Talk:Yadav

Villages in Delhi NCR

Do we really need the list of villages in Delhi NCR. Could it not be summarised as, say, "there are numerous villages in the region that are referred to as being Yadav villages, for example X, Y, Z.^citation" - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush are you want to make this articles of just 50 words?Bill clinton history (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush is right here--we don't need to list every single village, since 1) most of the list is unsourced, 2) it's guaranteed to be incomplete, 3) this section gives undue prominence to the NDCR, and most importantly, 4) per WP:NOT, we are not an indiscriminate list of information. Our job is to provide encyclopedic summaries of information, not tiny details. This is no different than the fact that we don't list every city that major companies have branches in, or every possible dish that can be made with a particular food ingredient. Having said that, I personally recommend leaving the list for now until we can figure out a good summary, and figure what source would be best. Like, if there are a few villages that are really really well known as Yadav villages (or have particular historical importance as a seat of Yadav influence/holdings/power), then I could see including those specific ones (of course, we need RS). Since this article is in such heavy flux, I don't think it's a pressing issue that needs to be blanked prior to establishing a decent replacement. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The list of these villages is more productive than section of changing nature which sitush has been created.he want to write the entire article from only one source which not directly related to our topic.he has written about 3000 words in that section.this is really gives undue prominence to one region,one book,one issue.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed your indents, Bill. Since I keep having to do this, let me explain: each time you add a ":" it indents one step further to the right on the page. The aim is to be one step further over than the preceding message.

Now, to my point - there are at least two ok sources used for some of those villages, being Rao's "Urbanisation and social change" and Qureshi/Mathur's "A geo-economic evaluation for micro level planning". - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, you are correct that if Sitush writes a whole 3000 word section (or, really, even a 300 word section) based entirely on one book, it would be WP:UNDUE. Sitush has indicated that he'll be using at least half a dozen, though, so that really won't be a problem (eventually); I've recommended below that a sandbox might make it easier to not have to deal with in-process deletions.

Regarding this section, though, please explain how the list of villages is "productive" in a Wikipedia sense. One thing we're all trying to work on here is helping you see that what you (or I) think is interesting, productive, accurate, or useful doesn't matter--it matters what the guidelines tell us. In this case, the list suffers from the problems I identified above, most importantly, probably violating WP:NOT. Could you explain why you believe that this incomplete but extensive list of villages in only one specific region of India deserves its own section and such a long list? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Only supporting editor over the last month is banned as a sockpuppet. I've perused the references (which don't even cover the majority of claims) and they tend to be very passing mentions, and/or do not mentiont the term "Yadav" at all, again getting back to the Yadav-Ahir conflation issue. Removing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yadavs = Yadavas

Bill clinton history, let's try to resolve this once and for all. Please can you list below your five "best" sources which state that the modern day Yadavs are the same community as were once known as Yadavas. The usual reliable sources stipulations apply. Should it happen that any of your five are thought to be unreliable then you can take which ever one(s) are so thought to the reliable sources noticeboard for third party opinion. To save you some effort, I will consider as unreliable any source that it written by a member of the Yadav community - this should not present problems for you if the situation is as clear-cut as you believe, - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As mere words, Yadav and Yadava can be used interchangeably since they both are romanizations of the Indic word "यादव". However, claiming that Yadvas of Devagiri were same as the modern Yadav caste(s) is wrong. The Yadavas of Devagiri claimed descent from the ancient Yadavas of Mathura. The modern Yadav communities also claim descent from the same group. This doesn't mean that both of them belong to the same 'caste' or community. The article on the Devagiri dynasty lists multiple theories about their origin. The politics of the urban poor in early twentieth-century India by Nandini Gooptu (page 205) mentions how castes like Ahirs started claiming Yadav descent.

I've mentioned this multiple times during Yadav-related discussions: there are a number of tribes that claim descent from Yadu. It was very common for Indian dynasties to claim divine descent (in this case, through Krishna), and this is also true for several modern Indian castes. But that doesn't mean that all these groups are related. Some of them might be related to each other, but even in that case, there is no need to duplicate content.

This article should only be about the modern communities (Ahir etc.) that claim descent from the Yadavas. The users who want to contribute content related to the ancient or medieval dynasties may add them to respective articles, and add include a reference to those articles at Yadav (disambiguation). utcursch | talk 16:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder where the section Ahir as yadavas has gone. This article is banking too much on sanskritization nonesense. sanskritization is not a historical phenomenon it was just a socialogical concept introduced by s. n. srinivasan which does not have carry universal acceptance among scholars. Dare to show me a historian arguing on this line. Ikon ^No-Blast 07:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why most of the non-yadav members out here want to accept the content written in the book of Nandini Goptu as final authority related to yadav history. The book written by Nandini Goptu is controversial and publised in post independent india, with lots of political consideration. the updates on this book come as late as 2003 and 2005. We sould rely on British census data to understand the yadav's history as that is more historical than these mordern book, written in US, made available in public space, for wrongly motivated reasons of indian politicos. the_one 122.161.65.94 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I iterated this thousand times, that this sanskritization is not what yadav represents. Most yadav do not care about anything remotely with sanskritisation. 122.161.65.94 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why this user utcursch again and again comes to modify the yadav page, dispite the fact that he never respond on yadav related topics, when queries on his talk page. Mend Mr. [User:Utcursch|utcursch] or respond. 122.161.65.94 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody says that Nandini Goptu is the "final authority". Find a reliable source for the claims you make, and they'll be included in the article. Some users have been adding content about ancient tribes, but have failed to source it. The sources added by them talk about the ancient tribes and do not indicate any connection except 'claimed descent'.

By the way, I've not blocked any of the users involved in this discussion. I have made only 6 edits to the actual article in the whole year. The edits which you're concerned about have been made by other users (backed up with solid references). Most of my time has been spent raising concerns on the talk page, so the contentious issues can be resolved through consensus. It's another story that some users refuse to be involved in discussion, and simply accuse others of being malicious.

Also, a pro-tip: Stop looking at anyone who questions your opinion as a 'rival' with some kind of personal agenda against your caste. The editors demanding better sources for your claims have no enmity with the Yadavs or any other caste -- they are concerned about such caste-related articles, because they don't want them to turn into puff pieces that are embarrassing to Wikipedia. People will be more open to your viewpoints, if you discuss things calmly and rationally instead of threatening, slandering and making personal attacks. Learn to assume good faith. utcursch | talk 20:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

yadavs are chandravansh khastriyas

The golden book of India: a genealogical and biograhical dictionary By Sir Roper Lethbridge

in this book see page 138. It mentions yadavs as chandravash khastriyas. Majority of scholars agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truefact1979 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Lethbridge is a poor source but, regardless, the point is not that the claim is made but that there are diverging opinions. In such situations, we have to show those various opinions. We cannot just cherry-pick one and ignore the others. - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mt Siteush, here we should put facts which are more relevant to the context, instead of mentioning about other sources, please justify the credibility of those sources. Just because some sources are satisfying your ego, and your personal motivated plans, it does not give the content enough credibility to put it on wikipedia instead of someone elses content. You are simply getting emotional..Mr Sitush. Instead of doctoring the content here, see a good doctor if you can find one. 122.161.13.115 (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Dumping a draft here for now

Below is something that I drafted but which is currently unsuitable for the article (weight, mainly). It may have its uses at some point.

In relation specifically to her field study of a town in Mathura in the period 1998-2000, Michelutti has said that despite being very much a minority community in that town, "I think that the Yadav community appears numerically strong and politically powerful because of its impressive organisation. It is its political activism and its reputation for aggressiveness and violence that make the community visible." Their involvement in illegalities such as extortion and protection rackets are also a "prominent" feature of their economic activity. The success of the local AIYM in yadavisation means that most of the community members see themselves as Yadav rather than, say, Ahir, and adopt the umbrella identity of Krishnavanshi Yadav rather than the older subdivisions of Yadavanishi, Nandavanshi and Goallavnashi Yadavs. Local and clan deities are being forsaken in favour of the common god of Krishna, whom they also believe to be the first politically democratic leader. Her analysis of the effects of the self-glorifying, self-promoting and self-documenting content of numerous Yadav publications, local and national, plentiful and often given away freely or sold cheaply to potential readers, leads her to the conclusion that "Amusing though such statements may appear, many informants were convinced that the Yadavs were natural vessels of 'democratic' values ... These narratives are marked by a similarity of structure, language and content, and by repetitiveness (a feature characteristic of essentialist rhetoric." She sees similarities with the wider Yadav community and notes that the speeches of Yadav leaders, such as Lalu Prasad Yadav, mirror the patterns of content and rhetoric espoused in the literature.

- Sitush (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Forking

At some point there will definitely now have to be a fork of the caste association stuff + at least a part of the sanskritisation/yadavisation. I am still developing it and the article is becoming somewhat WP:UNDUE.

I was surprised that no such separate article already exists - could someone else please just do a quick check in case, for example, it is sitting somewhere with a slightly modified title. - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

:With the proviso that the discussion is about the conduct of Thisthat2011 and not this article. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Now irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Templates

There are two templates in place which seem possibly to be inappropriate. Both templates refer to Ahirs, not the wider group of communities that makes up the Yadavs. The Kshatriya communities template is a disputed issue, and the one listing ethnic groups, social groups & tribes of the Punjab seems to be hopelessly undue weight even in the Ahir context (Ahir appears to mention a swathe of places of origin & of current abode).

Can we not remove them both? - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed over a week with no objections raised. Removing, and they can be discussed for restoration if later objections arise. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Divine Heritage of the Yadavas

I started a stub for this book, which seems historically significant and has a good amount of secondary academic coverage: The Divine Heritage of the Yadavas. Adding here due to crossover interest. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Good. It was on my to do list. You are right to say that it is referred to by a fair few academics. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are the article and the talk protected at the same time?

Why are the article and its talk page protected at the same time? It is against WP:PP?-MW ^ℳ 08:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That question needs to be asked of the protecting admin, who may not follow the article etc. They review the logs prior to protecting and I note that the admin in this case specifically refers to those logs in their protection rationale for the article. However, I'll ask for you. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the protecting admin may not have been aware that the talk page too was protected.-MW ^ℳ 11:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I note that it is not actually against WP:PP to semi-pp both article and its talk page - "If the page in question and its talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions." Given the history of problems with both of these pages, some of which certainly have spiralled out on to user talk pages, there could be a perfectly reasonable rationale for the decision.

Perhaps what is needed is some sort of banner that directs people to WP:Request for edit when appropriate? - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No. "If the page in question and its talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions." does not mean that both the talk page and the article can be protected at the same time. It is only giving advice to IP's and new users on what to do if they face such a situation. If you look a little below, it says, A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time. It is very clear. An article and its talk page both cannot be protected at the same time. Either the talk or the article should be unprotected.-MW ^ℳ 13:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Should" is not the same as "must". (Post-ec note: I see that the TP has now been unprotected but will be monitored - we'll see how tihngs go). - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 10 September 20

If the PP policy says that both should not be protected at the same time, there must have been some good reason for saying so. I have never found articles in any other area where both the pages have been kept protected at the same time.-MW ^ℳ 16:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I protected the page yesterday. I did not realize that the talk page was protected, as it is only to be done in unusual circumstances. I have therefore unprotected the talk page, but will monitor to see if significant problems result. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think if someone sees some problems, they should be given some easy way of expressing their concerns. We should not close the door too firmly and get people frustrated. Protections are sometimes necessary, but I think we should also try to keep the articles as freely editable as possible. And if some IP is editing an article without taking to the talk page, we feel that the IP should have explained themselves on the talk page. But if the talk page is protected, the IP is prevented from doing so even if they want to. So, our irritation that the IP is not taking to the talk page is misplaced. One can say that they could have said something in the edit summary. But not all IPs may know how to use the edit summary, or the edit request template etc. It can be a very frustrating situation.-MW ^ℳ 16:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We also seem to have a tendency to privilege sourced content and registered users. We are not mindful of the fact that registered users can also do wrong things and the IPs can also be right. The "sourced" content may have acquired a blue link which connects it to some "source". But sourced content can easily be still OR. I read the WP:V and WP:NOR to mean that material which is a misrepresentation is OR. I also read them to mean that material which is sourced from off topic sources, and which is cherry picked from passing comments etc. and material which is sourced from unreliable sources etc. is also OR. In my experience, I have found that lots of caste articles are bursting with material which is a misrepresentation and which is sourced from unreliable sources/off topic sources/passing comments, etc. As such, I would urge that we should not see too much value in the "sourced content" of these articles and IPs should be allowed a fair chance to make their point and try to improve these articles. As such, I would request that the length of the semi protection be reduced if some IPs or new users request it.-MW ^ℳ 03:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that these IPs and others be allowed to add unsourced content for "things everybody knows"? The problem is that things that "everybody knows" are often directly contradicted by actual facts. So far as "passing mention" this can indeed be a problem, but on Yadav and Ahir this has been far, far more an error of the "other side", with folks like Bill (banned as a sockmaster) wanting to use things like "And then I talked to So=and-So, who was a Yadava Kshatriya" from a Brit travelogue, as indisputable evidence that the Yadav caste is Kshatriya. If you'd like to point out specific portions of Yadav which you feel are based on passing mentions or non-expert sources, by all means start a new section on this page and list out your concerns, as I likewise would be interested in removing any over-reachings from vague sources. And I do agree with you that this Talk page should not be blocked (and it's already been admitted such was an accident) as Talk vandalism has not been a problem at the moment. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(extra indent for late comment) No awkward stuff here yet, but an IP who is probably one of the contributors from the last 12 hours (editing while logged out) has resumed their personal attacks on my own talk page. I live in hope but not a great deal of expectation! - Sitush (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that these IPs and others be allowed to add unsourced content for "things everybody knows"? Where did I suggest that? Nobody detests OR and substandard (fake) sourcing more than I do. As an example, you can look at ref#2 in the lead. _{<--diff to the version to which these numbers relate [1], (added this diff later because the article was edited after I put in these numbers)-->}Nowhere does the source say what the article says. The number of fake sources in this article is too great for me alone to deal with.-MW ^ℳ 07:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC) #6. It that source a professor of anything?-MW ^ℳ 09:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)#15 is a rubbish source.-MW ^ℳ 09:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the sources you refer to have been discussed before, please take them to WP:RSN if you disagree with their inclusion here. Otherwise, hold your peace. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I was requested by MatthewVanitas to show some problems with the article. And I never discussed these sources before.-MW ^ℳ 14:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, stop it, MW. You are descending into pedantry again. I did not say that you had discussed them, although in fact you had given encouraging noises to the now-blocked sock in the discussions surrounding them. Take them to WP:RSN. Your constant bickering is ridiculous when there are outlets available for resolution and these have been pointed out to you on umpteen occasions across umpteen articles. Your continued unwillingness to do so & instead to continue pointless discussion on various talk pages is itself disruptive. It has been demonstrated time and again that your understanding of WP:RS is at best dubious and, for example, ones of your issues in this current discussion - whether someone is a professor or not - has only recently been blown out of the water at WP:DRN. If you really think that some sources are "fake" (whatever that means) then you know what to do: follow the procedures or hold your peace, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that you had discussed them, When did I say that you sais that I had discussed them? ...in fact you had given encouraging noises to the now-blocked sock in the discussions surrounding them... I was never any part of any discussion involving these sources. Show diffs if I was. It may be possible that you discussed these sources with someone else in the same thread as I was in. But it must have happened after I left the discussion. I have no recollection of witnessing any discussion of these sources. It is a misuse of dispute resolution resources if we take things to noticeboards without discussing them here. whether someone is a professor or not - has only recently been blown out of the water at WP:DRN. If you think that whether someone is a professor or not--is not an issue for sourcing considerations, why don't you reinsert that amateur source again? Despite whatever the DRN may have said, you too know that that source is a non RS for this article (for the specific point he was being used for, in the specific way that he was being used) and would not stand a chance at the RSN. And the present sourcing problems which I have pointed out are new issues, as far as I am concerned. And there is another reason too for not taking one or two of your rubbish sources to any noticeboards. Even if I manage to take down 2/3 rubbish sources, you are likely to find ten new rubbish sources and insert more misrepresentations &/ OR &/ synthesis etc. through them. So, the whole exercise would become useless. I am looking for some other way to deal with your penchant for misrepresentations, cherry picking, rubbish sources, etc. I am in a majority of one now. And you are likely to have at least two supporters for whatever you say or do. So, I will not take it up just now.-MW ^ℳ 15:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, You won't follow the procedures and therefore should desist from making further comment about these sources. You can add nothing to develop your position towards a conclusion that might be of benefit to the community, by your own admission. You are not in a "majority of one", whatever that means: you are well aware that Wikipedia does not work on simple majorities but on policy-compliant consensus, and your points are not compliant with policy. Now, if you want to propose alternate sources then that would at least be a positive step. - Sitush (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What procedure am I violating? I have already described why taking things to the noticeboards is premature and useless. Why should I be expected to do something which I think is useless? I was trying to convey my view of the situation on these articles to the protecting admin, and I was asked to show some specific problems with the article and I have done that. What is so wrong with that? Unless I pressed the point, you need not have said anything on it. Whether I take it up in the article or not and whether I take it up at noticeboards is up to me. It is not necessary that I do more. See WP:NOT. "majority of one" means that, at present nobody is supporting what I am saying. I see "WP is not a democracy" as an ideal, rather than a practical reality. If I get into a "one against three" situation, it is not a good situation to be in, even if I am right. That is why I am not trying to take down misrepresentations and rubbish sources etc. even if they are against core policies. My points are in keeping with core policies. Only that I am not pressing them just now. I had only pointed them out as examples for MatthewVanitas to see. Whether you guys agree with them or not is not of much concern to me at present.-MW ^ℳ 02:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that you are right as vehemently as you do, and yet someone else does not, then it is never premature. You do not have the courage of your own convictions. If the sources are "rubbish", "fake" and "against core policies" then do the right thing. Otherwise your position is yet again disrupting a talk page and encouraging newer contributors into bad habits & misunderstandings of policies and guidelines. Why not let the wider community decide & then you do not have to handle this peculiar notion of a "majority of one". Show me a policy that says someone must be a professor before they can be cited. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have taken down OR, false claims, undue material etc. from this article. I will continue to do so. But my efforts have been wasted because more malicious stuff from rubbish sources have been added. I will find some other way of doing it. I hope the irony is not lost on anyone. Someone is claiming that my understanding of sourcing policies is faulty. But that same guy is arguing that amateur sources can be RSs. They seem to operate on the principle -- "Any Tom/Dick/Harry writes a book, says something defamatory/palikuluing about an Indian caste, becomes an RS." The WP:V is about reliable sources. "Reliable". Got it? Amateur sources are not reliable.-MW ^ℳ 01:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

yadavs are chandravansh khastriyas

http://www.google.com/search?q=hinduism+and+its+military+ethos+yadavas+chandravanshi+line+jats&btnG=Search&tbm=bks&tbo=1&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

hinduism and its military ethos page 209

The books clearly states that yadavas are chandravanshi khastriyas. please correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truefact1979 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

evidence of yadavs being chandravanshi

1. Hinduism and Its Military Ethos By R. K. Nehra Page 209 http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=hinduism+and+its+military+ethos+yadavas+chandravanshi+line&btnG=

2. The golden book of India: a genealogical and biographical dictionary of the ... By Sir Roper Lethbridge page 246

http://books.google.com/books?id=bHiBAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA246&dq=the+golden+book+of+india+yadav&hl=en#v=onepage&q=yadav&f=false

Two reliable sources mention yadavs as chandravanshi khastriyas.

Please correct the article to mention "that certain scholars agree yadavs are chandravanshi". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truefact1979 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been dealt with time and again on this talk page over the last few months. No-one disputes that there is a claim by members of the Yadav community that they were of the kshatriya varna. The article already refers to this claim, and the linked article about Yadu explains the background to the general mythological origins. Anything more is WP:UNDUE - it is a position that many sockpuppet accounts have concentrated on when what really would be useful is if people were to consider developing other aspects of the article. Compared to articles such as Nair and Paravar, this one is seriously lacking and yet it is a numerically quite significant community and, in certain areas, is socio-politically extremely significant. Could you perhaps assist in filling some of those blanks? - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That the issue has been discussed before does not mean that it cannot be discussed again. If some user wants to discuss some new sources or show some new angle, it can be discussed again.-MW ^ℳ 14:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not when the same user has discussed it recently and got nowhere - that is tendentious editing. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It depends. If they want to bring up some new points/arguments, they can do so.-MW ^ℳ 16:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me what in the initial contribution above is a new point/argurment. It is pretty much just a copy/paste of the previous discussion. I am getting very close to referring this behaviour (MW's) to ANI. This continued deliberate speciousness is becoming extremely problematic and wasting a lot of time of a lot of people. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Eg: this edit. This, of course, was the line and style of wording used in the past by Ancient indian historian, Bill clinton history etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You are free to take my behavior wherever you want. I have looked into the talk history and found that this user has made a total of three contributions to the talk so far. It is hard to see how this user could be repetitive. Please tell me what in the initial contribution above is a new point/argurment. If the above thread and this thread constitutes all the discussion that this user has done, anything and everything that this user says may be new. It is not good to stifle discussion by claiming that it is repetitive prematurely. The point of claiming "unnecessary repetation" has not been reached IMO. The user is showing some new sources and we don't even know clearly what material ( which lines) the user wants to cite. We also don't know the reliability of the publisher and the author etc. The discussion needs to develop much more before we could say whether it is useful or not. Please don't try to stifle discussions prematurely. The talk page is meant for discussing improvements in the article. I see no indication that the user is doing something else.-MW ^ℳ 02:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Article needs changes

This article needs changes and the first which needs to change is the introduction. The article needs to mention that yadavs claim they are chandravanshi khastriyas and descendant of Yadu and that some scholars agree and some dispute it. As a thumb rule the introduction has to mention important points. Please correct this as the introduction is very weak. Also the above two links can be used as reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.192.2 (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We do not need more citations for these points, and certainly not poor ones such as Lethbridge. The points you raise are already included in the article or are accessible through the Yadu link. Fowler&fowler trimmed the lead (introduction) recently and it seems to be causing more angst than if it had been left alone, which is pretty much what I predicted would happen when it was tried elsewhere. However, as a summary it does in fact do the job & needs no citations within it. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it would probably be better if you logged in to make comments such as you have above. It is pretty obvious who you are. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Go by what majority of users feel right

Majority of users feel that introduction needs correction. No single user can deceide. This is not a private article. Please change the introduction. There are lot of references provided in discussion. User Sitush is being biased and is indulging in unnecessary edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.192.2 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not tendentoious, eh MW? He's posted basically the same thing with almost every edit. In any case 8.18 Wikipedia is not a democracy. If you want information added, you have to make a case for such based on Wikipedia policies like WP:V. It doesn't much appear that anybody besides the Yadavs firmly believes their descent from Yadu, so it seems fine to have it in the Legendary section. I would argue that their political role and traditional position are more important to have in the (rather short) lede than that. I wouldn't mind having Kshatriya claims there so long as we had the context about how it's a Sanskritisation strategy (amply covered below), but whenever we nuanced "Kshatriya" folks got upset about the nuance, and now you're upset about not having it in the lede at all. So is the only "satisfactory" result for people overall to have "Kshatriya" prominently in the lede with no question as to its veracity? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, WP:LEAD says that citations are not needed unless the information isn't cited down below in the text....however, having said that, it is allowed to duplicate the cites in the lead and the body. Will that satisfy "everyone"? Actually let me ask that a different way: could 8.18 (or whoever it is that doesn't like the lead) please propose a specific, alternative lead, or specific changes that are sourced in either the text or the article? Finally, I wish people would stop blaming Sitush for this--he was not the only editor that reduced the size of the lead.

Ugh, after looking at it, and the history, I am inclined to agree that the lead is too short, given the length of the article...Let me go read the whole article and see if I can boldly expand the lead. Not sure, one moment. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made a major expansion of the lead to better summarize the article. I'm sure it's imperfect (I tend to be a bit wordy and use sentences that are have unnecessarily complicated grammar when writing these types of passages). The big thing I noticed is that this article spends an awful lot of time on status issues. It would be great to have some demographic info (I know that official censuses aren't taken, but presumably some of the articles must have some details on either approximate numbers, economic power, number in political offices, etc.), more specifics on locations, etc. But, I think my revised lead at least better reflects what is in the article right now. Of course, I welcome changes, modifications, reversals, etc. (though, of course, major reverts should be accompanied with explanation here). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, WP:LEAD says that citations are not needed unless the information isn't cited down below in the text... This is a false claim.-MW ^ℳ 01:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my over-simplified summary; they're not necessary, but they can be used if the information may be challenged. Do you like the lead as written now? If so, let me know which parts you think are challengeable, and I'll be happy to duplicate cites from the main text in the lead; with list-defined refs, it won't take me all that long; I'm about to leave for an extended period, so it may be upwards of 24 or more hours before I get back to this, but, like I say, I'm happy to add the cites when I return. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not in the mood to challange any material in the article right now. However, I think the varna issue needs no mention in the lead. The varna thing is irrelevant in the present Indian reality. It is only the OBC (Other Backward Class)/ SC (Scheduled Caste)/ ST (Scheduled Tribe) etc. which is relevant in the present reality. IMO, talking about varna in the lead is unnecessary and undue, and is in contradiction with reality.-MW ^ℳ 02:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

MW, you have an extremely bad habit of kvetching about "rubbish sources" and then failing to actually get into any details. If you're "not in the mood" or "don't have time" to even explain your strident objections, then keep your peace. Either list out at least a couple "misquoted", "in passing", "rubbish" or otherwise unsuitable refs, and clearly explain why they're unsuitable, or desist from your opining. It is not in the slightest constructive to express displeasure without ever explaining why beyond incredibly generic explanations like "amateur", "endemic bias", etc. By alleging "endemic bias" and then failing to follow through with an articulate explanation, you discredit the whole (very valid) concept. Are you familiar with the story of "the boy who cried wolf"? Though while we're sharing cultural features, could you tell us what "palikuluing" is and where the expression comes from? Genuinely curious, I always like learning new words. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You had asked me to show problems in this article and I had shown three problems. One of those sources was a misrepresentation and it has also been removed from the article. Among the other two, one is a lawyer. i.e. amateur. The other is a reporter and is writing in a paper about economic issues etc. This source is also an amateur and cannot be relied to provide any trustworthy info about the behavioral traits of a caste. He certainly did no scientific study of behavioral traits. This source is also being misrepresent in the sense that he goes on to say several things which would portray Yadavs in a favorable light and critiques those who mock at Yadavs. But all of that part is being glossed over and only the negative part is being noted in the article. That sources' view is much more complex than that. So, the source is being misrepresented in a grotesque manner. We do not even know completely what the news reporter say because we cannot see the whole text of what the source says. I doubt if the ed who inserted that source has read the full text of that source. It is very much possible that the source may have gone on to arrive at a conclusion which would be opposite of what the source is being made to say. I am not pressing on the sourcing issues much because following through is unlikely to improve the situation in the slightest. In the thread in which I mentioned these issues, my point was that the article should not be locked for an extended period, and should be reasonably free for editing. So, it is unreasonable to expect me to also go on to do other things (correct sourcing mistakes in the article). It is beyond the scope of what I was trying to do there. What I am saying is not just blah blah. You can already see that at least one of those problems has been fixed. The other two examples are also valid objections. Both are amateur sources, and the last one is being misrepresented, and (seemingly) from incomplete knowledge of what the source says. "Palikuluing" ≈ "something which could/would drive people into a state of apoplexy". It is a slang which some of my friends use. It is not a regular expression, but the meaning should be obvious from the context and the sound of that expression.MW ^ℳ 06:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Referring to MW's concerns about varna in the lead...it's there because, basically, that's all this article talks about. The lead has to summarize the article, and this article is mostly about how the status (varna and otherwise) has changed over time. If someone adds something else to the article, I'll be happy to include that info in the lead, and even change the balance to pull stuff out to keep the lead accurately in balance with the article. I'm not able to do the primary research here (or anywhere else) to improve the body because I don't have access to a research library or online academic journals (I live in Japan, but can only read a little Japanese, so public libraries don't help me). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you actually specify which cites you're concerned about, and a bit of which text they're citing? At some point earlier you mentioned a couple numbers, but the numbers change as the article develops. Rather than say "one is a lawyer", how about stating the name of the source? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

MW did provide a diff. One of those has now been removed (Jaffrelot, since it is cited in the body anyway & was therefore redundant). Another was a query re: whether Gadkari is a professor, in relation to "Using "very broad generalisations", Jayant Gadkari says that it is "almost certain" from analysis of the Puranas that Andhaka, Vrishni, Satvatas and Abhira were collectively known as Yadavas and worshipped Krishna. Gadkari further notes of these ancient works that "It is beyond dispute that each of the Puranas consists of legends and myths ... but what is important is that, within that framework [a] certain value system is propounded"

The final one MW mentioned was the Gupta quote about image, which is from a periodical hosted by JSTOR and quoted by Jaffrelot. Of the three, this is the weakest but only because it is an opinion - Gupta is a well known writer, the periodical is respected etc & the reason for inclusion was that it ties in with the earlier opinion of Russell and Lal. There are countless similar descriptions but I guess that this is to be expected: Yadavs will write in glowing terms about themselves and a lot of other people will write the opposite. The reputation for thuggery & criminality is well documented but whether they are better or worse in this respect than any other community is always like to be subjective. Don't forget that the Maoist issue/political violence for which they are known needs to be reinstated in some form and that also ties into the opinion pieces. Is every Yadav a thug? Of course not. Is it a common perception of the community? Well, it certainly seems to be. It is probably a case of a few bad apples tainting the crop but, hey, we can only show what is said/we cannot speculate. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Is every Yadav a thug? Of course not. Is it a common perception of the community? Well, it certainly seems to be. "WP is not censored" is not meant to be used as a license to insert defamatory material on anyone. And "WP is not censored", would not get you over any other policy based objections. I have known only narrow minded colonial racist britishers to attribute criminality on the basis of caste etc. Such practices are universally detested now. Don't try to use WP article space for spreading such deplorable perceptions please. Thanks.-MW ^ℳ 01:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not a "narrow minded colonial racist britisher". And the quote comes from someone whom I do not think it British, and is quoted by a mainstream, respected academic who is definitely not British. The Russel/Lal description may possibly fit the profile which you suggest, but the Gupta quote & the person who has inserted these points into the articles do not. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we could easily convert that quotation into a paraphrase....hmmm...how about "Gupta said in 1992 that in Bihar the Yadavs are negatively stereotyped in a variety of ways." That way, we get the message across, without having to repeat the actual negative stereotypes themselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious that it is not you, and I am also not talking about any particular source now. The colony thing is no more. So, nobody in the present times could be a colonist. I was talking about the colonists who used to characterize certain tribes or communities as "criminal castes" etc. during historical colonial times when India was a colony.-MW ^ℳ 13:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, as the quote and the quoter make clear, MW, what you have known is not necessarily how it really is. Such statements are still made. I am happy with paraphrasing, if only because the article has too many quotes, but it would be great if we adopted a similar approach elsewhere to the generalised descriptions of a caste as being, for example, "light-skinned with a good bone structure and pleasant manner, trustworthy and hardworking". The latter type of description appears far too often: we never read of the pock-marked members, the diseased, the disabled, the lazy, the liars etc because it does not show the community in a good light. No surprises there, then, although of course such people exist in all communities. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that you also challenged various sources used here at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Truefact1979_reported_by_User:Sitush_.28Result:_4_days.29. You claim misrepresentation and/or synthesis of Jaffrelot, and yet again raised the issue of citations in the lead. I realise that DougWeller told you that all that your comments demonstrated was a lack of understanding of WP:V and WP:3RR but if you do feel that Jaffrelot is being synthesised/misrepresented then please can you explain why here. That way, those involved with the article can assess the situation, since it seems likely that DougWeller's point was a more general one. Of course, the Jaffrelot content still exists, although not in the lead, & thus it is important that you concerns about synth etc are resolved. The citation issue is a non-starter, however: these are not contentious issues but rather appear so because of the repetitive socking that goes on here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I was not challenging any sources there. I was trying to make some other point. If I want to challenge some source in this article, I would do it here and would let you know about it clearly. That source was in the lead and it is there no more. The sentence which it was supposed to support/notsupport is also gone. So, discussing it is redundant.

Lots of folks interpret the same policies in lots of different ways. For example, in the ANI which I had brought against you, Boing!SaidZebedee had interpreted the 3RR in some particular way, but other admins disagreed. Lots of people keep saying that the lead and the infobox do not need citations or "citation needed" tags etc. or whatever, and I do not agree. It is not necessary that I must agree with someone else's interpretation of WP:V. I hold that WP:V is applicable to all parts of the article and whether something is in the lead/ tail/ stomach of the article makes no difference to its applicability on content. I am going to continue to hold this view, and if I see something dubious anywhere in the article, I reserve the right to challenge it/ take it down per WP:V, regardless of the position of the material. Thanks.MW ^ℳ 12:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Lawyering again. Well done. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, is there anything currently in the article to which you object? Stop the lawyering, procrastination and piggy-backing on the comments of less savvy contributors and obvious socks: just tell us, now. If I make mistakes (and I do) then I apologise, as any decent person would do, To the best of my knowledge, the same admission of fallibility applies to MatthewVanitas, although it does not apply to all contributors to this talk page or elsewhere - some indeed have never accepted being wrong despite clear consensus. Nothing is going to get sorted if you hold off with any issues that you may have regarding the content as it stands and, indeed, your approach seems to me actually to create antagonistic situations. Say what you think about the article and its sourcing, try actually contributing to the article, and resist the temptation to revolve the vast majority of your comments around issues of policy-based semantics. You have much to offer but your approach is frustrating. So, please list the issues (if any) and then we'll all be pulling together in an attempt to improve knowledge. If you cannot list any issues based on current content then it is reasonable to suppose that you accept the content, especially since you clearly have time to contribute elsewhere. No rush: take a few days over it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder, on what basis the statement is been made, that yadavs are percieved to be thug in general. Even britishers never mentioned

about Yadavs/Ahirs while listing the criminal tribes. Please enlighten yourself from wiki page Criminal_Tribes_Act.

India is a country, where few talkactive people endup saying/writing too much about something which not even stakeholder cares, but some point in future someone else comes and try to prove it as history of india...what a disgusting way of making(in reality it is doctoring) history in india, where 80% population not even care of these things, but busy meeting end-day meal. 122.161.13.115 (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason ...

... why we have two pages, Yadav and Ahir? Aren't Yadav just the Ahir—milkmen and cowherds—who in the last century have taken the last name Yadav? If so, the lead should say something along the lines of, "Yadav/Ahir is a Hindu pastoral caste in UP, Bihar, ... Their varna status is the subject of dispute." I feel that all the agricultural and pastoral castes (Kurmi, Kunbi, Keoris, Yadav, Ahir) should have similar leads. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I just read the entire article so that I could rewrite the lead...and that doesn't seem to be at all accurate to me; look, for example, just to the Jaffrelot quote in the In practice section.

Also, I strongly disagree with the idea of trying to make leads standardized across articles--that has never been Wikipedia practice, even for extremely similar subjects; for example, compare the leads of Newcastle United F.C. and Liverpool F.C., to Premier League football clubs, that don't follow the same pattern in any way (except for the first sentence, which is often a patterned sentence, since its form is specified in WP:LEAD). Trying to create similar leads across articles ignores the fact that the articles themselves are radically different, with different levels of detail and even different purposes. Neither policies nor guidelines support cross-article standardization for leads--what they do support is that leads must adequately summarize their articles, neither too much nor too little. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Cue a long comment, with my apologies in advance. Yes, this is one of those awkward areas. As I understand things, the Yadav(s) are not an easily defined community but an agglomeration of (apparently more defined) communities. The entire issue of what constitutes a caste has been subject to much academic debate. In simplified terms, some favour the evolution of the varna system from vague ancient texts and/or some sort of top-down socio-religious imposition, others see it as being based on occupation, others have still a different view. The reality is that is is probably a complex mix mostly lost in history & not dis-similar to issues such as the Irish/British/English/republican/monarchist/Catholic/Protestant situation. Some of it appears to be self-identification and some of it external identification. It is a complex area and, yes, there are arguments that caste extends beyond religion and occupations. My own researches are limited by various factors to do with time and availability of sources but this is much the same as anyone else who wants to work in this area and in the Wikipedia environment, as opposed to an environment that, say, does not approach the truth/verifiability issue in quite the same way. We have to work with what we have & within the bounds of the policies/guidelines, whether or not we agree with them. There is a larger debate - systemic bias etc - but no one article can resolve that, although they may cumulatively have an impact. I think that the key policy here is NPOV, which means that we should reflect the various strands of debate. The weighting issue is significant but subsidiary.

All the theory aside, it is my sense that the Ahirs form the bulk of what are known as the Yadav community. But they are not the whole, by a long way. I am also unsure whether the reason why the Ahirs form the bulk is a consequence of numbers, politics, social circumstances, "the loudest voice" etc or because they really are the largest element of what is a somewhat "amorphous" (bad word, I know) grouping. It seems clear that there are other communities which coalesce under the Yadav banner, as Jaffrelot & others have claimed and yet, perhaps paradoxically, they have an internal tendency towards exclusion of groups that might be considered similar under one of the generalised banners - occupation, varna etc.

Put simply: I do not see how the Yadav/Ahir articles can meaningfully be treated as the same. although there certainly is a substantial element of overlap. As for standardised paragraphs: great idea, but it will never work precisely because of the subtleties. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

what is the motive???

i dont understand what you guys are bickering about?? are you here for improving the article or defaming the yadav caste....?? i mean everyone has skeletons in the closet....so instead of mentioning the wrong things out here be rational about your edits..yadavs are cattle raisers??? i mean what you expected people some 200 years bck? drive a lemo????.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.211.39 (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Being cattle raisers is hardly a "skeleton in the closet" but even if it were, Wikipedia is not censored. It was an occupation and it applied to the Yadavs, so it is not "wrong" to mention it either. There were plenty of other occupations and so it is worthwhile noting what they were rather than what they were not - it makes for a shorter article :) For example, they were not generally perceived as being fishermen, sailors, barbers, minstrels, temple servants ... the list of what they generally were not is endless. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Individuals like User:Sitush do not want to go through google to search and do read about the yadav community. They are more happy quoted a fact the yadav are cattle herder..though when same Sitush will go and read bible, he will see every great philosper in history was influenced by people revolving around sheepherd's and cowherd's community. In History live stock management was biggest business since the time, when farming was not even started. But then probably putting thing in right and healthy perspective, some individual including Sitush simply enjoy the freedom WP provides, in terms of putting controversial content in more controvertial and offending manner to prove something which actually nobody care today, but will be used as truth in future, just becuase nobody objected such things in first place, as the stakeholders of this discussion, the most of yadav community, itself is busy doing things to make thier life and this planet a better place. 122.161.13.115 (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

IP, all you have done in your first edits is complain and make accusations about other editors. I would suggest that you desist from attacking others' competence without a clear, documented argument, and also suggest that rather than simply complain, that you come to Talk with examples of properly sourced material you would like to see added to the article, or to replace incorrect text. If you don't have evidence from reliable sources (and your posts seem to indicate you are concerned about sourcing) then you simply don't have an argument. Please "light a single candle" rather than simply "curse the darkness". MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The introduction is wrong. Some is trying deliberately to defame them

Even till 1400 AD some of the dynasties in India called themselves Yadavs ( Suena yadavs of Devagiri ). This article needs corrections. The introduction is wrong. Unneccary stuff has been put in.

. Hinduism and Its Military Ethos By R. K. Nehra Page 209 http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=hinduism+and+its+military+ethos+yadavas+chandravanshi+line&btnG=

2. The golden book of India: a genealogical and biographical dictionary of the ... By Sir Roper Lethbridge page 246

http://books.google.com/books?id=bHiBAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA246&dq=the+golden+book+of+india+yadav&hl=en#v=onepage&q=yadav&f=false

Two reliable sources mention yadavs as chandravanshi khastriyas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truefact1979 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not post the same post on multiple Talk pages. Post it once, and to invite others to reply you can use the {{talkback|Article name here}} template to let them know you are replying to them, so for here it would be {{talkback|Talk:Yadav}}.

Certainly, there were some groups using the label "Yadav/Yadava" at many points of Indian history. That said, the article is about the modern Yadav community, and we have a massive amount of evidence clearly footnoted on the page indicating that the Ahir and allied castes made a deliberate decision to popularise the surname/community "Yadav" and press for socio-political improvement for that community.

The Lethbridge bit you cite simply mentions one Thakur labeled as a "Yadav Kshatriya"; there is no indication that this person was a member of the current Yadav community or its predecessors, or that all Yadavs are Kshatriya. As for Nehra, I'm not seeing him quoted on any related issues on any other books on GoogleScholar, so with what's at hand it's difficult to substantiate his credentials, and Lancer (though not as bad as Gyan) is certainly not as convincing as, say, Calcutta University Press or what have you. Nehra does indeed seem to be referring to the modern Yadav caste, but the gentleman is a retired Air Marshall and much of the rhetoric of the book is rather jingoistic. While I would not necessarily doubt his expertise on matters military, his credibility on deciding who does or does not descend from ancient lineages from epic history is rather low, barring any evidence that he's a particular authority on Indian history, theology, or sociology.

I also quite doubt that anyone on the article is out to "defame" the Yadavs. The main editors of the current version are myself, Sitush, and Q (who is an admin but not acting in said capactiy in his work on this article). All three of us are involved in cleanup on a wide variety of caste articles, so there is no indication any of us have a "dog in the fight" when it comes to promoting or disparaging any Deccan caste, and all three of us have, at various points, stated that we are not Indian nor have any personal involvement in India issues. We are simply writing an article based on sources by reputed academics; please refer to the article's footnotes so you can see the level of evidence provided. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The introduction of this article needs to be changed

various scholars have agreeded that yadavs are chandravanshi khastriyas and some have not.

The following link can be used to verify that yadavs are khastriyas.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RfdtUUnVQLQC&pg=PA388&dq=Yadavs+OBC+kshatriyas&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Yadavs%20OBC%20kshatriyas&f=false

http://www.sishri.org/velir.html ( This website clearly mentions in some parts of india Yadavs are khastriyas ).

http://storyofkannada.blogspot.com/2008/05/origin-of-seuna-dynasty.html

Also till 1400 AD there were dynasties which claimed that they are yadavs. The descendants of this dynasties still would be living in India. Also the article mentions that only from 19th century yadavs are trying to raise their status. Its wrong. In 1400 AD a dyansty claimed they are yadavs ( chandravanshi ). These people cannot disappear just like that.

proof some scholars claim yadavs as khastriyas.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RfdtUUnVQLQC&pg=PA388&dq=Yadavs+OBC+kshatriyas&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Yadavs%20OBC%20kshatriyas&f=false

book : We and our administration By K. C. Brahmachary page 388 many scholars agree yadavs as khastriyas and some scholars dont.

I request kindly to correct the introduction. please dont neglect these valuable points. So far there is like three books which mention yadavs as khastriyas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.174.210 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We and our administration is obviously not a reliable book--just read the first page of the introduction and it's clearly not written by a reliable, responsible editor with a responsible editorial staff. Plus, Mittal Publications is a tourist publisher, which does not speak well to their academic publishing skills. Sishri (the South Indian Social History Research Institute) is "a Chennai (India) based private research institution studying the history of south India." I see no evidence of their neutrality or their qualification as a reliable source. The third site is a blog, thus by definition not a reliable source. So, none of these are usable for Wikipedia purposes. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What ever proof is provided is simply being ignored. So many references have been provided. its being ignored. The introduction needs changes. The article needs correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.174.210 (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussing sourcing and all is OK. But please, why do we need to create so many sections for discussing the same issue? If you have problems in placing your comments, please come to my talk page and I might try to help you out in placing your comments in previous threads.-MW ^ℳ 03:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No kidding...one section is enough. And, to IP above, you haven't provided anything that Wikipedia accepts as "proof". Sorry, but that's just the rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I support MV's approach to removing the duplicated section. Since we shouldn't protect both talk and article, this is unfortunately the approach we're going to have to use. Provide new info, provide new sources, fine. But if you simply repeat your personal opinion (here, I'm using "you" to refer to the various IPs bombarding us very few hours), the post should be removed per WP:SOAPBOX. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

IP. You are up against some experienced and skilled eds here. You seem to be a new ed to me. If you want to beat them, you would need to have better skills. Just being right/wrong is not enough. I would suggest that you acquire a close familiarity with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and other policies. I would also suggest that you go to some articles on Western topics, (ones which are having disputes), hang around their talkpages. Don't do anything, just try to see how those eds make their points and how they decide what sources and material is good or not. The best eds are on those articles IMO. One can learn a lot from them. Then gain some experience in editing some other articles, have some disputes, etc. Then, after you become confident that you have better skills than your opponents, come back and make your case here. Trying to do something without the right skills could be a frustrating exercise. These are just my suggestions. What you do is up to you.MW ^ℳ 04:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

s

It is not about "beating" or being "up against" people. This is not a war & characterising things in this way is not particularly helpful. In addition to the links that you provide, the IP may wish to consider WP:EVADE. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where you read me as saying "war". This is a "dispute" situation IMO. I am only suggesting that the newbie get some experience with disputes etc. and some fine editing skills before getting into disputes with skilled eds.MW ^ℳ 11:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Truefact has now been indef blocked & the above IP seems certain to be another of the same. I am not even bothering replying to this sort of sock-generated stuff any further. It wouldn't be so bad if the suggestions were productive, but they rarely are. MW, this is not the first time that you have weighed in to support an obvious sock, and have done so without really adding anything positive - nitpicking about policy etc but never actually providing any source-based argument is pretty pointless in these situations. Is there any chance that you might consider the contribution history etc in future before prolonging all of our agony? I say this here because you will not let me explain the reasoning on your talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP's preferred articles, timeline, and edit summaries are nearly identical to TrueFact79, so I brought it up at his Sockpuppet page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357. MW, you might want to be more careful as to what friends you pick. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Since the article and talk page can't be protected simultaneously, all we can do is to simply remove every single post that is nothing more than ranting and raving about the bias of editors here. Anyone who wants to present reliable sources and have polite, collegial discussions about the article is welcome to do so (except, of course, for socks of blocked or banned editors). Anyone with an actual behavioral complaint is invited to open a thread at WP:ANI; be prepared to support such a complaint. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

IPs. Please do not use this page for soapboxing. Please also do not make personal attacks. This page is meant for discussing improvements in the article only. If you have problem with some material in the article, please note them on this page and discuss them. Please try to explain why you think it is problematic, and what could be done to fix it. There are lots of points which can be discussed. If you want some new material to be added, you can discuss that too. You can try to discuss the reliability of the publisher and author to make your case. All material in article space is controlled by WP:DUE. You can also discuss what is/is not "due" content for this article. Much of this article may be against WP:DUE in my opinion. You too can give your opinion on that. If you want some new material to be added, you can look through googlebooks and googlescholar too. There are thousands of sources and things which you can discuss and try to improve this article. Please do not indulge in soapboxing and please do not make personal attacks.MW ^ℳ 13:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what in the current article may in your opinion be undue. Advising the IPs as you have done but making a similar mistake yourself (in not actually explaining your position) is not exactly helpful. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I like MangoWong's constructive advise to the IPs. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If the IPs show an inclination to discuss the issues. I will show them the exact undue issue and a number of other issues too. Actually, I have already described in an above thread what should not be there in my opinion. I had done it in response to a post by Qwyrixian where he / she was asking for some opinions on his/her recent changes in the lead. You can read it for now, and you can see the remaining issues if the IPs show some interest.MW ^ℳ 14:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No, if the article is wrong then it needs fixing. Have the courage of your convictions, and let's get this thing into shape. Doing otherwise just smacks of snide commenting. We're not here to satisfy my ego or your ego but to produce content worthy of Wikipedia. So, "put up or shut up", as the saying goes. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Could we collapse some of the more unproductive threads above? There are some which don't really add anything but a lot of heat. That being said, I too want to know exactly what is running afoul of WP:UNDUE; I don't see anything really major. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection if many of these threads be collapsed. I too see much of the discussion on this page as being meaningless. As for the "undue weight" issue, we have a similar discussion going on at talk:Lodhi. My concerns here are same as my "undue weight" concerns there. We have two new entrants (both experienced user) too there. Would it be better if all of us discuss the issue there, (to avoid unnecessary rehashing of the same points on multiple forums)?MW ^ℳ 03:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have tagged NPOV. The article seems to be a massive collection of malicious literatures, with removal of many sourced edits. Ikon ^No-Blast 07:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If I don't find any active editor, commenting here I would revert the entire page to six month back version when I was active.Ikon ^No-Blast 07:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have scanned through history of edits and I just wonder, what qualification does ppl.like user:situs carry to remove citations from Bhandarkar, Ghurye, smith, J.N.S. Yadav, Prof. M.S. A. Rao, A.P. Karmakar???.Ikon ^No-Blast 07:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you do, please don't do anything rash. Hordes of eds have been blocked or banned in the last few months due to involvement with caste articles. I would also suggest that you may take a look through the above talk threads and the archives.MW ^ℳ 07:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact I did. They sound as malicious as the article itself. Full of thoughts from unreliable people. Are they trying

to sell their books. Please don't try to threaten block,I know some of the editors on this page are Admin Trolls. Building POV through admin power would only diminish the credibility of this wikipedia. Ikon ^No-Blast 07:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to threaten there. It is the last thing that I would have in mind. If you read the talk, you might have noticed that I have been having constant difference of opinion(dispute) with Sitush, Qwyrxian, and MatthewVanitas. I was only trying to share my experience. You can disregard what I say.MW ^ℳ 08:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Last Year, there was an open offer for admins of wikipedia on getafreelancer.com to work for some caste pages, which a person claiming to be an admin from Mumbai won. Let us fight it. Cheers! Ikon ^No-Blast 08:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

All elements which are not backed by scholarly comments would be ruthlessly removed. All editors are requested to quote scholars in letter and spirit, w/o any p0ersonal commentary. Ikon ^No-Blast 09:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As MangoWong points out, reading this page would be helpful. There is a separate article - Yadava - where your content would perhaps be valid. Per previous discussion, it is not so here. Furthermore, if you are going to include sources then you need to do so with footnotes of some sort - saying "M S A Rao believes ..." etc without citing the book, the page number etc is somewhat pointless. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The article would be written the way masters of the subject describe it, and not the way, you or I believe it. Regarding citations, you are rather welcome to ask for it, rather than remove it. OK. Ikon ^No-Blast 09:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No. This article is not about the Yadavas or the Ahirs or the Abhira tribe, for all of which there are separate articles. The content is simply not relevant, or at least not in the detail that you have provided. I thought that this had been settled recently because the only objectors turned out to be sockpuppets. Please, please read what has gone on before over, say, the last couple of months. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact you yourself need to learn a lot about what is Ahir, Abhira, Yadava etc. Describing Yadava w/o Abhira/Ahir is unfashinable both in modern academics and also in hindu scriptures, because they seem to be same. You can't define and organise the subjects the way masters don't do. It is as simple as this. Ikon ^No-Blast 10:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

[[2]], [3] These two diffs by the user in question throws enough light on how serious he should be taken and the level of his integrity as a wikipedian. Utcurch has a long history of edit warring and bad faith edits on yadav related pages. So, it would be wise not to join hands with him. rather you would do well by having some discussion with me, because I am the only person who for years have added cited materials on this and several other related pages. FYI, even admins can be blocked for 3RR, so if you have integrity worth any value you should warn yourself. Shame. Ikon ^No-Blast 10:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said, there are articles for those subjects. A short statement and a link to them would suffice. This is how it was heading until the recent influx of socks etc, the problem being that there is in fact academic uncertainty regarding the connection (hence, the academics often use the word "claim" rather than, for example, "are"). This has all been discussed at length recently and I urge you to read what was said.

The addition of poorly cited content does not aid your case. I do not know to which "masters" you are referring, and what the ancient Hindu scriptures may say is largely irrelevant to a Wikipedia article about anything but the scriptures themselves. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that you have added much to some caste/community articles. I am also aware that much of it has been refuted. In any event, what concerns us here is this article. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation doesn't mean throwing external links. You should be able to give the name of the author and also gist of the idea. I have seen you yourself are injecting personal commentary at many places. How can you refute my citation which includes thoughts of Bhandarkar, ghurye, rao, smith etc. Have you done some own research. If so get it published somewhere. this is neither the place to refute the scholarly comments nor wikipedia policy allows it. Ikon ^No-Blast 10:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ikonoblast, please assume good faith. It's not clear what exactly what you want, but from your comments and edits, it seems that you want this article to focus on your Ahir caste.

Please read the earlier discussions: your Ahir caste does not have the monopoly over the term "Yadav". So, please stop hijacking this article and filling it with content about Ahirs -- there is a separate article about the Ahirs. The term Yadav, as used in modern North Indian states (esp. Bihar and UP), is synonymous with Ahir. But, North India is not the center of the the universe, and this is not true in all the contexts.

Your sources "Bhandarkar, ghurye, rao, smith etc" are not being removed because others have a personal agenda. They're being removed because they are about the ancient Yadavas, Abhira Kingdom or Ahirs and belong to those articles. This has been discussed umpteen times -- please go through the archives and edit summaries. There are separate articles for a reason:

• Yadava -- This article is about all the ancient tribes which claimed descent from Yadu. Note that Abhiras are not the only tribe claiming Yaduvanshi descent, so this term covers several other communities as well.
• Yadav -- This article is about the modern castes, which claim decesnt from the ancient Yadavas. The Ahirs are not the only ones claiming to be the Yadavs, so this article covers other communities as well.
• Abhira Kingdom - this article is about the ancient Abhira kingdom
• Ahirs -- this article is about the modern Ahir caste, which claims connection to the rulers of the Abhira kingdom.

The content and the sources that you'd adding (such as 1, 2) is about the ancient Yadavas. There is a separate article for this topic -- please add it to Yadava or Abhira Kingdom. If you want to write a section about the Ahirs (such as James Tod calling them a royal race), please add it to the article on Ahirs.

You've not given any proof of "massive collection of malicious literatures" for tagging the article as POV, but you yourself are inserting pseudohistorical content like "Krishna is the Hinduised form of Jesus Christ".

Writing 1 or 2 sentences about the ancient Yadava tribe or the Ahirs in this article is OK. But, you're adding text which belongs to other articles. This is unnecessary duplication at best and shameless ethnic glorification at worst.

You're accusing others of being "malicious" or "trolls", while in fact, you're the only one here who's being uncivil. You've been blocked earlier for incivility and bad-faith edits earlier -- please learn to indulge in rational, cool-headed discussions. utcursch | talk 11:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't have a "long history of edit warring and bad faith edits on yadav related pages". Look at my contributions and look at your contributions -- you'll get a good idea of who edits Yadav-related pages.

Instead of name-calling and edit wars, it'd be a good idea to resolve to a formal dispute resolution process. utcursch | talk 11:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I would rather ignore Situs/Utcursch combo because they appear to be persons of low integrity. Ikon ^No-Blast 11:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I find allegations by both the editors in question rather funny. Even then, I would give them citations. 1) Krishna being equated with Christ is a subject. I have not introduced it! It has been in debate for a long time, and till date there is no valid refutation. 2) Regarding MSA RAO, smith's citation I will surely give you, ppl associated with this topic knows it, but because majority of users seems to be novice i will look for some online version. Till then you may tag them, no problem. 3) Last, all of you who claim to have divided the topic, come on man proove your locus standi on being the authority to define the topics. i am aware you are talking about present days Yadavs but so are citations and all topics are relevant.

@Utcursch, You should also know, I have got many users blocked which include admins like you too. Ikon ^No-Blast 11:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's go through your sources one by one:

• Krishna-cult in Indian art: about the Abhira Kings of 3rd century CE; doesn't even mention the modern Yadav/Ahir caste.
• The legacy of G.S. Ghurye: Talks about documents of 200 BCE, includes one sentence "Abhiras, later called Ahiras or Ahirs". Doesn't even have the word "Yadav".
• Theory of avatāra and divinity of Chaitanya: about the Rigvedic Yadu tribe and mythology
• [4]: About Vratya of ancient India; no mention of Yadav
• The tribes and castes of Bombay: about a ruler described as an "Abhira and a Yadava". No mention of the modern caste.

• The tribes and castes of Bombay, p25: About the Yadavas of Devagiri - says it is "not unlikely" that these Yadavas were Abhiras. Again, no mention of modern caste.
• Population geography Mentions that Tod believes Ahir/Abhir to be among the 36 royal races.

There are multiple sources in the article which support the claim that the term "Yadav" covers many castes. But none of your sources support the claim that all the castes called Yadav are same as the Ahirs and the ancient dynasties.

Nobody is claiming your content and sources are wrong. They simply do not belong to this article. Instead of discussing things rationally, you're simply pushing your caste glorification agenda. utcursch | talk 12:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

utcursch andsitush pls stop pointing out names of others for the credibility of their work ...ikonoblast and mongowong have good done excellent work in the past.while sitush and co have had issue with someone or other because what they are displaying is autocracy . you mentioned that modern yadavs are not ancient yadavs than who are they??? where 15 millions of yadav came suddenly in to being??? please do let me know if you do have proof of allother caste that they are same as thne ancient caste which they claim there origination from .and i dont understand that why on GOD'S green earth are u so much intrested in yadav caste,what about other caste??? are the wiki info displayed over there is correct...and if you say that we are slowly gradually workin on every other caste than i dont see thats true because i havnt seen any work in other caste page...the yadav page have already seen the height of vandalism..the page gives the worst of information about the proud yadav community.i cant understand the motive of you guys??? and now when ikon blast and momgowong are trying to work on the purification of the page you are arguing with them..pls refrain from such behaviour.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarrana (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Let us not be silly:

• where 15 millions of yadav came suddenly in to being??? - Did you read the article? The Ahir and other herding castes were agitating politically for caste advancement, they were encouraged to take on the name "Yadav" to buttress their claims, the book The Divine Heritage of the Yadavas was published, etc. All this is covered explicitly in the article.
• i cant understand the motive of you guys??? There are hundreds of caste articles, and many of them are packed with glorifying pseudo-history and completely avoid any discussion of the underlying caste politics, or basically anything which doesn't connote "our caste is awesome". A mere handful of us are trying to bring actual neutrality to these articles, and we're getting constant blowback from people who want caste articles to sound like Superman comic-books.
• the yadav page have already seen the height of vandalism. Indeed it has, we've had to hit Revert a bunch of times. Oh, are you referring to the work of those of us cleaning the article? If so, read WP:Vandalism; it is extremely rude to call "vandalism" when it is instead a "content dispute". Vandalism is typing "lalalalalalalalala" all over a page, not adding cited scholarly material.
• and i dont understand that why on GOD'S green earth are u so much intrested in yadav caste,what about other caste??? are the wiki info displayed over there is correct...and if you say that we are slowly gradually workin on every other caste than i dont see thats true because i havnt seen any work in other caste page This is demonstrably false, we're all working on many, many, many caste articles. There is a button at the top of your screen labeled "Contributions" where you can click and see all the work a given editor has done. Using this button would show you to be quite incorrect.

So please actually glance at the actual issue before making such sweeping and objectively incorrect statements. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

matthew vanitas@ have you ever been to india??? are you familiar with the culture of india?? you are sounding so cynical and verbose you are displaying show ur chutzpah in handling tacky situation...please take few days rest from so called generic work you are involved in..thnks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.13.10 (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

He's one of the relatively few on these caste articles who's actually interested in a neutral presentation; under the circumstances, I think he's doing an excellent job. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. As Drmies suggested at WP:ANI, some people working in this area need complimenting severely and a sticker added to their record! But, in all honesty, this article needs more work because it has a pretty narrow focus at present. I know it, MV knows it and hopefully others do also. It is all about time and resources available: positive suggestions and contributions are always welcomed. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on reading up on it now, although if anyone has recommendations for what to read I can probably get hold of it. It seems an interesting topic to me, and I'd certainly like to be of some assistance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that the article concentrates principally on just two facets: the sanskritisation issue (regarding which there is potentially more to come), and the military issue (which is pretty thin in terms of sourcing and does rather have a hint of the "glorification" problems common to this type of article). Basically, anything that can possibly widen the scope is valid. Demographics are a difficult issue because of the lack of caste censuses since 1931 (1941, actually, but it was incomplete and unpublished IIRC); religion is equally difficult; traditions, well, in the context of what is a somewhat amorphous group that appears to have its origins in an early 20th C movement, might also be a problem. Fundamentally, a lot of reading is needed - I have a gut feeling that there is much more to be said but it is rather a chicken/egg situation and we do tend to get derailed with regard to one particular issue at the expense of everything else. The latter point is common to pretty much all of the caste articles in which I have had an involvement and does support the contentions that (a) systemic bias probably exists, and (b) despite the protestations of some, the varna issue is still of massive significance "on the ground". There is little doubt in my mind that despite the best intentions of the constitution of India etc, contemporary commentators relentlessly point out that perceptions of caste remain an unfortunate blight in the modern age and, again, this is evident in the numerous articles on the subject here on Wikipedia. That people should be defined in this way distresses me as an individual but in the context of this project, well, we have to be encyclopedic. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving Ahead

I just found that I am unblocked now. This block reminded me of Hkelkar,Bakasuperman combination who used to get me blocked very often in very similar fashion. The longest block so far. Perhaps, longer ones are in the way! People have already threatened it on my talk page. Well, If I get challenged I feel more determination. One shocking fact I recently learnt is WP:ANI is up again. We had got it deleted earlier. It was WP:AN/I if I remember correctly. I had proposed, it has the potential of becoming another Fundywatchlist, which many others accepted and it got deleted. For those who are unaware of what Fundywatchlist was, I would like to elaborate, it was a page on wikipedia itself to discuss the ways to harass some users and POVise the pages in the name of cleaning and improvement. Members included were some Indian Admins, and a bunch of like minded users, who used to discuss whom to target and how to achieve their ends. It got deleted, and slowly the admins involved were shown the way out. However, these people started getting smarter, and found user:Yellowmonkey alias blnguyen, an American Vietnamese, as their mask. This guy was very popular among Indian circle and was acknowledged as good troubleshooter, though I always smelled something different. Hkelkar was in his good books, and once in a rv war on Kancha Ilaiah, article, where hkelkar was hell bent on writing a libellous term in lead, he went to the extent of not only protecting the page rv in his favor, but also shamelessly declared, "I have protected the page for you". After that Ben W Bells Dispute Resolution started, who neglected my request to remove the term first, saying he cannot unprotect the page protected by a different admin. Majority ruling made Hkelkar, the winner. No, actually He didn't win, I left the page forever, because everybody was against me there. Blnguyen wrote a note there, just below my unprotect request, "I didn't know it has stuck" However, what happened afterwards, is more interesting. I requested, checkuser on Hkelkar and tagged him as sockpuppeteer. Blnguyen, ritualistically, blocked me for bogus tagging - you can check my block log. and, lo, both checkuser and arbcom decision was in my favor. Since then blnguyen has never been shameless enough to look into my eyes. I could have raised finger on him during arbcom, though I dropped this idea later on, because one thing was evident Blnguyen was not a bad person, he was into bad company. Going through the talks above, I get the same feeling about many non-indian users here.

While going thru the article, I could find few anomalies. 1) Ahirs claim descent from Abhira of central Asia --- I have never read such a sentence anywhere else. If you are quoting jafferlot, he didn't use the word claim. If you are quoting Hiralal & Rusell, they are very much clear that Ahir is just a corruption of word abhira. From where this idea come s I would like to be educated. I find it rather funny, because you are saying they are claiming what they actually are and that too from central asia!!! I couldn't get the head and tail of it. Some indian languages still call them abhira. Translate this into one of them and sentence becomes Abhira claim descent from Abhira. What a nonesense! 2) Usage of word Yadavas, in one of the quotes, for present day Yadavs. Here, I have always said, both words are same and means the same thing. You are yourself using it interchangeably in the article. But why you are confusing the readers, by artificially creating two titles. You cannot adopt a convention which is not in sync with real life usage. Sanskrit word Krishna can also be written as Krsna with few dots above and below different alphabets, however, they are still same. If you want to differentiate, present day Yadvas from ancient ones, better tag it as scriptural or mythical. 3) Saying present day yadvas came into existence only after sanskritisation movement. Now tell me didn't British census record them as Ahir and gwal in different parts. Were they not Yaduvanshi before that?? Isn't it true that ancient sanskrit text, Amarkosa, calls Gopa, gwal and ballabha are Abhira synonym, and you still say they are a bunch of unrelated people. In fact we have many evidences for equating ahir with yadav and M.S.A. Rao summarizes them into two categories:1) Historical, and 2) semi-historical. I would like to learn why you keep on removing them. I didn't wrote, MSA Rao says this, because he is not the only one, so it was unnecessary. If you want you may dig deeper into earlier version of the article, it contains the link to snippet view of his statement too. 4) Too much emphasis on Jafferlot and completely ignoring, Nesfield & H.A. Rose.FYI, the later carries more weight than Jafferlot. Jafferlot is rather infamous for his (mis)understanding of Ahir-Yadav. His recent comment on Babulal Gaur's statement exposes him, where he says, "Babulal Gaur calls himself Ahir instead of yadav to flaunt his racial supremacy"

Some of you are eager to learn about this topic, you will get a lot of material from me, if you want. For the sake of knowledge, you may go through Ahir as Yadav section I had created, checking my last edit. They are condensed form of great works. You may google to get into details. All quotes are 100% genuine. You would love to know and dig deeper into this.

Good nite for now. If I get chance I would be active again in a day or two.

Ikon ^No-Blast 23:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

ikonoblast says "Some of you are eager to learn about this topic, you will get a lot of material from me, if you want." Please, do provide that information. I for one am not claiming to be "right", merely to be attempting to provide info within the bounds of what is almost certainly an imperfect environment of policies and guidelines. I am 100% sure that there are gaps in my knowledge/appreciation of the subject matter. I am also sure that the article does not cover the myriad of topic areas that could be relevant to the subject. We work with what we have available, in terms of sources, time, etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that Jaffrelot, a copy of which I have and a few chapters (colonial India) of which I have read, is a shabbily written book. It has the reluctant recommendation on the back cover of Nick Dirks, who has himself latterly become a sloppy and polemical writer. So, I don't know what that means. Jaffrelot is not a careful writer as someone like Susan Bayly or even William Pinch. I can't say much about his analysis of post-1947 India, as that is a period I don't know much about, but the pre-1947 material is an unremarkable, even poor, paraphrase of Pinch and Bayly. As for Ikonoblast's ponderous post above, it is ludicrous to compare Sitush and MatthewVannitas with Hkelkar (an infamous troll, an incomparable sockpuppeteer, and a Hindu nationalist POV pusher of historic proportions) and Bakasuperman (another extreme Hindu nationalist POVpusher). MV and Sitush are not even remotely in that league of misanthropes. Those days of Wikipedia are thankfully over. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I, too, am sometimes a little uneasy about Jaffrelot but at present he seems to tick the various WP:RS boxes, unless someone can prove him to be a fringe theorist. The paraphrase issue is one that has been raised previously somewhere but, of course, not all academic works involve original thought & without access to the majority of the sources which he cites etc it is impossible to form any more substantive position. At least he is not published by Gyan ;) If Bayly or Pinch deal with these issues also, and perhaps better, then we could always add them as supporting sources, which would neatly avoid any potential inference of academic plagiarism or whatever, and would still add to the article.

My real concern remains that this article is based heavily on just one aspect and that some of that probably needs forking to more specific articles. There must be more to the modern day Yadavs than just the environs of sanskritisation, but I can only work with what I have, sorry. Right now I am just easing myself back into the simpler tasks here and it will probably be another week or so before I am up to any serious debate. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to removing the infobox?

As we've discussed on WP:INDIA, most caste infoboxes are either full of contentious information presented in a terribly over-simplified fashion, or so vague as to be unhelpful and add no value over the lede. I submit this article's infobox is one of the latter. Given that most everything in the box is either explicit in the lede, or is not substantiated by the article body, are there any objections against removing the infobox, and ideally replacing it with a good historical photo of a typical (not famous) Yadav individual? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Since I generally have issues with infoboxes in caste articles, I tend to agree that this one is not necessary. I am unsure whether all the points mentioned are in fact covered in the article body but adopt the position that any which are not do indeed fall into the over-simplified/vague/unverifiable/OR type of category. So, feel free. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, bag the boxes. They are useless. In fact, I would propose (if anyone cares to listen) that most infoboxes on most Wikipedia pages are useless (and should be replaced with images). Moreover, because they can be in effect a form of pithy sloganeering, they are fiddled with by every one looking for their moment in the spotlight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine either way; I think that caste infoboxes have a potential to be useful, but they are so rarely used properly, that they're not necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Will remove on 30th September, failing any substantive objections. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Note

This article has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topicsMW ^ℳ 03:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting source on Sanskritisation

This book has an interesting passage on the Gola/Ahir/etc. taking on the Yadava identity to avoid doing begar (unpaid labour) for other castes. Still need to dig into it and check into the author, but it's another interesting summary, and importantly covers the issues from a Women's Studies perspective that we're often short on in caste articles: [5]. I know we've had some discussion about whether the Yadav article has too much on Sanskritisation, but honestly it's looking like the "Yadav caste" (as opposed to the more general "everyone claiming descent from Yadu" that the article was bogged down in before) is in large degree a political creature.

I'm open to any rebuttal, but from what I'm seeing there doesn't seem to be a lot of connection between the Yadav caste, and folks in prior centuries who claimed Yadav-descent, other than claiming the same progenitor. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

please correct the article. The article needs more info

Till the 15 th century there were yadav dynasties ruling in India.

---

Students' Britannica India, Volumes 1-5

By Encyclopaedia Britannica (India)   page 287 , page 288

http://books.google.com/books?id=DPP7O3nb3g0C&pg=PA287&dq=YADAV+dynasty&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Publisher – Encyclopedia Britannica ( India ) Private Limited. This is an academic source.

In page 287 the article mentions that Yadava dynasty ruled parts of India. This clearly mentions that Yadavs were not only cow herds but were rulers too in 15 th century.

YEAR 2000

---

Architecture in Dharwar and Mysore: historical and descriptive memoir

By colonel Meadows Taylor

Publisher Asian Educational Services

http://books.google.com/books?id=u9mS8IbSyu0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=yadava&f=false

Page 5, 8, 10

Year 1989

---

http://www.textbooksonline.tn.nic.in/Books/11/Std11-Hist-EM.pdf

page 181 mentions that yadava dynasty was destroyed by Allauddin Khalji. This academic source published by the state government of India ( State – Tamil Nadu ) clearly states that yadava dynasty was ruling some parts of India. This definitely needs to be mentioned in the article.

there were many yadavs who ruled in various parts of india till late 15 th century. This needs to be mentioned.

The above articles evidence proves that sanskritization is not a valid theory since yadavs were rulers till 15th century.

please put the right information in the article.

the sources provided are valid academic sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.13.17 (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please take a read through the archives of this talk page (linked at the top of the Talk); these issues have been discussed at length before. Fundamentally, the concern is that the linkage between the medieval Yadava dynasties and the modern Yadav caste is unclear, and if we cannot find a clearly-documented linkage, that it would be incorrect to say that the two are related simply because they claim a similar descent. If you have reputable sources clearly indicating that the modern Yadav caste is related to the Yadav dynasties, please do present those. I believe in the past on Talk folks were relatively sure that the "Yadavas of Devagiri" were unrelated to the modern Yadavas, but again I'd be happy to see sources saying otherwise. Fundamentally, the fact that the same name was used at two different points in time separated by 500+ years is not enough to presume a connection between these communities. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

mathhew vanitas, buddy we dont even have any proof of they being the medival yadavas...do we??? pls gv us the source if u guys hv those.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarrana (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If I had such a source, I'd definitely add it, but in the meantime I'm not aware of a connection. The article as it stands now is mainly about "the Ahir and other pastoralists starting calling themselves Yadav during the late Raj and formed political movements. We don't really have any data in the article at the moment linking this movement to the medieval Yadavs (and even post-medieval scattered groups of folks who called themselves Yadav/Yadava/Yaduvanshi); there may be a connection, there may not be, but if there is one we need solid evidence. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proof of yadav as rulers and kings

Even in 17th and 18th century there were minor YADAV kings and rulers in princely states of india.

No one has been able to prove that the Yadavs are not related to ancient chandravansh kings. and there is no proof vice versa too. but many academics agree that yadavs are chandravansh but also some dont agree.

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2007/02/25/stories/2007022500310700.htm

para 1

clearly mentions yadavs are ancient aryans

---

http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2709/stories/20100507270906400.htm para 4

---

History of Sikh Gurus Retold: 1606-1708 C.E By Surjit Singh Gandhi http://books.google.com/books?id=vZFBp89UInUC&pg=PA588&dq=YADAV++kshatriya&hl=en#v=onepage&q=YADAV%20%20kshatriya&f=false

---

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 9

By Royal Asiatic Society of Bombay, Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Bombay Branch

http://books.google.com/books?id=yajAG0tbZ9cC&pg=PR206&dq=YADAV+dynasty&hl=en#v=onepage&q=yadava&f=false

page 322, 221, , 328

Published : London : - Trubner and Co.

This is a great academic source.

Kindly correct the article. There is enough material to link yadavs were also rulers and kings. and in the same talk/discussion so many users have agreed that Yadavs are not only cowherds but were once powerfull rulers. Kindly go through these material and correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.13.17 (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind if I reformat your request into a smoother format for you? There's an easier way to display it if you don't mind.

• 1) The Hindu: Timeless ritual -Significantly, the dominant clan here was not any of the martial Rajputs, but powerful herds-people: the canny Yadavs. One of the great Yadav chieftains was Lord Krishna. - Not RS as it is an Arts article about a religious play, so the writers are observing a ritual, not commenting on the historiocity of the event, nor of its proven connections to modern movements (particularly those which specifically seek to tap into this legendary history).
• 2) The Hindu: Fort full of life - In 1156 A.D., Rawal Jaisal, a descendant of the Yadav clan and a Bhatti Rajput, is said to have abandoned his fort at Lodurva, about 18 kilometres away, and, on the advice of a local hermit, founded the new fort and capital of Jaisalmer. Again, it's a Local Interest piece by a non-historian which mentions the backstory of a given fort. Further, it draws no connection between this medieval Yadav figure and the modern Yadav caste.
• 3) History of Sikh Gurus Retold: 1606-1708 C.E. By Surjit Singh Gandhi - Names just one person as a "Yadav Kshatriya". Again, no particular evidence that all Yadavs are kshatriya, nor that this Yadav person has anything to do with the modern Yadav caste.
• 4) Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 9 By Asiatic Society of Bombay, Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Bombay Branch - Again, all this does is mention that there were ancient kings called "Yadavs". It says nothing whatsoever about their having any connection to the modern Yadav caste.

• Look, everyone agrees there were various people at various points in Indian history who claimed descent from Yadu, and thus claimed the title of Chandravanshi Kshatriya. No argument there. This article, however, is about the modern "Yadav caste", which as best as we can tell so far is a grouping of the Ahir and other herder castes who began calling themselves "Yadav" in the last century and a half or thereabouts. To draw a parallel, if there is a family living in Texas by the last name of "Lionheart", can we just assume that they are descended from the medieval King Richard Lionheart of England, and spend a chunk of the article about "Lionheart family" covering an ancient king of similar name, with no particular evidence as to a connection? All the more so if we note that the family began calling itself "Lionheart" rather than "Smith" in the 1700s while living in Boston. Do you see our situation here? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

• The Oxford student's history of India. By Vincent Arthur Smith, Published by OXFORD at the Clarendon press. Page 60, 81, 88, 145, 80[6]
• Joshua Project
• Hinduism and Its Military Ethos page 209 [7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes this definitely needs to be taken to dispute resolution or Neutral point of view noticeboard. There is no proof or scholarly evidence to suggest that YADAVs are not chandravansh rulers. and In india the north and the south have been united politically only during the british rule but the YADAV community has been in all parts with the same ancestral origin theory. There is a continued lineage of YADAVS through the 3000 years of recorded history. The difference is they have been doing different things. sometimes rulers, sometimes cowherds, sometimes army generals,,the list is endless. Thats the truth and thats what the article should reflect. The book "The politics of the urban poor in early twentieth-century India" by Nandini Gooptu is political propaganda and the author does not have any academic credentials. This book cannot be taken as source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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