Talk:Yadav

Neutral Point of View Tag

Dear editors WP:DUE I am putting the NPOV tag due to the following reasons: The title gives undue less weight to socially better off sections of Yadavs who also claim descent from Yadu like Seuna Yadavas of Devgiri,Raos of Rewari,Mahendragarh and Rajasthan,Ahirs of Khandesh,Junagarh etc .Even disambiguation page doesnt do justice to this.Please either change the title of article suitably or make it more inclusive. Please remove the picture writing Aheers as Shudras as many sections are regarded as Kshatriyas like Chudasama Ahirs,Raos and Ahirwads WP:IMPARTIAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiansociology (talk • contribs) 09:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the tag. I see no bias and you provide no evidence. Feel free to list some reliable sources supporting your opinion and be bold in adding information as appropriate. But bear in mind that there is a distinction between Yadav and Ahir and that the distinction has been discussed in copious detail on this talk page during the last couple of years. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sitush,Iam putting the tag again as it has a picture which shows aheers as shudras.If there is a distinction between ahir and yadav and this article stands for distinct community,then that picture should be out of scope — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiansociology (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that you need to read the article, not skim it. I'm fairly sure that the image has been discussed previously but in any event inserting a tag just because of the image is ridiculous. Just carry on discussing. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand dear editor why it is ridiculous when the image itself labels an important constituent of Yadav community whose constituents are not homogenous in social stratification.This is opening image of the article and potentially makes the article not neutral as per WP:BALASPS.Reinserting the tag.Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiansociology (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that I agree with you. If the image is removed, can the tag be removed? - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Indiansociology"Indiansociology, this article is not showing historical and social standing of Yadav. These books are taken as reliable at the same time, if you provide an older reference such as British Time consensus, which put Yadav/Ahir/Golla, in same category, wiki page admins, suggest 1871/81 census record in poor and not upto the standard. If you provide link of more recent books, Again wiki page admins, says these books are not suggesting correct thing. Whole approch to accept one source and question another is completely biased with malice intention. There is a systematic attempt to show Yadav in bad-light for some malice reason, by a group of individuals. The reality was never close to what is reflected in the wiki page here. The books referenced here, were written by individual without any subject matter, and the based on the info shared from malice sources within country, without take the stakeholders(People from Same/similar communities - (Yadav/Thakur/Baniya/Jat/Gurjjar/Pal/Kurmi/Rajput) in account. Raj the one (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC

Even I agree with Indiansociology & Raj the one this article has been written with malafied intent to demean a community and many words which are objectionable to many should be removed. No reliable source has been cited to prove Ahir (yadav) as shudra. The four varnas are creation of Hindu system of law and even manusmriti has not mentioned Abhir's as SHudra. The Shloka of manusmriti says, "A Brahmana begets on the daughter of an Ugra an Avrita, on the daughter of an Ambashtha an Abhira, but on a female of the Ayogava (caste) a Dhigvana." [v.10.15.] And selling of milk is considered as Vaisya karma. The three duties of vaishya mentioned in shastra are agriculture, cattle rearing and trading. So in both the cases, Ahir or yadavs cannot be accorded the status of Shudra. In Fact the word Ahir find no mention in ancient texts. Even i doubt the neutrality of this article and demand NPOV tag.--Lalji8331 (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

well, I must not comment on anybody's view but just putting my own opinion here. I can't consider the article to be neutral because i find the matter available in it takes it totally out of track. It is less about the caste Yadav but more about Sanskrtisation and All India Yadav Mahasabha and these two are different anthropological matters. The article lacks neutrality because all the raj historians and their accounts are treated unreliable due to the fact that british people have poor understanding of indian sociology but on the other hand the accounts of David Mandelbaum are considered reliable, why? He is also an american anthropologist and certainly may have poor understanding about internal structure of Indian sociology. He says that cow keeping is a polluting act, where as the cow is a divine figure in Hinduism, If we remember the word "Kamdhenu" and there are thousands of mythological stories and practical example of donating cows to Brahmins as a religious ritual. The places of worship are till date purified by cow dung. So is all this not simply playing with the religious sentiments of all the Hindus? One more thing about "caste in mythology", is it really needed? The origin of almost all the castes in Hinduism is associated with such myths only and there is no clear proof of any caste having a well maintained or reliable source in Indian history to prove claimed origins. Then why only Yadav article be made victim of this? The so called process of Sanskritisation includes many castes like Ahir, Kurmi, Kori, Kachchi, Kahar, Kumhar, Mali, lodhi, kirar, ahirwar and many more, but when I read about any of these on Wiki, Sanskritisation is not stressed or stretched up to such a length as is done with this particular article. If any one reads the article then the actual theme of the article is that the people associated with this caste have nothing good about them, and if something good is written somewhere about the caste then it is by mistake and is unreliable. I am sorry to say so but I by no means find this article to be projecting neutral point of view.-Mahensingha (talk)Mahensingha 19:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you're both agreeing with people who have been blocked for disruption and.or socking, so the reignition of this thread is probably isn't going to go anywhere. However, can the pair of you please review WP:RS and WP:OR. We present reliable information with a weight appropriate to how it is presented in sources, and we don't rely on our own interpretation of ancient texts. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Situs, whoever disagrees with you is been blocked, even I got warning. It seems there is a nexus between you and administrator and with malafide interest. You people work to distort facts and present some particular communities in negative light. Lets rope in a neutral mediator to solve this dispute. Because you are giving mere talks and no reliable source to prove your point that Aheers are shudra. Mind it once again you cannot be selective in choosing reliable and unreliable sources. If Raj sources are unreliable so will be this picture which is been put here with an intention to brand yadav's as Shudra. What is your love with this picture. You seem to be a casteist person with caste prejudice and supremacy mindset. Sitting in UK, you have no right to decide on topics related to Indian caste system. No writer or british books can tag Ahir's as shudra. And, in modern context there is no authority to decide Varna of any caste. Its only the ancient text that can be taken as to be reliable. You have no knowledge about any topic. You collect bits a pieces from here and there and put it just to paint a negative picture. And you have all problem with pages related to Backward Castes only. The majority here is in support of removing the picture, its only Sitush who is having a fad for this picture.--Lalji8331 (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sitush this article speaks that rearing cow is a polluting act, but in mahabharata Bhisma describes it in detail to be duty of the Vaishya community. The link for the same is given here If not convinced please find a copy of Mahabharata and read your self. Now tell me who has the authority to decide this matter relating to hinduism? Some english author or Ancient script?--Lalji8331 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to find a mediator then feel free to do so - at least one process has been explained to you on your talk page and others can be found here. Please note that I did not add the image in the first place, that I rarely get involved in image-related issues because I am a philistine when it comes to pictures and they bore me. furthermore, despite your claim that "you have all problem with pages related to Backward Castes only", I have in fact edited extensively on articles relating to Nair, Brahmin, Raju etc and am thus not limited to OBCs. If you're going to try to shoot me down then you'll need to use a sniper's rifle, not a shotgun.

You need to stop making accusations about a nexus between myself and admins and you need to stop accusing me of casteism, since both might be considered personal attacks, especially since my efforts have frequently been subject to admin scrutiny at venues such as WP:ANI. You also need to read WP:PRIMARY and note that the Mahabharata is not merely an ancient text but a contradictory one that was compiled over several hundred years - it is no more reliable as a source than the Bible or the Koran. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If that is not reliable then who is reliable ti decide varna of a particular community. You seem to be well-versed with all rules and regulations. I don't find your sources fit enough to decide varna of a community. I wont belive on a british writer saying ahir are shudra. What knowledge they have in this matter. So kindly remove the picture. I am urging you with all civility.--Lalji8331 (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Lalji8331. Sitush has wrong intention in this mind. This article should be maintained by Neutral Person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ursbalaram (talk • contribs) 16:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sitush & Co Unfortunately there is no document in the world that is absolutely "RELIABLE". The term that is so often used by you people is not understood by yourselves. There is no gold standard of the term reliable. A source becomes "reliable" when it is accepted by well known scholars, who have such reputation that their individual opinion is deemed "reliable". Therefore, when the reliability of a source can be compared to the judgement of a jury - Each judge may have different opinion on a case, and the "reliability" of every judge is equally potent. However, action relies on the judgement of the jury. Then the reliability of the individual judge doesn't matter.

Therefore the term "reliability" is not absolute. It is relative.

Another example: The very people who were terrorists before independence in all the "reliable" sources that you can muster, become freedom fighters and fathers of a new nation and dispensation. Then when the new govt is recognised by powere-that-be, it can be reliably said that the terrorists of the yore are now freedom fighters.

Similarly, the admins of this post have to shed being judges of what are essentially subjective arguments - if the term "non-elite" is fraught with negativity; if the pictures posted present an unflattering image of the yadavs; if the source referring to the yadavs as "shudras" is reliable etc.

If a guy calls the entire village to be mad, it becomes sufficient evidence that the person is insane. Therefore it is my personal advice to the admins of this post that since man's time in this world is limited, one can't protect one's properties forever. They have to be ultimately yielded, even if it is to one's own son, who might very well be a squanderer.

Therefore there is nothing wrong if a large section of informed editors exercise their right to protest wrongful representation of facts. If there were no wrong interpretation of documents, rules and books, there would be no lawyers or courts. And, therefore you are advised, in larger interest, to mend your ways. There is no harm in putting a tag for discussion or removing an unflattering picture of a person, however true it may be. Eg: 1) It is inappropriate that a Queen's profile photo on wikipedia should be with her boyfriend. 2) It is inappropriate that a President's profile photo on wikipedia should be while picking his nose in a conference.

If you don't understand the above logically presented arguments WITH EXAMPLES, then either you 1) have vested interest in misrepresenting a major section following a major religion of the world or 2) have lost all sense of logic, either wilfully or by accident 3) unfit as editors at wikipedia.

I wonder if there can be a civil case that can be filed against you in court. Please include you full names (including aliases if any) with full address in your profiles. It will be of great help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.18.125 (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and WP:NLT. Then perhaps shut up. I'm fed up of Yadav POV pushers coming here with the intention of usurping Wikipedia's policies. There is nothing to stop you creating your own web pages on other sites etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Look who's offended.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith - need a refresher on wikipedia's civility and good faith policies, eh mr sutish? how about reading the above links too, sometimes, just in case you forgot that these things existed...

Or, that now you are the judge and the jury, don't need these at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.19.87 (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, Your words are speaking your mind. certainly you're putting this article in negative light. You're editing Narendra Modi Page and Yadav page. it shows your sick mind. wiki isn't place for your political tricks.

Lead Section

The negative terms like "Non-Elite" may be avoided in the lead section. There is no harm if the same is included in the following sections of the article. It gives an appearance as if the article is written to highlight negative features of the caste. The article includes people from various categories like herdsmen from different parts of India and other countries along with the royal families of Haryana. Its well understood that the term Non-Elite does not match with these royal people of Yadav dynasty from Haryana . As far as, I remember the same caste appears as Elite Proprietors in the Book "Elites of Asia". Hence the negative terms may be avoided in the lead Section. Thanx Mahensingha 20:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The lead requires a reliably sourced succinct NPOV definition. The reliably sourced (scholarly) definition says, "traditionally non-elite." There is nothing negative about non-elite. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014

According to me,this article has nothing to be called as "neutral".The tag of "non-elite pastoral community"should be removed because the author doesn't have much knowledge about the past and present situation of the yadavs.Today not all yadavs are related with pastoral works.But today most of them are working under government,private,politics sectors etc.They are involved in every field.By the way as much of the proof can be seen to this,this tag should be immediately removed.Besides this,regular updates must be done to all the articles of wikipedia according to the present situation.In parallel to this,the description of yadavs under sudra category is"unacceptable and cannot be tolerated at all".I think wikipedia should think of not only the thoughts of some authors but should see to the interests of the whole community related to the article.

59.94.169.19 (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for removal of Picture describing Aheers as Shudra from the lead section

Sitush, I have a question for you. In our discussion on Ahir page you said me “Sources written by administrators of the British Raj and the earlier East India Company administrators are not considered to be reliable. This is not some autocratic decision but rather a consensus that has formed across a multitude of articles relating to Indian castes, history etc and it covers such things as the census and the gazetteers, not just the ethnographic studies.” Here in the lead section there is picture from the Raj period. The source is a book “The people of India” published in 1869. I believe it is raj period and editors are East India Company administrators. Above in your talks you have defended this highly objectionable picture. This is a highly unreliable source and picture is offensive. Please remove this picture depicting Aheers as Shudra from the lead section. It seem you have double standards and preferences and your intentions are under serious doubt. My edits from AHir page have been removed by Sitush giving the same argument that source from Raj period in matter of castes History are not reliable. Explain me about this double standard. Admin I request you to grant me permission to remove this picture from the lead section. since, source is from Raj period and unreliable. --Lalji8331 (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored - if something causes some people offence then that is just tough, especially if those people come from such a self-glorifying caste as the Yadavs. The image, and others from that source, have been discussed on umpteen occasions. Nothing is likely to change now. I said that Raj sources are unreliable for history etc: I'm not aware that anyone has ever questioned whether the people depicted are in fact Yadav and I doubt very much that anyone could do so. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You can put the picture, but what about stereotyping, the words portrayed below. And were you present while the pictures were been clicked, or, do you personally know the people in pictures. What makes you so confident that the people in pictures are Ahirs. Its only the text given by Raj ethnographers, Right? Now you believe on them in this matter, but as per your convenience reject them. Cut out the words which say Aheers as shudra and then put the pictures. Why are you believing on Raj sources which say aheers as Shudra and not ready to believe other Raj sources which have praises for Ahir. Who are you to take decision? Sitush you are trying to be selective and with pre conceived notion. You are behaving too rigid. You can't be selective for sources as per your convenience. If you reject Raj sources so it should apply to every thing and not change as per your convenience. Who is the admin here, I want a proper solution for this matter. You can't boss over everything. --Lalji8331 (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, regarding consensus, most people in talk page above want removal of this picture and tag. Its only you who is rigid. So, as per consensus it should be removed.--Lalji8331 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:CONSENSUS? It is not a simple vote and virtually everyone who has argued for exclusion before now has done so ont eh basis that the photograph apparently maligns the caste in some way. God only knows what way because they've never actually explained it. Consensus is based on arguments that comply with policy, not subjectivism. That we are not censored is a policy.

This article has been prominent among those where members of a caste have attempted tendentiously to censor and to glorify - many have ended up being blocked from contributing for their disruptive behaviour and I'd hate to see another one (you) go the same way. Please read that link and, with regard to your other points, see WP:NPOV. Unless you can demonstrate a willingness to understand the policies as people present them to you, you're not likely to find this a pleasant environment, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, I am a journalist for a print media company. I am been told that, in order to be neutral, article should present views of both side. It should be left on the reader to make his mind and article should not force the reader to believe on a particular point of view. Now here you block all opposite views and just stick to your belief. Claim all sources to be unreliable other than yours and still speak of the article to be neutral. You provide some link of rules and regulations to show that you are a master of wikipedia and no one can challenge your authority. Is this the way you deal with views that oppose you. This article is promoting a particular view that Ahirs are shudra and very low caste downgraded people. It is evident from the lead of this section. It is nothing but stereotyping a community to be shudra without any solid and reliable source. Is this neutrality? Prove your claim and please enlighten me as to who is the authority to decide varna of a particular caste. Is it ancient texts or modern ethnographer and casteist authors. Now you will say bring sources, but you oppose all source and claim them to be unreliable. This has been the strategy of High Castes, since ancient ages to make other belive that they belong to low classes and break their morale. I fear you also belong to the same class of people and are here with same intention. You don't have any problem with pages glorifying rajputs and brahmins. Just read the lead of brahmin community and tell me, isnt that lead intended to glorify the community. Brahmins are said to be link between Human and God, also the lead discusses about military pursuits of brahmins. It has no mention about the wandering of Brahmins for alm, which was their profession. Its been said Bhiksha is the only asset of brahmins. You wont have any problem with this glorification, but will poke your nose in matters relating to Ahirs. I am sorry to say you are casteist. Many writes have spoken about brahmins dividing the society for their benefit and ill treating other low castes. Why don't you include these facts in the lead. Sitush your heart know that you are biased, prove your innocence to yourself not me. The maximum, I can do is leave Wikipedia and yo are anyways free for your pursuits. --Lalji8331 (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia paraphrase reliable sources that are cited to provide verifiability of the statements made. This article is peppered with such sources. WP:NPOV says that we should show all reliably-sourced opinions and that they should be shown with due regard for the prominence of those opinions in the literature. So, if you can find a preponderance of reliable sources that demonstrate the Yadavs were, for example, kshatriya then we would show that while still noting that a there is a less common opinion that they were shudra. You can yell and scream and threaten all you want, but it will not make a blind bit of difference. This article has been edited and reviewed by some of our most experienced contributors to caste-related content but that does not mean it is perfect. If you want to achieve change then all you have to do is follow the advice that has been given to you regarding our various policies. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that just being a good editor doesn't makes a person knowledgeable. WIth my next edit i will present you reliable sources. But, again i say Raj sources are not reliable and the picture should be removed. The picture is opinionated. I want to bring to your notice that brahmin section is highly glorified. Please spare some time for that page also and make it more general and less opinionated. Its a request, anyways i will do it on my own also. --Lalji8331 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The picture is there as a historical record, of a time when the Indian caste system was recognized both by the government of the day (the British Raj) and by scholars of the day who studies the caste system and recorded photographic evidence of the people it classified. Since 1947, "caste" has not been officially recognized in India. The only people who are "offended" by the picture are people who continue to believe in its hierarchies, otherwise why would they consider the branding "soodra" an insult. Unlike the non-elite pastoral and tiller communities of South India, which chose to opt out of caste, those of North India (such as Aheers, Gwalas, Jats, and to a lesser extent the Kurmis) have attempted to raise their status within the hierarchy by concocting mythological histories. Why is the much sought after Kshatria status less insulting than the Shudra? Again, it is insulting only to those who still subscribe to the old caste system's values. Wikipedia has no such allegiances. As Sitush has already made clear, there is little chance that the picture will be removed because because it is not in line with a community's new found conceits. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What's with this weird focus on showing the Yadavs their place? The two people on this page (Sitush and Fowler) also seem to be involved in similar activities on the Jat and other community pages. Why does Wikipedia's primary article on an entire community focus upon their alleged lowness in the past in the eyes of some other communities? It's almost like the articles on Black Americans focuses primarily on how they were viewed as slaves and inferiors by whites, instead of focusing on their own perceptions of themselves. And are now making up festivals like Kwanzaa to claim higher cultural status for themselves. In other words, the tone of this article and many others edited by Sitush seem to be, yesteryear's underdogs need to be kept in their place and not allowed to create a history for themselves that would bring them pride. I don't agree with glorification of some fake heritage but there is something to be said for not hating on and aggressing against every attempt by a community to spin a narrative for itself. Should black americans continue to only have slavery to look back on? Should they not be allowed to feel connection, however tenuous, to black empires back in medieval Africa? In a hundred years from now, Blacks should feel no pride in Obama, instead they should continue to feel backward, weak, defeated? This sucks. These editors seem to want to institutionalize the social order of the 19th century as the be- all and end-all of human history. Whites on top, Nambudiri Brahmins on top, everyone else is "non-elite". No one else is supposed to have any pride in their family line because Sitush and Fowler have decreed that everyone in their family tree was basically a slave. Way to go guys, crush those inferior people who are grasping at straws to make themselves an identity they can be proud of. Maybe you should also edit the "indian people" article to emphasize that 19th century European orientalists considered Indians to be dirty, savage and superstitious, and now they are trying to make up a spurious history of greatness for themselves. How dare they, they should remain in their place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.45.66.147 (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yadav last name

Shouldn't it be mentioned that all Yadavs have the surname Yadav?

• Please provide reliable source for that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I came to this article to investigate that very question..."Do all Yadavs share the same surname?" Is there an answer? ```Buster Seven Talk 14:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:Helpdesk is the place to ask. Although common sense would suggest that opening statement of this section is just plain unverifiable. You might also wish to read [User:Sitush/Common#Castelists]]. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2014

Jadhav refers to a grouping of traditionally non-elite, pastoral communities, or castes, in India and Nepal that since the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has claimed descent from the mythological King Yadu as a part of a movement of social and political resurgence.

Vajrr (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: I have played "spot the difference" between this request and the existing article, for some time, and the only difference I can see is you appear to have inserted a blank reference.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please do not rewrite sections of the article and ask them to be pasted in without explaining what the difference is. - Arjayay (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)