoughts.
• Read the article thoroughly before commenting. Most of the recent stuff seems to have been arguments about it not referring to Yadavs covering a range from shudra to kshatriya but, in fact, even the lead section says things like mainly non-elite and which they argue confers kshatriya status upon them, both of which cover the issue if you are competent in the English language.

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2018

out of the all castes mentioned on wikipedia, non-elite word is being used for Yadavs only, although there were many Yadav landlords and few Yadav Kings as well. 'Agricultural community' word is being used for other castes which were ranked below Yadavs, why is there a desperate effort to show Yadavs in poor light. The sources which are being used state that a scholar used statements of other scholar to quote something. The quotes just formed a chain. The first para states that Yadavs refer to grouping of non-elite pastoral-peasants which is absolutely incorrect. using the word mainly states that majority of the Yadavs were pastoral-peasants which is untrue.

Susan Bayly quotes that Ahir is a title of non-elite peasants-pastoral people in North India which is grammatically incorrect as Ahir is an ethnic community, if Ahir was a title of non-elite peasant-pastoral people in North then almost 40% of North Indians would be known as Ahirs. she has used the same definition for Jatts. But Ahirs and Jatts are different. She has used the same definition for Kurmis and Koeris. But Kurmis and Koeris are not Ahirs. Susan Bayly's glossary is incorrect. The quote of Susan was re-used by other scholars. Lucia Michelutti research doesn't mention Yadavs being non-elite, I have gone through her real research work. The reference which has been used to quote Lucia is from some website which misquotes Lucia's quotes. her original research work doesn't states anything of that sort. In fact her research work states that only 30% of Yadavs were involved in cattle work. He work also talks about Historical Yadav rajas as well.

Shantanusingh10 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that all of this has been discussed here before, the requester is plain wrong to say out of the all castes mentioned on wikipedia, non-elite word is being used for Yadavs only. Eg: see Jat people. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Please Add Images of Guru Govind Singh Ji Image in Famous Yadav list.

Sir Please Add Images of Guru Govind Singh Ji Image in Famous Yadav list because of he belong to Yadav Family which is also called as a Rai or Yadav. Please Updates of Guru Govind singh Ji Ayush Prakash Yaduvanshi (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Kindly provide the reliable sources (WP:RS for the fact. As per my knowledge, he was a Sikh Guru.--MahenSingha (Talk) 20:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Guru Govind Singh a Yadav? yes yes Manmohan Singh is also yadav and was the first Yadav prime minister of India... Add this too :-D --Adamstraw99 (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Note on page level sanctions

While the article is semi protected, most of the same behavior has now shifted to this talk page. If it continues then this talk page will also be protected. —SpacemanSpiff 05:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Spaceman spiff I have a simple point that the lead section is wrong " Yadav refers to a grouping of traditionally mainly non-elite,[1][2][3][4] peasant-pastoral communities or castes in India and Nepal that since the 19th and 20th centuries[5][6] has claimed descent from the mythological King Yadu as a part of a movement of social and political resurgence " the reason is follows 1. According to puranas , literature and scholarly articles the ahir, gavli and gollas have claimed Yadav lineage for last 2000 years please explain what policy I am violating, it will be helpful to discuss and I would appreciate that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbirsinghm (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Article needs a section on Ahir History and Historical background, Article is extremely biased

The article is not balanced, article needs a section on Ahir/Yadav history Ahirs have been rulers of many regions and their historical status has varied a lot from region to region Requesting persons to discuss here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhreepunty (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yadav is a modern surname covering many castes including Ahirs. For specific information on Ahirs, please visit Ahir.--MahenSingha (Talk) 20:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is extremely biased. Through out history the ahirs have considered themselves Yadavs,

In Padma puranas it is clearly mentioned that the ahirs are the same race of Lord Shri Krishna

Page 113 https://books.google.com/books?id=w9pmo51lRnYC&pg=PA113&dq=padma+purana+ahir&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4jYmvhqTbAhWAGTQIHdGTDGgQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The article speaks a lot abouts ahirs, hence ahir history needs to be mentioned

No. Listen to what Mahensingha has said. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The lead statement is wrong "Yadav refers to a grouping of traditionally mainly non-elite,[1][2][3][4] peasant-pastoral communities or castes in India and Nepal that since the 19th and 20th centuries[5][6] has claimed descent from the mythological King Yadu as a part of a movement of social and political resurgence"

Reason 1- Ahirs , Gavlis, gollas have claimed Yadav lineage for the last 1500 years , even well before that . the Padma puranas consider them Yadavs ( See reference for Padma Purana ) Reason 2 - Even the books mentioned as reference in the article state that the ahir and gavli started using a generic term yadava and another states that they started referring to as Yadav Kshatriyas. Reason 3 - The article should be merged with Ahir or it needs to state clearly the history of all those castes

I will find some references which state these

Also the pics in this article are a copy right violation and also are from British Raj resources.. Everyone agrees that British Raj books and images cannot be used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbirsinghm (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Furthermore, have you read WP:SOCK / WP:MEAT as well as the archives of this talk page? You're just repeating what previous people have said when wanting to glorify the community. - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No one is glorifying any thing. You are actually deliberately trying to demean the community. The article says only one side of the story , Now there is other side to the story and you are not ready to accept even Scholarly research works. I will provide Scholarly works by well known universities.

May be you should read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbirsinghm (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot of policy links etc for a new contributor. I've left a welcome note at your talk page nonetheless. - Sitush (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Rant - not towards improvement of the article. - Sitush (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Now you are being really funny. Wikipedia in India is mostly used by a bunch of IT / software guys/gals.. A false article based on biased resources is no bone of contention for any community... Problem dear Sitush is you are not ready to accept Indian Puranas , literature and also numerous scholarly articles... So this article is just a time pass and entire India believes in Puranas and literature not in some article based on European authors... Still you seem to break wiki policy yourself , can u explain why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbirsinghm (talk • contribs) 05:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Sitush my friend , Recently the great PM of India addressed the election rally in UP ( You should read , this is good ), You are discrediting wiki by suppressing the truth. Aint it so funny maan https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/Modi-invokes-Yaduvanshi-Krishna-in-UPs-Yadav-belt/articleshow/33924562.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbirsinghm (talk • contribs) 05:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia in India is mostly used by a bunch of IT / software guys/gals.. A false article based on biased resources is no bone of contention for any community... Problem dear Sitush is you are not ready to accept Indian Puranas , literature and also numerous scholarly articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbirsinghm (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Haha LOL , Nice Job Sitush, You are very very Smart and have cleverly manipulated/synthesized this article to match your point of view As I have said earlier the ahirs, gavlis and gollas have claimed Yadav lineage for more than 2000 years , the lead section in the article is false

https://books.google.com/books?id=x2fXAAAAMAAJ&q=padma+purana++vishnu+ahir&dq=padma+purana++vishnu+ahir&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvhJf2rabbAhVHHzQIHTJ6Ar0Q6AEIJzAA

https://books.google.com/books?id=SyyNIL7Ug2kC&pg=PA126&dq=padma+purana++vishnu+ahir&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvhJf2rabbAhVHHzQIHTJ6Ar0Q6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=padma%20purana%20%20vishnu%20ahir&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=w9pmo51lRnYC&pg=PA113&dq=padma+purana++abhira&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie862prqbbAhX1FjQIHQQcC0QQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=padma%20purana%20%20abhira&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=WOQ5bucsDyAC&pg=PA40&dq=padma+purana++abhira&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie862prqbbAhX1FjQIHQQcC0QQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=padma%20purana%20%20abhira&f=false

According to Suvira Jayaswal a world wide reputed historian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suvira_Jaiswal Suvira Jayaswal, Changes in the Status and concept of the Sudra varna in early middle ages, I.C.H.R., 41st session proceedings. Suvira Jayaswal, Vainavattin torramum valarchiyum.

The ahir, gavlis and gollas have claiming Yadav lineage since around 1 A.D , this could be after the Mahabharata war the surviving vrsni clan merged with Ahir,gavli clan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbirsinghm (talk • contribs) 17:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Read the past discussions here. You are offering nothing new. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sitush you have very cleverly hijacked this article. When ever some one presents a scholarly reference with valid points you simply say it has already been discussed where as in-fact , many users have bought valid points and valid resources , you have simply reverted their edits and since new users do not understand wiki policy , you successfully engage in blocking them. In fact you have violated WIKI consensus many times ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus ) you have violated ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ) and then the article itself violates the ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights ) since the images are in-authorized and also British Raj sources as per your statement should not be used

The lead statement is wrong Yadav refers to a grouping of traditionally mainly non-elite,[1][2][3][4] peasant-pastoral communities or castes in India and Nepal that since the 19th and 20th centuries[5][6] Reason 1: because these ahir, gavli and golla communities have claimed Yadav lineage atleast for 1500 years Reason 2: These social standing of these communities vary from region to region. You can find Kings , Zamindari to Laborers Proof has been provided many times but Sitush you have cleverly hijacked the article and violated all wiki policy... But Situch you should definitely have the IQ of Albert Einstein , so smart and so diabolical and no one realized that all wiki policy is violated by you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbirsinghm (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rajbirsinghm:, You're obviously not here to contribute encyclopedic content. Your sole interest is promoting your caste / ethnic group, and Wikipedia is not the place for that.. most importantly, All content on Wikipedia must be well sourced and verifiable..your rants won't help unless you address this.. And your obsession with Sitush suggest you must be a sock who is using multiple accounts including now blocked Situshthebrahminbaztard.... is it? I think you will risk a hard block if these activities continue.. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Again so funny, you jump to conclusions... I am here to contribute, but my question is how to contribute, if I have to make a change , What should i support it with Because the rules are all different. Sitush plays by different rules and for some reason he gets away with it, can some one advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbirsinghm (talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rajbirsinghm:, This might help you --Also, please sign your posts using four tildes after a comment.. thank you. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2018

Hi, I would like to remove few Raj era sources from the page. Anti4ITCELL (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I can see no Raj era sources anyway. - Sitush (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush it is an improvement because it uses correct language Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Also @Sitush there are Raj era sources being used Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Please can you list those sources. - Sitush (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush I already mentioned the source out there which was from Jassal and Tewari but can you list any source which says otherwise? Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Jassal and Tewari is way after the Raj era. I have spotted Russell and Lal in there and, yes, we would usually not bother with them but there are some contexts in which Raj sources are permissible and this looks like one of those. - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush in what context are Raj era sources permissible? Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Explaining evolving theories of etymology would be one example. - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush I didn't mean to say Jassal and Tewari are Raj era sources, I quoted them as I corrected language using their source Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush except for etymology is there any other context in which Raj era sources can be used? Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I am sure I have seen some occasional other legitimate uses. Census of India prior to independence springs to mind. I couldn't possibly list them all because a lot would be on a case-by-case basis. - Sitush (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@So Raj era sources can be used then?? is there any wikipedia guideline which states case by case policies on Raj era sources, if yes then please guide me to that page. Because there should be guidelines on Raj era sources mentioned to avoid ambiguity. Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@K6ka @Eggishorn @Mahensingha are there any Wikipedia guidelines on case-by-case basis usage of Raj era sources? Please help Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that - see the blurb at the top of WP:RSN. I will ping those people for you, whom you have also incorrectly pinged in the following section. @K6ka, Eggishorn, and Mahensingha:. - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Wp:RSn doesn't talk about Raj era sources or Yadav. Are there any specific guidelines on Raj era sources or is it your personal discretion of allowing or dis-allowing sources?/ Anti4ITCELL (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There are discussions about the Raj sources in the archives at WP:RSN but what I was referring to was the information at the top of that page which makes it clear that the reliability of a source depends on its intended use. As another example of where a Raj source might be ok, consider an article that discusses the boundaries of British administrative areas and princely states. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling

Although it must surely only account for a very small number of Yadav people, I think the point recently added [in these edits about wrestling might be worthwhile retaining. There are many styles of wrestling, so some tweaks and links could be useful. Can anyone help with that? Or should it just be removed as too minor to be worthy of record? - Sitush (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2018

Dr. Ram Baran Yadav.jpg|caption=First President from Yadav community of Nepal and India Destino de Wikipedio 06:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Pics of Ahir Dham

Hi @L293D and EdJohnston: I want to do the following:

1) Add two pics of Ahir dham out of which one reads out the name of Yadavs martyrs

2) Delete all the pics of Raj era sources and non-reliable Flickr pic.

This article talks mainly about Ahir Yadavs and not other Yadavs. Yadav caste comprises of Ahirs and Yadavs. Government of India recognizes Yadav caste as Ahir + Yadav ( http://edistrict.up.nic.in/GOs/CasteListCentral.pdf )

Notable Yadavs should be added to the article as the same has been done in case of various other castes and communities listed on Wikipedia. [e.g. Raja Rao Tula Ram (revolt of 1857 & King of Rewari), Uday Pratap Singh (former President - AIYM), Rao Balbir Singh (former President - AIYM), Chaudhary Brahm Prakash Yadav (1st Chief Minister of Delhi), Chandrajit Yadav (former Cabinet Minister - Central Government), Chaudhary Harmohan Singh Yadav (former President AIYM), Akhilesh Yadav (former Chief Minister), Rao Inderjit Singh (Cabinet Minister in state of Harayana & scion of the Royal Ahir dynasty of Rewari and a descendant of Rao Tula Ram), Captain Ajay Singh Yadav (well known politician), Tejaswi Yadav (former Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar), Leena Yadav (film director), Pragya Yadav (film actress) to name a few]. I can provide copyright free pics for the same.

The majority of the pics in this article are from Raj era sources and Book People of India which are considered unreliable by Wikipedia community and hence those pics should be removed. There is another pic of a lady harvesting wheat which has been taken from an unreliable source ( Flickr's portfolio of Meena Kadri a random photographer who has no credit worthiness). A user name Sandstein got a copyright from Meena Kadri but Meena herself is not a scholar. )

The word traditionally should be removed from the lead section as no previous records state that majority of the Yadavs being non-elite right from the start. The sources talk only about the 21st century Yadavs. In the 22nd century majority Yadavs will become elite but that wouldn't mean that in 21st century there weren't any Yadavs who were non-elite. Similarly majority of the Yadavs have not always been non-elite in every era. The lead section appears to be to harsh on Yadavs, gives a negative vibe. the Same is not the case in case of other castes and communities. The lead section can be changed to:- Yadav caste comprises of various castes such as Ahirs, Yadavs, Gopes, Gavli, Sad-Gopes etc

also this article talks only about Yadavs of India, Yadavs are also found in majority in Nepal so they should also be mentioned and given importance so that readers can know that Yadavs not only traditionally exist in India but also Nepal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilipjadeja (talk • contribs) 06:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know what do I need to do to get all these changes done. Dilipjadeja (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilipjadeja (talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This article needs a history section

Yadav article needs a History section

This article only talks about the Yadav community since 19 and 20th century. The community had existed long before the 19 and 20 th century

A new section called History can be added and the following points would be good to mention

1. The Ahirs of Bundelkhand had milk brother hood with Bundela Rajputs. The ahirs were known as dau - Fathers elder brother by the Bundela Princes and provided the fighting militia https://books.google.com/books?id=fghQhiowlycC&pg=PA30&dq=ahir++history&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip4Pi__vHlAhUCsZ4KHTraAjQQ6AEwA3oECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=ahir%20%20history&f=false

Between History and Legend: Status and Power in Bundelkhand By Ravindra K. Jain , Orient Longman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanderbilet (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

2. Mention should be made of Yadav/ahir kingdoms Amongst the most significant are the Ahir kingdom of Rewari (Rao 1977), the Ahir kingdom of Mahabhan and the Jadon- kingdoms of Jaleshar (Growse 1998: 11) and Karouli (Drake-Brockman 1911: 110). Page 47 http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2106/1/U613338.pdf University of London

Deletion of heading image

Please remove the heading image of this page as this image create hatred of other communities towards Yadav community. The image depicts just post independence period in which most castes were suffering from same discrimination. In many other Indian and foreign sources, writers have claimed yadav origin from Kshatriya Varna also.So, instead of postponing the same conflict why not to resolve it. And being an Indian I suggest to please remove this image because this period every country is eyeing on brotherhood between it's country people which leads to growth of not only the same country but also the world. Instead you can upload an image of Delhi's First Chief Minister Chaudhary Brahm Prakash Yadav or Haryana's Second Chief Minister Rao Birendra Singh.Or you can upload an image of king Rao Tularam. Or you can upload a picture of Ahir Dham to justify the braveness of this community. See there are many other sources from where you can find any other information instead of uploading such discriminatory image. I will be highly obliged if you resolve this dispute.

Thanks for your precious time. Abhimanyu Yaduvanshi8287 (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

True..... @Wikipedia team please look into the matter. Vaibhav Krishna 001 (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Every caste has poor people in need. Posting picture of some poor people to represent the whole yadav clan is knowingly insulting yadavs. The African Hindu (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia team. Please avoid sounding like caste warriors, all of you. Caste promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. For that, and for the image, please see the section "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2019" above, especially the comments from Johnuniq (an administrator) and Sitush (an experienced editor). Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC).

How can you post a pic of a poor yadav family? Yadav community is not a poor at all. It hurts the sentiments of whole yadav community and can make others to laugh and feel biased,abase to our community. There were many popular events,histories,pics of yadav community you can add that. I suggest you some like pictures of lord Krishna or pic of ahir dham,rewari,haryana. Please kindly remove it. If you can't remove those pics you don't have the right to publish anything publicly unnecessarily without the consent of our community or knowing anything about us. Srishti Yadav 05 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:CENSORED, note that it is an historic image, that we do not give undue prominence to an individual in caste articles, and that the vast majority of present-day Yadav people are just ordinary folk. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not dis-satisfied with this but

There nothing wrong is mentioned but only one this you should change YADAVS WERE NEVER OF SHUDRAS CLASS SHUDRAS CLASS WAS OF FISHERMAN,GARDENERS... YADAV'S WERE BUISNEES MILK SELLERS,COW KEEPERS, AGRICULTURISTS,LAND HOLDERS YOU SHOULD MUST CHANGE VARN YOU MENTIONED ABOVE THEM TO VAISHYA VARN OKK Abhinav Singh Rana (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

True... Vaibhav Krishna 001 (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We should reflect what reliable sources say.- Sitush (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2019

This "AheersAroundDelhi1868.jpg" image needs to be removed. It doesn't resemble/relate with either the content or the topic of this page. HinduKshatrana (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Ahirs being part of the Yadav class is supported by sources in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is what I'm saying. Ahir's a sub-part of Yadav community. So including Yadav images as a whole, rather than Ahir community images will be better. Please change the images that can be related to the whole of Yadav community not only one particular sub-community amongst them. HinduKshatrana (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Find some, then propose them. - Sitush (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Sitush, Can't you do it? You just made like 20 edits back to back. If you want images of Yadav tribe(not the sub-caste Ahirs), then I will happily provide them. But stop hating Yadavs as whole just because of a small sub-group is being mean and rude. HinduKshatrana (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not interested in feeding caste glorifiers etc. - Sitush (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Caste glorifiers? So you can read but can't remember anything that was told ya an hour ago? Are you a Java Interpreter that lacks memory? I've just stated it above. Alright, I would ask an actually UNBIASED Admin then.Thanks for your time. HinduKshatrana (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Look, the caption to the image that you are complaining about clearly state A group of Aheers, a major constituent of the Yadav group, from around Delhi, 1868 It is relevant and, since the Yadavs are effectively an umbrella caste (ie: a loose grouping of constituent castes), you're unlikely to find an image that is not of one of those constituent castes - Yadav does not exist except in the context of its constituent groups. - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Dude, you've been an editor for like many many years! You've already experienced Rajputs and Ahirs and other Castes coming to Wikipedia to claim their Yadav or Yadava status. One thing should have been clear in your mind that Indian Castes are formed of different sub groups. Aren't Rajputs claiming their descent from many different races? They claim their Pratihara descent from King Mihir Bhoj who was a Gurjar Pratihar (a gotra of Gurjars), while the real Gurjars are declared as caste claimers. They claim their descent from Lord Rama's son Kush but real Kushwahas are declared as caste claimers. They claim their descent from Krishna Vasudeva Yadava but other Yadavs are declared as caste claimers! If Rajputs were a caste from a single Descent then they need not had to claim Descent from so many Communities or Races. So calling Yadavs as a loose grouping of constituent castes is so stupid, man. I'm not a Northie. We South Indians have Wodeyar/Wadiyar gotra of Yadavs. We were never pastoralists. Even today we have a living Prince Yaduveera Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar of Mysore. And yes we do marry amongst Yaduvanshi Ahirs as well as Yaduvanshi Rajputs. But we also have a separate Yadav/Yadava identity. So judging whole caste on basis of one group's profession is really really stupid. I would provide our Mysore Yadav heritage images. Would you then help in changing them? HinduKshatrana (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussion of improvements to the article, based on policies and reliable sources. Please stop expressing opinions unless supported by a reliable source because this is not a forum. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq How do you provide sources to upload images on the page? HinduKshatrana (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The sources would be to verify the correctness of arguments made for why an established article should be changed, such as why File:AheersAroundDelhi1868.jpg should be removed. Generally if someone wants to remove an image it would be to replace it with something better. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq Ok, brother. I'll provide Yadav tribe/people images from great sources in few days. And yes it would be representing the Yadav community as a whole, rather than the current picture which just shows Delhi's one particular Aheer group. Thanks for your reply. HinduKshatrana (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted to the earlier images. The replacements were certainly no more "representing the Yadav community as a whole" and using a photo of a fort was most definitely an attempt at glorification. Most Yadavs, for most of their history, have been little more than peasantry. - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Well done, Sitush, you reverted edits which were an attempt of false glorification. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sitush brother please do the change that We want. You should neither to glorify our caste nor caste promotion. But you can just put the picture of First President of Nepal Ram Baran Yadav or First CM of Delhi Chaudhary Brahm Prakash Yadav or Second Chief Minister of Haryana Rao Birendra Singh. You can either post PVC Winner Yogendra Singh Yadav. These suggested pictures does not amount to Caste Promotion. I will be highly highly obliged if you take the matter into your account. Your Obediently Abhimanyu Abhimanyu4169 (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If you cannot understand why the images you suggest would be glorification I think perhaps you need to contribute in areas other than those related to caste. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is one sided and biased

blocked sock User:Vinnerbanters

1. These images are from the British Period , where there was poverty every where in India , how could these be images be trusted as image of Yadavs Two cowherds from the Gauwli caste (now a part of the Yadav group) in Berar (now in Maharashtra) 1874 2. Lead is wrong. The book mentions "The movement, which had a wide interregional spread, attempted to submerge regional names such as Goala, Ahir, Ahar, Gopa, etc., in favour of the generic term Yadava (Rao 1979) but the lead is twisted to state something about Yadu and myth. It should be corrected to Pastoral communities like ahir, ahar started using a generic Term Yadava from 19th century. 3. In many towns the Yadavs are under Kshatriya list. Lucia M has done research http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2106/1/U613338.pdf Page 83 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnerbanters (talk • contribs) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC) I have started a discussion forum , good suggestion is to include Yadavs role for the last 2000 years, I am sure they existed before 19th century, why this article talk only from 19th century — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnerbanters (talk • contribs) 23:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Firstly, we already have sections discussing the image issue (and even more in the archives to this page). Second, no town has a meaningful "kshatriya list". What would one of those even look like? Plus, even if such a thing did exist, WP:NPOV & WP:DUE would dictate that it would carry little weight. Finally, I would ask you and all other recent new contributors to this article & its talk page to read carefully the information at WP:SOCK and WP:CANVASS. There is some rather suspicious activity going on. - Sitush (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oh, and your second point, about the lead being wrong, seems to have come about because (a) you misunderstand the purpose of a lead section and, worse, (b) you haven't even read the full quote provided, let alone the source. The quote you mention continues with As a prominent agriculturist caste in the region, despite belonging to the shudra varna, the Yadavas claimed Kshatriya status tracing descent from the Yadu dynasty. - Sitush (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC) All of this has been discussed before and you can see some of it above around 2018 in the comments made by User:Anti4ITCELL (talk · contribs) who, by the way, was also a sockpuppet. - Sitush (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Dear Sitush - The same point is being brought again and again because it this article is twisted and biased. For example book says "The movement, which had a wide interregional spread, attempted to submerge regional names such as Goala, Ahir, Ahar, Gopa, etc., in favour of the generic term Yadava (Rao 1979) but the lead is twisted to state something about Yadu and myth. It should be corrected to Pastoral communities like ahir, ahar, gauliis started using a generic Term Yadava from 19th century. Also there are authors who have mentioned " The status of Yadavs is ambiguous, For exmple Rewari Yadavs are kings where as Jharkand Yadavs are cowherds The status of Yadavs is ambiguous needs to be mentioned in lead section. The images are all from British period which is biased since during British time, entire country was poor, The High lighted statement is wrong " despite belonging to the shudra varna, the Yadavas claimed Kshatriya status tracing descent from the Yadu dynasty "because Yadavs are kings, rulers in many regions are considered Kshatriyas ( Here they are not claiming anything, They are considered under Kshatriya varna in some regions ) and yadavs in other regions are workers and tillers which are considered shudra varna. The Yadavs have taken this mixed status in various regions and are using this to claim an overall Kshatriya. In this article you are talking only about the lower class of Yadavs and you have completely twisted and omitted the Yadavs who are kings and rulers in many regions, In order for this article to be neutral it should state about Yadavs who are kings and rulers in many regions. Books are there for every one to read and Dear Sitush you seem to be so smart that I dont think any one can prove to you anything which you already know. Overall the Yadavs status is ambiguous since they are truely kings, zamindars in some regions and truly tiller in some regions. Vinnerbanters (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Vinnerbanters The image needs to be removed because they are British era images and racist , can be removed under this policy and also contents are clearly biased and not neutral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reasonability_rule Vinnerbanters (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Vinnerbanters You haven't read a thing I have mentioned, have you? The reason why this stuff has popped up repeatedly is because someone has been using multiple accounts to make the same point. You are not likely to change consensus (and it has been consensus) by dragging up the same arguments yet again unless our policies/guidelines have changed in the intervening time. The reasonability rule you mention is neither policy nor guideline, and in any case consensus has been that the image is reasonable. For what it is worth, the lead inage used to be that of the young woman with the red headwear, now further down the article. People objected to that, too, because she was a nobody. And that is the crux of the issue here: members of the community want the lead image to be of an identifiable person who has had an illustrious career. They seem to think the glory of that person will rub off on the humdrum lives of the other 99% of the community. It won't, at least not via Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC) To whomsoever it may concern, the administrators in particular. Hello sir, I’m S. Bis, a Wikipedian who is writing this anonymously (without mentioning my username) to you in anticipation of a fair, unbiased help. Dear Sir, I’ve been seeing the Yadav page and edits surrounding it, and there’s a particular person named Sitush who’s been vehemently editing the page and pages related to the community, also additionally the political parties whose leaders belong to this community, and has been reluctantly reverting progressive edits/ updates and has been keenly adamant to show the community in bad light in the name of keeping Wikipedia neutral. He is far from neutrality, and has even used languages which are inappropriate to users who try to add edits to the pages for improvement. Sir, he is acting as an administrator on those pages, imposing administrative warnings and warring every progressive approach on those pages. At several times, he has arguably edited and added conflicting, derogatory statements. Sir, as a free Wikipedian it’s my request to you, please look into this matter. Wikipedia is made by us Wikipedians who work to keep it updated. No person has to be authoritative for a particular caste, or caste related topics, and sir, believe me, I’m writing this because this person has been spreading hate indirectly-specifically targeted at this community. Dear Sir, I am writing this here to you because there is a lot of discussion going on at the talk page of Yadav, and many objections which are valid have been placed by many Wikipedians, especially regarding the main photograph that shows the community in bad light, people have tried to replace it with better pictures, and even have provided with proper certification and reference, but this one person Sitush has been waging a war towards every Wikipedian who is trying to contribute to that page. It feels like he is literally owning the sensitive community pages and preventing any edit, also adding stuff that is derogatory and attacking under the belt. Sir, you can see what and how he responds to fellow Wikipedians, he even sometimes responds via slurs or casteist hate statements, his remarks are often something that does not suit a Wikipedian. Sir, I do not belong to this community as if he may say or claim later on, as the way he has responded to other Wikipedians who came here, but I speak this up because he has been handling this issue in a very biased way all way long. Wikipedia has so many users, and it has not granted any specific person to have authoritative power over specific sensitive community pages. In the case of header image, I believe the image that has been recently uploaded by user named Vipinahir that shows a national community meeting is appropriate. Kindly help Sir in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.148.144.254 (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC) No, caste glorifiers. This article is about a community and it should show the average image of community, some glorifiers want to put images of persons with a illustrous career, this is not a way. Mr. Sitush is neutral and is a perfect editor, others are engaged in glorification. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Having some kings is not uncommon as almost every caste have some kings, even the adivasis have kings #rani durgawati, this doesn't make them to claim higher status, the article should highlight the average image not a person with a illustrous career, and in wide social composition of society they were nomadic pastrolists, not rulers, so the article should be in that way. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Sitush - I have read every word you have written and you have twisted the sentences in this article 'It is not 99% which is in lower class category but it is only around 70% which is under lower class and around 30% is elite Kings and Zamindars The social status of Yadavs in Haryana and Rajasthan is totally different from UP and Bihar. The Yadavs of Rajasthan and Harayana are kings and come under Rajput category. The Yadavs of UP and Bihar are not. There is no caste glorification. You are refusing to state the facts based on books provided.''''''' In Page 81 Lucia states The status ambiguity of today’s Yadavs and their Rajput-like military culture and religious traditions can be plausibly traced back to the historical phases that witnessed the transformation of martial pastoralist communities into more defined caste-like groups. In Page 83 The history of the Rewari family is of particular importance for the present study. Their members were amongst the first promoters of the formation of a Yadav community and today they still represent Yadav-Rajput heritage and royalty. They were locally conceived as Yaduvanshi-Kshatriya. In page 302 Amongst the Yadav caste we find rajas, zamindars, sepoys and cowherders who have been conceived and categorised either as warriors and as belonging to the Kshatriya varna, or as lower-caste and belonging to the Shudra varna.I argue that the Ahirs’ ambiguous status and the fact that members of this large heterogeneous community were (and are) recognised as a Rajput-like community made it possible for all the Yadavs to think of themselves as a martial and valorous caste with a Kshatriya pedigree. So overall this article is one-sided, biased and completely ignores all valid books which talks about many Yadavs who are Kings and Zamindars. That is a significant portion which is ignored. Vinnerbanters (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Vinnerbanters

Improvements, or lack of

I don't understand why this edit or the preceding one from the same contributor are improvements. Leaving aside the probable copyright violation of using such a lengthy quote, it doesn't actually advance what we already say. - Sitush (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush how come it is copyright violation??? when the source is already mentioned out there! Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush check reference 7 which is out there?? do you call that copyright violation ??? I am quoting it here Jassal, Smita Tewari; École pratique des hautes études (France). Section des sciences économiques et sociales; University of Oxford. Institute of Social Anthropology (2001). "Caste in the Colonial State: Mallahs in the census". Contributions to Indian sociology. Mouton. pp. 319–351. Retrieved 7 October 2011. Quote: "The movement, which had a wide interregional spread, attempted to submerge regional names such as Goala, Ahir, Ahar, Gopa, etc., in favour of the generic term Yadava (Rao 1979). Hence a number of pastoralist castes were subsumed under Yadava, in accordance with decisions taken by the regional and national level caste sabhas. The Yadavas became the first among the shudras to gain the right to wear the janeu, a case of successful sanskritisation which continues till date. As a prominent agriculturist caste in the region, despite belonging to the shudra varna, the Yadavas claimed Kshatriya status tracing descent from the Yadu dynasty. The caste's efforts matched those of census officials, for whom standardisation of overlapping names was a matter of policy. The success of the Yadava movement also lies in the fact that, among the jaati sabhas, the Yadava sabha was probably the strongest, its journal, Ahir Samachar, having an all-India spread. These factors strengthened local efforts, such as in Bhojpur, where the Yadavas, locally known as Ahirs, refused to do begar, or forced labour, for the landlords and simultaneously prohibited liquor consumption, child marriages, and so on." Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I said "probable". I realise it is already in the article. It still doesn't answer my primary concern. The quote says, like the article, that they claimed descent from Yadu and thus a kshatriya status. - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush which quote says "Claimed", quote states tracing descent and not claiming descent Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yadavas claimed Kshatriya status tracing descent from the Yadu dynasty Since the Yadu dynasty is mythological, they are claiming descent from something that didn't exist in order to support their claim to be kshatriya (which is also nonsense but is a standard part of the sanskritisation process). The article already mentions both. Look, this article has been subject to the attentions of massive sockfarms and off-wiki collaboration. It has thus garnered a lot of scrutiny. You would need to provide new academic sources to get anything like this changed. - Sitush (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush you mean to say that Yadu is a myth?? Even if Yadu is a myth it doesn't change the fact that none of the quote states "claiming descent" it states 'tracing descent" . Also none of the first 7 references say that Yadu is a myth! Do they?? Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush I suggest the following changes From ( Yadav refers to a grouping of traditionally mainly non-elite,[1][2][3][4] peasant-pastoral communities or castes in India and Nepal that since the 19th and 20th centuries[5][6] has claimed descent from the mythological King Yadu as a part of a movement of social and political resurgence) To (Yadav refers to a grouping of traditionally mainly non-elite,[1][2][3][4] peasant-pastoral communities or castes in India and Nepal that since the 19th and 20th centuries[5][6] has claimed Kshatriya status tracing descent from the mythological King Yadu as a part of a movement of social and political resurgence.

Mythological word needs to be added only if there is a recent source which states that! Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course it is a myth. As for the rest, read all of the sources regarding this, including those cited in the lead section. The very fact that this article has caused such ire among the Yadav community is the reason why that section does actually have citations when usually it would not, per WP:LEAD. I have no idea why you are fixated on this point but the very fact that you are is likely to raise suspicion that you are yet another from the same long-term disruptive crowd, sorry. Like I said, provide some new sources to support your contention. - Sitush (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush any real Yadav who reads this will argue! when something is wrong people do say that it is wrong! you are ignoring the point, can you quote any one source which says 'claiming descent', I already gave the source and a source from Jassal and Tewari, do you have any source mentioned out there which uses the word "claiming descent" or is it your own quote?? Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@K6ka @Eggishorn @Mahensingha can you please look into this argument and help, I don't see any reference in the lead section which uses the word 'claiming' but instead reference number 7 used the words "claiming Kshatriya" status by "tracing descent". Anti4ITCELL (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. the beloved Lucia Michelluti so often cited by Yadavs on this talk page, and again in the contribution here, Christophe Jaffrelot, Price and Ruud, Gupta, William Pinch. I coudl go on. Believe me, this has been done to death. - Sitush (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush you are diverting the topic! we are talking about sources mentioned in the lead section, The seven references do not use the word claiming do they?? Talking about the recent sources which you mentioned they are not being used in the lead section. If Lucias reference is to be used then her quotes should be mentioned from her research work, the following source (reference no. 4) is not a valid source - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/006996670403800103, this link is not a valid source, it only talks about downloading the book by Lucia but the exact abstract as mentioned on journal is not found in Lucia's work. The book peasants and monks in India uses the words affirm descent from Krishna ( Goalas, Ahirs and Gopas (as Yadav Kshatriyas) would likewise affirm a descent from Krishna). The book peasants and monk further states that Goalas were always linked with Krishna and Braj and long before Yadav Kshatriya movement ( The Goala association with Krishna and his Braj homeland was evident long before the formal articulation of a Yadav-Kshatriya movement in the early 20th century. ) . The book caste in question also does not use the words claiming descent and recognizes that all castes which became part of the Yadav movement had common lineage through Krishna. And as per all Hindu Scriptures Krishna is born in the dynasty of Yadu. The book Power and Influence in India also does not use the word claim rather it talks about Yadav sadhus and Yadav wrestlers. I would like to thank you for providing me references to add more information on Yadavs. Anti4ITCELL (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs. The whole point is that there are a multitude of academic sources that say this is a claim, not a fact. That also ties in with the myth-making of sanskritisation. You are not going to get that changed in this article. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What is a claim and not a fact King Yadu or Yadavas lineage from Yadu or both?? Anti4ITCELL (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The belief in kshatryia status, the belief in descent from Yadu/Krishna etc. It is all myth, all a claim, all utter nonsense. We show it because those misguided people do in fact believe it but there is not a shred of evidence to support it being anything more than a cleverly constructed myth of origin etc which was designed to propel the Yadav community upwards in Indian society. That's what the academics say; that is what we say. Period. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush you just reverted three edits of mine stating POv-Kshatriya although I didn't write anything related to Kshatirya out there. You are just lying and avoiding the main topic. Also you didn;t notice I myself reverted my own edit, and you reverted my revert?? It shows that you just want to revert my edit even if it's already reverted by me. You are not making any sense. If you say that Krishna is a myth then it is your personal opinion and your personal opinion doesn't matter to anyone, you are not even a scholar, and you are lying about all academicians calling Krishna and Yadu as myth. Yadavs connection with Krishna is long before the Yadava-Kshatriya status movement and all academic work points out to that. When all academic work points out that Yadavs were already linked to cows and Krishna then who are you to disapprove it? Do you have a personal agenda?? Yadava movement comprised of all those casted who traced their lineage from Krishna and Krishna is a descendant of Yadu. Also, I see you put a sanction note on my page! May I know why did you put that?? Which law did I violate??? I added new reference everytime and you kept reverting without reading it. You reverted my own revert. Can you explain your prejudice and biased nature? Anti4ITCELL (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@K6ka, Eggishorn, and Mahensingha:can you please look into this argument and help, User Sitush is bullying me and denying all the facts and academic work and imposing his own opinions. Anti4ITCELL (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The reverting is just the way WP:TWINKLE works. It's quick and it does nothing wrong. The alert was just that, an alert. As the notice says, it does not imply current or past wrongdoing. As for the rest, it is already obvious that you are trying to push the kshatriya agenda that many others here have tried to do in the past.

You should note that I have not reverted everything you added. Your paragraph about wrestlers probably could do with a tweak or two but it is valid information. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I am not trying to push Kshatriya agenda, I am least interested in Kshatriya status because I know Yadavs are not Kshatriyas ! Yadavs do not belong to any varna. The sanskritisation process of calling oneself as Kshatriya is outright stupid because Yadav is not really a caste but a dynasty and all members of one dynasty or race can not belong to one varna. Yadav is the least homogenous caste by profession. Different Yadavs have had different professions. Yadavs are the most heterogeneous. There are many clans of Yadu which constitute the Yadav community. There are few which are outside the community as well for e.g The Jats of Bharatpur are also Yadavs and they are recognized as Yadavs and few of them also use the Yadav surname. For e.g Bhupinder Singh Yadav of BJP is a Yadav who belongs to the Jat community of Bharatpur. I very well know Yadavs are not Kshatriyas. Yadavs are not at all part of this bull shit caste system. The Kshatriyasation process is outright stupid because there were many Yadavs who just sold cow milk, ghee, butter. I have no agenda for Kshatriya status of Yadavs. But what you would and should agree is that Yadavs have always been connected to Cows and Krishna. Yadavs have always had exclusive rights over Cows which is considered as a Goddess in India. Anti4ITCELL (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Using the words 'claiming Kshatriya' status is a valid point but using words like "claiming lineage from Yadu" is invalid. What I mean to say is when it comes to Kshatriya status the word claim should be used but when it comes to lineage from Yadu the word claim should not be used. There are many people who are not really Ahirs or Yadavs but consider themselves as Ahirs or Yadavs that's their fault. They are not coming on Wikipedia to search about Yadavs, In past so many years only about 170,000 people have visited the Yadav related pages. Also what I observed just now is that if I want to tag Yadav it says as Maithili citizens of Austroloid-Dravidian descent - What is this ??? From where did Yadavs become Maithili Citizens of Native Australians and Native Dravidians descent? Isn't this giving out wrong information, misguiding the readers in believing that Yadavs originate from Mithila and from Aboriginal Australians! What is this?? Why wrong information is being spread about one of the most glorious caste of India. Genetic tests done on few Yadavs of Bihar show that Yadavs are Caucasians. Similarly genetic tests done on Yadavs of Andhra also showed that Yadavs are Caucasians. Genetic tests were done using samples from various castes in India and no test showed Yadavs being Austroloid or Dravidian. Is Science also a myth or what?? IS genetic test also a myth?? Anti4ITCELL (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I want to add pic, how do i add it? Anti4ITCELL (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of this one where also the Warrior had objections to the word "claim" --Adamstraw99 (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstraw99: every Yadav will have objections to the word claim. Anti4ITCELL (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anti4ITCELL:oh man, I had already told you in your previous account that if you are not here to contribute encyclopedic content and Your sole interest is promoting your caste / ethnic group, then Wikipedia is not the place for that ..and trust me, Agenda pushing attempts using multiple accounts is not very difficult to detect here :-) --Adamstraw99 (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Why Non-elite is added? Sailandra Yadav (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The image attached with the article is fake because a man in that wearing a cap which is seems to be cap like muslims wear and yadav are not muslim hence, it prooved that it is a fake image

I kindly request to the team of wikipedia to remove it and attach another image Tarunshukl1726 (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wikipedia.... This article about Yadavs is utter nonsense, the picture uploaded here is edited and looks like of Muslim Gurjars. Please look into the matter. Vaibhav Krishna 001 (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

How can you say yadav as a non elite class? Rao Tula ram, mysoor king yaduveer wadiyar and many more even in politics till now there were 12C.M from all over the india. In bihar there were 60yadav MLA, MP in total and you call non elite 😹. Do remember you can defame us in internet but never in religious book or real world. Hope the best from my krishna. Srishti Yadav 05 (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Be a wikipedia editor, not a caste warrior, this article talks about community as a whole, it should show image of average person of community,not of top members of community, highlighting persons with a illustrous career is to be seen as caste glorifiers. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)