Talk:Yadav

What happened? Why were my comments deleted ? I think Jimmy needs to know this !

What happened? Why were my comments deleted ? I think Jimmy needs to know this !

• Your comments were removed because talkpages are not forums or soapboxes, User:Abhisihn. Please avoid posting nationalist ramblings on Wikipedia talkpages, as you did here. The Yadav talkpage is for discussing improvements to the Yadav article, it's not a forum or soapbox for general discussion of the article's subject. Wikipedia articles go by reliable sources, not by your or anybody's religious beliefs. Don't make legal threats ("You can be taken to court for this") and don't post accusations of bad-faith editing ("Have you been paid to write derogatory articles on Yadavs?"). Also note that people of all nationalities are equally entitled to edit all articles. A European can edit an Indian article (it's not their nationality that matters, but whether they have knowledge of the subject), you can edit an American article, and so on. Editors' nationalities aren't in fact your business; comment on edits, not editors. Don't ask questions like "Sitush - What;'s your real and name and which office do you work from??"[1] It's rude and inappropriate and not your business. Please try to adjust to the policies and customs here, such as WP:CIVILITY, WP:No personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith, or you will be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 23:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC).

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs)

The History of Ahir and Gavlis need to be mentioned ( adding what was there already )

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 As suggested by the sources that All Ahirs are not Yadav and possibly vice versa. Hence Ahir and Yadav are the two different concepts.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC) This article is about ahirs, gavlis, etc,, who referred to themselves as Yadavs using some materials. The article talks a lot about ahirs. Hence history of ahirs need to be included. For example: Nepal had a Ahir rulers , there is a ahir rewari kingdom, in various other places the status of ahirs varied. There is history would be good to add. since now I am really confused by this article. It does not explain the social transformation clearly. https://books.google.com/books?id=yEHODCDK-8kC&pg=PA26&dq=ahirs+nepal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9nOqd7KfWAhXmsFQKHUWBBK8Q6AEIQjAG#v=onepage&q=ahirs%20nepal&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=b9ktWLud0oIC&pg=PA51&dq=ahir+rewari&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEs4XT7KfWAhXGg1QKHYUYCaMQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=ahir%20rewari&f=false Meenapandit (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)MPANDIT Meenapandit (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs)

I am planning on creating a new section under origins called History based on following books

Page 26 in Education and Polity in Nepal: An Asian Experiment mentions about ahir rule in Nepal https://books.google.com/books?id=yEHODCDK-8kC&pg=PA26&dq=ahirs+nepal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9nOqd7KfWAhXmsFQKHUWBBK8Q6AEIQjAG#v=onepage&q=ahir&f=false

Page 51 in Identity, Gender, and Poverty: New Perspectives on Caste and Tribe in Rajasthan mentions about Ahir rewari kingdom https://books.google.com/books?id=b9ktWLud0oIC&pg=PA51&dq=ahir+rewari&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEs4XT7KfWAhXGg1QKHYUYCaMQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=ahir%20rewari&f=false

Yadavs ambiguous ritual status Page 302 Lucia Michelutti mentions about the traditional status. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2106/1/U613338.pdf Doctoral research work concludes " 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. More specifically, in Ahirwal, members of Ahir seigneurial lineages have come to be known by the title of Rajput. I argue that the Ahirs’ ambiguous status and the fact that members of this large heterogeneous community were (and are) recognised as a Rajput-like community made it possible for all the Yadavs to think of themselves as a martial and valorous caste with a Kshatriya pedigree. "

History: Historical the ahirs held a ambiguous ritual status. 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. Ahirs ruled Nepal, Rewari region in Harayana and Khandesh in central India.