Talk:Yadav

Maoist movement in Bihar?

I am removing this section as it is uselss on yadav page . Maoist have no connection with Yadav community as a whole . Maoists are a bunch of people (from many castes) in many states of india have have illigally formed armies and no relevant source can claim that yadavs have formed Maoist outfits. This is not a news section.This gives a notion to a fresh reader that Yadavs are linked woth terrorists like maoists and anti nations.Raosaab7 (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

While I can understand your point, it seems odd that the paper chose to make the point that they were all Yadav in its opening paragraph if it is insignificant. Needs a bit of digging around, I feel. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many headlined mentioning Yadavs in it's opening paragraph ,Where in some yadav policemen were martyred by maoists and some won medals in different internation gameing events that doesn't mean you will edit or create a section on this wikipedia yadav caste page.Remeber maoist are not heros of india, they are hated by indian nationals and Govt.By. By just picking and choosing news that can defame yadavs and adding on this page is an insult to the whole community as people will start looking them from hate angle . If you want that please go ahead and reinstate that section.By the way there are thousands of headlines menting muslims , hindus , christian or Sikhs involved in terror and anti national activities but that doesn't mean you will glorify that on their respective articles on wikipedia . I would appriciate if you would take a neutral approch. I am again removing it.Raosaab7 (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You cannot "again remove it". See WP:BRD. You do not get your own way here. I agree that it seems odd and needs looking into, but no more than that. The least you could do, as a courtesy to everyone else in situations such as this, is copy the removed content to this page. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

why don't you take an opinion of different admins or wiki contributors on this matter insted of reverting it back or blocking by id.As i am just using the option of talk page .Raosaab7 (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Other people can see this discussion. Starting a discussion and then forcing your position in the article itself even though someone queries your action is not usually a good idea. You will note that someone else has now stepped in to revert - this kinda proves the points, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As a minor response: I initially added the Maoist content because I realised that several of the previously-cite points saying "Yadavs were involved in X anti-terrorist action and Y raid" turned out to simply say that one person with the last name of Yadav or Ahir was involved in the event. So I removed those as being highly anecdotal. However, while searching I ran across various mentions of Yadavs in the Maoist movement, and then Sitush added more content clarifying that this participation appears to have a broad base in the caste.

My issue is that people here are too quick to say "oh look, one Yadav did XYZ, let's put down that Yadavs are important in XYZ", yet when it's anything slightly negative, it's "that's only one Yadav." Similar when convenient folks try to lump the exact same (usually very promotional) material into Ahir, Yadav, Yaduvanshi Ahir, but when a merge is propose insist they're all separate groups. It's just this POV picking-and-choosing that bugs me. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just a note to point out that I have also reverted the removal of the "Maoist" content, but I did it only because it was unexplained removal of content which appeared to be supported by a reliable source. Removal of sourced content at least requires an explanation, and if it is disputed (which this clearly is) it then needs discussion and consensus. Whether it is sufficiently important to be included or whether it is thought to represent undue weight is something about which I have no opinion - that's for the editors working on it here to decide, but it must be by discussion and consensus, not by unilateral decision -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There is quite a broad set of issues regarding the Maoist stuff.

• There is plenty of evidence that it is/was notable in Bihar, but that is just one state & I am not so sure that there is much available for elsewhere. Early days on the research front, though.
• There are difficulties with sourcing because the caste name is also a common last name.
• There is a distinct likelihood that WP:DUE has to cut in at some point, but where to draw the line?
• Getting a feel for the numbers involved is extremely difficult, so far. My gut feeling is that in Bihar there are/were a lot of sympathisers and a fair few activists but obviously this is awkward to ascertain, not least because various Maoist groups are/were illegal bodies & so information regarding them needs extremely close examination for POV. And almost certainly will in any event be incomplete.

I have more sources which can be used but need to get a feel regarding the weighting issue. It certainly has a place in the article but comments would be welcomed. As a side project, for which I simply do not have the time, the entire issue of Maoist/Communist etc politics in India has numerous articles but pretty poor organisation and sourcing. Maybe in another life I could get round to fettling them ... - Sitush (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to rip a whole 'nother band-aid off, but regarding "There are difficulties with sourcing because the caste name is also a common last name."... yeah, that's why I'm rather concerned about all the content about the ancient Yadavas here. I'm still not sold on the connection, and it really does seem that a large number of Ahir (and perhaps Kunbi/Kurmi) farmers decided it'd be politically advantageous to take the name Yadav and start claiming a mythic past. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Maoist thing looks like a forced insertion to me. All castes/communities/groups/nationalities/religions/whatever have some criminal types in them. That does not mean we link the whole group/community with the criminality. Does it? If there is a Russian mafia somewhere, it does not mean we link the whole Russian community with it?-MangoWong (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Most ethnic groups have war heroes in them, but that didn't keep folks from giving this page a huge section of Military honors, which also had terrible Ahir/Yadav crossover. Again, folks love conflating the two groups when they can add a famous figure to both pages, but if there's anything negative about either group all of a sudden folks say "Oh, those are XYZ Ahirs, not ABC Ahirs, you can't lump them together." The Military section had ridiculous stuff about "Yadavs/Ahirs were involved in such-and-such anti-terrorist action", but when you check the actual news link, it turns out literally one guy with the last name of Yadav was a wounded policeman at that event. If we have cites saying that there's some particular relation between Maoists and Yadavas in the areas where they operate, that seems reason to mention, at least as much so as one particular military unit of Ahir people (which had wildly WP:UNDUE lengthy coverage until I trimmed it down). MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not saying that we insert some poorly sourced material in here. I am also not saying that we should insert non-Yadavs into here and non-Ahirs into the article on Ahir. There is some degree of overlap between these communities. They are not watertight entities. However, I hope you can appreciate the point that if there be some glorious personality in X community, all/most persons of the community would see that person as a source of pride for that community. So, it would be proper to identify that glorious personality with the community. I agree that we should not be overdoing it. Again, if there be some criminal types in a community, we cannot blame the other persons of that community for the crimes of a few. Can we? They did no wrong. Why should the entire community be sullied?-MangoWong (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree to some degree with your basic points, but this is neither an issue of "some criminal types", nor really of "crime" per se. The section covers a political body which happens to be illegal and is involved in violent acts. Now, with the initial first cite I had which was just a group of Yadavs executed for a police station attack, if it were still just that I couldn't see keeping it as the quality bar on this article rises. However, Sitush did some great work and fleshed out the interaction between the Yadav community in that region and how the Maoist issue fits into Yadav-Rajput dynamics, so from what we have now it does seem to be a comprehensive slice of a portion of the community, vice, say, a few drug dealers who happen to be Yadav, which would not be worth including unless some uber-famous dealer of Pablo Escobar-ish levels of notability. I wouldn't even say the coverage is particularly negative, it just reflects that Yadav priorities and Maoist priorities align in some areas in taking on Rajput landowners, and that seems to be an issue of importance. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that what some Yadavs did in Bihar could be a reflection on the entire community. I have removed it for the time being.-MangoWong (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusion in history section?

Earlier this section has more breif info about their yadav history. However now it is limited to few sentences , It says all about Yadu and when i read intoduction section of Yadu commuities of today which are mentioned in yadu section all are Kshatriyas and Rajputs however yadavs are mentioned as shudras in intro which means lowest class of hindus. So definately there is confusion and please clarify how all communities mentioned in yadu section are kshatriyas and yadavs are shudras?Raosaab7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Kshatriya controversy

Many clans within Yadavas claims descent from the ancient King Yadu of the Chandravanshi Kshatriya clan, and thus claim Kshatriya varna for themselves.[6][7] However, their varna status is contested, as at times Yadavs have been labeled within the Shudra (cultivator) varna as "upper Shudra"

These lines on varna status and tone in which they have been phrased i find contradictory to many reputable sources while reading about yadavs.because yadavs classified as chandravanshi kshatriya by many historian.so CLAIM word i think not appropriate.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

But there are source right after that also show them as at least partially within Shudra. Thus, we can't say they are Kshatriya, only that some sources say they are. Additionally, if you provide the details of those sources, we can evaluate if they would be useful to add to the article. Note that the sources will need to meet the reliable sources guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right sir,sources have been mentioned but these have serious limitations.8th source is only related to bihar and seems very arbitrary classification without any bases.Yadavas is found accross india with different socio-economic status so a generalisation based on one region can not be implemented on entire indian subcontinent.in bihar 8th source classify them upper shudra but another source based on andhra classify them lower shudra.they are self contradictry in nature and not reflect a consensus .9th source not at all reliable because it is not a book on comprehensive history rather it only based on one city.10th source not present any detail on our topic so completely redundant.

So The base is very weak of these controversial lines and i think major reason of vandalism on this article.moreover the sources i have gone through very comrehensive and directly related to our topic.

Moreover seprate article on ancient yadavs and modern yadavs seems very controversial because every coomunity has its history and some background anything does not happen in vaccum.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That is good amount of analysis there, Bill clinton history. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, it would be great if you could provide details of some of these sources you have read. As thing stand, the glaring problem I see is that the lead specifically refers to upper shudra but some of the sources say they were lower shudra (as you have pointed out). If it is the case that their position differed around the country (and they are all indeed the same community, which is often awkward to prove) then there is a case to be made for saying something like "at various times, and in various places, they were recognised as being within the shudra varna", or something like that. I'm tied up with other things and have tended only to pop over to this article infrequently, but I will see what I can find. - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not only about sources the main thing is the approach we are following on this article.on the one hand we are saying this for the modern people and we have seprate for ancient people and on the other we applying ancient classification like Brahman,Kshtriya,vaisya and shudra on modern people.

My point is that if this article only for modern people than modern classification should be applied here.ancient classification like varna system should be applied on ancient yadavs.these irrational intermixing of concepts present a completely wrong picture.

moreover the article in very first line says yadav word mostly for ahir or abhira used in present.i have proved that they have different varna status accross the country.you cant simply generalise the things.

In the article on Ancient Yadavas we have their history till mahabharat period that is around 900BC.for modern yadavs we mostly mentioning things from 18th century.where is the history of yadavs for more than 2000 years?Bill clinton history (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it very strange we are not allowed to take direct references from ancient religeous text like puranas,mahabharat etc. on the ground that they are unreliable and mythical in content on the other hand we applied their concepts like varna system on modern people for their present status.this is self contradictry approach without any rational bases.Bill clinton history (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bill. Which primary sources do you want to use? I agree that primary sources have limited uses. But they are not completely disallowed. And I also have the impression that this article may have very old academic sources. They may also have a debatable value if they are old.-MangoWong (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the problem with primary sources (the guideline, btw, is at WP:PRIMARY) is that it's almost impossible to determine what they "mean". That is, determining meaning requires more "interpretation" than modern text, especially academic texts (note that I don't personally believe this, but it's how Wikipedia works). Furthermore, it's well known that many ancient religious texts aren't literally true. So, for example, consider Creation myths. In that case, we can quote the Bible to say "The Hebrew/Christian religious texts state that the universe was created in 7 days." However, in order to determine what "7 days" means, we have to turn to modern religious scholars (some think it means 7 calendar days, some think its a metaphor). Furthermore, in Age of the Earth, we certainly can't use the Bible as evidence for the age of the Earth or how it was created. Apologies for using a Christian/Hebrew system as an example--I just don't know enough about Hinduism to make a reasonable analogy. This is why we almost certainly can't use ancient religious texts for an article like this; maybe, in a few circumstances, we might be able to make a quote that says, "According to Text X, person Y was part of caste Z." However, that would in no way be evidence for whether the over all group was actually a part of Caste Z. I hope this helps; as MangoWong says, maybe we need to see specifically what it is you're thinking of quoting. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am also not in favour of using religeous texts in wikipedia article.that is why i am objecting the use of religous text based concept on modern people.

moreover nobody expressing their views on my fundamental points.I am questioning the approach we are following on articles like Ahir-Abhira,Yadav-Yadava.

do we have article on ancient Brahman and Modern Brahman , do we have article on Medieval Rajput and Modern Rajput , do we have article on Medieval Jats and Modern Jats? simply no. if we are writing the history of other communities in a continous stream than on what bases we have seprate article on period wise clssification for yadavs.it is completely misrepresentation of history of yadavs. Bill clinton history (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can suggest a merge of two of more articles or a fork (split) of one article into two or more. If have not delved into what has happened at the articles you refer to but it really is not that important, if only because of the basis set out at other stuff exists. We treat this article - Yadav - on its own merits. If you want to suggest a merge or a fork then feel free to do so & it will then be discussed. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you sir it is simple to suggest merger or spilt,but it is very important to present a article in correct historical prespective.moreover i did not find any discussion on merger issue on this page.it seems to done by arbitrary decesion.this is not the policy of wikipedia.wikipedia demands consensus by healthy debate which seems to be missing here.

Moreover As I have pointed out earlier by this seprate article approach we are missing the history of Yadavs of more than 2000 years.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill. I agree with your point. It seems ridiculous to me too that we have two different articles for modern Yadavs and ancient Yadavs. What you have to do now is to put up a merger proposal. Please start a new section titled something like "Merger proposal, X and Y". Then, in that section, write something about why you think both the articles should be merged. Invite others to discuss it. Then make a link to that section, take it to the other article talk page, and say something like "Merger discussion notice" in the heading. Write something there inviting the eds there to participate in the merger discussion. Your proposal will be up for discussion.-MangoWong (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not how you do a merger. Read up on it at WP:Merging. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

for now first issue is the above mentioned lines.but merger issue also reated to this.

how can some one say yadav or ahir or abhira claims kshtriya only themselves.i have proved that they are considered kshtriya in authentic text and religeous text also.even they are described brahman also.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

James Tod mentioned Yadavs as Kshatriyas. I will put his quotations in the article tomorrow. Speak, if there are any doubts. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Name, Tod is not acceptable and you know it, having read James Tod. That article has been reviewed by several admins and all of them were of the opinion that he has to be treated as an unreliable source. Puranas are not acceptable either, being primary sources. If you have any other evidence then feel free to show it here. - Sitush (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree here--Tod seems to completely fail WP standards as a reliable source--biased, essentially in the employ of his subject, basically writing on things which he doesn't really have all the information about, etc. I don't think we can use Tod here, or anywhere, as a reliable source. If you disagree, the best step is to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources mentioned yadavas as kshtriya

1.Hinduism and Its Military Ethos By R. K. Nehra,page 209,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=WaJ2tp_n1AMC&pg=PA202&dq=chandravanshi+kshatriya&hl=en&ei=LesqTvliioesB8zB8bEN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0C#v=onepage&q=chandravanshi%20kshatriya&f=false))

2.The history of Andhra country, 1000 A.D.-1500 A.D. By Yashoda Devi,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-d9IAvFOUHsC&pg=PA483&dq=YADAVA+KSHTRIYA&hl=en&ei=vG8xTqiPBsXnrAevoaX2Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false))

3.Copper - Plate and Stone Inscriptions of South India (Set in 3 Volumes) By Alan Butterworth And V. Chetty Venugopal,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=edl5PfeO-UwC&pg=PA526&dq=YADAVA+KSHTRIYA&hl=en&ei=vG8xTqiPBsXnrAevoaX2Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false))

4.History of Sikh Gurus Retold: 1606-1708 C.E By Surjit Singh Gandhi,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vZFBp89UInUC&pg=PA588&dq=YADAVA+KSHTRIYA&hl=en&ei=FHExTqjfD8SzrAe11tnLCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDge#v=onepage&q&f=false))

5.The golden book of India: a genealogical and biographical dictionary of the ... By Sir Roper Lethbridge,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7iOsNUZ2MXgC&pg=PA246&dq=YADAVA+KSHTRIYA&hl=en&ei=y3MxTpzTL4SHrAe18vnUCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCThk#v=onepage&q&f=false))

These above links mention yadava as kshtriya in various region.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1. 1 and #2 are not reliable sources - Lancer & Gyan publishers both have issues. I'll try to look through the others later but Lethbridge is also not a great source as far as I can recall. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1. 3 is ancient legend, there is no way this can be used to substantiate modern sociological structures. #4 makes a single offhand reference to someone being "Yadav Kshatriya". That is nowhere near being "the Yadav are among the Kshatriya classes" (which would be iffy but vague substantiation) and nowhere near "here is how the Yadav are classified and why...". MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

but sir i think the sources as clear and authentic as those mentioning them shudra.i have presented a diffrent side of this topic to make article more neutral in approach.so you should take it poisitively not in the sense that i am trying to imposing one point of view.Bill clinton history (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have checked and agree with MatthewVanitas regarding items 3 & 4 (and it appears below that Qwyrxian also agrees about inscriptions as sources etc). The inscriptions could be mentioned but they appear to prove nothing in the Wikipedia sense and this would have to be incorporated. As expected, Lethbridge is hopeless, just hopeless: he was a "gentleman scholar", he took the word of his subjects (eg: like Tod), he was vague in his use of terminology & in any event this appears to be referring to a single person, which is hardly great grounds for labelling an entire community. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

1.Behind mud walls: seventy-five years in a North Indian village By William Henricks Wiser, Charlotte Viall Wiser, Susan Snow Wadley,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=iOy5PpBoPecC&pg=PA262&dq=YADAVA+KSHTRIYA&hl=en&ei=MXkxTrCmJsS3rAfuveC6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCDhu#v=onepage&q&f=false)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill clinton history (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but one village doesn't mean a thing. I've read that book before & enjoyed it but it is fundamentally just anecdotes etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

But sir,i think you have not read sources called them shudra on this article carefully,they are also region specific.and did not talk about entire indian sub continenet.it is not fare to apply double standard on wikipedia.you are very senior,i hope ypu will consider my point,the source is very authentic and clearly mention thei status.Bill clinton history (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not senior, honest. I may have been around a little longer than you but we are all equal here. I do understand your point about double standards and I promise you that I will read all of the current sources to see what has gone on. As far as I can recall, I have not added anything to this article. However, the 75 years book is not good enough as a source, on its own merits. It may be the case that some of the sources used in the article for shudra are also not good enough and would need to be removed. I'll get round to it as quick as I can but I am currently embroiled in numerous issues of other caste articles, so it may not be before next week. The world will still be spinning, and Wikipedia will still be running, until well past then. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, we also have a policy called WP:BOLD. You do not have to wait for any particular person to approve your edit before you make them. You could go ahead with your edit if you want. And if you want to discuss the reliability of the source which you propose, here is one thing to consider. Is the source an academic, I mean a professor? If the person who wrote the book is a professor, there is a reasonable chance that the source may be OK. I have not reviewed it though. There can be issues even if the source be a professor. I think you can go ahead though. If there are objections, they can be discussed later too.-MangoWong (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again, Mango. You cannot be bold when the thing is being discussed and there is a clear difference of opinion regarding the reliability of sources. Ignore him, Bill, he is just stalking me. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

2.From the death of Shivaji to the death of Aurangzeb: the critical years By Y. G. Bhave,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Q5kVk6msxUcC&pg=PA14&dq=yadav+of+vijaynagar&hl=en&ei=d7sxTqWMH4S0rAf35rHaCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=yadav%20of%20vijaynagar&f=false))

THE presence of yadav kingdom in medieval india also shows kshtriya tradition of yadav.Bill clinton history (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

3.Memoirs of egotism By Stendhal,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vKo06_OU0LQC&pg=PA350&dq=yadav+of+vijaynagar&hl=en&ei=d7sxTqWMH4S0rAf35rHaCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=yadav%20of%20vijaynagar&f=false))

THE link shows yadav dynasties considered as rajput kshtriya dynasties in india in early medieval time.Bill clinton history (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Bill, but you are not allowed to synthesise sources. So, you cannot say that Yadavs were kings, kings were kshatriya, therefore Yadavs were kshatriya. Have a read of the linked article. There were, I am fairly sure, some kings who were not even Hindu. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your second source is completely garbled on GBooks. It seems to be a single page stuck inside a book about hotel management! Am I misreading something? - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You were giving him a week's timeframe for a reply. In that situation, it is reasonable to go ahead with the edit without waiting for you. I agree that as a general courtesy, one should not edit while the issue is being discussed. But this is not necessary. Edits can also be made while the discussion goes on. This is particularly true when one party seems only interested in preventing others in getting anything into an article. If one party is rejecting the other users proposals without having any credible reasons, or in a hypocritical way, the edit can go ahead.-MangoWong (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am making my point again and again that the main issue is the approach we are following on this article.the sources which i have mentioned above telling the history of yadav which missing in present article.only on the bases of last hundread year period how can make conclusion about the varna status of a community.we should not miss the period from 900BC TO 1900 AD.IF we have to reach a fair conclusion than we have to study this period also.if anyone want this article only for last 100 years than we definately should not use the ancient classification,rather constitutional classification will be more appropriate for the present article.so my point is very simple and logical.Bill clinton history (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, if you want to show history, show history. Instead you're spending time trying to prove they were Kshatriyas by descent. We already have both sides of the story in the lede, and an entire section Yadav#Caste_politics. Why not drop the bone and go dig up some actual history resources? Do bear in mind it's going to be complicated by the fact that other castes took on the Yadav name in the late 19th C., so again there's an issue of trying to give a common history to disparate groups. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, this article is titled "Yadav", not Yadavs in the last 100 years. It is ridiculous to restrict the article content to last 100 years only. If some people do not agree with you in everything you say, you can ask them to show some good logic for disagreeing with you. You can also ask them to stop wasting your time with irrelevancies. For example, this above comment does not seem to have much relevance with what you said above it.-MangoWong (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. The logic is Wikipedia policy: verifiability, reliable sources, consensus, no original research, no synthesis, etc. MV has just explained to Bill that if he comes up with stuff that meets all of these then there is no problem, which is true. Until he does, then there is a problem. Now please stop stirring the pot, Mango. Bill has a decent brain and doesn't need your wikipolitics corrupting him. You are the only one out of us four who has been blocked from editing and that is hardly a good recommendation for your advice etc, is it? - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Do you yourself show any respect for WP policies? You are continually saying uncivil things to others. And mocking at users who had been blocked is also uncivil. How is that not a policy violation? Just because you and your sidekicks get overlooked by admins does not mean you are better than anyone else.-MangoWong (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

MV, you also do not seem to have any respect for WP:Civil. Asking someone to "drop the bone" may not be a good idea. People can take offence at that.-MangoWong (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would be tough: it is a standard phrase on Wikipedia. From that, I assume that there is consensus that it is not uncivil. Showing your inexperience, methinks. Anyway, if I have done anything wrong, or been uncivil to you, then please report me to WP:ANI. You may be right for once. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not I report your misbehavior at the ANI is up to me. That I do not report at the ANI may have some reasons which have no link with your being right or wrong. But that I do not report it at the ANI does not mean that you can behave in an uncivil behavior. If you are behaving in an uncivil behavior, it means you never learned how to behave properly.-MangoWong (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

One difference clearly is that Sitush's view on colonial times, as a time as civilized as post-colonial Govt.s as can be seen here, is completely at variance with mine. I am sure MV must be of the same opinion. It must be confusing during these times of the interwebs how a bunch of poeple that look like Mahatma Gandhi and have a mob can snatch all the civility of the world off the colonial powers. I guess I, and those who decided the end of colonial powers, should know more. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, if someone has been misbehaving with you, you can report them at WP:ANI. You are a new user. We have a special policy for protecting new users from intimidation from older users. It is WP:BITE. You can report if older users do not behave properly. It is also uncivil to give irrelevant replies.-MangoWong (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

TT, I have been explicit that I accept that the Raj was not all sweetness and light. I have also been explicit that you should not use inappropriate forums to spread your unfocussed POV. There are forums specifically for these issues and you have been directed to them by many people. Your post above is bordering on a personal attack and I would appreciate it if you would retract.

Mango, WP:BITE does not give carte blanche for abuse, tendentious editing etc in the face of numerous people pointing it out. BITE will not work in TT's case because the pattern of ignorance and the POV is evident. I do not understand your last sentence but, what the heck, it is probably wrong because most of your comments about policy so far have been wrong.

Now, to get back on track with Bill. You need to find some sources to support your points and which meet the requirements set out above. I do understand that those requirements may be baffling to you & I am willing to explain things in order that any bafflement can be resolved. I am not willing to do it in an atmosphere of hatred and/or disdain, which is what presently exists here. My suggestion would be to ask any general queries about policy etc on my talk page. If Mango or Thisthat should follow me there in order to continue their abuse then they will very quickly get warned for disruption, since my purpose is genuinely to assist you. I am massively in favour of developing this article with the "backstory" you referred to above, but it needs to fit in with the system that works here. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The subject under discussion was civil and uncivil, and it is pertinent that what is considered civil by a side may not be exactly the same for others. That your understanding of "Raj was not all sweetness and light" was on opposite end of my understanding of 'all loot, wars and a few machines to show' or something similar on that line may be valid in this discussion on civility.

As usual, you are assuming a lot of things such as people 'follow you', etc. There could be some links on talk:Yadav on some page, if you may have overelooked. That you overlooked and assumed that people are following you to disrupt is an assumption about others. Please desist from such assumptions in the first place. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yadavas History

Relation between Ahir(Abhira)) and yadav goes back before 400BC.This is completely misrerpresentation of history that ahir considered as yadav from 19th century.now government of india and prominent historian in india considered yadav and ahir same.use of yadav surname by ahir community is not in vaccum.they have considered yadavs from centuries.

My point is again approach we are following on this article.the links i have provided is completely authentic and clear about yadavs history and their status.so i am not agree with the above baseless evaluation of my sources.I find it very strange that some one finds enough time for rejecting my sourcesn and dont have time for sources which is the bases for above controversial lines.

And even in evaluation of my links double standard has been applied.

My objection is on what bases we reach a conclusion about varna status of yadavas.the articles does not contain enough material for this.

so first this completely baseless conclusion about varna status should be reformed.and the article for modern period must and primarily contain the modern constitutional classification of indian government about the community.

I remember sir very clearly that on Ahir-Abhira debate you did not allowed me for editing about the issue before consensus.now in this case even debate did not happen and you allow editing on such controvrsial issue.i have already showed the material which contradict these lines.so a consensus must be reached first and then conclusion should be admitted in article.the varna status lines about kshtriya or shudra should be removed first.moreover i will provide more source on the topic.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, there are two different issues here:

• is your theory about Yadavs correct; and
• is the article correct as it stands

Obviously, there are areas where the two issues merge but they can be examined individually. I struggle sometimes to keep up with your posts & that is why you may get responses out of sync. It was the work of minutes to form a response to your most recent sources because I have already come across some of them. This is not always the case, and so I need to trawl through those which I have not visited (or regarding the content of which I have forgotten). That takes more than a few minutes. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

But sir how can you support a conclusion about varna status which have been derived without debate from incomplete sources of a very short span of time.this is completely wrong.if article is about modern community than modern constitutional classification should be applied that will be more reasonable and logical.

if you want varna classification in article than it should be debated first because it is very controversial in itself to intermix the ancient religeous based concept for modern community.and anyone should not be allowed editing on such controversial topic before date without consensus.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, again, there is no "conclusion"; the lede explicity says that they have been varna labeled in different ways. Further "consensus" does not mean "take down cited material that has been there for months so we can talk about it". The material is clearly cited, so if you have a problem with the citations by all means address them here. I am continually confused that people insist on saying "the Fooians can't be Shudra because they're actually Kshatriya, see here a list of links that vaguely mention Fooian Kshatriya, and remove all Shudra refs." Instead, if you genuinely think that Shudra shouldn't be in the article, please look at the Shudra refs and explain how either they don't say Yadav are Shudra, or the refs are not credible. If you cannot do either of those things, there is zero reason to remove "Shudra" from the article. If you want more coverage of Kshatriya and feel it would not be WP:UNDUE, by all means find some. I listed above a few examples as to what kind of references don't work (offhand mention), which work with further substantiation (explicity mention that Foo is classified as X) and which are ideal (clear explanation of where they fit and why). I appreciate that you are working at improving articles and sharing a positive attitude, so let's work together and find refs to flesh out the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir,my first objection against the claimed word.yadavss mention as kshtriya by by many authentic historian.so this word completely misleading and making article wrong in approach.read the fresh link below...

1.. Dakhan History Musalman And Maratha, A.D. 1300 To 1818 By Loch W. W, W.W. Loch,(( http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lWYq9H7ER78C&pg=PA619&dq=yadav+kshatriya+history&hl=en&ei=S7YyTo--FMzLrQejwcTLCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBTgo#v=onepage&q=yadav%20kshatriya%20history&f=false)

the historian clearly mentioning yadav as kshtriya.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Bill, but that source does not say what you think. It is full of "probably" and, which is perhaps worse, it is a really old book and written by someone who I seem to recall has been discredited. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir,you are still unreasonably questioning the authenticity of my sources and not checking the bases of those controversial lines.this is not fare.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, could you tell me something about your source. The person who wrote this book. Who was he? What did he do? etc. And I think your objection to the word "Claim" is valid. I think "Claim" is a weasel word, WP:WEASEL. Such words are not supposed to be used on Wikipedia. Please check it in the link I provided. If it is there, the word would be against WP policies. There would be no reason to keep it. Could you find it there, in the box titled "Editorializing"?-MangoWong (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill does raise an interesting concern about the word claim, and I'm willing to work with him on it. Bill, what verbiage would you suggest instead? "The Yadavs classify themselves as"? "declare themselves as"? I'm open to tweaking the term as you suggest. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes Bill. What you said was very interesting. Such words should never be used. You know, expert editors never use such words. And only people who have a very keen sense of encyclopedic writing can spot such mistakes. Your objection was very right.-MangoWong (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

1.Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India By S. D. S. Yadava,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=p69GMA226bgC&pg=PA105&dq=yadavas+of+vijaynagar&hl=en&ei=nh00TrjbHdCtrAfJ9ez1Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false))

The link mentioning so many things about yadav from early to modern period which article does not contain.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, could you please tell me something about this source also? Where is he a professor? What is his subject? etc.-MangoWong (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

People - esp. MangoWong - are misunderstanding WP:WEASEL, I think. If we said "some people claim" then that is weasel; if we say, for example, "Yadavas claim^{cite here} then that is not necessarily weasel. If we say "X xlaims Y^{cite here} but A claims B^{cite here} then that is also not weasel, since we are specifically pointing out that there are different viewpoints and we do no pass an opinion regarding which is the correct one or not. MW has made this mistake before - English is a subtle language. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did I make this "mistake" before? Please clarify. It is not a mistake at all. If you don't agree with the MOS, please go get it changed. Otherwise, please do not argue on this. It is a waste of time to argue on points which are clearly established by the MOS. One of the reasons for having the MOS is to save on irrelevant arguments like these. Don't defeat the purpose of the MOS and waste other people's time with irrelevant arguments like these. It is common knowledge that "Claim" is a weasel word, and it is clearly identified in the MOS as such. There's hardly a word which is better known as a weasel word. The examples which you give are irrelevant. If the MOS says its a weasel word, it is a weasel word. Full stop.-MangoWong (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You are frequently misunderstanding all sorts of policies & doling out bad advice to new-ish users based on your misunderstandings. I do not know if this is because of your wikilawyering, or because of your inability fully to comprehend the English language, or just idiocy. My bets are on the first of those. You have misunderstood it, just as you misunderstand that there is no need to mention a person's name for every statement made and there is no need for a citation in an infobox if the information contained there is cited elsewhere in the article. Furthermore, MOS is not a policy, just a guideline. Re-read the MOS. I am happy to assist you in understanding it. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not misunderstanding any policy and my advice is good. Showing the MOS is not wikilawyering and I see no problem with my English, even if I am not a Oxonian. That you have doubts about the IQ of your opponents is unsurprising, but the feeling may be reciprocated. I have never said that we need to mention a person's name for every statement we make. Perhaps, you may need to improve your reading skills. That people claim that some statement in the citation box is cited elsewhere does not mean that the claim is true or believable. The MOS is supposed to be followed even if it is a guideline. Arguments which can be settled through the MOS should be settled through. It makes no sense to continue to say Y when the MOS says X and waste other people's time. And it is very assumptive of you to think that I may need your assistance.-MangoWong (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, for someone who spends 70% of their time arguing on talk pages etc and only 28% of their time contributing on article pages, you simply do not have the experience to pass comments like this. Do some content building and learn, instead of telling everyone else how (you think) it is. I know that those numbers do not add up: the information is there for all to see if they want a full breakdown. I am close to one in dealing with you, I must admit <g> - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

sir,you should evaluate the sources of above controversial lines instead indulging in arguments.

Moreover i am not agree with you on baseless evaluation of my sources and i entirely stand with ny sources.Bill clinton history (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill clinton history, you're welcome to "stand with" whatever you want, but your stance won't change the fact that several of the sources don't meet the reliable sources guidelines. Ancient copper plates will never be a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia (or, I should say, they shouldn't be). Sources from publishers without a track record of good, reliable editing should not be sources. If you want, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.

MangoWong, you are right that we shouldn't use weasel words. However, we also can't state something as a fact which is only an opinion. The Yadav's appear to be of the opinion, based on evidence that they consider reliable, that they are/were Kshatriya. We need to find a way to represent the fact that this is an "internal" claim (i.e., one originating from the group itself), and that this is not a claim which is commonly excepted by independent scholars. How about we change, "Many clans within Yadavas claims descent from the ancient King Yadu of the Chandravanshi Kshatriya clan, and thus claim Kshatriya varna for themselves." to "Many clans within Yadavas classify themselves as Kshatrya varna because they state that they are descended from the ancient King Yado of the Chandravanshi Kshatriya clan." Would that be acceptable? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with anything like that construction. All I was pointing out was that "claim" is not always a weasel word, as MW said. No big deal about this specific instance. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the proposed wording is fine. However, I am concerned about the next sentence too. However, their varna status is contested, as at times Yadavs have been labeled within the Shudra (cultivator) varna as "upper Shudra". I would say that in this sentence, we could/should insert "some" in order to clarify that not all Yadavas were labeled with the S-word. .....at times some Yadavs have been labeled..... Secondly, the infobox in this article has the same problem as the one that Kurmi article had. Could we apply the same solution here. Delete it from the infobox?-MangoWong (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it should be deleted from all caste article infoboxes - that is one reason why I referred you in a thread elsewhere to the discussion on the template page. As you know, I would actually be happy to see the entire box go. No idea on the shudra status ere: the sentence has been messed around with that much that I would have to review the sources to see if they do or do not say "some". I'll do that. I rather think that "upper shudra" was some sort of compromise between MV and A N Other. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Empires of Yadavas from ancient to modern period

1.A history of Vijayanagar: the never to be forgotten empire By Bangalore Suryanarain Row,((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=DUl1PFJAOoAC&pg=RA1-PA70&dq=yadavas+of+vijaynagar&hl=en&ei=nh00TrjbHdCtrAfJ9ez1Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false))

The Vijaynagar Empire,Yadavas of DevgiriBill clinton history (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

2.Cyclic tables of Hindu and Mahomedan chronology, regarding the history of ... By Charles Philip Brown,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=V5khtVz0yIgC&pg=PP14&dq=yadavas+of+vijaynagar&hl=en&ei=PyE0TrXOHML5rAfEwITMCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCDgo#v=onepage&q&f=false))

Yadavas Raja's of WarrangalBill clinton history (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

3.The History of Sacred Places in India as Reflected in Traditional Literature By International Association of Sanskrit Studies,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=wPgBdyxD5MkC&pg=PA74&dq=yadavas+kings&hl=en&ei=PSI0TuDCOobnrAeD8_3LCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=yadav))

Cultural attributes of Yadavas KingsBill clinton history (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am studying about yadavs from many sources on gbooks and which books i have.I clearly have opinion about the ClAIM word that this is completely misrepresentation of very controversial issue and if there is any poilcy of wikipedia about these redundant words than it should be applied here.

Moreover as i have said this is ancient classification and should not be applied on modern community.modern constitutional classiffication will serve the interest of reader more.

The sources mentioned Ahirs or Abhira as shudra is controversial as i have proved on ahir article and they already have been incorporated there.so there is no need on yadava article of these sources.

I have provided more aspects of yadavs life like political,cultural etc. they should be incorporated in article.

And if MongoWongo have some points he should be allowed to make a point or policy.Bill clinton history (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This completely against the poilcy of wikipedia.someone reverted my cited information from article.as no one responding legitimate points on discussion page raised by me so I had added some well cited and relevent information.Bill clinton history (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, I reverted the history bits you added. You cannot claim as fact stuff that the sources say is "probably", for example. I am not even sure that the sources were particularly reliable. - Sitush (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

But sir i added completely well cited information.The Vijaynagar Empire and Devgiri Empire are well recognised Yadavas empire.i had not deleted any information.I am filling the gap in yadav history which is good for our reader for a comprehensive knowledge of the topic.i did not mention anything controversial which required debate.Bill clinton history (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but you did not provide good citations. They did not say "X was a Yadava empire" etc. You could use those sources but you would have to word it better. As I have said before, I do not have the time right now to sort this out but that does not mean that you can misrepresent what the sources say. However, do not panic because it can be sorted out: your edits can be retrieved and the wording changed etc when I or someone else has the time. Or you could find a source that says it explicitly. You have given a lot of sources above and it is overwhelming - not "overwhelming" in the sense of "overwhelming proof" but rather in the sense that there is too much to examine quickly, and the way that you have presented them is sometimes a little disorganised. It will get sorted, promise. I have told you previously that it is not unusual for things like this to take a couple of months or more, as at Talk:Kshatriya, where the merge discussion is still open because we are waiting on Rajkris to present some info. You have to assume good faith. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

sir,I am participating in this debate with after proper reading the topic so i am providing links in support of my arguements.you are calling my sources and editing not proper on the other hand you are not even listening my objection about above mentioned controversial lines and their sources.you should also reverted them because they were not even discussed on this page.Bill clinton history (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

1.Begin A history of the Pattane Prabhus by Shamrao Moroji. Wanting the title-leaf By Shamrao Moroji,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=k5ADAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA48&dq=yadavas+as+kshatriya&hl=en&ei=9SQ1TpKSDY_qrQe_ytzLCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAjh4#v=onepage&q&f=false))

This is very clear about yadava of devgiri.Bill clinton history (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

2.Shivaji, the great Maratha, Volume 2 By H. S. Sardesai,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=deHZAUDHzYwC&pg=PA431&dq=yadavas+as+kshatriya&hl=en&ei=Rig1TqXZGI_krAelt9DLCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBjjcAQ#v=onepage&q=yadavas%20as%20kshatriya&f=false))

3.Literary and historical studies in indology By Vasudev Vishnu Mirashi,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=X0JUwf2BXVAC&pg=PA155&dq=Abhira+and+yadavA&hl=en&ei=Zjo1TqXkG4XLrQf4su3RCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwADjSAQ#v=onepage&q=Abhira%20and%20yadavA&f=false))Bill clinton history (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

About Yadavas of devgiri.Bill clinton history (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, would it be possible for you to stop throwing more sources at this page for a while? The list is ever-growing and it is pointless. It could well be that you have already found a suitable source among the many above. If after going through them it seems otherwise then by all means add some more. There is a reading list as long as my arm above, and the more you add, the longer it will take. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir,I am reading first and then mention here.I am putting my arguements with sources.the sources is very clear and authentic.i should be allowed to edit on the basis of my sources as no one coming against my point with sources.I have read Ahir-Abhira-Yadava completely from around 60-70 books.

I am making my point after full understanding of topic.but no one responding my legitimate questions about the article.You are still not responding about above mentioned baseless and irrelevent lines.Bill clinton history (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of sources in this section - please do not add any more to it

• Bangalore Suryanarain Row - hopeless. It is all "probably" etc and the writer specifically says that "we have no satisfactory evidence to accept the genealogies which are claimed by the Yadavas"
• Charles Philip Brown - I have no idea where I am supposed to be looking in this book but it is old and written by a Raj translator who appears to be "playing at" scholarship
• International Association of Sanskrit Studies - need to do more work on this one. I will come back to it.
• Shamrao Moroji - pretty much an uncited writer, who did his stuff a long time ago. I have addressed this guy elsewhere
• H. S. Sardesai - cannot view it, so someone needs to come up with the relevant pages. From past experience, Cosmo are not a brilliant publisher in this area but I will review it if the info turns up
• Vasudev Vishnu Mirashi - what am I supposed to be looking at here? - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill. Your sources have met with some objections. You should now defend your sources. If you have difficulty defending your sources, you can ask me. If you want, I can show you ways of defending your sources.-MangoWong (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent addition to fill supposed gap in history

I have previously expressed concerns about the sources which are incorporated in the additions added by Bill clinton history today. I have had to remove and then reinsert the information because it consisted of two unattributed copies from the main articles - this is a breach of the Wikipedia licence arrangements.

I have so far removed one of the sources as it nowhere near supports the statement, I would like to see at least pages 242-244 of Traditions in motion: religion and society in history (Supriya Varma & Satish Saberwal) because there appears to be no mention of either of the kings referred to in the article, nor mention of the empire and only one page that mentions Yadava (& that in what appears to be an irrelevant passage).

Bill, have you actually read this stuff or just copied it? If you have read it, please could you check what is going on because it seems possible that it is another dud. It should be possible to provide a copy of the pages I mention. Sorry if this sounds like a lack of good faith but I am aware that there have already been issues with sourcing here & really do need to make sure that things are correct. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Begin A history of the Pattane Prabhus by Shamrao Moroji. by Shamrao Moroji seems to me to be a dubious source. It was written in 1798 or perhaps earlier, according to the introduction to the edition which we link to! His entire output (not just this work) gets 10 hits on GScholar, one of which is this particular book, another is a member of his family & a third is a library catalogue. There are more hits in GBooks but most of them appear to be colonial gazetteers etc. Surely someone much more modern has covered this dynasty? I am reluctant to rely on this author as a source: he is not exactly Megasthenes or Ptolemy, is he? - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you want "Megasthenes or Ptolemy" here? Avoid giving irrelevant examples where someone trying to prove how dubious Megasthenes or Ptolemy could be will be called tendentious etc.. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I cannot make head nor tail of your comment. Is it in any way relevant to the points that I raise about the reliability of the source? What is tendentious? My point about Megasthenes and Ptolemy is that, although they are really, really old, they are also much cited. This Moroji chap seems not to be, at least using the methods I have given. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sir, you are still not responding my objection against above mentioned lines and their irrlevent sources.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Which ones, B? There are so many. Can you give me a date/time of the message you are referring to. I did post quite a few replies earlier today. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Kshtriya

Many clans within Yadavas claims descent from the ancient King Yadu of the Chandravanshi Kshatriya clan, and thus claim Kshatriya varna for themselves.[6][7] However, their varna status is contested, as at times Yadavs have been labeled within the Shudra (cultivator) varna as "upper Shudra".[8][9][10][11

^ Bindeshwar Pathak (1 January 1992). Action sociology and development. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 119–. ISBN 9788170223191. Retrieved 22 May 2011. ^ Sandria B. Freitag (1989). Culture and power in Banaras: community, performance, and environment, 1800-1980. University of California Press. pp. 122–. ISBN 9780520063679. Retrieved 22 May 2011. ^ Norman Gerald Barrier (1981). The Census in British India: new perspectives. Manohar. Retrieved 22 May 2011. ^ Sabyasachi Bhattacharya (2002). Education and the disprivileged: nineteenth and twentieth century India. Orient Blackswan. pp. 54–. ISBN 9788125021926. Retrieved 22 May 2011.

These above controversial lines and their sources is misleading the article.My objection against Claim word and intermixing of ancient Religeous text base varna system concept with modern community.the sources provide inadequate material to call them shudra.moreover yadavas always catogarised as Lunar Dynasty ruling class.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, what changes in the phrasing would you suggest? Would something like "consider themselves to be" be less contentious than "claim"? Regarding the Shudra classification, can you take a look at the refs and explain how you don't feel they're properly summarised, and maybe suggest a different way to depict the refs? These refs positively do refer to the modern Yadav social group of the last century or two. Regarding the Lunar Dynasty statement; I'm not at this point disputing that there was an ancient group called the Yadava which was counted by some to be Lunar Dynasty, but I question whether any number of people outside of the Yadavs themselves considers the modern Yadavs (much less the Yadavs of the current decades) to be Lunar Dynasty. Do you have any recent documentation saying anything about modern Yadavs being Lunar Dynasty? I realise the Indian government wouldn't be involved in such statements, but are there any modern academics who say that Yadavs are, in our lifetimes, still considered by some or many other Indians to be Lunar? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this same issue is being discussed in the "Yadavas History" thread above. There are some proposals too. I was hoping to get some responses from both of you before we proceed to do anything. Would it be better to discuss it there?-MangoWong (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The YH section above was kind of drifting from its main topic, so I'm okay with starting afresh with this particular topic here. Re your suggestion to remove both terms from the infobox: yes, I would totally support that. I expect Sitush will say the same when he drops by, and he generally supports removing infoboxes entirely from the caste articles as most of the data contained on them is hard to properly source, or is misleading without proper context. I don't think we've seen any support for leaving varna in the infobox above (though I still submit it belongs in the lede as of keen interest to readers), but by all means take it out of the IB. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Am playing catch-up and the pain from my root canal work today isn't helping. Yes, anything at all taken out of the infobox is fine by me for the reasons stated at Template_talk:Infobox caste. I hope to look at the shudra sources for this article later today or tomorrow. I have not had a great involvement in this article & so need to go through things. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see the relevant pages of Bindeshwar Pathak. I think that my GBooks rights for that may have timed out. Will do the rest tomorrow. Ping me if there is no update. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My Objection is against the whole conclusion of these lines.the one source relating to bihar only so does not have any relevance for entire yadava of india.one source relating to only a region in Andhra Pardesh.it have also same limitations.moreover i have also provided the sources on the discussion page that yadavas of andhra considered lunar dynasty ruling class.

These sources tells about regional status of ahirs in some regions.so no logic in imposing it on the entire yadavas of india which also include yadav rajputs.

Moreover shudra related lines has been mentioned on Ahira Article.i have proved already different socio-economic status of ahir in indian subcontinent on same article.

To imposing ancient religeous text based concept only on history of a community of 100 years makes no sense.these lines should be removed in interest of our reader so that we can present a true picture of the topic.

And there is no logic in seprating ancient yadavs from modern yadavs.yadavs history has continous stream.i am studying the topic and soon providing proof in the support of my point as i have always done.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, do you mean that the line in the article is saying something other than what the sources say. According to WP:V, our articles are not allowed to say anything that the sources do not say. If we are saying something that the sources do not say, it would be a misrepresentation of the sources. If the source is talking about Andhra/Bihar, we cannot make a generalization of the source and say something about the entire Yadav community. I think doing things like that is not allowed. The sources must be saying the same thing as what our articles say. Otherwise it is misrepresentation.-MangoWong (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes Mongo I am completely agree with you.the sources are inadequate to make such conclusion.these lines should be removed because i have also provided sources which proves this conclusion wrong .but no one is responding to my point.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, which of your sources that have not been shown to be either unreliable or not supporting the statement that you think they support? I am totally confused by the number of sources you have thrown at us recently & am happy to look at which ever ones you still feel are ok. I know that I have reviewed quite a few.

By the way, your recent source linking Abhira to Yadav does no such thing. At best, it says that it is "almost certain", and for something which we know is as controversial as this is I feel that we probably need to have more than one supporting citation. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill is not talking about his sources. He is saying that the material in the article is a misrepresentation of the sources which are being used to support them. Those sources are unsupportive of the sentences which we have in the article at present. Crystal.-MangoWong (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that point and have the sources open right now to check. However, "because i have also provided sources which proves this conclusion wrong" is what I was referring to. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see the relevant bit of Pathak. Freitag is referring to UP. Bhattacharya is referring to AP. I asked for a copy of Barrier a couple of days ago at WP:RX but no-one has responded yet - if anyone here has access to it then there is a chapter I would very much like to see.

Since the article does say "at times", I do not actually see a problem with the statement. If people wanted to change it to "at times and in certain places" then perhaps that would resolve the issue? At least until I find more sources (I didn't write that sentence or source the thing). - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the reason why having quotes in refs is preferable.-MangoWong (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No. It is the reason why we need multiple citations for contentious points. That has always been the case, across the entire project. This hobbyhorse of quotes in refs is just that: a hobbyhorse. If you were correct then we would be seeing it across hundreds of thousands of articles and WP:OFFLINE would be a policy rather than an essay. Quoting one person in a ref for a contentious point such as this will not make the point any less contentious. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether the issue becomes less contentious or not is besides the point. Having quotes would allow for easier checking of verifiability and would allow misrepresentations to be corrected easily.-MangoWong (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

How would you do this when someone paraphrases the content of, say, four consecutive pages of a source? I do that regularly, and so do many other people. These are the sort of issues that you hit when you do a lot of content work (ie: adding a lot of content, not removing it). In any event, the discussion is irrelevant to this page. We need to find an appropriate forum if you wish to continue it. My guess is that would be Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I will not push the point here anymore. But I will continue to use quotes when I want to. It is far from being disallowed. We will discuss it elsewhere if there be issues. And removal of content which is unencyclopedic or against WP policies is also a positive contribution.-MangoWong (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the material because it is misrepresentation. We don't need misrepresentations. They constitute misleading information.-MangoWong (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll need more than that. I don't see anything misleading. It looks to be well sourced. Simply saying something is misleading is not enough. At this point, it is up to you to explain explicitly here why you think it's misleading and should come out. Reverting again will be clear edit warring to preserve your preferred version. You removed content; I disagree. Justify now why that removal is correct; until you justify it, do not re-remove it. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am comletely agree with Mongo that the above content is misleading and wrong conclusion based on insufficent and unrelaible sorces.the topic has been debated for a very long period and you have not partcipted in debate from starting.enough material have been produced by me on discussion page against this conclusion and on one coming against me with sources.if you have any doubt than you are welcome but you should first study entire debate and topic deeply.untill than you have no right to make judgement and reverting edit on this topic.so First study the entire debate from starting you will find the sources which contradict these lines.Bill clinton history (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reduced your indenting, Bill, just to keep things in order. Could you please let me know what bit of WP:RS the cited sources fail to meet? Until you do, I have reinstated the content per WP:BRD. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, if you read this thread, you will find that Bill has clearly identified points where the material in the article deviates from what the sources actually say. The present sentence in the article is misleading because it is drawing generalizations from what the sources actually say. The sources do not say what the article says. Sitush also seems to accept this and has proposed changes. It is obvious that the present line is problematic. There is no reason to keep misleading statements. So, it should have been already clear how the line is misleading. BRD should not be applied to keep misleading statements. I am deleting it. Please do not reinsert misleading content.-MangoWong (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Show me where I have agreed that the statement is misleading. My message at 15:15 on 7 August certainly does not say that. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I said Sitush "seems to accept" this. It is different from saying you do accept this. Do you think that the current sentence is properly conveying what the sources say?-MangoWong (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And if you were unsure of what I thought then you should have discounted me, which you clearly did not. I have taken it to WP:DRN - see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Yadav - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And if y.... I take this to mean that you do think that the current sentence properly conveys the sources in the article.-MangoWong (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This matter is now at WP:DRN. Further comments here are somewhat pointless. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Maoist movement in Bihar

I think that MangoWong was correct to remove the bulk of that section on the Maoist movement in Bihar, as it seemed to focus too much detail (i.e., undue weight) on a specific Yadav community and a specific set of events. However, since it did seem to be focused on Yadav history, I wonder if maybe we should preserve a few sentences of it. I haven't looked at the references yet, but, assuming they're valid RS, maybe something like "In the 1990s, violence occurred between the Yadav community in Bihar and other groups. Some (better yet, I'd like to specifically state the author/group's name) have said that this occured in part becuase of a "Yadavising" of the police force under Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, who assumed office in 1992." In other words, if there was a significant set of events in an area attributed to the Yadav community, and that's backed up by RS, it seems like some of it should be mentioned here, though, again, much more briefly than before. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated while it is discussed. I agree that something needs to be said and the stuff about Yadavisation is definitely RS & it is very much a hot potato: they have benefited from the endemic corruption etc - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Having now reviewed the content, I do not actually see a big issue with 50% of the Bihar stuff but it is confusing. As far as I am aware, Lalu Prasad Yadav is not a Maoist & so the content relating to him (a controversial figure who appears to embody casteism by his actions) is misplaced. We have a section on the modern day & although I have not checked that over, the LPY/Bihar content perhaps should be in there.

The Maoist content proper is a little odd & has been in and out of the article several times. Someone once pointed out that not all Maoists are Yadav and not all Yadav are Maoist, which is true enough. OSE alert: you could say the same about the grouping of all members of various castes as followers of Hinduism, for example, as it simply is not true today. I don't mind if this bit is deleted for now but there is a proviso attached: I have read some sources in the past that made is abundantly clear that there is a connection between the Maoist philosphy of land ownership and the Yadav involvement in land ownership, & that this explains the disproportionate involvement of Yadavs in the Maoist movement in India. Having said that, I have neither the time nor the inclination to find those sources again right now & unless someone else does then this content is probably unjustified, but may make a reappearance in better form at some point in the future. To save a little detective work in the future, perhaps copy/paste the Maoist terrorism stuff to this talk page?

I am all in favour of including content regarding the modern life of these communities because so many articles on the subject simply do not carry such information. Tearing down one where information is available seems to me to be a retrograde step unless the content fails to meet V, RS etc. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is not for Bihar Yadavs only.and this issue has multiple point of views.to make some conclusive lines on this current socio-political sensitive issues and blame one community on the bases of some politicaly influenced people is highly unreasonable.

Moreover how this issue effect the entire yadav community of indian subcontinent? Bill clinton history (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I sorted out your indenting, Bill. Hope you do not mind.

It has been newsworthy and book-worthy for some time & so is notable. The issue is really one if weight. My point is that this article already deals with Yadavs in various areas. Either remove all of those or permit a Bihar area. You cannot have it both ways, in particular since the Yadavs of Bihar of relatively well documented. If anyone is trying to whitewash what this alleged corrupt official & his cronies have got up to then it will not work because Wikipedia is not censored. Equally, no-one is blaming the entire community but a significant part of that community has gained from the situation in Bihar & one would imagine they were among the people who elected him. I accept that this content should be dealt with in depth in the article about the guy himself, but that does not mean we ignore it here entirely. The Yadavs of Bihar have for a long time been a major part of the back-and-forth caste warring/politics over land etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you sir,yadavas of bihar have their own place.my point is that this is very current politically linked topic.so any conclusion on this topic without knowing the other side seems political propaganda of one side.even government of india's view not clear on this Maoist movement.Political regime of Mr.Lalu Parsad Yadav has been interpreted different ideological intellctual differently.so we shoud more carefull to include such kind of politiclly motivated topic because this topic has the potential to damage all article if views of all side allowed.and if we not allow all sides views than this section does not make any sense.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It certainly needs some filling out but the issue is not really politics per se and any detailed study of LPY's policies etc does indeed need to be in the article(s) relating to him. The issue in this article is in connection with Yadav attitudes to land ownership etc, which forms a part of their traditional culture, and the way in which they have used the system to their advantage (if, indeed, they have). They are one of the more politically adept groups, as far as I can see, and that is notable. I need to do more work on this but as it stands nothing that is said is untrue and it is not disproportion to the other regional sections. It needs some tweaking, but not removal. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you have said that you do not mind this material being removed for now, I have removed it and am placing a diff of the material removed. [1]. The material has multiple problems. My difficulty is not with WP:CENSORED. The difficulty I see is that this does not pass WP:DUE.-MangoWong (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet again you have misrepresented me. I said that the bit about Maoist terrorists could go (IMO) but that the bit about Bihar had its place, eg: " It needs some tweaking, but not removal". I am reverting some of your edit as you do not have consensus. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I had removed it because it was not clear to me which part you wanted to be removed and which part you wanted to stay. I had also placed a diff of the material for your convenience. I have reviewed the sources and all of it looks like WP:UNDUE + WP:CHERRY + misrepresentation to me. Both those sources are about things other than Yadav history. Some passing comments about some localized incidents in some areas or villages by some particular persons do not qualify as encyclopedic material which could be taken as a reflection on the whole community. This article is about Yadavs in general. These incidents are not a reflection on Yadavs in general. As such they should have no place in this article. The sources also do not seem to have any expertise in Yadav history or Yadav caste. They are non-RS for this article. Both the material and the sources are unsuitable for this article. They should be deleted. The whole section is being unnecessarily forced onto this article.-MangoWong (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If it was not clear then why not ask? The content which remains is scarcely localised: it covers developments throughout an entire state, and the article already contains some info about other regions. I have explained this above. There might be an argument for taking them all out, but there is no justification to take one out because it is regionalised and yet leave the others in for that reason. We show "warts and all" here: the endemic caste violence, the corruption etc in India is well known outside of the country: there is no need to sanitise it when one community has clearly benefited, just as I seem to recall that we did not censor content about, say, Irish Republicanism & the sectarian violence in Ireland. The section does need some work but it appears to be valid content. It could do with some more sources, for example. Perhaps something from the BBC or similar. I have no idea how big Bihar is but my guess is rather bigger than the UK in population/area etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The previous material was NOT related to the entire state. It was about particular persons indulging in violence in particular villages or areas. I have not reviewed the sourcing of the other sections. So, I won't say anything about them. Whether they stay or go is irrelevant to my argument. I am not arguing to keep them. It might have been ironical if I had been arguing to keep them but delete this section only. That is not the case. So, lose the strawman argument, and try to address my objections directly. What I am saying is that the Maoist thing is WP:UNDUE. Secondly, all the sources are off topic. They are not about Yadava history or about Yadava caste. Those books are about other topics. So, they are non RS for this article. Added to that, all the authors of those books have no expertise caste issues and have not written a single book on Yadavas. The authors are also non RS for this article. You are only WP:CHERRY picking from off topic books to slap together unencyclopedic info into a coatrack section. If the information was encyclopedic, it would have been found in books on Yadava caste or Yadava history and would have been written by authors specializing in this field. This is not so. That you are unable to find anything of this sort in specialized books by specialist authors is enough to show that the material is unencyclopedic and is cherry picked. Since you are unable to address my objections, I am going to delete it. Do not reinsert it. You yourself say that it is wrong to reinsert your edits when they have been reverted. Don't be hypocritical now, and wait for completion of discussion before reinserting it (according to your own idea of what is right and what is wrong) [2].-MangoWong (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't understand "strawman" at all. I have reverted. The information is reliably sourced, including to an acknowledged expert on Bihar socio-politics (the late A N Das). I think that you may need to re-read WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify the above, I have added some content in the form of a source that also cites another source. If you consider that there may be an issue of weight then fine, but you cannot delete on the grounds of RS. You took it out, I reverted and then we were discussing; your revert of a few minutes ago was the one that ran against BRD. As far as the weight argument is concerned, that would be pruning it back somehow - not deleting it as you did. I am not sure yet how best to prune it back and, like you, still need to work out what is going on in the other regional subsections.

What absolutely astonishes me is that you have been asking for more coverage of recent history etc rather than old stuff. Now we find an article that has some, you want to take it out. - Sitush (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Three things: MW, don't revert again. You made a bold change. That's great. Sitush reverted you. That's also great. Now we discuss it here until we get consensus. If Sitush had added this section, then you took it out, then you would be correct to revert, but, as far as I can tell, this section has been in the article for a while, so it's now up to you to get consensus to remove it. Second: A book does not have to be about a specific subject to be used as a reference in that subject's WP page. By that argument, we couldn't use a book like (I'm making up an example) "History of World War II" to add references to Adolph Hitler, Battle of Normandy, or Nazism, which, of course, is flat out wrong. The section in question needs to be about Yadav. Third, while I support general inclusion of this information, it's too much weight, in my opinion. I looked at one of the sources (38/39) and it does appear to clearly be claiming a caste-war between Yadav and Rajputs in Bihar. But it still is just one small part of the (multi?) thousand year history of the Yadav, so right now it's being overemphasized. I'd like to see it come down to a paragraph. If the topic is so important and well sourced, it can become its own article and we can link it here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it needs pruning. I was finding a source of sufficient merit in order to answer MW's earlier query. As said, I am not yet sure of the most economical way to phrase this in a pruning exercise, but it will come to me (or someone else) soon. The entire thing developed when someone added the terrorist bit that has now gone, so we need to play about with the rest of it. The inter-caste warring in that area has gone on for a century, apparently, and mostly in connection with land issues. - Sitush (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian. These are Sitush's edits. In light of what Sitush said at talk:Kurmi Sitush should not restore them until completion of discussion. It is unabashed hypocrisy to restore them. Please discuss without reverting.-MangoWong (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to Straw man. Let's do these sources one by one. There are only three sources after all, and there is the Late A. N. Das. Let's get Das out of the way first. Is this A. N. Das a professor? Looking at the link in the article, I did not have that impression. If he was a professor, what was his field please?-MangoWong (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Google it. Then go fix that article if you think it is incorrect. Believe me, I did not rely on the WP article about him for anything, I merely provided a link because it exists. If you relied on that article then that just shows another failing among many. Your continued inability to AGF is astounding, but there is nothing to stop you checking out for yourself things as simple as this. Furthermore, since Das is quoted in another reliable source which is used & has not been taken out of context, it is a trivial point that you are making. Your policy/guideline knowledge is weak and you are refusing help on your talk page - what else can I do? - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, rather than waste time fighting about who was should stop editing first, how about both sides stop editing? MW, I just reverted the varna removal, since that's not the issue being discussed; pulling that edit now is an attempt to hide it among the other issue of the Bihar section. While I think you are wrong to re-add the Bihar section, I won't revert that so that the edit warring can stop. Looking at the Bihar section just before MW reverted, I see nothing wrong with it. It is well sourced, it is neutrally written, it is about the Yadav, while it's just one province that isn't a problem itself (otherwise we'd have to remove everything that wasn't about the whole country, which is nonsense). MW, please provide one clear, specific objection to the as it appears in this version. I can't see any policy/guideline based reason to remove it. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already identified some policy based objections. The whole section is a case of WP:CHERRY. Besides, it is against WP:DUE. Other than that, ALL the sources in that section appear to be non RS for this article. I was attempting to discuss their authority to speak on this topic and Sitush has refused to discuss the reliability of those sources. Unless Sitush defends the reliability of the sources and overcomes the objections to the generalizations which he draws from localized incidents, there is no reason to reinsert the material. It is on Sitush to defend their sources and material. I had asked Sitush to establish the authority of A.N. Das to speak on this topic. Sitush has refused to do so.-MangoWong (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it undue weight and cherry-picking? I am not going to argue with you about RS because you consistently demonstrate terrible judgement on that score (as at Edgar Steele). I will take that point to WP:RSN later today, where the community will endorse the obvious & then hopefully you will learn something. I have wasted enough of my time dealing with your disruptive edits. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the RS issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_for_violence_in_Bihar.2C_India (and also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Edgar_Steele, just to save me having to post again on MW's page, at which I appear to be persona non grata). - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the DUE and CHERRY objections, how many sources would you like me to provide in order to demonstrate that this is not cherry-picking but in fact a major issue involved Yadavs in Bihar, which itself is a huge state? - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In order to get over DUE and CHERRY objections, IMO, you would need to get about two on topic books from specialist authors in the field. The current sources do not seem to pass these criteria. They seem "off topic" for this article. Then, there is a problem with giant generalizations from individual incidents. So, we will also need to see what they actually say. Generalizations are unacceptable.-MangoWong (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It has been explained to you before (not by me) that there is no requirement for a source to be absolutely, 100% specifically about the article subject. If we did it your way, this article would have few if any sources at all since there are no books with, for example. "Yadav" in the title. If you have actually read the present sources for the Bihar stuff then you would know that they do in fact cover the state and mention a huge number of incidents. However, since that is what you request I shall take the matter to a noticeboard, and should remove Bill's stuff as per your criteria. Happy now? - Sitush (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Social Justice Provided by Yadavas

if there is a consensus among editors regarding maoist section to maintain it in article than a section on social justice also should be there so that both point of view makes article neutral.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. My issue is not related to WP:NPOV. They are related to other policies and guidelines and I have provided the links. You can go through those links if you want. You can create a section on social justice. Until I see you write it up, I have no idea what you have in mind. So, I will have to wait and see. But please don't connect this new section with the Maoist section. You can put up the new section in an unrelated way too. Thanks.-MangoWong (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Need Positive Attitude

We should have positive attitude and respect for each other point of views to make this article better.I have provided enough sources on Kshtriya topic.arbtriary and unjust rejection not a sign of healthy debate.if any one have doubt thab he should come with his point with sources.Bill clinton history (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The subtext of what you are saying is that "we need a positive attitude" that allows you to get your way. It is not as simple as that. You get your way if you comply with the policies and guidelines and, so far, on the issue of kshatriya/shudra you have not demonstrated that. You can take it to WP:DR if you want to do so but I would first suggest that you read up on the various policies, notably: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In case y'all didn't know, we actually have a fairly new noticeboard called the dispute resolution noticeboard that can be used to get uninvolved feedback on cases of dispute resolution. If clerks or other editors don't think that a solution can be developed there in a reasonable fashion, they're also able to direct editors to the proper avenue (like an RfC or mediation). If anyone here feels like that would be a good option, feel free to open a discussion there; be sure, of course, to leave a message on this talk page indicating that you have done so. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Kshtriya issue

I have already made my points and arguements in against these lines and also i have provided sources in support of my points.but no one responded to my points.my objection is based on these points..

1.The sources have very narrow base.they can not be applied on entire indian subcontinent.

2.The sources mentioned about Ahir or Abhir.i have already proved on ahir discussion page that they are mentioned Brahman and Kshtriya also.

3.the sources are not related to our topic.

4.i have also edited in article with source that abhiras has a very clear relation with ancient yadavs.

5.you can not apply double standard on same article.on the one side you are saying this article only for modern yadavs and on the other hand you are applying ancient concept of varna system.

so positive attitude neede for healthy debate.we are not here for setting our personal score.we have to present a neutral and true picture of topic in the intrest of our reader.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing these issues on WP:DRN. Splitting the discussion between here and there is difficult. Points 1-3 have all been answered there clearly. At this point, until we can work it out on DRN, the sentences should remain, as there is no consensus to remove them. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Points 1-3 have all been answered there clearly. I didn't have that impression at all.-MangoWong (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Points 1 & 3 are being dealt with there. Now, let's carry on all discussions relating to those two points there, shall we?

If Bill wants to try (yet again) to prove points 2 and 4 here then that is fine. I am not at all sure of the relevance of point 5 to anything in particular, but feel free to explain if it clearly has nothing to do with the issues at WP:DRN. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, #5 is not an issue: just because the varna system is ancient does not mean that it does not apply to modern Yadavs. Easily as late as the 1900s people were arguing over whether Yadavs were Kshatriya or Shudra, so it plays an important part in modern Yadav politics. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue should be discussed here so that our reader also able to read the debate.

if consensus has been not reached than how these lines can find place in article.

these lines may be inntroduced later when consensus reached.

moreover if any one find these lines correct than he should also give sources and explanation in support of their point of view.then debate will be equal and more productive.the arbitrary and irrational rejection of my points makes no sense.i stand with my points that these lines provide completely wrong conclusion based on inadequate sources.

i have also provided sources which contradict these lines.but everyone ignoring them or rejecting them irrationaly.my sources more strong than these sources so these lines should properly phrased.Bill clinton history (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill. I did not reject your sources. I only rejected the sources and material in the line under dispute. I hold that the line should be deleted because it is misleading and is a synthesis and has various other problems.-MangoWong (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill wrote, "The issue should be discussed here so that our reader also able to read the debate." This is incorrect. We have proven unable to stop arguing in circles here. We need the input on uninvolved editors. This often happens on Wikipedia--a small local group of editors cannot come to a consensus, so they ask for the help of other people. If anyone wants to comment further on this issue, the best place to do so is at WP:DRN#Yadav. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats what we are saying, historical evidences from ancient india to modern india should be bases of the material in article.but in earlier article we found material on based only on modern sociologist's social and political propaganda.they are not who study the topic indepth.i am very happy that section like caste politics and maoist have been removed from this article.

WP:DRN DECESION also says that ancient view on yadava status should also find place in article.but there seems lack of knowledge of topic on the side of decider.Bill clinton history (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that the decision also stated that we must re-add the sentence that you and MangoWong objected to so strongly--that the sentence is not synthesis, and that the sources are reliable. Will you be re-adding that part yourself? I do see a place for compromise, but I've asked from some clarification from the closer about what they meant (since it isn't clear to me). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with that closure. That closure is against everything in WP:V and WP:NOR.-MangoWong (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill clinton history, you should re-read the closure, as Steven Zhang has changed it to clarify the differences between modern and historical sources, particularly in cases where the historical sources are primary sources.

Mangowong, you are certainly welcome to disagree-it is, after all, the opinion of one outside editor (taking into account the advice of several others). At the moment though, it does strongly imply that the sentence must remain in the article until such time as you can show that the sentence is synthesis. Probably your next best bet is WP:NORN (we haven't already taken this there, have we?). If you do, please notify us here (no need to notify us individually, just a post on the talk page is fine. Meanwhile, I would be happy to make the lead comply with the closing statement as an interim move, while we figure out how to provide the historical information that BCH presumably has sources for in the body of the article. If you already provided the sources, feel free to just tell me where to look and I'll go find them. Or if you don't know how to look through archives, I can search back through the archives myself, though that will take me a little longer. Note that at this point, removing such an edit would very clearly constitute edit warring, since the burden is now on the two of you to show why the conclusion reached by an uninvolved editor is wrong. I'm not saying that we can't continue the discussion, but I'm saying that, at this point, the info looks to meet our policies and guidelines, so it's up to you to show it's not. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion results says first reframed those lines in suggested format and than dicuss it on talk page to make cosensus.so first reframed lines should be discussed before admitting in article.the earlier wrong lines can not be included in article.only reframed lines after consensus will be admitted.

Mr.Qwyrxian you are again misrepresenting me.i have not used words for historical sources like primary sources.i am supporting views of historian of ancient,medieval and modern indian history.which have done indepth study of topics related to yadavs.

I think the outside editor has limitations in understanding the topic.so we should discuss the topic on talk page in detail as suggested by him.

So dont make your own conclusion without any bases.result does not allow same lines in article to continue.only reframed lines after consensus will be readmitted.

Present reformed article shows a better material than previous narrow minded created article.I thanks the contributer.Bill clinton history (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed your indenting, Bill, sorry. I hope to have the Barrier scan by the end of this week. This should provide context and page numbers etc. I am happy to email it to anyone who wants to read. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a few comments. Whether I know much about the topic is actually irrelevant, actually, in some cases it is preferred. I reviewed the discussion and the appropriate arguments that were applied for each viewpoint, and applied them to the appropriate policies. As a result of that, I have closed the discussion with a decision, and that decision can be read at the DRN thread. Of course people here may not agree with the close, if everyone agreed, it would not have been at DRN for almost a week. Secondary sources trump primary sources, that's very clear in our policies, and ancient or historical texts as per Wikipedia policy are treated as primary sources. Thus, my interpretation of the consensus at DRN as per policy is to allow the lead to stand as it is, with the modern references, and add details of historical context as per talk page discussion, and not remove the thread unless there is a clear change of consensus. That was the question that was raised at DRN, and the reason it was taken there. I don't see a major issue with removing it all from the lede and discussing the nuances in another section of the article. If that can work then great, I'm all for it. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have never tried to insert any historical sources. I am unable to agree with the present outcome. It says that the sources pass WP:RS. How could one come to this conclusion when we do not know anything about Sabyasachi Bhattacharya? Without even knowing anything about him/her, how could one conclude the he/she is an RS? Besides that, all the sources seem to be off topic. WP:NOR clearly says To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article,…. None of these sources are related to the topic of the article. They are all off topic sources. Then, we are speaking about Yadavs on an India wide basis. India is a large country. All of these sources are talking about particular regions. Yadavs in different regions can have different recognition. This point has not been understood and a generalization has been made (that too from passing comments from off topic sources.) The WP:NOR clearly says ….and directly support the material as presented. This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. We do not have any source to which an India wide claim of this sort could be attributed. The WP:NOR also says The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists. This idea of Yadavs being low varna on an India wide basis is OR. The WP:V says, All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate. I have challenged the India wide claim. How can it be keeping with WP:V to keep such material without having any source for an India wide claim? We have no source for such a claim (whether RS/non RS). And how could one decide that Barrier is appropriate for the material without even knowing what he says? The outcome seems completely arbitrary. WP:SYN also says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. NOR also says Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.…. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research…. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic. These too seem to have been ignored. None of the sources discuss the issue at all and all are only making passing comments. As such, it is all OR.

It seems the outcome is due to misrepresentations of mine and Bill Clinton history’s views. MatthewVanitas has given the impression that I want to insert some material based on legendary claims or Victorian sources etc. I have made no such attempt. Actually, I have never tried to insert any source or any claim into the article. It was unjustified to make out that I have a preference for dated sources. In reality, I prefer modern sources very much. But sources do not become RS simply by virtue of being modern. We still have to investigate them to see if they pass WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:DUE,.....Our present sources fail all of these policies. It seems that the outcome was based on misrepresentations of other’s views.-MangoWong (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have read your comments and my closure stands. I will leave one comment, and that is that if sources A and B state something, then we should not assume that A and B = C, but if A and B state C, then stating C is not synthesis. In this situation, two sources state the information in the lede, if only as statistics. This is not synthesis. If you feel unsatisfied with the result of the DRN thread, I would suggest filing a request with the Mediation Committee. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

About the author of the first book which has a table, we know for certain that he is not a professor. About the author of the second book which has a table, we have no information. How they could be deemed to pass WP:RS is something that escapes me.-MangoWong (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Steven Zhang's closure is a good one. I actually hadn't read the lead until just a few minutes ago. The lead is terrible (with essentially unsourced Kshatriya claims). I believe the best solution is to move all varna discussion to a later section. The lead should begin with the following sentence: "The Yadav are a Hindu pastoralist Jāti (community) in India and Nepal." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@Bill clinton history: please provide those sources forthwith. I don't undestand how an "ancient source" can not qualify as a primary source, so please enlighten me. I may well simply misunderstand, and trust that if you show the references, I will.

@Fowler&Fowler: I don't understand how you simultaneously like the closure and recommend something substantially different than Steven Zhang does. I'm not saying his word is gold, but he never implied the varna information should leave the lead. Nonethless, I am willing to see it out of the lead for now (all of it, not just the Shudra info), but only on the condition that it is added to the body. Once that section is fully flushed out, we can determine what portion of it should be re-added to the lead. In other words, I think there is a strong logic to the idea that for a large article, we should develop info in the body of an article first, and then later summarize the body appropriately in the lead. Starting from the lead causes exactly the sort of awkward problems we've been having. So, right now, I'm going to go in and remove the kshatriya info, since it is currently unsourced and unverified, and thus should not be in the article until it is, and until it is properly balanced by the sourced shudra info. I'm not going to add F&F's sentence either, because I don't know that that is cited, and, since, again, I'd rather work on the body before the lead. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That temporary removal pending development is fine by me. Note that leads are supposed to summarise articles; they are not supposed to sanitise them. Varna remains a hot topic in India and that it reflected by the constant warring across caste articles here (including many that I have had no involvement in at all). As it is clearly still significant, ultimately the varna issue cannot be sidelined in the body of the article; a temporary move is, however, entirely appropriate since there is an argument that until the body is settled then we are unsure of what it is that we are summarising. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Development would mean removing sections 1 and 2 in their entirety and large parts of section 3. King Yadu, for example, is not a historical figure. (It would likely also include merging Yadav and Ahir.) Ping me in a few years when you have a stable Yadav page with the word "shudra" shining lustrously in the lead. I wish you the very best of luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you check the article history then you would see that virtually all the items you mention are the work of Bill. They are a new-ish user and perhaps we are not explaining well enough how Wikipedia works. My gut feeling is to just remove all of the ancient history/mythology stuff and start over. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Strike while the iron is hot. There is some interest in the article right now with a number of people watching it. Remove sections 1 and 2 and sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. (As far as I am aware, the Yadav are a north Indian pastoral group.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

PS And obviously also remove the Kshatriya claims in the lead and infobox. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I'm advocating removing Kshatriya and inserting Shudra in the lede; if anything I've been supporting mentioning, in brief, both terms and saying "it's a complicated topic". Compare Kayastha where their varna status is quite convoluted, so the lede just says "it's complicated". As best as we've seen so far, the common designations are either Kshatriya or Shudra, and so far as mentioning them in the lede, from looking at other WP caste pages this seems to be an issue of enduring interest across the spectrum, so I don't think it'd be undue to have just a sentence in the lede: "Maybe Kshatriya, maybe Shudra, it's complicated."

F&F, you mentioned at DNR that they were historically outside varna and declared Shudra in the 1800s to enslave them, in response to which they drew up some Kshatriya history as a reaction. I don't find this to be at all an unlikely scenario, but haven't seen anything specifically supporting this chain of events. Do you have any good sources on it? My only gut hesitation is that it seems a bit odd to stay "outside varna" (not necessarily Dalit, but just off on their own program) up to such a late date. While we have you here, F&F, do you also have an opinion on the argument as to whether modern Yadav herders are the same people as the ancient Yadavs, or just pastoralists of the greater Ahir/Dhangar/Kurmi/Kunbi array who took the name Yadav in more recent history? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But MV (on your first paragraph), it may not be undue, but it is wrong for a lead to contain controversial, complex information that isn't covered in the article itself. So, really, we need a varna section in the article before we can have a summary of that in the lead. I do believe that it's likely that we'll have a sentence like you state (semi-humorously) in the lead once the body is there, but the body isn't there now. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I was unclear. Yes, the discussion should be laid out in the body first, probably in a "caste politics" section. I also do want to double-check the current version against my older May-June version when I was doing extensive cleanup (old version), since the current version has a ton of material that I can't imagine was added with any consensus, and appears to have been stuck in while we were actively in WP:DRN. The "Military" section is particularly egregious compared to the cleaner version I'd distilled; the current one is pretty much just a re-copy from the period before I did a cleanup. That aside, I would again support removing the infobox, and if possible it'd be great to find a historical photo of a representative Yadav or group thereof. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to MV) Sure there are quite a few sources. Susan Bayly for one. This particular explanation is hers. William Pinch for another. The general topic of "middle" or non-elite tillers (such as Kurmi) or pastoralists (such as the ahir or goala (later Yadav)) has also been discussed by the great historians of the early colonial Gangetic plain, such as Eric Stokes and Chris Bayly. I will be adding their references in the Kurmi article and will also post some here for the Yadav. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

PS The Kayastha page could be a good model for the lead. The Kayasth, of course, were the first of the "pretenders to rank," (to use Buchanan's phrase). Here is William Pinch (p 84) on the Kayasth:

By contrast, Kayasths had been classified as pure shudras by Buchanan in the beginning of the nineteenth century. As a result of their very public campaign for kshatriya status in the last quarter of the century, not to mention their substantial economic and political clout, Kayasths were classified along with "Babhans" and Rajputs as "other castes of twice-born rank" in the 1901 census hierarchy for Bihar. Herbert Hope Risley, who devised the hierarchy, noted elsewhere that "the social position of the Behar Kayasths is unquestionably a high one, inasmuch as "popular opinion ranks them next in order to the Babhans and Rajputs."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush,you have again made this article narrow in approach and content.you are giving lessons to others to discuss before any change on the other hand you are removing content without even mention on talk page.

We should first decide whats the word yadav means in article.if we are writting about yadavs as a group of communities than we should apply a broad framework which take in account the whole indian subcontinent.Yadavs have a more than 3000 years continous history in indian subcontinent but we are mentioning them only from 19th century.this is completely wrong.if you read the history of yadav castes seprately one by one than you will realise what i am saying.

But here i find many who are commenting on their varna status hardly have any knowledge about all communities of yadavs.they simply pick some books of 20th century sociologist and making judgement without knowing anything in detail.

Moreover i did not change this article.someone else did.i am just supporting the right approach.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

do we have article on ancient Brahman and Modern Brahman , do we have article on Medieval Rajput and Modern Rajput , do we have article on Medieval Jats and Modern Jats? simply no. if we are writing the history of other communities in a continous stream than on what bases we have seprate article on period wise clssification for yadavs.it is completely misrepresentation of history of yadavs.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Though Bill and I disagree on some points (though we're staying in good communication) I will agree with part of his basic concept above: we do have an issue at the moment with "defining our terms" regarding what a "Yadav" essentially is. The easy part is that there is a group of Yadavs in modern times, nominally pastoralists though clearly plenty have gone into the military, politics, etc. However, there seems to be a lot of blurring of lines as to Yadav, Yadava, Yaduvanshi, Ahir, Abhira, etc. all just in this article here. We also have at least on figure with the last name "Jadhav", and Jadhav is also a Maratha subcaste. My concern is that people are showing a marked tendency to lump groups together when convenient (dynasties or military successes of the Yadavs/Yadava/Abhira/Ahirs all lumped together) and then fragment it whenever there's anything less stellar (a Yadav Shudra group in Bihar suddenly becomes unrelated from other Yadav groups). Same as the Ahir/Abhira debate, I'm still not really convinced that these groups represent an unbroken lineage, and the refs that BCH has provided to prove a direct relationship I'm just not finding convincing (would really appreciate comment from Q and F&F on that issue, as I don't think they've weighed in yet). Honestly, the article now is looking more like "anyone who's ever claimed descent from Yadu" than anything more concrete, and I don't think that a generally similar name and common claims of descent are something you can base an article on. Frankly, the question comes down to "is Yadav a thing" or is it just an amorphous term loosely applied to all kinds of people?

Bill, in response to "do we have article on Medieval Rajput and Modern Rajput". Note that we do have Irish people and Celts, which are related but not completely equivalent things in history. Further, there appear to be a large number of works referring to the ancient group as "Yadava" and the modern as "Yadav", and again as mentioned above I'm not convinced it's safe to conflate them. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, yes Mūller was a very important historian, but he was writing 125 years ago. It would be one thing if we were citing Mūller as to things he witnessed or knew of at his time, but it makes no sense to assume that someone in 1886 would have better knowledge of ancient history than modern scholars who have a century of improved anthropolgy, archaeology, data sources, etc. to inform them. Do you have anyone more modern who says anything near as explicit as "Modern Ahirs are descendants of the ancient Abhira" such as Mūller said? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, I have removed a lot of your recent contributions because (a) many relied directly on primary sources; (b) others were uncritical translations of those sources; (c) there is substantial dubiety regarding many of the connections (as MV is yet again explaining above); (d) other sources were old and merely recitations of the older myths; (e) it stated as fact things that are actually just traditional, and (f) it did the latter in a way that gave massively excessive weight to what are - fundamentally - opinions on legend. All of these issues have been raised with you previously here, and Fowler&fowler has now also raised the general point that those sections needed stripping back. Furthermore, you made most of these edits while we were at DRN and a lot of them appear likely to be unattributed copies from other articles here (a breach of our licensing terms) and/or elsewhere. In addition, some elements were copyvios and others were either uncited or unsupported by the citations provided.

None of this means that some information about legendary origins etc cannot go in. Indeed, something must go in. But I was faced with such a wall of problematic text and after trying initally to sort out the wheat from the chaff, it became obvious that it would be easier to start over.

I have the horrible feeling that the same will apply to your recent contributions to other articles. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush you are misrepresenting me.i did not change the earlier article.someone else did.i had mention only two lines on yadavs and lunar dynasty.but someone change the whole article.i think it was Rockstar.but his approach was good.

MV i have provided about 50 sources of various historian and government of india census and some state census reports on ahir talk page.i dont think anyone provided so much sources in support of their point.

Ahir is the largest group of yadavs in modern india.and they have continous history of thousands years.same is the case with Jadeja,Chudasma etc.so my point of continous history of yadavs is very valid.you should not restrict their history in just 100 years.

Moreover Sitush you did not mention sections of yadavs of devgiri and vijaynagar which were well sourced and authentic.

moreover above comment on varna status based on Kaysth model will not present true picture of yadavs varna status.because yadavs in varna system always classfied as kshtriya in authentic texts.Bill clinton history (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Genetics

Someone has added this genetic study. Can they get a copy for me, please? We cannot rely on the abstract. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)