Talk:Ahir

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2024

change "traditionally non-elite, peasant-pastoral communities" to "traditionally agricultural community". As most of the castes identified along with Ahirs like Jat, earlier the page Jat had non elite as well but it is now removed or the other castes like Gujjar which are even considered lower in hierarchy than Ahirs and Jats also do not mention something like this. I think this is the Major problem in this page, seniors edtors may have a look. Refrences Brandon42Paul (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Page Number 28 of Government of India Official District Gazetteer of Gurgaon

Martial Races of undivided India by Vidya Prakash Tyagi Brandon42Paul (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Please obtain consensus for this change. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There is significant opposition backed by evidence, and the burden lies on those seeking to include.

It's amusing that some individuals (edit and revert history highlights them) were dismissing historical, mythological, and British records as outdated and unreliable, insisting that the page should only focus on the modern-day Yadav. Ironically, their argument was countered using recent government documentation, a decade-long struggle against persistent mischief and abuse of admin privileges should prove fruitfull now! Brandon42Paul (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Article improvements

I've used elements of prior versions with the updates I have made. All follow and are associated with reliable sources. Many of which are existing sources in the article. Lets work together to make this article better, I have no intent of pushing a pov or message on this article. Imagine a person with 0 background on the topic, it would be difficult for them to understand this topic the way things were written prior. In efforts to make it encyclopedic, lets work together to improve it versus constantly undoing or reverting edits. Qalb alasid (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

First prove how the changes you are making are backed by the sources which are offering a very critical commentary unlike the one you are introducing. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have to 'prove' anything - you are not the judge of what should be on this article. If you have issues with the copy editing and few things I added to the article - which are backed by sources - why don't you disprove the validity of them to me? Based on your extensive edit history, I'm sure you know you its not good practice to delete and remove sourced content just like that. There were minor edits I made in terms of content - which are not pushing any pov or idealogy. Feel free tto discuss which edits are not warranted that I made and we can come to a consensus. Looking forward to the discussion. Qalb alasid (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

These are not uncontroversial copy edits, they are large changes to the language and prose which are essentially sanitising the critical commentary on origin of Ahirs and retrospective sanskritisation which is not based by the sources. @Sitush: given that you have written most of the article, can you have look at these changes[1]? - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Qalb alasid: - Discuss here before restoring your edits. Also [2] attribution is necessary here because there is no consensus in academia about origin of Ahirs and these works are also fairly old. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure I will post here with updates that are outside of the content existing on the article right now. However, since you've 'phoned a friend' - lets see what their opinion is. Qalb alasid (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me give you a quick rundown on how your edits are POV and not minor as you claimed.

1. You removed the long standing "traditionally non-elite" label applied to this caste by many scholars. [3]
2. Your edits removed all references to sanskritisation from the lead and shifted it down the article.[4]
3. You then replaced remaining references to sanskritisation with "Challenges and opportunities" and weaselly prose.[5].

Your edits are white washing this article, and are not uncontroversial, in fact these edits are exactly pushing the POV of SPAs we regularly see in this area who detest any references to sanskritisation. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I've literally used the word sanskritisation in the lead. I don't think sanskritisation is a common phrase used - unless it is then sure change the title back to that. My goal is to have content which is easily understood. Also, when you say 'pov of SPAs we regularly see,' who is this 'we'? Isn't this an individual contribution effort? I wonder if the term 'white-washing' is an acceptable term nowadays...just a thought. Qalb alasid (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)