Jump to content

Talk:Yadav

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles on Abhira or Ahir

[edit]

One can refer gamit of articles Yadav_(disambiguation) by various communities including historical, mythological reference, pre-sanskritization, sanskritization, modern, post-indepdence. Good to improve this articles using pre-sanskritization reference for example:

  • A book written long before sanskritisation by James Todd "Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan 1829" [1]

References

  1. ^ James Todd. Tod, James (1829). Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han or the Central and Western Rajpoot States of India, Volume 1. London: Smith, Elder.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

[edit]

change "traditionally non-elite, peasant-pastoral communities" to traditionally agricultural community. As most of the castes identified along with Yadavs 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 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Brandon42Paul (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Refrences
Page Number 28 of Government of India Official District Gazetteer of Gurgaon
[8] 2409:4050:2ECD:BEBA:E9F1:C933:AD5F:26E3 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting reference
Martial Races of undivided India by Vidya Prakash Tyagi 2409:4050:2E33:6440:496F:1C74:4C85:D621 (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: However, I think your 6th reference is the strongest reason to remove it: "The general OBC category was, in fact, often used by a Yadav elite to promote its interests.". Only because this argument has been going on for over a decade, I'm loathe to change it on my own. @C.Fred:, I noticed you closed a few of these out recently, any thoughts? – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 23:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done: Removed "non-elite", which seems to be the locus of the dispute. There is significant opposition backed by evidence, and the burden lies on those seeking to include. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Can you please check Yadavs in Modern India section as well, it is purposely added there as well! Brandon42Paul (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great job done, Brandon.
Your compassion is much appreciated, Compassionate727.
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, effectively ending a decade-long struggle against persistent mischief and abuse of admin privileges. Clrsitusinsall (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

[edit]

The Mahabharata and other authoritative works use the three terms-Ahir, Yadav and Gopa synonymous.[1] 2409:4085:8595:1D21:0:0:23E8:48AD (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chopra, Pran Nath (1982). Religions and Communities of India. Vision Books. p. 140. ISBN 978-0-391-02748-0. The Mahabharata and other authori-tative works use the three terms-Gopa, Yadava and Ahir synonymously.
 Done Added to the "Origins" section. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dāsānudāsa, but you removed it. 2409:4085:9CCE:7ACA:0:0:8809:7C09 (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dāsānudāsa, The Abhiras or Ahirs, the Gopas and the Yadavas were one and the same; as such, Krishna was an Ahir and, at the same time, a Gopa and a Yadava too. The Mahabharata uses all the three terms-Gopa, Yadava and Abhira-as synonyms. And so do many others, like Buddhaswamin (Brihatkathashlok-kathashloksamgraha), Jayadeva (Gita-govinda) and Amarasimha (Amarakosha).[1] 2409:4085:9CCE:7ACA:0:0:8809:7C09 (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to @NXcrypto:, Pran Nath Chopra is not a reliable source, so I reverted myself. I don't know enough about him to me a decision either way. If someone more knowledgeable about these sources than myself wants to re-add it, they can. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2024

[edit]
Nishantsksbcsn (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 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. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ The Illustrated Weekly of India. Published for the proprietors, Bennett, Coleman & Company, Limited, at the Times of India Press. 1974. p. 29.