Talk:Yadav/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yadav last name

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2014

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

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

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

i m pushing sitush pov. http://www.godlovesyadav.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.21.163 (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2014‎ (UTC)

References

Neutral Point of View Tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sitush, Your words are speaking your mind. certainly you're putting this article in negative light. You're editing Narendra Modi Page and Yadav page. it shows your sick mind. wiki isn't place for your political tricks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.72.207 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014

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

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

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

[User talk:Arjayay|talk] : Your reliable source are pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.73.18 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Links from IP

primer

http://yadavhistory.com/attack_on_yadavs

for more

http://www.tellasia.org/children/bluehaven-boys-profiles.php

http://www.godlovesyadav.org/

these explain the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.21.163 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2014‎ (UTC)

@C.Fred: I've never seen these websites before. They are not in the article and nor should they be because they are soapboxing of the most unreliable type - fringey Christian websites/WP:SPS etc. I cannot really figure out why the IP has put them here but from their earlier message it looks like some sort of dig at me. Can we not collapse this section rather than give them the oxygen of publicity? - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2014

yadu were not non elite.they were very power ful kings.according to sri madbhagvatam king yadu was son of king yayati who was ruler of the whole world ,so how can u say they were non elite .its rubbish to say they were non elite.

and very sorry to say that krishna is mythology,that s bogus.the word 'yadav' especially refers to krishna ,the word yadav means "the one who is best in yadu dynasty"krishna being supreme personality of godhead is best. that s why we see many yadus today write sir name yadav. this itself proves there is no reason to say krishna it is mythology. everything exist in a order .only the one who is fool number one ,has a prejudice against hinduism, a christian could do this but he does not know that by doing so he is doing great offence against god ,he will suffer for this .

reference sri madbhagavatm 5 canto -read it Abhinav yadav12 (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. would also need reliable sources for whatever changes Cannolis (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Abhinav yadav12 (talk : Agreed with you. these guys are intentionally degrading Yadav's reputation. all these guys are cowards who are misinformation to world.

article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably

The concepts like Sankritization and Akhil Bhartiya Yadav Mahasabha are given excessively undue weightage. Thses concepts involve not this single community only but many others too, hence be dealt with in the scope of separate articles. It is justified to leave the links in this articles to these articles. Excess material on these concepts make article too long. I request experts to please look in to the matter. Regards.--Mahensingha 19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

You have been tagging excessively, indeed seemingly indiscriminately, across a range of articles. I've just removed all of them from this one. This article has come under a lot of scrutiny over a prolonged period and it is far from being too long. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In my view tagging is attributed to what came to my mind after going through the article/articles and the very purpose of doing so is to draw attention of specialists,be it you. If its reviewed by you or other specialists, as least, gives me satisfaction that everything is alright. Sociological aspects change with time and the contents in articles must be updated with such changes and remain ever informative. This is my actual purpose, still, if too much tagging is inappropriate or not permitted then please let me know. I shall definitely abide by such suggestions. Thanks and regards.--Mahensingha 08:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

116.193.134.69 (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sitush Work is Biased and if someone is providing reliable sources, Sitush giving excuses

Sitush Work is Biased and if someone is providing reliable sources, Sitush giving excuses like wiki policy ... this is new book.... he rely bible only......authors is not enough qualified........etc etc even though whatever he has written in wikki is incomplete picture ...........his way of writing is contradictory..........

101.217.171.19 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yadav's are Kings -- see the history of wodeyar

In this article yadav were shown in poor light. that's bad. see the history of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadiyar_dynasty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.72.208 (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yadav Kings

Please read Wadiyar dynasty at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadiyar_dynasty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.73.18 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015

Please change Yādav refers to a grouping of traditionally non-elite,[1][2][3][4] to Yadav are from the Lunar dynasty (also known as Somavansha, Chandravansha and as Ailas) is one of the four principal houses of the Kshatriya varna, or warrior–ruling caste. Ashok5infomation (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: You do not provide a reliable source for this, and the current text is heavily sourced already. -- ferret (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please find the source which says what you want to be changed, like the source which says "Yadav are from the Lunar dynasty (also known as Somavansha, Chandravansha and as Ailas) is one of the four principal houses of the Kshatriya varna, or warrior–ruling caste". Giving reference of another article on wikipedia is a circular reference and hence not acceptable. Even this does not contain support for what you want.--MahenSingha (Talk) 22:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

References

YADAV CASTE

YADAV caste is founded by yadu bansh .they are Kshatriya varna and baishnab dharmi.they are worship lord krishna and keep cows. this caste is largest population caste of india and is classified in different name in many state of India.this caste is likely "Ahir,Konar,Yadava,Gauda(Gopala),Golla,Sadgopa,Dhangar,Idayan,Rawat" etc. and is largely show in Utarpradesh,HaryanaPpanjhab,Delhi,Rajastan,Himachalpradesh,North-east,bihar,bengal,odisha and some of south India.and found in other country Nepal,burma and Srilanka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.248.134.62 (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency between the citation & the written info.

The second line of the article's introduction mentions that the "Yadavs are also the descendant of Lord Krishna,...". But the cited source mentions that the "...Lord Krishna....whom some shudra castes, notably the ahir or yadav, claim to be their ancestor." So, according to the citation, the second line should mention that the "Yadavs, like some other shudra castes, claim to be the descendant of Lord Krishna,..." or "Yadavs claim to be the descendant of Lord Krishna,...".-NitinMlk (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Stressing the term "Shudra" is avoided as we maintain NPOV. Please go through the whole article, the term shudra is mentioned there in right sense. More than that is needless here because some sources mention them as Kshatriya also. So maintain neutrality. Thanks for suggestion.--SMahenS (Talk) 19:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mahensingha: Thanks for the edit. My concern wasn't regarding the Shudra or the Kshatriya. I just wanted the information to be well-cited.-NitinMlk (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The above is entirely irrelevant now. I could see no improvements in the edits made during this last month and so have reverted to the February version. It was complete nonsense to introduce the Krishna claim because the article already said that they claim to be descendants of the mythological Yadu, from whom Krishna himself is a descendant. I'm becoming increasingly concerned, Mahensingha, with your edits to Ahir-related articles. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush:You are anytime welcome to point me out if anywhere I deviate from the sources or otherwise. I always accepted and will accept your suggestions with fully positive mind. I see that I am not unknown to you and even in the past I have always been looking forward for your help/suggestions whenever I faced anything unusual. I think no particular caste shall be targeted, instead all caste related articles be treated same way and impartially. Let me also confirm you that the edits on this article as objected by you are not mine, I just removed few objectionable statements or words which were not as per the sources. Still if there is anything which I should not do you are most welcome to inform me positively like before. Regards--SMahenS (Talk) 20:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: If Krishna was a descendant of Yadu then he was a Yadav himself. Thus mentioning Yadavs descended from Krishna is akin to mention that Yadavs descended from a Yadav, which doesn't make any sense.-NitinMlk (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance here. Umpteen branches derive from these various mythological characters and they are mythological. It's a wonder sometimes that we even bother to include them at all because they really are meaningless. However, my point was that we don't need to mention Krishna because we do mention Yadu. What's the problem, NitinMlk? Or are you agreeing with me? I'm confused! - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: I actually agree with you. But the introduction mentions that "Yadav...claimed descent from Yadu, and from Krishna". My point was that once you have mentioned Yadu then there's no need to mention anybody else.-NitinMlk (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Yes, it does seem pointless when looked at that way. However, I think I've seen books/papers that discuss the Yadav's specific worship of Krishna. Rather than bin it, it might be better to find another way to say the same thing, eg: "claim descent from Krishna and his antecedent, Yadu." Would that make things any better? Have I got it wrong about the Krishna worship? - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: That sound perfect under the present circumstance!-NitinMlk (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is certainly better.--SMahenS (Talk) 14:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yadav is panchjanya Kshatrya caste also spelled as Yaduvanshi the generation of King Yadu and Lord shri Krishna.

The information given was totally crap. Yadavs were shown as shudra but according to Varna system Yadavs are Blue blooded Aryan Kshatrya who also practice animal husbandry. Yadavs are only sacred panchjanya Kshatrya left on this planet. Traditionally Yadav is a caste of Kings, emperors . In rural areas Yadavs are given titles like chaudhary, Rao, Rana, mandal etc which states that Traditionally Yadavs are leaders and prosperous caste. Jadejas of Gujarat, Bhati dynasty of jaisalmer, Jadons of karauli, Wadiyar of mysore Royal house are some of the examples which proves that Yadav is a royal caste. Keeping cows was kind of status of pride in the Aryan society at that time. And there was one more custom in Aryan society of Kshatryas, higher the no. of cows higher the status. Cow was seen with great respect in Aryan society so keeping cow nd doing business of the stuffs made of cow and practicing agriculture categorize Yadavs in the class of Vaishya by action but by caste Yadav is a blue blooded Regal clan. Ahir is the corrupt version of Abhiras. Abhir is a Sanskrit word which means Fearless, devastating and short-tempered. There are many references available about the Abhiras. According to the Scriptures in Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Abhiras were a Fearless short-tempered Royal tribe. Rana Ranvijay Yadav (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yadavs are Yaduvanshi the generation of King Yadu and Lord Krishna.There was no Rajput word in the Aryan society. The ruling classes were propounded by Lord Krishna himself as Rajanya. For the references there are many versaces in shrimad bhagvatam which states Yadav or Yaduvanshi or Abhir as Panchjanya Kshatryas. Nd the picture placed abt the Yadavs is totally crap. How come a caste of Landlords and Kings look so worse. Please remove the picture about the Yadavs. Rana Ranvijay Yadav (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rana Ranvijay Yadav: Do you have independent reliable sources to back this up? Note that scripture is considered a primary source and not usable for this purpose. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

My recent revert

I have just reverted here. There is a long-standing consensus that we try to avoid mentioning varna in lead sections because the issue is very frequently complex. In that particular removal there was an explicit claim of kshatriya status that cited Michelutti. Her work is already referred to in the body of the article and with a more nuanced explanation of the kshatriya position. For that matter, the nuances are also reflected towards the end of the lead itself. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush:In my opinion the lead section at present is perfectly fine and I appreciate your vision on the article. Still, one question in my mind is that the Section "Classification" has contents mentioning the process of 2001. Do we not need to update it with current time as even the Allahabad High Court questioned the Govt. of U.P. about their misrepresented OBC status and the issue is on focus in most of the leading news publications in Uttar Pradesh. I am asking this because few sourced information has been removed from the article which you did not discuss here. The contents removed were as follows-

"The Allahabad High court in 2013, restrained Government of Uttar Pradesh from continuing the reservation for Ahir, Yadav, Yaduvanshi and Gwala stating the reason that representation of these OBC communities in government services has reached to 59.67 percent. Court also said that exclusion of well represented classes will help other groups who are not able to compete with these advanced groups."

References

Sure. If the info is outdated then it needs fixing. (I've just changed your use of the reflist template - we have {{reflist-talk}} for just this situation.) - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me the key word "reflist-talk" and I am really sorry for the mistake. After your kind approval now I may add back the above-mentioned news update. Thanks and regards.--SMahenS (Talk) 18:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree the lead should not contain Varna... All I am saying is the lead should be neutral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Lucia michelluti in her PHD work states that "Yadav is grouping of kings, zamindars, cowherds and peasants". Lucia michelluti also states the traditional status cannot be determined. It consists of elite as well as non-elite. So to maintain Wikipedia:neutral point of view we need to mention both sides. Yadav is a grouping of elite as well as non-elite communities. Page 302 of here Phd thesis http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2106/1/U613338.pdf

your one pic show them as shudra is not appreciable as we all know we are not shudra at all please remove that picture as it is degrading the image of yadav who are land owner and martial caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raje888 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 27 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Not done: It's not clear which picture you are referring to. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 21:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

John Henry Hutton

You cannot deem the biased works of a British servant out there to undermine the indigenous castes of the ruled countries as "reliable". He says that yadavs were outside the caste hierarchy. This is what we know about the author - "John Henry Hutton (27 June 1885 – 23 May 1968) was an English-born anthropologist and an administrator in the Indian Civil Service (ICS) during the period of the British Raj. " Can he be termed as a core, impartial academician? That, think would be an insult to the hard working academicians who devote their lives in pursuit of academic excellence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.246.110 (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't. I didn't write it. However, I think whoever did write it is trying to use the thing in the context of the time. It seems to be used to support that this was the "traditional" view, which seems possibly to be acceptable as an official documentation of its time. - Sitush (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That is, I don't consider it to be a reliable source. And I didn't write it into this article. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I will be providing more resources especially PHD work by research scholars which cannot be ignored. Not sure why Lucia michelluti is ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2017

http://www.serialsjournals.com/serialjournalmanager/pdf/1486011480.pdf

Few important information on Yadav community can be recieved from this link http://www.serialsjournals.com/serialjournalmanager/pdf/1486011480.pdf 14.139.69.23 (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My second edit request is

Statement " since the nineteenth and twentieth centuries[5][6] has claimed descent from the mythological King Yadu as a part of a movement of social and political resurgence.[7] " should be modified to "

has claimed descent from the mythological King Yadu ".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia I assume is about reliabeleity and authenticite.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mention of "elite" in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Fowler&fowler the status of Yadavs/Ahirs is varied from region to region. In certain regions they are laborers, certain regions they are purely cowherds, some places they are rulers and kings like Rewari and Khandesh. Overall they range from Kings, Kshatriya , Vaishyas, Shudra. The status is very varied. They used this collective status to claim a uniform Kshatriya status.. The Proof is provided in Lucia Micheluttis PHD thesis submitted to London School of Economics and Political science. Its a ethnography study on modern day Yadav community.. Please look at page 302 in the below link

http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2106/1/U613338.pdf

The summary of her thesis is as follows in Page 302

"The Ahir caste/community also had an ambiguous ritual status in the caste hierarchy historically. Amongst the Ahir/Yadav caste we find rajas, zamindars, sepoys and cowherders who have been conceived and categorised either as warriors and as belonging to the Kshatriya varna, or as lower-caste and belonging to the Shudra varna. More specifically, in Ahirwal, members of Ahir seigneurial lineages have come to be known by the title of Rajput. I argue that the Ahirs’ ambiguous status and the fact that members of this large heterogeneous community were (and are) recognised as a Rajput-like community made it possible for all the Yadavs to think of themselves as a martial and valorous caste with a Kshatriya pedigree."

Please give due weightage and maintain the wiki neutral point of view.. The article is in-correct and has wrong information in it. Kindly take a look and provide feedback as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yadavs are Kshatriya

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

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

Yadav is elite Caste

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

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

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

Old Yadav Page

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

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

The History of Ahir and Gavlis need to be mentioned

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

As suggested by the sources that All Ahirs are not Yadav and possibly vice versa. Hence Ahir and Yadav are the two different concepts.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about ahirs, gavlis, etc,, who referred to themselves as Yadavs using some materials. The article talks a lot about ahirs. Hence history of ahirs need to be included.

For example: Nepal had a Ahir rulers , there is a ahir rewari kingdom, in various other places the status of ahirs varied. There is history would be good to add. since now I am really confused by this article. It does not explain the social transformation clearly.

https://books.google.com/books?id=yEHODCDK-8kC&pg=PA26&dq=ahirs+nepal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9nOqd7KfWAhXmsFQKHUWBBK8Q6AEIQjAG#v=onepage&q=ahirs%20nepal&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=b9ktWLud0oIC&pg=PA51&dq=ahir+rewari&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEs4XT7KfWAhXGg1QKHYUYCaMQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=ahir%20rewari&f=false Meenapandit (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)MPANDIT Meenapandit (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thanks Sitush for the clean up. I still feel the article is not neutral since many sources were presented which contradict the statements in the article. This is a ongoing discussion. I request wiki users to post their comments and be respectfully of others opinions. Wikipedia needs reference to verify.

Lucia Michelutti in her phd report has clearly mentioned that Yadav cummunity historical status is ambiguous and cannot be determined. According to her " The yadav caste/community had an ambiguous ritual status in the caste hierarchy historically. Amongst the Ahir/Yadav caste we find rajas, zamindars, sepoys and cowherders who have been conceived and categorised either as warriors and as belonging to the Kshatriya varna, or as lower-caste . More specifically, in Ahirwal, members of Ahir seigneurial lineages have come to be known by the title of Rajput ". It is very clear that Yadav community hsitorical status varies from region to region. There are kings, zamindars also. Sons of Krishna: the politics of Yadav community formation in a North Indian town Lucia Michelutti. Read page 302 and 303 PhD Thesis / Social Anthropology / 2002 / London school of economic and politcal science. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2106/1/U613338.pdf Kiranmayi pal (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Kiranmayi pal

This is already covered in the article and in archived discussions here. I am not replying to you any further as you are being disruptive and clearly have not absorbed my note above even though you thank me for the clean up. Eg: you said pretty much the same thing, citing the same page of the same source, here and here. - Sitush (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sitush I am not sure why you are getting aggressive and removing even the talk page which has a open discussion. Looking at the history of the article user Mahensingha has been very neutral but you have even removed his comments and edits. Not sure why. Sitush you have removed contents which even senior editors like Mahensingha have posted. If you can provide which policy of wiki is being violated that will be helpful. Sitush please provide a explanation of why you deleted other users feedback.

Ok that's fine but can some one explain to me what is wrong with the following statements

History: Historical the ahirs held a ambiguous ritual status. Amongst the Ahir/Yadav caste we find rajas, zamindars, sepoys and cowherders who have been conceived and categorised either as warriors and as belonging to the Kshatriya varna, or as lower-caste. Ahirs ruled Nepal, Rewari region in Harayana and Khandesh in central India.

Three valid sources are provided.

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

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

page 302

http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2106/1/U613338.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 21:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 

Dear Wikipedia users please add your comments for a history section. Also provide verifiable academic books so that Wikipedia neutrality and due weightage is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 00:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion of HISTORY section in the article was first suggested by me. We should have a history section as stated above. All similar articles in Wikipedia have history section. Meenapandit (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Meenapandit

Status

This article has been at dispute resolution on several occasions in relation to its claims regarding status of the Yadavs. You can see a list of past cases here. The end result of all of that, and of discussions on this talk page, has consistently been that it accurately reflects reliable sources.

Despite this, even in the last couple of years, various people have repeatedly attempted to change things further, claiming that some Yadavs were of the kshatriya varna and/or "elite". The article already says that and, in fact, gives quite a bit of information about the arguments regarding kshatriya. Citing one or two pages from one or two sources, where those pages have been cherrypicked from the sources, is not going to change things. Hence, p 302 of Michelutti's thesis, or whatever page it was from the Padmanaj Temples book, doesn't alter either the overall opinion conveyed by those works nor the numerous other opinions conveyed by other reliable sources. Yadav's are considered to be "mainly non-elite" and they do claim a kshatriya descent etc, just as the article says at present.

Persisting in bringing up the same issues, citing the same cherrypicked information, is not going to alter the situation and may be construed as tendentious editing. Since this article is subject to the provisions of WP:GS/Caste, such behaviour could result in sanctions being imposed on contributors who ignore this. - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sitush so far these users have supported my view points.

1. If you carefully read Mahensingha feedback, Mahensingha supports editing this article based on my suggestions. 2. Meenapandit supports my statements. 3. Manoj Ranjan Yadav supports my statements. 4. Aman Kumar pratapgharhi supports my statements. The list is endless.

The statements I am making are based on valid PHD research. I have provided links to books as well. I have waited for other users to provide their feedback as well. Right now I agree there is 30 - 70 disagreement on this article. Sitush point of view is supported only by 30 % and my statements are supported by 70 %. I have provided enough articles to support my statements.

Sitush you have unilaterally ignored five books which state Yadav status as King to Laborer and based on three or four books you have edited this article. Where as I have provided enough books to have a different more neutral statement. Overall why are you ignoring Phd research works by reputed universities. This article is clearly biased and violates the Wikipedia principle of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Violates Wikipedia:Consensus - Wikipedia

Again my concern is who is posts a comment you simply ignore it and finally block that user. why ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 21:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't ignored anything. I've read the damn stuff time and again over the last 10 years. You, on the other hand, seem never to look at past discussions or policy. You've also forgotten the people who agreed with the current version and rejected your version years ago, and I'm also unsure whether you have correctly characterised the position of Mahensingha. In addition, consensus is not a vote - it is based on policy and the fact that a couple of families somewhere were kings while a million other people (or whatever) were labourers is an issue of weight that has to be addressed and is addressed in the current version. You can't cherry-pick one page from a book, either, although that is what you do - read what we already cite from the Michelutti thesis and tell me you are not. You need to be blocked, along with your mates and, hopefully, will be soon because this is becoming silly. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Eg: Michelutti says "The Yadavs were traditionally a low-to-middle-ranking cluster of pastoral-peasant castes that have become a significant political force in Uttar Pradesh". That doesn't make her comment about a ruling family incorrect but it does mean it is not representative. One swallow does not a summer make. - Sitush (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the last comment on this talk page from Mahensingha. It does not show support for your position, as you claim. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Haha you must be joking. What mates are you talking about. I will show you proof for where Mahensingha has agreed to put elite in the article header. Sitush you are cherry picking based on some resources. I have followed every Wikipedia policy and you have violated policies. 5 books is not cherry picking. History section needs to be added in this article based on verifiable books. that will make the article better. Sitush you seem to get very aggressive and disruptive ignoring 5 books which are PHD articles. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sitush the population of Yadavs in Harayana is 1.1 million. These yadavs are classified as Forward caste and are called Rajputs in Rewari .. Please do not distort facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 00:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)