Talk:Yadav

Rao Tula Ram (A great freedom fighter and Yadav King)

Rao Tula Ram (Hindi: राव तुला राम) (c. 9 December 1825–1863) was one of the key leaders of the Indian rebellion of 1857, in Haryana, where he is considered a state hero.[1]

He is credited with having "obliterated every vestige"[citation needed] of the British rule from the region that today is southwest Haryana during the Rebellion, and also helping rebel forces fighting in the historic city of Delhi with men, money and material. Noted as a good administrator and military commander, after the 1857 uprising ended, he left India, met rulers of Iran and Afghanistan and also established contacts with the Tsar of Russia, to seek their help to fight a war to free India from the British.[citation needed] His plans were cut short by his death from dysentery in Kabul on September 23, 1863, at the age of 38.[2]

Rao Tula Ram was born on 9 December 1825 in a noble Rao Bahadur Nirpur[clarification needed] Yadav family of Rao Bhadur Garhi-Bolni in the village of Rampura (Rewari).[citation needed] His father was Puran Singh, his grandfather Rao Tej Singh and his mother's name was Gyan Kanwar, daughter of Rao Zahari Singh, a local jagirdar.[3]

Rao Tula Ram's Istemraree estates were confiscated by the British in 1859, though proprietary rights of his two wives were retained. In 1877, his title was restored to his son Rao Yudhister Singh, who was made zaildar.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.221.160 (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources, please. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Qwyrxian Here is the source http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FP_MWtoPIcoC&lpg=PA69&dq=rao%20tula%20ram%20king&pg=PA69#v=onepage&q=rao%20tula%20ram%20king&f=false Page 69 last paragraph Dr Mayaram is an outstanding sociologist associated with Delhi School of Economics and having original subaltern perspective. http://www.csds.in/faculty_shail_mayaram.htm.Please incorporate this in the article.I'll produce other proofs of yadava kings.There is no conflict on the seuna yadavas of devagiri who ruled the daulatabad region. The frequent editors(i wont name them) should understand that they are writing article on a group which is very heterogeneous in nature(correctly terming it as an umbrella group) but the group involves traditionally elite as well as non-elite groups.The opening sentence should be corrected immediately(by removing non-elite) to preserve the representative(of all the groups under umbrella) nature of article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cultcontri (talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm butting in here just to let you know that I cannot see any of that source at GBooks, not even in snippet view. Even if I could, and it supported your points etc, I still would not change the opening sentence based on this. To do so would be original research, since we have sources specifically saying that they are seen as being non-elite etc. Sure, we should show all sides but one source against many is not going to sway things much because of the considerations of WP:WEIGHT: we have to try to keep things in proportion. To be honest, I am not even sure how this could ever be otherwise as it seems to me that the vast majority were not kings/princes/whatever and in fact almost by definition that has to be the case, otherwise the Yadav community would surely be very small whereas in fact it is huge.

I am not holding you to this, so feel free to make educated guesses: how many ruling houses etc are we talking about here? What was the average area that they ruled over? Indeed, who did they rule over? How large were their armies? What proportion of their armies comprised Yadav soldiers? What did the rest of the Yadavs do, ie: those who were not soldiering? What did they do when they were too old to fight?

I'll give you a example of why this weight issue matters. If someone asks you how many legs does a human being have and how many does a cat have, I'd bet that you would say 2 and 4. But, of course, those figures are not always correct: birth defects, accidents/disease etc. It is the same with elite/non-elite. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

how bout adding some genuine pictures...

i was wondering why some one would add such bizarre pics ??????

how about adding some pics of yogendra singh yadav (who won highest gallantry award) and capt umrao singh(VC)....i hope this plead would be taken care of by concerned people...thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.222.83 (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

They did exist here but were removed, I think because they are not representative of the Yadav community. Also, if I remember correctly, there was no verification that they were in fact Yadavs. Bearing the "Yadav" name is insufficient. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

sitush@ buddy yadav is used by yadav caste only.... http://books.google.co.in/books?id=p69GMA226bgC&pg=PA46&dq=yogendra+singh+yadav+an+ahir&hl=en&ei=R03HTpoiwsmsB4qu7asO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=yogendra%20singh%20yadav%20an%20ahir&f=false that proves him of being yadav.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.189.125.149 (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

and this links proves umrao singh being an ahir(yadav)...

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=yXdLAQAAIAAJ&q=%22umrao+singh%22+ahir&dq=%22umrao+singh%22+ahir&hl=en&ei=UyiUTs7fJszirAeo9dW9Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg

so please try to add these pics....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.189.125.149 (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 

(edit conflict) I see nothing in that (somewhat unreliable) source that confirms his caste origin as being Yadav. I also seem to recall that particular source has actually been determined to be unreliable. Look, I know that it must seem odd but just because someone bears a particular last name does not necessarily mean that they are of a certain caste or community. An example that I often give is that of people whose last name is "Nair". There are thousands of Nairs in Scotland, and elsewhere in the world, who have absolutely no connection to the Nair community of India. Then, on top of all this, you still have not addressed the issue of how these people are representative of the community: it is just piggy-backing glorification, as far as I can see, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You added a second source after I started writing, this one being for Umrao Singh. I cannot see it all but it certainly looks better if you can confirm that he was a Yaduvanshi Ahir. As I understand it, there are other classes of Ahir who do not claim descent from Yadu etc and therefore are not Yadav. - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In India only the YADAV community uses YADAV in their last name.Its shows clearly that he does not have any understanding of indian customs , traditions.
This is a sad day for wikipedia. WIKIALITY - is what three users  as fact without considering actual fact.  YADAV name is only used by YADAV community. Its really funny..

wow what an ignorant construction. yadav is a name used only by yadav community and no other caste wants to use yadav name since each one in india is proud of their caste/community/origin. WOW AMAZING, unbeleivable such ignorance.. This is the reason why scholars, professors say not to refer wikipedia when scholarly work ( now i understand )... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia does not go on personal knowledge, or on what you yourself might think obvious - and it does not allow personal synthesis (ie it does not allow us to deduce that a person is a Yadav based on our personal understanding - saying "yadav is a name used only by yadav community and no other caste wants to use yadav name since each one in india is proud of their caste/community/origin" is your own deduction, which cannot be used even if it's correct). What need here is reliable sources, as that's the only thing that can be used to support a claim on Wikipedia (which, after all, is an encyclopedia which aggregates what other sources have published). If you can provide such a reliable source for what you say, then you should be able to add it to the article.

Also, I need to caution you against making personal attacks and uncivil comments - if you continue, and you fail to show good faith, you are likely to end up blocked - please have a read of WP:RS, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny once again. YADAV as last name is only used by yadav community. thats a fact and there is millions of evidence for it ( which wiki will accept ). It really shows the ignorance.. This is what happens if wikiadmin does nto agree they will block the user.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutradhari2000 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you do not provide reliable sources, we cannot help you. What if I said, "All Yadav are vegetarians, it's common knowledge, everyone who lives in India knows that." Would you believe me? No, you wouldn't. By the same logic, we need evidence from you in the form of reliable sources, or there is no way to know what is or isn't appropriate for an article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I could legally change my name tomorrow to "Humphrey Yadav", but would that make me a Yadav? No, of course it wouldn't, so the assertion that *all* people called "Yadav" are guaranteed to be Yadavs is a logical fallacy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: Re "there is millions of evidence for it ( which wiki will accept )" - it should be easy enough for you to provide us with some then, shouldn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is no one here understands how names are kept in India. India the land of mystery , the cradle of civilzation is hard to understand my friends. YADAV name is only used by YADAV community. please dont joke guys.

you want proof.. Studies in Indian history: with special reference to Tamil Nādu - Kolappa Pillay Kanakasabhapathi Pillay,, Indian history and epigraphy: Dr. G.S. Gai felicitation volume - K. V. Ramesh, S. P. Tewari, M. J. Sarma,, History of Tamilnad: to A.D. 1565 N. Subrahmanian,, A social history of the Tamils, Volume 1 - Kolappa Pillay Kanakasabhapathi Pillay,, The Tamils eighteen hundred years ago By V. Kanakasabhai,, Kerala State gazetteer, Volume 2, Part 1,, Social history of India By S. N. Sadasivan,, Studies in Tamil literature and history V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar,, Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu By T. Padmaja,, MSA Rao has written lot of books. ,, Social movements and social transformation: a study of two backward classes movements in India,, go to a library and read these books. Thats how articles are written. millions and millions of books in library.

http://books.google.com/books?id=F-_eR1isesMC&pg=PA94&dq=t+padmaja+krishna+temples&hl=en&ei=_vmYTtiEGIv8iQKRr7GbDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=mullai&f=false

a visit to a library is all it needs. HALF KNOWLEDGE IS DANGEROUS. well my friends reality is reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We have been through this time and again. Not one of the sources that have previously been provided state explicitly that the Yadav name is used solely by members of the Yadav community. Now, are you telling me that you have anything new to add to that? I ask because the list which you provide has pretty much all been covered previously. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And what about Humphrey Yadav? If I changed my name to that tomorrow and provided a deed poll as evidence, that would conclusively disprove all claims that *all* people called "Yadav" are Yadavs -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

£33 by deed poll, I believe. A couple called Pugh and Griffin have recently conjoined their names as Puffin. Anyway, I've been arguing this point on at least two other articles & will continue to do so (people called Nair in Scotland, for example, are often not related to Nair). The simple solution is to find some reliable sources 'for each individual whom the contributor(s) believe to be of the Yadav community. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

One thing is clear all the users have a clear lack of understanding of the indian castes, customs, traditions, naming. what a ignorance. I can only laugh at the explanation given. YADAV name is only used by YADAV community. its a clear lack of knowledge. I suggest everyone to first understand the traditions and the indian culture. so much ignorance in one place ,, wow amazing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

last but not least in india the name YADAV is ONLY USED BY YADAV COMMUNITY. the explanation given by other users show their lack of intellectual ability. funny, ,, bunny.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Singh is commonly associated with Sikhs ... but apparently Yadavs use it also. Regardless, if you do not like the Wikipedia system then you are free to go elsewhere. No-one is forcing you to contribute here. Repeating yourself and SHOUTING is not going to change a thing: you'll have to work with the policies etc, or get them changed by the wider community, or give up this campaign. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this thread now that the two major contributors who have been debating from a non-policy compliant viewpoint have been confirmed as sockpuppets? - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Lot of contentious labels citing unrepresentative evidences:Removing a few words like non-elite WP:LABEL

No doubt the article is written in a highly negative manner.A few authors may have described yadavs as non-elite but these publications should be read fully as they are referring only to some sections of yadavs.There are many sections in this umbrella group which cannot be called non elite. Invoking WP:LABEL ,I am removing non-elite which doesn;t deserve to be an opening statement for describing a community e.g. if u write an article on Pakistan,you don't start with :Pakistan is a country suspected of having terrorist affiliatins(just an example.There is much more to a community and the opening statement is pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cultcontri (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not do this. The issue has been discussed at length on this talk page. If you have already removed that information then I suggest that you self-revert. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read the discussions and the matter was not closed till the last post.You removed a lot of posts from discussion page,one of which I tried to undo(nothing else).Cite a reason for reverting my edit.I am doing that again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cultcontri (talk • contribs) 09:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed nothing from this page other than personal attacks and soapboxing. The discussions about status are littered throughout both the visible and archived content. WP:LABEL is not a satisfactory reason for removal of sourced content and indeed to remove such well-sourced content verges on a breach of WP:CENSORED. You cannot open a discussion, receive a response and then just go ahead and do your own thing. - Sitush (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What justification you have to say that WP:LABEL is not a valid reason.Just because you said it??Please don't undo my edits without citing proper reason.That is tantamount to abuse of the rollback powers.I'm not opening a new discussion.I am just invoking the right policies for proper edits.Just because a content is sourced doesn't make it valid to be put anywhere.I have cited a reason for removing non-elite.WP:CENSORED is a wrong invocation of policy. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cultcontri (talk • contribs) 09:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim appears to meet the requirement of WP:LABEL which says that such words "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." As the information is reliable sourced, and comes from a variety of sources, the term is appropriate. I'm going to revert you Cultcontri, though you are welcome to continue discussing here. You are also welcome to start dispute resolution on the matter. Since the labelling is an issue regarding POV, you could try WP:NPOVN, or you could open an Request for Comment here to get more editors involved. If you need help starting one of those, please let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

According to puranas and vedas,Yadavas are demi-gods ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotmaleBalram (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Two problems with that: first, sourced claims stating that "Yadav" is not the same thing as the group called "Yadava"; second, the puranas and vedas are primary religious documents, which are not reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Will you ever give some citation for your claims???? You should 1) give a valid source that yadava and yadav are two different things. 2) anybody except for Susan Bylay has used the term non-elite. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yadav/Yadav has been discussed ad inifinitum, including at a withdrawn merge proposal that you chose specifically not to participate in. It is done and dusted unless you have any new sources which you wish to introduce. You know all this, so whinging and/or stirring the pot as above seems intended to be disruptive rather than a positive contribution to development of this article. Please do not do it.

We could use "shudra" rather than "non-elite", if you would prefer that. It is, after all, the other commonly used term. Non-elite is favoured as it is the one used by the most recent scholars and because there is a subtle difference: not being elite means what it says, without the overtones of the ritualised varna system and all the baggage that has carried. If modern scholars such as the internationally respected Susan Bayly use it to describe Yadav etc then it will do for me.

Anyway, my basic point is that your habit of wandering away for a few weeks and then coming back to revitalise old discussions without advancing anything really isn't a great idea. I appreciate that real life gets in the way of Wikipedia contributions, but in your case you are always aware of the backstory & you should by now be well aware of WP:CONSENSUS - live with it, or take it to a higher level such as WP:NPOVN or even an RfC as has previously been explained to you on several occasions. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Page missing a lot of positives of yadavas

The page seems to be written with an agenda(of course not a positive one).What about abhira dynasty, devagiri yadavas and yayati narrative.Well I studies Indian castes for a long time and the references cited are not the ones generally well respected in academic circles.Also evaluate the conflict of interest of the authors and editors.Will try to positively contribute to article soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorpan (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Before you contribute, please try to read the extensive discussions on this talk page. I think that you will find that most of the points you might be wanting to raise have already been covered here. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A lot of cites has been discussed and Pak army is still occupying a vast territory inside Kashmir. it is highly unlikely that peace talks are any solution. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Present status as dominant rural peasant caste and removing traditionally non-elite as per WP:REL TIME

I am editing the opening statement to state the present status of being a rural dominant caste and removing traditionally non-elite as per WP:REL TIME to remove the bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cultcontri (talk • contribs) 10:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not, please. I think that would result in you being blocked for a breach of WP:3RR, regarding which you have already been warned. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you warning him like this.He has made a valid edit.He has cited a reference as well(that too very respectable).Yadav are a dominant caste as per six conditions of Srinivas.I myself attended a lecture by Srinivas mentioning yadavs as dominant caste a few years back.Will soon post the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorpan (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, since an sockpuppet investigation has suggested that you are "highly likely" to be a sock of Cultcontri, please forgive me if I do not place too much faith in your comments. Honestly, the amount of socking that goes on here is ridiculous and it makes it very difficult to assume good faith about any fairly new contributor, which is both sad and unfortunate because some will probably be genuine. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't make a direct personal attack without evidence.Your personal faith is largely immaterial.I was just helping a person who made a valid edit.I watched the article a couple of days back and I'm wathching it since then.How can you personally attack a person who is finding time to improve an article.I am no socket of anybody.Don't vandalise the article please by rollbacking valid attacks.The article has been brought to the notice of some Indian academicians and they are expected to intervene or contribute in a more strong way soon.Invoking a request to ban you for WP:NOT YOU and using rollback unnecessarily without proper reason Utmost Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorpan (talk • contribs) 11:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dewan357 - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow!I don't mind any fair investigation

To be honest, every message you leave here is tending to prove the point further. I cannot elaborate on that, however. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's really weird.I joined wikipedia for constructive contribution and i'm now a highly likely match to somebody.I don't have any vested interests in editing these articles(some may have).Write whatever u want to.Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorpan (talk • contribs) 12:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sockpuppeting is done by admins on wikipedia. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that to be the case, you are very welcome to present your evidence at WP:SPI -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yadav is not Yadav!!!!!!

@ sitush, f&f, qwerxian, ikonoblast etc etc.

Talk about logic: If you dont believe that Yadavs are not Yadavs, then you question their very contemporary existence. How do you define who are Yadavs?? Who are yadavs? where are yadavs? what is their population? Whom are you trying to write about? Get your fundamentals clear people!

Some more funny aspects: -> Pictures posted in this page are of bona fide yadavs - as certified by our editors -> A "Yadav" is different from a "Yadava" - just like Britain is different from England -> All other versions of Wikipedia (see history of this page before August) were trash. They got published not by references to authentic sources, but they were "original research" - or "unreliable" -> Dissenting voices are suppressed

Have you guys ever tried working on pages called Democracy and Freedom?? I am sure that will lead to a better wikipedia - in its truest spirit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.74.181 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia - if you want to learn about what is needed to support material added to articles, you might want to have a look at our reliable source policy, and at the requirement for verifiability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the Article

I have added the work of Meenakshi Jain, who is an eminent Historian at DU. I would also be contributing on Demographics. Since, caste based population figs, are not available officially, we can rely on sociologists. An insight had been provided by Yogendra Yadav, which is quoted by many scholars now, was in my hand.I would try to find it again and put here. K.C. Yadav and JNS works too need inclusion. Phrases like "reconstructing the history", "redrawing from past" were actually first introduced by KC yadav which already has place here. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted you - see below. You are well aware that this is a contentious article, that the points you raise are particularly contentious and that therefore you should discuss here first. - Sitush (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS is all one sd care. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Jain's view

Jain says

According to the late Prof. M. S. A. Rao (on whose work this article is largely based) two specific principles were used to incorporate various related castes into the larger Yadava category. The Ahir, GayIi, Golla, Gopa and Goala castes were stated to have an affinity to the Abhiras and Gopas who in turn were associated with Lord Krishna and the Yadu dynasty to which he belonged. All these castes were regarded as Yadavas and were free to follow any profession.

In fact Yadavs had served as kings, chieftains, soldiers, zamindars, owner cultivators in addition to being cowherds and cattle breeders. There is ample historical evidence of their political dominance in many parts of the country from around the second century B.C. right up to the 14th century A.D. when the rise of Muslim power put a check on their power. But even under Muslim rule Ahir and Golla chieftains remained important power centres. A Yadava kingdom flourished in Devagiri as late as the 13th century. The most recent Ahir kingdom centred around Rewari in the 18th century.

in the Indian Express here. The claim is that the full article is based largely on the work of M. S. A. Rao. Fine, except we have already determined that Rao is utterly incomprehensible in his meanderings between Yadav and Yadava and, furthermore, the second paragraph above reads more like Jain contesting Rao than accepting him. Who is Jain? What academic qualifications does that person have? And, crucially, what connections (if any) might they have to the Yadav community? - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BTW, the added point was also a copyvio - something that the contributor does a lot and appears to consider acceptable despite past warnings. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have problems related to comprehension then you should stop posting here. Meenaksi Jain is a very well qualified Historian and Jains are not Hindu Ikon ^No-Blast 21:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are being obtuse. I know that Jainism is not Hinduism. But who is Jain. Just having that name does not make them a follower of Jainism. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually know someone whose surname is Jain - and he's not a Jain -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually know Meenakshi Jain is Jain by religion. Herfather was editor of Times of India. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)