Talk:Yadav/Archive 13

Religion
Please, note that 99.9999% of community members are in Hinduism, so in religion section only hindu should be written., not others. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * @Deokalimuskabad: What reliable source do you have for that statistic? —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The article itself talk about Hinduism and yadav is a Hindu community and the constituent members of yadav are hindu, what source one have say they are also in other religions. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the religion field of the infobox is a complete waste of space and would be happy if it did not exist. Certainly in our modern world, it is impossible even for academics to state accurately that 100% of a community profess x, y or z as their religion. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, fine, no objection. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Please, remove religion index. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I could be bold about it but I think I will wait for further input. I am fairly sure that some years ago I proposed removing the parameter from the underlying infobox template but it didn't attract much interest for or against. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I will give it another couple of days. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * do you have an opinion regarding this or are you trying to stay uninvolved for admin purposes? (Deokalimuskabad, in case you are unaware, administrators who are "involved" in an article through making contributions are not allowed to take admin actions related to that article, such as blocking someone for disruption, because it is a conflict of interest.) - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Sitush: My question about was from the perspective of making sure editors are in compliance with guidelines, not to opine on the content. (Translation: I've got this page on my watchlist, but I've taken administrative action related to it, so I'm avoiding editing on the content.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I am pleased it has been watchlisted. I will have to see if anyone else comments in this section or else apply WP:V to at least trim the list where applicable. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it. - Sitush (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2020
yadavs are deemed high caste as there being many kings of yadav lineage 2409:4043:39E:487:44C3:7DDF:D3DD:BFC4 (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We can not add claims like that without a reliable source (see WP:RS). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that past discussions here, which will be in the archives listed at the top of this page, indicate that the ancient Yadava tribe is not to be treated as being the same as the modern Yadav caste. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Which Varnas do Yadav really belong to.
As told in Trivedas, Mahapurad, Manusmriti, and all the vedas they are Shudra. And to not be marginalized or discriminated they later started claiming Kshtriyas caste. As their leader Lord Krishna was a kshtriya, but he was the leader of Shudra Varna people. The real Kshtriyas never struggled to claim their Kshtriya identity. But the one who didn't wanted to be discriminated started Claiming Themselves as Kshtriyas. Exactly like Kurmi, Maurya, Pal, Patel and Nishad did. AmanRawat07 (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not generalised statements. You're broadly right - sanskritisation - but it isn't a particularly helpful comment as the article covers the issue anyway and you offer nothing that might improve it. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I would like to tell you..Wikipedia donot rely on puranic sources....also the sources which are of British era and relates to caste and ethnicity....coz we write the articles keeping in view the neutral point of view.see WP:POV.Hence, if you find any sources of vedic period regarding ur claims "beware" as ur hardwork can be wasted.This is done particularly to keep the content encyclopedic.Also wt u are saying is not a new thing as the article already has the following sentence.See:In support of the argument that the movements bore similarity, Jaffrelot cites Hetukar Jha, who says of the Bihar situation that "The real motive behind the attempts of the Yadavas, Kurmis and Koeris at Sanskritising themselves was to get rid of this socio-economic repression".Heba Aisha (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Disgusting
Disgusting things in this article, not true history , seems personal hatered to yadavs to show them dirty and fool इतिहास विश्लेषण (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, there's not a lot we can do about a general unsupported assertion of disgust. If you think some parts of this article are inaccurate, please be specific about what you think needs to be changed, and please provide reliable sources (see WP:RS) to support any changes you wish to make. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Boing! said Zebedee, the problem with this article is using British Raj era Images that are almost century old for a whole community that exists today, when there are many images available from recent times about this community. Here's an image of Yadav Ahir community from the source IndianExpress(dot)com (India's famous News Agency). Why shouldn't this be used as Header image? Link of article and recent photograph: rb.gy/xmoxgp  HinduKshatrana (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it is copyrighted? - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Wikipedia content is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, and we can only use images released under a licence at least as free as that. If you can find a more recent image that's free for us to use, I'm sure it would be welcomed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong information with biased views
Wikipedia should avoid publishing unauthenticated information or at least the person editing should provide his/her mail id to get back to them. Pratyushgautam (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for Wikipedia volunteers to provide email addresses or any identifying information, we use user talk pages for communication. Also, content on Wikipedia articles needs to be cited to reliable sources (see WP:RS), so if you see any specific content that you believe is incorrect or improperly sourced, please feel free to identify it here and provide a reliable source to correct it. Generally complaining that an article contains "wrong information with biased views" and "unauthenticated information" without being specific is just wasting your time and ours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Gavli redirect link is incorrect
Gavli of Maharashtra is a sub-caste of Dhangar caste. However Gowari is a Adivasi community. May be it is related to Yadav of Uttar Pradesh but some of the important people from Yadav caste (like Vithal Krishnaji Khedkar) are from Gawli community of Ratnagiri in Southern Maharashtra. Gavli, Gawli and Gowari are different communities. Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2020
"change- Yadav refers to a grouping of traditionally mainly non-elite to Yadav refers to a grouping of traditionally mainly elite" Sunnyyadavharyana (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yadav are Chandravanshi Kshatriya
Yadav are Chandravanshi Kshatriya, there is a description in mahabharat, and in current you can see in Iskcon. Their main gotra in Atri Atri is subdivided in 63 or 64 gotra And in Yadav dynasty their Lord krishna were born and Lord name was Shri Krishna Vasudev Yadav. So, these are pavitra kshatriya. Shiv Abhishek Yadav (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

True bro... How can we van edit this... This page is not neutral andthings written are offensive towards Yadavs. Vaibhav Krishna 001 (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Page is insult to Yadav community
Looks like haters of Yadav community is spearheading campaigns in all forms here also we find same on Wikipedia which should be corrected and rectified immediately the photo of a labour is shown to depict a Yadav lady and calling them a non elite is a false propaganda because it contains both elite and non elite but due to geographic conditions so please make it a point to edit it with truth Panchparmeshwarsingh (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @Panchparmeshwarsingh: The photo has already been discussed in the sections above. What reliable sources do you have that the community contains both elite and non-elite? —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

फोटो galat लगी है भाई राव अंकित सिंह (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the English language Wikipedia, so please contribute to discussions in English. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The pic is incorrect. Please refer to Mahabharata Epic.... Yadavs are pure kshtriyas. Vaibhav Krishna 001 (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please change all pics... Wikipedia is full and irresponsible platform Appuraja1411 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2021
I think this page is written by someone who has jealousy with the Yadavs and their history and that's why he/she created such a page to defame Yadavs. These informations are totally baseless. Yadavs were never considered as shudras. Why are you spreading hatred against Yadavs ? I want this page not to be edited but to be deleted completely.

}} 2401:4900:4046:F625:4E3B:EDF2:D494:2915 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Good Evening, Please remove the girl photo doing harvesting on Yadav title Wikipedia page. It makes our whole caste look like same and having the same occupation.It really hearts our sentiments and makes us feel like inferior people. Since in this modern time many of our Yadav community people are trying hard and working hard to remove our tag of backward class people. Now we are in every field like academic, sport, politics, literature, cinema, etc. This photo pulls us down and works as an example for other caste people to make us inferior. So it's a humble request to you please remove the photo. I have attached the link to the photo at the bottom. Hoping you will feel our emotion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadav#/media/File:Ahir_woman.jpg Thanking youRakeshYadav741 (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2021
Delete this page. This is just an insult to the great history of Yadavas. This page is baseless. Vrishni (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's an insult to Yadav community. I request you to delete the page. Vrishni (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:AFD for information on deletion of articles. It seems unlikely that this article will be deleted, however. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The image used on this page is invalid.
The image used on this page is invalid. I don't have permission to contribute on this page. They added the image of AHEERS - A SHOODRA CLASS instead of YADAVA. AHEERS and YADAVA are different. Kindly use a image of YADAVA [RAJPUT| Kshatriya] अभिषेक सिंह चन्देल (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

No. You are wrong. Ahir and Yadav are same. Tomorrow you will say Majhrauts, Krishnauts, gwalas, madhuvanshis,etc, etc. are not Yadavs. Know the truth brother. Do not spread hatred. Vrishni (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2021
Please remove non elite because only gwal Yadavs are non elite krishnaut, majrauth of Bihar, Rao sahabs of Haryana Ghosi Yadav Thakur in Madhya pradesh are Elite and were zamindars and Kings Ramesh mishra Naugachia (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2021
Tha picture used is fake Rudra yaduvanshi (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Which picture, and what do you propose as a replacement? —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2021
Rudra yaduvanshi (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)the picture used in this page doesn't define the race and community and this is totally added through a propaganda––
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Untitled
This page is baseless and is an insult to YADAVAS great history. It only shows someone's jealousy towards this community. DELETE IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrishni (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-Yadavs are persistent on defaming Yadavs
The entire article about Yadavas is totally biased and is written in order to present this particular caste group as backward. Why do we have pictures of indiginous tribals in the first page. The were Gavlis who converted to Yadavas to seek higher status and hence aren't descendant of king Yadu. I wonder why this isn't happening for other castes like Rajputs, some sources have stated that Rajuts were peasants.

If you still think Yadavas are peasants, take look at various kingdoms in India from North to South. Even in the present era, the King of Mysore is a Yadav. Do you think if Yadavs were peasants, they would established a huge kingdom in Mysore?

And by the way,the Yadavas don't need sanskritization, they are already of the Kshatriya Varna.

Bro, even i thought about this, why do people vandalize our caste groups and not other castes like Rajputs. Therealyadava (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

A conjecture from a European
... as to why there's some much heat in the debate about whether to include the picture File:Ahir woman.jpg.

She's an attractive young woman, smartly and modestly dressed. There seems nothing offensive about it.

But the background is a field of wheat. In pre-industrial days, when most people worked on the land, pastoral farming was a respected, high-caste, activity, while arable farming was low-caste. Including the picture in the article is a subtle way, imperceptible to most non-Indians, of imputing low status to the Yadavs. Maproom (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yadavas are in no way peasants, they are Kshatriyas. This is like comparing Europeans to Africans. Is it fair? Definitely not. Then why do you think that the picture of a woman from other caste should be present in the Yadav section. This is like putting picture of an Asian or an African in 'European People' Wikipedia Page. Therealyadava (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2021
Yadav is a KHATRIYA caste Yadav fought many war for motherland India including 1857 revolt which was started by Yadav king Rao Tula ram in haryana he fought very bravely with his 5000 yadav warriors .Yadav fought 1962 war that is also called as rezangla war 114 veer ahir of Kumaon regiment killed 3000 Chinese 2409:4053:2190:E76F:6587:41A4:5DA:586E (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely reliable. Why is no one editing the page ? Therealyadava (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021
The whole article about Yadavas are totally biased and needs to be completely edited from top to bottom. Yadavas are not shudras, they are of Kshatriya status, but many other caste groups associate them with peasants and shudras to defame them.

There were many non-yadav pastoral committees that consolidated with Yadavas during the freedom strugle just to create a momentum for this particular caste. This in no way means that Yadavs are pastoral peasants. This only occured after the consolidation of other groups after the formation of All-India Yadav Mahasabha. Therealyadava (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Run n Fly (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2021
Hope You Will Help
 * Image of that particular wikipedia :
 * Beacuse thats representing Wrong Image of that caste:
 * I just want to edit a good image from that caste :

2402:3A80:1E9E:EC24:6483:B92A:D0D1:4158 (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elizium23 (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2021
Change mainly non-elite, peasant-pastoral communities to mainly oeasant-pastorial communities.

Remove the word non-elite from following sentence.

Yadav refers to a grouping of traditionally mainly non-elite,[1][2][3][4] peasant-pastoral communities or castes 106.202.152.122 (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2021
Origin of Yadav Manasputra of lord Brahma Rishi Atri's seventh generation and the son of King Yayati, King Yadu is considered as father of Yaduvansh and the term Yaduvansh in short is described as Yadav.

Why Yadavs are Chandravanshi Kshatriyas. King Yadu's ancestors King Chandra/Som and the Son of Rishi Atri. Through the vansh of King Chandra/Som Yadav are known as Chandravanshi/ Somvanshi Kshatriyas. 2405:204:A289:8F86:C13D:E886:79B1:622E (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Dude its reliable. Therealyadava (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If I provide the source will the changes be made for sure? Truth should be out (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The proposed changes are correct. The page should be unprotected. Jaysinh130 (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2021
Yadavs are not sudras as described in the pic about Yadavs they are kshetriyas as discussed under Maharabharata…. Please rectify and remove the pic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:2e9e:7680:3d7d:d3d7:58c7:d5dc (talk) 08:56, 15 Aug 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yadavs are yadavs
Non elite pastoral should be removed and chandravanshi yaduvanshi kshatriya should be placed. Krishna was a Yadav and it is evident in bhagwad gita where Arjuna calls him he Yadav ye sakheti. After the internal war between Yadavs, some of them survived and took refuge in indraprastha. It is also written in the Yadava page of Wikipedia that some of them were alive. When a Brahman says that he is Brahman, everybody agrees , same with kshatriya or any other caste so why is there a biased behaviour toward Yadavs only? Yadavs are not only Krishna's descendants only but apart from krishna and balram, vasudev and devki had 6 other sons who were rejuvenated by Krishna after death of kans. Radha rani was also a Yadav as poet Beni Dayal Sharma mentions it CHORTI YE GORTHI HAI CHHORTI AHIR KI. It should be noted that Ahir and Yadav are synonymous terma just like kshatriya and thakur. The defamation of Yadavs by calling them as ' 'claimers' of yadu's descendants and depriving them of their ancestors' name is not at all welcome. It should be corrected at the earliest. Yadav kingdoms were also present in the Kaliyug. The ncert books have maps showing this. Secondly, the image should be removed, Yadav is not a tribe, Yadav is a clan , Yadav is our pride and it is we not at all appreciate the misappropriation of our prestige. Reference can be taken from Bhagwad gita. Nand baba was also a yaduvanshi kshatriya ,he was the head of gokul, and had 9 lakh cows which is not possible for a simple herder. He was the cousin of Vasudev. It should be correected and Yadavs should be given the right. Their shoul not be two pages yadava and Yadav, but only one like any other caste as this makes the situation ambiguous. They should not be labelled as shudra, because they are born kshatriya, and should be acknowledged the same as well. Truth should be out (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yadavs were also included in the martial castes by British. It is also present in Wikipedia pagehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_race#:~:text=Martial%20race%20was%20a%20designation,'non%2Dmartial'%20caste. Truth should be out (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yadavs are also the only caste to be included in the obc A list of government Truth should be out (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The above request is legitimate. The current content is factually incorrect and the proposed content is an improvement.

Further, the page should be unprotected. Jaysinh130 (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2021
Yadav's are classified as Other Backward Class in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana too-, so add these two states in classification section-  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadav#Classification SuperSonic54 (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That link refers just to a website, not a pdf. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ScottishFinnishRadish The source cited in classification section mentions Yadav's as Other Backward Class in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana too SuperSonic54 (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Factually Incorrect
The information on this page is factually incorrect in many places. This page should be unprotected. I would like to know who the authors are and what their credentials are. Jaysinh130 (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not going to be done due to persistent disruption. If you have specific changes to request, you are free to employ the usual procedure for that purpose. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

They truly fake information I am yadav and Yadav is warrior caste you hear yadava dynasty,Abhira dynasty some kingdoms of yadav.and the varna of yadav or ahir are in kshatriya. Yadav also do there own business which is selling of milk approx 50•\• yadavs are wealthy.please post right information Abhishek6343 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect information in language section.
If you are including non recognised language such as Marwadi and Bhojpuri. Awadhi language should be included. Ajeetsinghawadhi (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2022
it is elite and not non elite 2409:4050:2DB2:AED5:E9A3:F68D:1DA9:7D3C (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Kpddg  (talk)  12:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2022
Yadav is a Elite community R2rajneesh (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Kpddg  (talk)  14:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead section title
Request for comment to remove image, which highlight varna on the topic in lead section, despite the image is picked from a a non-agreeable source and the image labelling in not common view as per many recent books. Request for comment on if we should replace the lead section image, despite various convinctionless objections from Fowler&amp;fowler   Please go over the content of this topic to help bring comments more neutral in decision making on removing the image from lead section and replace with more authentic image Clrsitusinsall (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey User:Fowler&fowler, I am moving the discussion from my talk page to this relevant talk page for better visibility. When I provided the link to the consensus & comments by Sitush, you argued you are not aware of any such consensus on 'varna' in lead section. Later, when I reverted your good faith edits, you changed your statement saying it's not actually about 'varna'. Even if I assume you are correct, how would you explain such a lengthy lead section, especially when you say you & Sitush have written the article. Also, the way you mention that it remained as it is for years till I jumped in, doesn't seem appropriate from a senior editor like you, who must be aware of WP:OWN. You must have gone through or contributed in other caste related articles. Please explain one simple point, does the lead section look encyclopedic? Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, it does. It is a summary of the article. Without the portion you had attempted to remove, it was nothing but rudimentary disambiguation, which in any case did mention caste.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello TrangaBellam & LukeEmily, can you please have a look at the lead section? I don't think it's okay. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the content is inaccurate. Though, if you believe otherwise, I am all ears.
 * In that case, the sole deciding factor comes down to whether there is a community consensus to not mention varna claims etc. in lead (or not, which justifies F&F). Sitush claims for a consensus but I need to see the the community discussion. I, for one, have thought such a consensus to be irrational but never got the time to mount a challenge. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that a consensus was reached on your talk page, but have as yet failed to provide a link. Sitush last edited the article in June 2020 but didn't see fit to move or remove the last paragraph. I know Sitush is against using Raj-era sources (ethnology and the like) but I'm not aware he is against any description of the socio-political antecedents of modern caste- or caste-like groups.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler, , I think Sitush has made a comment that we do not add varna of a caste in the lead section. Please see his comment here : Talk:Rajput/Archive_24 and here and Talk:Ror. Also there is some discussion here that I found after searching but honestly, have not read it Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_47. In my personal opinion, Varna is almost always debatable. It was fluid and politically motivated, and might not be of much interest to readers who are not Hindu. Hence IMO it probably go somewhere in the body but for this particular community if everyone else is in agreement, then I have no objection if everyone agrees to put it in the lead.LukeEmily (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler did we agree to remove the image in lead section, based on the fact the image and caption are from a british-era book, and we are selectively not accepting the statements from the book, still happily picking image and pasting on lead-section of high traffic page. We should renominate the image for deletion in wikicommons.  and see if Fowler&Fowler, Sitush and team allow to remove the image from lead section. Clrsitusinsall (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Raj-era ethnology books can be problematic not necessarily in their descriptions, which have often been recorded from what the subjects have told the data gatherers except in cases of mistranslation, but in the reasons that might have been attributed for certain customs, etc., which were rooted in the prevailing (and now outdated) theories. There is nothing wrong with the image unless there is specific information that the image is contrived. Castes such as the yadavas and jats (now OBC) have engaged in caste-upliftment, or Sanskritization, (i.e. have posited kshatriya status for themselves) in the last one hundred years, unlike, say, certain South Indian castes whose representatives abandoned the caste system altogether, or some dalit groups who converted to Buddhism. Sometimes the modern-day yadavas are dismayed by these raj-era pictures because they appear too plebian for those who now have a Kshatriya (royal) status in their self-descriptions. Please remember caste is a human system, created by humans in India in the mid-first millennium BCE, specifically by Indo-Aryan groups which had migrated into the subcontinent a millennium earlier. Caste distinctions are a historical feature of India, derecognized by the Constitution of the Republic of India, that paradoxically many people of India do not want to abandon (for example in the choice of a marriage partner or in their mythologies of origin.) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Fowler&amp;fowler, Appreciate your knowledge on subject matter. It would have been great to find books, which are more authentice and agreeable to pick image and contents, to uphold wikipedia credibility and relevance. When you decide to upload the pictures from british-raj book in the early days of wikipedia, the wikipedia awareness and rules were not well established. We can help everyone avoid accepting images and the contents from british-raj books is contradictionary and debated multiple time on various forum by User:Sitush and many other admins.
 * Agree, it will take long time before some of the wiki content change can be legally debated in larger framework of Law and define more legally binding consequences on everyone engaged in various capacity(contributors, vandals, wiki leads). There are so many caste in India, where same caste has kingdoms,Forts in one place in India, doing Prietly rituals another place, engage in trading/agriculture somewhere else. Not sure if page lead section needs to pick most debatable image for the caste. We do not need to define a caste by either of the label, as those are un-necessary and contradictory.
 * All unverifiable historical references are considered part of mythology. however there is some co-relations from mythology to history are identified by mordern historians in mordern India and we all can use those references and images to remain neutral on content editing and contribution to open-platform of wikipedia.
 * Your contributions to wikimedia commons probably done in good faith when you did it decades back with some great intention and purpose, could be more appreciated if content of the article and lead section image is cohesive. Appreciate wikipedia to provide a forum to discuss and move things forward despite personal challenges during challenging times of Covid-2019, where humanity was at risk, and people from India still find ways to not agree on common-sense solutions.
 * Clrsitusinsall (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Fowler&fowler, Ekdalian, LukeEmily, TrangaBellam and others please share your opinion. We can keep this topic open for discussion for significant duration (3 weeks or so) and agree to remove image from lead-section, unless one has strong neutral reasoning to keep the image. Clrsitusinsall (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to remove the image. In my experience, the only reason that people object to old images on Indian caste-related pages is that the images don't conform to the fanciful, royal, elitist, uplifted, Sanskritizied, style that the latter-day adherents have come to imagine.  The Yadav, or the ahirs and gwalas of old, the milkmen and milkwomen, the cowherds and goatherds, the pastoral people, were ordinary rural folk, who for centuries had existed outside the formal caste system.  It was the same with other OBCs such as the Kurmi, Keori, and Jats, the tiller and market gardeners. The image is an old Indian rural scene.  There is nothing unrepresentative about it. And please don't be patronizing by using expressions such as "decades old."  Wikipedia is not decades old. I haven't been on it for decades.  Susan Bayly's book was not written decades ago.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not against the image but I will add a footnote to the caption, sourced from TrangaBellam (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler, we fail to address the concern raised on this talk topic, to move the image from lead-section as content is debatable and not agreeable with the lead section text. Image was added by Fowler&amp;fowler  about 9 years back (11 October 2011) after replacing previous lead section images, which were relatively neutral, more aligned with lead-section text including aspirational claims as described in lead section. . I would recommend to delink this image from lead section to keep the content of lead section not contradicting the image. The purpose of talk discussion lost its value, if effort are not being made to move forward by following the spirit of the concerns raised on this talk topic. Getting sensitive or admant is making talk things less helpful and also reflect the intention of content editors to some extent.
 * As far as I see, lot of edit done by Fowler&amp;fowler  between Oct 6, 2011 and Oct 12, 2011 are done with specific intentions as can be seen the edits and commit messages "(adding picture of beautiful woman;)" . One should refrain from adding any randomly labeled image from internet and stamp on the article and debate, argue forever including try to warn, when someone fix it, specially when the wiki process to contest the image validity is not clear to common wikipedia viewers.
 * Fowler&amp;fowler had multiple edits back to back with very focused effort to bring words and statements to prove that the people in this article, on which numerous books and phd thesis are completed with conclusion that varna status is not clear and somewhat debated. But here  Fowler&amp;fowler  has strong opinion to happily ignore what one does not like and add the article with lot of so-called 'non-elite' words and finding justification for lowest possible varna category (specially when you do understand the varna category better than other wikipedia editors, admins), to satisfy oneself without remain neutral while editing the article in potentially so called good faith. Clrsitusinsall (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to know, what motivated Fowler&amp;fowler  to make so many edit primarily in poor taste in Oct 2011 on this article. Why can not the content be added after reading the books little bit more than picking the best suited biased narrative justified by adding images from books or internet. Based on the biased editing, removing or moving these image from lead section can be good start to make first step in right direction. 10 years is long time to satify whatever fetish one wanted to satisfy by editting the article with whatever intention in good faith. Common viewer might see the article might find contradictory and may try to edit, instead of figuring out complex editting and contesting rules of wikipedia. This alone can be misused more than necessary by wiki-editors. Ideal case could be to guide users to follow rule to context content and as an expert put effort to remain neutral. Clrsitusinsall (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would recommend LukeEmily, TrangaBellam to review the edits made by Fowler&amp;fowler  between Oct 06, 2011 and Oct 12, 2011 and help form opinion on reverting some of the images, objected multiple time in past without any solution and might be true for future. Clrsitusinsall (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe Raj era images are allowed on wikipedia as per Sitush. Please see the Rajput page for a Raj era image. Do you a valid reason for removing the images (such as copyright etc.)? Or do you want to only move the images to another area in the page? Fowler&amp;fowler  and Sitush are very senior editors and quite knowledgeable on India related topics. If you have a dispute about images with other editors, you can use Requests_for_comment for getting comments from uninvolved editors. I do not work much on commons hence am not too involved with rules regarding images.LukeEmily (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that the Raj-era caption says Soodra Class, or somesuch. I had forgotten about this.  Well, it says 1868, so that is well before the infamous 1891 census of Herbert Hope Risley.  But the "ethnology" books had begun to flower from the get-go in the Raj (i.e. after the 1857 rebellion).  The notion that India could be understood and very much needed to be was a firm part of the prevailing ideology of the period 1858 to 1920.  I'm sure I can find a source and we can say something more sophisticated in the caption.  I haven't looked at TrangaBellam's source yet. Apologies again.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS I have now added a sentence in the lead and cited it to a scholarly volume. The citation has a generous quote which explains the issue in greater detail.  It is reproduced in a compressed form in the infobox image.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your post.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler, the change you added is not relevant to this article, not of the content is directly related. Are we engaging in filabuster communication. there are two topics original issues was raised.
 * 1) lead section does not need to include varna, which is conflicting and debatable. Not need to pick image where varna is explicitly kept, it does not add value and bring lot of negativity into discussion and no one agrees to it. there has to be a limit to the discussion and have audacity to move forward with consensus. Not sure what is difficult here to understand.
 * 2) The change by Fowler&amp;fowler  and User:Sitush were done in good faith sometimes and not neural sometimes.


 * 3) This is the topic discussed so many times as it is not agreed by anyone who understand the article and caste in question and all discussion results in argumentative and filibuster like attempt to sabotage the discussion by Fowler&amp;fowler  and User:Sitush.
 * 4) Senior editor does not make someone by default correct or expert on any topic, if a new info brought into light again and again in cohesive manner, being a senior editor, one should have audacity to listen to new info -> understand the details -> doubt yourself -> go back and check the content again -> find new sourses -> and course correct if necessary without engaging in edit,revert battles. Such behavior bring doubt is Seniority in true sense.
 * 5) I would like to add a paragraph on same page, from where lead section image is picked, it can be added in the lead section along with the image. if you are fine with image and not with the content, this is contradictory and cherry-picking at best with strong biased behavior.
 * 6) The content of the book including image can not be neutral and acceptable, where the book has 100 images and only one image of Aheer has clear marking as Shoodra, while none of the images from the book are marked as shoodra. This shows the image addition on the book was not neutral even when the book was written in 1868.
 * 7) The effort here is to build consensus to agree on this contradiciton and bring neutral content and image. if there are authors like Fowler&amp;fowler  and User:Sitush are bringing conflicting content, we need to rehash the content and discard if needed to bring common truth and not biased truth, without giving over-weightage to content editor in question.
 * 8) The change from Fowler&amp;fowler  did not add value to the article but added a debatable content and image and ignited a constant battle, which is unfortunate for  Fowler&amp;fowler  and some folks who want to shed some light on the topic. Look at the history of the talk page, random folks keep raising same concerns again and again and  Fowler&amp;fowler  and User:Sitush instead of improving the article with common and agreeable, neutral sources, keep this Nth order battle going on and on. If this is not biased editting, i need lot of learning to do.
 * 9) New change is filibuster like attempt to distract the discussion. Not sure, why we are allowing not-relavant content on this Article, does not make sense. I would request to debate and build consensus.
 * 10) Wikipedia project has long become hostage to few agenda driven folks and no amount of arbritation or consensus building can be achieved. This is unacceptable to so many label and we need non-partision admins to join and debate the content, we can go over books and build consensus which is common among the books old, raj-era, new, does not matter. Just remain neural and modify the articple to median point.
 * 11) LukeEmily thanks for suggesting Requests_for_comment, let me go over this and see what can be done to arbitrate this and preferablly have strong decision and actions to some of the authers operating in false good-faith.
 * Clrsitusinsall (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT is never a good argument. Yadav is the quintessential example of Sanskritisation and the varna status needs to be mentioned in lead. There is nothing debatable about theirs being traditionally, peasant-pastoral communities.
 * I think F&F's caption is decent and provides the necessary context of imperial knowledge production, that was so intrinsic to these "volumes." I might add something from Pinney. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) TrangaBellam appreciate your input and as far as article is concerned, i am not in any illusion regarding status of the caste or content of the article. If one can not remain neutral while writing the content, it is not good, best way to remain neutral is to find additional source to shed new light. For example the image is picked from book . The book is reconstruction of content from 1869 raj-era period, we all agree the content generated in such book are questionable. If you see the book has around 400 images from diffrent caste. There is only one time 'soodra' word is used and only in the image which is 'Aheer' section. Are we saying only one caste is soodra as per the book. there is no mention of soodra keyword any where in the book. We are not accepting the text written about the Aheer in the same book and picking the image.
 * 2) As far as i understand WP:ILIKEIT is being done by Fowler&amp;fowler  and all these discussion and arguments are not improving this article to bring it to neutral ground. For such cases, we probably need  Requests_for_comment and thorougly thrash-out the argument on both side. So far it seems like  Fowler&amp;fowler  vs others and there is no effort to resolve the content.
 * 3) I am not in debate for "Yadav is the quintessential example of Sanskritisation and the varna status", but lead section content and image, which can be picked from sources which are nuetral and preferably not from Raj-era book (if a image is showing text or label which is questionable, not need to pick the image, consider the image label like text, for what it is). I already shown the bias of the book, on explicit usage of 'soodra' word only once in one image in entire book, it is collective responsibility to identify such biases in content picking and call spade a spade.
 * 4) We can pick any image or content from book, phd thesis which are recent (After 1947) and there is no debate, as recent books post independence are written with necessary check-n-balance warranted for such topic. I am not sure, why anyone should debate on this. The amount of choosiness is worse in such topics and need improvement.
 * 5) There are British-raj court rulings and judgements declaring Kayasta caste as 'Shoodra', 'Pure-Shoodra' and otherwise at differnt occasions, does this give make sense to keep highlighting Kayasta as 'Shoodra' without suggesting the varna status of Kayasta was debatable and changed multiple time during british-raj.
 * 6) the most recent edit from F&F is not relavent to this article, unless we want to add same text is every caste article on wikipedia, unless there is direct and relevant reference to the title of the article. If the text is not relevant to the image, not sure, why we allow to keep it and not revert in good faith.
 * Clrsitusinsall (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the RfC tag for now and restoring the old section title for this section as I see two immediate procedural measures: 1) grafting an RfC onto a long pre-existing section without delineating a separate section for the RfC discussion is confusing for potential participants 2) the opening statement given here is not a neutral RfC statement (see WP:RFCNEUTRAL). Skimming over the discussion, it seems that an RfC may be premature to boot (an RfC is most helpful once there is a specific dispute centered on a simple question that can be easily phrased as a multiple choice or even a yes/no question) signed,Rosguill talk 21:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Clrsitusinsall: Please don't keep pinging me day and night. I have absolutely no interest in engaging you, none in reading your prolix statements.  I hope that is clear.  No pinging.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Revert of F&F change as not relavent to the image section
Fowler&amp;fowler change revision "21:46, 21 January 2022" with text (adding a sentence in the lead and explaing the infobox image more precisely with lengthy quote) is not relevant to the image and Yadav or Aheer is not mentioned in the text pasted in the refernece section. if F&F finds it more relevant to add as part of some section, it can be added as text after removing from the image description. Clrsitusinsall (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't keep pinging me. I have absolutely no interest in engaging you, no interest whatsoever, none, nada.  Is that clear?  None = zero.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler, Accept my apology if any points raised in this conversion, impacts the credibility of any esteemed editors in any way. This is not anyone intention and as a part of wikipedia contributors at a time with all active corono virus (Delta, Omicrons), one can understand how stressful it can be for everyone engaged on free-service like wiki editing.
 * "Scribe"ing as a activity rarely did good job historically to reflect the true info in best possible way, mostly due to other influences(social, personal, professional, lack of interest, lack of knowhow, not-related-to-me, who-care, i-will-change-the-history-on-paper-literally-here-i-go), which were always in play. No space is left-out including wikipedia, and wikipedia can often be worst in handling these open-ended, free for all, edit space.
 * Coming back to the revert request, how the change is related to this article ? Are we picking some aspect of British-era content which is more aligned to WP:ILIKEIT.
 * Clrsitusinsall (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles on Abhira or Ahir
One can refer gamit of articles Yadav_(disambiguation) by various communities including historical, mythological reference, pre-sanskritization, sanskritization, modern, post-indepdence. Not all info on wikipedia can be accurate, specially when some folks have info, can not add due to tedious wikipedia but policy in good faith.
 * A book written long before sanskritisation by James Todd "Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan 1829" Clrsitusinsall (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Image
I think the images are from biased point of view and to degrade a particular community, but when we look on the other peasent pastoral communities like Gujjar, Jat People and Rajput, images are added for the glorification of a particular community. Professional editors please have a look. Kevenly (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock RS6784 (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)



Remove picture
Sir every people have manyy suggestion but my suggestion is remove that picture because many of yadav peoples are angry to watch this photo Because every one know yadav are kstriya not soodra but the picture you post there you worte ahirs are soodra itis totlly wrong Please remove picture from that page Raj1689 (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2022
sir The picture you post on yadav page its gives the people wrong infromation because the Yes yadav are cowherd but they are not soodra class their are kstriya So please remove that picture fast You can post maharaj yadu photo, lord kriahna photo, rao tula ram photo । So please remove that photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj1689 (talk • contribs) 23:26, May 13, 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ji11720 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You can check यादव hindi page in your Wikipedia page you wrote that yadav are chandravansi kstriya their are not soodra It give people wrong information Please remove photos on this page Raj1689 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And you can check every were yadav are come in kstriya class You can check yaduvanshi page also Ahir page also So please remove picture on yadav page Raj1689 (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2022
Raj1689 (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sir yadav is not a soodra caste yadav are kstriya that you photo post on yadav page it is tottly wrong So please remove that picture Please remove photo on this pages
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. before it can be removed, why is it wrong? keep in mind Wikipedia is not censored and will not delete something because people don't like it &#128156; melecie   talk  - 04:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not melecie talk you can check every were yadav comes chandravansi kstriya You give wrong information to public You can check yaduvanshi page ahir page यादव page in hindi and you can confirm any where So Please sir remove that photo Raj1689 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You can added maharaj yadu photos lord krishna photo rao tula ram photo Raj1689 (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2022
2405:204:1122:FDF5:7961:3969:A4F1:351E (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Yadavs as non elite class is false, they form a huge political class in northern India which makes them powerful castes in North India.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It is right yadav are powerful caste in north india you can see yadav have large number of politicians In bihar yadav have more mla than other caste you can confirm that Like yadav politicians are mulayam singh yadav Laloo parsad yadav Daroga parsad rai Akhilesh yadav They are ex cm of state So yadav have strong hold in politics Raj1689 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2022 (3)
2405:204:1301:D0D5:D50F:33C7:23E:7C60 (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Please remove photo on this page its give worng information So remove picture
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That is not a valid reason for removing a photo. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2022 (2)
2405:204:1301:D0D5:D50F:33C7:23E:7C60 (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Please remove the photo that you posted on yadav page becuse its give wrong information Yadav are kstriya not soodra

So please remove photo on this page
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See below. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2022
2405:204:1301:D0D5:D50F:33C7:23E:7C60 (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Remove photos from yadav page
 * Which photos and why? MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This is a thing and will need consensus. This should be addressed in a community-wide fashion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)