Talk:Yadav

Article needs lot of correction. Request this article be put to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Lucia Michelutti in her phd report has clearly mentioned that Yadav cummunity historical status is ambiguous and cannot be determined. According to her " The yadav caste/community had an ambiguous ritual status in the caste hierarchy historically. Amongst the Ahir/Yadav caste we find rajas, zamindars, sepoys and cowherders who have been conceived and categorised either as warriors and as belonging to the Kshatriya varna, or as lower-caste . More specifically, in Ahirwal, members of Ahir seigneurial lineages have come to be known by the title of Rajput ". It is very clear that Yadav community hsitorical status varies from region to region. There are kings, zamindars also.

Sons of Krishna: the politics of Yadav
community formation in a North Indian town  Lucia Michelutti. Read page 302 and 303
PhD Thesis / Social Anthropology / 2002 / London school of economic and politcal science.
http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2106/1/U613338.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC) 

Oxford publication / Rise of a Folk God: Vitthal of Pandharpur  By Ramchandra Chintaman Dhere, Anne Feldhaus.
In page 240 it is clearly stated that the yadavarayas originated from golla. The gollas are yadav caste. 
https://books.google.com/books?id=mR6wOT4OXHcC&pg=PA240&dq=golla+kuruba+kadava&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_GhRVayXB4j9oQSXmYCoBQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=golla%20kuruba%20kadava&f=false

I humbly request to edits article which reflect the correct information.  Lucia Michelutti is doctorate in Anthropology. The Yadav caste hisotorical status is Kshatriya varna in many regions.

I think the present form of article nowhere stressed the caste status kshatriya or shudra. It accommodates the theory of Kshatriya claim as well. It is already mentioned that history of origin of Yadavs is uncertain. So, the points stressed by you are already present here. Will you please pin point the part of your objection in the article. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 07:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The first statments in wiki article is "Yadav refers to a grouping of traditionally non-elite,[1][2][3][4] pastoral communities".

According to Anthropology PhD Thesis by Lucia Michelutti " Yadav community is a grouping of elite and non-elite communities ". In page 302 Lucia mentions that yadav community had historically Rajas, zamindars,sepoys and cowherders. Lucia mentions in conclusion of the thesis that " Historical status of yadav cannot be determined".Meaning they cannot be classified into elite or non-elite. Lucia further states that Yadav community in Ahirwal is considered as Rajput lineage.

In Rise of a Folk God: Vitthal of Pandharpur which is a oxford book. In page 240 author states clearly that the

Yadavaraya dynasty had its origin in the Golla community which is now included in Yadav category.

My first edit request is the first statement should be " Yadav refers to a grouping of traditionally elite and non-elite communities.or it can also state "Yadav refers to a grouping of communities whose historical status has varied from region to region from Kshatriya to Shudra status.

My second edit request is

Statement " 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.[7] " should be modified to "

has claimed descent from the mythological King Yadu ".

Reason - Lucia in her phd thesis and Ramchandra Chintaman Dhere, Anne Feldhaus ( oxford books ) state that

ahir and golla had formed dynasties claiming yadu lineage. These dynasties has its beginings in the 12 th century AD.In page 47 Lucia mentions "Amongst the most significant are the Ahir kingdom of Rewari (Rao 1977), the Ahir kingdom of

Mahabhan and the Jadon-Rajput kingdoms of Jaleshar (Growse 1998: 11) and Karouli (Drake-Brockman 1911: 110) which are traditionally considered yadu lineage."

I humbly request to edit based on Phd Anthropology research of 5 years by Lucia Michelutti and book published by Oxford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear, I have gone through the source mentioned by you.

The community is mentioned as a whole non elite in the light of mentioned multiple (4) sources and the wikipedia community holds consensus over it. The issue has been discussed at great length in the past and presently what we see is the outcome of the process. Please find more sources to support the view to be added or modified. Anything that has come up latest is worth welcoming but the sources be reliable then we may discuss.I will be pleased if you bother to register yourself as regular user. I see the mentioned I.P. was blocked at times for the unwanted behaviour. I do not blame that it was you and hence suggesting you to register. I also request you to please follow the format/style of discussion on this talk page. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 16:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The edit history of this article clearly shows that there is no concensus among the wikipedia editors on this article. All sources which state the Yadav community as elite or as Kshatriya is rejected. Carefully selected words from Lucia Michelutti work has been used in this article. But Lucia Michelutti has clearly stated in her thesis ( 5 year field work in many parts ) that Yadav community historical status is unclear. Lucia Michelutti further states in the conclusion of her thesis that in certain regions modern day yadav community is historically Kshatriya and in some regions historically shudra. I am really not sure on why basis can a Phd research thesis and a Oxford publication be rejected. Further many proofs given for Ahir dynasty which was considered Yadav Kshatriya dynasty ( In Ancient period ).

he statement that Yadav community is non-elite has only partial truth in it. The statement that ahir / gollas started claiming yadu origin only from 19th century is completely wrong.

All academic research proves shown below. Six academic references have been provided. Two are phd research from major universcities.

1. Page 302 of Lucia Michelutti thesis work / London school of economics.
http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2106/1/U613338.pdf

2. Page 240 of Oxford publication / Rise of a Folk God: Vitthal of Pandharpur
By Ramchandra Chintaman Dhere, Anne Feldhaus
https://books.google.com/books?id=mR6wOT4OXHcC&pg=PA240&dq=golla+kuruba+kadava&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_GhRVayXB4j9oQSXmYCoBQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=golla%20kuruba%20kadava&f= false

3. Page 34 Phd research thesis from university of mysore.  Clearly states that the Ahirs are considered yadava race in ancient world.
Temples of Kr???a in South India: History, Art, and Traditions in Tamilna?u  By T. Padmaja
https://books.google.com/books?id=pzgaS1wRnl8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Temples+of+Kr%CC%A5%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%87a+in+South+India:+History,+Art,+and+Traditions+in+Tamiln%C4%81%E1%B8%8Du&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIjf3G2czoyAIVUeRjCh0CiQ0i#v=onepage&q=ahirs&f=false

4. Power and Influence in India: Bosses, Lords and Captains  edited by Pamela Price, Arild Engelsen Ruud
https://books.google.com/books?id=Vq6YvOM__nsC&pg=PR13&dq=ahir+zamindar&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAmoVChMIlMTZ3_XqyAIVStNjCh2oMwP8#v=onepage&q=ahir%20zamindar&f=false
Yadav/ahir is described as a landowing caste.

5. The Greatest Farce of History   By Gopal Chowdhary.
In page 160 it is explained that the ahirs are a branch of the ancient yadavas.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=9bOEAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA119&dq=nand+vasudev&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3SV6VOHwGYuruQStmIDACA#v=onepage&q=ahir&f=false

6. The Cattle and the Stick: An Ethnographic Profile of the Raut of Chhattisgarh / Anthropological Survey of India,
In page 13 it is explained very clearly " Yaduvanshi Kshatriyas are Ahirs" 
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=wT-BAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Ahirs

The wikipedia article is stating only one side. The other side that historically ahir and gollas were Kshatriya in certain regions and 

many academic research evidence points to ahir and gollas as yadava race in ancient world. Phd research work needs to be given due importance.

Wikipedia I assume is about reliabeleity and authenticite.  

Unfortunate thing is newbee editors like me are no match for senior editors.  I request again to mention both the sides as well.  Six academic books clearly mention the yadav as historically Kshatriya in many regions.  Based on above 6 references please change Yadav as elite in some regin and non-elite in some regin. All Phd research points to ahir and golla as ancient yadava race.

Atleast I request you to go through the sources provided above. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk •contribs) 23:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the mentioned source Lucia_Michelutti supports the view that "Yadav refers to a grouping of traditionally elite and non-elite communities" or "Yadav refers to a grouping of communities whose historical status has varied from region to region from Kshatriya to Shudra status". I support that it should be added to maintain neutrality of the article.--MahenSingha (Talk) 22:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Feedback apreceated. I will wait for one or two weeks more. Then I will make the change as per Lucia_Michelutti phd thesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 01:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Dont change the existing sourced contents. I just said that you can add the contents from the said author "Lucia_Michelutti".--SMahenS (Talk) 15:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mahen once other users let me know their points I will make adds to the article. But as you mentioned the article is not neutral and adding "Yadav refers to a grouping of traditionally elite and non-elite communities" or "Yadav refers to a grouping of communities whose historical status has varied from region to region from Kshatriya to Shudra status". will make it neutral.. Muchos Gracias. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 00:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The article clearly does not have a neutral point of view. The book by Lucia Michelutti states that the yadav are elite in some regions. Infact in areas like Haryana, Rajasthan and Himachal the Yadav kings are famous. Hope the article also states the elite status of yadavs in certain regions. Article needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj bhilla (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Raj bhilla can you also provide proof and references. It will be nice. Lucia_Michelutti and Ramchandra Chintaman Dhere are oxford researches. Need something like that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 18:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The phd work by Lucia Michelutti clearly states that this reseacrh is about modern day yadav community. In the ABSTRACT it is clearly stated that this article is about modern day yadav community.

In page 302 the author clearly states "The Ahir caste/community also had an ambiguous ritual status in the caste hierarchy historically. Amongst the Ahir/Y adav caste we find rajas, zamindars, sepoys and cowherders who have been conceived and categorised either as warriors and as belonging to the Kshatriya varna, or as lower-caste and belonging to the Shudra varna." Proving beyond doubt that yadav community comprises elite and non-elite. Please read Page 302.

Clearly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is being violated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

In fact the statement " 19th and 20th centuries[8][9] has claimed descent from the mythological King Yadu as a part of a movement of social and political resurgence.[10] " is a synthesis since the references provided state that ahir,goalas, gopas state they began refering themselves as kshatriya status and then other reference states used a common term. So this article needs correction since it all seems to be synthesis.

References provided clearly state Yadav as elite and non-elite and Wikipedia neutrality is key factor hereKiranmayipal (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The phd work of many research scholars are being ignored. The article is not neutral and contains synthesis. In Page 302 Lucia Michelutti clearly states Yadav as Kings and zamindars in certain regions. This is Phd research work. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2106/1/U613338.pdf https://books.google.com/books?id=GSa5blriOYcC&pg=PA47&dq=abhira+yadavas&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1v_Gbg_jLAhUU0WMKHQzyCc84ChDoAQghMAE#v=onepage&q=abhira&f=false

Environment and Ethnicity in India, 1200-1991 By Sumit Guha Page 47 Clearly states Ahir as the ancient yadavas. https://books.google.com/books?id=pzgaS1wRnl8C&pg=RA1-PA35&dq=ayar+yadavas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eGhdU6b2DOmIyAG27YCoBA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=snippet&q=ahirs&f=false

Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: History, Art, and Traditions in Tamilnāḍu
By T. Padmaja
Page 34
clearly states ahir as ancient yadavas  — Precedingunsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 23:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 

Please will you stop repeating the same requests. The situation has been discussed many times before and has also been explained to you in this very section. - Sitush (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sitush you are refusing to even review the sources. In page 302 the author clearly states "The Ahir caste/community also had an ambiguous ritual status in the caste hierarchy historically. Amongst the Ahir/Y adav caste we find rajas, zamindars,sepoys and cowherders who have been conceived and categorised either as warriors and as belonging to the Kshatriya varna, or as lower-caste and belonging to the Shudra varna." Proving beyond doubt that yadav community comprises elite and non-elite. In Page 302 Lucia Michelutti clearly states Yadav as Kings and zamindars in certain regions. This is Phd research work. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2106/1/U613338.pdf Spaceman spiff please let me know what is wrong in the sources I have mentioned.

All sources are phd works
http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2106/1/U613338.pdf page 302

https://books.google.com/books?id=pzgaS1wRnl8C&pg=RA1-PA35&dq=ayar+yadavas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eGhdU6b2DOmIyAG27YCoBA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=snippet&q=ahirs&f=false
Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: History, Art, and Traditions in Tamilnāḍu
By T. Padmaja
Page 34

https://books.google.com/books?id=GSa5blriOYcC&pg=PA47&dq=abhira+yadavas&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1v_Gbg_jLAhUU0WMKHQzyCc84ChDoAQghMAE#v=onepage&q=abhira&f=false
Environment and Ethnicity in India, 1200-1991
By Sumit Guha
Page 47
Clearly states Ahir as the ancient yadavas. Kiranmayi pal (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the problem is (a) you are not reading the article properly, and (b) you have not checked the talk page archives, which have several discussions about this very issue, eg: this. It's good that you are attempting to provide the info including page numbers etc but it is important that you do not cherry-pick sources and that where there is a difference in academic opinion etc then we cannot just outright say it is one or the other. The sources generally go for non-elite, although certainly some may have been otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sitush I can understand the situation of brave wikipedian, who are exhausted by multiple repeated request for similar change as some of these might be genuine request but may not always bode well with personal preferences, so frustration and authority is best way to deal with all these novice users, who are shocked to know why there is so stark difference in the info they have, vs wiki page. and also some of you might very well agree to disagree that wiki mafias are controlling the edit on Yadav page, where they add comment on talk page without any reliable source and never satisfy with the reliability of any source. Problem is with wiki-mafias here, who are prevented the article to be improved or glorified in any sense, and it hurt some of the wiki mafia;s personally due to the place they might have come from and any diversion is effectively insulting their own ancestor. so what if wikipedia article should be NPOV, we can find ways to creates different pages, like yadav,yadava,abhira,ahir and categorize to please particular ancestors, who might be happy with the work the decedents are still watering. hope there is no flood, due to this. gostanwik 07:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Konars of Tamilnadu call themselves Yadavar. However Konars have been traditionally the land-owning caste in Tamilnadu and they are middle-level caste. The site http://tamilnation.co/caste/ramaiah.htm#Caste in Tamil Nadu clearly explains the strata of Konars in the society. Following castes are termed as middle-level castes:

Land-owning castes: Vellalar, Ahamudayar (Servai), Maravar (Thevar), Kallar, Konar (Yadavar) and the Telegu speaking Naidus;

Trading castes: Chettiyar
Artisan castes like Kusavar or Kuyavan (Potter), Kotthan (mason), Thachan (carpenter), Kollan (blacksmith), Thattans or Nahai Aasari 
(goldsmith)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 
159.245.16.100 (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC) 

I am not doing any cherry picking.
http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2106/1/U613338.pdf
Phd work by Lucia Michelutti is being ignored 
The work is a research work on yadav community ethnography. In the conclusion Lucia Michelutti clearly states that yadav consists of 
kings, zamindars and all levels.

https://books.google.com/books?id=pzgaS1wRnl8C&pg=RA1-PA35&dq=ayar+yadavas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eGhdU6b2DOmIyAG27YCoBA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=snippet&q=ahirs&f=false
Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: History, Art, and Traditions in Tamilnāḍu
By T. Padmaja
Page 34

https://books.google.com/books?id=GSa5blriOYcC&pg=PA47&dq=abhira+yadavas&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1v_Gbg_jLAhUU0WMKHQzyCc84ChDoAQghMAE#v=onepage&q=abhira&f=false
Environment and Ethnicity in India, 1200-1991
By Sumit Guha
Page 47
Clearly states Ahir as the ancient yadavas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view is being violated here wiki neutrality is violated here Spaceman spiff please provide ur inputs. Other sources are provide on top as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes,Sir this Page should be deleted.This's spreading wrong message among peoples about Yadav Caste. Aman Kumar pratapgharhi (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

you can always ask people to go and read yadava for ancient folks and ahir for historical folks. Just mention the people yadav page is compromised due to loop-hole in wikipedia, which at time make so hard to put the right information due to sheer force of validity check requirements imposed by individuals acting beyond the interest of wikipedia. gostanwik 08:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Mention of "elite" in the lead

We had some walls of text some months ago about mentioning elites in the lead section. The section now says "traditionally mainly non-elite" as a consequence. To say any more would be undue weight because, according to the Michelutti source that people mentioned, the elites comprised rajas, zamindars and the like. Think about it: there are millions of Yadav people but the number who were rulers or owners of landed estates were but a small proportion. I sometimes think with caste articles that everyone in India was a king at some point and no-one worked the land, swept the streets, built the roads etc. Most sources refer to their pastoral origins etc, which is a non-elite role. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I beg to differ. 15% of the yadav / ahir caste for example in states such as Harayana and Himachal are in forward caste and traditionally considered as ruling / elite class. I have provided many proof in the past . I would summarise all the proofs and provide again. Clearly phd and research work by leading scholars is ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree on the logic that a pastoral origin symbolizes the non-elite role. Even few so affirmed elite Yaduvanshi Rajputs too have been proving themselves to be descended from Yadu - the pastoral community but I have never seen the same theory could ever be applied to that page because no matter how good or skilled editors you are the people present there will never allow you to tell the truth on Rajput page. Also, please note that the element of cow-related acts like keeping the cows is a symbol of wealth in Hindu mythologies, the places of Yajna are till date purified using the cow dung. In Hindu mythology milking animals are given respect and the cow is called "mother-cow". Dealing with milk business-an edible thing itself proves the status of clean caste as the Hindu Sociology is very particular about what to eat and from where/whom to eat? I can give sources for what I say,if I am asked to do. I request you to rethink if you have read Michelutti sources then you must be knowing that when she inquired the masses from different casts they agreed that Yadavs are Bade Jati (Higher caste), though they are not like Rajputs but they are not Shudras. And hence the article shall go like many pure/impure lower/upper/ middle castes might have been included under the umbrella term "Yadav", but as a whole defining Yadavs to be Shudra/impure/lower caste raises questions on the authenticity of the article. Here what is needed is that let wikipedia agree on a standard model that how a caste article shall look like and the same must be followed on all the caste related articles. Take initiative and give it a final and true look for all. Claims are claims now whether Rajputs are claiming or any other caste is claiming shall not be given different treatment. Pictures from age old sources for the purpose of making mockery of the living people can never be appreciated. Whereas we often reject such sources which are ancient mythology or of Raj era. Indian caste system is nothing more than a mythology. If any of the caste can prove that they are the same noble or royal people to be the sons of Moon, sun or fire...as being claimed then please let me also know. With advance apologies and humble request to User:Sitush for not tagging me showing my POW. I just said what I could understand on the topic after going through numerous sources/contents. Also it is not excuse for any edits made by me. Thanks and Regards. MahenSingha (Talk) 18:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The Yadavs (Ahirs, Gwalas), Kurmi, Jat, Gujar, were considered (ritually) clean Shudras in traditional Hindu doctrine. In other words, Brahmins would traditionally accept water from them, but would shun more intimate contact, temples would grant them entry, and so forth. There was a vast segment of the Indian population, pastoralists, herders, tillers, in the vast Indian hinterland, now a large part of OBC, to which the traditional Indian caste system had paid little attention, and which, they lumped in this manner. These groups attempted caste upliftment at various times, some earlier, some later, as they engaged traditional elites. The Rajputs, you are right, were one of the first, but because their upliftment happened much earlier, long before systematic records appeared, it is harder to pin them down. The Kayasths are another. I haven't looked at the Rajput page, so I can't speak to why their antecedents don't appear there as you claim. These have certainly been the subject of scholarly work. Please note that this article nowhere affirms the ideology of the Indian caste system, only describes its stratification. It is a testament to the deep-rootedness of this system, that many at the receiving end of its inhumanity have not rejected the system, only striven for higher status within it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

PS Although the British are often blamed for rigidly codifying the caste system, especially in the Census of India, 1901, in practice, they tended to be flexible, as shown in the following Allahabad High Court judgement of 1922, by Louis Stuart (later knighted as Chief Judge of the Chief Court of Oudh in Lucknow), which refused to disallow a Muslim family of gardeners (malis, occasionally mispelled "main" and "mails" by the OCR of the website), whose Hindu counterparts are "clean shudras," to officiate as priests at an ancient Hindu temple. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» Please help cite the source on Hindu Doctrine, where these communities are referred as clean sudra. traditionally Brahmins were elm-seeker (dependent on others varna for livelihood) and use to live outside the major population dwelling and there aim was to focus on connecting rest of the society with the Religion at the behest of the local ruler, so ensure local ruler can control the population without violence. Going to be interesting discussion, in light of the fact that you uploaded the first photo on this Yadav page from unreliable source, but no one attempted to fixed it, as it suites the wiki page protectors personal preference. gostanwik 06:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yadavs are Kshatriya

Sir, this page needs correction or should be deleted.as Yadavs were traditionally elite Kshatriya Class and have ruled over many parts of India & Nepal.So it's really about the community as You've mentioned this community as Shudra. During Mahabharat also Yadavs were Kshatriya and Most respected God of Hinduism Lord Krishna took birth in this clan. Aman Kumar pratapgharhi (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, we need to rely on current situation of yadav, if they can improve the overall situation, they can become neo-kshatriya and then some of the future generation might be ok with linking them with ancient yadav, till than discussion is open ended with very less to make consensus upon. A wiki page can not change destiny of any community, it is just a stupid page, if content is good get inspired and it is not what you expect it to be, reject it profoundly and move on. still do come back to see the page, just to confirm how much progress Indian made as a society and for a good laugh at these stupids while China is crushing them under the dragon tail. gostanwik 08:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yadav is elite Caste

Sir,its humble request please delete this page on yadav as early as you could. Aman Kumar pratapgharhi (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Castes are a hot topic on Wikipedia. Take a look at WP:GS/CASTE for some of the background. Caste articles are frequently subject to promotional editing, so they are carefully watched. Lots of people want the caste they identify with to be described in laudatory terms. Wikipedia tries to base itself on reliable sources, and positive claims about castes are often folklore rather than history. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Sir You are Correct But I've Seen your old page on wikipedia too. Where it was mentioned Yadav as Rajput Clan and Chandravanshi kshatriya but later that page was distorted. Please,may I Know why at that time this clan was considered Rajput but now it's changed? Aman Kumar pratapgharhi (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Old Yadav Page

Sir,I want to know wh old wikipedia page on Yadav was distorted? In which it was clearly mentioned that Yadav are Rajput & Belongs to Chandravanshi kshatriya.? Aman Kumar pratapgharhi (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, the earlier pages were created when wikipedia was not big deal, people did not care and contributor can add content with some source reference and it was by and large accepted as no one other than stakeholders cared. Later, this created personal problems to some of the folks, who than start cartel and wiki mafia groups, who will randomly delete the content of any attempt of content addition by claiming it either not reliable source, or not good enough reliable for the personal taste and preference of the wiki mafia. So here we are, where there is very minimal content additional and lot of policing, and worst part is most of these wiki mafia gangs has nothing to do with truth and simply holding to the belief that they feel true. What is the solution. Not much Wikipedia itself is not reliable source due to open editing policy and sooner or later it will diminish its value and future Phds on Wikipedia will be done in light of not only article but talk pages as well. and some of these mafia gangs will be named by name and shamed by shame. In the mean time, keep the discussion on by asking for validity of each line in the page and provide alternative lines. In fact, look for places other than wikipedia, where your content is respected more. gostanwik 06:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The History of Ahir and Gavlis need to be mentioned

A separate section for history of Ahirs and Gavli needs to need to be included or we can merge the Yadav article with Ahir. Ahirs have a history of atleast 2000 years. This will make the article much better. Meenapandit (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)MPANDIT