Jump to content

Talk:Yadav/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Changing Nature

Sitush you incorporating so derogatory comment only on the bases of one source.These comments have no relation to our topic.i will delete it tomorrow because you have not good intention.you have your own agenda.And this source is not related to our topic.you did not want yadavs kingdoms mentioning on article but you have admitting derogatory comment.your intention are very doubtful.i am not agree with you.more over for which region the source talking about.plese clear.you did not even discuss this section on talk page why are behaving like dictator of wikipedia.you are a senior contributer.Bill clinton history (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why have you just moved the subsection title "In practice"? The source is discussing the Rig Veda etc, which are myths. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the conclusion of a reputed modern historian after study the topic indepth.now you are showing very poor knowledge about history.you dont even know the difference between myth and conclusion of a historian.Bill clinton history (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Jaffrelot, Christophe (2003). India's silent revolution: the rise of the lower castes in North India. London: C. Hurst & Co.. p. 194. ISBN 978-1-85065-670-8. Retrieved 2011-08-16.

The above auther is not an expert on our area.he is writing about political situation in present india.so his comment included in origion section is completely wrong.they should be deleted.Comments of Tilak Gupta which publish in a journal not at all authentic.he is not the expert of our area.and tone and context is completely politicaly motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill clinton history (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You have taken on MangoWong's position regarding analysis of sources. He got has got nowhere so far and, I am afraid, the same applies now. Jaffrelot is a modern academic with numerous publications in the India-related sphere and more specifically with regard to castes/communities, He is widely cited and should be cited here. Similarly, Gupta is widely cited and has decent credentials. EPW is not some two-bit weekly news-sheet but one that is respected enough to warrant inclusion at JSTOR. - Sitush (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ahir/Abhira again

I am sorry but I am struggling to reconcile the combination by BCH of his contributions with mine, which has created an awkwardness in the wording of the Ahir/Abhira issue. Can anyone sort it out? I'm off for an hour or so. The gist is, Jaffrelot says it is a claim, I believe that Enthoven says that it is a claim, but Bill's bit seems to have it as a certainty. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You should read entire debate on ahir talk page again.the issue is very much clear.if now you have any doubt you should provide sources first in support of their claim rather making baseless conclusion.Bill clinton history (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Fixed your indents again. If it is specifically an Ahir issue then perhaps it should be addressed at Ahir since it is only of tangential relevance to Yadav. - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
if you have any doubt you can come with your sources on ahir page.I am open to discuss it again.but read entire debate again.Bill clinton history (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Bill, you are missing my point. This article is about Yadavs, of which Ahirs form just one part. If the issue can be dealt with at Ahir and has no direct bearing on other members of the Yadav community then, surely, it is better actually dealt with at Ahir? The Jaffrelot situation is slightly different because as it develops it will become clear that he is discussing the issue of the AYMK as part of the wider Yadav community's Sanskritsation - it has a direct bearing. - Sitush (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
No,sorry sitush i am not agree with you.The Jaffrelot dealing with poiltical situation in present india.so his/her comments should not be mentioned in origin.than so long section of changing nature with baseless,politicaly motivated comment of Tilak Gupta has no relevance at all.so much weightage to the source which are not directly related to the topic makes article unauthentic and misleading.Bill clinton history (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not arguing with you. You can disagree as much as you like, but the content is valid. How stuff from 1910 and earlier can be "dealing with the political situation in present India" is beyond me. I acknowledge that Gupta's comment is more recent but note that it segues from a comment by one of your favourite Victorian/Edwardian ethnologists. And you also removed Rao's comment. Were those two additional sources also concerned with present-day political events (what ever they may be)? That would be some foresighted on the part of R V Russell and Lal, wouldn't it? - Sitush (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sanskritisation

The section currently titled "Changing nature" is likely to grow quite substantially. I have half-a-dozen books open at the moment and have just had a request fulfilled at WP:RX. Ultimately, I can see this being split off from the main article but, please, can people bear with me for now as it is quite a complex subject and I need to work my way through all of the variations etc. I will try to ensure that any additions to it stand on their own merit & therefore do not unduly portray things in a distorted way. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are writting it for main article than why are you creating imbalance in yadav article.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Bill, it does not say that I am drafting something for a "main article", whatever that may be. I said that it may become too big/complex for this article & that we will have to see. Now, are you going to undo your recent removals of cited content or should I take it to the edit warring noticeboard again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitush (talk • contribs)
If you're thinking that this may be an independent article, would it be easier to draft in a Sandbox first, then later, based on length, decide where to put it here or independently (linked from here, of course)? That way we can see the whole thing without having it reverted in parts. Alternatively, if you think you can do it in a single sitting, you should be able to do it in the article with an "in use" template--Bill, if Sitush does use that method, you should respect his "in use" and wait until it's fully completed before undertaking any changes; furthermore, you cannot simply revert because you don't like it, but only because if it is not policy compliant. If you're unsure, discuss it here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Any "in use" template would likely be there for a week or more, which is unfair on everyone else. These additions get to the heart of modern Yadav history etc, although that will not make me popular with some. It would be awkward to sandbox without rewriting the entire article, since it is going to end up spread across several sections (Origins, what will be Sanskritisation, the AIYM etc), some of which already exist. However, if people would rather I do it that way then I will have a go. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

My recent removals

I have removed a lot of the recent additions by BCH. The architectural stuff is out there on the web, including on a United Nations World Heritage site, and as such is copyright violation. The content regarding ancient dynasties etc has already been removed once recently from this articles because the main source specifically says that those people had little to do with the Yadavs and that Yadav claims to genealogical connection cannot be believed.

I am aware that removing copyvios does not impinge on the three revert thing, but I am disappointed to see this going on. I am also disappointed to see that Bill has removed some validly cited information and restored some info (about the various castes forming a part of the community) which was taken out precisely because the sources Bill used did not in fact substantiate the statements been made. There are one or two additional sources this time, so I guess that I will have to wade through them all yet again. Unfortunately, if I do that then I will go over 3RR - either someone else will have to check or it will have to wait. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Bill, since my source regarding members of the Yadav community was much more modern than yours, why did you remove it? - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to track down the relevant statement from "The Rajputs: history, clans, culture, and nobility", currently citation #8. Can anyone tell me what it says? I can only see snippet view, which is not good enough. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, #6 (Junagadh K. V. Soundara Rajan, Archaeological Survey of India ) and #7 (Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency: Cutch, Palanpur, and Mahi Kantha). - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Sitush, you want to write the entire article from one book which is not based on our topic.and the writer not the expert of our area.my sources is completely relevant.if you have any contradictory sources available than put them on talk page.we will discuss with open mind.
In your Section of Changing Nature you are making generalisation about entire community like depiction of all yadavs as low caste peasants.this is not the case.yadavs is considered kshtriya in varna system at broad all india level.Indial statuary commission report clearly mention that.but you are pushing your points arbitrarly without taking consensus or discussion.
Moreover you have inserted jats which has no relation with yadavs.no proper historian back their claim.but only you back without any bases.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you see those sources in full, Bill? I would like to have at least the relevant page, the one prior to it and the one after it. You cannot just say "they are relevant", especially not when there is some doubt regarding your ability to evaluate and represent sources. That ability will hopefully improve with time, especially if you take on board the comments of more experienced contributors regarding what is or is not such a source.
Regarding your other points, Jats are mentioned because they are relevant, I am using more than one source, I am covering more than one area and - which is more - the areas that are being covered are the ones with historically the densest population of Yadavs. Unless you have figures to show otherwise (and this is unlikely because there has been no caste census since 1931), it is all entirely valid. What was the outcome of the 1968 caste survey? I know that was a projection but do you have any idea what the figures were? - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
In origin section you have put modern historians conclusion in mythology.this is completely wrong.the relation of ahir with Abhir concluded my historians also ,see below link

2. The culture and civilisation of ancient India in historical outline, Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi, i have physical copy of this book if you want i can mail you relevant page scan.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


The source have full detail about chudasama and bhati,see wkiki jadeja article and my sources also.if you have any contradictory sources than present on talk page.than this debate will become more equal.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


this source completely contrdict your cchanging nature section which generalise all yadavs as low caste oeasants.one of the clan of maratha claims yadavs relation to claim kshtriya status.

1.Shivaji, the great Maratha By H. S. Sardesai,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=0QjwENC2V_IC&pg=PA118&dq=yadavs+of+devgiri&hl=en&ei=719OTpDJF8zOrQfbjvmVAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=yadavs%20of%20devgiri&f=false)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill clinton history (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Bill. Please do not swamp us again just yet. Can you please answer my initial query: are you able to see the books currently used as sources for the statement? In particular, the three I note above. If not then we move on to other possible sources. We have to have some sort of order to this discussion otherwise it will just degenerate as it has done it the past, with you throwing tens of links at us and then complaining when you think that we have not looked at them. Furthermore, the discussion needs to stay in one thread, so please do not create more sections for this - it becomes very confusing, very fast. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the citation of Shyam Singh Shashi's work on Nomads. The author does have an academic background but this particular book is produced by a relatively new and unknown publisher who advertise vanity services, it contains a lot of typographical errors, a lot of poor writing/editing and a lot of self-promotional material ("see my many books on ... available in Hindi, English and Malayalam" etc, plus a ridiculous use of blurbs at the back inner pages). Furthermore, for an academic work it has few citations. There is something not quite right here. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I have now removed the citation of Enthoven for the Bhati = Yadav point. Enthoven admits to relying substantially on James Tod for historical points etc, and the latter is not in my opinion a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yadavas of Devgiri

1.The Cambridge Shorter History of India,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=9_48AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA162&dq=yadavs+of+devgiri&hl=en&ei=rmFOTvv8FYjRrQebkdXDAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false)) 2.Generation gap, a sociological study of inter-generational conflicts By Ramaa Prasad,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FYElqUmQttgC&pg=PA32&dq=yadavs+of+devgiri&hl=en&ei=nWROTr6NJoPtrQe48r2qAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q&f=false))

Sithush ,YOU can read in detail about yadavas of devgiri.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained to you on countless occasions, the Yadavas are not thought to be the same people as the Yadavs. It is a concocted history, it is possible to actually name the person who first concocted it, and even your own source provided yesterday said that the connection was unlikely. I have removed the section and should really remove the Empire section for the same reason. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
After reading the sources provided yet again, I have removed the Empire bit. None of them refer to the Yadavs, and only some refer to the Yadavas. I have yet to see a reliable source that connects the two. The point about how certain Yadavs created a connection is already in the article. Obviously, if after all these weeks BCH or someone else can come up with such a source then great but right now it is at best tangential. - Sitush (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
sir please provide sources before reaching conclusion in sopport of your views.if you dont have sources than on what bases you are making generalistion.

Bill clinton history (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot prove a negative, Bill. For weeks now you have been unable to prove that Yadav = Yadava. Period. The item should not be in the article until you have proven the connection. I am removing it again and you will stop your warring, otherwise I'll request another block. It is simply not acceptable behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Does "Religious seats" have any pertinence to modern Yadav caste?

The "Religious seats" section, with dates in the 1000s AD and 1560 AD, appears to apply to "Yadav" in the sense of "claiming descent from Yadu"/"Yaduvanshi", not in the sense of "Yadav caste". Has anyone any linkage between this section and the Yadav caste which is the topic of this article, or can it be remove (and possible relocated to Yaduvanshi or Yadava?) MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Vaishnavism

Vaishnavism has been reinstated by Akhil.anand.hisar as being the religious belief generally followed by Yadavs. The source for this is Enthoven, and although page 24 as cited does not mention religion at all, Enthoven does indeed cover it on p. 32. My points:

  1. page 32 (like p. 24) is with regard to the Ahirs alone, not Yadavs in general. Contrast this with Jaffrelot, who quite explicitly uses Ahirs as an example of a wider trend within the Yadav community.
  2. Enthoven says that various gods were worshipped, including Shiva & Vishnu, but of them all the favourites are Bhavani and Krishna. This sounds to me as if it is a little more complex than plain Vaishnavism.
  3. Enthoven appears to like Risley, that discredited anthropometrist whose theories might quite easily have got Indian elephants mixed up with African elephants, let alone anything on the human scale. And Enthoven, published in 1922, is using even older sources for much of his content.

Do we have something more modern, please? It needs to say that Yadavs generally follow the Vaishnava school and that this is so now, not a century ago. Somehow, I doubt that there will be such a source because there has been no caste census since 1931 and even then the definition of which castes were part of the Yadav community might be moot. Note: I am not saying that the statement is wrong but rather than there may be issues verifying it. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Akhil, did you even read the page you claim to cite? Clearly you did not notice that there is nothing on or near Pg 24 which supports your assertion. Per Sitush's comments above, I read Pg 32, and it's about Ahirs, not Yadavs. You can't take info about related groups and just extrapolate them like that; so you need to find something that says "Yadavs do XYZ" where it is clear from context that it refers to the "Yadav caste" and not just to the whole span of Yaduvanshi claimants. Don't just revert things without explanation; I did the courtesy of explaining my removal. Given that I've given an explanation in the Edit Summary and here, I'll go remove the text once again. If you re-add it, I suggest you have a very clear explanation which rebuts the points offered here, otherwise you'd simply be edit warring with no explanation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I note also that Enthoven says the Yaduvanshi were a subdivision of the Ahirs, which is confusing to me, and that the worship of Krishna was due to a belief that the Ahirs were descended from cowherds who were companions of Krishna. Where does Yadu fit into this? Ok, wrong talk page for these points but I raise them to demonstrate that Enthoven seems to be contrary to a lot of the stuff that has recently been removed from this article even though he was cited extensively in support of various of those removals. Dodgy, very dodgy. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a complex topic, but it does appear (relatively) generally said that Yaduvanshi is one of three subdivisions of the Ahir, along with Gwalvanshi and Nandvanshi. I'm still not totally clear whether some people are trying to argue that "Yadavas" are simply "Yaduvanshi Ahirs", but temporarily setting aside the discourse, I think your research lays out the political history pretty well. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"though the claim is disputed."

The lead ends by saying that the descent from Yadu is disputed. A new editor removed it; I re-added (in part just because it messed up the ref tags, in part because they said something irrelevant about a court), but I did want to get clarification from whoever added that--do we have a source saying that it's a disputed claim? If it's in the text, let's copy it up to the lead just to be "safe"; if it's citation 1 in the lead, lets move that cite to the end of the line. I mean, I'm assuming that Yadu's existence itself is a matter of dispute (based on what I get from reading Yadu), but a reference here would be lovely to more soundly stop removals. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It reads like a compromise, probably as a consequence of discussions. MV can likely sort it out; I certainly cannot as my knowledge of Yadu etc is not much greater than yours at present. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I have now added the Jaffrelot cite, taken from the body of the article and quoted in full there. I feel sure that there are more direct sources for the statement somewhere & hopefully MatthewVanitas can resolve this. My involvement with the Yadu and Yaduvanshi articles has been too little to have any great familiarity with the detailed dispute (so far). - Sitush (talk) 06:00, 26 August 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.[1]

- 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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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)

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)
  1. ^ Michelutti, Lucia (February 2004). ""We (Yadavs) are a caste of politicians": Caste and modern politics in a north Indian town". Contributions to Indian Sociology. 38 (1–2): 52, 57–58. Retrieved 2011-08-27.(subscription required)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yadav/Archive_6&oldid=1140123171"