Talk:Yadav/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Pages from Rao

Are here: pages 122-127 pages 212-217. JanetteDoe (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

the artcile needs correction based on MSA raos book. It clearly mentions that the Suena yadavas of devagiri belonged to Ahir community. MSA Raos book need to be given due weightage. MSA Rao has mentioned so much about AHIR and nothing is mentioned in this artcile.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff, JanetteDoe. Thank you for filling in the blank space. To everyone else, can I draw attention to the resource exchange - it is a very useful part of Wikipedia for those who wish to get hold of specific items that they cannot otherwise easily obtain. I'll look at the Rao info over the weekend. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I kindly request SITUSH and Fowler to be fair in correcting this article. Please give due consideration to MSA Rao and also numerous other sources. The article is missing information on YADAV rajputs and suena yadavas of devagiri. Please include those information in article. http://books.google.com/books?id=3kwoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA246&dq=yadav+khastriya+letherbridge&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Will you please stop repeating this comment, There are a couple of people here who are really trying to sort the situation out, and you are being kept informed. Continual appeals are just a distraction and, frankly, sometimes make me wonder why I bother. Positive contributions would be welcome but this is plain silly. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above, I note that you and the 67.x IP are both contributing via California locations. I realise that California is a big place but perhaps it might be worth your while comparing notes and devising a more sensible strategy, if you are geographically close enough to meet over a coffee or whatever. For now, you will have to assume good faith: it may surprise you, but there are major contributors to this article who really do not have an axe to grind with regard to any of its content. We're just trying to straighten it out. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

IP64 geolocates to San Jose, IP67 geolocates to San Francisco. These are definitely close enough to meet. Just hop on 101 and meet halfway in San Mateo. May I recommend Kabul Afghan Cuisine on El Camino Real? Their challaw kadu is excellent. JanetteDoe (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JanetteDoe.

congrats wow. This article has been sucessfully messed up. Great work article YADAV has been sucessfully forked and knifed and full of personal view and false information. So many information is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JanetteDoe for the pages from MS ao. @anon, Can you please focus on constructive arguments and providing sources instead of making baseless accusations. The MS Rao pages provided by JanetteDoe actually prove the points made by other editors earlier. You've been saying Ahir=Yadav using a sentence from the book out-of-context: "semi-historical and historical evidence exists for equating the Ahirs with the Yadavs." The sentence, in no way, implies what you've been claiming. There is an entire paragraph before that, which says Yadav is not a single caste, but a term used to refer to a number of castes, including Ahir. (p. 123, 124). utcursch | talk 16:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear enough to me that there has been info taken out of context, which is rather supported by the fact that no-one could provide the full picture until JanetteDoe did their stuff. However, I want to give it a bit more thought & read through Rao once more: he does spend quite a time skimming across the debate but I am not even sure that he considers it to be anything but unproven speculation etc, and perhaps even fringe-y. He doesn't seem to form a judgement in favour of it, that is for sure.

In any event, we have to tread carefully when authors are of the community about which they write, and particularly so when there is a mass of academics saying that a lot of the history has been concocted, cannot be proven etc. It is frustrating that the recorded (written) history of such a great civilisation relied for 800 years or more mostly on the efforts of non-native people. Kalhana appears to be one of the few native recorders who is acknowledged to have some degree of proficiency in the western sense. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Janetdoe. It is now pretty clear from the sentence "Historical and semi historical evidences are there to equate Ahirs with Yadavas." He does not quote anyone, it is his own words. He quotes Bhandarkar to prove that Ahir=Abhira, and Abhira= gwal, who actually deduce from ancient Sanskrit Classic, Amarkosa, which tells Abhira and Gwal is synonymous. Thus he shows various castes in Yadav umbrella known as Ahir, gaoli, gwal, gopa and several variants of the word Ahir and gwal infact can be equated with Abhira. Maximum reasearch work has been done to probe the Abhira Yadava link. Since JanetDoe is in Possession of this book, he can also see he has evaluated several theories, at different places, which probes this area including the works of Bhandarkar, Smith(Who actually raises question on this synthesis), and also JNS Yadav's work who answers Smith's objection. He misses the work of H S Bhati and Karmakar though. However, he is fair enough to admit if among Abhira and Yadava, one is proven Aryan and another Non-Aryan (Both abhira and Yadava has 50-50 chance of being both), then this synthesis will fall like pack of cards. However, works of Bhandarkar Ghurye and others has beyond doubt proven that Abhira has been in the role of Yadava for a long time for right or wrong reasons. Point here is the dispute is not actually whether they are right in claiming the legacy of medieval Yadavas or historical Yadavas, who has been proven to be all Abhiras by now, actualy it is regarding whether they represent Yadavas of Mahabharata era or not, and should be addressed as such.

Regarding Jafferlot's work let me tell you he has never claimed to have refuted the works of Bhandarkar or Ghurye. Don't buy too much from his Golden Past allegation, remember he did not say Yadava past.

Lead mentions - they started claiming .... descent from Yadu. This sentence is factually incorrect, because you are presuming the non existence of earlier proven relations. You cannot forget yaduvanshi is a division within present days Ahirs which didn't come into existence during 1920.

someone has added a picture of a girl claiming to be she is an Ahir. I think this is not verifiable ans should be removed. I would suggest someone to volunteer to add the picture of a child who won bravery award for killing an attacking tiger with a knife, to save the life of his neighbor. Ikon ^No-Blast 12:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the picture of the beautiful Ahir woman, take your gripes to DRN or Arbcom or whatever Wikipedia forum you fancy. That's how pictures from Flikr work; we take the author's word, unless there is some a priori reason for doubting it. Why should we feed into the community's latter-day self-definition of brave warriors? They were milkmen and cowherds living on the margins. In 1895, they are admitted into the British Indian army and their entire past before that (and much since) is now something to be ashamed of. It is mentioned only when it is glorious, when it makes them kshatriya by association. Most ahirs and other castes within the Yadav supergroup led a desperate hardscrabble life for most of India's recorded history. Why should the ordinary poor people who make up the Yadav be left out? Forget it, it won't happen. Choose forum of choice, like I said. I won't be drawn into mindless chatter with people who are carrying or pretending to carry the dissimulated reputation of a community on their backs, but are really masking the shame. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the prrof that the picture is AHIR. IKON is right. Ahir and yadava are the same. correct the article and put in some other pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.218.99 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the "prrof" that the picture of the Taj Mahal is the Taj Mahal and not a model in someone's back yard in Agra? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The extent to which some people are prepared to go in order to glorify astounds me sometimes - a picture of a tiger killer as being representative of the community? I think not.

Could the more general issue be resolved by finding a picture from a book, where the attribution cannot really be questioned? I do realise that this would entail it being quite an old image because of copyright issues. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot of debate on picture! The reason I pointed this out, was that the very same picture was there on Ahir page, some years back, and was removed. So, I was surprised to see this again here. Earlier, pics from flicker or related sites were not allowed because there might be copyright infringement, besides lacking verifiability. They copied from somewhere and you are presenting them here. Only way to get genuine pics are through volunteers. The brave child I talked about was in news and so I assumed someone must be having his pic. What is wrong in that. If someone comes with it would you be objecting? and why? The kind of response F&F has posted is a typical forum response and he is saying I should choose a forum. Who are we to portray a picture of some community or any community? Shouldn't we just present the facts here. I was expecting some debate on citation itself, but looks like there is no eagerness to absorb new ideas, at least not among few of you. Utcursch's point of objection has been answered in my previous post, and looks invalid, unless he points out something new. F&F and Situs, Rao citation will go into this article, whether you like it or not. We are not bound to hear your personal opinions, only sources satisfying WP:RS matters. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you tend to generate a lot of discussion. Generally it seems to achieve no change but people do extend the courtesy of engaging with you, how ever much it wastes time and resources. I have checked the Flickr license for the picture. Forget what past policy may have been - do you agree that it complies with current policy? If not, why not? Like me, F&f can sometimes be a little on the blunt side but, hey, that is what happens when there is a clash between those trying to be policy-compliant and working with the knowledge available, and those who seem to be pushing a POV. The length of rope is not infinite.

"I was expecting some debate on citation itself". Indeed, you seem to expect a lot but contribute very little to the article, either via fulfilling your promises to supply sources or actually do something there. Dare I suggest that you may be rabble-rousing? Trying to stir things up and get others to be the fall guys? If you have something to say, then say it. I have no idea of your gender but I am male and, like many males in my experience, I often do not even see that a hint exists: tell me straight what the issue is, rather than going round the houses.

Regarding Rao, fine. However, you might want to re-read of WP:CONSENSUS. Alternatively, just do it and see what happens. You have made many promises & statements of intent recently but have so far not seen them through, although others seem to have unfortunately bitten the bullet that you fired. We have a saying in the UK: "put your money where your mouth is". I have no idea where you live but I am pretty sure that either that saying is known or there is an equivalent. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Have added two classic ethnographic prints from Rusell (1916). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I come I find some bad faith commentary on this page. Fowler has danced and sitush has clapped around him. Is it the place to tell whether you are male, female or eunuch. One more saying goes - Size of my dick is what I tell others. Why you are waiting for more resources: Bhandarkar's comment and source is already there in MS Rao shots, and we know it was not taken from flickr. I don't think you would be able to grasp Ghurye's Trait wise analysis of abhira and yadava. But take one of my suggestion, whenever you get the chance grab any book by Bhandarkar, ghurye and also Radhakrishnan. After that you won't like to read any of the sources you quote.

The Creative common license does authorize you to use the submitted fairly, however, flickr takes no responsibility for user generated content there. And, if people are allowed to use pics from flickr., then this route may be abused for copyright violation. So, it is better delete it. Ikon ^No-Blast 05:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So, in other words you have no policy statement. While you may at least have some sort of valid point regarding copyright circumvention, this is not the correct place to discuss that possibility. I don't care less whether the image stays or goes, but I would object to an unrepresentative replacement. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

JNS Yadava and MSA Rao

These writers should be cited with caution. JNS should not be cited at all because his work was published by Yadav Mahasabha. It is a vanity publication written to link Ahirs by hook or crook to Yadavas of scriptures . MSA Rao was an Ahir himself . He has tried to legitimize the propaganda of Ahirs when every other source questions the equation of Ahirs with Yadavas. BTW, both Abhir and Yadavas are mentioned in Mahabharata but are clearly described as different tribes. So even if Ahir and Abhir are related by some logic, they both still cannot be the Yadavas mentioned in Mahabharata — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.9.235 (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

JNS Yadava has been mentioned in the context of his "creation" of a history. I have mentioned some doubts about Rao above, as I rather suspected that he might be of the community, but they do not exclude referring to him in the article. We just have to be a little careful. As it happens, the particular source in question quite clearly depicts his own theory as being in line with that of others whom are cited, although he does go on to discuss the more revisionist theories without seeming to make any particular assertion of correctness bar the rather bland "historical and semi-historical evidence" sentence. Like JNSY, Rao is already in the article, just not in the manner that the recent IPs desire to see it. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here us what RV Russell wrote on the bogus connection between Ahirs and scriptural Yadavas: "But this is no doubt very conjectural, and the simple fact that Krishna was a herdsman could a would be a sufficient reason for the Ahirs to claimn connection with him. It is pointed out that the names of Abhira chieftains  given in the early inscriptions are derived from the god Siva, and this would not have been the case if they had at that epoch derived their origin from Krishna, an incarnation of Visnu. " If the Abhiras had really been the descendants of the cowherds (Gopas) whose hero was Krishna, the name of the rival god Siva would never have formed components of the names of the Abhiras, whom we find mentioned in inscriptions. Hence the conclusion may be safely be drawn that the Abhiras were by no means connected with Krishna and his cowherds even as late as about A.D. 300, to which date the first of the two inscriptions mentioned above are assigned. Precisely the same conclusion is pointed to be the contents of the Harivanshi and Bhagwat Purana. The upbringing of Krishna  among the cowherds and his flirtations with the milkmaids are again and again mentioned in these works, but the word Abhira does not aoccur even in the connection. The only words we find used are Gopa, Gopi and Vraja. This is indeed remarkable. For the descriptions of the removal of Krishna as an infant to Nanda, the cowherd's hut, of his childhood passed in playing with the cowherd boys, and of his youth spent in the amorous sports with the milkmaids are set forth at great length, but the word Abhira is not once again met with. From  this only one conclusion is possible, that is, that the Abhiras did not originally represent the Gopas of Krishna. The word Abhira occurs for the first time in connection with Krishna legend about A.D. 550, from which is follows that the Abhiras came to be identified with the Gopas shortly before that date."

Russell further says that Ahirs could be equated with Abhirs in the most nominal sense. Again, you can check Mahabharata . Abhirs and Yadavas have been mentioned as distinct tribes . Abhirs of Mahabharata had no link with Yadavas, leave alone Krishna. This can be easily checked in Mahabharata text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.9.235 (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter unduly what Russell thought. Much more modern commentators have had their say. The Mahabjarata is a primary source and we cannot use it in the way that you suggest. Look, the Abhira/Yadav etc connection is tenuous and the article reflects that, as it also reflects the fact that the Yadav community is not comprised only of Ahir people, despite some regional synonymity. There is nothing more required. It might be an issue at the article for Abhira or for Yadava, but it is not for this article. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Its looks like a big joke. Ignoring MSA Raos book. MSA Rao should be given due weightage. There is enough evidence in the discussion which states that AHIR had a sub division Yadu vanshi before 18th century. If MSA Raos book is not a good source then this article is a big joke with all wrong information. well enjoy,,, now that the article is fully falsified. MSA Rao has greater credibility than chris jeffrollete. any how fact is fact AHIR are known as YADAV and also YADAVA. Its all the same word. SITUSH and FOWLER are quiet convincing in putting false information.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.115.87.146 (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This talk page seems to be attracting a surprising number of IPs based in the USA! Rao only summarises what others said and appears to take no particular stance regarding those works, other than the one vague statement. The connection, if it does exist, should be either in Ahir or Yadava, since it is demonstrably the case that not all Yadavs are Ahir. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly, you demonstrated that?? Ikon ^No-Blast 05:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In the article. Have you actually read it? Still waiting for all those sources which you promised - was that just bravado? If so then I will move on with developing this article with stuff that I do have. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-elite in first line

I think the term "non-elite" is unnecessary in the first line. The "elite" or "non-elite" status of castes is important mainly in historical context. The intro already contains another sentence "were considered non-elite but clean". utcursch | talk 10:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning it twice in the lead does seem to be redundant, but there is also a wider issue that I am trying to get my head round - it can be seen in the last few posts at Talk:Yadav#Please_correct_the_article above. Basically, how meaningful are "non-elite" and "clean" to the Average Joe unless linked and/or elaborated upon. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, you can move the non-elite part to the main body of the article (to its history section). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The VC recepients

Umrao Singh VC and Namdeo Jadav VC were Jat and Kunbi respectively, not Yadav. I have accordingly removed mention of them on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Good. It was bollocks anyway to select two people as if they are somehow representative of the community. Even if it had been valid, the correct place would be in the article listing notable Yadavs, not here. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush sir Umrao Singh was an ahir from jhajjar district. «Talk» please be sure before jumping onto any kind o conclusions. my source of him being an ahir(yadav) is.... http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA194&dq=jhajjar+ahirs&hl=en&ei=Zi53Tc-SFsblrAfko7C_Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=jhajjar%20ahirs&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.29.95 (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In Maharashtra and Gujrat, Kunbi Generic includes anybody taking to farm and not Kunbi caste only. Ikon ^No-Blast 06:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, Ikonoblast, but that is original research, as you should know by now. I am still waiting on your promised sources for various things, btw. - Sitush (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Gyan Publishing House is not a very reliable source -- some of its books are based on content from Wikipedia (see 1, 2, 3). However, there are other sources which mention Umrao Singh as Ahir. For example: Indian information, Volume 16. Press Information Bureau, Government of India. 1945. p. 783. Retrieved 2011-10-10.. utcursch | talk 11:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, both his obituaries, in the Guardian and the Independent say he was a Hindu Jat. The obits were summarized from the Victoria Cross Organization. Press Disinformation Bureau of the Government of India still believes K2 is in India and India borders Afghanistan, but we can't cite that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Illustrated weekly of India(1970): Volume 91, Issue 3, Page-4, "Umrao Singh (Rohtak Ahir) won the Victoria Cross during the second world war". Ikon ^No-Blast 05:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@Sitush Look Here for Kunbi, [1]. Something must tick in your brain. Ikon ^No-Blast 06:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure to what you are referring as I am not even bothering to read that source: it is published by Gyan and it is also a tertiary source. You've been contributing to WP for quite a while and I am surprised that you suggest this, although pleased that at least you are now fulfilling your promise to provide sources. - Sitush (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

to Sitush and Matthew vanitas Umrao singh is from my village Palra in Jhajjar Haryana , i am a yadav and Plara village is of Yadavs . Jhajjar has hundreds of yadav villages and almost every house has one person in army.

some sources prooving umrao singh was yadav and not jat .

http://www.prideofindia.net/interesting.html

http://books.google.com/books/about/Indian_World_War_II_Recipients_of_the_Vi.html?id=r2OjSQAACAAJ

http://www.harmonyindia.org/hportal/VirtualPrintView.jsp?page_id=1413

http://www.creativeuttarakhand.com/cu/hottopics/rewari-motor.html

Indian World War II Recipients of ... - Google Books books.google.com/.../Indian_World_War_II_Recipients_of_the_Vi.h... You +1'd this publicly. Undo Umrao Singh, son of Mohar Singh Yadav, was born into a farming family in Palra, ... Indian World War II Recipients of the Victoria Cross: Umrao Singh, Ali . ...Dr JN Yadav (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Equally, there are many sources stating he was Jat, more reliable per Wikipedia policy than the web sites you have provided:

• Honorary Captain Umrao Singh VC, Obituary, The Telegraph, London, 22 November 2005. (Says, was born into "a Hindu Jat family.")
• Captain Umrao Singh VC: Last surviving Indian Victoria Cross holder, Obituary, The Independent, by Kuldip Singh, 25 November 2005. (Says, "Like his Jat ancestors ...")
• Umrao Singh, VC: Indian hero of the wartime advance against the Japanese. Obituary. The Guardian by Diana Condell, 30 November 2005. (Says, "A Hindu Jat, and the son of a farmer, Singh was born at Palra, near Rhotak, in the Punjab.")

Even if these sources are not entirely correct, they are written by three different people, and also the most modern. If nothing else, there is a dispute about Umrao Singh's caste affiliation. I am consequently correct in removing mention of him from the Yadav page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

All your sources have one thing in common, they say Rohtak is in Punjab. Can they be used to dispute the fact that Rohtak is in Haryana not in Punjab. It is common sense Ikon ^No-Blast 06:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Rohtak was in Punjab at the time Umrao Singh was born. Haryana was created much later, in 1966.

BTW, I've added refs for both the claims to the article on Umrao Singh. utcursch | talk 06:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, rohtak was in Punjab, but it is in Haryana now, and these writers should have written that, but they are careless. I had given a source, from illustrated weekly, that exactly explains why people mistake him to be Jat. Many writers think Punjab regiment is all Jat or Jat regiment is all Jat, even Sikh regiment is not all sikh, they only have to observe some sikh customs. Ikon ^No-Blast 07:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They are not careless at all. Newspapers, like Wikipedia, have style guides. It is commonly the case that they stipulate the placename at the time of an incident should be used, which in this instance is Punjab. Someone cannot be born in a place that did not exist at the time of their birth - it is a form of revisionism. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Tilak Gupta's comments

IMHO, this quote from Tilak Gupta is unnecessary (WP:UNDUE):

"The very mention of the community invokes, in Bihar, the image of dull, miserly and loud-mouthed people lacking in grace and culture. Besides, the Yadavs are considered as to be unusually prone to casteism and violence."

I know that the intention here is not to defame the community, but to highlight their stereotyping in media or among other communities. But, most readers skimming through the article will see "dull, miserly and loud-mouthed people lacking in grace and culture" in a negative light.

The content of the article can be paraphrased to discuss the image of Yadavs in the context of caste-related conflicts, in a more NPOV manner. utcursch | talk 05:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I thought we discussed this before and agreed to remove it. In fact, I thought I removed it myself. Maybe I'm thinking of a different article with a similar quotation? In any event, I agree that both quotations in that section should be removed and replaced with summary phrasing. If no one objects, I'm happy to do it myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought that it had been taken out also, with another reduced to a footnote. Just do it: it is hang-over from the early days of trying to knock this article into shape & was intended to connect with some other content that has been removed regarding the media/association with political & caste violence etc (this included Naxalite/Maoists and so on). I still think that these issues need to be shown somewhere, but not in the present form. - Sitush (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting source on Sanskritisation

This book has an interesting passage on the Gola/Ahir/etc. taking on the Yadava identity to avoid doing begar (unpaid labour) for other castes. Still need to dig into it and check into the author, but it's another interesting summary, and importantly covers the issues from a Women's Studies perspective that we're often short on in caste articles: [2]. I know we've had some discussion about whether the Yadav article has too much on Sanskritisation, but honestly it's looking like the "Yadav caste" (as opposed to the more general "everyone claiming descent from Yadu" that the article was bogged down in before) is in large degree a political creature.

I'm open to any rebuttal, but from what I'm seeing there doesn't seem to be a lot of connection between the Yadav caste, and folks in prior centuries who claimed Yadav-descent, other than claiming the same progenitor. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Buddy i hope you can sleep better these days, yes you are right that gwalvanshis used Yadav identity in 19 century but your trick of joining all clans specially yaduvanshi ahirs and nandvanshi's under one umbrella will one day go away in vain cause you cannot supress truth which is we Yaduvanhis of rajasthan , and haryana and western uttar pradesh are not involved in so called "begar" we have our own huge tracts of land and we employ other to cultivate it we are not land less, news papaers are filled with articles to support with i am about to write that yadavs are majority in Gurgaon , noida and no 3 after jats and gujjars in delhi. In delhi Ncr our children studies in best of english shools ,Yadavs work in mnc and drive cars and yes who are still farmers are land owners on priceless land which is of millions in market value today. Member of parlament of Gurgaon and Mayor is Yadav , now you can make our hold and power , MP of Rewari and other areas in Sothers haryana are yadavs.Which world of begari are you living in.Dr JN Yadav The actual situation can further be verified by coming down to western part of U.P.,the at places like Mainpuri,Ferozabad,Etawah,Farrukhabad, Etah etc. (The ancient Braj Pradesh) where Yadav community is living since the time immemorable.where yadavs are jamindars and people from various other castes work for yadavs. the maximum part of agricultural land is owned by the yadavas. The local businesses like transport,brickworks etc. is lead by yadavas and people from all castes work there. The social status of yadavs is equal to any other hindu high caste. the caste has many nobles, kings, jamindars in the area apart from being the original people on original krishna's birth place. Not only this, the most powerful Chauhan King of mainpuri was defeated by the Yadavs of bharaul Refer http://mainpuri.nic.in/history.htm . Most of the Yadav population forms greater part of indian defence,various police forces and teaching profession since ancient times. i m surprised to hear the words like sudra, begar etc. like words used for these people (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction misleading

Introduction says "Yadav groups were linked to cattle raising and, as such, were ascribed lower social and varna status". Yadavs of Haryana , Rajputana have given Great kings and Kingdoms , fine soldiers yet there is no mentioning of that info, thousands of books and articled are flooded on google claiming my saying.And yes cattle raising is done by many cates like Gujjars , Jats, Rajputs ,so why only Yadav article has intro like "linked to cattle raising why not with rajputs , gujjars and jat articles.I mean i donno some one has visited villages of haryana, punjab , rajasthan. all these tribes deal with cattle raising why fuss about lower social varna of yadavs.?42.109.91.36 (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read the (extensive) previous discussions regarding this issue. Unless you can introduce new evidence, there is nothing more to be said. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"HA HA HA " Sitush aren't of tired of using the same rebuttal.I hope some one is watching all this.Dr JN Yadav (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC) The article is misleading. Two good resources have been provided. one by MSA Rao and other by T padmaja. The article needs correction based on those articles. Social movements and social transformation: a study of two backward classes movements in India http://books.google.com/books?ei=4RqGTvHVDYPOrQf59-TrDA&ct=result&id=wWEiAQAAMAAJ&dq=semi+historical+evidences+ahir&q=semi+historical#search_anchor

Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu " is written by T. Padmaja. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No information about Yadavs of Rajasthan , haryana and madhya pradesh

Hello, yadavs are around 10 percent in haryana and found in large numbers in rajasthan and madhya pradesh please mention about them their history and current scenario.This article is about yadavs of bihar and eastern uttar pradesh the lowest class of yadavs.Dr JN Yadav (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You would need to provide some reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"Now this is what i am talking about, what reliable sources you want to proove that newyork is the capital of usa, unless and until you will remove your negative specs which looks all yadavs as poor , and land less shudras you will have to write to all that provide some reliable sources , I mean go and find out internet is filled of reliable sources, you just have to change negative approach.Dr JN Yadav (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

New York's term as capital of the United States is sourced to the United States Senate; while not independent, the Senate's publishing office is reliable. To similarly source the statement that Yadavs are 10% of the population in Haryana, a census report from Haryana would be acceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So many reliable sources have been provided but they have all been completely ignored. The article needs lot of correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.168.2 (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

info on current yadav of south india

http://www.tn.gov.in/bcmbcmw/obc/faq/kerala.pdf The above article mentions which subgroups fall under yadav. page 8 http://www.tn.gov.in/bcmbcmw/obc/faq/puducherry.pdf page 2

Their origin.

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Deliberate attempt to highlight negatives

There is a deliberate attempt to highlight negatives and delete the positives of Yadav Caste in this article. Article is highly biased, prejudiced and has demeaning tone. If anybody compares last year's version and compare it to current version, any sensible/unbiased person would come to the same conclusion. One specific example is removal of entire content about Yadav dynasty and putting a lot of emphasis on Sanskritisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmay80 (talk • contribs)

Already discussed above. To date, no one has produced really good evidence connecting the current group of people called "Yadav" and the historical people called "Yadava", and there is reason to believe that they, in fact, aren't actually the same (though there is some semi-productive work going on with the author Rao above). Luckily, we have a great article called Yadava that does a great job of extolling the historical virtues of a people who claim descent from a mythical king. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

funny again. you guys have ignored MSA raos book and also T padmajas work both are well known scholars with academic credentials. change the article. what the shit is going on..

By reading this article very soon other communities will start neglecting yadavs and starting disgracing them.Dr JN Yadav (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have uploaded page scans from MSA Rao's book in this section: [3] and there is discussion about including the information. I still have the book, so if there are any more pages you would like to see, please note them here. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Pictures

To Sitush and Matthew Vanitas why these black ugly pictures of people and why that lousy puncture picture . Why are you guys hell bent to disgrace Yadavs. I am worried from what all is happening on yadav page.I mean i a have a son studing in school and this rticle gets 10,000 hits a month may be his friends starts neglecting him by the way yadavs are depicted here .This page is talk of the country and i read people have started making fun of yadavs on differnt caste blocks by reading and seeing pictures on yadav wikepdia page.I hope thats what you wanted "Sitush" and "Matthew Vanitas". Now what you will do you will block me like you guys have blocked many other users who have similar objections.I mean see pages of gujjars , jats they share same status with that of ahirs yadavs.So why only yadavs are disgraced?Dr JN Yadav (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not Sitush and MatthewVanitas, it's me who's added the pictures. What do you mean by "black" pictures? And which picture do you consider "ugly" and why? The pictures are not going to change because of objections based in personal likes and dislikes such as yours, whether they gets 10 thousand hits or ten. They are legitimate; some indeed are historical. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

fowler@ you are a kurmi...ryt??? you got your page fixed...situish and matthew vanitas are not wrong and never have been,its you who have ignited the heat on the page...please refrain from such behaviour coz god wont forgive you for your misdeeds ...you posting such pictures sugest that you have some issues with situish and this page.i can bring such photo for every caste in the 19 th century....please dont do this for christ sake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.47.140 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making comments bordering on personal attacks. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Fowler&Fowler is not Kurmi. Neither are other editors involved in this discussion.

@Dr JN Yadav, first of all the pictures are not of a "black" person. The people in those pictures are brown-skinned, like most of Indians (and Yadavs). Being a brown-skinned person, I take offense to your comment -- being dark-skinned doesn't make someone ugly. Being racist, are we? utcursch | talk 05:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now compLeted adding the pictures. I found two pictures of Goala (or Gauwlie) cowherders and baffalo herders (a part of the Yadav group), and I've added those as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

@User:Fowler&fowler, hats off to you and your work , i know how much personal time of yours have been spent to scan and uplaod on wikipedia, i hope by uploading you can sleep better now, but same ? why only Yadavs , the same book have pictures of other castes why dont you do the same which you did with yadavs and by the way . CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN IN THIS CENTURY WHAT DOES YOUR PICTURES OF 18 CENTURY PICTURE MEANS. WHAT PURPOSE THEy SOLVE.Does it support the negative agenda of shudra or does it have any other means too ..waitingDr JN Yadav (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Utcursch i have seen your work and i respect you, by black i mean black and white pictures , but as far i know you , you have deep understanding about castes in india. WHY our caste is choosen for these 200 year old semi nude 'black and white" pictures i have seen other picturs of other castes in the same book so why not those are uploaded on gujjar , jat or rajput article.Dr JN Yadav (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry, you'll see the old pictures on the other articles as well. And not just those articles, but the elite castes as well. Clean ups take time. The various Brahmin pages are abysmally written as well. It just happened that Sitush and MatthewVannitas had started with the non-elite clean castes such as Yadav etc, so they received the first clean ups. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Why people are so Jealous or ignorance about yadav's identity

This link itself s evidence about the mindset of so called unbiased instinctual people better than villagers fight over showing somebody down.

what is general believe about Yadav whole world is knowing the fact but the way it has been maligned the image/identity of yadav it unacceptable.Yadav is the largest group in India and they had been from kings/ruler/Zamindar/warriors/brave to farmers/folk singers/cowherds(that is applicable to others casts like brahmin, rajput etc too as per their situation) etc. why those pages has not been projected in this fashion.Why Yadav article is not being ordered from mythological to current status as given to other cast. where is denying considering mythological fact of Yadu and Yadav and their Chandravanshi kshatriya status.Also, their is no denying of their OBC status in current time.

Evidence is being asked to Yadav page after projecting in down manner.Like put the poor guy in bar and ask him to get the proof.Same old story since thousand and thousands years started and continuing. Don't worry guys Yadav always fought for pride of themselves and for others and here also will be done..

Day before Yesterday i.e. 16/10/2011 , Yadav page has other link today again it has been changed what's up. At least that one was giving better projection of yadav. Also In one debate is on for Yadav/Yadava/Ahir page needs to be merged in one thread let's us do it then open up for debates. We have to consider general believe also as scholars and society already they marginalized yadavs to greater extent. But here at least yadav should be projected in better manner as what yadav think of himself as well other part of society too for yadav. Also in several hindi novels like also yadav have been considered as kshtriya varna/fearless/warrior/zamindar/kings/rulers of course with OBC status in current 100 years (no denying on it, although there were lot of resentment from so called upper section as well as lower section while implementation of Mandal commission's). Also anybody can find some documents from Mandal commision debates and can be sharable it will help lot. But I do reiterate that yadav page needs/must to be rearranged in better fashion. Also the contribution towards country and society of yadav in post 1800 needs to be projected like Gadar movement,araya samah movement, triveni shangh revolution step, Naxal(probably it will not come with flying colour as it has lost it's motive and direction) in bihar. At the same it has been carried by ST/SC section in current time)in bihar, — Preceding unsigned comment added by D murari (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The ordering of this page is must from mythological to current with their contribution to the country , their revolutions etc.However, it is difficult, considering people mindset [any doubt in this??], to give Yadav own status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D murari (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

say whatever you want but here sitush is the boss,he is the god of these page...no stoping to him and few other of his fellow workers.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.236.189 (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not just Sitush but Matthew vanitas and now Qwyrxian by their attempts to disgrace yadavs i am sure they are from rival castes.Dr JN Yadav (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

well said. This article is missing so much information with absolutely zero neutrality. No neutrality at all. even the work of MSA Rao has been ignored which clearly violated Wikipedia policy. but as you said SITUSH and his fellow buddies will put in what ever they want. The article needs to be corrected.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm an admin, right, so I'm not supposed to use bad language....one second....okay. Please re-read the above sections. MSA Rao is not being ignored. Several people are right now working on getting the book, reading it, and reviewing the claims to seeing what can be added. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction should be changed

As per recent [Resolution], the present Introduction is not correct.

As per the proposal:

"Lead sections of articles in practice reflect modern viewpoints. These viewpoints are represented in secondary reliable sources. It may be appropriate to add details of the historical context somewhere in the lead section, but care needs to be taken not to give too much weight to historical viewpoints."

Currently the introduction contains historical description which should be covered somewhere in the middle and weight should be given to modern description — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar1984 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that you may have misunderstood the close at WP:DRN. What the closer says is that we should prefer modern sources over old sources in the lead sections of articles. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, upon re-reading that closure, it might be me who is misinterpreting it because I originally based my opinion on the quote that you extracted. I will have a think over the next hour or two. If the lead is unbalance then it will not be good news for the Yadav community, since we'll likely have to mention the Naxalite connection, political corruption etc as those are the issues that are well reported. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, I take offence to that, Corruption,Naxalism has nothing to do with any caste or community.By writing such a senseless thing you have cleared all doubts that people have been raising on this page that you have something against Yadav's in particular. Anyways, I pity such narrow-minded thinking.All caste and communities are equally involved in political corruption etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar1984 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per WP:LEAD, the purpose of the section is to summarise the content of the article. Having read the whole thing through yet again, I still see problems with the article but the lead does summarise it well, and the sources used easily satisfy the policy. What would you envisage being in the lead? Would you care to draft one and post it here (not in the article itself)? What do you think needs adding to the article in order to reflect the modern situation of the Yadavs, other than the stuff about corruption etc that I have already mentioned? - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

fixed your indenting again - generally, add one more colon than the previous poster used. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Too many pics from teh same source- should be replaced

Again too many ancient pics from the same resource do not add any additional value to the article.

As discussed earlier in the article that we should use content from different resources and not from a single resource I would suggest most of these pics to be replaced--Rockstar1984 (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is the discussion that you refer to, and in particular the agreement the multiple sources should be used. For that matter, which source do you consider to be over-used? I know that you have recently favoured images of politicians but, of course, they are most definitely not representative of the Yadav community (they may be representatives in the political sense of the word, but their occupations/status/actions etc are distinctly marginal in the context of the community as a whole). - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

ohh...so Let me quote your statement on why MS Rao book should not be considered "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)"

Hence, following the same rationale, why pics from a single source only...and as far as other pics are concerned, I'll ensure that I add pics where some evidence of the person belonging to Yadav community is available.there are 1000s of such evidences available on net so won't be an issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar1984 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Two points: (a) my previous statement did not relate to images; and (b) it related to "controversial issues" in the sense of academic disputes about origin etc. Just like we should not take sources out of context, so too we should not take our own comments out of context. There is a long discussion about images above: I suggest that you read it and comment there, since it is fairly recent. - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

this discussion about the images is not the same as one that happened earlier.Unlike earlier discussion, I am not saying that images are ugly and hence should be removed. My point is that why all images from a single source. Are we so short of content and resources? Anyways, I don't think anyone except Sitush and Flower will have any objection with replacing the images

- We have already heard Sitush's and flowers opinion, so sitush please don't repeat yourself, if anyone else has objection with replacing the images pls discuss--Rockstar1984 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the indents for readability. Rockstar1984, the editor's name is Fowler, not flower. JanetteDoe (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Rockstar84:I've added back one of your pictures to the appropriate section. A problem with the page might be the brevity of the post-independence section. That does need to be expanded, especially the description of the role Yadavs have played in Indian politics: Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Rao Birendar Singh, Lalloo Yadav, and Mulayam Singh Yadav. But removing the important historical material is hardly the way to remedy it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree regarding the post-independence issue, and touched upon it in the thread immediately above this one. As far as the restored image goes, I still have an issue as it appears to assume that because the PM's last name is Yadav then he is of the Yadav community. The article for the person has no sourcing for the point and so there is at least a technical BLP violation. I know that some people think that I am being specious regarding this type of thing but I have recently raised the point at WT:INB and it got little response (if any). Yes, various communities adopt certain names and this is the case pretty much worldwide but a classic example in the Indian context is the "Nair" name: there are thousands of people of Scottish descent, for example, who bear that name and whose connection to India, if it exists at all, must stretch back over many, many centuries. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and another in the Indian context would be "Fernandes" and its variants. There are people who bear that name in India and who have a reasonably long genealogy attached to it. But we do not assume that all "Fernandes" people are members of this or that caste, or even Indian at all. As I understand it, the origin in India at least goes back to Portuguese Christian missionaries. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Good points Sitush. Yes, I have no idea if the Nepalese prime minister is Yadav by caste or just happens to have that last name. You are welcome to disable the picture until someone provides proof. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush and Fowler, please do not spam here and reach a consensus, we know your opinion so please wait and let others contribute before jumping to a conclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.6.139 (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang on Sitush and Fowler, again jumping to conclusion, Dont worry Sitush, we wont be adding any details or pics of leaders whose caste is not verifiable.Pics and details of leaders like Lalu Yadav, Mulayam singh Yadav etc (who are registered with All India Yadav and OBC Mahasabha etc and have 1000s of other proofs that they belong to the Yadav community, should be added. too much highlight is given to the pre independence section and hence I would be updating the article with well cited post independent articles. Jai Sri Krishna !! --Rockstar1984 (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute tag

User:Rockstar1984 has reinstated the factual accuracy dispute maintenance tag here, claiming that the dispute is ongoing. This is news to me: people are still popping up to complain but there has been no policy-compliant dispute for some time now, indeed not since the merge proposal was withdrawn. Indeed, as per the tag, all the sources used appear to conform to WP:RS.

The entire dispute actually centred on the Yadav/Yadava/Ahir etc issue, which was covered by the merge discussion. It is over: WP:CONSENSUS is not trumped just because some people still believe that things should be merged. So, if a dispute still exists, please state clearly what it is and provide the policy links to support that contention. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

we cannot assume consensus on a discussion just because you and flower spam the discussions with your flawed logic.For a person going through the discussions would realize that majority do not agree with your line of thought. As per your comments, Yadav is not necessarily a Yadav but pic of women harvesting is definitely a Yadav though it is not verifiable.Similarly, we have repeatedly cited the same Yadav books so many times but not considered citing MS Rao and other books(even though majority feels it should be) because you and Fowler don't fel like citing it.

I am not against citing references that you are comfortable with, but we should also cite books with line of belief also to give readers a complete picture and not just biased opinions. Again, Sitush and Fowler, we already know your opinion so please don't spam here and reach a consensus. Let others contribute--122.174.6.139 (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The current sources are reliable and there is consensus not to merge. Since there is consensus not to merge, there is also consensus that the subject areas are best treated separately. Please note that consensus is not a vote: a simple majority of opinions is completely irrelevant to determining whether consensus exist, since the only valid opinions are those which are policy-compliant, and the merge discussion closed (inevitably, IMO) with the view that there were insufficient policy-compliant "support" !votes. This issue is not going to be allowed to drag on forever: a decision has been reached and the issue is closed. Finally, there has been no spamming here by either myself or Fowler&fowler: these accusations and conspiracy theories need to stop, now. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you in such a hurry Sitush ?, Give people some time to breathe, read and respond.Disputes can not be resolved overnight. And as far as spamming by you and fowler is concerned, pls go through the previous section or any other section for that matter. Relax, and give others a chance to write and express their opinion before jumping to any conclusion.--Rockstar1984 (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the dispute is already resolved. There is nothing to be gained from further discussion along the lines of the abandoned merger proposal, for a few months at least. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly have you solved the dispute. Here or in your own mind? I couldn't see you coming up with any refutation of citations brought by several users, like, M.S.A. Rao's, Padmaja,s and Bhattacharjee's. You and others' only argument was IDIDNTLIKETHIS. Tags are appropriate. it is good that the article is tagged at least. You till day haven't given any policy for non inclusion of them. Ikon ^No-Blast 15:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It was resolved by dint of the merger discussion closing. I refer you to the conversations above, in which you took a part. You are being incredibly tendentious about this issue. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't participate in that merger discussion and logics were same IDIDNTLIKEIT. Ikon ^No-Blast 15:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you did not, but you were around and were aware of it. Not participating was your choice. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it was my choice, because I had earlier pointed out the creation itself is flawed. And, why you forget, we were waiting for Jannetdoe for shots of MSA Rao during that period. Ikon ^No-Blast 15:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, people are scared of participating because you and Fowler get people banned for not agreeing with you, read about your ban request of ikonoblast, how lame was that.Anyways, going forward please don't assume that we have reached a consensus only becasue you and flower agree on some flawed logic -Rockstar1984 (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

People get themselves blocked or topic banned etc, as you very nearly did a few hours ago. Not a lot that I can do about that: I cannot manipulate their fingers on a keyboard for them. I have the dubious honour of working a lot in a topic area that attracts a lot of "incompetent" and even duplicitous contributors. The incompetence may be because they are new or it may be because they are simply unwilling to follow the policies and guidelines. In either case, they get assistance, advice and warnings ... and not just from me. Tbh, it would not surprise me if someone else is looking at a short block soon but that is not and never has been my decision to make. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Somebody should also consider a short block on you or you may consider taking a rest, let ppl., write something and then come again with your evaluation. Second one would be wiser. Ikon ^No-Blast 16:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, would suggest that we discuss Yadav issues here, remaining things can be discussed on our own talk page.If you have nothing new to contribute please refrain from posting here,guess besides you no one else has any objection to what is being discussed --Rockstar1984 (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(You can't have someone's username in a section heading. Change it to something else.)

Fowler&fowler seems to be a guy who hates india. he has been putting negative information in all india related articles.. he is a paki ( pakisthani ) for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Pakistanis have as much right to edit this article as anyone else. Nationality in Real Life does not feature in any of the Wikipedia guidelines we are required to abide by. There's no "h" in Pakistani. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, the Caste system in India (which according to some is the world's oldest from of apartheid) has so insidiously wormed its way into the body politic that many people oppressed by it have not been able to throw off the mantle of oppression by rejecting the system. Instead, they have attempted to deny the oppression. It is the Indian equivalent of three or four generations of African Americans denying the fact of slavery and attempting to pass. In race relations in the US, "passing" was a realistic option for only a few people of mixed race inheritance. In India, where the hierarchy of the caste system, is not precisely correlated with color, it is an option for many, and that is what many have chosen to do, especially in the gray zones of the non-elite occupational castes. It is the classic Freudian "identification with the aggressor." Such people (and I mean the groups, not Wikipedia users) get very upset when someone calls their bluff. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother replying to personal attacks or soapbox drama -- just remove them. utcursch | talk 10:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Even i am aginst this "Pakistani" approach but this is just the anger of people, that what all negative propagenda is going on this page and by adding these black n white pictures that does not mean anything , this is just the begining. I am sure Wikepedia will have to add few more administrators to block tens of those who object, or change the approach . Please be more flexible by just doing all this is not going to proove anything.The fact is yadavs of today don't look like what pictures speaks nor all yadavs are shudras.Dr JN Yadav (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the misunderstanding of known facts to equate caste system with apartheid. Dalitastan used to equate the two but is a banned site now. As for Passing Theory(Tagged Original Research), is not applied by any acamedician in Indian context, and we don't want to make this article OR. But people do have right to get angry if Fowler&fowler«Talk», abuses the Subject itself and shows contempt for them both on talk page and edit summaries, to the extent of trying to pass Umrao Singh as jat, and making the context for abusing them. Rohtak is not a too big place and everybody knows who is who there. Flagging others comment and sparing Fowler when he directly abuses others does not seem to be fair at all.Ikon ^No-Blast 14:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S----> I am not advocating for any removal of pics which comply with policies. I have seen the concern and they look ugly. @, DJNSY, You should know Shudrabhira is a sanskrit term and Indranigupta had called himself Shudraka, which means Like those Shudras. Ikon ^No-Blast 16:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have complaints about any editor's behavior, this is not the place. This is the place for discussing the article. If you have trouble remembering this point, you may wish to request a mentor until you are more familiar with WP's rules and policies. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start this thread, and I am 4th to comment here. Ikon ^No-Blast 17:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. It is also irrelevant. The article talk page is the place to discuss changes and improvements to the article, not changes and improvements to other editors, whether your comment is first or fourth or fortieth. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean to say Rules Apply on me Only? Have you checked how Sitush, MV and F&F have commented throughout the talk page and archived pages. On most cases they look like FB and Twitter status updates, completely irrelevant to the the topic. Ikon ^No-Blast 18:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The rules apply to everyone, or did you miss the "first or fourth or fortieth" part of my comment? If you truly believe that a specific user's edits are problematic, you can place a warning on their talk page. I believe that this avenue is open to anyone, admin or not, but someone with more experience is welcome to correct me. Warnings will have more credibility if they include diffs to problem behavior and links to the WP policy being violated. If that fails, or if you believe that the behavior is too repeated and egregious, you can always go to WP:ANI. However, starting with the gentle approach, familiarizing yourself with WP policy, and assuming good faith will probably have the best results. JanetteDoe (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JD for clarifications. I am waiting for your inputs on MSA Rao. Ikon ^No-Blast 18:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Did you mean scans of MSA Rao's book? Links to scans of several pages are in this section: [4]. Or did you mean something else? JanetteDoe (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, this tendentious referencing of Rao needs to stop. Even if your interpretation of what he says were correct, Rao was but one commentator and there are a lot of commentators who simply do not support your line of argument. You need to come up with a lot more sources to verify your point. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Quoting M. S. A. Rao can't be tendentious. Questioning him certainly is. I can't argue with you what the truth is but scope of Wikipedia is limited to verifiability. You haven't quoted a single of your "lot" till now, that contradicts Rao. Yes, you do come with your own POV but after doing a lot of synthesis. FYI, Rao is not Ahir. Ikon ^No-Blast 19:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. perhaps the problem is one of comprehension of the English language? "Tendentious" has nothing to do with quoting; it refers, among other things, to a persistence in arguing a position and a repetitive use of the same points in support of that argument. I think that you have previously been referred to WP:TE for a detailed explanation. Perhaps the comprehension issue also extends to the subtleties of the language, eg: when someone uses the phrase "they claim" then it is not an endorsement of that claim by the author. Is this the difficulty? - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, what is WP:TE, and I also know what is tendentious. In fact I was referring you to WP:TE. Trying to spin the argument??? BTW are you an Indian. You just smelled like an old pal. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that it should matter but, no, I am not an Indian or in any way connected with India. I have no idea how Indians or old pals smell but would imagine that both are much the same as the rest of the human race, taken as a whole: we are all a bit whiffy from time to time, etc. I really do not understand whatever point it is that you are trying to make in your last contribution above - spinning what? And are you sure about your understanding of WP:TE, because it seems to me that you are on the brink, if not beyond? There is no need for this: you have on several occasions of late announced that you would provide additional sources but we seem not to be moving this discussion by one iota, and the sources (pretty much, just Rao) are lacking. The article may have deficiencies in fact but we have to abide by the community consensus regarding such matters as the Five Pillars, and so we really need more info. I do appreciate that you may not believe this, but I am genuinely open-minded and I have no vested interest. I created the Rao article, by the way: it needs filling out & so feel free to do so. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I casually speak english, and that too plain english, and you know what I mean and I know what you mean. That serves all the purpose. We also tend to mix Hindi, Gujrati, Marathi, Bengali, Punjabi into it. We also deal with British and americans and sometimes they sound Latin to us and sometimes we sound Latin to them. So you can't help it really. Gap do exist and it exists in every sphere. You must be aware of the controversial statement, "Train was late... and I was looking Dark and Dirty like X." Here, only Dark is meant for X and dirty for the person herself. However, you can understand this, I too can understand this, but there are ppl., who have protested like anything. Regarding Additional sources, I have repeatedly told you, there is actually no need, because that is already in the source supplied by Rao and provided by JannetDoe, which you mischievously called Gyan[5]. On every mention of Rao you have behaved as if you were losing money somewhere. Isn't that what tendentious means. I am not very fond of wikipedia Jargon, because I have found they are mostly the weapons of Trolls, and most of the times they throw them on you. So, a bird's eyeview is all it gets, though certainly it deserves more attention.Above "tendentious" only means violation of WP:TE, with disruptive connotation. Thanks for drawing attention though. It does not look nice to hear from you about community consensus, because Talk archives speaks of its violation by you and your team. Present version is simply the result of the block and protection game. Ikon ^No-Blast 19:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler please do some research on ancient india and medeival india. In india castes like Nair are ruling castes and extremely powerfull. almost all the backward caste are powerfull and have remained powerfull through out the history except during british rule. Like for example the THEVARS, vanniayars of south india. the thevars were army chiefs in feudal southindia and vanniyars were also warriors who were landlords. but both thevar and vanniyar are backward caste. Lot of things changed in british rule. Even the Mahars who come under scheduled caste are known warriors. Point is indian caste system is not what you understand. and then the JATS, the JATS are so powerfull in north india and everyone knows that JATS were kings some 1000 years ago and were powerfull even during mughal rule. India is redeveloping. In medeival world india was the greatest country on earth. May be in another 50 years India will be the greatest country on earth. so many developments. so many intellectuals, so much growth in India. point is you have completely got the caste system wrong.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

remove the photo and put some image which truely denotes the Ahir/yadavs.

also correct the article based on these references. mention about yadav kings

http://books.google.com/books?id=wg0IAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA240&dq=ahir+king&hl=en&ei=MemYTtmJLujfiAKhg4yfDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ahir%20king&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nqvloPNdEZgC&pg=PA44&dq=ahir+yadav&hl=en&ei=uemYTqnrAqb8iQLxkpXWDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=ahir%20yadav&f=false

correct the article based on discussions. You have higlighted all negative false points, highlight the positive points too. give due consideration to sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

To link between yadav and ahir and king. http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&record=389 W.Chichele Plowden , ( 1883 ), Report on the Census of British India taken on the 17th February 1881 , London , Eyre and Spottiswoode , p. 326 122.161.105.184 (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation for Yadav's As Khatriya Clan

Page 461 :http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=7Q4NTernHMbirAewmp3rCw&ct=result&id=KTEoAAAAMAAJ&dq=punjab+jadubans+caste&q=ahir#search_anchor

Now pls don't remove the part for which citation has been given Sitush and Qwyrxian have been attacking this page for a long time now. Why are you guys putting up pictures from flickr ?? Is that a reliable source. There are 1000s of Yadav leaders, sportsman etc and these are the only pics you find related to this community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar1984 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am only able to see a snippet view of this page. Snippet view is insufficient to be used as a citation. Also, on the very small amount that I am able to see, no specific individuals are named as belonging to this caste. JanetteDoe (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Yadavs (Ahirs and Goalas), like the Kurmi, Kachi, Koeri, Kunbi, Jat, and Gujjars, are the traditionally non-elite but clean occupational castes. What that means is that for most of India's recorded history they were largely outside the caste system. They were never regarded as twice born. However, they were not considered ritually polluting either, as the untouchables were. Only after the elite landowning castes began to press the non-elites economically in the early 19th century, did these non-elites began—all at once—to discover their various kshatriya pasts. Some scholars have called it kshatriya-ization.

I feel it is best to ignore these reincarnating drive-bys and IPs. Their usual tack is to lob some obscure Yadav fantasy history at us, and then ask us to respond. This of course has the potential to go on forever. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The concept of Kshatriyaisation is not very popular among reputed scholars, and so we must not use it. Same is true with elite and non elite distinction. Proper term is Aryanisation or Brahminisation of a tribe.

Regarding Kshatriya status of a caste, we must note, the class of Kshatriya did exist during and prior to Budhhist era. However, after that an era of concoction and confusion followed, and those Kshatriya seems to be lost somewhere, though they exist without any doubt. So, while describing caste status, we must not describe it in the present context, we should only point to the tribe being called so in quoted text and time.

@Rockstar1984, Good attempt! The castes listed in the book are listed in the order of purity determined by british census officers, who through investigating, who takes food and water from whom, arrived at that order. Your source can be used in Kshatriya article. This concept of cow protector and brahmin protector Kshatriya was also discussed in D.C. Ahir's book, though it is conjectural. Ikon ^No-Blast 15:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

@Rockstar1984, Good work, another oldest database from british census 1881, the linking yadavs and ahir is http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&record=389 W.Chichele Plowden , ( 1883 ), Report on the Census of British India taken on the 17th February 1881 , London , Eyre and Spottiswoode , p. 326 122.161.105.184 (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So many evidence has been overlooked and so many users have agreed that some yadavs are kings and rulers too.

The whole article is a manifestation of bureaucratic abuse who want to accept only the references which suit their requirements/biases.Its a subject on which you can find references in either direction.They are abusing a democratic platform like wikipedia to wage their personal battles and stereotyped a community which is a macrocosm in itself and is not homogeneous.Tell me an indian caste,however higher or lower in hierarchy, and i will give u references both glorifying and demeaning. Cultcontri (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)cultcontri

That's why our article provides both types of evidence. I will point out, though, that so far no one has provided evidence that meet WP:RS that they were kings and rulers. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

So many evidence has been overlooked and so many users have agreed that some yadavs are kings and rulers too.

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) 15:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• The Oxford student's history of India. By Vincent Arthur Smith, Published by OXFORD at the Clarendon press. Page 60, 81, 88, 145, 80[6]
• Joshua Project
• Hinduism and Its Military Ethos page 209 [7]

No one has proved so far that the yadavs are not chandravansh. This article does not have any neutrality and seeks to completely discredit the community. So many references have stated even in 18th century there were yadav rulers and why is this not being mentioned. I kinldy request the article to be changed. Why is the discussion of so many users being neglected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You did not state a preference, so I have re-formatted your proposed references for easier reading. Suggest you use similar formatting for any future refs as it's much easier to follow.

If you do not read the Archive to see where we have addressed these exact same sources in the past, you cannot expect a response. For the Smith book you just linked a bunch of pages with "Yadava" on them; where does one say that the modern Yadav caste is their descendants? The Joshua Project is a Christian missionary website; they are by no means historians nor demographers, sociologists, etc. The Nehra book (also discussed previously) is the politicised rhetoric of a retired Indian military officer who, to the best of my knowledge, has no historian credentials, and the very phrasings of the book (and even its title) connote a ideological, vice historical, work.

No one has proved so far that the yadavs are not chandravansh. Nobody has yet "proved" they are. They claim said status, we note said claim in article and give the claim's historical context. What is lacking there? Positive affirmation that they, indeed, are correct? Where is there a good secondary source stating they are correct?

The "so many users" have failed to present any credible data tying the modern Yadava to the ancient/medieval. "Yadava" means "descendant of Yadu", and the concept of descent from Yadu is covered at Yaduvanshi. This article is about the Yadav caste, and nobody has provided evidence linking the various Yadu-descent claimants. You are not being ignored, you are actually getting plenty of responses, particularly given that we could simply tell you "read the archive" instead since all of this had been discussed at length previously. Please read the archive if you want further responses. Also, do not simply throw us a link and expect us to do your research for you: if you have what you believe is a supporting link, provide the reference and then explain, very briefly, what it says, and what you would like added to the article, and how your ref supports that addition. Note how I stated the case against your references in detail, you need to do that much or more when presenting your claimed refs in the first place. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Explanantion does not have any rational at all. Basically all evidences have been ignored. It looks like there is a deliberate attempt to malign the community. Now I am sure you will say ancient Indians are different from present day Indians. Its the same generation and its the same clan. Government records state that there were YADAV rulers ( zamindars/thakurs/landlords )during 18th century. why is that being ignored. Its really funny that people have decided to put in what ever they want with out proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have dealt with you very courteously, and gone out of my way to give constructive critique of your references. You continue to repeat yourself, not pay attention to replies, or heed the archive, so I simply cannot help you. If you believe there is unfair bias being displayed in this article, I suggest you seek WP:Dispute resolution. In this case, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard would probably be most applicable. If you go there, please read the instructions for filing a claim carefully, maybe look at some other successful cases below you, and state your case in a very clear and concise fashion. Note that the "jury" will not necessarily be India experts, so be sure to phrase your concerns in ways anyone can understand. Saying "But they're wrong and Yadavas are Chandravanshi!!!" will convince nobody. Instead, provide links pointing out where you're seeing biased material or behavior, and why (in layman's, non-expert terms) you believe the behaviour is biased. Make sure that you leave notice of the filed complaint at the page in questions (here). Good luck in your endeavors, but do not expect further reply from the regular editors here unless you address points that have already been covered repeatedly. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes this definitely needs to be taken to dispute resolution or Neutral point of view noticeboard. There is no proof or scholarly evidence to suggest that YADAVs are not chandravansh rulers. and In india the north and the south have been united politically only during the british rule but the YADAV community has been in all parts with the same ancestral origin theory. There is a continued lineage of YADAVS through the 3000 years of recorded history. The difference is they have been doing different things. sometimes rulers, sometimes cowherds, sometimes army generals,,the list is endless.

Thats the truth and thats what the article should reflect. The book "The politics of the urban poor in early twentieth-century India" by Nandini Gooptu is political propaganda and the author does not have any academic credentials. This book cannot be taken as source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• There is no proof or scholarly evidence to suggest that YADAVs are not chandravansh rulers. Cool, now you go present proof that they are. It is not incumbent on me to prove a negative. And again, nobody is denying that there have been rulers with the Yadav name in the past, we're questioning said people's pertinence to the issue of the Yadav caste.
• Yes this definitely needs to be taken to dispute resolution or Neutral point of view noticeboard. I have given y'all (you?) links and an explanation of how this is done. You could probably file such a complaint in 15-20 minutes, so less time than has been spent here.
• The book "The politics of the urban poor in early twentieth-century India" by Nandini Gooptu is political propaganda and the author does not have any academic credentials. Really? Do you have evidence of this? What a terrifying development, surely you must notify the good people at Cambridge University Press who published that book. Are you supposing that Cambridge University Press simply has no academic standards? Oh, and the folks at the World Institute for Development Economics Research who published one of his other books. GoogleScholar is showing 219 hits for his name and those who have cited his work. Wow. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No academic credentials? Really? - Sitush (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sitush and MV, there clearly is no more benefit to arguing these points. IP, if you think there's a problem, take it through dispute resolution. If you don't know how to do that, come to my talk page and I will explain (though, let me warn you: do not come and give me even a single piece of evidence about Yadava/Yadav/Yadavu or what have you--I will only help you with the WP processes, not the actual evidence). If you don't want to do that, well, then, you're out of luck. Wikipedia does not allow editors (registered or anonymous) to continually disrupt talk pages of articles by just repeating the same points over and over again and just not listening to other people. Take it to dispute resolution, fix the problems addressed by MV & Sitush, or stop. There are no other options. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge university press is reputed but the author Nandini gooptu has based her book completely on UP and Bihar states of India. The same cambridge university press has published a book "The Marathas 1600-1818, Part 2, Volume 4 By Stewart Gordon" in which in page 105 it mentions that "chandrasen YADAV" beseiged Vijaydurg and attacked gul barga. that means chandrasen yadav was a military commnader in Marata army. I will provide more references to prove my point that Yadavs were rulers, army generals , landlords and some were cow herds. Since " Cambridge university press " is considered a standard source let me provide more references from many many authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are simply not grasping: hauling up names of important people named Yadav is pointless unless there is some connection between them and the Yadav caste. I have said a dozen times: yes, there were many kings, generals, etc. who had the name/title "Yadav", but this article is about the caste of people called the "Yadav caste", associated with the Ahir, and involved in a Sanskritisation campaign around the turn of the previous century. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

matthew@ r u trying to say that yadavs are not ahir??? and ahirs hvnt been kings????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.81.249 (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly not reading the article nor the archives. I can only help you so much. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mathewvanitas basically you and me are saying the same thing. You have agreed that YADAVS held/did many professions through out the continous history of India. you have also agreed that Yadav was a ruler/army general/ cowherd/etc,,. so all of these should be mentioned. Because people from YADAV community has held many professions and roles as mentioned above. There is enough evidence also in the form of books. It looks like the only way to prove to you is DNA test which is not practical and all the sources are just ignored. Please edit the article and put atleast the information you have agreed. and no doubt everyone appreciates your patience and replys. what is the fine line between a yadav who is a ruler/general/cow herd. there is none. kindly correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Last time I'll tell you this: this article is not about "every group of people ever referred to as Yadav". It is about the Yadav caste. The DNA thing is a silly strawman argument I never made. No, I will not change the article since this lot of IPs (one person, many?) has provided no credible evidence which actually addresses the issue of the caste currently known as "Yadav", not just "people who have 'Yadav' in their surname or community name." No further responses from me unless y'all bring up some actual new data. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats really really funny. Everyone in India knows that only the YADAV caste have YADAV in their name. There is absolutely no doubts on that. 100% all the time people who have YADAV in their name belong to YADAV caste/community. You arugument is really funny. I think only a DNA test will satisfy you which is not practical. Any how I will file a dispute/article not neutral with references from cambridge university press/academic sources. No other people in India have YADAV in their name unless they are from YADAV caste/community. There is no rational thinking in your argument. Everyone is India knows that YADAV is a caste /community and parents keep their childs name as YADAV only if he is from YADAV community ( 2000 year old tradition ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

i too agree what you said,yadav title is only used by the people from yadav community,its not a common surname with other cast but only yadavs. matthews@@ if you are that sure of your work then please provide me the link that yadav 0f 1400 are not modern yadavs.pls give us those links. and i dont thinks so any caste would be having links that would prove that they are same community people which they think there ancestor were...ain't it??? please try to be rational...thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarrana (talk • contribs) 07:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mathewvanitas does not understand how names are kept in India. His point of argument is entirely flawed. For almost many many years ( probably 2000 - 3000 years ) caste/community name is carried forward from one generation to another. If a person has YADAV in his name there is no doubt that he belongs to the YADAV community/caste ( 100% of Indians will agree ). and the fact that 14th , 15th , 16th century minor kings, army generals have YADAV surname is enough to prove that they are the ancestors of modern day YADAVS. Mathewvanitas clearly lack understanding of INDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "everyone knows" is not sufficient evidence. Please provide a reliable source WP:RS to support this assertion, or is cannot be included.JanetteDoe (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. I will definitely provide reliable sources as reference to prove how names are kept in India. That would clear many things and help in correcting the article. So that the article reflects the fact and can be called neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

By reading all the discussion the following points are clear.

1. So far many users have been blocked for trying to correct the article. All those users have provided references. The pattern is when ever some one tries to edit something they are blocked.

2. The majority of users in discussion clearly state that YADAVS are not only cowherds but kings, rulers and army generals too.

3. SITUSH and Mathewvanitas have ignored so many references.

4. It is clearly agreed that any person with YADAV name belongs to the YADAV community/caste ( no doubt about that ) but still the article does not mention about YADAV kings/rulers. There is only one reference which states YADAVS as cowherds but there are like 15 references which state YADAV as kings/rulers/generals/landlords,,etc,,.

The article needs to be changed. Why were so many users blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The users who were blocked were blocked because they were deceptively operating multiple accounts (see WP:SOCKPUPPETRY) or were otherwise engaged in disruptive editing. Also, please note that Wikipedia is not about majority rule--it's about finding information supported by reliable sources and then summarizing and organizing that info into a coherent Wikipedia article. Most of the references provided were either unreliable, or failed to address the fundamental issues raised over and over again. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I AGREE THAT IT IS BEING OVER LOOKED , HOPE NEUTRAL ADMINISTRATORS OF WIKIPEDIA WILL DO SOMETHINGDr JN Yadav (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Curious that this message was left by an account created 6 October. It certainly adds to the appearance of what Qwyrxian stated above: a small group of users has been "deceptively operating multiple accounts." —C.Fred (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why british time census details can not be used as reference fro yadav vs ahir vs kings

http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&record=389.

W.Chichele Plowden , ( 1883 ), Report on the Census of British India taken on the 17th February 1881 , London , Eyre and Spottiswoode , p. :: 326 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.105.184 (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Because they are unreliable. They varied their definitions from one region to the next & the summarisers admitted that they were often confused regarding whether the results were being correctly reported or interpreted. If the source itself has doubts about what it says then that doesn't bode well for use on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, how will you prove, that British time census record is unreliable, this seems to be your original search, and such original assumptions and personal belief should not be part of Wikipedia. You can trace more order records, such as Poetry by Jai-Govind, and Iskan HareKrishna movement books to enlighten yourself with the reference with are not my original search. Whole India is filled with rulers from Yadav/Ahir/Gwala dynasties small or big from Nepal to Maysore, from Panjab to Marathwada. No amount of currupting the fact on wikipedia and getting propoganda books published on some US university, where everyone from professor to PHD fella is up for sale/bargain/buyout, legally and with full pround and belief in trade culture. At the end, I can say few individuals with thier crony teams are badly sick, and they are talking about proof as strong as DNA to prove, if current yadava have any link with historical and mythological Ahira,Abhira,Yadus.

You are asking about the proof of

Ahir Vs Abhira Vs Aheer Vs Yadav Vs Yaduvanshi Vs Jadeja from Gujrat Vs Jadhav from Maharastra Vs Rao in Hariyana

Mahabharat Ahir Vs Mahabharat Abhira Vs

Patanjali MahaJanpada Vs Sursena Vs Puru from Panjab Vs

Ancient Rulers of Prayag and Mathura and Dwarka

First rulers of Nepal Vs Last rulers of Maysur

Last rulers of Junagadh Vs Jadejas history in Gujrat Vs Jadaun title in Rajasthan

Ahir title used in Maharastra and Gujrat

Gwala from Mathura, Ahirs from Hariyana

Sainis from Panjab, Aheer from pakishtan

Pastoral tribe and Sudra status, Aryan were doing live stock management, which was the only power symbol of Aryans while on the move.

Most of the religion in the world are influenced by pastoral tribe, (Islam, Cristian, Hindu, Jain, Haveli-Vaishnav)

No amount of propganda will work, as all these disputes will be taken up into consideration by scholars for an official and authoritative historical analysis in near or distant future. the factual past should be brought into limelight because mythologically these peoples are around since ages with some/other name and title. 122.161.10.102 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)