Talk:Yadav/Archive 2

message: In the responses, I have yet to see any proper answer to my query. Regarding myself, I am new to this place and visit it infrequently to get information (after checking references) and hence my interest. My questions remain, and the information provided is not credible until references are provided. As far as Krishna being a Kshatriya is concerned, it is there in the Mahabharata. I would request any person reading it to verify this information himself/herself, no point in arguing here. Yes, I have read it several times (different publications). Regarding the current date Yadavs being descendents of Kshatriyas (or Krishna), please provide credible references for everyone here.
There were some comments about references and original research. The responses that I have received so far display a lack of understanding of research. Yes, references from original research are required everywhere. It does not mean that any person can present bad research and say it is original. No. At least to satisfy people like I, the comments/changes should be based on original research already published in top (Internationally acclaimed) academic journals. Other references could be books by prominent historians or other such researchers. Prominence measured by their stature in academic circles. If there is little or no information on an issue, then it is better to write that this issue needs more research, and wait for more research (even if it takes decades), or do it yourself and GET PUBLISHED. If you still do not understand what I mean here then please do not waste everyones time by responding or writing here. 
About the comments regarding who I am and so on, they are childish. I hope that the person writing them learns to write and respond better for his/her own good, they only amuse me sometimes, mostly I ignore them. If a person is emotional about an issue, then it is unlikely that the person can provide unbiased information about that issue.
:::For answers you must have proper queries, which unfortunately you don't have.Regarding Krishna being Kshatriya -- nobody is desputing it, but there are references of him being Vaishya too !!!!! Only fact which is undisputed is his being called Yadava --- Do you have questions regarding it????? Krishna being Kshatriya or anything here is not subject to question. This page is aBOUT yADAVA, the ppl , you might be aware of!!!! Regarding who you are . I have got the answer; look here. Your simple Ip check provides the answer. You are showing same attacking behaviour, and similar pattern of gaming the system which someone called user:hkelkar or user:subhash bose does. Good luck. Don't think we are all Idiots here.  Ikon |no-blast 09:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After going thru history you have also operated thru  and vandalised this page in past for which you were specifically adressed. Ikon |no-blast 11:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Although I have discussed this issue at length at both this page and Talk:Kshatriya pages. The user in question above fails to understand and persistently pressing his POV on this page. Let him be very clear . Ikon |no-blast 11:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has specifically adressed all subgroups within Yadava community; I don't know of any other community page being written in such an honest way. Although questions raised by the user above is baseless , I must clarify it. the realationship between present day Yadava and old one is only that much as one generation has with its predecessor. What kind of reserach is required to proove it??? Secondly, there is misconception regarding Jewish relationship. the relationship has been well researched and no conclusions has been made in this article, only hypothesis has been presented as percieved by scholars. Yes they strongly suggests a connection and they has been published too. ref to citation, plz, it carries well known name not of the statures of creators of piltdownman or PILTDOWN HORSE(this research was done by an Indian reseracher with fake proofs)!!!! yes time now to present your citations to back your claims. For your kind information Yadava has probably more relation to ancient Jews than present Jews themselves have who are actually Mongreal offshoots (ever heard of it!!!!!) of Original Jews who became extinct some 1500 yrs ago. Ikon |no-blast 12:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are/were Kshatriya 

message: The user who is persistently pushing his/her pov is suggested to present his own fiundings if he has any or stop putting meaningless comments here and there. it is also advisable to maintain one single account as it is clear from his/her own admission that he/she is not a new user. for further concern regarding kshatriya issue see Talk:kshatriya where rajputs claim has been nearly demolished, if he has grudge against me for that then tell it frankly. if you have issues regarding khatri claim which has equally been demolished -- sorry to say but i am no more editing there. if he has got records of kshatriya lineage maintained by brahmanas (which is rediculous) present it, it might be of geat help for reasearchers around the world and may solve many mystries, infact i am willing to buy that too are you willing, anybody would be happy to pay for such a record, provided they are genuine. where were you hiding for such a long time !!!!!!!! 
:::the way you adress Rajput as kshatriya I fail to trust you are a researcher. you are also offering conjectures which may sound strange to any sane person like Agnikula rajputs were Kshatriya converted to buddhism, should we assume Han were original kshatriya who were converted to Buddhism --- who on earth will accept your propositions???? or is this the kind of research you do and boast!!!!
::::Finally,if you have even slight knowledge of kshatriya---brahmana feud you will get answers to most of the questions you are having.go thru abhira page well. go through ophir page too. jewish connection is not founded here only , infact it is a hot subject among researchers -- if you don't know i wonder if you are a resaercher at all.  Ikon |no-blast 14:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the user in question 

message: Users who want to discuss kshatriya issue sd go to kshatriya page instead and try to find out who are kshatriya (yes go thru archive well) useless rants abt it here will NOT be entertained.  Ikon |no-blast 09:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Kshatriya Issue 

message: Its a well known fact that Francis Buchanan had given Kshatriya Status to Rajputs only, in 1883, infact he was the first person to call Rajputs as Kshatriya. Rajputs were NOT recognised as kshatriya even during Mughal era.The fact was contested by many communities during first census. The drama during coronation of Shivaji Maharaj is an important case in this point, his connection to Mewar Kings (widely misunderstood) was infact a sarcastical remark for the same kings linkage to guebras was cited in the ceremony. Marathas even had gone to the extent of calling attack on Rajputs as attack on mlechhdesh. So it is futile to rant on Rajputs caste status.During 1883 census Buchanan called Kayastha shudra and later Gaiety overruled it, but not before they remained shudra for a considerable time pd.Bhumihar petrified by kayastha fate gheraoed Buchanan everywhere giving him lavish gifts and hospitality so much that Buchanan was annoyed, they cd infact buy their caste status. The drama discontinued with Free for all censuses in future where anybody cd claim anything. The user who is suggesting caste status on these facts sd not be entertained because they were merely community game where some won and others lost.Kshatriya myth of Rajputs was soon exploded by Todd and others . Actually sufgesting Rajputs as Kshatriya among intellectual circle is something hilarious. Plz don't repeat anymore. Ikon |no-blast 10:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caste Status of Yadavs 

message: We are moving in circles. You have again made personal allegations. They are a waste of time and do not prove your point if you have any besides the fantasy about Yadavs being Kshatriyas. 
In your replies to my previous posting, I have waited for a single good reference to come forward, and you have not presented ANY. I urge the readers to verify this. 
You have talked about Rajputs etc etc, and I couldn't care less who they were, on this page. This is a Yadav page, and please prove (show published research references) to me that they were Kshatriyas, otherwise we need to remove your claim on the page.
:::You sd show some real reasearch work , that they were shudra, what you have presented is what we refer as misuse of citation.221.134.180.72 07:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have abused the citation to proove your POV , this is what we call POV pushing and is punishable offence.221.134.180.72 07:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you wd utilise your time to read some good references and learn about wikipedia policy.221.134.180.72 07:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your references have failed to proove your claim so we can't put them up here, or at least they are out of context. Try to present them in some other article where it may be relevant. BTW holding parallel discussion at two places is indeeed against the spirit of discussion , I find you agressive and unfit for healthy discussion.221.134.180.72 07:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: -> Reply: Obviously we disagree on several issues. They can only be clarified when someone actually goes through the references that I have provided and checks them. I have done this. This will also prove that you have not been sincere in the discussion. You cannot question the references if you have not read them. I suspect you haven't. I have quoted directly from the papers and the quotes are self explanatory.Shashis 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yadav discussion references