Talk:Yadav/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

POV pushing

In the space of a few hours Ancient indian historian modified the Classification section of the infobox to remove the Sudra comment and, when this was reverted due to it being unsupported by the citation, proceeded to completely change the purpose of the section by using the Indian government [OBC classification. The latter classification system is very different to the first version.

I have checked the infobox documentation, which is virtually non-existent, and cannot work out what the Classification section is intended to show. However, the fact that Aih keeps fiddling with it makes me concerned that there may be some POV pushing going on here. So, can anyone explain what the purpose of the section is and can Aih explains their actions, please. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, Aih has now been blocked again, this time for two weeks. If they should read this and want to respond then feel free to add your response on your talk page and I'll move it over. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello I am AiH.you are blocking me regularly without substance.i think you don't have courage to listen other point of view.you people supporting information which based on corrupt and unauthentic sources.what i am supporting is not new to this article.there are ample proof of chandravanshi origin of yadav in above discussion.whats wrong to put OBC in classification.i think that is more useful for present reader and based on more updated classfication.you are supporting vandalism by blocking me and allow another to corrupt all article related to yadav community.Yadavas are in OBC LIST OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA at national level.what other extra source you want.i can't imagine you people can be so senseless.one among you have comletly deleted the article of yaduvanshi ahirs.your duty is to stop vandalism and paradoxicaly some among you himself doing vandalism or supporting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.47.37 (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not directly pertinent, but I note that when I've added "Shudra" (based on academic cites) to Caste X, I get people objecting "but they can't be Shudra, they're not even an OBC!". And now, we have a caste where folks want to put in OBC and not Shudra. Not the Brahminical echelons and modern set-aside programs are necessarily linked, but it's interesting to see people claiming exactly different reasons to gain the same angle. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yadavs in South India

Yadavs mentioned one of kashatriya community of south india.in medieval india yadav kingdom of devgiri,and Vijaynagar Empire as two major ruling house representing yadavs. Ref.The background of Maratha renaissance in the 17th century: historical survey of the social, religious and political movements of the Marathas by Narayan Keshav Behere,Bangalore Press, 1946 - History - 175 pages URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=D1huAAAAMAAJ&q=yadav+kshatriya&dq=yadav+kshatriya&hl=en&ei=5hMITteRNsbnrAfVweCPDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=5&)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.33.51 (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yadavs in Maharastra

Maharastra ruled by kashtriya race called Yadavs from ancient time. RefDnyāneshwar, the out-caste Brāhmin,Jñānadeva,United Theological College of Western India, 1941 - Religion - 525 pages URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=MXdOAAAAYAAJ&q=yadav+kshatriya&dq=yadav+kshatriya&hl=en&ei=hBcITuj0JYr3rQef7MzFDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAjhu))115.240.33.51 (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yadav kashtriya of Devgiri

Devgiri king Ramdev Yadav Ref.((Dakhan History Musalman And Maratha, A.D. 1300 To 1818 By Loch W. W, W.W. Loch)) URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lWYq9H7ER78C&pg=PA619&dq=yadav+kshatriya&hl=en&ei=Mh4ITr-SNMTtrQe5gc2eDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6wEwAzi-AQ#v=onepage&q=yadav%20kshatriya&f=false)) 115.240.33.51 (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yadav as ancient Democratic Kingdom

Yadav,Andhak,Bhoja were some ancient democratic kingdom in western india. Ref.((Evolution of Education Thought in India By Bhanwar Lal Dwivedi)) URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=idERT6Tg4MMC&pg=PA65&dq=yadav+kshatriya&hl=en&ei=Mh4ITr-SNMTtrQe5gc2eDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBDi-AQ#v=onepage&q=yadav%20kshatriya&f=false))115.240.33.51 (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yadav as ruling community

Yadav is one of the largest ruling community of india Ref.The world of nomads By Shyam Singh Shashi URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Otppyf6MbxgC&pg=PA186&dq=yadav+kshatriya&hl=en&ei=PRsITsGhF4PVrQeAvPCoDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6wEwADiqAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false))115.240.33.51 (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

REPUTATIONAL SOURCES claiming that YADAV ARE KSHATRIYA

Yadu (Sanskrit: यदु) is one of the five Indo-Aryan tribes (panchajana, panchakrishtya or panchamanusha) mentioned in the Rig Veda). The Mahabharata, the Harivamsha and the Puranas mention Yadu as the eldest son of king Yayati and his queen Devayani. yadu is described to be the father of all yadavs and he is a chandravanshi kshatriya. so when father is a kshatriya so his childrens will be same kshatriya but not shudra,this is a common sense.

references:1. Singh, Upinder (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Delhi: Pearson Education. p. 187. ISBN 81-317-1120-0. 2.The Father of Yadu - Yayati - Ancient Indian History 3.Horace Hayman Wilson (1835). "India". A manual of universal history and chronology (Originally from Oxford University). p. 26.

In the world famous sanskrit epic of ancient India MAHABHARATA (Epics like Mahabharata and Ramayana are the basis of hindu religion), it is mentioned that Karna who was the son of Surya (a solar deity) and Kunti,Though Kunti had not physically given birth to the baby, she was unwilling to be accused of being an unmarried mother and so with the help of her maid Dhatri, she placed the baby Karna in a basket and set him afloat on a tributary of the holy river Ganges, the Ashwanadi, in the hope that he would be taken in by another family.The child Karna was found by Adhiratha, a charioteer(shudra)of King Dhritarashtra of Hastinapur. When karna grew up, he became more interested in the art of warfare than in merely being a charioteer like his father Adhirata. Karna met Dronacharya, who was an established teacher in the art of warfare. Dronacharya taught the khastriya princes, but refused to take Karna as his student, since Karna was a son of a charioteer(shudra) and Dronacharya only taught Kshatriyas, or warriors. And during that time mostly kings were yadavs and yadavs were permitted to have education in Gurukuls like others khastriya's.So this is a centuries ago proof that yadavs were classified as khastriya's but not as shudra's. And more precisely a SINGLE CASTE CAN"T BE CATEGORIZED INTO TWO VARNA (here khastriya and shudra, either it can be khastriya or shudra but not both) according to POST VEDIC DIVISIONS. so yadavs are khastriya's.

refrences: 1.Hopkins, E. W. The Great Epic of India, New York (1901). 2.http://www.karna.org/body_story_behind_karna.html 3.Oldenberg, H. Das Mahabharata, Göttingen (1922). 4.Pāṇini. Ashtādhyāyī. Book 4. Translated by Chandra Vasu. Benares, 1896. (Sanskrit)(English) 5.Vaidya, R.V. A Study of Mahabharat; A Research, Poona, A.V.G. Prakashan, 1967

The following is a list of the 36 major royal Rajput(Kshatriya) clans as listed by James Tod in 1829.

  Ahirs
  Agnipala
  Balla
  Bargujar
  Bhati
  Byce
  Chauhan
  Chawura
  Dahima
  Dahiya
  Doda
  Gahlot
  Gaur
  Gherwal
  Gora
  Hun
  Jaitwar
  Jhala
  Jat
  Johiya
  Kachwaha
  Kirar
  Mohil
  Nikumbh
  Pala
  Paramara
  Pratihara
  Rathore
  Solanki
  Lohana
  Sengar
  Sikarwar
  Silar
  Sisodia
  Taunk
  Tomara

here Ahirs, which is a subsect of yadav caste is cleary mentioned in the list at the top. References:

1.Tod, James. Annals of Rajasthan, Vol 1. Page 175 2. Brig. A. Mason, M.C., R.E. (2007). "The Thirty-six Royal Races of Rajput". kipling.org.uk. Retrieved August 2, 2010.

Most of mine sources are vedic puranas, ancient indian epics, vedas or claims made by reputational authors.Vikraantkaka (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

For starters, the puranas etc are not acceptable as sources here. You have, I think, been told this before. The sooner that this sticks in your head, the less frustrating you will find your time here. I know that it might grate with you but those are the rules and if you find them unacceptable then all I can do is apologise to you and suggest that you try contributing to a different project.

Tod is too old and "raj-centric" - he has been widely noted as unreliable; Mason is no scholar; Hopkins is too old and is reciting the same puranas etc without much critique, in the same manner that Thurston did. I will check out the others later today. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The website karna.org is not peer-reviewed, uncritically reiterates the ancient epics & has no indication of authorship. It also appears likely to be a self-published/POVy source. Useless here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide page numbers for the other books, please. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yadav or Rana surname used by kshtriya community from ancient time not shudra.

Plight of Muslims in India by S. Harman,DL Publications, 1977 - Religion - 207 pages

URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=0x1uAAAAMAAJ&q=yadav+kshatriya&dq=yadav+kshatriya&hl=en&ei=KQkITsCfIILirAeYrpSnDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&re)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.33.51 (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Many Rajputs clans have yadav origin and so called chandrvanshi kshatriya like Bhati Rajputs and Jadeja Rajputs Census of India, 1911, Volume 7, Part 1,India. Census Commissioner,Superintendent of government printing, India, 1987 URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=r9CyGmrfzlAC&q=yadav+kshatriya&dq=yadav+kshatriya&hl=en&ei=hxAITrPTMceJrAfMwZSXDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail)) Moreover the source which mentioning shudra origin bsed only one state Bihar and very old and outdated like puarans.so it is not appropriate to put one region based theory on entire country status of Yadavas which vary considerably.i have provided evidence of kashatriya status in Rajputana.so the comment on origin shuld be rephrased in more impartial manner.

Mr. sitush as if you have told that JAMES TODD is rajasthan concentric but the source you have mentioned- Norman Gerald Barrier (1981). The Census in British India: new perspectives. Manohar. Retrieved 22 May 2011, it is clearly BIHAR concentric. On page 165, 174 of your above mentioned source it is stated that: BHUMIHARS ,KURMIS , YADAVS of rural areas of BIHAR are taken collectively as shudra. Your sorce mentioned only about yadavs of bihar but not of YADAVS OF WHOLE INDIA.

Also you have mentioned some of my sources which supports my claim as too old. So here are latest references for that story of KARNA mentioned in MAHABHARATA: 1.W.J.Johnson (1998). The Sauptikaparvan of the Mahabharata: The Massacre at Night. Oxford University Press. p. ix. 2.Amartya Sen, The Argumentative Indian. Writings on Indian Culture, History and Identity, London: Penguin Books, 2005. 3.Brockington, J. L. (1998). The Sanskrit epics, Part 2. Volume 12. BRILL. p. 21. ISBN 9004102604. 4.Spodek, Howard. Richard Mason. The World's History. Pearson Education: 2006, New Jersey. 224, 0-13-177318-6 5.Maharishi Mahesh Yogi; On The Bhagavad Gita; A New Translation and Commentary With Sanskrit Text Chapters 1 to 6, Preface p.9 6.M Witzel, Early Sanskritization: Origin and Development of the Kuru state, EJVS vol.1 no.4 (1995); also in B. Kölver (ed.), Recht, Staat und Verwaltung im klassischen Indien. The state, the Law, and Administration in Classical India, München, R. Oldenbourg, 1997, p.27-52

But remember one thing that scholars have said OLD IS GOLD. For all new theories, explanation, writings etc basis will always be the old one's.

As you have mentioned that yadavs are shudra's, so in this way HINDU GOD KRISHNA will be a shudra because hindu god KRISHNA himself is a YADAV and descendent of king YADU. This is a direct insult to our GOD KRISHNA. But on the contrary to your claim i would like to enlighten your mind with many facts, claims, sources that mentioned GOD KRISHNA as chandravanshi kshatriya/rajput king. For example Several Chandravanshi castes and communities in modern India, such as the The Bhati, Chandela who built Khajuraho), Jadaun Rajputs, Chudasama, Jadeja, Jats, Sainis Of Punjab claim descent from chandravanshi kings yadu and GOD KRISHNA. So hindu god KRISHNA and yadavs are kshatriya's. references: 1.People of India: Haryana, pp 430, Kumar Suresh Singh, Madan Lal Sharma, A. K. Bhatia, Anthropological Survey of India, Published by Published on behalf of Anthropological Survey of India by Manohar Publishers, 1994 2.In the Punjab in the sub- mountainous region the community came to be known as 'Saini'. It maintained its Rajput character despite migration." Castes and Tribes of Rajasthan, pp108, Sukhvir Singh Gahlot, Banshi Dhar, Jain Brothers, 1989 3.Ram Sarup Joon. History of the Jats. Jaitly Painting [sic] Press, foreword, 1968 (Original from the University of Michigan). "Only amongst the Jats are found eighteen basic gotras bearing the names of Aryan elders form in the first twenty generations of Chandravansha 4.Panwar, Hukum Singh (1993). The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations. Manthan Publications, Rohtak. p. 93-112. ISBN 81-85235-22-8. 5.Sunil Kumar Bhattacharya, Krishna-cult in Indian art, page 127 6.http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=udp9TZz9Hc2rrAfDpPnBBQ&ct=result&id=yqYIAAAAQAAJ&dq=ahirs+of+rajputana&q=Aphrya+ 7. The Rajputana gazetteersVikraantkaka (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What happened Mr. Editor i am still waiting for your respose to my above mentioned sources and references????Vikraantkaka (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.199.201.153, 27 June 2011

the reference of yadav being sudra is linked to a book by dr ambedkar the content of which are itself non verifiable the yadavs were considered mellechas not sudra as the mellecha were considered many tribes not following typical brahmanical law these tribes were very powerful many of rajput tribes fall under this category but sudras ewre those who follow brahmanical law and follow it SO MY REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE WORD SUDRA OR USE SOME GOOD REFERENCE TO APPROVE THE WORD 117.199.201.153 (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There are not one, but four references, used to justify the term "Shudra", and many more could easily be found. If you have citations explaining some complexities we're overlooking regarding Mellechas, by all means please present them here for us to discuss. You are indeed correct that they were many people outside of the Hindu system who later entered it, and the distinctions in their classification are indeed worth discussing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas what four refences you are talking about, The most reputational source you have mentioned- Norman Gerald Barrier (1981). The Census in British India: new perspectives. Manohar. Retrieved 22 May 2011, it is clearly BIHAR concentric. On page 165, 174 of your above mentioned source it is stated that: BHUMIHARS ,KURMIS , YADAVS of rural areas of BIHAR are taken collectively as shudra. Your sorce mentioned only about yadavs of bihar but not about YADAVS OF WHOLE INDIA.

And i have already mentioned above( under the subject REPUTATIONAL SOURCES claiming that yadavs are kshatriya) numerous reputational sources with many references and facts which claims that yadavs are kshatriya's on this page and also in ahir page........but you are not giving any response.Vikraantkaka (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The lack of response is in part because you continue to use sources which you have been told previously are not reliable or otherwise acceptable for Wikipedia purposes and because you appear sometimes to be POV pushing. Issues such as synthesising are also apparent. When people do this over a long period then they tend to be ignored because further responses are clearly a waste of time. As doubtless this response will be.

At some point I will try to unpick your latest comments but, please, if they turn out to be of no use then don't add any more of the same. It is becoming ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, upon reviewing the section you refer to I note that I have already considered the sources. They are all related to the ancient texts. Your "old is gold" statement is, frankly, hogwash and no professional historian would make such a statement. Come up with sources that do not use the ancient texts, or just forget the whole issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You always try to deviate the attention from the right topic. What i have asked for that your most reputational source Norman Gerald Barrier (1981). The Census in British India: new perspectives. Manohar. Retrieved 22 May 2011 is bihar concentric, it doesn't say anything about yadavs of whole india, like the same way you have told me about my source of James todd references. So how you can claim that all yadavs are shudra???122.168.155.110 (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Of the Shudra refs, the Freitag ref is about Uttar Pradesh, and the Bhattacharya ref is about Andhra. The other two refs are Bihar, but why are you ignoring the two non-Bihar refs in order to complain about Bihar-centricity? That's part of why you're getting delayed responses; you're not making clear arguments based on actually checking out the four clearly linked references available. And again, the Vedas is a WP:Primary source. Neither you, nor I, nor any other editor are qualified to draw links between ancient/mythological groups and modern groups; instead you must find a reputable modern academic who has drawn those links, and then cite him. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Freitag ref is about bhojpur region i.e Eastern u.p. and western bihar and the bhattacharya ref is about andhra. These two regions can't comprise whole India. so you are required to mention the sources which makes claims about yadavs of whole india.Vikraantkaka (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree. If the refs said "The Bihar Yadav are Shudra", I could see your concern. However, multiple refs in multiple places say that Yadav are Shudra, so if there are exceptions to that the onus is upon you to show those exceptions, not for me to find examples from every single state the Yadav live in. I'm not seeing anything to support some Yadavs being Shudra and others not. The Yadav certainly claim Shudra, but again I'm not seeing anything other than that being the standard practice of working-class communities "rediscovering" their Kshatriya "roots" in the modern day. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

By going through your previous edits i have found out one strange common thing that you are very much interested in declaring many indian caste as shudra. You have declared KAYASTHA, KURMIS, Yadavs as shudra, now i wonder which caste will come next in your shudra propaganda. and you look biased in considering other user's sources whose claims are just opposite to yours. For you your four mentioned sources are everything but you never give value to other user's numerous sources whose claims are contrary to your's. As you are not hindu so how you can say much about our culture and caste system.What do you know about our traditons and beliefs?

This behavior of your suggests that you are on a particular mission to malign many indian caste's and indirectly our hindu religion so that many hindu people should start feeling inferior of their caste and indirectly of our religion and start converting to other religion.Is this your aim?

But i should remind you one thing that you have not gone through indian constitution and policies of monistry of home affairs of india, it said if anyone tries to malign any community of india or tries to defame any caste of hindu religion on a public platform without having any substantial proofs. Then the offender will be likely to get punished by the indian law.So be careful now and stop your this so called fake shudra propaganda otherwise you can face legal actions for defamindg hindu caste's and hindu religion.122.168.108.41 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The above comment is a legal threat. You can be blocked from editing for doing that, so please be careful. Furthermore, as has been explained previously, the problem is not that people are classifying castes as shudra but rather than caste members are classifying themselves here (and perhaps elsewhere, for all I know) as kshatriya. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The legal matter has now been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Veiled_legal_threat_from_an_IP_at_Yadav. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr sitush again you don't answers my objections rather you try to deviate the topic by giving me warning. If you have substantial proofs then you have no reasons to worry, but in case you don't have firm and true proofs with you then really it is a matter of concern.What i really want to know is that: 1. why you and matthewvanitas are so much interested in claiming many hindu caste's ( yadav, kayastha, kurmi...) to be shudra?

2. what is your personal motive behind all this?

3. Are you both on a particular mission to malign many hindu caste and indirectly our hindu religion?

4. How can a non-hindu can tell us what is our beliefs and traditions?Vikraantkaka (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Because an inordinate number of Indian castes claim Kshatriya status, and yet even a cursory review of academic materials generally shows that this status is contested. Arguably, this applies to every single caste claiming Kshatriya status, as arguably true Kshatriyas disappeared in ancient times. Even for the Rajputs, there are academic explorations of how they "became" Kshatriya as a tribal group incorporated into Hinduism who took up a military role.

2) No personal motive, just an annoyance at historical revisionism. If you review my other work (which I'm far behind on due to the hassles and silliness involved in caste articles) you'll note I do a lot of organisational work on WP, ethnomusicology, etc.

3) I'm certainly not, and I'll go out on a limb here and venture to guess Sitush isn't either.

4) ...? So only Christians can write about Christianity, Buddhists about Buddhism, etc? Doesn't that sound like that would lead to a ridiculous lack of objectivity, lack of academic critique, etc? You're not required to believe anything I, Wikipedia, Harvard University, or anyone else says about a religion. We're not trying to determine the Ultimate Truth of the universe here, we're just noting documented historical events. Rather than question our ability to examine Indian society, perhaps you need to question your own ability to view the issue with academic objectivity and detachment? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am very pleased with your step to inform Administrator. Let the administrator should find himself/herself who is here biased and behaving like a dictator. You both never consider the numerous substantial proofs given by many user's whose claim opposed the claim made by the editor of the concerned page.Vikraantkaka (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I think I really do now understand the problem here. Vikraantkaka is unable to grasp the basics of written English. No his/her fault, but it seems even more clear from the above message than it already was from previous messages. The admin report was not about bias etc here but rather about a legal threat, made by an IP who most probably was Vikraantkaka while not logged in.

Seriously, Vikraantkaka, you are demonstrating a massive inability to understand here and perhaps English Wikipedia is not for you. There is, for example, a Hindi Wikipedia and (I think) a Malayalam one. These might present less of a challenge if English is a second language for you. Take heart, please, in the fact that I am unable to converse in any other language, so anything you manage here is better than I could manage elsewhere. But that doesn't alter the fundamental problem, which is that you are not understanding things at all well. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear sitush why are you so frustrated at me and commenting on my basics of written English. If you think you are very strong in English and i am weak then please help me improve my English. Why don't you give me your address so that i can come to you to improve my inabilities in english and take english tuitions from you.

You both are behaving in such a manner that you both are supreme authority of wikipedia. What you say and claim wikipedia will blinly accept. But i have faith in wikipedia they will soon take notice of this matter.Vikraantkaka (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. 221b Baker Street, London. My friend Watson may answer the door. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What you say and claim wikipedia will blinly accept - That probably has something to do with our finding reliable sources and footnoting to them, refraining from attempted analysis of primary sources, etc. On several of these caste articles, both Sitush and I have gotten along quite well with people who had concerns and were able to bring cited contributions to discuss. We're not at all unwilling to discuss things, but posting lengthy screeds about the Vedas is simply not productive. Also, attempting to "prove" Kshatriya status (though such claims are already included in the article), and then making the logical leap to "and so now you should remove the cited Shudra material" is likewise not constructive. The reason that several ANI and POV filed complaints have been to no avail is that the complainants are incapable of arguing a cohesive case, finding any actual signs of malfeasance, etc. Wikipedia has multiple lanes of recourse available if you feel an article is being treated unfairly, where you can encounter editors who have nothing to do with Sitush or myself, or India controversies. That said, if you are unwilling to follow WP policies, you are unlikely to get much sympathy there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case castes such as Yadavs, Kurmis, Gujjars, Jats, Nadars, Vanniyars, Paravars, etc. were woking class people (peasents, cowherds, etc. There are many refs which assert this)... Therefore, their rank is Shudra.Rajkris (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be the case, but there are plenty of landholders and administrators in Shudra castes, like the Kapu and Reddy, so it's not necessarily a clear blue-collar/white-collar divide. What it fundamentally comes down to is their role in the Brahminical system, as properly recorded down by academics. We can't juse assume someone is Shudra because they're labourers, and likewise can't assume someone is not Shudra if they are not a labourer, so footnoting is the key. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's where you are wrong, you misunderstand. Shudra = working class (peasants, labours, cowherds, etc.). This is the definition of Shudra in the Hindu Varna (you can check that in any dictionnary)... Anyway, we will talk about this in detail later in the appropriate talk page.Rajkris (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, I don't misunderstand the concept behind the varnas, just noticing that people don't always keep doing the job of their original varna, that groups sometimes seek to redefine themselves, etc. Shudra is certainly, in concept, for labourers, but in practice there are a lot more complexities. In any case, this is why in order to have any varna claims, we need rather specific cites saying "X caste is in Y varna". Proper sourcing is really all that matters on this complex issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Krishna

Wouldn't a mentioning of Krishna in the lead, that he belonged to Yadava community be nice?Gnanapiti 05:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the Yadav caste, not Krishna's lineage. Krishna is a mythological figure; even if we assume that Krishna was a semi-historical figure, there is no evidence that the people who call themselves "Yadav" today are indeed descendants of Krishna. They just claim descent from Krishna; there is no historical evidence that Krishna is the ancestor of Lalu Prasad Yadav or Mulayam Singh Yadav. 202.54.176.51 08:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked it with some personal references, Mulayam Singh is a proper Krishnauth Yadav, who has better claim to be called descendant of Lord Shri Krishna, than anybody else. Ikon ^No-Blast 18:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should put Krishna's Name. And it is true that All Yadav's are not of descendants of Krishna.. rather they are descendants of Maharaja Yadu..ANd krishan was a part of it.. but being a so imp personality Krishna has become part of Yadav Identity.. So in my view it justify to put his name,.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdabs (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

<<Lord Krishna belongs to yadav community-there will no evidence that particular Person is a son of perticular pserson ===A.Ramesh Yadav= AllIndiaYadavMahasabhaA.P.Unit

One thing Bhavat Purana is clear and specific about is that Nand, the friend of Yadava Vasudeva, was not a Yadava but a chieftain of cowherds (Gopas) who was friendly with the Yadava prince Vasudeva, Krishna's father. You can refer to Cantos 10 of Bhagvat Purana for this. There was no blood/marital relationship between the royal Yadava tribe and that of Ahirs. Infact the Krishna's connection with cowherd community was exaggerated and romanticized by medeival poets like Jayadeva, Surdas, Chaitanya et al with a lot of poetic license and liberty. Puranas do not make much of this connection beyond a few passages of Krishna's childhood. Once Krishna kills Kamsa, thereafter all references to Ahir community disappear and Krishna is back in his regal element, among the princes who taunt him for having grown up among Gopas. Though Nand, the foster father of Krishna and friend of Yadava prince Vasudeva is mentioned very favorably , he is nowhere mentioned as a Yadava in the entire Puranic canon. The connection of Ahir community with the historical Yadavas is entirely the product of neo-Yadava scholars like JN Singh Yadava who cannot be regarded as as neutral and who have been able to assert the connection only in non-peer reviewed works. Thanks--Internet Scholar (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Puranas are not historical documents. The Bhagwat Puran refers Nanda and Vasudeva both to be grandson of Devmidh. I think that is enough for those seeking sense.

1) Abhira not equal to cowherderes 2) Yashoda and Nanda has never been referred as abhir, they were simply referred as gwals. 3) Mahabharata does not mention any account of Krishna's birth.

Additional note to Internet scholar -- Looks like you have completely ignored the archive which has all the information. I cannot go into loops and if I fail to hear from you I will revert this Talk Page itself  Ikon |no-blast 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See its right to mention Krishna in the lead and claim him as a Yadav. The whole Hindu religion is based on myths and assumption and we are yadavs only because we are hindu. so any move to separate Krishna from yadav clan will receive the wrath of yadavs and against the hindu brahmin community which is the root cause of all mess in Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.88.179.52 (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

yadavs are kshatriyas

wht the hell happend to previous stuff written in the wiki which well defined yadavs,know some anti yadavs have edited the stuff and added whole new crap,mentoning yadavs as shudras is funny shit....some fuckin moron must hv done this.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitkumar900 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 July 2011

User:Amitkumar900 has been blocked for 24 hours for this abuse, plus the abuse above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yaduvanshi

If you have confusion between Yadavs and Ahirs please read Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India By S. D. S. Yadava

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=p69GMA226bgC&pg=PA10&dq=lord+krishna+founded++yadavs&hl=en&ei=ivvdTcj6K5DjrAfD2_D_CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false125.21.182.12 (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as Yaduvanshi is concerned, this article talks about Yadubanshi or Jadubans Ahir, please stop putting rajput in place of it. This article does not talk about Yaduvanshi Rajput (aka Jadaun), whosoever, is doing it should stop immediately. Ikon ^No-Blast 17:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the anon. Ip user who is very fond of krishna legend and is quoting it wherever he gets the chance that a child was swapped and Vasudeva was a Rayaduvanshi Rajput and bla bla bla... Please be informed, So called Yaduvanshi Rajputs lineage passes through Salivahnan a well known saka, nothing to do with Yaduvansh and lineage above him is considered a cunning cruft. So kindly stop vandalising this page by repeatedly putting Rajput in front of Yaduvanshi. Ikon ^No-Blast 17:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is debatable whether Shalivahan was a Saka. But conceding that he was the same is said of Ahirs who are regarded as Scythic cousins of Jats whose presence is unheard of in India before the writing of Chachnama were they are mentioned as some kinds of outcasts. Ahirs do not even a have remote chance of being connected with Krishna's bloodline. With regard to eastward migration of Bhatis from Afghanistan they had gone there from India many centuries earlier. This legend is in Mahabharata too. Further, not all bonafide royal Yadav lines pass through Shalivahan. The line of Jadauns in Mathura and Karauli had no direct link with Salivahan Bhati,least of all with Ahirs. The Yaduvanshi Ahirs were regarded by James Tod and other English writers as cadets of Jadaun Rajputs through their Ahir "golis" (slave girls)...sometimes referred more respectably as "Dais" (foster monthers to Jadaun princes). Before 1924 only a very small section of Ahirs was thus linked with Yadhuvanshis and that too through irregular linkages. After 1924 every single Ahir started calling themselves Yadava. Basically Ahir is a caste of rather low status which is making deperate efforts to invent a Kshatriya past through a non-consangnuous link that existed between Krishna and cowherd community in remote antiquity.--142.205.241.254 (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, infact a legend exists, which tells how yaduvanshi and nandvanshi were created,and it is also reported by "English Writers". Once Krishna asked his companions to cross the river yamuna and those who crossed were called Yaduvamshi, while those who didn't were called nandavamshi. Even to these days, the population westward are yadu and eastward are nanda, and their population is almost equal, so your claim is wrong. If I apply your logic on jadaun they must have been born of ahir fathers, why else they are called Ahir Ranas. Please stop giving bogus references to proove your own imaginative things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.159.99 (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ferishta says,

Rajpoots attained power after the death of Raja Vikramaditya....... Rajas not satisfied with their wives frequently had children with their female slaves, who although not legitimate successors to the throne were styled RAJPOOT. [1]. I am willing to listen from you. If you don't mind this will go into the Lead of the Rajput article. Response awaited. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ikonblast: You have been found on many other pages of Wikipedia giving incomplete references and distorted presentation of the same to invent some glorious lineage for Ahirs which is not true but strongly indicates your revisionist agenda based upon 'BARGAINING' rather than any factual basis. Ahirs have never been considered descendants of Lord Krishna -- only his followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.26.2 (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

current yadavs and ancient yadavs are one and same.

current yadavs and ancient yadavs are one and same because of the following reasons.

1. The name yadav in sanskrit mean descendants of Yadu. 2. These names were passed on from one generation to another by family genealogy. No one would just claim they are something else. 3. Yadavs are found all over India. All claim descent from legendary Yadu. There are numerous inscriptions which mention how yadavs migrated to different parts of India. 4. Seuna yadavs and chalukyas all claimed yadu linkage and these dyansties were in India till 1350 AD. The current yadavs are linked to these dynasties. Its just that the dynasty fell down and yadavs started living normal life. 5. the great vijaynagar king krishnadevaraya in his autobiography claimed he was yadav. krishnadevaraya lived till 1529. If only 500 years back the yadavs were ruling in some parts of India. they cannot just disappear into thin air.

The ancient yadavs and current yadavs are same. Please put right info in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.238.8.30 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The current yadavs are linked to these dynasties. Its just that the dynasty fell down and yadavs started living normal life., bingo, that is precisely the information we are looking for to substantiate a connection. Please check GoogleBooks and find us a few footnotes which support this statement, and it'll be great to be able to flesh out that connection. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Yadu Kshatriya and rulers line is found in the Royal rajput line of Karauli. Vast majority of the Yadav were cowherds or in other such less exalted occupations and continued in that position till modern times. The rise of Rewari Ahirs and Surajmal Jat are very recent phenomenon that do not connect to any ancient Kshatriya status. During the last hundred years during the British rule with education and opportunities for upward mobility many social groups became active to upgrade their perceived social standing typically by claiming a Kshatriya Rajput origin. In the last couple of decades in democratic India where social consolidation based upon identity is a powerful tool to create vote banks the trend of creating glorified identities, for various groups traditionally perceived by the people to be lower in the social scale, is the order of the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.26.2 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The golden book of india by SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE,

The golden book of India by Sir Roper Lethbridge mentions clearly that yadavs are khastriyas. This is a book based on survey of India when the british established in India. Yadavs are classified as chandravanshi khastriyas. We have to put the right facts in wikipedia. Yadavs are chandravanshi khastriyas.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bHiBAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA246&dq=the+golden+book+of+india+yadav&hl=en&ei=Sj3wTbz8IYr0swO9y6GPDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.149.143 (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, though I appreciate your efforts in sourcing, the one mention of "Yadav" in that book is extremely tangential. It basically says "and then there's so-and-so, who was a Kshatriya Yadava." Note that it doesn't say "all Yadavs are Kshatriya", note that it doesn't give any explanation of how Yadavs are supposedly Kshatriya, and it says zero about them being absolutely descended from Yadu, as you changed the article to say. The article, off-handedly, mentions someone who was said to be "Kshatriya Yadav". If could be he was of a Yadav group that happened to be Kshatriya and Yadav, it could be that he was Yadava and also happened to be a Kshatriya, it could be that he was a Yadav but due to his social status some Brahmins recognised his as Kshatriya. It could be that, when Sir Roper asked him, he said "why certainly, I'm a Kshatriya" and Roper just took him at his word and wrote it down. Long/short, there are a hundred possible interepretations of the text, including Roper simply being wrong, so it is a tremendous leap of logic to just say "well, I guess Yadavs truly are Kshatriya, end of story." We have plenty of clear cites from the Brits, anthroplogists, etc. listing the Yadav as Shudra. We do also have clear cites noting the Yadav are seen as Kshatriya in some circles. Accordingly, we present both sides of the story, noting "some say they're Kshatriya, some say they're Shudra". That way the article expresses the variety of perceptions of this group. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Jadon Rajputs (Raja of Karauli etc) represent the Kshatriya line from Yadu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.26.2 (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Shudra confusion

Not all Yadav clan are shudras, Yadavs are present in many states of India and have many sub groups for example Yaduvanshi be it be abhiras or rajputs are not shudras however Gwals or gwalvanshi who became yadavs in 19th centure have been reported as Shidras by some goups so i have clarified the same as it was creating confusion also corrected clarification box.Sumitkachroo (talk)

Edits referred to above have been reverted as uncited, slow edit warring. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

whosoever has mentioned yadavs as shudras is person with limited knowledge and mind filled with shit.....you are mentioning shudras to caste who has had glorious history,do you even know anything bout lord krishna and his ancestor yadu...yadavs are kshatriyas and if u think tht all this is myth thn you shud know that yadavs ruled the india upto 1300 contury before mughal rule...so kindly remove this shudras bullshit ..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitkumar900 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 July 2011

User:Amitkumar900 has been blocked for 24 hours for this abuse, plus the abuse below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Varna system did not attach any stigma to Shudra nor did it connote any racial division. Arjuna's charioteer Karna was a Shudra. In ancient times cross Varna mobility was common. Anyone who was not into trading or warrior professions was a Shudra or working class and naturally majority of the people fell into this category.

However in keeping with the political compulsions of democracy the Congress party created a Scheduled Caste group to include part of the working class and the label Shudra began to be exclusively associated with it although the term Shudra subsumed the whole working class.

Rest of the working class which was left out of this group were glad to be excluded from the Scheduled Caste group as a way of shaking off the Shudra label but later agitated for reservations and got it as 'Backward Communities'.

Today, in democratic times aspirations of all the working class groups have risen and the Kshatriya status seems like an easy picking for all except the Scheduled Castes which neither have as much internal homogeneity nor numerical strength in individual scheduled castes, and hence as much political and economic power, as the other working class groups such as Ahir.

These aspirations are raised by the leaders of these working class groups. These leaders seek to inculcate pride in belonging to the group so as to consolidate and retain their hold over these working class groups for political purposes. Hence the association with glorious identities in pre-history ignoring the better known past 1500 to 2000 years of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.26.2 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

To Matthew Vanitas

Why is it you V/s all other , why are you hell bent to prove Yadavs as Shudras, lemme tell you Shudra is a very heavy word even people from Supreme court of india and Indian Govt think twice before labelling any group or caste to Shudras. The first impression about Shudras in India are people who does menail and dirty jobs. Yadavs don't do menial or dirty jobs , they had a glorious past, had close relationship with God Lord Krishna, In regions like Haryana , Rajasthan Gujarat, Uttar pradesh, south India and Madhya Pradesh they are respected people even by Bhramans or Rajputs, this is different case that some use foul words behind their backs , but unfortunately this is what Indian socirty is.Yadavs , Jats gujjar say bad words againt self made uppercastes like Bhramins and Rajputs. Lemme ask you who created "SHUDRA" word is it United Nations , America, Britishers any God , Indian Government , Supreme court no It is Brhamans not even Rajputs . Yes i agree that in poor parts of India specially Bihar where Yadavs as labelled as Shudras by only Bhramins and Rajputs , but that doesn't mean you will ignore all those writings , books and refrences which mentions them as Kshatriyas , rulers self esteemed cultivarors , landlords and even kings who once had their kingdoms and stuck to what some writer or author who keeping in mind about Yadavs of Bihar and Estern Uttar pradesh (i mean Gwals or Gwalvanshi yadavs) wrote about what Bramins and Rajputs consider about Yadavs.

You can mention like in some parts or some clans are labelled as shudras but the choice of words which you have used like Self claimed Kshatriyas and others consider them as Shudras etc. etc. show every one what your real intentions are.Anyways i am intouch with a law firm in Gurgaon to deal how we can report this to wikipedia about your attitude.Sumitkachroo (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Above user blocked for making legal threat. - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Varna system did not attach any stigma to Shudra nor did it connote any racial division. Arjuna's charioteer Karna was a Shudra. In ancient times cross Varna mobility was common. Anyone who was not into trading or warrior professions was a Shudra or working class and naturally majority of the people fell into this category. However in keeping with the political compulsions of democracy the Congress party created a Scheduled Caste group to include part of the working class and the label Shudra began to be exclusively associated with it although the term Shudra subsumed the whole working class. Rest of the working class which was left out of this group were glad to be excluded from the Scheduled Caste group as a way of shaking off the Shudra label but later agitated for reservations and got it as 'Backward Communities'. Today, in democratic times aspirations of all the working class groups have risen and the Kshatriya status seems like an easy picking for all except the Scheduled Castes which neither have as much internal homogeneity nor numerical strength in individual scheduled castes, and hence as much political and economic power, as the other working class groups such as Ahir. These aspirations are raised by the leaders of these working class groups. These leaders seek to inculcate pride in belonging to the group so as to consolidate and retain their hold over these working class groups for political purposes. Hence the association with glorious identities in pre-history ignoring the better known past 1500 to 2000 years of history.

The user making a legal threat needs to be banned.

This legal threat just proves the point about the political powers behind the ongoing social revisionism through distortion and misinterpretation of well known social concepts and historical facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.26.2 (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

<Redacted>

Personal attack removed, warning issued at User talk:38.101.155.250, and this Talk page semi-protected -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

why deletion of refrences from historians like todd and many?

i see many imporatnt information is being deleted . These refrences are from google books written by british historians. why thse are being removed?Raosaab7 (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why yaduvanshi ahirs article has been deleted?

Yaduvanshi ahirs are different from other ahirs , said and written by all historians like todd and sherring that they only sharename as ahirs however they don't intermarry . Yaduvanshi ahirs community is numbered in millions in 4 states .I think they deserve an article about their history so why delate it.Raosaab7 (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason may be found via the history - see here. FWIW, Tod is a totally useless source and I am currently compiling modern evidence to support that opinion. We should not be using him for any statements of fact without also noting that he was a romantic, slapdash and generally unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So if you say James Tod was a useless and unreliable fellow then why his refrences are used by All castes and communities of India on wikipedia . Why not you remove them? Raosaab7 (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That is the plan if I can prove my point, but perhaps for now read other stuff exists. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahir / Yadava/ Yadav / Confusion?

Yadav is a clan of Yadava (descendants of Yadu). These clans are also descendants of Yadava like Saini, Bhati, Jadeja etc. --¢ℓαяк (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what i got an answer on Yadava talk page when i asked if ahirs are not yadavs then why indian govt recognises them as yadavs and if saini , bhati and Jadeja are yadavs then why not in present and in history they used used yadav to represent themselves or used as last name .

If yadavs are shudras then Bhati, jadeja and saini should be shudras too?Raosaab7 (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yadava Confusion in Intro?

Many clans within Yadavas claims descent from the ancient King Yadu of the Chandravanshi Kshatriya clan, and thus claim Kshatriya varna for themselves.

This is what i copied from Intro section. If i am not wrong Yadavas are different from Yadavs as Yadava page is glorified article about history of Kings Gods and rulers. Don't you think it is confusion and tricky as it should be

""Many clans within Yadavs {{instead of Yadavas}}"claims descent from the ancient King Yadu of the Chandravanshi Kshatriya clan, and thus claim Kshatriya varna for themselves""."Raosaab7 (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As at times Yadavs have been labeled within the Shudra ?

This is i coped from Intro section . What does "At times mean here " please clarify as it's confusing . For a page that has 9000 hits a month into should be understandable.Raosaab7 (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Shudas and Upper shudra Confusion?

This is what it says in Into section Shudra is linked so one can read about it but as "Upper Shudra" is not linked what does it mean and If Yadavs are Shudra class and how it is different from Upper Shudras?Raosaab7 (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Report of the Indian Statutory Commission on Yadavs status

http://books.google.com/books?id=KTEoAAAAMAAJ&q=yadubansi+ahir&dq=yadubansi+ahir&hl=en&ei=e-8WTqaRD8TN0AGNmMk2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg

page 461 clearly says that yadavas are kshatriyas and rajputs are stated differently as kshatriyas, Had yadavas been Rajputs there would not have been diffrentiation.Raosaab7 (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at the actual title of the book as shown on the cover? It says Selections from Memoranda & Oral Evidence by Non-Officials. How does that sound conclusive? Further, all we have is snippet view, so no easy way to tell exactly who is saying this and in what capacity.

On a side note, why did you post four or five different Talk sections about pretty much the same issue? I'm going to go ahead and unite them since this is just adding clutter. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusion in history section?

Earlier this section has more breif info about their yadav history. However now it is limited to few sentences , It says all about Yadu and when i read intoduction section of Yadu commuities of today which are mentioned in yadu section all are Kshatriyas and Rajputs however yadavs are mentioned as shudras in intro which means lowest class of hindus. So definately there is confusion and please clarify how all communities mentioned in yadu section are kshatriyas and yadavs are shudras?Raosaab7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Kshatriya controversy

Many clans within Yadavas claims descent from the ancient King Yadu of the Chandravanshi Kshatriya clan, and thus claim Kshatriya varna for themselves.[6][7] However, their varna status is contested, as at times Yadavs have been labeled within the Shudra (cultivator) varna as "upper Shudra"

These lines on varna status and tone in which they have been phrased i find contradictory to many reputable sources while reading about yadavs.because yadavs classified as chandravanshi kshatriya by many historian.so CLAIM word i think not appropriate.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

But there are source right after that also show them as at least partially within Shudra. Thus, we can't say they are Kshatriya, only that some sources say they are. Additionally, if you provide the details of those sources, we can evaluate if they would be useful to add to the article. Note that the sources will need to meet the reliable sources guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right sir,sources have been mentioned but these have serious limitations.8th source is only related to bihar and seems very arbitrary classification without any bases.Yadavas is found accross india with different socio-economic status so a generalisation based on one region can not be implemented on entire indian subcontinent.in bihar 8th source classify them upper shudra but another source based on andhra classify them lower shudra.they are self contradictry in nature and not reflect a consensus .9th source not at all reliable because it is not a book on comprehensive history rather it only based on one city.10th source not present any detail on our topic so completely redundant.

So The base is very weak of these controversial lines and i think major reason of vandalism on this article.moreover the sources i have gone through very comrehensive and directly related to our topic.

Moreover seprate article on ancient yadavs and modern yadavs seems very controversial because every coomunity has its history and some background anything does not happen in vaccum.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That is good amount of analysis there, Bill clinton history. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, it would be great if you could provide details of some of these sources you have read. As thing stand, the glaring problem I see is that the lead specifically refers to upper shudra but some of the sources say they were lower shudra (as you have pointed out). If it is the case that their position differed around the country (and they are all indeed the same community, which is often awkward to prove) then there is a case to be made for saying something like "at various times, and in various places, they were recognised as being within the shudra varna", or something like that. I'm tied up with other things and have tended only to pop over to this article infrequently, but I will see what I can find. - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not only about sources the main thing is the approach we are following on this article.on the one hand we are saying this for the modern people and we have seprate for ancient people and on the other we applying ancient classification like Brahman,Kshtriya,vaisya and shudra on modern people.

My point is that if this article only for modern people than modern classification should be applied here.ancient classification like varna system should be applied on ancient yadavs.these irrational intermixing of concepts present a completely wrong picture.

moreover the article in very first line says yadav word mostly for ahir or abhira used in present.i have proved that they have different varna status accross the country.you cant simply generalise the things.

In the article on Ancient Yadavas we have their history till mahabharat period that is around 900BC.for modern yadavs we mostly mentioning things from 18th century.where is the history of yadavs for more than 2000 years?Bill clinton history (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it very strange we are not allowed to take direct references from ancient religeous text like puranas,mahabharat etc. on the ground that they are unreliable and mythical in content on the other hand we applied their concepts like varna system on modern people for their present status.this is self contradictry approach without any rational bases.Bill clinton history (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bill. Which primary sources do you want to use? I agree that primary sources have limited uses. But they are not completely disallowed. And I also have the impression that this article may have very old academic sources. They may also have a debatable value if they are old.-MangoWong (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the problem with primary sources (the guideline, btw, is at WP:PRIMARY) is that it's almost impossible to determine what they "mean". That is, determining meaning requires more "interpretation" than modern text, especially academic texts (note that I don't personally believe this, but it's how Wikipedia works). Furthermore, it's well known that many ancient religious texts aren't literally true. So, for example, consider Creation myths. In that case, we can quote the Bible to say "The Hebrew/Christian religious texts state that the universe was created in 7 days." However, in order to determine what "7 days" means, we have to turn to modern religious scholars (some think it means 7 calendar days, some think its a metaphor). Furthermore, in Age of the Earth, we certainly can't use the Bible as evidence for the age of the Earth or how it was created. Apologies for using a Christian/Hebrew system as an example--I just don't know enough about Hinduism to make a reasonable analogy. This is why we almost certainly can't use ancient religious texts for an article like this; maybe, in a few circumstances, we might be able to make a quote that says, "According to Text X, person Y was part of caste Z." However, that would in no way be evidence for whether the over all group was actually a part of Caste Z. I hope this helps; as MangoWong says, maybe we need to see specifically what it is you're thinking of quoting. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am also not in favour of using religeous texts in wikipedia article.that is why i am objecting the use of religous text based concept on modern people.

moreover nobody expressing their views on my fundamental points.I am questioning the approach we are following on articles like Ahir-Abhira,Yadav-Yadava.

do we have article on ancient Brahman and Modern Brahman , do we have article on Medieval Rajput and Modern Rajput , do we have article on Medieval Jats and Modern Jats? simply no. if we are writing the history of other communities in a continous stream than on what bases we have seprate article on period wise clssification for yadavs.it is completely misrepresentation of history of yadavs. Bill clinton history (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can suggest a merge of two of more articles or a fork (split) of one article into two or more. If have not delved into what has happened at the articles you refer to but it really is not that important, if only because of the basis set out at other stuff exists. We treat this article - Yadav - on its own merits. If you want to suggest a merge or a fork then feel free to do so & it will then be discussed. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you sir it is simple to suggest merger or spilt,but it is very important to present a article in correct historical prespective.moreover i did not find any discussion on merger issue on this page.it seems to done by arbitrary decesion.this is not the policy of wikipedia.wikipedia demands consensus by healthy debate which seems to be missing here.

Moreover As I have pointed out earlier by this seprate article approach we are missing the history of Yadavs of more than 2000 years.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill. I agree with your point. It seems ridiculous to me too that we have two different articles for modern Yadavs and ancient Yadavs. What you have to do now is to put up a merger proposal. Please start a new section titled something like "Merger proposal, X and Y". Then, in that section, write something about why you think both the articles should be merged. Invite others to discuss it. Then make a link to that section, take it to the other article talk page, and say something like "Merger discussion notice" in the heading. Write something there inviting the eds there to participate in the merger discussion. Your proposal will be up for discussion.-MangoWong (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not how you do a merger. Read up on it at WP:Merging. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

for now first issue is the above mentioned lines.but merger issue also reated to this.

how can some one say yadav or ahir or abhira claims kshtriya only themselves.i have proved that they are considered kshtriya in authentic text and religeous text also.even they are described brahman also.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

James Tod mentioned Yadavs as Kshatriyas. I will put his quotations in the article tomorrow. Speak, if there are any doubts. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Name, Tod is not acceptable and you know it, having read James Tod. That article has been reviewed by several admins and all of them were of the opinion that he has to be treated as an unreliable source. Puranas are not acceptable either, being primary sources. If you have any other evidence then feel free to show it here. - Sitush (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree here--Tod seems to completely fail WP standards as a reliable source--biased, essentially in the employ of his subject, basically writing on things which he doesn't really have all the information about, etc. I don't think we can use Tod here, or anywhere, as a reliable source. If you disagree, the best step is to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources mentioned yadavas as kshtriya

1.Hinduism and Its Military Ethos By R. K. Nehra,page 209,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=WaJ2tp_n1AMC&pg=PA202&dq=chandravanshi+kshatriya&hl=en&ei=LesqTvliioesB8zB8bEN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0C#v=onepage&q=chandravanshi%20kshatriya&f=false))

2.The history of Andhra country, 1000 A.D.-1500 A.D. By Yashoda Devi,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-d9IAvFOUHsC&pg=PA483&dq=YADAVA+KSHTRIYA&hl=en&ei=vG8xTqiPBsXnrAevoaX2Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false))

3.Copper - Plate and Stone Inscriptions of South India (Set in 3 Volumes) By Alan Butterworth And V. Chetty Venugopal,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=edl5PfeO-UwC&pg=PA526&dq=YADAVA+KSHTRIYA&hl=en&ei=vG8xTqiPBsXnrAevoaX2Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false))

4.History of Sikh Gurus Retold: 1606-1708 C.E By Surjit Singh Gandhi,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vZFBp89UInUC&pg=PA588&dq=YADAVA+KSHTRIYA&hl=en&ei=FHExTqjfD8SzrAe11tnLCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDge#v=onepage&q&f=false))

5.The golden book of India: a genealogical and biographical dictionary of the ... By Sir Roper Lethbridge,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7iOsNUZ2MXgC&pg=PA246&dq=YADAVA+KSHTRIYA&hl=en&ei=y3MxTpzTL4SHrAe18vnUCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCThk#v=onepage&q&f=false))

These above links mention yadava as kshtriya in various region.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1. 1 and #2 are not reliable sources - Lancer & Gyan publishers both have issues. I'll try to look through the others later but Lethbridge is also not a great source as far as I can recall. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1. 3 is ancient legend, there is no way this can be used to substantiate modern sociological structures. #4 makes a single offhand reference to someone being "Yadav Kshatriya". That is nowhere near being "the Yadav are among the Kshatriya classes" (which would be iffy but vague substantiation) and nowhere near "here is how the Yadav are classified and why...". MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

but sir i think the sources as clear and authentic as those mentioning them shudra.i have presented a diffrent side of this topic to make article more neutral in approach.so you should take it poisitively not in the sense that i am trying to imposing one point of view.Bill clinton history (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have checked and agree with MatthewVanitas regarding items 3 & 4 (and it appears below that Qwyrxian also agrees about inscriptions as sources etc). The inscriptions could be mentioned but they appear to prove nothing in the Wikipedia sense and this would have to be incorporated. As expected, Lethbridge is hopeless, just hopeless: he was a "gentleman scholar", he took the word of his subjects (eg: like Tod), he was vague in his use of terminology & in any event this appears to be referring to a single person, which is hardly great grounds for labelling an entire community. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

1.Behind mud walls: seventy-five years in a North Indian village By William Henricks Wiser, Charlotte Viall Wiser, Susan Snow Wadley,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=iOy5PpBoPecC&pg=PA262&dq=YADAVA+KSHTRIYA&hl=en&ei=MXkxTrCmJsS3rAfuveC6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCDhu#v=onepage&q&f=false)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill clinton history (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but one village doesn't mean a thing. I've read that book before & enjoyed it but it is fundamentally just anecdotes etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

But sir,i think you have not read sources called them shudra on this article carefully,they are also region specific.and did not talk about entire indian sub continenet.it is not fare to apply double standard on wikipedia.you are very senior,i hope ypu will consider my point,the source is very authentic and clearly mention thei status.Bill clinton history (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not senior, honest. I may have been around a little longer than you but we are all equal here. I do understand your point about double standards and I promise you that I will read all of the current sources to see what has gone on. As far as I can recall, I have not added anything to this article. However, the 75 years book is not good enough as a source, on its own merits. It may be the case that some of the sources used in the article for shudra are also not good enough and would need to be removed. I'll get round to it as quick as I can but I am currently embroiled in numerous issues of other caste articles, so it may not be before next week. The world will still be spinning, and Wikipedia will still be running, until well past then. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, we also have a policy called WP:BOLD. You do not have to wait for any particular person to approve your edit before you make them. You could go ahead with your edit if you want. And if you want to discuss the reliability of the source which you propose, here is one thing to consider. Is the source an academic, I mean a professor? If the person who wrote the book is a professor, there is a reasonable chance that the source may be OK. I have not reviewed it though. There can be issues even if the source be a professor. I think you can go ahead though. If there are objections, they can be discussed later too.-MangoWong (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again, Mango. You cannot be bold when the thing is being discussed and there is a clear difference of opinion regarding the reliability of sources. Ignore him, Bill, he is just stalking me. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

2.From the death of Shivaji to the death of Aurangzeb: the critical years By Y. G. Bhave,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Q5kVk6msxUcC&pg=PA14&dq=yadav+of+vijaynagar&hl=en&ei=d7sxTqWMH4S0rAf35rHaCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=yadav%20of%20vijaynagar&f=false))

THE presence of yadav kingdom in medieval india also shows kshtriya tradition of yadav.Bill clinton history (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

3.Memoirs of egotism By Stendhal,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vKo06_OU0LQC&pg=PA350&dq=yadav+of+vijaynagar&hl=en&ei=d7sxTqWMH4S0rAf35rHaCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=yadav%20of%20vijaynagar&f=false))

THE link shows yadav dynasties considered as rajput kshtriya dynasties in india in early medieval time.Bill clinton history (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Bill, but you are not allowed to synthesise sources. So, you cannot say that Yadavs were kings, kings were kshatriya, therefore Yadavs were kshatriya. Have a read of the linked article. There were, I am fairly sure, some kings who were not even Hindu. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your second source is completely garbled on GBooks. It seems to be a single page stuck inside a book about hotel management! Am I misreading something? - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You were giving him a week's timeframe for a reply. In that situation, it is reasonable to go ahead with the edit without waiting for you. I agree that as a general courtesy, one should not edit while the issue is being discussed. But this is not necessary. Edits can also be made while the discussion goes on. This is particularly true when one party seems only interested in preventing others in getting anything into an article. If one party is rejecting the other users proposals without having any credible reasons, or in a hypocritical way, the edit can go ahead.-MangoWong (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am making my point again and again that the main issue is the approach we are following on this article.the sources which i have mentioned above telling the history of yadav which missing in present article.only on the bases of last hundread year period how can make conclusion about the varna status of a community.we should not miss the period from 900BC TO 1900 AD.IF we have to reach a fair conclusion than we have to study this period also.if anyone want this article only for last 100 years than we definately should not use the ancient classification,rather constitutional classification will be more appropriate for the present article.so my point is very simple and logical.Bill clinton history (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, if you want to show history, show history. Instead you're spending time trying to prove they were Kshatriyas by descent. We already have both sides of the story in the lede, and an entire section Yadav#Caste_politics. Why not drop the bone and go dig up some actual history resources? Do bear in mind it's going to be complicated by the fact that other castes took on the Yadav name in the late 19th C., so again there's an issue of trying to give a common history to disparate groups. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, this article is titled "Yadav", not Yadavs in the last 100 years. It is ridiculous to restrict the article content to last 100 years only. If some people do not agree with you in everything you say, you can ask them to show some good logic for disagreeing with you. You can also ask them to stop wasting your time with irrelevancies. For example, this above comment does not seem to have much relevance with what you said above it.-MangoWong (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. The logic is Wikipedia policy: verifiability, reliable sources, consensus, no original research, no synthesis, etc. MV has just explained to Bill that if he comes up with stuff that meets all of these then there is no problem, which is true. Until he does, then there is a problem. Now please stop stirring the pot, Mango. Bill has a decent brain and doesn't need your wikipolitics corrupting him. You are the only one out of us four who has been blocked from editing and that is hardly a good recommendation for your advice etc, is it? - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Do you yourself show any respect for WP policies? You are continually saying uncivil things to others. And mocking at users who had been blocked is also uncivil. How is that not a policy violation? Just because you and your sidekicks get overlooked by admins does not mean you are better than anyone else.-MangoWong (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

MV, you also do not seem to have any respect for WP:Civil. Asking someone to "drop the bone" may not be a good idea. People can take offence at that.-MangoWong (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would be tough: it is a standard phrase on Wikipedia. From that, I assume that there is consensus that it is not uncivil. Showing your inexperience, methinks. Anyway, if I have done anything wrong, or been uncivil to you, then please report me to WP:ANI. You may be right for once. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not I report your misbehavior at the ANI is up to me. That I do not report at the ANI may have some reasons which have no link with your being right or wrong. But that I do not report it at the ANI does not mean that you can behave in an uncivil behavior. If you are behaving in an uncivil behavior, it means you never learned how to behave properly.-MangoWong (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

One difference clearly is that Sitush's view on colonial times, as a time as civilized as post-colonial Govt.s as can be seen here, is completely at variance with mine. I am sure MV must be of the same opinion. It must be confusing during these times of the interwebs how a bunch of poeple that look like Mahatma Gandhi and have a mob can snatch all the civility of the world off the colonial powers. I guess I, and those who decided the end of colonial powers, should know more. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, if someone has been misbehaving with you, you can report them at WP:ANI. You are a new user. We have a special policy for protecting new users from intimidation from older users. It is WP:BITE. You can report if older users do not behave properly. It is also uncivil to give irrelevant replies.-MangoWong (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

TT, I have been explicit that I accept that the Raj was not all sweetness and light. I have also been explicit that you should not use inappropriate forums to spread your unfocussed POV. There are forums specifically for these issues and you have been directed to them by many people. Your post above is bordering on a personal attack and I would appreciate it if you would retract.

Mango, WP:BITE does not give carte blanche for abuse, tendentious editing etc in the face of numerous people pointing it out. BITE will not work in TT's case because the pattern of ignorance and the POV is evident. I do not understand your last sentence but, what the heck, it is probably wrong because most of your comments about policy so far have been wrong.

Now, to get back on track with Bill. You need to find some sources to support your points and which meet the requirements set out above. I do understand that those requirements may be baffling to you & I am willing to explain things in order that any bafflement can be resolved. I am not willing to do it in an atmosphere of hatred and/or disdain, which is what presently exists here. My suggestion would be to ask any general queries about policy etc on my talk page. If Mango or Thisthat should follow me there in order to continue their abuse then they will very quickly get warned for disruption, since my purpose is genuinely to assist you. I am massively in favour of developing this article with the "backstory" you referred to above, but it needs to fit in with the system that works here. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The subject under discussion was civil and uncivil, and it is pertinent that what is considered civil by a side may not be exactly the same for others. That your understanding of "Raj was not all sweetness and light" was on opposite end of my understanding of 'all loot, wars and a few machines to show' or something similar on that line may be valid in this discussion on civility.

As usual, you are assuming a lot of things such as people 'follow you', etc. There could be some links on talk:Yadav on some page, if you may have overelooked. That you overlooked and assumed that people are following you to disrupt is an assumption about others. Please desist from such assumptions in the first place. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yadavas History

Relation between Ahir(Abhira)) and yadav goes back before 400BC.This is completely misrerpresentation of history that ahir considered as yadav from 19th century.now government of india and prominent historian in india considered yadav and ahir same.use of yadav surname by ahir community is not in vaccum.they have considered yadavs from centuries.

My point is again approach we are following on this article.the links i have provided is completely authentic and clear about yadavs history and their status.so i am not agree with the above baseless evaluation of my sources.I find it very strange that some one finds enough time for rejecting my sourcesn and dont have time for sources which is the bases for above controversial lines.

And even in evaluation of my links double standard has been applied.

My objection is on what bases we reach a conclusion about varna status of yadavas.the articles does not contain enough material for this.

so first this completely baseless conclusion about varna status should be reformed.and the article for modern period must and primarily contain the modern constitutional classification of indian government about the community.

I remember sir very clearly that on Ahir-Abhira debate you did not allowed me for editing about the issue before consensus.now in this case even debate did not happen and you allow editing on such controvrsial issue.i have already showed the material which contradict these lines.so a consensus must be reached first and then conclusion should be admitted in article.the varna status lines about kshtriya or shudra should be removed first.moreover i will provide more source on the topic.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, there are two different issues here:

• is your theory about Yadavs correct; and
• is the article correct as it stands

Obviously, there are areas where the two issues merge but they can be examined individually. I struggle sometimes to keep up with your posts & that is why you may get responses out of sync. It was the work of minutes to form a response to your most recent sources because I have already come across some of them. This is not always the case, and so I need to trawl through those which I have not visited (or regarding the content of which I have forgotten). That takes more than a few minutes. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

But sir how can you support a conclusion about varna status which have been derived without debate from incomplete sources of a very short span of time.this is completely wrong.if article is about modern community than modern constitutional classification should be applied that will be more reasonable and logical.

if you want varna classification in article than it should be debated first because it is very controversial in itself to intermix the ancient religeous based concept for modern community.and anyone should not be allowed editing on such controversial topic before date without consensus.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, again, there is no "conclusion"; the lede explicity says that they have been varna labeled in different ways. Further "consensus" does not mean "take down cited material that has been there for months so we can talk about it". The material is clearly cited, so if you have a problem with the citations by all means address them here. I am continually confused that people insist on saying "the Fooians can't be Shudra because they're actually Kshatriya, see here a list of links that vaguely mention Fooian Kshatriya, and remove all Shudra refs." Instead, if you genuinely think that Shudra shouldn't be in the article, please look at the Shudra refs and explain how either they don't say Yadav are Shudra, or the refs are not credible. If you cannot do either of those things, there is zero reason to remove "Shudra" from the article. If you want more coverage of Kshatriya and feel it would not be WP:UNDUE, by all means find some. I listed above a few examples as to what kind of references don't work (offhand mention), which work with further substantiation (explicity mention that Foo is classified as X) and which are ideal (clear explanation of where they fit and why). I appreciate that you are working at improving articles and sharing a positive attitude, so let's work together and find refs to flesh out the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir,my first objection against the claimed word.yadavss mention as kshtriya by by many authentic historian.so this word completely misleading and making article wrong in approach.read the fresh link below...

1.. Dakhan History Musalman And Maratha, A.D. 1300 To 1818 By Loch W. W, W.W. Loch,(( http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lWYq9H7ER78C&pg=PA619&dq=yadav+kshatriya+history&hl=en&ei=S7YyTo--FMzLrQejwcTLCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBTgo#v=onepage&q=yadav%20kshatriya%20history&f=false)

the historian clearly mentioning yadav as kshtriya.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Bill, but that source does not say what you think. It is full of "probably" and, which is perhaps worse, it is a really old book and written by someone who I seem to recall has been discredited. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir,you are still unreasonably questioning the authenticity of my sources and not checking the bases of those controversial lines.this is not fare.Bill clinton history (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, could you tell me something about your source. The person who wrote this book. Who was he? What did he do? etc. And I think your objection to the word "Claim" is valid. I think "Claim" is a weasel word, WP:WEASEL. Such words are not supposed to be used on Wikipedia. Please check it in the link I provided. If it is there, the word would be against WP policies. There would be no reason to keep it. Could you find it there, in the box titled "Editorializing"?-MangoWong (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill does raise an interesting concern about the word claim, and I'm willing to work with him on it. Bill, what verbiage would you suggest instead? "The Yadavs classify themselves as"? "declare themselves as"? I'm open to tweaking the term as you suggest. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes Bill. What you said was very interesting. Such words should never be used. You know, expert editors never use such words. And only people who have a very keen sense of encyclopedic writing can spot such mistakes. Your objection was very right.-MangoWong (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

1.Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India By S. D. S. Yadava,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=p69GMA226bgC&pg=PA105&dq=yadavas+of+vijaynagar&hl=en&ei=nh00TrjbHdCtrAfJ9ez1Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false))

The link mentioning so many things about yadav from early to modern period which article does not contain.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill, could you please tell me something about this source also? Where is he a professor? What is his subject? etc.-MangoWong (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

People - esp. MangoWong - are misunderstanding WP:WEASEL, I think. If we said "some people claim" then that is weasel; if we say, for example, "Yadavas claim^{cite here} then that is not necessarily weasel. If we say "X xlaims Y^{cite here} but A claims B^{cite here} then that is also not weasel, since we are specifically pointing out that there are different viewpoints and we do no pass an opinion regarding which is the correct one or not. MW has made this mistake before - English is a subtle language. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did I make this "mistake" before? Please clarify. It is not a mistake at all. If you don't agree with the MOS, please go get it changed. Otherwise, please do not argue on this. It is a waste of time to argue on points which are clearly established by the MOS. One of the reasons for having the MOS is to save on irrelevant arguments like these. Don't defeat the purpose of the MOS and waste other people's time with irrelevant arguments like these. It is common knowledge that "Claim" is a weasel word, and it is clearly identified in the MOS as such. There's hardly a word which is better known as a weasel word. The examples which you give are irrelevant. If the MOS says its a weasel word, it is a weasel word. Full stop.-MangoWong (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You are frequently misunderstanding all sorts of policies & doling out bad advice to new-ish users based on your misunderstandings. I do not know if this is because of your wikilawyering, or because of your inability fully to comprehend the English language, or just idiocy. My bets are on the first of those. You have misunderstood it, just as you misunderstand that there is no need to mention a person's name for every statement made and there is no need for a citation in an infobox if the information contained there is cited elsewhere in the article. Furthermore, MOS is not a policy, just a guideline. Re-read the MOS. I am happy to assist you in understanding it. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not misunderstanding any policy and my advice is good. Showing the MOS is not wikilawyering and I see no problem with my English, even if I am not a Oxonian. That you have doubts about the IQ of your opponents is unsurprising, but the feeling may be reciprocated. I have never said that we need to mention a person's name for every statement we make. Perhaps, you may need to improve your reading skills. That people claim that some statement in the citation box is cited elsewhere does not mean that the claim is true or believable. The MOS is supposed to be followed even if it is a guideline. Arguments which can be settled through the MOS should be settled through. It makes no sense to continue to say Y when the MOS says X and waste other people's time. And it is very assumptive of you to think that I may need your assistance.-MangoWong (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, for someone who spends 70% of their time arguing on talk pages etc and only 28% of their time contributing on article pages, you simply do not have the experience to pass comments like this. Do some content building and learn, instead of telling everyone else how (you think) it is. I know that those numbers do not add up: the information is there for all to see if they want a full breakdown. I am close to one in dealing with you, I must admit <g> - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

sir,you should evaluate the sources of above controversial lines instead indulging in arguments.

Moreover i am not agree with you on baseless evaluation of my sources and i entirely stand with ny sources.Bill clinton history (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill clinton history, you're welcome to "stand with" whatever you want, but your stance won't change the fact that several of the sources don't meet the reliable sources guidelines. Ancient copper plates will never be a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia (or, I should say, they shouldn't be). Sources from publishers without a track record of good, reliable editing should not be sources. If you want, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.

MangoWong, you are right that we shouldn't use weasel words. However, we also can't state something as a fact which is only an opinion. The Yadav's appear to be of the opinion, based on evidence that they consider reliable, that they are/were Kshatriya. We need to find a way to represent the fact that this is an "internal" claim (i.e., one originating from the group itself), and that this is not a claim which is commonly excepted by independent scholars. How about we change, "Many clans within Yadavas claims descent from the ancient King Yadu of the Chandravanshi Kshatriya clan, and thus claim Kshatriya varna for themselves." to "Many clans within Yadavas classify themselves as Kshatrya varna because they state that they are descended from the ancient King Yado of the Chandravanshi Kshatriya clan." Would that be acceptable? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with anything like that construction. All I was pointing out was that "claim" is not always a weasel word, as MW said. No big deal about this specific instance. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the proposed wording is fine. However, I am concerned about the next sentence too. However, their varna status is contested, as at times Yadavs have been labeled within the Shudra (cultivator) varna as "upper Shudra". I would say that in this sentence, we could/should insert "some" in order to clarify that not all Yadavas were labeled with the S-word. .....at times some Yadavs have been labeled..... Secondly, the infobox in this article has the same problem as the one that Kurmi article had. Could we apply the same solution here. Delete it from the infobox?-MangoWong (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it should be deleted from all caste article infoboxes - that is one reason why I referred you in a thread elsewhere to the discussion on the template page. As you know, I would actually be happy to see the entire box go. No idea on the shudra status ere: the sentence has been messed around with that much that I would have to review the sources to see if they do or do not say "some". I'll do that. I rather think that "upper shudra" was some sort of compromise between MV and A N Other. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)