Talk:Yadav

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

Lets take the same example given by you. If some one has a last name "Lionheart" living in Texas and they claim themselves as related to "Lionheart of England". The only way to proove it is to take a DNA test or go by government records. It is very well possible they are related Now lets go to our discussion YADAV. All yadavs claim descent from Yadu. and the meaning of the word YADAV is descendant of Yadu. To prove this doing a DNA test does not look practical now. but if you go by government records even in 18th and 19th century there were yadavs who were rich landlords, thakurs and rulers of small princely states in India. The government record provided in the discussion has been ooverlooked. Some yadavs are cowherds and some are rulers/rich landlords even in 17, 18, 19th centuries. The article definitely needs correction. I believe a rational thinking will definitely prove that yadavs and ancient yadavas are one and the same. There is conscious attempt to discredit the Yadav community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.13.17 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• The Oxford student's history of India. By Vincent Arthur Smith, Published by OXFORD at the Clarendon press. Page 60, 81, 88, 145, 80[1]
• Joshua Project
• Hinduism and Its Military Ethos page 209 [2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By reading all the discussion the following points are clear.

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

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

3. SITUSH and Mathewvanitas have ignored so many references.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are asking about the proof of

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

Mahabharat Ahir Vs Mahabharat Abhira Vs

Patanjali MahaJanpada Vs Sursena Vs Puru from Panjab Vs

Ancient Rulers of Prayag and Mathura and Dwarka

First rulers of Nepal Vs Last rulers of Maysur

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

Ahir title used in Maharastra and Gujrat

Gwala from Mathura, Ahirs from Hariyana

Sainis from Panjab, Aheer from pakishtan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My pleasure. Did you mean scans of MSA Rao's book? Links to scans of several pages are in this section: [3]. Or did you mean something else? JanetteDoe (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I casually speak english, and that too plain english, and you know what I mean and I know what you mean. That serves all the purpose. We also tend to mix Hindi, Gujrati, Marathi, Bengali, Punjabi into it. We also deal with British and americans and sometimes they sound Latin to us and sometimes we sound Latin to them. So you can't help it really. Gap do exist and it exists in every sphere. You must be aware of the controversial statement, "Train was late... and I was looking Dark and Dirty like X." Here, only Dark is meant for X and dirty for the person herself. However, you can understand this, I too can understand this, but there are ppl., who have protested like anything. Regarding Additional sources, I have repeatedly told you, there is actually no need, because that is already in the source supplied by Rao and provided by JannetDoe, which you mischievously called Gyan[4]. On every mention of Rao you have behaved as if you were losing money somewhere. Isn't that what tendentious means. I am not very fond of wikipedia Jargon, because I have found they are mostly the weapons of Trolls, and most of the times they throw them on you. So, a bird's eyeview is all it gets, though certainly it deserves more attention.Above "tendentious" only means violation of WP:TE, with disruptive connotation. Thanks for drawing attention though. It does not look nice to hear from you about community consensus, because Talk archives speaks of its violation by you and your team. Present version is simply the result of the block and protection game. Ikon ^No-Blast 19:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation for Yadav's As Khatriya Clan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction should be changed

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

As per the proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too many pics from teh same source- should be replaced

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

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

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

ohh...so Let me quote your statement on why MS Rao book should not be considered "One source is rarely sufficient for verification of controversial issues, and especially not when the content of that source is at present uncertain. I am not getting into a long, pointless tangential discussion with you because I know exactly where that will end up, ie: another block. I would rather not see people commit a form of Wikipedia suicide. So, let's start over with decent sources & examination here, please. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factual accuracy dispute tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dubiety tags

Please indicate for each of the relevant tags where in the source(s) they state that they are referring only to Yadavs of the Lunar dynasty. I suspect some original research may be going on here. There is, of course, already a (very poor) separate article for the Nandvanshi. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Caste in India:J.H. Hutton, this book talks about Yadavas of lunar line, so all citations from this book be removed or Yadav and Yadava should be merged

• Citation 1: "Ahir: Caste title of North Indian non-elite 'peasant'-pastoralists, known also as Yadav.".. Ahir is only a sub group of Yadav so entire Yadav group can not be called non-elite.Suggest this sentence should be moved to 'Ahir' page and not Yadav page
• "Contributions to Indian sociology, Moutan": refers to Ancient Yadavas of lunar line, so all citations from this be removed or merge Yadava and Yadav
• Again Mandelbaum, in this book has talked about Yadavas and Yadavs and has taken reference from MS Rao. So either consider merging Yadava and Yadavs and also consider quoting Rao, or remove references from Mandelbaum
• "Swartzberg, Leon (1979). The north Indian peasant goes to market" - talks about Yadavas of Krishnaut lineage.So consider merging Yadava and Yadav or remove all citations from this book as it again creates confusion
• "^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (2003). India's silent revolution: the rise of the lower castes in North India. " - here also, quoted text has been referred from MSA rao's book so MSA Rao's other citations should also be considered or this citation should be removed.

Let us discuss these issues first and then I will raise other inappropriate citations. Btw Sitush and Flower-request you to discuss this in a civilized way without spamming --Rockstar1984 (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you are still pushing the merger agenda, centred around Rao etc. Forget it: you are saying nothing new and the discussion has only just been closed. - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Guess you reply even without reading what others write, nowhere I am proposing the merger of two articles. All i am saying is that these citations used are misleading --Rockstar1984 (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

They are just pointing to excuses made for non inclusion of something here, whereas same ground is not used when negativity exists. Ikon ^No-Blast 15:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly Ikonoblast, the article has been hijacked very carefully, if its a negative test,doesn't matter if its Yadav, Yadava or Ahir or any herdsman for that matter but if its anything positive, we can't quote from the same reference. This lame is that--Rockstar1984 (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not presume to know what I do or do not read. You are proposing stuff that has already been dealt with, period. The ins and outs of Rao, the fact that others have cited him etc have been discussed. Similarly, the issue regarding Ahirs vs Yadavs has been discussed. And so on. It all came to a head with the merger discussion, which has closed very recently. Since you were editing this article when it was previously at WP:DRN (and indeed, performed a very bad, non-consensual revert to an appalling earlier version during it), you cannot really claim not to have been aware of the way things were going with the clean up. Is Ikonoblast the other party in the "we" phrases that you keep using? If so, then it might pay you to read the various notes on their talk page as well as the contents of this talk page and the merger discussion. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I use WE it means wikipedia community, I don't know what they mean. however, an unfortunate thing is we are divided on building this article when we should have respected each other. Ikon ^No-Blast 15:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The ins and outs of Rao, the fact that others have cited him etc have been discussed. -- Sorry You are nobody to discuss it or refute it here. If you are really interested you should publish your own work somewhere. you can only discuss if it comply with WP:RS, and nothing. Ikon ^No-Blast 15:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush,You can not always use the same logic that this has been discussed and get away.Again, I AM NOT PROPOSING A MERGER...ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT THESE CITATIONS are nor referring to Yadavs who are being discussed in this article.Read my objections again and understand that before spamming.And please if you do not have a valid justification for the citations, stop spamming and wasting everyone's time here.Let other's contribute and add some value to correct the article --Rockstar1984 (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead says "since the nineteenth and twentieth centuries[5][6] has claimed descent from the mythological King Yadu as a part of a movement of social and political resurgence". Yadu = Lunar dynasty; your edit summaries said that the sources only referred to the lunar dynasty & were therefore dubious. In fact, they agree with what the article is discussing, ie: those who claim descent from the mythological Yadu. What am I missing here?

Ikonoblast, the "we" query was directed at Rockstar1984, as the indenting made clear. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, You are missing too many things, Ahir being only a subclass of Yadav and artile mentioning Ahir as non-elite can not be used in the lead to mention all Yadavs as "non-elite".Read otrher objections too, you missed all of them. And hang-on, I am confused, If you're saying that Yadavas of lunar dynasty and Krishnauts are same as Yadavs then why are we not putting other citations about Yadavas here and have moved it to Yadava. You are confusing everyone man, and that's why is dubious tag--Rockstar1984 (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did you say "Is ikonoblast the other party...."-- and what you mean by other things. Why you start commenting on contributors when we are discussiing something entirely different. In fact you and your team have spoilt the environs here. Ikon ^No-Blast 16:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I give up. It is clear that neither of you have read the article thoroughly. There are plenty of citations supporting the non-elite (call is "shudra" if you want) status across the various constituent groups that form the modern Yadav community. I simply cannot cope with the chaotic, supposed logic of your arguments. That may be my fault but somehow I doubt it. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI Shudra does not mean no elite. Kings were called shudra. Panini gives Shudrabhira as ref and then says Abhira jati antarani, which means they are shudra but they are not. Now if you are so competent, try to comprehend this. scholars are baffled. Ikon ^No-Blast 16:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, so if Sitush is not able to comprehend it but others have very well understood it, I am removing these dubious citations. Guess no one except Sitush and Fowler would object to it--Rockstar1984 (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you post them on the talkpage for investigation please. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• - Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the ...By Susan Bayly - page 387
• - Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the ...By Susan Bayly - page 200
• - google books - in spite of the gods

They appear to have been supporting the expression, non elite - A non elite caste? What does that mean, that they marry out of caste? Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can negotiate the thread, Talk:Yadav#Please_correct_the_article explains. It is a phrase used by academic anthropologists etc as a means of grouping various communities without deploying the historic Varna (Hinduism) labels. Actually, it is more subtle than this but I am hoping that this will suffice for your understanding. The reason why I mentioned "shudra" above is because most of the disagreements on caste articles relate to how the communities perceive themselves vs how they are seen by outsiders (including other Indian communities): whilst "non-elite" is not the same as "shudra", the implication of being somehow "inferior" tends to rankle with community members and also with revisionists outside communities who want to sweep all the history away. Well, that's my take on things - it was Fowler&fowler who introduced the term, but originally this article glorified the Yadavs as being of the warrior varna, "Kshatriya" and it has taken ages to get the thing cleaned up to better reflect the reality and the variations in opinion. Rockstar1984 reverted to a really bad, old version a couple of months ago while it was under discussion at WP:DRN. They appear not to like this article being in compliance with WP policies and guidelines because they think that it somehow demeans the community. Again, that is my take on things. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks fo rthe detail and the links. Its clearly a very complicated history that has various interpretations depending on which period of history you look. Perhaps considering rockstar is now blocked, you should consider reverting back to the better version. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I may then be accused of warring or taking advantage of the block. Been there, done that. I'm wary in these situations nowadays because there has been an awful lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my contributions, so why add another opportunity for accusations. I'll let someone else do it, unless it is still the same in 24 hours. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that there may be some confusion here. Rockstar1984's reversion of a couple of months ago has long been fixed, so if that is what you meant by "better version" then it is done & I apologise for not making that clear. If, on the other hand, you mean revert to the point before the insertion of the dubiety tags a few hours ago then, yes, I would agree with that. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

@Off2riorob, the first stance of the expression "non-elite" is in glossary of terms. It might be that the Book limits its scope of study to the non-elite section. Second stance too is from the same writer, so it is the case of making it look like too many. there is another reason for objecting to it in the lead. Later part of the article talks about elites among Yadavas from MSA Rao's book. So, you may judge what the scene is.

Also, Yadavas were the third largest beneficiary of Zamindari Abolition. They had got rich compensation after government abolished it. B.P. Mandal, the architect of mandal commission, himself came from a zamindar family. So you can't put that into lead, attaching some citations. It is simply mischievous. Ikon ^No-Blast 11:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Sources? No-one is disputing that this article needs more info on the post-independence period etc but we start with the article body and then backtrack to the lead, since the latter is intended to be a summary of the former. Look, no single person can do it all but the solution is to work collaboratively, not to knock lumps out of people or edit in a clearly disruptive manner just to get a POV across. If you have policy-compliant information etc then just provide it, preferably without dancing round the houses. Too many people seem to react to existing content rather than create new content, but an article can only be balanced if all non-fringe viewpoints are included. It is not about exclusion but inclusion. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"in north-eastern Bihar, Yadavs are not poor farmers or cowherds (as Lalu Yadav's family was, and millions still are) but wealthy zamindars." [5]. Ikon ^No-Blast 15:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that a Rediff report trumps academic research but in any event, that quote does not exactly support the statement you made at 11:08. It was an interesting point but without decent sources we cannot use it. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That statement is also true. You just have to pull the records of that time. There were good number of zamindar families of this caste all around north India. People of Haryana and western UP are and were much wealthier than people of Bihar. Ikon ^No-Blast 16:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are doing it again. All you have to do is find those sources to support your statement. You have been involved with WP long enough (and indeed you have been told often enough just in recent weeks on this particular page) to know that the Five Pillars apply. If you cannot conform to them then you are wasting your time and everyone else's. Of course, you may have time to waste & that is your affair, but others may not. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ignore Situs. He spoils the thread as usual, and has not contributed anything here except for comments like above and some vulgar commentary in past. Ikon ^No-Blast 16:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Academic research is not done to establish whether they are elite or non elite. The scope of the research seems to be the study of non elites only however, scope of this article is wider, so you can't use those sources. Ikon ^No-Blast 16:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Have you read WP:RS and WP:V, ever? Wikipedia is not necessarily "the truth": it is rather statements that are verifiable using reliable sources. We can't just have a free-for-all. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have both read and quoted it to you. I am glad you are learning it now. Now you are not applying "context" here. But why you are stalking other cites. Ikon ^No-Blast 17:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's drop this conversation. I have not got a clue what you are talking about in your last message above and the one preceding (telling people to ignore me) that makes it clear that you have no intention of providing sources & no desire to see others provide them. Consequently, your statement about the zamindar stuff has just been another waste of time. Should I come across something then, sure, I will assess it but until then this is just pointless. I'll look into making a formal report for WP:TE, since you have had sufficient warnings about this sort of behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

We were discussing the inclusion/non-inclusion of a term in lead only. Let us not forget that, and w.r.t that I have not said anything unnecessary. About things in the past it would be useless, because I haven't violated WP:TE, you surely have with regard to various valid citations, like Rao's. Ikon ^No-Blast 17:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead only? News to me, especially since the lead should summarise the article. But in any event, have you read WP:LEAD? In particular, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I agree that context is important but we cannot include unverifiable context, nor original research, nor synthesis ... and primary sources are not a great idea either. So, you have to source it properly - given the current shape of the article I am sure that you can agree that your statement above re: zamindars etc qualifies as "significant information". OTOH, if you do not think that it qualifies as being significant then there is no need for it to be in the article anywhere.

This is my last comment on this subject: despite being here a while, you are so far away from understanding how this project operates that I wonder whether you actually take on board the explanations that others give. It certainly doesn't seem that you do and this might explain why you keep raising the same invalid points time and again - that is TE & that is what you were warned about. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo shouldn't edit any of the article himself[6] Or he should write entire wikipedia himself. Ikon ^No-Blast 18:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

---

refer "I give up. It is clear that neither of you have read the article thoroughly. There are plenty of citations supporting the non-elite (call is "shudra" if you want) status across the various constituent groups that form the modern Yadav community." by sutish.

-> Since when did caste come to be decided from the living conditions of the relevant modern community in question? If you live in India, you should know that caste and its associated tags are derived from ancient times, over generations. Caste is not a modern phenomenon and so called modern society has limited rights in claiming correctness of their account in their own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.115.37 (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Facebook and Orkut

If you came here because of the messages left on the Yadav Community Facebook page or the Orkut discussion, welcome. Before you start to tell us how terrible and biased we are, please take a look at some of Wikipedia's help for new editors. A good place to start is Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. For this page in particular it will be especially helpful if you also review three of our policies; specifically, WP:NOR (which explains that we don't allow original research in Wikipedia articles), WP:V (which explains that all information in Wikipedia articles must be verified by reliable sources) and WP:RS (which explains our guidelines for what is and isn't a reliable source). Many of our new editors may find things that they don't like in this page, and there is absolutely always room for improvement. However, that improvement must be done within the confines of our policies. Finally, please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy--that means, it doesn't matter how many people you get here "voting" that the article is biased, unless you can show how that is true based on our policies and principles, no number of people can sway what is done here.

If you have any questions, I am happy help; you can also find places on that first help page I linked to ask questions to others. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

what about MSA Rao book which provides evidence

http://books.google.com/books?ei=4RqGTvHVDYPOrQf59-TrDA&ct=result&id=wWEiAQAAMAAJ&dq=semi+historical+evidences+ahir&q=semi+historical#search_anchor

studies in tamil literature and history cowherd V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar

proves that the pandya dynasty is of Ahir origin.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=f7GpTsXoNKH40gGg45ihDg&ct=result&id=MFUtAQAAIAAJ&dq=studies+in+tamil+literature+and+history+headship+ayar&q=headship+ayar

http://books.google.com/books?id=F-_eR1isesMC&pg=RA1-PA34&dq=Yadavas+of+South+India+velir&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

all reasearch articles by authors with academic credentials. The above two are excellent resources and have been ignored completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.69.1.253 (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Far from being "ignored completely", two of the three sources which you provide have been discussed extensively on this very talk page. The third I can only see in snippet view (V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar). Can you see any more of it? - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:AGF is a golden rule. Much of the problem is because of non-invilvement of people like you for a very long time. I have seen that phase. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am AGF'ing that these users are coming with the intention of "improving" the article. At the same time, that is impossible if they come here under the impression that one editor has "corrupted" (the term used in the off-wiki sites) the article from the way it used to be, when, in fact, that was a consensus decision based on policy. The prior version that those sites point to was terribly flawed, and our goal cannot be to try to go back to that version. We can certainly all take the goal of improving the article, adding more reliable sources and info. We cannot say "our goal is to go back to the version that glorifies (our) caste". I'm willing to AGF that these new editors want to improve the article, but simply don't understand how WP works. Thus, my intent to help by pointing them to our policies, guidelines, and help pages. If, however, they refuse to read those guidelines, or if they read them but continue pushing a POV, I no longer have to AGF--as the saying goes, AGF is not a suicide pact.

This weekend I'll try to review the discussions of the Rao and other book and see if maybe action can be taken. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Bunch of thanks that would really help's a lot, at repair or(remove) photo's please ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.206 (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

studies in tamil literature and history by V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar is actually available in amazon.com A free preview is available for that page 179.

also MSA Rao, T padmaja and V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar are research scholars with good credentials and article can be edited based on these inputs. Also MSA rao states clearly that evidence exists for equating the ahirs with yadavas. V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar says the same thing that Pandya dyansty came out of ayar ( ahir )headship. T padmaja says the same thing. all these authors completely pass wikipedias reliable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.69.1.253 (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just an update, I am reviewing the Rao pages that JanetteDoe uploaded before; it will take me a few more days. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading Rao confuses the heck out of me, and makes me worry a lot about including his opinion in the article. For example, he switches back and forth between talking about the Abhira and the Ahir; at some points he seems to consider them synonymous, but at other points seems to imply that one is a sub-group of the other. Rao is actually really easy to use if all we wanted to do was pick out a quotation that supported a single specific view, but the problem is that since different parts seem to contradict (or at least use terms in a slippery, incompatible way), it's hard to figure out what Rao really means by any given quote. I'll give it another shot--so far, I've been looking mainly at the first set of pages, so maybe there's something clearer in the next set. If the prose is so tortured and inconsistent that we can't figure out what it means with at least a reasonable degree of certainty, I'm not sure that we can safely use it as a reference. But, as I said, I'll try again later. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

MSA Rao is pretty clear on the floowing facts 1. That historical evidence exists for equating ahirs with yadavas. 2. Ahir. abhiras gopas, gollas are all yadavas. 3. Ahirs had a chequered political career till the 14th century. 4. He users ahirs and yadavas interchangeably. 5. Suena yadava dynasty is a abhira dynasty ( he uses them interchangeably ).

  It is under section "abhiras as yadavas".

he merely uses ahirs/abhiras/yadavas interchangeably. and it is also clear that Rao Nandram ( of ahir kingdom ) belonged to yaduvamsi ( yadava ) subcaste of ahirs.

the wiki article YADAVs introduction could be correct based on MSA Rao book. The article has no neutrality at all.

MSA Raos book is very clear to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's clear for you to understand, then perhaps you could address the problems I site above. Further, your claims here are not correct--he uses ahir and Abhir interchangeably sometimes, but in other times clearly distinguishes between them. This is why the Rao is a problem if you want to use it for anything more than individual quotes (which, of course, we cannot do). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

MSA Raos book is very clear ( pages 122 to 127 ). He clearly and very clearly uses word yadav , ahir and abhiras interchangeably. Its very clear in the section " Abhiras as yadavas ". MSA Raos book should be given due weightage and the articles introduction needs to be corrected.

I think based on wikipedia policy we should not ignore such a valuable well acomplished academic resource. but I think its very clear what is being done here.. basically its a clear case of hijack... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 04:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sanskritisation section

This section starts with Jafferlot narrative. However, jafferlot himself starts with MSA Rao's models of sanskrisation and contrasts yadav movement with Ezhava and Nairs. MSA Rao says Yadava movement of north has little in common with Nair and Ezhava, because Nair and Ezhava were below the pollution line in caste hierarchy whereas Ahir and Gollas were above it. Jafferlot tries to show that they still share something in common, and goes on to narrate the Arya Samaj association, creation of history ... Jafferlot has only one point to prove to MSA Rao that something in common exists and so both may not be treated as separate model. since, jafferlot himself starts with Rao's models let us too do the same here. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You have lost me, sorry. It seems that you agree with the content being present in the article but not the ordering of it in the section. Would that be a correct reading of your post? If so, please could you explain why rearranging the order is a significant matter. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant to say that the section has been dubiously arranged and Jafferlot has been dubiously summarized. He just tries to bring the Yadava case closer to another sanskritisation model of Rao, and hence he stresses various ingredients of the other model. He, in no way disagrees with Rao and even prolific Yadav intellectuals(KC & JNS). He only analyze things in context of the Model. Ikon ^No-Blast 05:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We cannot put words into Jaffrelot's mouth: unless he says that he agrees with Rao and is trying to fit the Yadav to Rao model etc then we are running the risk of misrepresenting him. Rao is mentioned both by Jaffrelot & in the article, and the article does indeed explain that there are differences between the Nair etc situation and the Yadavs. Somehow, I still think that I am misunderstanding you. Could you perhaps come up with a draft replacement? - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No need to put words in anybody's mouth. Once Rao is presented, it becomes clear what and why Jaffrelot is saying. The section needs to grow. It should show all the forces and countercurrents. Real Bosses on this topic are Srinivasan and Rao himself and not Jaffrelot. Also, you need to correct the lead where it mentions Yadav intellectuals tried to .... The concept of Ahir as yadava has been developed by, Bhandarkar(Claiming Gwal are Yadava), Ghurye, Pandey.... & later on by Karmakar & Bhati, none of whom are of Yadav caste.

You have done the right thing by starting classification section. It should also mention several divisions mentioned by British Census officers, like Yaduvanshi, nandavanshi, Krishnauth,Majhouth etc. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What have Nandavanshi got to do with those claiming descent from Yadu etc? I'd need some evidence of how they relate to Yadavs, and I am blowed if I am relying on a British census for a definition. A census may have its place if supported by a more modern source but otherwise even the census commissioners warned than people should be aware that they were flawed. I am still trying to get my head round how a community called the Ahirs is connected to the Yadavs but seemingly also connected to Nandavanshi (another mythological theory of origin), despite months of looking at this stuff: there is something wrong with the way our articles are organised but the solution seems not to be to merge them all but rather to identify them properly. Perhaps what we need is a disambig or something at Ahir, which links to articles on the various branches thereof. I really could do with someone pointing me to a source that really gets to grips with this issue, and Rao is not it. - Sitush (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is missing lot of information. A few of them are. 1. Yadavs in rajasthan and haryana are economically and socially very different from yadavs from bihar. 2. MSA Rao clearly states that Rao Nandram belonged to the yaduvanshi category of Ahirs. So even before 19 or 20th century Ahirs considered themselves as yaduvansi ( YADAV ). page 125 of social movements and social transformation. 3. Studies in Tamil literature and history. Page 179. http://books.google.com/books?ei=f7GpTsXoNKH40gGg45ihDg&ct=result&id=MFUtAQAAIAAJ&dq=studies+in+tamil+literature+and+history+headship+ayar&q=headship+ayar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC) V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar is a great scholar. he clearly mentions that the pandya dynasty came out of the cowherds ( Ayar which is Ahir ). Please use this to edit the article. should also be given due weightage. ( I found this in discussion page only ). Please read link below http://ifile.it/ehkncuw

http://ifile.it/ehkncuw/page%20178%20and%20179.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bhandarkar

Rao references Bhandarkar (1911) - eg: on page 124 - but I cannot see the name of the book/paper in question. I've tried WorldCat and can find various Bhandarkars who wrote on possibly relevant subject matter around that period, but none for the year itself. Can anyone oblige me with the full title, please? - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar may give some glimpse of him. When we say Bhandarkar, Sir Bhandarkar or R.G. Bhandarkar, it means only this person. He was contemporary of Weber,Johnson, Bothlik, Roth, Goldstucker and many other excellent personalities of his time. He is often quoted the way Rao quotes, because his papers are compiled in numerous volumes which can be accessed easily, year wise only. Ikon ^No-Blast 19:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I need the title of the work. It will be in Rao's book, in the bibliography at the end of a chapter or at the end of the book. Enough people have mentioned Rao here, so people other than JanetteDoe must surely have access to it (otherwise how did they cite him)? - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll request Bhandarkar's collected works, so when I or someone else gets a copy of Rao I'll hopefully be able to review the citation immediately. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rao's Social Dominance bibliography: [7]

Bhandarkar(1911) refers to "Foreign Elements in the Hindu Population", published in "The Indian Antiquary", which fortunately my library has: [8]. JanetteDoe (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks again for the digging up of source material. Looks like I am in for a busy weekend of Yadav-related reading/re-reading. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankel and Rao: Dominance

Can anyone get hold of a few pages around p. 31 of the Frankel & Rao book cited: Frankel, Francine R.; Rao, M. S. A. (1989). Dominance and state power in modern India: Decline of a social order. 1. Oxford University Press. p. 31. ISBN 9780195620986.(Rao had died & IIRC Frankel wrote it from his notes).

Ikonoblast, you added it & so perhaps you could assist? - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I was at the library today and for some reason they had two copies of volume 2 and none of volume 1. Volume 2, p31 did not discuss Yadavs at all, but there were some pages on Yadavs in vol 2, which I scanned: [9]. JanetteDoe (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That could be handy, thanks. Volume 1 appears to be the cited tome but the original cite was a bit screwed up. Did you actually see the book, Ikonoblast, or has the citation etc been lifted from another article? - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Actual sentence is - "In Punjab and Haryana villages, the brhamanas, though ritually superior to other castes, were small owner cultivators or tenant cultivators. They were politically subservient to ahir, jat and rajput castes." The author compares the cases in south and north of India, and feels there was no correlation between ritualistic superiority and social dominance in north but in south ritual superiority meant social dominance too. Given the context of the article I feel I was right in doing what I did. Ikon ^No-Blast 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather see more of it - quotes are easily taken out of context. In any event, the quote that you have supplied does not support the statement that you made. You have distorted the quotation. We'll need to amend the statement (and the citation, since the format is now screwed up). - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I made the statement in context of Yadav caste, and left others. I don't think I did any blunder there. I know, Jannet Doe can catch me any time. Ikon ^No-Blast 16:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that slightly "promotes" the position of the Ahirs because it could be inferred (by people with some background knowledge, at least) that only the Ahirs were in that position. It is also the case that it applied to Ahirs, not Yadavs generally - you could make that more clear. As for being "caught out", well, that is not the intention of anyone. However, you are not addressing the point of whether you have access to the book: if you do then you can probably save JanetteDoe some work by providing a few pages; if you do not then you really should not have included the statement because presumably it came from a snippet view or from another article. Context is very, very important and this is especially the case with Rao because his writing style is abysmal. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankel & Rao [10] JanetteDoe (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

JanetteDoe, I appreciate your finding and uploading the Rao articles. However, this can easily become an endless discussion. For some other Yadav-apologist will soon come along and find an even more obscure source than Rao, and then you—conscientious and rigorous to a degree that the Yadav apologists are not and have no intention, aware or unaware, of being—will go scurrying again for the article. After that we all will try to interpret it, weighing the pros and cons, again to a degree the apologists will not, for they will be busy looking for the next roadblock to toss in our path.

I think we can't make the determination of whether Rao applies here or not, at least not yet. Let the secondary sources do that. We need to rely on recent scholarship, especially that in textbooks, published by academic presses and vetted both before and after publication by reviewers from a wide range of scholarly and journalistic backgrounds. Two such books, by Susan Bayly and Christophe Jaffrelot, both widely used in universities around the world, both reviewed extensively in the literature, are being used in the article. Let the article writing (or rewriting) proceed based on these (or similar) books. Once the article has been fleshed out, we can come back to the issue of Rao. Otherwise, nothing will get done, and those of us, who've taken time out from our other Wikipedia (not to speak RL) pursuits to attend to the article, will slowly walk away, out of touch and out of sympathy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Review of Bayly's book in the American Historical Review
• Review of Bayly's book by Judith Brown, Oxford University
• Review of Bayly's book by Peter Robb, University of London
• Here are three reviews from journals, which require subscription, but whose first pages will give an idea of the reception of Bayly's book. The time stamps below and above will show how long it took me to locate the reviews on the web (without using jstor etc), to read them, and to write the few lines here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If only it were so simple. Jaffrelot has already inspired quite a bit of debate and discussion, as seen in archives 6 and 7 of this talk page. Either there is a complaint that he is used too much, or an argument as to what he means, or it is pointed out that he bases his arguments on Rao, at which point Rao's work is dragged in for evidence. I am sorry to say that you yourself have expressed doubts about Jaffrelot: [11]. I do appreciate your efforts to simplify sourcing and move current discussion forward. JanetteDoe (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I did write that didn't I.  :) I had to laugh. I had forgotten. It's true I haven't used him that much, in part because, he writes about post-1947 events, which is not my real interest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The book by Frankel and rao is still part of MA(Sociology), in most of the Universities of India, that I know. Regarding sanskritization part, I still feel Jaffrelot has been given undue favor. It has been presented a if he has done major contribution to the understanding of the phenomenon, even though the reality is that he has very little to offer us. His observations are clearly flawed because to bring the case closer to other communities he cites some odd incidents of violence, which were rather rare, and sacred thread was already worn by richer landlords of the community. Rao's work gives much clearer picture. He tells us the situation was rather of cold war kind, where Rajputs used to instigate brahmanas to escalate new questions. he cites when their abhira lineage was settled they escalated whether Abhira were aryan or not.

Infact, muchelutti has not been given due space, though she does offer something extra to the rao's work, clearly saying it is wrong to study Yadvas within sanskritisation framewaork. Ikon ^No-Blast 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed your indenting again, sorry. Whatever you may think of Rao, the one thing that cannot be claimed is that he presents "a much clearer picture". At least in the book of his from which I have seen abstracts, courtesy of JanetteDoe, his is one of the most unintelligible bits of writing that I've ever come across from a recognised social scientist. Perhaps Frankel made a better fist of things when she reworked his notes for the posthumous book, but I haven't seen that one. Michelutti's "yadavisation" is mentioned already in the article - have you read that bit? - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Link to Frankel scan is above. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@Sitush As per G. S. Ghurye's evaluation of Rao- "the most unassuming and gentle and one of the most deserving of my students."[12] The other student of Ghurye was Srinivasan, who requires no introduction. can you share someone else's view that matches your own on Rao. Ikon ^No-Blast 16:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

JanetteDoe, my apologies. I saw that scan but assumed that it was not the one being referred to by others here. I read it at the time and have now re-read it. I remain baffled. The style of writing is vastly improved, perhaps because it is a posthumous work, but on some very basic points that have been raised here time and again, it still seems to miss the mark. An example is the second sentence in the scan, which is indeed just about the only reference to Yadav in the thing.

That sentence says "They were followed by the Vakataks, Abhirs, Chalukyas and Yadavs, each with a different part of the Marathi region as its core and an empire extending over substantial parts of Maharashtra." Fine, except that plenty of people have turned up here to say that the Yadavs and Abhirs are the same thing, whether you take "Abhirs" to mean "Abhiras" or "Ahir" - which is itself a matter of considerable dispute. There is also a suggestion that the dynasty ran out, which is precisely the point that Jaffrelot & countless others have made: there was a reworking of history in more modern times in order to claim a connection. This is discussed in the article. Just that one sentence above that I quote from Rao indicates how much his position is a house of cards and, when in doubt, we should avoid such constructions.

Ikonoblast, I really do not care less what Ghurye or indeed anyone else thought of Rao generally, and I do not dispute his credentials as a scholar. My point is that he seems to be mostly incomprehensible with regard to the issues that have been raised on this talk page. In such situations, we cannot read into his writing that which we prefer to believe - it is (oddly) almost a WP:PRIMARY situation. This is a classic example of why citing someone who refers to Rao in a relevant context makes sense ... and Jaffrelot is one of those who does. I am pretty sure that someone else has also remarked on the interpretative problems of using Rao in this present context. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I highly doubt You have read any of the Shots uploaded by jannetdoe. I don't know if the page seems same to both or you are accessing it on blackberry or some other device which does not load it properly. I don't find any problem with rao's cite. He means what he says. The ambiguity does exist with Jaffrelot though and should be used with caution. Regarding Rao's credentials, it really doesn't matter what you or some others think of him on wikipedia, and that is why I asked you to get something from outside that supports your claim. It looks like you have violated WP:TE, on Rao issue again again again and may be up for Topic ban or something like that. Ikon ^No-Blast 06:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Either propose that topic ban at ANI or drop it. I am utterly confused with "that is why I asked you to get something from outside that supports your claim". Can you possibly point me to the diff because it might make more sense in context. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Article correction

The article is missing information. A few of them are. 1. Yadavs in rajasthan and haryana are economically and socially very different from yadavs from bihar. 2. MSA Rao clearly states that Rao Nandram belonged to the yaduvanshi category of Ahirs. So even before 19 or 20th century Ahirs considered themselves as yaduvansi ( YADAV ). page 125 of social movements and social transformation. 3. Studies in Tamil literature and history. Page 179. http://books.google.com/books?ei=f7GpTsXoNKH40gGg45ihDg&ct=result&id=MFUtAQAAIAAJ&dq=studies+in+tamil+literature+and+history+headship+ayar&q=headship+ayar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC) V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar is a great scholar. he clearly mentions that the pandya dynasty came out of the cowherds ( Ayar which is Ahir ). Please use this to edit the article. should also be given due weightage. ( I found this in discussion page only ). Please read link below http://ifile.it/ehkncuw

http://ifile.it/ehkncuw/page%20178%20and%20179.pdf —

The author V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar is well known scholar and this is a academic work by university of madras.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yaduvanshi Ahirs are mostly concentrated around Haryana and some pockets of Rajasthan. We have a proof of their existence for a long time there. A jain sage is referred to as Yadav, in Jain scripture, and he says he belongs to Abhirankya, supposedly Haryana.

Don't rely on yaduvanshi Ahir or Ahir artice, it is full of Ahars, who are not even considered Ahirs.Ikon ^No-Blast 16:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

the ayars referred here are AHIR. In tamil language AHIR are called AYAR. AHIR and AYAR are one and the same. so I beleive this can be used as a valid source. Any comments or thoughts from other wiki users is greatly appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

once again valuable info from well accomplished academic resources are ignored again.. Is there even a bit of neutrality in wikipedia. It looks like a clear case to tarnish the image of yadavs.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 04:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The howevers ...

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal article where one provides all the "howevers," no matter how inconsequential. An assessment needs to be made of the scholarly consensus, and in the case of lack of such consensus, the notable controversy needs to be pointed out. Of the Ahirs or Jats traditional non-elite status there is no controversy. Major political leaders such as Charan Singh made their careers by championing the common peasant, the kisan. Adding some little quote from the book by Fraenkel and Rao doesn't change the consensus, especially because the political weakness of the Brahmins had nothing to do with tradition. It was simply a matter of numbers. Here is Christopher Bayly:

This was a society where Brahmins were few and male Jats married into the whole range of lower agricultural and entrepreneurial castes. A kind of tribal nationalism animated them rather than a nice calculation of caste differences expressed within the context of Brahminical Hindu state." This, even more so, applies to the Ahirs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't include all "howevers", but WP:NPOV requires that we include all relevant howevers, just taking care not to give them undue weight. We need to be very careful when we say "X is not an important opinion" without good evidence. Said evidence could either being someone else respected saying "Nobody credible thinks X (anymore)", or it could simply be that we have a dozen sources instead say opposite opinion "Y". Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is why I have been asking Ikonoblast (in a thread not too far above) if they can provide some context for the quotation that F&f removed just before posting at the head of this thread. If Rao et al are just referring to, say, half a dozen villages and at a very specific time then it really has no weight whatsoever. On the other hand, if they were referring, say, to what is now the entire Haryana area then it has some weight, if we can fix the other issues that I noted. I was not aware of the demographic point that Fowler&Fowler raised but I am getting concerned that Ikonoblast may really have just picked something up from somewhere because - as has happened in the recent past - requests for further info are generally being ignored (although I admit that the quote was inserted) without seeing the entire context. - Sitush (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You guys really want me to inundate you with citations to the Yadav's non-elite status. "Non-elite," btw, as you might have guessed is a modern anthropological euphemism. The terms usually used for them are a lot worse. One person found one quote after three months of searches and we are supposed to bend over backwards to accommodate them. Should we hold off altogether, for who knows what other similar evidence might be uncovered in states unborn and accents yet unknown? Perhaps come back in two thousand years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You do not need to inundate on my behalf - I know the sort of scale & that is one reason why I have been querying for more info regarding this particular statement. . Until we get that info it is better for us to err on the side of caution in the article & not present a contrary view of dubious merit. Please can we keep the discussion here, and please - everybody - can we keep it civil. There are already far too many attacks in just this one thread. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Lot of people seems to be letting out their frustration on yadav , jat ,nair castes , indians. please guys especially fowler&fowler take care of yourself. fowler&fowler seems frustrated and unhappy a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 15:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No offense meant here but but the recent comments show that user fowler&fowler definitely needs medical help.Poor guy, I feel very bad for you.Hope you get sane soon.Qwyrxian and other moderators, will you please intervene here before things get worse.212.117.169.122 (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually all the indian castes have been put in negative terms left and right. especially Nair caste. nairs are very powerfull and wealthy but they have been shown as bunch of tribal people ( especially the photo in nair article ). Jats are also powerfull and wealthy and jats have been shown as bunch of agricultural workers. Even rajputs agree that jats and rajputs are one and the same race. article yadav is messed up too. everything indian is being put in negative terms. some one needs to edit with neutral frame of mind but question is who is that person. user Ikon ( no blast ) and Qwyrxian is doing a good job.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To make things very clear, i don't own any of the books I quote. However, I do have connections, I mean students of Delhi university, who are my friend and who had studied with me in school days, who do let me have hands on them. I have never studied History or Sociology as part of my curriculum. Though I have experience in writing product marketing dissertations, and i feel approach is more or less the same.

Brahmanas are nowhere in minority in entire India. They are second single largest community in India and comes after Chamars and not Yadavas, who are actually third, and has been misreported as largest group by many sources. Michuletti has written about this false presumption. Brahmanas position in Punjab and Haryana had always been low profile. They are thinly populated in Punjab but are in very good number in Haryana.

"According to the caste size estimates of the National Election Study (NES) 1999 conducted by Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi, the Yadav caste is the third largest in India, after Chamars and Brahmans." Page no- 51/Lucia Muchelutti, Caste in question, identity or hierarchy, edited by Dipankar GuptaIkon ^No-Blast 19:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed your indenting & hope that you do not mind. It would seem that you must have had access to a copy of Rao recently. Could you ask that particular friend if they could pass on to you (or even upload somewhere) the relevant sections? - Sitush (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Using a study of one locality of one town

We have a citation that is a study of one locality in one town by Michelutti - " I tackle this contrast by using the political ethnography of one of the most visible and assertive caste formations in North India (the Yadavs) and by showing how muscular political styles enter the everyday life of a neighbourhood in the town of Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. Fieldwork has been conducted between 1998 and 2000 and in 2001". This source has been rejected before precisely because it does only cover one locality, but it has reappeared. Can we use it to make a fairly sweeping statement, viz.

Tilak Gupta said that this view persisted in modern times in Bihar, where the Yadav were viewed in highly negative terms by other groups.[26]. However, Michelutti observed, these very same people acknowledge and coveted their political influence, connections and abilities.[27]

Minor points are:

• that it is not "the very same people" because Gupta was referencing Bihar and Michelutti's locality is in Uttar Pradesh
• if it stays then it would be better done as an inline quotation of some sort because there is a little bit of copyvio going on. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am bumping this. It is a good few days since I raised the issue. I am in no particular hurry to remove the citation but it does need some sort of discussion because of WP:UNDUE etc. We have a time-related issue coming up shortly - the WikiConference in India - & need to make allowances for those who may be indisposed as a consequence, but I feel that subsequently this citation may well be "fair game" for removal. It seems to be pretty clear-cut to me, but I am prepared to be persuaded. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Comment actually starts with Russels "uncouth" remark, which you have circumcised in your comment. He does not tell us whether it was for UP, Bihar or for everyone. Similarly, Whether in Bihar or in UP, these people are treated same. however, if users feel we may include Mathura in Michelutti's comments, we may do so, but I still feel it is just fine in the present state. Ikon ^No-Blast 06:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

also Very same may not mean identical ppl., because while researching you never get the chance to observe the same person again and again and ir does not matter actually in any kind of research, even in biological, to make conclusions about a species using different samples and summing up the result of the two provided each sample contains same species. Applies here too. Ikon ^No-Blast 06:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Russell is quite clearly referring more generally than is Michelutti. Your comments that "Whter in Bihar or in UP, these people are treated the same" is both original research and missing the point: Michelutti is not even talking of Bihar or UP, but of one locality in one town. It is a ridiculously small sample in the context of this article. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yadav - Kshatriya or Sudra

Please refer to these links from wikipedia itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandravanshi

I quote : 1) "In Hindu scriptures, the Lunar Dynasty (चंद्रवंशी, सोमवंशी, Somvansh, Chandravansh) is one of the three principal houses of the Kshatriya varna, or warrior–ruling caste" 2) "Within these family trees sub-branches such as Bharatvansh, YaduvanshItalic text, Puruvansh, Kuruvansh, Pandavansh and others emerged, each named after a prominent progenitor of the line." 3) "Of the many branches of the Chandravansh line that has been briefly enumerated, the Yaduvanshi lineage is a major branch. This branch is an offshoot of the Bharatvansh which started with the eldest son of Yayati, Yadu. All his descendants are known as Yadavas of Yaduvansh, meaning descendants of Yadu. Another son of Yayati, Puru started the Puruvansh who were the progenitors of the Kuru and Pandava line of Chandravanshi line of Kshatriyas. Based on the writings of Puranas, the Itihaasa Mahabharata and the Raghuvamsa, Lord Krishna was born into the Yadava branch and is considered an ancestor by Yadav Kshatriyas. During the Mahabharat, Chandravansh was only associated with Yadavas and Shoorsainis."

I am exasperated that this is the only article (in otherwise very qualitative and consistent Wikipedia articles) that has been more dynamic and extreme in representation than articles concerning current affairs itself! Yadavs regularly in these pages are branded anything from Kshatriya to Sudra at irregular intervals.

I wonder how any other caste in the country can claim an authoritative "claim" over kshatriya lineage than the yadavs themselves. No wonder, the claimant castes to Kshatriyahood do not want a bona fide contending caste to this status of the elite club of kshatriyahood! I dont know of any brahmin or kshatriya community in any village of India where the relevant family doesnt hold cattle or depend on agriculture for a respectful sustenance.

To those who are willing to understand, I am providing these links concerning Mahabharat {if they are ready to believe the Mahabharat and consequently, Hindus' most sacred text, the Bhagwad Geeta, that is):

 /*http://www.s uite101.com/lesson.cfm/18770/2183/3*/ 

http://www.mahabharataonline.com/articles/mahabharata_article.php?id=32

To those willing to do a little research over the lineage of Yadavs, it will reveal to them that the progenitor of the Yadav clan, King Yadu was born of a Kshatriya King and Brahmin's daughter.

And finally, in modern society there can be no Brahmin or Kshatriya or Sudra in the purest sense. Today, Brahmins are brahmins because they believe in being so. There are yadavs who ''know'' that they are kshtriyas similarly there are other yadavs who believe Italic text they are sudras as they happened to read such demeaning and biased but pseudo-intellectual articles that is posted here right now.

Warm Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.72.9 (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

We never rely on the content of other Wikipedia articles. Your point about Yaduvansh has been discussed extensively on this talk page. I have no more faith in the Mahabarata than I do in the Bible or the Talmud, for example. That is not meant in an offensive manner, but we simply cannot rely on thousand year old primary sources such as this, especially when we know for sure that India's own populace did not do a good job of recording their history until very recent times. We need reliable secondary sources and suite101.com looks dubious on that score. Finally, we have reliable, modern secondary sources that do stipulate the cattle connection and the non-elite (sometimes even shudra) status. Even if someone were to find a reliable source saying otherwise, the sheer number that state the view already shown in the article means that what we would do is show both positions, not replace the current statements with one for the kshatriya status. - Sitush (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Notwithstanding your argument that "we have reliable, modern secondary sources that do stipulate the cattle connection and the non-elite (sometimes even shudra) status." ; it is also not difficult to relate "modern" books that advocate a "high" kshatriya status for yadavs. What to term as "reliable" and what "unreliable" rests almost entirely with the author of any article.

And then to "We never rely on the content of other Wikipedia articles" - either: 1) those 'other' articles should be deleted / edited for lack of corroborative, "reliable" evidence 2) their point of view should be included in this page with the same referring evidence that formed the basis of publishing of those other wiki articles elsewhere 3) delete both the contradicting versions and stick to a factual, passing reference of what is established truth today - that " Yadavs are a community/ caste primarily residing in India, Nepal - categorised into Other Backward Castes as per relevant provisions of the Indian Constitution - without any reference to varna that they should categorised into.

Only implementation of one of abobe listed steps shall satisfy demands of logic that is unbiased.

The archive of this page two years ago can be compared to what is reflected now. It will easily show how vulnerable Wikipedia in itself is to bias and is a befitting case that undermines its procedures and policies that make wikipedia itself and subsequently its authors and editors unreliable.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.115.37 (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but we have had a lot of people turning up here saying that there are plenty of modern source for the kshatriya status ... but so far I cannot recall any of the few examples actually given being both reliable and unambiguous. I repeat also: even if such sources were found, the non-elite viewpoint would continue to have a place in this article.

The English language Wikipedia is rapidly approaching the 4 million article milestone. Nobody can keep an eye on such a vast quantity but everyone is encouraged to be bold. If you think that an article is incorrect then feel free to fix it, provided that you comply with the community's guidelines. The Five Pillars is a good place to begin reading up on those, but plenty of people will also assist you.

We do not whitewash. Wikipedia is not censored and therefore it would be wrong to remove points which are clearly significant and discussed in numerous reliable sources.

I haven't looked at the state of the article as it was two years ago. I can assure you that its state earlier this year was abysmal. I was one of those who stepped in to fix it. - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article was indeed in an abysmal state before Sitush and others stepped in. Let me suggest very politely to the IP and others—who turn up here from time to time to reclaim the golden age that never was—that unless you have watertight sources you are wasting your time. More importantly, you are wasting Sitush's time.

Notwithstanding Wikipedia's egalitarian affirmations, he matters more than you do simply because he creates more valuable content. His wasted time is a greater loss than your wasted time. Ironically, by repeatedly carping on the same themes, claiming status without responsibility, offering nothing new, showing little objectivity, and even less rigor, you are creating a vast divide between yourself and the proud hard working Ahirs, Gwalas, and Yadavs, who built much of India's pastoral, husbandry, dairy economy, and whom this article is about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

---

@Sitush & Fowler. While Sitush did show some listening traits, mr F&f seems simply incorrigible in all arrogance. Well, if not now, then sometime later this article will be set right - by more better, right thinking people, who would be more dedicated and not casual part timers. Also, I believe that this article is now at its abysmal worst. Your predecessors certainly did a lot better job. So there's nothing to be proud of, after all. As far as wastage of time is concerned, do factor in the five minutes wasted for each of the thousands of visitors to this page who are treated to a distorted picture of facts. And that amounts to millions of man-minutes. And that to you, is insignificant, at best. - Best Wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.77.131 (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like Wikiepdia's rules--requiring reliable sources for claims, and requiring that all significant viewpoints be listed in articles, you are more than welcome to either 1) try to change those rules (though, a warning, they're two of our most core values), or 2) write your work somewhere else, be that on another website, in a scholarly journal, or in your own book. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Political Involvement

I am proposing to change the section name of Post Independence section to Involvement in politics, because sooner or later it is going to be that only. Ikon ^No-Blast 11:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that it is going to be politics only? Is there nothing else that can be said about the modern day Yadav? - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Politics is an important part of their identity, as reported by several sources. So, we should give it due weight. Other things can wait. Ikon ^No-Blast 13:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's a fair point. I understand now. I'd still like to see more on the general post-independence/present day Yadav, of which "Politics" might be a subsection. Surely there is more to being a Yadav than just the political angle, albeit I recognise that as being a very high-profile aspect because of Laloo etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My recent reverts

I have now twice reverted

According to Lucia Michelutti:

...Yadavs constantly trace their ‘caste’ predispositions and skills to descent, and in doing so they affirm their distinctiveness as a ‘caste’. For them, ‘caste is not just appellation but quality of blood’ (Yalman 1969: 87, in Gupta 2000: 82). This view is not recent. The Ahirs (today Yadavs) had a lineage view of caste (Fox 1971; Unnithan-Kumar 1997) that was based on a strong ideological model of descent. This descent-based kinship structure was also linked to a specific Kshatriya and their religious tradition centred on Krishna mythology and pastoral warrior hero-god cults.

and in my second revert of that also reverted another passage added by Ikonoblast.

There are several reasons: 1. what's with the weird hieroglyphics? 2. why are we quoting the footnotes of the source? 3. we are pretty much repeating what has already been said, but in convoluted terms. 4. it is lazy writing - quotations have their place but what is happening here amounts to quotation "dumping", IMO. Ikonoblast has been doing this for a while: try using your own words sometimes, otherwise articles will become merely a series of disconnected quotes. 5. without some sort of preamble, it is possible that the quotes have been taken out of context

I will certainly look at the info provided over the weekend & see if it can be worked into the article in a manner that flows better. I think that I was able to see Michelutti a few weeks ago but, just in case, Ikonoblast, is there any chance of you providing the sources? - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Additions were in conformity with the already laid structure and there was no attempt to alter that. Flow may surely be the concern but that can be taken care of w/o removals. Also, alleging me of writing from footnotes is violation of WP:AGF. I am not writing from footnote and no even flooding quotations. I am using them only when relevant. Ikon ^No-Blast 13:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I see Sitush may have some valid point. If you mean inline attribution to original contributors is weird heiroglyphic, we can think about it. But, if they don't consider it weird in hard copies why sd we here??? Ikon ^No-Blast 14:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush has not accused you of any bad faith -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I generally don't have issues with him. In fact of several editors I like him more. But, he is a bit agressive which he needs to take care of. Ikon ^No-Blast 14:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)