Talk:Yadav

Expanding the Article

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

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

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

Jain's view

Jain says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point to be noted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 14 February 2012

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

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

Edit request on 21 February 2012

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

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

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