Talk:Yadav

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)

If there was no basis for concluding that these two sources are RS, should it not need some rethiking? It seems that core policy based sourcing considerations have also been brushed aside with a "my closure stands". Is that the usual way to violate core policies?-MangoWong (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I recommend taking the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard. I disagree with your claims about the reliability of these sources (as does Sitush, I assume), but I doubt you'll listen to us (though I will comment on an RSN request if you make one). See what other editors think. I don't think anyone here will consider it forumshopping to take the more specific question there, since Steven Zhang focused more on the overall issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I had the impression that the DRN discussion was about these and similar other specific sourcing related questions and had expected the outcome to be based on these considerations. If it was based on extraneous considerations, I would say that the outcome might call for some rethinking. I am trying to decide between RSN/NORN.-MangoWong (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If you concern is specifically that the sources don't meet the reliable sources guideline, take it to RSN. If you think the sources are acceptable, but that we're adding them up in a way that is synthesis, take it to NORN. If you think both, do RSN first (since you need to establish the reliability of the sources before you can determine if they're used correctly), then, if RSN says they're good, take it to NORN. 07:16, 17 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)

My apologies, Bill. I didn't bother checking the history when I was cleaning things up. I just noted that it was your "style" and then reacted when you subsequently objected here to the removal. It seems, however, that you still do not understand why it was generally poor content. What can we do to assist you in understanding this? There is clearly something that we are not explaining very well. Rockstar's was an odd contribution: nothing for ages & then does one edit before disappearing again. Hm. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your mantra about continuious history etc. Sure, the community has a long history. However, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines. If we cannot convey that history within the bounds established by those policies and guidelines then it will not be conveyed at all. That is just the way this place works. We cannot bend the rules to make things pretty. Well, not without a community discussion at any rate. Let's try to find some sources that are ok, eh? - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am also not supporter of material based on primary sources.but Mr.Qwarxian understand me wrongly and than misrepresent me before others.but works of modern authentic historian can not be denied.this is not against wikipedia policy.Bill clinton history (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Have I missed something among your many suggested sources? Were any of them, for example, written post-independence? A lot of problems stem from using works by "gentleman scholar" Indologists etc from the Victorian/Edwardian period of the Raj. Probably not all of them were bad, but a lot certainly were. Equally, the census data from that period was pretty poor. (I have an interesting article on the latter from Barrier, should you want further info about it). - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush you and MV are not behaving like senior contributer .you are imposing your wrong concepts on yadav article without dicuss it on talk page.this may results in edit warring.so please respects others point of view also and discuss things first at Talk page.

you had started origion section with derogatory comment.you should first undrstand the meaning of origion.

On what bases you have deleted one of the most authentic source based reference from the box without explaining it in summary and without discuss at talk page.Bill clinton history (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not Agree with the origion section.they are again making it narrow and wrong in approach.it should be first discussed At talk page.Bill clinton history (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, what do you mean by "authentic sources"? It's looking an awful lot like "says what Bill wants it to say" more than any measure of WP:RS. Further, given how large a chunk and how well-cited Sitush's bit was that you just deleted, you owe him an awfully good explanation for why you removed it. Sitush already provided his justification by clearly footnoting it, what more justification could you want before he actually inserts it? If you see problems with it, okay, you can remove it, but you definitely have to immediately give a very specific explanation as to what's wrong with it, rather than just "making it narrow and wrong in approach". MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please, what is the explanation? As it happens, had you waited a few minutes then you would have seen something to your liking regarding Ahir/Abhira. Jaffrelot is modern, an expert in the field and widely published. I do not understand this deletion at all. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 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)

OK, it is not at present in the article but I do now have a copy in case it should return. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Substantiation for "Ahirs, Bhati, Chudasama, Raizada, Jadeja and other Yaduvanshi castes"?

Bill, you twice reverted my removal of "Yadav caste includes Ahirs, Bhati, Chudasama, Raizada, Jadeja and other Yaduvanshi castes". I have explcitly explained why I removed it, and what's wrong with the sources, and you have given no clear explanation why you've restored it except "no, I'm right". The first source you give mentions one single Chudasma prince who has been noted as "a Yadava and an Abhira", and on the basis of that you classify Chudasma Rajputs under the Yadav umbrella? Your second source, "Junagadh,K. V. Soundara Rajan, Archaeological Survey of India - 1985 - 49 pages" I'm not seeing online and you haven't provided a link. Did you find it online? Do you physically have this book? Did you just copy the footnote from elsewhere? It does little to support your argument if we can't see what the book actually says.

This is swiftly becoming ridiculous: you are providing essentially no content other than legendary origins, and not even ones clearly documented by modern scholars. You're taking tiny choice bits from century-old sources and using them to make sweeping statements about entire classes of people. This is becoming most disruptive. I'm still seeing zero reason to keep that sentence, particularly in the lede, and the Yadu info (other than their claiming descent) also does not belong in the lede, rather it belongs in the Origin/Legend section. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just - reluctantly - issued a 3RR warning. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read heading of the article first and explanation given above.this article is for communities which representing heritage of ancient yadavs in modern period.

They all are considered yadavs castes.please you will show any contrdictory sources which mention their origion seprate.your rejection is baseless ,MV.and second source is completely authentic of Anthropoligical survey of india.i am giving some sentences of synaptic view from google books...

The Chudasama dynasty, originally of Abhira clan from Sind wielded great influence around Junagadh from the 875 AD onwards when they consolidated themselves at Vanthali (ancient Vamanasthali) close to Girnar, under their — King Ra Chuda ...

So dont push your baseless conclusion in article.

Moreover who's origion you are writting Ahir/Abhira or Yadav/yadava.you have to first discuss it on talk page than make a section as i have done previously on your suggestion.this is not simple straight issue.this is very complex issue need discussion first as we have done on ahira talk page.why are you both in so hurry?i doubt your intention.

I have shows respect to both of you as senior contributer but now you both are behaving very voilently without any reason.you both have deleted so many relevant sources from article in few hours without any discussion.you both should be blocked from editing for 15 days.Bill clinton history (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, again, you're conflating "Yadav caste" and "castes claiming descent from Yadu". There is a group of people that call themselves Yadavs, have a caste organisation, live in specific regions, etc. However, you are lumping in tons of other groups which claim no relationship with them at all, on the basis of the fact that they also claim descent from Yadu. My concern is that, as is very, very common in Indian caste articles, you're trying to create/imply a linkage to recognised Rajput groups in order to shore up Kshatriya claims. If you look at the page History, you'll see that Sitush and I clearly indicate why we remove each thing we remove, and not just "it's wrong" but specifying concerns with sources, etc.

My concern is that you're trying desperately to turn this page into "Yaduvanshi" rather than Yadav, in order to buttress Yadav social status claims. "Yaduvanshi" is a separate issue from the "Yadav caste" of Ahirs. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to write about only on ahir than we have seprate article on ahir.you can write there.you are making article wrong by imposing your conclusion based on very narrow sources and approach.i have added sources about bhatis also.if you have sources than you can put them on talk page.we will disuss here.why are in so hurry?

Moreover yaduvanshi article mainly for yadu , not modern yadav.Bill clinton history (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing Nature

Sitush you incorporating so derogatory comment only on the bases of one source.These comments have no relation to our topic.i will delete it tomorrow because you have not good intention.you have your own agenda.And this source is not related to our topic.you did not want yadavs kingdoms mentioning on article but you have admitting derogatory comment.your intention are very doubtful.i am not agree with you.more over for which region the source talking about.plese clear.you did not even discuss this section on talk page why are behaving like dictator of wikipedia.you are a senior contributer.Bill clinton history (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why have you just moved the subsection title "In practice"? The source is discussing the Rig Veda etc, which are myths. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the conclusion of a reputed modern historian after study the topic indepth.now you are showing very poor knowledge about history.you dont even know the difference between myth and conclusion of a historian.Bill clinton history (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Jaffrelot, Christophe (2003). India's silent revolution: the rise of the lower castes in North India. London: C. Hurst & Co.. p. 194. ISBN 978-1-85065-670-8. Retrieved 2011-08-16.

The above auther is not an expert on our area.he is writing about political situation in present india.so his comment included in origion section is completely wrong.they should be deleted.Comments of Tilak Gupta which publish in a journal not at all authentic.he is not the expert of our area.and tone and context is completely politicaly motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill clinton history (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You have taken on MangoWong's position regarding analysis of sources. He got has got nowhere so far and, I am afraid, the same applies now. Jaffrelot is a modern academic with numerous publications in the India-related sphere and more specifically with regard to castes/communities, He is widely cited and should be cited here. Similarly, Gupta is widely cited and has decent credentials. EPW is not some two-bit weekly news-sheet but one that is respected enough to warrant inclusion at JSTOR. - Sitush (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ahir/Abhira again

I am sorry but I am struggling to reconcile the combination by BCH of his contributions with mine, which has created an awkwardness in the wording of the Ahir/Abhira issue. Can anyone sort it out? I'm off for an hour or so. The gist is, Jaffrelot says it is a claim, I believe that Enthoven says that it is a claim, but Bill's bit seems to have it as a certainty. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You should read entire debate on ahir talk page again.the issue is very much clear.if now you have any doubt you should provide sources first in support of their claim rather making baseless conclusion.Bill clinton history (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed your indents again. If it is specifically an Ahir issue then perhaps it should be addressed at Ahir since it is only of tangential relevance to Yadav. - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

if you have any doubt you can come with your sources on ahir page.I am open to discuss it again.but read entire debate again.Bill clinton history (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, you are missing my point. This article is about Yadavs, of which Ahirs form just one part. If the issue can be dealt with at Ahir and has no direct bearing on other members of the Yadav community then, surely, it is better actually dealt with at Ahir? The Jaffrelot situation is slightly different because as it develops it will become clear that he is discussing the issue of the AYMK as part of the wider Yadav community's Sanskritsation - it has a direct bearing. - Sitush (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No,sorry sitush i am not agree with you.The Jaffrelot dealing with poiltical situation in present india.so his/her comments should not be mentioned in origin.than so long section of changing nature with baseless,politicaly motivated comment of Tilak Gupta has no relevance at all.so much weightage to the source which are not directly related to the topic makes article unauthentic and misleading.Bill clinton history (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing with you. You can disagree as much as you like, but the content is valid. How stuff from 1910 and earlier can be "dealing with the political situation in present India" is beyond me. I acknowledge that Gupta's comment is more recent but note that it segues from a comment by one of your favourite Victorian/Edwardian ethnologists. And you also removed Rao's comment. Were those two additional sources also concerned with present-day political events (what ever they may be)? That would be some foresighted on the part of R V Russell and Lal, wouldn't it? - Sitush (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Villages in Delhi NCR

Do we really need the list of villages in Delhi NCR. Could it not be summarised as, say, "there are numerous villages in the region that are referred to as being Yadav villages, for example X, Y, Z.^citation" - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush are you want to make this articles of just 50 words?Bill clinton history (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush is right here--we don't need to list every single village, since 1) most of the list is unsourced, 2) it's guaranteed to be incomplete, 3) this section gives undue prominence to the NDCR, and most importantly, 4) per WP:NOT, we are not an indiscriminate list of information. Our job is to provide encyclopedic summaries of information, not tiny details. This is no different than the fact that we don't list every city that major companies have branches in, or every possible dish that can be made with a particular food ingredient. Having said that, I personally recommend leaving the list for now until we can figure out a good summary, and figure what source would be best. Like, if there are a few villages that are really really well known as Yadav villages (or have particular historical importance as a seat of Yadav influence/holdings/power), then I could see including those specific ones (of course, we need RS). Since this article is in such heavy flux, I don't think it's a pressing issue that needs to be blanked prior to establishing a decent replacement. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The list of these villages is more productive than section of changing nature which sitush has been created.he want to write the entire article from only one source which not directly related to our topic.he has written about 3000 words in that section.this is really gives undue prominence to one region,one book,one issue.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed your indents, Bill. Since I keep having to do this, let me explain: each time you add a ":" it indents one step further to the right on the page. The aim is to be one step further over than the preceding message.

Now, to my point - there are at least two ok sources used for some of those villages, being Rao's "Urbanisation and social change" and Qureshi/Mathur's "A geo-economic evaluation for micro level planning". - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, you are correct that if Sitush writes a whole 3000 word section (or, really, even a 300 word section) based entirely on one book, it would be WP:UNDUE. Sitush has indicated that he'll be using at least half a dozen, though, so that really won't be a problem (eventually); I've recommended below that a sandbox might make it easier to not have to deal with in-process deletions.

Regarding this section, though, please explain how the list of villages is "productive" in a Wikipedia sense. One thing we're all trying to work on here is helping you see that what you (or I) think is interesting, productive, accurate, or useful doesn't matter--it matters what the guidelines tell us. In this case, the list suffers from the problems I identified above, most importantly, probably violating WP:NOT. Could you explain why you believe that this incomplete but extensive list of villages in only one specific region of India deserves its own section and such a long list? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Only supporting editor over the last month is banned as a sockpuppet. I've perused the references (which don't even cover the majority of claims) and they tend to be very passing mentions, and/or do not mentiont the term "Yadav" at all, again getting back to the Yadav-Ahir conflation issue. Removing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sanskritisation

The section currently titled "Changing nature" is likely to grow quite substantially. I have half-a-dozen books open at the moment and have just had a request fulfilled at WP:RX. Ultimately, I can see this being split off from the main article but, please, can people bear with me for now as it is quite a complex subject and I need to work my way through all of the variations etc. I will try to ensure that any additions to it stand on their own merit & therefore do not unduly portray things in a distorted way. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are writting it for main article than why are you creating imbalance in yadav article.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, it does not say that I am drafting something for a "main article", whatever that may be. I said that it may become too big/complex for this article & that we will have to see. Now, are you going to undo your recent removals of cited content or should I take it to the edit warring noticeboard again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitush (talk • contribs)

If you're thinking that this may be an independent article, would it be easier to draft in a Sandbox first, then later, based on length, decide where to put it here or independently (linked from here, of course)? That way we can see the whole thing without having it reverted in parts. Alternatively, if you think you can do it in a single sitting, you should be able to do it in the article with an "in use" template--Bill, if Sitush does use that method, you should respect his "in use" and wait until it's fully completed before undertaking any changes; furthermore, you cannot simply revert because you don't like it, but only because if it is not policy compliant. If you're unsure, discuss it here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Any "in use" template would likely be there for a week or more, which is unfair on everyone else. These additions get to the heart of modern Yadav history etc, although that will not make me popular with some. It would be awkward to sandbox without rewriting the entire article, since it is going to end up spread across several sections (Origins, what will be Sanskritisation, the AIYM etc), some of which already exist. However, if people would rather I do it that way then I will have a go. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

My recent removals

I have removed a lot of the recent additions by BCH. The architectural stuff is out there on the web, including on a United Nations World Heritage site, and as such is copyright violation. The content regarding ancient dynasties etc has already been removed once recently from this articles because the main source specifically says that those people had little to do with the Yadavs and that Yadav claims to genealogical connection cannot be believed.

I am aware that removing copyvios does not impinge on the three revert thing, but I am disappointed to see this going on. I am also disappointed to see that Bill has removed some validly cited information and restored some info (about the various castes forming a part of the community) which was taken out precisely because the sources Bill used did not in fact substantiate the statements been made. There are one or two additional sources this time, so I guess that I will have to wade through them all yet again. Unfortunately, if I do that then I will go over 3RR - either someone else will have to check or it will have to wait. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Bill, since my source regarding members of the Yadav community was much more modern than yours, why did you remove it? - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to track down the relevant statement from "The Rajputs: history, clans, culture, and nobility", currently citation #8. Can anyone tell me what it says? I can only see snippet view, which is not good enough. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, #6 (Junagadh K. V. Soundara Rajan, Archaeological Survey of India ) and #7 (Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency: Cutch, Palanpur, and Mahi Kantha). - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, you want to write the entire article from one book which is not based on our topic.and the writer not the expert of our area.my sources is completely relevant.if you have any contradictory sources available than put them on talk page.we will discuss with open mind.

In your Section of Changing Nature you are making generalisation about entire community like depiction of all yadavs as low caste peasants.this is not the case.yadavs is considered kshtriya in varna system at broad all india level.Indial statuary commission report clearly mention that.but you are pushing your points arbitrarly without taking consensus or discussion.

Moreover you have inserted jats which has no relation with yadavs.no proper historian back their claim.but only you back without any bases.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you see those sources in full, Bill? I would like to have at least the relevant page, the one prior to it and the one after it. You cannot just say "they are relevant", especially not when there is some doubt regarding your ability to evaluate and represent sources. That ability will hopefully improve with time, especially if you take on board the comments of more experienced contributors regarding what is or is not such a source.

Regarding your other points, Jats are mentioned because they are relevant, I am using more than one source, I am covering more than one area and - which is more - the areas that are being covered are the ones with historically the densest population of Yadavs. Unless you have figures to show otherwise (and this is unlikely because there has been no caste census since 1931), it is all entirely valid. What was the outcome of the 1968 caste survey? I know that was a projection but do you have any idea what the figures were? - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In origin section you have put modern historians conclusion in mythology.this is completely wrong.the relation of ahir with Abhir concluded my historians also ,see below link

2. The culture and civilisation of ancient India in historical outline, Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi, i have physical copy of this book if you want i can mail you relevant page scan.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The source have full detail about chudasama and bhati,see wkiki jadeja article and my sources also.if you have any contradictory sources than present on talk page.than this debate will become more equal.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

this source completely contrdict your cchanging nature section which generalise all yadavs as low caste oeasants.one of the clan of maratha claims yadavs relation to claim kshtriya status.

1.Shivaji, the great Maratha By H. S. Sardesai,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=0QjwENC2V_IC&pg=PA118&dq=yadavs+of+devgiri&hl=en&ei=719OTpDJF8zOrQfbjvmVAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=yadavs%20of%20devgiri&f=false)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill clinton history (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Bill. Please do not swamp us again just yet. Can you please answer my initial query: are you able to see the books currently used as sources for the statement? In particular, the three I note above. If not then we move on to other possible sources. We have to have some sort of order to this discussion otherwise it will just degenerate as it has done it the past, with you throwing tens of links at us and then complaining when you think that we have not looked at them. Furthermore, the discussion needs to stay in one thread, so please do not create more sections for this - it becomes very confusing, very fast. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the citation of Shyam Singh Shashi's work on Nomads. The author does have an academic background but this particular book is produced by a relatively new and unknown publisher who advertise vanity services, it contains a lot of typographical errors, a lot of poor writing/editing and a lot of self-promotional material ("see my many books on ... available in Hindi, English and Malayalam" etc, plus a ridiculous use of blurbs at the back inner pages). Furthermore, for an academic work it has few citations. There is something not quite right here. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now removed the citation of Enthoven for the Bhati = Yadav point. Enthoven admits to relying substantially on James Tod for historical points etc, and the latter is not in my opinion a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yadavas of Devgiri

1.The Cambridge Shorter History of India,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=9_48AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA162&dq=yadavs+of+devgiri&hl=en&ei=rmFOTvv8FYjRrQebkdXDAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false)) 2.Generation gap, a sociological study of inter-generational conflicts By Ramaa Prasad,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FYElqUmQttgC&pg=PA32&dq=yadavs+of+devgiri&hl=en&ei=nWROTr6NJoPtrQe48r2qAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q&f=false))

Sithush ,YOU can read in detail about yadavas of devgiri.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained to you on countless occasions, the Yadavas are not thought to be the same people as the Yadavs. It is a concocted history, it is possible to actually name the person who first concocted it, and even your own source provided yesterday said that the connection was unlikely. I have removed the section and should really remove the Empire section for the same reason. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

After reading the sources provided yet again, I have removed the Empire bit. None of them refer to the Yadavs, and only some refer to the Yadavas. I have yet to see a reliable source that connects the two. The point about how certain Yadavs created a connection is already in the article. Obviously, if after all these weeks BCH or someone else can come up with such a source then great but right now it is at best tangential. - Sitush (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

sir please provide sources before reaching conclusion in sopport of your views.if you dont have sources than on what bases you are making generalistion.

Bill clinton history (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot prove a negative, Bill. For weeks now you have been unable to prove that Yadav = Yadava. Period. The item should not be in the article until you have proven the connection. I am removing it again and you will stop your warring, otherwise I'll request another block. It is simply not acceptable behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yadavs = Yadavas

Bill clinton history, let's try to resolve this once and for all. Please can you list below your five "best" sources which state that the modern day Yadavs are the same community as were once known as Yadavas. The usual reliable sources stipulations apply. Should it happen that any of your five are thought to be unreliable then you can take which ever one(s) are so thought to the reliable sources noticeboard for third party opinion. To save you some effort, I will consider as unreliable any source that it written by a member of the Yadav community - this should not present problems for you if the situation is as clear-cut as you believe, - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As mere words, Yadav and Yadava can be used interchangeably since they both are romanizations of the Indic word "यादव". However, claiming that Yadvas of Devagiri were same as the modern Yadav caste(s) is wrong. The Yadavas of Devagiri claimed descent from the ancient Yadavas of Mathura. The modern Yadav communities also claim descent from the same group. This doesn't mean that both of them belong to the same 'caste' or community. The article on the Devagiri dynasty lists multiple theories about their origin. The politics of the urban poor in early twentieth-century India by Nandini Gooptu (page 205) mentions how castes like Ahirs started claiming Yadav descent.

I've mentioned this multiple times during Yadav-related discussions: there are a number of tribes that claim descent from Yadu. It was very common for Indian dynasties to claim divine descent (in this case, through Krishna), and this is also true for several modern Indian castes. But that doesn't mean that all these groups are related. Some of them might be related to each other, but even in that case, there is no need to duplicate content.

This article should only be about the modern communities (Ahir etc.) that claim descent from the Yadavas. The users who want to contribute content related to the ancient or medieval dynasties may add them to respective articles, and add include a reference to those articles at Yadav (disambiguation). utcursch | talk 16:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Does "Religious seats" have any pertinence to modern Yadav caste?

The "Religious seats" section, with dates in the 1000s AD and 1560 AD, appears to apply to "Yadav" in the sense of "claiming descent from Yadu"/"Yaduvanshi", not in the sense of "Yadav caste". Has anyone any linkage between this section and the Yadav caste which is the topic of this article, or can it be remove (and possible relocated to Yaduvanshi or Yadava?) MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Vaishnavism

Vaishnavism has been reinstated by Akhil.anand.hisar as being the religious belief generally followed by Yadavs. The source for this is Enthoven, and although page 24 as cited does not mention religion at all, Enthoven does indeed cover it on p. 32. My points:

1. page 32 (like p. 24) is with regard to the Ahirs alone, not Yadavs in general. Contrast this with Jaffrelot, who quite explicitly uses Ahirs as an example of a wider trend within the Yadav community.
2. Enthoven says that various gods were worshipped, including Shiva & Vishnu, but of them all the favourites are Bhavani and Krishna. This sounds to me as if it is a little more complex than plain Vaishnavism.
3. Enthoven appears to like Risley, that discredited anthropometrist whose theories might quite easily have got Indian elephants mixed up with African elephants, let alone anything on the human scale. And Enthoven, published in 1922, is using even older sources for much of his content.

Do we have something more modern, please? It needs to say that Yadavs generally follow the Vaishnava school and that this is so now, not a century ago. Somehow, I doubt that there will be such a source because there has been no caste census since 1931 and even then the definition of which castes were part of the Yadav community might be moot. Note: I am not saying that the statement is wrong but rather than there may be issues verifying it. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Akhil, did you even read the page you claim to cite? Clearly you did not notice that there is nothing on or near Pg 24 which supports your assertion. Per Sitush's comments above, I read Pg 32, and it's about Ahirs, not Yadavs. You can't take info about related groups and just extrapolate them like that; so you need to find something that says "Yadavs do XYZ" where it is clear from context that it refers to the "Yadav caste" and not just to the whole span of Yaduvanshi claimants. Don't just revert things without explanation; I did the courtesy of explaining my removal. Given that I've given an explanation in the Edit Summary and here, I'll go remove the text once again. If you re-add it, I suggest you have a very clear explanation which rebuts the points offered here, otherwise you'd simply be edit warring with no explanation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I note also that Enthoven says the Yaduvanshi were a subdivision of the Ahirs, which is confusing to me, and that the worship of Krishna was due to a belief that the Ahirs were descended from cowherds who were companions of Krishna. Where does Yadu fit into this? Ok, wrong talk page for these points but I raise them to demonstrate that Enthoven seems to be contrary to a lot of the stuff that has recently been removed from this article even though he was cited extensively in support of various of those removals. Dodgy, very dodgy. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a complex topic, but it does appear (relatively) generally said that Yaduvanshi is one of three subdivisions of the Ahir, along with Gwalvanshi and Nandvanshi. I'm still not totally clear whether some people are trying to argue that "Yadavas" are simply "Yaduvanshi Ahirs", but temporarily setting aside the discourse, I think your research lays out the political history pretty well. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"though the claim is disputed."

The lead ends by saying that the descent from Yadu is disputed. A new editor removed it; I re-added (in part just because it messed up the ref tags, in part because they said something irrelevant about a court), but I did want to get clarification from whoever added that--do we have a source saying that it's a disputed claim? If it's in the text, let's copy it up to the lead just to be "safe"; if it's citation 1 in the lead, lets move that cite to the end of the line. I mean, I'm assuming that Yadu's existence itself is a matter of dispute (based on what I get from reading Yadu), but a reference here would be lovely to more soundly stop removals. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It reads like a compromise, probably as a consequence of discussions. MV can likely sort it out; I certainly cannot as my knowledge of Yadu etc is not much greater than yours at present. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now added the Jaffrelot cite, taken from the body of the article and quoted in full there. I feel sure that there are more direct sources for the statement somewhere & hopefully MatthewVanitas can resolve this. My involvement with the Yadu and Yaduvanshi articles has been too little to have any great familiarity with the detailed dispute (so far). - Sitush (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

yadavs are chandravansh khastriyas

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

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

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

Dumping a draft here for now

Below is something that I drafted but which is currently unsuitable for the article (weight, mainly). It may have its uses at some point.

In relation specifically to her field study of a town in Mathura in the period 1998-2000, Michelutti has said that despite being very much a minority community in that town, "I think that the Yadav community appears numerically strong and politically powerful because of its impressive organisation. It is its political activism and its reputation for aggressiveness and violence that make the community visible." Their involvement in illegalities such as extortion and protection rackets are also a "prominent" feature of their economic activity. The success of the local AIYM in yadavisation means that most of the community members see themselves as Yadav rather than, say, Ahir, and adopt the umbrella identity of Krishnavanshi Yadav rather than the older subdivisions of Yadavanishi, Nandavanshi and Goallavnashi Yadavs. Local and clan deities are being forsaken in favour of the common god of Krishna, whom they also believe to be the first politically democratic leader. Her analysis of the effects of the self-glorifying, self-promoting and self-documenting content of numerous Yadav publications, local and national, plentiful and often given away freely or sold cheaply to potential readers, leads her to the conclusion that "Amusing though such statements may appear, many informants were convinced that the Yadavs were natural vessels of 'democratic' values ... These narratives are marked by a similarity of structure, language and content, and by repetitiveness (a feature characteristic of essentialist rhetoric." She sees similarities with the wider Yadav community and notes that the speeches of Yadav leaders, such as Lalu Prasad Yadav, mirror the patterns of content and rhetoric espoused in the literature.

- Sitush (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Forking

At some point there will definitely now have to be a fork of the caste association stuff + at least a part of the sanskritisation/yadavisation. I am still developing it and the article is becoming somewhat WP:UNDUE.

I was surprised that no such separate article already exists - could someone else please just do a quick check in case, for example, it is sitting somewhere with a slightly modified title. - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

:With the proviso that the discussion is about the conduct of Thisthat2011 and not this article. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Now irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Templates

There are two templates in place which seem possibly to be inappropriate. Both templates refer to Ahirs, not the wider group of communities that makes up the Yadavs. The Kshatriya communities template is a disputed issue, and the one listing ethnic groups, social groups & tribes of the Punjab seems to be hopelessly undue weight even in the Ahir context (Ahir appears to mention a swathe of places of origin & of current abode).

Can we not remove them both? - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed over a week with no objections raised. Removing, and they can be discussed for restoration if later objections arise. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Divine Heritage of the Yadavas

I started a stub for this book, which seems historically significant and has a good amount of secondary academic coverage: The Divine Heritage of the Yadavas. Adding here due to crossover interest. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Good. It was on my to do list. You are right to say that it is referred to by a fair few academics. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are the article and the talk protected at the same time?

Why are the article and its talk page protected at the same time? It is against WP:PP?-MW ^ℳ 08:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That question needs to be asked of the protecting admin, who may not follow the article etc. They review the logs prior to protecting and I note that the admin in this case specifically refers to those logs in their protection rationale for the article. However, I'll ask for you. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the protecting admin may not have been aware that the talk page too was protected.-MW ^ℳ 11:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I note that it is not actually against WP:PP to semi-pp both article and its talk page - "If the page in question and its talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions." Given the history of problems with both of these pages, some of which certainly have spiralled out on to user talk pages, there could be a perfectly reasonable rationale for the decision.

Perhaps what is needed is some sort of banner that directs people to WP:Request for edit when appropriate? - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No. "If the page in question and its talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions." does not mean that both the talk page and the article can be protected at the same time. It is only giving advice to IP's and new users on what to do if they face such a situation. If you look a little below, it says, A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time. It is very clear. An article and its talk page both cannot be protected at the same time. Either the talk or the article should be unprotected.-MW ^ℳ 13:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Should" is not the same as "must". (Post-ec note: I see that the TP has now been unprotected but will be monitored - we'll see how tihngs go). - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 10 September 20

If the PP policy says that both should not be protected at the same time, there must have been some good reason for saying so. I have never found articles in any other area where both the pages have been kept protected at the same time.-MW ^ℳ 16:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I protected the page yesterday. I did not realize that the talk page was protected, as it is only to be done in unusual circumstances. I have therefore unprotected the talk page, but will monitor to see if significant problems result. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think if someone sees some problems, they should be given some easy way of expressing their concerns. We should not close the door too firmly and get people frustrated. Protections are sometimes necessary, but I think we should also try to keep the articles as freely editable as possible. And if some IP is editing an article without taking to the talk page, we feel that the IP should have explained themselves on the talk page. But if the talk page is protected, the IP is prevented from doing so even if they want to. So, our irritation that the IP is not taking to the talk page is misplaced. One can say that they could have said something in the edit summary. But not all IPs may know how to use the edit summary, or the edit request template etc. It can be a very frustrating situation.-MW ^ℳ 16:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We also seem to have a tendency to privilege sourced content and registered users. We are not mindful of the fact that registered users can also do wrong things and the IPs can also be right. The "sourced" content may have acquired a blue link which connects it to some "source". But sourced content can easily be still OR. I read the WP:V and WP:NOR to mean that material which is a misrepresentation is OR. I also read them to mean that material which is sourced from off topic sources, and which is cherry picked from passing comments etc. and material which is sourced from unreliable sources etc. is also OR. In my experience, I have found that lots of caste articles are bursting with material which is a misrepresentation and which is sourced from unreliable sources/off topic sources/passing comments, etc. As such, I would urge that we should not see too much value in the "sourced content" of these articles and IPs should be allowed a fair chance to make their point and try to improve these articles. As such, I would request that the length of the semi protection be reduced if some IPs or new users request it.-MW ^ℳ 03:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that these IPs and others be allowed to add unsourced content for "things everybody knows"? The problem is that things that "everybody knows" are often directly contradicted by actual facts. So far as "passing mention" this can indeed be a problem, but on Yadav and Ahir this has been far, far more an error of the "other side", with folks like Bill (banned as a sockmaster) wanting to use things like "And then I talked to So=and-So, who was a Yadava Kshatriya" from a Brit travelogue, as indisputable evidence that the Yadav caste is Kshatriya. If you'd like to point out specific portions of Yadav which you feel are based on passing mentions or non-expert sources, by all means start a new section on this page and list out your concerns, as I likewise would be interested in removing any over-reachings from vague sources. And I do agree with you that this Talk page should not be blocked (and it's already been admitted such was an accident) as Talk vandalism has not been a problem at the moment. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(extra indent for late comment) No awkward stuff here yet, but an IP who is probably one of the contributors from the last 12 hours (editing while logged out) has resumed their personal attacks on my own talk page. I live in hope but not a great deal of expectation! - Sitush (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that these IPs and others be allowed to add unsourced content for "things everybody knows"? Where did I suggest that? Nobody detests OR and substandard (fake) sourcing more than I do. As an example, you can look at ref#2 in the lead. _{<--diff to the version to which these numbers relate [1], (added this diff later because the article was edited after I put in these numbers)-->}Nowhere does the source say what the article says. The number of fake sources in this article is too great for me alone to deal with.-MW ^ℳ 07:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC) #6. It that source a professor of anything?-MW ^ℳ 09:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)#15 is a rubbish source.-MW ^ℳ 09:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the sources you refer to have been discussed before, please take them to WP:RSN if you disagree with their inclusion here. Otherwise, hold your peace. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I was requested by MatthewVanitas to show some problems with the article. And I never discussed these sources before.-MW ^ℳ 14:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, stop it, MW. You are descending into pedantry again. I did not say that you had discussed them, although in fact you had given encouraging noises to the now-blocked sock in the discussions surrounding them. Take them to WP:RSN. Your constant bickering is ridiculous when there are outlets available for resolution and these have been pointed out to you on umpteen occasions across umpteen articles. Your continued unwillingness to do so & instead to continue pointless discussion on various talk pages is itself disruptive. It has been demonstrated time and again that your understanding of WP:RS is at best dubious and, for example, ones of your issues in this current discussion - whether someone is a professor or not - has only recently been blown out of the water at WP:DRN. If you really think that some sources are "fake" (whatever that means) then you know what to do: follow the procedures or hold your peace, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that you had discussed them, When did I say that you sais that I had discussed them? ...in fact you had given encouraging noises to the now-blocked sock in the discussions surrounding them... I was never any part of any discussion involving these sources. Show diffs if I was. It may be possible that you discussed these sources with someone else in the same thread as I was in. But it must have happened after I left the discussion. I have no recollection of witnessing any discussion of these sources. It is a misuse of dispute resolution resources if we take things to noticeboards without discussing them here. whether someone is a professor or not - has only recently been blown out of the water at WP:DRN. If you think that whether someone is a professor or not--is not an issue for sourcing considerations, why don't you reinsert that amateur source again? Despite whatever the DRN may have said, you too know that that source is a non RS for this article (for the specific point he was being used for, in the specific way that he was being used) and would not stand a chance at the RSN. And the present sourcing problems which I have pointed out are new issues, as far as I am concerned. And there is another reason too for not taking one or two of your rubbish sources to any noticeboards. Even if I manage to take down 2/3 rubbish sources, you are likely to find ten new rubbish sources and insert more misrepresentations &/ OR &/ synthesis etc. through them. So, the whole exercise would become useless. I am looking for some other way to deal with your penchant for misrepresentations, cherry picking, rubbish sources, etc. I am in a majority of one now. And you are likely to have at least two supporters for whatever you say or do. So, I will not take it up just now.-MW ^ℳ 15:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, You won't follow the procedures and therefore should desist from making further comment about these sources. You can add nothing to develop your position towards a conclusion that might be of benefit to the community, by your own admission. You are not in a "majority of one", whatever that means: you are well aware that Wikipedia does not work on simple majorities but on policy-compliant consensus, and your points are not compliant with policy. Now, if you want to propose alternate sources then that would at least be a positive step. - Sitush (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What procedure am I violating? I have already described why taking things to the noticeboards is premature and useless. Why should I be expected to do something which I think is useless? I was trying to convey my view of the situation on these articles to the protecting admin, and I was asked to show some specific problems with the article and I have done that. What is so wrong with that? Unless I pressed the point, you need not have said anything on it. Whether I take it up in the article or not and whether I take it up at noticeboards is up to me. It is not necessary that I do more. See WP:NOT. "majority of one" means that, at present nobody is supporting what I am saying. I see "WP is not a democracy" as an ideal, rather than a practical reality. If I get into a "one against three" situation, it is not a good situation to be in, even if I am right. That is why I am not trying to take down misrepresentations and rubbish sources etc. even if they are against core policies. My points are in keeping with core policies. Only that I am not pressing them just now. I had only pointed them out as examples for MatthewVanitas to see. Whether you guys agree with them or not is not of much concern to me at present.-MW ^ℳ 02:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

yadavs are chandravansh khastriyas

http://www.google.com/search?q=hinduism+and+its+military+ethos+yadavas+chandravanshi+line+jats&btnG=Search&tbm=bks&tbo=1&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

hinduism and its military ethos page 209

The books clearly states that yadavas are chandravanshi khastriyas. please correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truefact1979 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

evidence of yadavs being chandravanshi

1. Hinduism and Its Military Ethos By R. K. Nehra Page 209 http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=hinduism+and+its+military+ethos+yadavas+chandravanshi+line&btnG=

2. The golden book of India: a genealogical and biographical dictionary of the ... By Sir Roper Lethbridge page 246

http://books.google.com/books?id=bHiBAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA246&dq=the+golden+book+of+india+yadav&hl=en#v=onepage&q=yadav&f=false

Two reliable sources mention yadavs as chandravanshi khastriyas.

Please correct the article to mention "that certain scholars agree yadavs are chandravanshi". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truefact1979 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been dealt with time and again on this talk page over the last few months. No-one disputes that there is a claim by members of the Yadav community that they were of the kshatriya varna. The article already refers to this claim, and the linked article about Yadu explains the background to the general mythological origins. Anything more is WP:UNDUE - it is a position that many sockpuppet accounts have concentrated on when what really would be useful is if people were to consider developing other aspects of the article. Compared to articles such as Nair and Paravar, this one is seriously lacking and yet it is a numerically quite significant community and, in certain areas, is socio-politically extremely significant. Could you perhaps assist in filling some of those blanks? - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That the issue has been discussed before does not mean that it cannot be discussed again. If some user wants to discuss some new sources or show some new angle, it can be discussed again.-MW ^ℳ 14:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not when the same user has discussed it recently and got nowhere - that is tendentious editing. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It depends. If they want to bring up some new points/arguments, they can do so.-MW ^ℳ 16:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me what in the initial contribution above is a new point/argurment. It is pretty much just a copy/paste of the previous discussion. I am getting very close to referring this behaviour (MW's) to ANI. This continued deliberate speciousness is becoming extremely problematic and wasting a lot of time of a lot of people. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Eg: this edit. This, of course, was the line and style of wording used in the past by Ancient indian historian, Bill clinton history etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You are free to take my behavior wherever you want. I have looked into the talk history and found that this user has made a total of three contributions to the talk so far. It is hard to see how this user could be repetitive. Please tell me what in the initial contribution above is a new point/argurment. If the above thread and this thread constitutes all the discussion that this user has done, anything and everything that this user says may be new. It is not good to stifle discussion by claiming that it is repetitive prematurely. The point of claiming "unnecessary repetation" has not been reached IMO. The user is showing some new sources and we don't even know clearly what material ( which lines) the user wants to cite. We also don't know the reliability of the publisher and the author etc. The discussion needs to develop much more before we could say whether it is useful or not. Please don't try to stifle discussions prematurely. The talk page is meant for discussing improvements in the article. I see no indication that the user is doing something else.-MW ^ℳ 02:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)