Talk:Yadav/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Moving Ahead

I just found that I am unblocked now. This block reminded me of Hkelkar,Bakasuperman combination who used to get me blocked very often in very similar fashion. The longest block so far. Perhaps, longer ones are in the way! People have already threatened it on my talk page. Well, If I get challenged I feel more determination. One shocking fact I recently learnt is WP:ANI is up again. We had got it deleted earlier. It was WP:AN/I if I remember correctly. I had proposed, it has the potential of becoming another Fundywatchlist, which many others accepted and it got deleted. For those who are unaware of what Fundywatchlist was, I would like to elaborate, it was a page on wikipedia itself to discuss the ways to harass some users and POVise the pages in the name of cleaning and improvement. Members included were some Indian Admins, and a bunch of like minded users, who used to discuss whom to target and how to achieve their ends. It got deleted, and slowly the admins involved were shown the way out. However, these people started getting smarter, and found user:Yellowmonkey alias blnguyen, an American Vietnamese, as their mask. This guy was very popular among Indian circle and was acknowledged as good troubleshooter, though I always smelled something different. Hkelkar was in his good books, and once in a rv war on Kancha Ilaiah, article, where hkelkar was hell bent on writing a libellous term in lead, he went to the extent of not only protecting the page rv in his favor, but also shamelessly declared, "I have protected the page for you". After that Ben W Bells Dispute Resolution started, who neglected my request to remove the term first, saying he cannot unprotect the page protected by a different admin. Majority ruling made Hkelkar, the winner. No, actually He didn't win, I left the page forever, because everybody was against me there. Blnguyen wrote a note there, just below my unprotect request, "I didn't know it has stuck" However, what happened afterwards, is more interesting. I requested, checkuser on Hkelkar and tagged him as sockpuppeteer. Blnguyen, ritualistically, blocked me for bogus tagging - you can check my block log. and, lo, both checkuser and arbcom decision was in my favor. Since then blnguyen has never been shameless enough to look into my eyes. I could have raised finger on him during arbcom, though I dropped this idea later on, because one thing was evident Blnguyen was not a bad person, he was into bad company. Going through the talks above, I get the same feeling about many non-indian users here.

While going thru the article, I could find few anomalies. 1) Ahirs claim descent from Abhira of central Asia --- I have never read such a sentence anywhere else. If you are quoting jafferlot, he didn't use the word claim. If you are quoting Hiralal & Rusell, they are very much clear that Ahir is just a corruption of word abhira. From where this idea come s I would like to be educated. I find it rather funny, because you are saying they are claiming what they actually are and that too from central asia!!! I couldn't get the head and tail of it. Some indian languages still call them abhira. Translate this into one of them and sentence becomes Abhira claim descent from Abhira. What a nonesense! 2) Usage of word Yadavas, in one of the quotes, for present day Yadavs. Here, I have always said, both words are same and means the same thing. You are yourself using it interchangeably in the article. But why you are confusing the readers, by artificially creating two titles. You cannot adopt a convention which is not in sync with real life usage. Sanskrit word Krishna can also be written as Krsna with few dots above and below different alphabets, however, they are still same. If you want to differentiate, present day Yadvas from ancient ones, better tag it as scriptural or mythical. 3) Saying present day yadvas came into existence only after sanskritisation movement. Now tell me didn't British census record them as Ahir and gwal in different parts. Were they not Yaduvanshi before that?? Isn't it true that ancient sanskrit text, Amarkosa, calls Gopa, gwal and ballabha are Abhira synonym, and you still say they are a bunch of unrelated people. In fact we have many evidences for equating ahir with yadav and M.S.A. Rao summarizes them into two categories:1) Historical, and 2) semi-historical. I would like to learn why you keep on removing them. I didn't wrote, MSA Rao says this, because he is not the only one, so it was unnecessary. If you want you may dig deeper into earlier version of the article, it contains the link to snippet view of his statement too. 4) Too much emphasis on Jafferlot and completely ignoring, Nesfield & H.A. Rose.FYI, the later carries more weight than Jafferlot. Jafferlot is rather infamous for his (mis)understanding of Ahir-Yadav. His recent comment on Babulal Gaur's statement exposes him, where he says, "Babulal Gaur calls himself Ahir instead of yadav to flaunt his racial supremacy"

Some of you are eager to learn about this topic, you will get a lot of material from me, if you want. For the sake of knowledge, you may go through Ahir as Yadav section I had created, checking my last edit. They are condensed form of great works. You may google to get into details. All quotes are 100% genuine. You would love to know and dig deeper into this.

Good nite for now. If I get chance I would be active again in a day or two.

Ikon ^No-Blast 23:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

ikonoblast says "Some of you are eager to learn about this topic, you will get a lot of material from me, if you want." Please, do provide that information. I for one am not claiming to be "right", merely to be attempting to provide info within the bounds of what is almost certainly an imperfect environment of policies and guidelines. I am 100% sure that there are gaps in my knowledge/appreciation of the subject matter. I am also sure that the article does not cover the myriad of topic areas that could be relevant to the subject. We work with what we have available, in terms of sources, time, etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that Jaffrelot, a copy of which I have and a few chapters (colonial India) of which I have read, is a shabbily written book. It has the reluctant recommendation on the back cover of Nick Dirks, who has himself latterly become a sloppy and polemical writer. So, I don't know what that means. Jaffrelot is not a careful writer as someone like Susan Bayly or even William Pinch. I can't say much about his analysis of post-1947 India, as that is a period I don't know much about, but the pre-1947 material is an unremarkable, even poor, paraphrase of Pinch and Bayly. As for Ikonoblast's ponderous post above, it is ludicrous to compare Sitush and MatthewVannitas with Hkelkar (an infamous troll, an incomparable sockpuppeteer, and a Hindu nationalist POV pusher of historic proportions) and Bakasuperman (another extreme Hindu nationalist POVpusher). MV and Sitush are not even remotely in that league of misanthropes. Those days of Wikipedia are thankfully over. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I, too, am sometimes a little uneasy about Jaffrelot but at present he seems to tick the various WP:RS boxes, unless someone can prove him to be a fringe theorist. The paraphrase issue is one that has been raised previously somewhere but, of course, not all academic works involve original thought & without access to the majority of the sources which he cites etc it is impossible to form any more substantive position. At least he is not published by Gyan ;) If Bayly or Pinch deal with these issues also, and perhaps better, then we could always add them as supporting sources, which would neatly avoid any potential inference of academic plagiarism or whatever, and would still add to the article.

My real concern remains that this article is based heavily on just one aspect and that some of that probably needs forking to more specific articles. There must be more to the modern day Yadavs than just the environs of sanskritisation, but I can only work with what I have, sorry. Right now I am just easing myself back into the simpler tasks here and it will probably be another week or so before I am up to any serious debate. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Note

This article has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topicsMW ^ℳ 03:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

yadavs are chandravansh khastriyas

The golden book of India: a genealogical and biograhical dictionary By Sir Roper Lethbridge

in this book see page 138. It mentions yadavs as chandravash khastriyas. Majority of scholars agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truefact1979 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Lethbridge is a poor source but, regardless, the point is not that the claim is made but that there are diverging opinions. In such situations, we have to show those various opinions. We cannot just cherry-pick one and ignore the others. - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mt Siteush, here we should put facts which are more relevant to the context, instead of mentioning about other sources, please justify the credibility of those sources. Just because some sources are satisfying your ego, and your personal motivated plans, it does not give the content enough credibility to put it on wikipedia instead of someone elses content. You are simply getting emotional..Mr Sitush. Instead of doctoring the content here, see a good doctor if you can find one. 122.161.13.115 (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Go by what majority of users feel right

Majority of users feel that introduction needs correction. No single user can deceide. This is not a private article. Please change the introduction. There are lot of references provided in discussion. User Sitush is being biased and is indulging in unnecessary edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.192.2 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not tendentoious, eh MW? He's posted basically the same thing with almost every edit. In any case 8.18 Wikipedia is not a democracy. If you want information added, you have to make a case for such based on Wikipedia policies like WP:V. It doesn't much appear that anybody besides the Yadavs firmly believes their descent from Yadu, so it seems fine to have it in the Legendary section. I would argue that their political role and traditional position are more important to have in the (rather short) lede than that. I wouldn't mind having Kshatriya claims there so long as we had the context about how it's a Sanskritisation strategy (amply covered below), but whenever we nuanced "Kshatriya" folks got upset about the nuance, and now you're upset about not having it in the lede at all. So is the only "satisfactory" result for people overall to have "Kshatriya" prominently in the lede with no question as to its veracity? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, WP:LEAD says that citations are not needed unless the information isn't cited down below in the text....however, having said that, it is allowed to duplicate the cites in the lead and the body. Will that satisfy "everyone"? Actually let me ask that a different way: could 8.18 (or whoever it is that doesn't like the lead) please propose a specific, alternative lead, or specific changes that are sourced in either the text or the article? Finally, I wish people would stop blaming Sitush for this--he was not the only editor that reduced the size of the lead.

Ugh, after looking at it, and the history, I am inclined to agree that the lead is too short, given the length of the article...Let me go read the whole article and see if I can boldly expand the lead. Not sure, one moment. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made a major expansion of the lead to better summarize the article. I'm sure it's imperfect (I tend to be a bit wordy and use sentences that are have unnecessarily complicated grammar when writing these types of passages). The big thing I noticed is that this article spends an awful lot of time on status issues. It would be great to have some demographic info (I know that official censuses aren't taken, but presumably some of the articles must have some details on either approximate numbers, economic power, number in political offices, etc.), more specifics on locations, etc. But, I think my revised lead at least better reflects what is in the article right now. Of course, I welcome changes, modifications, reversals, etc. (though, of course, major reverts should be accompanied with explanation here). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, WP:LEAD says that citations are not needed unless the information isn't cited down below in the text... This is a false claim.-MW ^ℳ 01:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my over-simplified summary; they're not necessary, but they can be used if the information may be challenged. Do you like the lead as written now? If so, let me know which parts you think are challengeable, and I'll be happy to duplicate cites from the main text in the lead; with list-defined refs, it won't take me all that long; I'm about to leave for an extended period, so it may be upwards of 24 or more hours before I get back to this, but, like I say, I'm happy to add the cites when I return. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not in the mood to challange any material in the article right now. However, I think the varna issue needs no mention in the lead. The varna thing is irrelevant in the present Indian reality. It is only the OBC (Other Backward Class)/ SC (Scheduled Caste)/ ST (Scheduled Tribe) etc. which is relevant in the present reality. IMO, talking about varna in the lead is unnecessary and undue, and is in contradiction with reality.-MW ^ℳ 02:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

MW, you have an extremely bad habit of kvetching about "rubbish sources" and then failing to actually get into any details. If you're "not in the mood" or "don't have time" to even explain your strident objections, then keep your peace. Either list out at least a couple "misquoted", "in passing", "rubbish" or otherwise unsuitable refs, and clearly explain why they're unsuitable, or desist from your opining. It is not in the slightest constructive to express displeasure without ever explaining why beyond incredibly generic explanations like "amateur", "endemic bias", etc. By alleging "endemic bias" and then failing to follow through with an articulate explanation, you discredit the whole (very valid) concept. Are you familiar with the story of "the boy who cried wolf"? Though while we're sharing cultural features, could you tell us what "palikuluing" is and where the expression comes from? Genuinely curious, I always like learning new words. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You had asked me to show problems in this article and I had shown three problems. One of those sources was a misrepresentation and it has also been removed from the article. Among the other two, one is a lawyer. i.e. amateur. The other is a reporter and is writing in a paper about economic issues etc. This source is also an amateur and cannot be relied to provide any trustworthy info about the behavioral traits of a caste. He certainly did no scientific study of behavioral traits. This source is also being misrepresent in the sense that he goes on to say several things which would portray Yadavs in a favorable light and critiques those who mock at Yadavs. But all of that part is being glossed over and only the negative part is being noted in the article. That sources' view is much more complex than that. So, the source is being misrepresented in a grotesque manner. We do not even know completely what the news reporter say because we cannot see the whole text of what the source says. I doubt if the ed who inserted that source has read the full text of that source. It is very much possible that the source may have gone on to arrive at a conclusion which would be opposite of what the source is being made to say. I am not pressing on the sourcing issues much because following through is unlikely to improve the situation in the slightest. In the thread in which I mentioned these issues, my point was that the article should not be locked for an extended period, and should be reasonably free for editing. So, it is unreasonable to expect me to also go on to do other things (correct sourcing mistakes in the article). It is beyond the scope of what I was trying to do there. What I am saying is not just blah blah. You can already see that at least one of those problems has been fixed. The other two examples are also valid objections. Both are amateur sources, and the last one is being misrepresented, and (seemingly) from incomplete knowledge of what the source says. "Palikuluing" ≈ "something which could/would drive people into a state of apoplexy". It is a slang which some of my friends use. It is not a regular expression, but the meaning should be obvious from the context and the sound of that expression.MW ^ℳ 06:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Referring to MW's concerns about varna in the lead...it's there because, basically, that's all this article talks about. The lead has to summarize the article, and this article is mostly about how the status (varna and otherwise) has changed over time. If someone adds something else to the article, I'll be happy to include that info in the lead, and even change the balance to pull stuff out to keep the lead accurately in balance with the article. I'm not able to do the primary research here (or anywhere else) to improve the body because I don't have access to a research library or online academic journals (I live in Japan, but can only read a little Japanese, so public libraries don't help me). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you actually specify which cites you're concerned about, and a bit of which text they're citing? At some point earlier you mentioned a couple numbers, but the numbers change as the article develops. Rather than say "one is a lawyer", how about stating the name of the source? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

MW did provide a diff. One of those has now been removed (Jaffrelot, since it is cited in the body anyway & was therefore redundant). Another was a query re: whether Gadkari is a professor, in relation to "Using "very broad generalisations", Jayant Gadkari says that it is "almost certain" from analysis of the Puranas that Andhaka, Vrishni, Satvatas and Abhira were collectively known as Yadavas and worshipped Krishna. Gadkari further notes of these ancient works that "It is beyond dispute that each of the Puranas consists of legends and myths ... but what is important is that, within that framework [a] certain value system is propounded"

The final one MW mentioned was the Gupta quote about image, which is from a periodical hosted by JSTOR and quoted by Jaffrelot. Of the three, this is the weakest but only because it is an opinion - Gupta is a well known writer, the periodical is respected etc & the reason for inclusion was that it ties in with the earlier opinion of Russell and Lal. There are countless similar descriptions but I guess that this is to be expected: Yadavs will write in glowing terms about themselves and a lot of other people will write the opposite. The reputation for thuggery & criminality is well documented but whether they are better or worse in this respect than any other community is always like to be subjective. Don't forget that the Maoist issue/political violence for which they are known needs to be reinstated in some form and that also ties into the opinion pieces. Is every Yadav a thug? Of course not. Is it a common perception of the community? Well, it certainly seems to be. It is probably a case of a few bad apples tainting the crop but, hey, we can only show what is said/we cannot speculate. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Is every Yadav a thug? Of course not. Is it a common perception of the community? Well, it certainly seems to be. "WP is not censored" is not meant to be used as a license to insert defamatory material on anyone. And "WP is not censored", would not get you over any other policy based objections. I have known only narrow minded colonial racist britishers to attribute criminality on the basis of caste etc. Such practices are universally detested now. Don't try to use WP article space for spreading such deplorable perceptions please. Thanks.-MW ^ℳ 01:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not a "narrow minded colonial racist britisher". And the quote comes from someone whom I do not think it British, and is quoted by a mainstream, respected academic who is definitely not British. The Russel/Lal description may possibly fit the profile which you suggest, but the Gupta quote & the person who has inserted these points into the articles do not. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we could easily convert that quotation into a paraphrase....hmmm...how about "Gupta said in 1992 that in Bihar the Yadavs are negatively stereotyped in a variety of ways." That way, we get the message across, without having to repeat the actual negative stereotypes themselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious that it is not you, and I am also not talking about any particular source now. The colony thing is no more. So, nobody in the present times could be a colonist. I was talking about the colonists who used to characterize certain tribes or communities as "criminal castes" etc. during historical colonial times when India was a colony.-MW ^ℳ 13:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, as the quote and the quoter make clear, MW, what you have known is not necessarily how it really is. Such statements are still made. I am happy with paraphrasing, if only because the article has too many quotes, but it would be great if we adopted a similar approach elsewhere to the generalised descriptions of a caste as being, for example, "light-skinned with a good bone structure and pleasant manner, trustworthy and hardworking". The latter type of description appears far too often: we never read of the pock-marked members, the diseased, the disabled, the lazy, the liars etc because it does not show the community in a good light. No surprises there, then, although of course such people exist in all communities. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that you also challenged various sources used here at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Truefact1979_reported_by_User:Sitush_.28Result:_4_days.29. You claim misrepresentation and/or synthesis of Jaffrelot, and yet again raised the issue of citations in the lead. I realise that DougWeller told you that all that your comments demonstrated was a lack of understanding of WP:V and WP:3RR but if you do feel that Jaffrelot is being synthesised/misrepresented then please can you explain why here. That way, those involved with the article can assess the situation, since it seems likely that DougWeller's point was a more general one. Of course, the Jaffrelot content still exists, although not in the lead, & thus it is important that you concerns about synth etc are resolved. The citation issue is a non-starter, however: these are not contentious issues but rather appear so because of the repetitive socking that goes on here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I was not challenging any sources there. I was trying to make some other point. If I want to challenge some source in this article, I would do it here and would let you know about it clearly. That source was in the lead and it is there no more. The sentence which it was supposed to support/notsupport is also gone. So, discussing it is redundant.

Lots of folks interpret the same policies in lots of different ways. For example, in the ANI which I had brought against you, Boing!SaidZebedee had interpreted the 3RR in some particular way, but other admins disagreed. Lots of people keep saying that the lead and the infobox do not need citations or "citation needed" tags etc. or whatever, and I do not agree. It is not necessary that I must agree with someone else's interpretation of WP:V. I hold that WP:V is applicable to all parts of the article and whether something is in the lead/ tail/ stomach of the article makes no difference to its applicability on content. I am going to continue to hold this view, and if I see something dubious anywhere in the article, I reserve the right to challenge it/ take it down per WP:V, regardless of the position of the material. Thanks.MW ^ℳ 12:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Lawyering again. Well done. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, is there anything currently in the article to which you object? Stop the lawyering, procrastination and piggy-backing on the comments of less savvy contributors and obvious socks: just tell us, now. If I make mistakes (and I do) then I apologise, as any decent person would do, To the best of my knowledge, the same admission of fallibility applies to MatthewVanitas, although it does not apply to all contributors to this talk page or elsewhere - some indeed have never accepted being wrong despite clear consensus. Nothing is going to get sorted if you hold off with any issues that you may have regarding the content as it stands and, indeed, your approach seems to me actually to create antagonistic situations. Say what you think about the article and its sourcing, try actually contributing to the article, and resist the temptation to revolve the vast majority of your comments around issues of policy-based semantics. You have much to offer but your approach is frustrating. So, please list the issues (if any) and then we'll all be pulling together in an attempt to improve knowledge. If you cannot list any issues based on current content then it is reasonable to suppose that you accept the content, especially since you clearly have time to contribute elsewhere. No rush: take a few days over it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder, on what basis the statement is been made, that yadavs are percieved to be thug in general. Even britishers never mentioned

about Yadavs/Ahirs while listing the criminal tribes. Please enlighten yourself from wiki page Criminal_Tribes_Act.

India is a country, where few talkactive people endup saying/writing too much about something which not even stakeholder cares, but some point in future someone else comes and try to prove it as history of india...what a disgusting way of making(in reality it is doctoring) history in india, where 80% population not even care of these things, but busy meeting end-day meal. 122.161.13.115 (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to removing the infobox?

As we've discussed on WP:INDIA, most caste infoboxes are either full of contentious information presented in a terribly over-simplified fashion, or so vague as to be unhelpful and add no value over the lede. I submit this article's infobox is one of the latter. Given that most everything in the box is either explicit in the lede, or is not substantiated by the article body, are there any objections against removing the infobox, and ideally replacing it with a good historical photo of a typical (not famous) Yadav individual? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Since I generally have issues with infoboxes in caste articles, I tend to agree that this one is not necessary. I am unsure whether all the points mentioned are in fact covered in the article body but adopt the position that any which are not do indeed fall into the over-simplified/vague/unverifiable/OR type of category. So, feel free. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, bag the boxes. They are useless. In fact, I would propose (if anyone cares to listen) that most infoboxes on most Wikipedia pages are useless (and should be replaced with images). Moreover, because they can be in effect a form of pithy sloganeering, they are fiddled with by every one looking for their moment in the spotlight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine either way; I think that caste infoboxes have a potential to be useful, but they are so rarely used properly, that they're not necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Will remove on 30th September, failing any substantive objections. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

please correct the article. The article needs more info

Till the 15 th century there were yadav dynasties ruling in India.

---

Students' Britannica India, Volumes 1-5

By Encyclopaedia Britannica (India)   page 287 , page 288

http://books.google.com/books?id=DPP7O3nb3g0C&pg=PA287&dq=YADAV+dynasty&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Publisher – Encyclopedia Britannica ( India ) Private Limited. This is an academic source.

In page 287 the article mentions that Yadava dynasty ruled parts of India. This clearly mentions that Yadavs were not only cow herds but were rulers too in 15 th century.

YEAR 2000

---

Architecture in Dharwar and Mysore: historical and descriptive memoir

By colonel Meadows Taylor

Publisher Asian Educational Services

http://books.google.com/books?id=u9mS8IbSyu0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=yadava&f=false

Page 5, 8, 10

Year 1989

---

http://www.textbooksonline.tn.nic.in/Books/11/Std11-Hist-EM.pdf

page 181 mentions that yadava dynasty was destroyed by Allauddin Khalji. This academic source published by the state government of India ( State – Tamil Nadu ) clearly states that yadava dynasty was ruling some parts of India. This definitely needs to be mentioned in the article.

there were many yadavs who ruled in various parts of india till late 15 th century. This needs to be mentioned.

The above articles evidence proves that sanskritization is not a valid theory since yadavs were rulers till 15th century.

please put the right information in the article.

the sources provided are valid academic sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.13.17 (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please take a read through the archives of this talk page (linked at the top of the Talk); these issues have been discussed at length before. Fundamentally, the concern is that the linkage between the medieval Yadava dynasties and the modern Yadav caste is unclear, and if we cannot find a clearly-documented linkage, that it would be incorrect to say that the two are related simply because they claim a similar descent. If you have reputable sources clearly indicating that the modern Yadav caste is related to the Yadav dynasties, please do present those. I believe in the past on Talk folks were relatively sure that the "Yadavas of Devagiri" were unrelated to the modern Yadavas, but again I'd be happy to see sources saying otherwise. Fundamentally, the fact that the same name was used at two different points in time separated by 500+ years is not enough to presume a connection between these communities. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

mathhew vanitas, buddy we dont even have any proof of they being the medival yadavas...do we??? pls gv us the source if u guys hv those.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarrana (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If I had such a source, I'd definitely add it, but in the meantime I'm not aware of a connection. The article as it stands now is mainly about "the Ahir and other pastoralists starting calling themselves Yadav during the late Raj and formed political movements. We don't really have any data in the article at the moment linking this movement to the medieval Yadavs (and even post-medieval scattered groups of folks who called themselves Yadav/Yadava/Yaduvanshi); there may be a connection, there may not be, but if there is one we need solid evidence. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proof of yadav as rulers and kings

Even in 17th and 18th century there were minor YADAV kings and rulers in princely states of india.

No one has been able to prove that the Yadavs are not related to ancient chandravansh kings. and there is no proof vice versa too. but many academics agree that yadavs are chandravansh but also some dont agree.

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2007/02/25/stories/2007022500310700.htm

para 1

clearly mentions yadavs are ancient aryans

---

http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2709/stories/20100507270906400.htm para 4

---

History of Sikh Gurus Retold: 1606-1708 C.E By Surjit Singh Gandhi http://books.google.com/books?id=vZFBp89UInUC&pg=PA588&dq=YADAV++kshatriya&hl=en#v=onepage&q=YADAV%20%20kshatriya&f=false

---

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 9

By Royal Asiatic Society of Bombay, Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Bombay Branch

http://books.google.com/books?id=yajAG0tbZ9cC&pg=PR206&dq=YADAV+dynasty&hl=en#v=onepage&q=yadava&f=false

page 322, 221, , 328

Published : London : - Trubner and Co.

This is a great academic source.

Kindly correct the article. There is enough material to link yadavs were also rulers and kings. and in the same talk/discussion so many users have agreed that Yadavs are not only cowherds but were once powerfull rulers. Kindly go through these material and correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.13.17 (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind if I reformat your request into a smoother format for you? There's an easier way to display it if you don't mind.

• 1) The Hindu: Timeless ritual -Significantly, the dominant clan here was not any of the martial Rajputs, but powerful herds-people: the canny Yadavs. One of the great Yadav chieftains was Lord Krishna. - Not RS as it is an Arts article about a religious play, so the writers are observing a ritual, not commenting on the historiocity of the event, nor of its proven connections to modern movements (particularly those which specifically seek to tap into this legendary history).
• 2) The Hindu: Fort full of life - In 1156 A.D., Rawal Jaisal, a descendant of the Yadav clan and a Bhatti Rajput, is said to have abandoned his fort at Lodurva, about 18 kilometres away, and, on the advice of a local hermit, founded the new fort and capital of Jaisalmer. Again, it's a Local Interest piece by a non-historian which mentions the backstory of a given fort. Further, it draws no connection between this medieval Yadav figure and the modern Yadav caste.
• 3) History of Sikh Gurus Retold: 1606-1708 C.E. By Surjit Singh Gandhi - Names just one person as a "Yadav Kshatriya". Again, no particular evidence that all Yadavs are kshatriya, nor that this Yadav person has anything to do with the modern Yadav caste.
• 4) Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 9 By Asiatic Society of Bombay, Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Bombay Branch - Again, all this does is mention that there were ancient kings called "Yadavs". It says nothing whatsoever about their having any connection to the modern Yadav caste.

• Look, everyone agrees there were various people at various points in Indian history who claimed descent from Yadu, and thus claimed the title of Chandravanshi Kshatriya. No argument there. This article, however, is about the modern "Yadav caste", which as best as we can tell so far is a grouping of the Ahir and other herder castes who began calling themselves "Yadav" in the last century and a half or thereabouts. To draw a parallel, if there is a family living in Texas by the last name of "Lionheart", can we just assume that they are descended from the medieval King Richard Lionheart of England, and spend a chunk of the article about "Lionheart family" covering an ancient king of similar name, with no particular evidence as to a connection? All the more so if we note that the family began calling itself "Lionheart" rather than "Smith" in the 1700s while living in Boston. Do you see our situation here? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Lets take the same example given by you. If some one has a last name "Lionheart" living in Texas and they claim themselves as related to "Lionheart of England". The only way to proove it is to take a DNA test or go by government records. It is very well possible they are related Now lets go to our discussion YADAV. All yadavs claim descent from Yadu. and the meaning of the word YADAV is descendant of Yadu. To prove this doing a DNA test does not look practical now. but if you go by government records even in 18th and 19th century there were yadavs who were rich landlords, thakurs and rulers of small princely states in India. The government record provided in the discussion has been ooverlooked. Some yadavs are cowherds and some are rulers/rich landlords even in 17, 18, 19th centuries. The article definitely needs correction. I believe a rational thinking will definitely prove that yadavs and ancient yadavas are one and the same. There is conscious attempt to discredit the Yadav community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.13.17 (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

what is the motive???

i dont understand what you guys are bickering about?? are you here for improving the article or defaming the yadav caste....?? i mean everyone has skeletons in the closet....so instead of mentioning the wrong things out here be rational about your edits..yadavs are cattle raisers??? i mean what you expected people some 200 years bck? drive a lemo????.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.211.39 (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Being cattle raisers is hardly a "skeleton in the closet" but even if it were, Wikipedia is not censored. It was an occupation and it applied to the Yadavs, so it is not "wrong" to mention it either. There were plenty of other occupations and so it is worthwhile noting what they were rather than what they were not - it makes for a shorter article :) For example, they were not generally perceived as being fishermen, sailors, barbers, minstrels, temple servants ... the list of what they generally were not is endless. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Individuals like User:Sitush do not want to go through google to search and do read about the yadav community. They are more happy quoted a fact the yadav are cattle herder..though when same Sitush will go and read bible, he will see every great philosper in history was influenced by people revolving around sheepherd's and cowherd's community. In History live stock management was biggest business since the time, when farming was not even started. But then probably putting thing in right and healthy perspective, some individual including Sitush simply enjoy the freedom WP provides, in terms of putting controversial content in more controvertial and offending manner to prove something which actually nobody care today, but will be used as truth in future, just becuase nobody objected such things in first place, as the stakeholders of this discussion, the most of yadav community, itself is busy doing things to make thier life and this planet a better place. 122.161.13.115 (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

IP, all you have done in your first edits is complain and make accusations about other editors. I would suggest that you desist from attacking others' competence without a clear, documented argument, and also suggest that rather than simply complain, that you come to Talk with examples of properly sourced material you would like to see added to the article, or to replace incorrect text. If you don't have evidence from reliable sources (and your posts seem to indicate you are concerned about sourcing) then you simply don't have an argument. Please "light a single candle" rather than simply "curse the darkness". MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahir-Yadava Connection

Hi to all It is sad to see so much of talk page wasted on a single point. People don't understand the problem and people have also failed to communicate the problem to users who are just schoolboys. Many of them are simply not aware that prior to being named yadav they were registered as Ahir in british census. so, instead of bringing yadava rulers of the past they need to show Ahir Yadava connection. Here is MSA Rao's statement on the subject-"Historical & Semihistorical Evidences are available for equating Ahir with Yadava." [1]. Boys you will do a great job if you just google, all the stuffs I had added in Ahir as Yadava section.

One important observation in this regard is All historical yadavas found till date has been traced to abhira ancestry. historical Yadavas story bigins with Trikuta(800AD), who were Abhira. There is a very long gap between Yadavas of mythical era and those historians have traced so this would always be a matter of debate, and this has nothing to do with the arrival date of Abhira, because most of Hindu scriptures including Mahabharata has been written between 6th and 8th century AD, and are suspected to be backward projection.

One important fact regarding Yadavas is that, though it means descent from Yadu, actually it means claiming Krishna lineage. Cult of krishna has no eveidence of existence before the beginning of the Christian era. so, dynasties had actually two kinds of claim, one from Krishna the God of Abhira, and another from Krishna the hero of Mahabharata. Again those who have adopted Krishna of Mahabharata did so only after it was written. These people are suspected to have styled on that line. There are Scholars(Check Rusell,B.V.) who believe Krishna of mahabharata is actually a cunning cruft of Brahmanas,and episodes related to him in Mahabharata are actually later days interpolations, done after stealing the god and philosophy of abhira tribe. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you see any more of the Rao page(s) aside from the snippet that you refer to? - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference provided by IKON is a good one. It can definitely be used to correct/edit the article. Please consider the reference and make changes accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

IP 67.x, please, will you provide something concrete instead of this constant noise about things needing to be changed? Continually "bleating" will not achieve anything other than possibly generate frustration: it is counter-productive. What we need is decent leads to follow, and there is a sniff of one with the Rao quotation but it does need to be examined in context. Can you see any more of the Rao source, around the pages that Ikonoblast cited? I presume that you can, given your enthusiastic support for it. I am happy to look into it but can only see a snippet view here. - Sitush (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have requested the book from my local library, which will get it from University holdings. It will probably take several days to arrive, and then I will examine the pages in question and we can get fuller context.JanetteDoe (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That's great, JanetteDoe. Ikonoblast & IP, if you have any other sources of the general quality ascribed to Rao then it would be appreciated if you could point them out. On an issue as contentious as this one, it is desirable to have several otherwise we could end up with a statement along the lines of "many think X but one thinks Y". We are bound to present all reliably sourced opinions, and to reflect them in a way that provides due weight. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is not at all a contentious issue. Don't go by the talk page comments. If you have facts to the contrary you should present them. There are other authors who explicitly says this. They are reputed too. They tick all the boxes of WP:RS. But, they are themselves Yadavs, and others don't have the reputation Rao enjoys. So, I am not sure if i should use those sources. However, you should present something if you think, people have stated anything contrary. In fact, MSA Rao merely compiles what Bhandarkar and others have already established. You should have a look into the deleted Ahirs as Yadav section. This will clear a lot of your doubts. I am interested in bringing back the entire section and not just a statement. This topic exists as a subject and should contain all the arguments by different scholars, going into finer points of this aspect. Ikon ^No-Blast 09:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That section was deleted for a reason, and you were blocked. I am not revisiting it. If you have decent sources then let's go through them here. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Nobody told me I was blocked for adding that section!! What was wrong with that? You say it was deleted for a reason, but for what Reason?? I have already shown you MSA Rao too presents similar facts and argues on similar lines, so you should now stop objecting to it. Ikon ^No-Blast 09:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

:Look, you need to discuss this because the very fact that the section was deleted means that it is controversial. So come up with your evidence, please. One source is rarely sufficient for verification of controversial issues, and especially not when the content of that source is at present uncertain. I am not getting into a long, pointless tangential discussion with you because I know exactly where that will end up, ie: another block. I would rather not see people commit a form of Wikipedia suicide. So, let's start over with decent sources & examination here, please. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

the very fact that the section was deleted means that it is controversial --- I would like to hear from other wikipedians, if they share similar views. Also, we need to think about a guy saying he would examine the context and take his own sweet time. Are we here to wait for every X,Y & Z. Finally, you are advised to stop issuing block threats, it might have worked on others, but may prove otherwise this time. Take care! Ikon ^No-Blast 09:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you certainly do not need to wait for me to obtain a copy of this book. You are welcome to obtain and transcribe a copy yourself. As I presume that you simply did not think of this option, I will take as a given your appreciation for my suggestion. JanetteDoe (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not threaten, and here on Wikipedia there is no deadline. Now, what is your problem with actually discussing the sources? We will all benefit from a rational discussion.

As an opener: there appear to be reliable sources, such as Jaffrelot, who claim that the Yadavs comprise numerous communities. If we accept these sources as being correct, how can it be possible that all Yadavs are Ahirs? Given this logical problem, my assumption has to be that you regard those sources to be in fact incorrect. It is perfectly ok for you to hold that view but you will need to support it and unless you can prove that Jaffrelot etc are not reliable then the outcome must surely be that we present the various points of view. Your thoughts here would be welcome. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My dear Friend, I never said Jafferlot is not correct. He is in fact notable for his keen observation on various social movements. It is you who have misunderstood him. Don't Jews exists as various communities around the world. Are Muslims not known by different names like Mohammedan, musalman etc., You should check British records, where it explicitly says, People who were recorded as Ahir and Gwal in the census would now onwards be recognised as Yadav for all official purposes. So, it is very simple, if you have reasons to believe that Ahir and gwal is same thing, then you have no reason to believe, they are not related to each other, provided the fact Ahir means Abhira and Gwal too means the same. There was point to point discussion on Jaferlot's citation itself on Talk:Kshatriya, few years back, if you want I am willing to do that again. I am willing to allow you present his argument in that section itself, but don't blaim me If he sounds funny, given other facts there. If that is the concern you have then no person of integrity can help you Ikon ^No-Blast 10:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

One more concern raised, "there are many other communities who tooo..... Yadava decent." I hear this again and again from few wikipedians, but they never tell who are they. i know, Rajput Yadavs are there and South Indian yadavas are there. Asa far as Rajputs are concerned they are confirmed Ahirs. But who are these other groups about whom these ppl. talk and we never get who they are... Ikon ^No-Blast 10:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop posturing and let's see your evidence, without wandering off into the irrelevancies of other communities such as the Jews. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, Bull fighting is not my Fav. sport. I am awaiting response from others. Ikon ^No-Blast 10:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how about this "other"? Evidence, please. You're making a lot of analogies, claims about what "everyone" knows, etc. I don't see you providing evidence (the type WP considers reliable) beyond the one book that JanetteDoe is currently waiting to examine. You can't just say something isn't contentious and then lay the burden on other editors. State exactly and concretely what you want to add, along with the sources that you think verify that claim. Very simple. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You're making a lot of analogies, claims about what "everyone" knows, etc. Am I??? If you are saying this regarding my statement on jews, Muslims etc., that was just to galvanise your thinking. am I trying to throw some conclusions on you??? No. I am rather asking you to write what Jafferlot says. in Fact many sentences in the article are not from refs. Did you notice that??? e.g' Ahirs clim decent from Abhira of central asia. Ikon ^No-Blast 11:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't just say something isn't contentious and then lay the burden on other editors. - Sorry, If you feel something is contentious, You need to show it. why you are saying I should prove Something is Not Contentious. Is it some kind of Wikipedia Policy, that everything I bring, I should be able to prove, it is Non-contentious. Ikon ^No-Blast 11:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll rephrase, because maybe I'm just not understanding: could you please state exactly what it is that you want to add to the article, and exactly what sources that suggested addition is based on? Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I've never said, i am going to add anything into this article. I was just looking for consensus on this issue. I may have some view, you may have another. No problem with that. however, the way Sitush has reacted, it looks like he is very afraid of getting the table turned on him, and would go to any extent (or level?) to protect a particular POV . But why?? I wanted MV's comment here. It was he who had raised my hope. Ikon ^No-Blast 13:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's try a different angle. What is it that you think Jaffrelot says? You appear to be suggesting that Jaffrelot has been misrepresented in this article. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Its a fact that AHIR and YADAV are used interchangeably. They are one and the same. All Ahirs are yadavs. and as mentioned above a person having YADAV in his name belongs to the YADAV community and all of them claim the same lineage. In India there are various languages/dialects so AHIR has various variations.

In the book “People of India: Rajasthan, Part 1 by K S Singh page 44 it clearly mentions that AHIR and YADAV are synonyms. It also mentions about AHIR kings. This could be taken as one of proofs that AHIR/YADAV were also kings in certain regions. People of India: Rajasthan, Part 1 http://books.google.com/books?id=nqvloPNdEZgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=people+of+india+rajasthan&hl=en#v=onepage&q=ahir&f=false

In the book “Martial races of undivided India” by Vidya Prakash Tyagi page 185 it clearly states that AHIR and Yadav are interchangeably. It also talks about AHIR/YADAV general/rulers no just cow herds. Martial races of undivided INDIA by Vidya prakash tyagi http://books.google.com/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA194&dq=AHIRS+YADAV&hl=en#v=snippet&q=abhira%20yadav&f=false

In the book “The Tamils eighteen hundred years ago” by By V. Kanakasabhai page 57 also mentions that Ahir are known as AYAR in Tamilnadu ( a state in India ). Also it states that they used to have their own kings. http://books.google.com/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA194&dq=AHIRS+YADAV&hl=en#v=snippet&q=abhira%20yadav&f=false

There is enough reference provided to correct the article and include about the various YADAV dynasties. please be rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sutradhari, I don't think that the issue being raised by Ikonoblast is whether all "Ahirs are Yadavs" but rather whether all Yadavs are Ahirs. Tyagi's book, by the way, is not a reliable source- Sitush (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me first focus on your own sentence"Jafferlot says Yadavas consist of numerous communities, how can ....". Jafferlot is not the only one, MSA RAO too says it, JNS Yadav too. Prior to being called YADAV, they were all recognised as Ahirs, in british census. So, you may say, Ahirs consist of many communities! There are several divisions within them which are broadly called Yadu, Nanda & Gwal. People of one region never met another in known time. They had little interaction with each other, but still they are all ahirs and has been recognised as such without any break of continuity. Jafferlot never meant there is some non ahir group within Yadav. In fact no scholar till date has said so. So from where your interpretation that he means these numerous communities are not ahir come from, ask Yourself. If you mean Gwal(with different corrupted or regional forms) are different from Ahirs, because the term hadn't been in much use in the eastern part, though Jafferlot doesn't say this, you should read Bhandarkar's argument carefully. Bhandarkar argues, abhira is the synonym of Gwal, mentioned in sanskrit text Amarkosa, so both are same. However, here scholars differ, and Russell, RV's conjecture comes into picture, who claims Abhira merged with preexisting Gwals of India and hence Amarkosa treats it as synonym. This conjecture does explain the sudden spread of Abhira within A very short span of time to far off places from west like Nepal, if they were outsiders. However, there is a flaw in his assumption, pointed out by Ghurye(actully adresses Bhandarkar and not Russell), Abhira has actually got mentioned much before in some sanskrit text(Patanjali), so his assumption is incorrect. Some of you have started Abhira Tribe article, this sounds dubious to me- How you are going to identify True Abhira(If you adhere to Russell's view), because Puranas treated both as Abhira only, including the Gopala dynasty of Nepal known as Abhira-Guptas, given the chemistry between the two(or same?) is unknown.

If you know of any other group within your numerous argument, kindly inform me, because I don't know it exists. Coming again to Jafferlot. He focuses very well on the contemporary dynamics, however, his vision does not go far into past, if it does not seem to impact the state of development. His utterances regarding origin and chemistry of a group should be regarded as fringe, because he is clearly not careful enough. Ikon ^No-Blast 19:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I can only see Rao in snippet view but a copy is on its way to JanetteDoe, as you are aware. Rao and Yadav may say the same as Jaffrelot. So what? Does that make the article wrong?

You seem to be saying that the other groups listed as examples by Jaffrelot were not recorded under those names in the censuses but rather as Ahir. If this mattered then why does he (and, according to you, other academics) distinguish them? Contrary to what you suggest - "Jaffrelot never meant there is some non ahir group within Yadav" - the quotation of him in the article quite specifically distinguishes the groups. As far as what is said by Bhandarkar & Russell, please show me where they say what ever it is you are claiming. There is a slight whiff of synthesis here but I could be smelling things wrong. In any event, I am happy to read what they say & compare with your interpretation. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ikonoblast, if you're not recommending that a change be made to the article, then I'm going to close this section as resolved, because the only thing this page may be used for is discussions about improving the article. It's not a place to generally debate the scholarly work of sources we site. If you think something is wrong in the article, state it, and what you want to change it to. Same if you want to add something or just remove something. If you aren't pursuing any of these goals, then this discussion is over. I'll give you a chance to respond first before I close this, because, again, I'm afraid I'm misunderstanding you somehow. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be changed based on MSA Rao books. It has proven beyond that there is so many information missing in the article about the various YADAV dyansties, AHIR rulers and many more. IKON please correct the article with the information from MSA Rao books. Why is the MSA Rao book not beind considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If wikipedia is about articles with reliable source then why is the article not corrected based on MSA Raos book. This article should be opened for editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Once JanetteDoe has the book and a chance to review it, if it's as good as it sounds, it does seem like we should add that info to the article. We need actually know what the source says, though, before we do that. However, this article will not be "based" on the Rao books--we never base an article on only one source/author unless the topic is very narrow and has only been discussed by that one person (which is clearly not the case for the Yadav). WP:NPOV says we represent all views found in reliable sources, not just pick the one source/set of sources we think is best. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Bingo finally. If the article is purely about YADAVS. Then include all the information about YADAVs. That is yadav dynasties and marata generals with Yadav surname. Because they were all Yadavs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You would need to provide a reliable source that states that Yadav name is used only by Yadavs if we are to avoid issues regarding original research and synthesis. Somehow, I doubt you will find one. An analogous example is people who claim that all people named "Nair" are Nairs, conveniently ignoring the thousands of people in Scotland & elsewhere who bear that name and are not remotely related to any Indian community. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yadav name is only used by YADAVS in India and meaning of the word is descendant of Yadu ( there is no question on that ). If the article is about YADAV then it needs to mention about YADAV ,,that is fact from so many of books referenced in the discussion. Not one user will disagree to the fact that YADAV name is only used by YADAV community. any how "people of India: Rajasthan, part 1" mentions clearly that in Rajasthan YADAV and AHIR are the same. It also mentions about AHIR dynasties. why is that not being considered. Wikipedia: relaible source is being ignored clearly.

People of India: Rajasthan, Part 1 http://books.google.com/books?id=nqvloPNdEZgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=people+of+india+rajasthan&hl=en#v=onepage&q=ahir&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

IP, you are repeating yourself and introducing nothing new. This has been discussed before and also in this thread. I do not propose to continue it further unless you find new, reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a reliable source which mentions about Ahir King and also mentions that Yadav and Ahir are one and the same in Rajasthan ( state of India ). These are valuable references which should not be ignored. Please let me know which policy of wikipedia is being violated. The source People of India: Rajasthan, Part 1 http://books.google.com/books?id=nqvloPNdEZgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=people+of+india+rajasthan&hl=en#v=onepage&q=ahir&f=false clearly follows Wikipedia: relaible source. It clearly satisfies WP: Reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A book published by Anthropological survey of india is a reliable source. It is part of the Government of India. This is a extremely reliable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Those have been discussed previously. I am ignoring any future comments from you in this thread unless it is evident that you have checked this talk page and its archives. Sorry, but a line has to be drawn somewhere because this state of affairs keeps getting dragged up and is rather like a broken record. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source is provided and it definitely satisfies the WIKIPEDIA:RELIABLE SOURCE. Still its ignored. That really funny. Simple question why are sources inline with Wikipedia policy ignored. Why is false information being put in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This section is done. If you refuse to collapse it, I guess the only thing Sitush and I can do is to simply ignore what is written here. It's not our fault if y'all won't actually, you know, actually follow WP:TPG. Ikonoblast, you know what you need to do, and IP, you know that repeating the same things over and over again isn't going to change what's in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

IP has surely been repetitive, and I would recommend you sd transfer the content in such cases to their own talk pages. However, I and Sitush were on the verge of breaking the ice. Let us understand each other. I don't think I have been that naive. Ikon ^No-Blast 07:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's good to see some positive discussion here. Ikonblast, would you please clarify one thing: if you're saying that Ahir = Yadav, do you want this article to be merged with the article Ahir? utcursch | talk 11:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually thats a very good suggestion. Ahir and yadav article should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont really want to waste anyones time. But I think I have a reliable source. The book " Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu " is written by T. Padmaja. T Padmaja is a researcher in Department of ancient history and archaelogy in University of Mysore. This book is a academic source publised under University of Mysore. In the page 33 Author mentions that Ahir are known as Ayar in Tamil ( one of the Indian languages ) . Author also mentions how Ahir migrated to tamilnadu and established their kingdoms and in inscriptions these AYAR/AHIR mention they are from YADAVA lineage. I kindly request this academic source be used to correct this article. Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu By T. Padmaja

http://books.google.com/books?id=F-_eR1isesMC&pg=RA1-PA34&dq=Yadavas+of+South+India+velir&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As has been discussed time and again on this page, there is an article called Yadava. I note also that the source you mention appears not to pass any judgement on the "tradition" that you described. Perhaps I have misread it, but I do not think that this is conclusive evidence of anything in particular. I also rather think that it is a source that has been raised before, either here or elsewhere, with similar results.

However, if you wanted to propose a merge of the Ahir, Yadav and Yadava articles based on this source or indeed anything else then feel free. I still remain unconvinced because modern reliable sources refer frequently to this "concocted" history. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush for the comments. Lets merge Ahir, Yadav and Yadava into one article. I will try to merge it but I need the your help. Also can you please open the article for editing. If some one else wants to merge it feel free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You cannot just merge something like this. You would need to open a merge discussion across all the articles - WP:MERGE explains. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Let us merge and then Fork. However, you should also maintain a separate article for Scriptural Refs.:-L. BTW Situs, till now you haven't produced anything to prove your "concocted history theory", wikipedia talk pages are not RS. By now you should have been convinced if it is a concocted history it does not have its beginning in 20th century, and when it began the best of scholars have no clue. Ikon ^No-Blast 08:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge and then fork? What would be the point of that? In any event, the discussion for that is at Talk:Yadava, not here. As for the "concocted history" - read the article, which already refers to it, with sources. I am still, however, awaiting your sources for this article; so far it seems to have been all bluster and no verification. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, you're not wrong per se, when you say that Ahir and Yadav are used synonymously, but this is not true in all the contexts. For example, consider these sources:

• Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India by S. D. S. Yadava says that Yadav is a subset of Ahir. The Ahir community falls into three distinct sub-castes: Yaduvanshis (aka Yadavas/Yadavs), Nandvanshis and Gwalvanshis. Yadav has become a synonym of Ahir due to the Yaduvanshi dominance in the Ahir community. "In order to gain wider acceptability they have decided to incorporate the regional castes of Ahirs - Goalas, Sadgopas, Gavlis, Gopalas, Gollas, Idayana and Konars and many smaller castes to merge into the larger Yadava category." The book also discusses some arguments about why Yadav Rajputs are different from the Ahir Yadavs. It's not a very high-quality scholarly work in the sense it often mixes mythology, pseudohistory and history, venturing into mythological characters to the concept of "Master Race". But it does demonstrates a different definition of the words "Ahir" and "Yadav".
• Ramnarayan S. Rawat (2011). Reconsidering untouchability: Chamars and Dalit history in North India. Indiana University Press. p. 127. ISBN 9780253222626.: The Jatavs of western Uttar Pradesh have been claiming the Yadav status in the 1920s. These claims were first made by Sunderlal Sagar, a prominent member of the Jatav Mahasabha of Agra, in Jatav Jivan (later published as Yadav Jivan in 1929). In 1946, Ramnarayan Yadvendu rehearsed many of the arguments made in Jatav Jivan, in his book Yaduvansh ka Aitihas. The Jatavs are a Chamar caste, and have little relation (if any) to the Ahirs who claim Kshatriya status.
• People of India: Maharashtra, Volume 1 by Kumar Suresh Singh and B. V. Bhanu (Anthropological Survey of India, pg. 58) says that Ahir is a sub-group of Gaoli. According to this book, the Gaoli caste is divided into four different sub-clans: Nanda, Yadav, Ahir and Lingayat. That is, this book claims that Yadav and Ahir are two separate sub-clans or a single caste.

I can list more refs, but you get the idea -- "Yadav" or "Yadava" is a complex term, and different people have different ideas of it. Your idea is that there is a single group called Yadav (same as Ahir), which has retained its unique identity since the ancient times. However, not everybody agrees that a single Yadav identity same as Ahir exists. There are multiple sources which indicate that there are a number of communities have started calling themselves "Yadav" at different points in time.

As for the argument of equating ancient Yadava dynasties with the modern Yadav castes, this has been discussed again and again. There is little doubt that the descendants of these ancient Yadavas roam in India, but not all castes that claim descent from Yadu are actually descended from these castes. There are multiple sources that discuss the Sanskritization of lower castes into the "Yadav" community and the formation of the modern "Yadav" identity:

• Daughters of the earth: women and land in Uttar Pradesh by Smita Tewari Jassal (2001, ISBN 9788173043758): "The Yadava caste sought to overcome its ritual disabilities not only by claiming Kshatriya status and descent from the Yadu dynasty, but by daopting Arya Samaj practices as well. [...] The Yadava movement had a vast interregional spread which attempted to submerge the regional names in favour of an all-India Yadava identity."
• The politics of the urban poor in early twentieth-century India by Nandini Gooptu (2001, IISBN 9780521443661): This book claims that the Ahirs were originally a lower caste, and its members started writing books to demonstrate their Kshatriya origins 1920s onwards. It says that the use of the term Yadav to denote the Ahirs gained currency during this period.
• India's silent revolution: the rise of the lower castes in North India by Christophe Jaffrelot: Talks about the 21st century narratives aimed at giving the various Yadav castes a single ethnic identity as part of the Sanskritization process. The author calls the various narratives as "largely mythical history".

Since there are multiple sources that say that at least some castes adopted the Yadav identity in the 20th century through Sanskritization, it will not be appropriate to bundle the content of ancient Yadava dynasties with an article on these modern castes. A sentence or two about their claimed relations to these dynasties is fine, though. The mythological stuff (Krishna/Mahabharata etc.) should also be better kept separate (again, a sentence of two like "they claim descent from Krishna" is OK). If you still disagree, feel free to start a formal merge request at Talk:Yadava.

IMHO, if the disagreement and confusion is about all this content being listed under the title "Yadav", we can make "Yadav" a disambiguation page (with Ahir as one of the entries on this page). The Ahir-specific content to the article Ahir, and an umbrella article discussing the various 'Yadav' castes (including Ahir, Gaoli, Jatav, Yadav Rajputs etc.) can be created as "Yadav castes". utcursch | talk 09:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Situs if you have exhausted your resources, which I presume You have, you should now stop accusing 67.xxx Ip. You have similarly spammed the page with useless literatures of Sanskritisation era. With both pro and anti views. Is this the kind of RS you were talking about. If these were RS then I can throw 2X in support of my claim. But that is a useless exercise because shit is after all a shit no matter how big it is. Saying the division of Yadav is Yadu, nanda and gwal and calling just gwal are Ahir, is an approach which some authors take. It does not prove your point. FYI, chamar have also claimed brahmin status, but they are neither in Yadav caste nor Brahmin caste.is this all about claims only? If you have evaluation of claims available through RS, you should present them and that is what I have been pushing for so far. Regarding my references, You should do some of your own research if your intention is really to understand the topic. Look, I have given you one, which was easy for you too, but again you didn't care. i am not very fond of throwing external links and if you are really interested you should try to learn from good sources. You seem to be highly misinformed and perhaps biased too, my only concern is that you do not infect others. So, I shall have to Demonstrate some of the key concepts involved with this topic. I am pretty sure you haven't and rather haven't cared to learn those concepts, which I repeatedly showed you in various of my posts with name of authors, (Just Google or Buy, Its your choice). There is a scientific approach to everything, which you phps don't want to take. I have seen you are also suggesting Yadu clan of Ahirs got bigger to assimilate others. We are not here to discuss the possibilities thrown by so many wild phantoms. Scientific approach is to know how things were in the past and how they have developed throw known historical facts, and not the opinions you have provided. I hope you won't Spam the page again. Ikon ^No-Blast 10:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please list your sources. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Replying to this discussion seems futile. Any source with a differing view is "biased", "shit", "misinformed" "useless literatures of Sanskritisation era" or not "scientific approach". Seriously, Ikonoblast and IP, if you just want to keep repeating the same "what we believe is right, everybody else is wrong" over and over again, please go for a formal dispute resolution. utcursch | talk 10:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Utcursch, you do one thing, just pick one or two of the sources he has cited and show that it supports his claim in anyway. If you can't then you shoud accept my comments. Ikon ^No-Blast 11:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ikonoblast, you've been here just about one week, and you've already crossed over into tendentious editing. Explain what you want to change in the article, give sources, or find a website that allows open discussion about anything you want. This isn't it. I know, I know, you gave one source, and it's currently being investigated. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::: @Sitush I am really sorry. It is Utcursch bringing those. So I slap myself this time. So substitute utcursch for situs. Thanks for uncollapsing. Yadav/Yadava thing does not impress me more, I am OK either way. As I understand Yadava page was created to push Sainis claim of being Yadava, and give them direct connection to Yadus. Sitush just google saini rasaini, interesting stuff there. Ikon ^No-Blast 11:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's it. No more. As with the IP, I am ignoring any future contributions by Ikonoblast to this thread. There is clearly no desire to collaborate here, merely continual blather and insistence that others google this or that subject. I am half-minded that it is all a wind-up. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have surely been careless in some of my post. let us focus on subject and not our ego. I would shortly list some of the sources, which I suggest you should not ignore. I didn't give online resources because it is easy to find, and I was in haste. but as you pointed out I would surely take care in future post. Ikon ^No-Blast 12:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Friends one more source to correct the article since it is missing so many information. In page 296 the author mentions about the AHIR Dynasty ruled over Nepal. In page 297 the author clearly mentions that yadu bansi ksatriyas ( yadu vansh Kshatriya ) were orginally Ahirs. In page 304 under section" The cowherds of southern India" the author mentions that Yadava kshatriya of north india are the cow herds of south india ( Mattu edai )

The above information can be used to edit the article.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xlpLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA296&dq=AHIR+abhira&hl=en#v=onepage&q=ahirs&f=false Hindu castes and sects: an exposition of the origin of the Hindu caste ... By Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya who was a president of a college. This book was written in 1896 before the 19th century before any caste movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see all of the book that you refer to but your analysis appears to be in breach of WP:SYNTH. We can only say here that which a reliable source says in an explicit manner: we cannot deduce what they may possibly mean by taking snippets from various points and trying to add them together. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=xlpLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR15&dq=Hindu+castes+and+sects:+an+exposition+of+the+origin+of+the+Hindu+caste+...&ei=8uaMTsuxCI7IlQT7xpCCAw&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

by clicking the link the entire book can be read. page 296, 297, 304 are of importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand how GBooks works. It does not present the same view worldwide and people in some countries cannot see the same info as those in other countries. There are other issues with it, but that is probably the biggest one. We will have to wait on someone else looking into your point, assuming that you are sure that you are not in fact synthesising. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are pages 296, 297, and 304 from Hindu Castes and Sects: [2], [3], [4] JanetteDoe (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

good source but MSA Rao work and Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu By T. Padmaja need to be given right weightage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete and misleading Introduction

Introduction says "The term 'Yadav' covers many castes including Ahirs of the Hindi belt, the Gavli of Maharashtra,[1] the Goala of Andhra and the Konar of Tamil Nadu. In the Hindi belt, "Ahir" and "Yadav" are often used synonymously."

Gawli,s of Maharashta don't use "Yadav" as last name if you say so please come up with valid refrences and same goes with Konar and Goalas of Andhra.Yadav last name is only used in haryana , rajasthan, madhya pradesh , uttar pradesh and bihar.Please dont mention your personal views.

If gawlis , goala and konars are included in yadavs. Throw some light on them , their history , population , culture , current status , politics etc.This article is all about yadavs of Bihar and eastern Uttar pradesh and the matter of fact is yadavs are also present in rajputana (rajasthan) , haryana madhya pradesh ,and western uttar pradesh who do not look like yadavs of bihar and eastern up , neither share same language nor intermarry . If that is the situation why not to cover yadavs of haryana , rajasthan , madhya pradesh too.Dr JN Yadav (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please correct the article

Please correct the article. Even after so many users have agreed that the article needs correction and so many reliable sources provided the article is still not neutral. The article needs to be corrected based on discussion and sources provided. Information on Ahir dynsaties is missing, MSA Rao book which links Ahir and Yadav dynasties need to be included. common wiki users/admin why is this happening ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Since there is a consensus on the issue that the article is flawed, violation of WP:Synth, WP:OR, I am tagging this disputed once again.

Ikon ^No-Blast 05:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain where there is consensus that the article is flawed. Bear in mind that consensus has to be policy-compliant, so it is not enough just to have a lot of people tendentiously stating that "it is wrong" or "I don't like it". You are a major part of this issue and even now you have not presented the evidence that you have promised to provide on several occasions. In consequence, the tag should be removed (it is not even correctly placed). - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have now removed it. There is nothing to justify your claim above that the article comprises synth and/or OR. It may be incomplete while we wait for Rao to turn up but you and the IPs could have addressed that issue: you all makes claims of what Rao says but none of you has volunteered to transcribe the relevant bits/otherwise provide a copy. Presumably you do have access to the thing, otherwise you would not be able to make valid claims. - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not the matter of Rao cite. It is the matter of Misciting/Misreprepresenting the cited itself, to which you have been a party, both on talk page and article. You yourself never came with valid cite, when adressed properly to explain. Like "Ahirs claim descent from Abhira from central Asia. " Calling tendentious, other editors is best excuse for Trolls, and I feel you yourself had been tendentious so far both on talk page and article page. You had also tried to collapse a thread which involves you, rampantly gamed 3RR through canvassing on several occasions, and how you have started to call ppl who have brought valid citation as tendentious Ips. This is not fair. You and your cabal of editor has done best to game the system through various means so far. Please stop doing it. I have gone through the concerns raised on this page and they are genuine. You of course won't like it. But anyway, being in question all the time regarding the nature of your edits it is advisable you keep yourself off the debate whether it should be tagged or not. I am tagging once again. Ikon ^No-Blast 10:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you copy/paste the entire sentence you seem to be quoting above when you says "Like "Ahirs claim descent from Abhira from central Asia. ". I cannot spot a single mention of "central Asia" - this is a new argument from you, by the looks of it. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The article YADAV is extremely misleading and missing many information. Like the book "Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu By T. Padmaja" http://books.google.com/books?id=F-_eR1isesMC&pg=RA1-PA34&dq=Yadavas+of+South+India+velir&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false Mentions that the Ahir came to south india and came to be known as AYAR and also mentions that they belonged to YADAVA race. and the Ayar ( Ahir ) were also know as velir. velir were rulers and chiefs. This information needs to be included in the article. Also the author of this book is a reseacrher in universty of maysore and this is a academcic work.

and why is MSA Rao book not considered. It clearly mentions that Ahir and yadava are one and the same. http://books.google.com/books?ei=4RqGTvHVDYPOrQf59-TrDA&ct=result&id=wWEiAQAAMAAJ&dq=semi+historical+evidences+ahir&q=semi+historical#search_anchor

Also the below book mentions that ahir and yadav are synonyms and also mentions about Ahir kings. why is this information missing.

http://books.google.com/books?id=nqvloPNdEZgC&pg=PA44&dq=people+of+rajasthan+ahir&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false People of India: Rajasthan, Part 1 By K. S. Singh book publised by anthropological survey of india ( government of India ).

many many good sources.

User: IKON(noblast) has been doing a great job. Please consider the sources and correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the tag slapped on by Ikonoblast. Numerous internationally recognized sources attest to Yadavs being herdsmen and milkmen who were known as Ahirs, Goalas, Gopas, etc until the late 18th or early 19th century in North India. They were largely outside the formal caste system and were non-elite, but were considered "clean." Rather than take the more courageous approach of some other occupational castes, such as Chamar, who rejected the entire caste system altogether, some among the non-elite but clean occupational castes such ahir and goals united under a new name, "Yadav," and since then have attempted to move up in the caste system. Whatever their formal or informal status now, their earlier history of non-elite outsider status cannot be swept under the rug. The current lead as it stands is accurate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

numerpus academic scholars have agreed that YADAV / AHIR/ YADAVA are used interchangeably. Please go through the MSA Raos link which proves that AHIR and yadavas are one and the same. dont ignore so many references. keep the dispute open. lets discuss please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed this to death. Rao is the only outstanding point and unless someone comes up with a transcript of the relevant sections then that will not progress any further until JanetteDoe gets their copy. Note that Rao is already mentioned in the article. This is less of a dispute than it is an attempt seemingly to hijack an article in the face of Wikipedia policies. Please remove that tag - it is completely unnecessary. If you have any new sources then cite them here, but do not keep repeating all the stuff that has already been raised. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is misleading. Lot of information needs to be added. There is no accuracy in the article. So many users have provided many reliable source but still the article does not mention those things. The artcile is biased. In the discussion itself many sources are avaialble. Kindly read it. and many academic resources are not being considered. The book published by government of india is a valid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Its funny and its a perfect hijack. even genuine concerns are not being addressed. This article is misleading and not neutral. no doubt about that. Sutradhari2000 (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)sutradhari

I think people are not understanding the point. This article fails to mention about YADAV rajpust and Yadav kshatriya. http://books.google.com/books?id=3kwoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA246&dq=yadav+khastriya+letherbridge&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false The golden book of India: a genealogical and biographical dictionary of the ... By Sir Roper Lethbridge page 246 mentions about YADAV kshatriya. These need to be included. and also about Ahir/yadav chiefs and kings. MSA Rao has mentioned clearly that evidence suggests that ahir and yadava dynasty have same lineage. Please correct it by reading the discussion. why is this bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

::: Sorry for arriving late. @Situs can you check, if it is not in the frozen state now. because sometimes content are there in source but not visible in article. I am saying this because I raised this issue many times before and you did not point out. Surely it is not visible now, but an examination is better, because that had been the case on many occasions. Regarding other things,I will keep my promises, just trying to find time to compile them.

@Fowler very sentimental and judgmental post. It looks like you really read a lot and keep an eye on this article. In one shot you not only give judgement on history, courage, social mobility, but also accuse editors of trying to sweep the earlier history under the rug. Are we doing it? NO, there are ample examples of this on several articles. one such example is Namboothiri of kerela, who were actually low caste fishermen Shudras, now pretending to be the highest of brahamanas. Needless to tell again and again how people assembled on Mount Abu to sweep their history under the rug, who were they and who are they now. I hope you will show some courage in assisting me on editing those articles whenever I take this exercise. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. --> I took a look at the lead. I must say, Fowler has added value.Ikon ^No-Blast 20:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It confirms exactly what the body of the article already said and which you and others have been opposing for some time. That is the point of a lead: to summarise the article. Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where it has proven necessary to insert a lot of citations in the lead, primarily because people seem not to be reading the rest of the article before rushing to judgement. As a rule, citations should rarely be necessary in a lead but here, well, if it stops the arguing then I will happily live with it. Some links will be needed ("non-elite but clean" is pretty obscure for someone visiting such an article for the first time), but they can wait until F&f has finished. - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Fowler has definitely added value but still lot of information is missing.

the source http://books.google.com/books?id=qCAAAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PA150&dq=Ahir+military+chief&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Ahir%20military%20chief&f=false Cyclopædia of India and of eastern and southern Asia, commercial ..., Volume 2 edited by Edward Balfour

the above source ( page 150 ) mentions that Ahirs were classified as yadu bansa, nand bansa, go wala bansa. this book was written in 1871 long before any social movement. This proves that some Ahir called themselves as Yadu bansa ( meaning YADAV ). YADAV community has been there through the indian history. but artcile does not mention about YADAV rajputs and yadav chiefs.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3kwoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA246&dq=yadav+khastriya+letherbridge&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

one more resource proves that AHIR belong to Yaadava race.

http://books.google.com/books?id=F-_eR1isesMC&pg=RA1-PA34&dq=Yadavas+of+South+India+velir&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu By T. Padmaja the book published by university of mysore and academic work by a scholar. Please conisder and make the artcile neutral.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

why is "Jaffrelot, Christophe " being given so much importance and all other resources are neglected. MSA Rao has great credentials as academic scholar. MSA Rao should also be considered. common Fowler, please read through MSA raos pages. kindly be fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

To Sitush, I am done with the article. Thanks for waiting. I don't think the either "non-elite" or "clean" need to be wikilinked. The footnotes provide ample explanation. But, please don't link them to Shudra and "clean shudra," respectively. That's not what they are. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem - good work. I know not what those terms are intended to mean, although presume that if there was an article about ritual pollution then the terms would be used there? That was a part of my point: if I do not know then someone with absolutely no knowledge of the subject area definitely will not. The "egalitarian" thing also seemed to be a little vague but I haven't looked over your last few edits & so maybe that got cleared up. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I left the egalitarian bit in. You are welcome to remove it, but Jaffrelot makes the point that the North Indian low caste movements, excepting those of the untouchables, never challenged the notion of caste. They simply wanted to be higher up on the totem pole than where they had been told they were. They were consequently never egalitarian, never apparently had much sympathy for the more unfortunate. As a personal preference, from no personal experience (obviously!) but from reading the literature, I much prefer the Kurmi to the Yadav. I can see why the Brits (and the Muslim rulers before them) were impressed with them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I knew the Jaffrelot angle. He actually goes out of his way to contrast the insularity of the Yadav movements with those of South India, and I think that I mentioned this in the article (still not re-read it!). I certainly would not take it out, but it may require a little elaboration, basically saying what you have summarised very nicely above.

What are your thoughts regarding my original concerns of "non-elite" and "clean"? I think that something needs to be done. Is there anything suitable to which they could be linked? You asked me not to link to Shudra: aside from the fact that I am unsure of the meaning of the terms in this particular context & so would not, I rarely link terms in the [[A | B]] manner as I think it better to use the "correct" term in the first instance, and can only do that if the source does so. Call a spade a spade, WP is not censored etc. And, boy, have I paid the price for it! The problems continue on that score at DRN right now. I know that you removed what you considered to be a non-mainstream quote/explanation about cow-herding/inability to check ritual pollution etc and I will revisit that, but I am more concerned about general clarity for the layperson. - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I put the Mandelbaum bit back in. He seems widely respected. He was being quoted by a lot of people. Well, non-elite simply means that they weren't among the patrician land-owning classes that the Brahmins and Rajputs had become (in the Gangetic Plain). And clean, in my understanding, means that contact with them was not ritually defiling for these patrician classes. I know that this is not saying much. I'm not sure which Wikilink will make it clearer. The footnotes, though, do give an idea of what those terms mean. (I'm done with Yadav. Still perplexed what happened to Middlemast in 1915. I like to think he was on the Lusitania and gave his lifevest away to a woman, child or old man.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I will try to work with that and would be grateful if you might at least watch what happens, just in case I screw it up. I used the word "insularity" above: it was my own phrasing, but would that be a useful term to deploy?

Middlemast: no reply yet from St John's but Cambridge was in my day better known for considered responses rather than quick ones. Well, aside from the Hitler Diaries affair, that is. Ping me about it if the situation drifts - there are a few contacts out there. Of course, not even the considered responses are always correct! - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)