Talk:Bhumihar/Archive 4

Important Issue

I am surprised at how this page is vandalised when I have given a proper citation of how in British India, Bhumihar Brahmins were officially recognised as Brahmins in 1911. I have given proper citation for the same. Let me put the text here as well. Bhumihar Brahmins were officially recognized as Brahmins by the government of British India in 1911 census (second all India census report) of British India. Now, let me ask a simple question, when it is backed by proof, why is it being removed? Just ask your own self, is it not prejudice on your part? Thanking you, Trayambak Dwivedi. Trayambak | talk 10:13 A.M., 24 October, 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.37.251 (talk)

I've already explained why the tags have been put up there. I agree that credence should be given to the words of British authorities but then their's is not the last word. How much has this announcement of the British affected the social status of Bhumihars in society? It has been claimed that there are fairly large number of people who do not regard them as Brahmins even in the present day along with relevant references. You are welcome to add your references but let me make it crystal clear that unless and until you've addressed the issue I've raised or made the changes suggested the removal of tags (that too from anonymous IPs) is forbidden.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't Bhumihars considered as Brahmins in these lists:[1], [2],[3]? -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 13:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Issue

Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharya is one of the leading authorities writing of Bhumihar Brahmins as Brahmins as you can see in the article itself. And you are citing the same authority to doubt the veracity of Bhumihar Brahmin's social status. In academic world it is called plagiarism. I am amazed at your devotion to the page. Where else do you contribute? Don't mind me asking, what is your qualification? As for me, I am definitely concerned about maligning the name of my community of Bhumihar Brahmins. At the same time you must appreciate, I do it with care and caution. And I can very well doubt so many other pages of your encyclopedia called wikipedia, for lacking any authority or being blatantly biased. Thanking you, Trayambak Dwivedi. Trayambak | talk 10:44 A.M., 25 October, 2008 (UTC)

I've clearly provided visible proof along with links as to how Bhumihars weren't accepted as Brahmins by all. One of the references provided in the lead section clearly states that the three main castes of Bihar were Brahmins, Bhumihars and Kayasthas, thereby indicating that Bhumihars were regarded as a community distinct from Brahmins. You, yourself, has accepted the fact that there do exist some disputes. This being the case, and as is the norm, we cannot have an article start the way you want it to. Agreed, that there a fairly large number of people (a fair number of whom are Bhumihars themselves) regard the Bhumihars as Brahmins. And it has been clearly stated in the lead section. I'm fed up with reverting your removal of tags and I don't wish to indulge in more edit warring with you. But the removal of tags isn't permitted as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Do have a look at this: [4]

"According to the 1931 census, the Forward Castes (Upper castes) consist of the Brahmins (4.6%), the Bhumihars (2.8%), the Rajputs(4.1%) and the Kayasthas(1.2%)..."

"The Brahmins are divided into two sections: a) Maithili .... and b) Bhojpuri"

"The Bhumihars, second in the caste hierarchy, are known as Bhumihar Brahmins or Babhans in common parlance."

This clearly indicates that it was not an universally held view that Bhumihars were Brahmins. You could very well include the statement that Bhumihars were called "Bhumihar Brahmins" along with the reason in the second line, but to commence the article with the same is clear propaganda and POV. Besides, the article is titled as "Bhumihar" and should start thus. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue

Who is deciding on the neutrality issue? When everything that is written is backed by authority, is there some authority to be received from heaven? How do you say it is not neutral? And what authority do you possess to question its neutrality? Being in a position to formulate a web-encyclopedia you should be more responsible rather than giving vent to your own opinions and prejudices. Thanking you, Trayambak Dwivedi. Trayambak | talk 04:34 P.M., 25 October, 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.182.123 (talk)

I asked you a straightforward question. However, you've chosen to ignore it and you are indulging in making some irrelevant remarks about references or indulging in making personal attacks as questioning my qualifications to edit-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 12:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Humble Request

I am sorry if you have taken my remark and questions to be a personal attack. But still, it is a valid question on how are you personally representing public opinion of some people whom you keep referring to. Who are they? Recognized historians? And how are you in a position to question neutrality of this article, when proper citations have been mentioned keeping in view the sanctity of wikipedia and keeping its academic character and value. Just because of the opinion of few individuals. That is not done. Hearsay evidence is not even admitted in Law. Hearsay from unaccomplished and stray sources cannot be a reason for doubting academic sources or even the British India caste census. Please, for God sake do not indulge in propaganda and give vent to your own opinions on the subject. Thanking you, Trayambak Dwivedi. Trayambak | talk59.92.129.39 (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 06:35 P.M., 26 October, 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnakoli (talk • contribs)

59.92.129.39 (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Trayambak (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Caste-conflicts

Caste-conflicts section appears one-sided. I suggest neutralizing it with material from this article by Human Rights Watch. Thanks -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

POV

...about admitting Jujhoutia Bhumihar Brahmin to the highest orders of the Hindu religion

What is actually meant by "highest"? If being a Brahmin is meant as "highest", then it is POV.

However, instead of taking the easy way suggested by Purnanand-forging some hundreds of Sanskrit shlokas (verses) substantiating the claim of the Bhumihars-Sahajanand decided to investigate the matter through reading the ancient scriptures and carrying out the socio-cultural survey of the Bhumihar Brahmins in different parts of Bihar and U.P

Who regards forging documents, the "easiest way"? The author of this article? In case, this is the author's opinion, it's POV.

Bhumihars, who are a forward class, have been involved in caste-related conflicts particularly those orchestrated by the Yadavs during Laloo Yadav's rein

Yeah, all Yadavs are evil. Come on! How can you indict a whole community for crimes?-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 19:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ranvir Sena

To anonymous user,

Ranvir Sena has to remain there, whether you like it or not. Regardless of whether you are proud of the Sena's activities or ashamed of it, it is, nevertheless, very closely related to the Bhumihars.

As far cat:Brahmins is concerned, since there exist ambiguities about the status of Bhumihars I suggest that the cat not be included.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The section "Caste-related violence" is yet to be neutralized. So I insist that NPOV-section tags continue to stay-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedicity

Half of this article is made of a Bhumihar campaign to get recognition of their community as Brahmins while the other half is filled with praises of Mangal Pandey and Sahajanand Saraswati. I suggested the incorporation of a section on caste-conflicts and there is a small, in fact, very small paragraph which does not contain any substantial amount of information. These don't constitute academic anthropology at all. An encylopedic article on a community or ethnic group should speak of its genetic origins, etymology of the name, cephalic index, customs and traditions, food, issues, etc. But it seems the whole of this article is made up of decrees issued by Sahajananda Saraswati, etc. on who are Brahmins and who are not., Bhumihar subsects, and very little matter connected to academic anthropology.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not Distort and violate copyright

In M.A. Sherring's book, Hindu Tribes and Castes as Reproduced in Benaras, (Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, First edition 1872, new edition 2008), he has clearly written that some Bhumihar Brahmins belong to the Saryupareen Brahmin division of Kanyakubja Brahmins and you are changing his sentence to suit your own views. This is copyright violation and it smacks of prejudice on your part. Similarly, you are changing the contour of sentences of writers and scholars to suit your prejudiced view. And you yourself do not cite any authority for whatever you write. Does it not speak of your unclear conscience and prejudice!

You also changed William Crooke's own view about the mythology of Bhumihar Brahmins. I humbly request answers for these questions:

(1) Who has given you this authority to change a scholar's writings to suit your own prejudiced opinions based on personal experience or hearsay? (and violate copyright law concerning the author, in this case his moral rights)

(2) What is your qualification and expertise?

(3) Have you read those books mentioned in the references and footnotes? And have you read the paasages quoted in the article? How can you change all this according to your own taste and prejudice?

(4) I am again asking, what is your qualification to add views like a Historian or a Sociologist? (and the funny thing is whatever I have added you expect footnotes - and put the mark citation needed when such footnote is not there - but you do not follow the same yourself)

So, you follow double standards also again reflecting your prejudice. And everytime you want to add on to the caste-conflict as if entire communities are involved in conflicts and that is the only important fact to pay attention to. You want to increase caste-conflicts and you want to show as if entire communities are in conflict with each other which is absolutely untrue.

Learn to grow and rise above petty prejudices!

Thanking you, Trayambak Dwivedi. Trayambak | talk 6:00 P.M., 11 March, 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.34.3 (talk)

People can read caste violence in Ranvir sena

Those who want to read about caste violence can read it in Caste-related violence in India page rather than in the article Bhumihar Brahmins. You cannot paint the entire community as perpetrating caste violence. The most revered name of Swami Sahajanand Saraswati led the first organized movement for deprived masses of peasants and workers. I REPEAT YOU ADD WHATEVER YOU LIKE IN Caste-related violence in India FOR WHICH A PAGE ALREADY EXISTS INSTEAD OF TARGETING Bhumihar Brahmins for your personal prejudice. Thanking you, Trayambak Dwivedi. Trayambak | talk 1:02 P.M., 17 March, 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnakoli (talk • contribs)

Am sorry dear! There is something called NPOV. If at all you want Swami Sahajanand Saraswati's activities to be mentioned in THIS ARTICLE you ought to let the Ranvir Senas activities be mentioned too.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 03:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you delete list of Bhumihar Brahmins

Every community has a right to mention about its list of notable achievers. Why don't you delete the list of achievers of other communities? Why specifically Brahmins? This again reflects your prejudice....

Thanking you, Trayambak Dwivedi. Trayambak | talk 11:22 A.M., 22 March, 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnakoli (talk • contribs)

As for List of Brahmins, it has been deleted becuse it is a re-creation of a list which was previously deleted through a deletion discussion. And now, there were around 4 or 5 "established editors" who voted in favour of its deletion; were they prejudiced against you or your community. Lists should not be created for an indiscriminate collection of information, Now, could you tell me what is meant by a "Brahmin"! Is it an ethnic group? Do they have a separate existence of their own. Now, there have been instances until the beginning of the last century, when a Brahmin who marries outside his/her community would be excommunicated from their community. Their children, too, would not be considered to be Brahmins. Still, they are related by blood to Brahmins. So, Brahmins don't form a distinct ethnic group of their own. Besides, what are the different Brahmin communities? Some communities such as the VIshwakarmas and your own Bhumihars claim to be Brahmins. While this claim is recognied by some people, it is rejected by others. So, this being the case, these lists could be extensively vandalized and used for political propaganda. Besides, it had some blatant factual inaccuracies. Singer Chitra was mentioned as a Brahmin while she is not. Kamal Hassan was mentioned as an Iyer while he is an Iyengar.

As for the List of Bhumihars, it had been deleted by a deletion discussion and its re-creation is prohibited. See the deletion log. I am not aware of the arguments which were made against the list as I did not participate in th discussions but there was strong consensus against creation of such lists. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 14:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Issues

(1) Who are these some people you are talking about? Are you writing an encyclopedia or fighting an election? It is not some people who decide about history, sociology but experts in these fields.

I have quoted all renowned scholars and historians, none of whom are Bhumihar Brahmins except Swami Sahajanand Saraswati with proper citations, even page numbers. The list includes:

• Mahavir Prasad Dwivedi
• Hazari Prasad Dwivedi
• Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya
• M.A. Sherring
• Bibha Jha
• E.A.H.Blunt
• Anand A. Yang
• Christopher Alan Bayly
• M. N. Srinivas
• Siyaram Tiwary
• Acharya Tarineesh Jha and many others....

I will keep on adding new scholars and writers later. Even the British India government held Bhumihar Brahmins to be Brahmins through a proper Tribunal. Then which some people are you talking about? All this only suggests that you and others who are deciding this issue in wikipedia are anti- Bhumihar Brahmins. Your ten-twenty people whose academic qualifications cannot be ascertained are deciding on all this based on their own limited knowledge and baseless assumptions. And above all are biased and prejudiced. This is all what I can say.

(2) The castes mentioned in Vishwakarmas come under Other Backward Classes or such other reserved castes who are Constitutionally held backward and therefore enjoying benefits of reservation. You cannot compare them with a uniformly held upper-caste like Bhumihar Brahmins who are in the General category.

(3) If somebody is not a Bhumihar Brahmin in the list of Bhumihar Brahmins you remove that name but not having the list in the first place is prejudicial. And if it is a policy matter remove such lists of other communities as well. Having lists of all communities and not having for some reflects your double standards. If you follow such double standards wikipedia will never gain academic credibility.

Thanking you, Trayambak Dwivedi. Trayambak | talk 11:20 A.M., 25 March, 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.202.95 (talk)

I did not remove any of your claims but only suggested that since there are contrary claims regarding Bhumihars they should be accomodated as well. I have nothing personal to do with the deletion of List of Bhumihars. If you observe the deletion log, you might find that the page has previously been deleted through a deletion discussion and re-creation of pages deleted through deletion discussions is strictly forbidden. I was only enforcing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As for the List of Brahmins, I have clearly stated that there has been a myriad of other issues than the addition of names of Bhumihars. A lot of names mentioned there weren't those of Brahmins and it had serious maintenance issues. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 10:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer my questions

Who is giving contrary claims? And what is their authority? And can they equal the list I have mentioned who are renowned worldwide?

I repeat my question: (1) Who are these some people you are talking about? Are you writing an encyclopedia or fighting an election? It is not some people who decide about history, sociology but experts in these fields.

And please answer, what is your academic qualification and those of others in your panel? And how many of them are sociologists and historians?

Thanking you, Trayambak Dwivedi. Trayambak | talk 8:31 P.M., 26 March, 2009 (UTC)

Right ho! So, now you use of claims of scholarship in history and sociology to influence this discussion. Well, the aforesaid mentioned scholars may have mentioned about Bhumihars in their books but could you give the exact piece of text or online links to their books so that we could know the exact words and phrases they have used. While you have been using your supposed scholarship in history and sociology as an authority, your edits seem unbecoming of a scholar. Recently, you had created this page on Maharaja Udit Narayan Singh giving your source as the Pg 216 in Good Earth Varanasi Guide. However, I was not able to find any text connected to this man in Pg 216. Instead, I found that most of this article has been copy-paseted from the third and sixth paragraphs of Pg 126 of Good Earth Varanasi Guide. A large number of your other articles to this project have also been copyvios or on insignificant subjects. Now, I expect more genuinity and respect for copyright from a scholar. You have also been functioning as a single purpose propaganda account creating and editing articles exclusively related to Bhumihars (and in some cases, other Brahmins) and individuals as the Raja of Kashi who hail from the Bhumihar community. You have also been violating Wikipedia rules by using anonymous IPs to edit Wikipedia simultaneously (along with possibly other socks as User:Raigopalji) while editing from your account. And using these anon IPs, you have been maliciously adding Nambudiris to (now deleted) Category:Bhumihars despite the fact that Nambudiris, who reside in the exact opposite corner of India as the Bhumihars, have almost nothing to do with them. You have also been misleadingly signing yourself as "Tryambak Dwivedi" while your actual username is Krishnakoli. If at all you are here to serve Wikipedia, I'd rather advice you to contribute on topics of a varied nature than editing articles connected to the Bhumihar community and Bhumihar individuals alone.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 12:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot get everything cooked

Do your own research. Read the books I have mentioned as references instead of making false charges at me. As far as the fact is concerned there is no dispute as you saw for yourself. Only the page number I did not type propertly and I have corrected the same. Thank you for pointing it out.

I will contribute to what I feel like. I am not your employee or the employee of wikipedia to give free services. Do your own homework and buy and read books. You cannot get everything cooked for you. Or if you have doubts invest on books and then see for yourself. Yes, my user name is Krishnakoli and I am signing as Trayambak Dwivedi because that is my name. I am not aware if I am violating anything. And I did not do this to hide my identity or create any problems. It was only a matter of convenience.

Thanking you, Trayambak Dwivedi. Krishnakoli, Trayambak | talk 10:00 A.M., 28 March, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.40.49 (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! You have copied all the text verbatim from the page in the book except for the page number-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 04:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what is sockpuppet

I do not know about any kind of sockpuppet you have mentioned. This is your propaganda to discredit my work. You are biased and anti Bhumihar Brahmins.

I again repeat my question which you have left unanswered: (1) Who are these some people you are talking about? Are you writing an encyclopedia or fighting an election? It is not some people who decide about history, sociology but experts in these fields.

I am quoting experts whereas you are basing your assumptions on propaganda and anti- Bhumihar Brahmin feelings. I have never claimed that I am an expert myself. Read properly before you say anything.

Thanking you, Trayambak Dwivedi. Krishnakoli, Trayambak | talk 10:00 A.M., 28 March, 2009

Please Answer these Questions

• You want to present that all Bhumihar Brahmins are marauders and criminals and you sympathise with Naxal terrorists and project them in a positive light. This is a page for defining Bhumihar Brahmins and the violence against them has to be shown. I have not changed what you have written (about Ranvir Sena and its violence) with your ulterior motive. But as a rational person I cannot let you go on with your anti-Bhumihar propaganda.

• The reservation of some people regarding the status of Bhumihar Brahmins is there in the History section. There is no need to put it at the top. You want to put it at the top because of the complex you suffer from.

• Bhumihar Brahmins are Brahmins which some people contest because of jealousy and competition. It is of no consequence in an encyclopedia. No right-minded scholar and intellectual has contested it. These mythical some people cannot be put at the top.

• Bhumihar Brahmins are undoubtedly upper caste Brahmins so you cannot remove this in the very beginning that they are a Brahmin caste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.172.154 (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Point No 1: I have not been indulging glorification of Naxalite groups. As you can observe from this diff that I made before you started to vandalize this article, the contents of the section "Caste-related violence" are as follows:

Bhumihars, who are a forward class, have been involved in many caste-related conflicts . However, it was in reply to the requests made by Yadav peasants in 1927, Swami Sahajanand Saraswati had started the Bihar Provincial Kisan Sabha, which led one of the largest peasant movement in the region. Bhumihars also gave Bihar its first chief minister in Sri Krishna Sinha who had himself led Dalit’s entry into Baidyanath Dham (Vaidyanath Temple, Deoghar).

Following independence, Naxalite groups began to originate in Bihar in reponse to low wages and alleged illtreatment of Dalit peasants by upper-caste landlords. Some Brahmins and other upper-caste landlords responded by starting private militias called Senas. These were heavily funded and promoted by some Bhumihar Brahmin landlords to fight extremist Naxalite groups which supposedly represented low-caste Bihari peasants. Hostilities began to intensify when in 1994, the Ranvir Sena was founded in Belaur village to counter Naxal terrorism. Since its formation, the Ranvir Sena has been held responsible for murder, rape and burglary in Bihar. This outfit, along with the Maoist Communist Centre, has been responsible for large-scale violence in Bihar. Incidents of violence have been reported from the villages of Belaur, Ekwari, Chandi, Nanaur, Narhi, Sarathau, Haibaspur, Laxmanpur-Bathe, Shankarbigha, and Narayanpur

Now, don't you see that I've criticized the opponents of the Ranvir Sena such as the Naxalites and the Maoist Communist Centre as much as I've criticized the Ranvir Sena. How come can you call this section non-neutral?

On the other hand, you keep repeatedly removing the following sentence

Since its formation, the Ranvir Sena has been held responsible for murder, rape and burglary in Bihar.

You see, these accusations are backed by reliable, neutral sources such as this report by Human Rights Watch. This being the case, why do you keep removing this particular sentence. Is it because you don't like it?

By the way, you've been mentioning individual incidents of violence by and against Bhumihars. These have been removed as it would amount to WP:UNDUE. We have not been chronicling individual incidents involving killing of Dalits by Bhumihars and we would not be chronicling individual incidents involving Bhumihars, too.

Lastly, I wish to ask you what would make you happy? Would it gladden your heart if I were to mention the people of the Ranvir Sena as peaceful non-violent Satyagrahis? Or the Ranvir Sena as a social-welfare organisation? And your previous track record seems troublesome. You been blocked as User:Krishnakoli. I also suspect if you owned User:Ranvir Sena and User:Raigopalji, too, as your edits are so similar.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 17:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Point No. 2:

The entry for "Ballia district" in the 1885 Imperial Gazetter of India:

...Bhuinhars, a caste peculiar to the Benares province, number 26,033. They are a kind of cross between Rajput and Brahman, and like them, are of a predominant high caste and land-holding tribe

— The Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1885, Vol II, Pg 20

The entry for "Benares" in the 1885 Imperial Gazetter of India:

The principal castes are represented as follows:- Brahmans, 104,092; Rajputs, 53,930; Baniyas, 18,353; Ahirs, 80,088; Bhars, 36,407; Bhuinhars, 19,422...

— The Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1885, Vol II, Pg 257

The entry for "Bengal Presidency" in the 1885 Imperial Gazetter of India:

Among Hindu castes, Brahmans number 1,076,643; Rajputs, 1,166,593; Babhans, 985,098; and Kayasths, 358,068

— The Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1885, Vol II, Pg 296

The entry for "Bengal" in the 1908 Imperial Gazetter of India:

There are 66 castes with 100,000 members, and 15 with a strength of more than a million: namely, the Ahir, Brahman, Kaibarrta, Rajbansi, Namasudra, Santal, Chamar, Rajput, Kurmi, Teli, Kayasth, Koiri, Dosadh, Bhabhan, and Bagdi

— The Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1908, Vol VII, Pg 233

As you can see, in each of the following lists, Bhumihars or Bhuinhars or Babhans have been enumerated as a separate group and not as Brahmins.

Bhumihars are also regarded as a distinct community and not counted as Brahmins in the following sources: [5], [6], [7], etc.

Bhumihars, numerically one of the largest castes in Bihar, claim to be Brahmins who had given up priestly functions to become cultivators and landholders

This clearly indicates that the classification of Bhumihars as Brahmins was questioned in many circles. This clearly needs mention in the lead section as it concerns the identity of Bhumihars as a community.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 18:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

YOU ARE BIASED AND RUN A PROPAGANDA MACHINE

WHY HAVE YOU DELETED THAT BHUMIHAR BRAHMINS ARE THE TRADITIONAL PRIESTS AT VISHNUPAD MANDIR AS GAYAWAR PANDAS AND IN THE ADJOINING DISTRICTS LIKE HAZARIBAGH?

YOU HAVE ALSO DELETED THAT THEY WERE WELL RESPECTED BRAHMINS IN THE COURTS OF DUMRAON MAHARAJ, KINGDOM OF NEPAL, AND RAJ DARBHANGA NONE OF WHICH WERE BHUMIHAR BRAHMIN KINGDOM OR ZAMINDARIS.

IN THE NAMES OF PLACES YOU HAVE SKILFULLY AVOIDED EVEN MENTIONING ABOUT BARA AND SENARI WHERE INNOCENT BHUMIHAR BRAHMINS WERE MASSACRED BY NAXAL TERRORISTS.

All this shows you are casteist, anti-India, pro-terrorists and anti Brahmin and want to promote psycophancy by spreading wrong information or at best spreading one sided information.

And by the way you have still not given what is your qualification? Thanking you, Trayambak Dwivedi. Krishnakoli, 10:37 A.M., 21 April, 2009.

I don't understand what you are talking about. I've never deleted any of the claims that you appear to mention here. I only removed a few sentences boasting about Bhumihar individuals in the Indian independence movement. Now, the tone of those sentences appeared POV to me. By the way, I understand that you've been editing this article for the Ranvir Sena and the Bhumihar Brahmin Mahasabha or whatever as is evident from the socks like User:Ranvir Sena which you've used. I insist that you read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines thoroughly before editing Wikipedia. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 03:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay! I've added places where massacre of Bhumihars has been carried out. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 14:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits appeared to be biased and I had been working to neutralize it. I don't bother even if you continue to lament that your pro-Bhumihar propaganda has been removed. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 14:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

THESE DELETIONS STILL REMAIN UNANSWERED

WHY HAVE YOU DELETED THAT BHUMIHAR BRAHMINS ARE THE TRADITIONAL PRIESTS AT VISHNUPAD MANDIR AS GAYAWAR PANDAS AND IN THE ADJOINING DISTRICTS LIKE HAZARIBAGH?

YOU HAVE ALSO DELETED THAT THEY WERE WELL RESPECTED BRAHMINS IN THE COURTS OF DUMRAON MAHARAJ, KINGDOM OF NEPAL, AND RAJ DARBHANGA NONE OF WHICH WERE BHUMIHAR BRAHMIN KINGDOM OR ZAMINDARIS.

I DO NOT USE ANY OTHER SOCKET. IT IS YOUR PROPAGANDA TO DISCREDIT MY WORK AND RUN YOUR ANTI-BHUMIHAR BRAHMIN PROPAGANDA.

Thanking you, Trayambak Dwivedi. Krishnakoli, 12:21 P.M., 26 April, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.159.26 (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2009

I don't understand what you mean. If you are accusing me of removing neutral sourced content please provide the diffs.

You need not know the meaning of the word "sockpuppet" in order to indulge in sockpuppetry. A repeated disregard for Wikipedia's policies about user accounts is enough. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 19:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting and removing

It seems you suffer from some personal grudge against Bhumihar Brahmins. Even when I provide with proper citations you keep removing my additions. Who are you? What special interest do you have in this article? As far as Muslim Bhumihars are concerned their mention is given at the end of the page. That does not mean Bhumihars are muslims. Lot of Hindus converted to Islam and they are muslims and not Hindus and they have no relation to Hindus whatsoever. There is no need to confuse between the two. You are trying to show as if Bhumihar Brahmins hae some fluid identity. What prejudice do you have? Trayambak Dwivedi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.116.233 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are people deleting info from page VibrantBabhan 12:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VibrantBabhan (talk • contribs)

read the rest of the page. Because the content is inappropriate to an encyclopedia and inappropriately sourced. see the appropriate policies at [[WP:NPOV] / WP:RS / WP:V / WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't Mislead and show your prejudice

Bhumihars are Hindu and they are a sub-caste of Brahmins. It is an established fact also based on marital relations between Bhumihars and Maithil Brahmins and Kanyakubja Brahmins. You are trying to show as if they aresome kind of a fluid community. Don't do this otherwise I would take you to court for spreading lies. Trayambak Dwivedi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.208.104 (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation issues

• Page 168 of the book "Agrarian Movements in Bihar:Studies in 20th century Bihar" by by Arvind N. Das was given as a reference for a claim. However, on investigation, I found that the book had only 152 pages. See [8]

• Page 18 of "Rulers, Townsmen and Bazars" by Christopher Alan Bayly is given as reference here. However, it appears that the specified page in the particular book does not contain the particular claim about "military Bhumihars" increasing their sway. I've repdroduced the contents of the page here

...and consolidated the intermediate classes of society - townsmen, traders, service gentry - who commanded the skills of the market and the pen.

Varieties of eighteenth-century regimes in the Ganges valley

So far an attempt has been made to draw out from the limited secondary literature some tendenceis which seem to be common for many regimes of the area: the search for cash and a local base, the foundation for new towns and an attempt through patronage to grow closer to the power-holders in an agrarian society. But it is important not to lose sight of regional variations. Eighteenth century ruling groups differed in culture and organisation. These differences created patterns in commerce, in the incidenceoftowns and markets or in the organisation of agrarian production which persisted into the colonial period and form the subject mkatter of this study. To take only one example, the greater density of market towns in the west of the region wasone precondition for the more dynamic agriculture and artisan production which existed there well before the coming of the British canals and railways in the mid-nineteenth century. This early urbanisation was consolidated by the settlement in the region after 1720 of town dwelling Muslim warriors from the north-west.

Most of the regional and localpowers which will be encountered in the following chapters gained autonomy between 1735 and 1762. Aurangazeb's attempt to revive the Mughal Empire had foundered through over-expansion before 1700. Faction plagued the ruling elite in Delhi in the 1710s and 1720s

• The article also claims Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya's "Hindu Castes and Sects" as a source that Bhumihars were Brahmins. However, a search for"Bhumihar" in the stated book does not yield any results.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 19:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

ANSWERING YOUR CITATION ISSUES

South of Avadh in the fertile riverain rice growing area of Benares, Gorakhpur and Bihar and on the fringes of Bengal, it was the 'military' or Bhumihar Brahmins who strengthened their sway. And the link can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=xfo3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PP1&dq=Christopher+Alan+Bayly,+%22Rulers,+Townsmen+and+Bazaars%22#PPA18,M1

Professor Christopher Alan Bayly has used Brahmins for Bhumihar Brahmins in his entire book. You can check for yourself.

On the social scale, although the Bhumihars are known to be Brahmins, on account of the fact that they were cultivators they were not given the ritual status of Brahmins. And the link can be found here:http://books.google.co.in/books?id=GL_yRdwbQP8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Agrarian+Movements+in+India#PPA51,M1

And you are hell bent on this page which does not reflect an unbiased approach. All the other community pages are spreading all kinds of silly notions and you are promoting them or not changing them and not demanding better citations. What does this show?

Now, include these portions in the article.

Thanking You, Trayambak Dwivedi

While your cooperation is most welcome, you haven't still specified the exact page from the book "Hindu Castes and Sects" where Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya regards Bhumihars as Brahmins. A search for "Bhumihars" does not yield any results. Instead, you had removed a well-sourced paragraph containing a quote by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya. Have a look at this.

Of course, some other caste-based articles, too, are made of nonsense. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But then, this article contains "controversial nonsense" which is even more despicable than "nonsense". We have previously had editors modifying the contents of this article (like User:Ranvir Sena who could very well be you) on behalf of terrorist organisations. And your edits, too, appear to carry a sympathetic point-of-view.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

FAST IN DELETING AND SLOW IN ADDING

You are very fast in deleting but slow in making the additions!

Thanking You, Trayambak Dwivedi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.143.99 (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I strongly insist that this article be written and edited by non-Bhumihars. This is to avoid a conflict of interest. I find that there a group of members from the Bhumihar community who have been indulging in spreading racism hatred across the internet and online forums by declaring Bhumihars to be "Aryans" and "greatest of all Brahmins" and calling for the destruction of Dalits, Muslims and Christians like here and here. One of them had openly declared in Orkut that he was involved in POV-pushing in Wikipedia. One-sided edits and the presence of users like User:Ranvir Sena seems to justify this fear. Till now, I've been as neutral as possible and have been dealing sternly with these POV-pushers. However, in case, if there is someone who doubts my commitment to NPOV, he/she is free to edit this article. However, I strongly insist that Wikipedians who edit this article are non-Bhumihars so as to avoid this article becoming prejudiced propaganda material or mouthpiece for some terrorist organisation.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 13:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Running a Propaganda Machine

Some Bhumihar Brahmins were engaged in communal activities in just one district of U.P. alongwith other Brahmins and Rajputs but it is being shown as if the whole community is communal and communal everywhere.........Do not give vent to personal prejudices......The fact is all communities at some point of time have shown communal tendency. I register my protest to this biased reading by wikipedia.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.61.177 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Past archive

can someone help me pull out archive of this page, which is missing now. Infact, I have come to know the banned user:vandalpatrol whose several anon. IPs had been listed in archive(no more visible now), is actually a Hindi wikipedia admin, whose favorite passtime on english wikipedia is to make abusive remark and vandalize some caste pages and articles.  Ikon |no-blast 17:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I want an admin's help to get the various sockpuppets of above mentioned user:vandalpatrol, because this page was once deleted and, talk page of previous page which is deleted now is missing. Kindly post the details here. It will help me initiate the sockpuppetery investigation against the suspect.  Ikon |no-blast 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Bhumihar - The Buddhist Brahmins

Babhan is a Pali word used for Brahmanas. Some historian who worked on Buddhist literature are of firm view that during the period of Ashoka, many Brahmans adopted Buddhism in and around Magadha, the modern Bihar. These Brahmanas gave away the Vedic Karmkands and accpted agriculture as their profession. They were known as Babhans, a separate community than Brahmanas following Vedic culture. The famous Brahmans of Buddhist Sangha listed by Buddha himself were –

1. Aagya Kondinya of village DronaVastu near Kapilvastu 2. Matryayani Putra of village DronaVastu near Kapilvastu 3. Sariputra of village Nalaka in Magadha 4. Mahamaugllayan of village Kolil in Magadha 5. Mahakashyap of village Mahatrith Brahaman in Magadha 6. Pindol Bharadwaj of capital Rajgriha in Magadha 7. Radh of capital Rajgriha in Magadha 8. Mahakatyayan of Ujjayani 9. Rewat Khadir Vaniya of village Nalak in Magadha 10. Upasen BangantPutra of village Nalak in Magadha 11. Vakkali of Sravasti, Kosala 12. Kund-dhan of Sravasti, Kosala 13. Vangish of Sravsti, Kosala 14. Bilind Vatsya of Sravasti, Kosala 15. Mahakothittha of Sravasti, Kosala 16. Shobhit of Sravasti, Kosala 17. Swagatt of Sravasti, Kosala 18. Moghraj of Sravasti, Kosala 19. Uruwel Kashyap of Kasi

Further the Parasurama origin of Bhumihar is probably a myth as land of Parasurama, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka etc do not have any Bhumihar community.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.232.189 (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 

we have vast misunderstandings about the bhumihar caste.we must know that bhumihars and brahmins two totally opponent castes.In fact ,brahmans are those budhists who migrated from Iran to India.They did never respect the Rigveda and that is why no vaidic gods are served by them.In vedic traditions,begging alms is always prohibited but the so-called brahmans are always indulged in begging and this indicates that they are budhist bhikshus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.66.106 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bhumihar bhavans are the supreme brahmin of all brahmin..as by birth they are brahmin, intelligent and they never beg like other pandit which is supreme they are alway rich of knowlege and intellectual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.156.9 (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Saraswati

Concerns have been expressed in the past regarding the reliabiltiy of Saraswati - Saraswati, Swami Sahajanand (2003). Swami Sahajanand Saraswati Rachnawali in Six volumes. Delhi: Prakashan Sansthan. ISBN 81-7714-097-3.. For this reason, I've just reverted a massive contribution that relied upon him. Can someone please explain why he should be considered reliable. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting and I'm still reverting the repeated reinstatements, usually by IPs. I got no response when I asked about this at WT:INB some time ago and there isn't much point taking such a specialist thing to WP:RSN. So, until someone starts engaging in a discussion I am going to continue removing anything related to Saraswati. He was a Bhumihar and he was a religious leader: no way is he independent. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Swami sahjanand saraswati was a freedom fighter and revolutionary. He himself was born in jujhotiya brahmin clan of bhumihar brahmin. He has written Many books on origin of Brahmin especially kanyakubj Brahmin. Many other brahmins also refer his work to know their origin. Even govt. of india is conferring agriculture award in the name of swami ji. No body can really question his credential. Swami ji did many works for enlistment of peasants. He fought against Zamindars which included babhan/bhumihar brahmin zamindars too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashumech527 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Problematic section

Someone recently added a section and I have now twice removed it - see here. As I said in my first edit summary, the people being quoted are not considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia and I have some doubts about the book that apparently quotes them. I cannot see the book but I'd appreciate an explanation as to why a book that cites these unreliable pseudo-historians etc should be considered reliable in itself. I'd also appreciate sight of the thing. Please do not reinstate until the issue is resolved, per WP:BRD. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know how to cite some sources like the puranas which I have read and the information I provided are from there only. Sorry about the ignorance. But in case someone can help me we can add some relevant information from such ancient books which can be of great help in understanding such disputed issues of caste system, specially the origin of Bhumihars.

Thanks. - Vikku.pandey (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vikku and thanks for joining the discussion. I've merged your answer into the section that had just been started because I think that the issues are related, per a message I'd left on your talk page earlier.

The problem with ancient epic texts etc such as the Puranas, Rg Veda, Mahabharata etc is that Wikipedia considers them to be unreliable. They are very old, they are primary sources and scholars have for many years acknowledged that their content is contradictory, fragmentary, glorifying, ambiguous and, well, just about any other criticism that could be applied to a source.

The solution to your Puranas problem is to use more recent secondary sources that provide an analysis of those older works. Alas, that also poses difficulties in this case because books written by members of a particular caste about their own caste are rarely ever reliable for matters of history etc. Also, since castes often fragment and coalesce, they're not even reliable as a statement of the community's opinion. In rare cases, an exception could be made if a caste member is also a recognised academic authority on his caste. I'm not sure that this applies to the works that you were adding.

Might I suggest that you spend a little time reading the various blue links I listed? Feel free to ask questions about them and, hopefully, you'll be able to come back here either with alternate sources or with a justification for use of the ones that you have been using. I'm really pleased that you were citing anything - many newcomers do not and it is good to see you making that effort. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2014

This is Totally Incorrect Information; It looks that some one is trying too hard to miss-guide the community. There are to many rivals of Bhumihar Brahmin, History Itself can proof this. Kindly Revert the data back to 07:25, 7 February 2014‎ 202.131.143.2 Snr327 (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please give exact change and proper references instead of asking to revert to a previous version. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014

Rrvrai (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Dear Admin, I am a regular visitor of this page and viewing the content carefully. Since last one year I am seeing lots of useful and reliable material being deleted by some lumpen elements. So please allow me to edit the page.

Thanks & Regards, Rrvrai

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

CHANGE

Kingdom of Kashi- an independent Bhumihar Brahmin state until 1994.

TO

Kingdom of Kashi- an independent Bhumihar Brahmin state until 1194.

184.153.69.33 (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihars not brahmins check ground reality please  ! Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

I have to add and edit a lot of things in this page as i belong to the bhumihar caste and liked to contribute in it , people often are writing and trying to fuse our caste into that of brahmins which is not at all true as brahmins in the bihar and eastern up doesn't even recognize us as brahmins plus marriages in bhumihars don't even happen with the brahmin community (Its only one sided a daughter of brahman can marry a bhumihar boy but vice versa is not true!), we on the contrary are a regional upper caste having some similarities with both brahmins and kshtriya varna both. Some might say that because of having surnames similar to the brahmins we belong to that varna but thats completely mistaken because if surnames are to be considered then we should call the bhumihars of benaras region and ahirs of western bihar as a similar caste because both use the Rai sirname, sirname don't define your belonging or being an ofshoot of another caste we are an independent and regional cast not any offshoot of any certain caste.

Plus I would like to add details of various tribes of bhumihar also here so that people could start putting information regarding their tribes, like i belong to the donwar bhumihars and have knowledge of 4 - 5 bhumihar tribes of which i can write and increase the e-information regarding our community. Amitesh93 (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
What "you have knowledge of" is NOT acceptable to Wikipedia - if the information cannot be Verified in an Independant, Reliable, Source it should not be included in the article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Hey Mr X i am sure you are not bhumihar. Bhumihar has clans that are mostly in the name of places from where they have migrated. Some are in the name of Brahmin groups which has mingled with babhans Like jujhotiya clan, Chitponiya babhan, mahiwal babhan. warrior brahmins (like Mohyal and Shahi), Kanyakubj Brahmins and saryupian Brahmins came to Bihar at the time of advent of islamist force in northern part of india. These Brahmins were firstly known by the name of places from where they had came. Later on they were said to be paschima brahmin (western Brahmin). They along with magadhi babhans in a meeting named themself as Bhumihar Brahmins. For ur kind information you should know most of the brahmin tribes are practicing endogamy in their own tribe. so it is not a matter of astonishment that bhumihar brahmins are not marrying with other brahmin community so frequently. Bhumihar Brahmin name itself has come in existence in early 19th century. Babhan is their ancient name which is mere pali word for brahmin. you might be knowing in nepali brahmins are said to be bahun similarly in pali brahmins are said to be babhan. Babhan name clearly suggest that they are ancient brahmins of magadh. Babhan word is there in Ashokan inscription. Sunga and Kanva are Brahmin dynasty of magadha. they have defied the basic rule that brahmins can only be pujari (priest). Sugania babhan is a clan in bhumihar brahmins. So please erase all your confusions. Babhans are the royal brahmins of magadha just like mohyal of panjab, tyagi of western up, niyogi of andhra, anvil of gujrat, chitpavan of maharastra, and Nambudhiri of kerala. Bhumihar brahmins are the royal brahmins who are priest also in places like gaya hajaribagh patna and benaras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashumech527 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Please change for independent Identity of bhumihars and not a subset of a caste

Change any where written "Bhumihar Brahmin" To just "Bhumihar"

and also make this article as linked to just "Bhumihar" keyword not "Bhumihar Brahmin". - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashumech527 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 June 2014‎

It is your removals of the Brahmin bit across numerous articles that have led to your block from contributing. The issue is complex and we have to reflect the sources, which use both terms. I am attempting to improve the article at the moment and disruption such as that which you were engaged in is not helpful. There is absolutely no doubt that the Bhumihars at the very least claim to be Brahmins and we have to balance that sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - semi-protected edit request

The See Also section contains a random list of items. Jhansi, Iyers and Sangli State should surely be removed as they are completely unrelated to Bhumihars.-117.193.222.125 (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I have already removed some irrelevant/highly tangential items that were in the section. However, my efforts to improve the article are being stymied by what appear to be members of the Bhumihar community who are attempting to censor it. I'll leave the removal of those three links to someone else in order not to draw more flak. - Sitush (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Done --Mdann52talk to me! 11:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

SPI

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashumech527. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Origin theories

Instead of deleting reliably-sourced commentary regarding origins, as here, why don't the Bhumihar community members who have descended here try to find reliable sources that discuss other such tales? The source used does say that there are a myriad of myths etc out there but only discusses these two.

Having multiple folkloric theories of origin is a common situation with castes and we have to deal with it. The Rajput-Brahmin hybridity type of tale is not unique to the Bhumihars and, for example, the Rajputs have their own bizarre (to me) folklore about lunar, solar, fire dynasties etc. Wikipedia is not censored and there is no deadline when it comes to improving articles but the more disruption that goes on, the less time is available for people to who have done the research and do understand how Wikipedia works to improve the article. I've got a stack of books etc lined up for this one but it looks like they'll gather dust while the disruption continues. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Origin Theories 2

The refernce in itself is a myriad composition by research work done by a person on basis of tales rather factual proof, The references given by the author of the book if traced back it takes us to references

"Mahamahopadhya Haraprasad Shastri, “Babhan,” J o u rn al of th e Asiatic Society o f Bengal, vol. LXXl, Part 1, (1902), 61-2. Shastri writes “it appeared very probable that Babhans were originally Brahmins and their degradation from the status o f Brahmin dates back to the downfall o f Buddhism. Babhan was merely the Pali form o f Brahman and was found in Asokan pillar inscriptions as a corruption of Brahmi in one place in connection with the Sramanas or Buddhist monks”"

this is no where stating that bhumihars are buddhist converts to hindu it clearly mentions that Babhan is a pali word not at all projecting they being converts. The other reference traces back to

"To understand how strongly Bhumihars react to their identity issue can be gauged from the debate triggered off by the article published by Girish Mishra and Braj Kumar Pandey in the Searchlight on April4, 1970. In their article entitled “Socio-economic Roots o f Casteism in Bihar”, they suggested that Bhumihars are offspring o f a Brahmin mother and a Rajput father. The counter reply by P.P.Sharma, P.P.Sharma and Dashrath Tiwari, in the Searchlight, November 14,1970 revives and renews “substantialised” construction of Bhumihars’ identity in the post-independence Bihar. Interestingly, this construction looms large in the minds o f most members o f Bhumihar intelligentsia. Quoting colonial and ethnographic records, the authors give credit to Maharaja Ishwari Prasad Singh o f Benaras for popularizing the nomenclature “ Bhumihar” in the late 19th -century"

here also the subject is in contradiction and if any point of the publisher of article in searchlight is to be deemed as true it revokes all the theories of bhumihar being brahmins as india being a patriarchal society moves our shift towards kshatriya lineage which is in its own sense absurdified by thousands of articles available on the internet. So i deem the portion to be removed on the concept of it not being Reliable Source.--Amitesh93 (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Amitesh Rai

Would require your comments as I don't want to start a war of "editters" User:Sitush User:Dougweller

You should not delete material from a reliable source and that source appears to be reliable: the writer is a professional historian, not a fringe theorist, and the publisher is reputable. What you can do is introduce alternate points of view from equally reliable sources. However, I have no idea what Searchlight is, nor the credentials of the authors you mention. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well Sitush how do you proclaim this author as reliable not a mere "fringe theorist" Ashwani Kumar I call him as a historian Dr Ram Sharan Sharma and his statement to the above quote

Indeed, I got my authors mixed up. It changes nothing, though: see his cv. I've just amended the section heading, by the way, because having two sections with the same title will be confusing. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As for the Sharma thing, I don't see what difference it makes. Our article says that there are numerous legendary stories - note: "numerous" and "legendary". No-one is saying that these things are correct. Furthermore, Sharma says the BB term gained popularity in Saraswati's time: that may be true but it doesn't alter the statement that the first reference to the term was in the 1800s. If we can find the book where Sharma makes the popularity point then I'd be happy to see it added to the article. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well Sitush it do changes a lot as the comments are mythical and not legendary, rest your second comment on finding that book or reference of sharma regarding BB's popularity in 1920's< if we get hands on it what of it, will it mean non attesting bhumihars from BB phrase--Amitesh93 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And also Sitush i don't understand your statement "It changes nothing" why? well an eminent historian rubbishes the comment on the grounds of no "valid" proof we can not include the data as authentic just because a research paper writer of a college has written something and got it published.--Amitesh93 (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Legend, myth, folklore - it is all pretty much the same thing. I think we have a comprehension problem here because you are also misunderstanding what the article says. Nowhere does it say that those tales are "authentic" as in "true". In fact, the article goes out of it way (as does the source) to note that there are many such tales knocking around. And the article, as with the source, makes no pronouncement regarding which, if any, might be accurate. If you can find a book by Sharma that says that one of the stories is definitely wrong then we can add that because it would be the opinion of a reliable source. The Times of India has a somewhat awkward status in terms of reliability and the reported comment is throwaway: Sharma must have discussed it in some depth, as Kumar does in his book. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sitush please if you can provide me with the material that you are researching regarding Bhumihars i would be highly obliged.--Amitesh93 (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr sitush i want to tell You that if the so call historian by you (ashwani-kumar) has mentioned so much misdeeds of bhumihar then why not he has mentioned the senari massacre in which many babhan/ bhumihar families were killed by maoist by chopping off their heads. The author has presented many fake and derogatory tales without any substantial historic proof to back the statements. The author has mentioned that bhumihar wanted to be enumerated in babhan during imperial census 1891, which is totally false. Bhumihar word was never used in any british census they were always called as babhan and enumerated in aristocratic class. Some of the babhans especially kashi naresh then started popularizing bhumihar brahmin name and advocated the enlisting of Babhan or new name bhumihar brahmin in brahmin category rather than aristocratic category. Brahmin category was made only for professional priest during that era. Christopher Alan Bayly an eminent historian has mentioned bhumihar to be millitary brahmin(http://books.google.co.in/books?id=xfo3AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Christopher+Alan+Bayly+military+brahmin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OgTaU-TYHdGNuAS5rIL4BA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=bhumihar&f=false). The term bhumihar itself is an adjective which has similar meaning as bhumipati. Bhumihar are more known by the adjective than their original name (i.e.babhan). Whatever swami sahjahjanand saraswati has told is backed by research done by him. He has mentioned about the origin and migration of different clans of bhumihars and their parental clan from were it bifurcated. Swami sahjanad saraswati was a famous nationalist. Agriculture award is conferred by indian govt in his name to commemorate him. These things are false for you and freaky stories by aswani kumar are true for you. Do not get preoccupied just search the truth if you are willing otherwise just put down this wikipedia page of bhumihar community. Hardly anybody is referring wikipedia for these type of cast and community topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

hi every one, books like:- (Evolution and Spatial Organization of Clan Settlements By Saiyad Hasan Ansari; Martial races of undivided India By Vidya Prakash Tyagi; Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British expansion,1770-1870 By C. A. Bayly, brahmarshi bansh bistar written by nationally acclaimed personality swami sahjanand saraswati (https://archive.org/stream/BrahamharshiBamshaBistar/Brahamharshi%20Bamsha%20Bistar#page/n0/mode/2up);The Limited Raj: Agrarian Relations in Colonial India, Saran District, 1793-1920 By Anand A. Yang; The tribes and castes of the North-western Provinces and Oudh by William Crooke; ) are reliable document because all the authors are either renowned historians or social activist. these books clearly tells about the association of bhumihar brahmin with kanyakubj brahmin and it also tells about the old name of this brahmin as babhan. bhumihar brahmin name is quite a new name to babhan community that gained popularity only after 19th century. Origin of some of the clans of bhumihar brahmin is also written in the book. All these books never asserted the mixed origin of babhans/bhumihar brahmins. Mixed origin theory is a fake propaganda spread by some people to spread hatred. Spreading a false tale or rumour is not at all sensible so put down the words of Mr aswani kumar. This author has never mentioned the plight of babhans. Why not he (aswani kumar) has mentioned the senari massacre in which babhans were beheaded cruelly and mercilessly. It is unfortunate that uppar caste of society are always criticized for their wrong deeds and dalits are not for the same. All human beings are equal and their deeds should not be judged with prejudice and preoccupation. All the false tales should not be put up in wikipedia for the reference purpose. just mention the work of some credible and knowledgeable author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihar brahmin/babhan are totally distinct community from Rajputs and have ancient brahmnic origin from magadh. Babhan/bhumihar shared only one trait with rajput i.e both were royal and aristocratic class of hindu society. Bhumihar brahmin is a modern name to old babhans which was popularized by many wealthy landlords or kings like kashi naresh. Until 1891 census entire bhumihar brahmin community was named under babhan and put under millitary or aristocratic class of society which is totally evident from link of document i am mentioning [ https://archive.org/stream/cu31924023177268#page/n195/mode/2up ] . It is also a historic fact that babhan is a pali word for brahmin and present in ashokan edicts. Ancient magadh empire like sunga empire and kanva empires were brahmin empires of magadh. Some historians claims gupta empire to be a brahmin empire on the basis of marital alliance. Gupta was a word used by people of many communities like vishnugupta for chanakya unlike present day gupta surnames which is confined to vaishya community. So writing any mythical or framed story of babhans is totally injustice towards a community. Babhans are old aryan people of magadh who were present during ancient ashokan era or even before in magadh. It is a total historical fact that Rajputs came to bihar after advent of islamic force in northwest part of india. Rajputs are warrior community just like marathas of maharastra and sikh and jats of punjab and hariyana. So telling babhans to be mixture of brahmin and rajput is totally illogical and fictitious. Association of babhans with budhhism might be true but not substantially proven but association with rajput is totally fictitious. Any sensible person can easily rule out this core myth and fiction which has come out of inter community jealousy. So i request all the editors to consider this and put down the derogatory fictitious tales about babhan community.

Bhumihar pride

kindly please remove that wrong information about bhumihar origin" offspring of rajput men and Brahmin women"

this is absolutely wrong according to our Hindu mythology... who the hell you are ??

this is a spam.. parashuram killed all Kshatriyas...that's why Kshatriya hate parashuram origin..

Bhumihar are the sons of great maharishi kashyap.....

please take it seriously

bhupathiBhupathi999 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Already discussed above. It is staying in. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Rajputs are quite new community to bihar or magadh. It(bihar) was ruled by palas and senas in medival era. They(rajputs) came to magadh only after islamic invasion in western india to escape from persecution. some of Rajputs were definitely big zamindars in bihar /Magadh but they were never ruler. They(rajputs) are warrior clan similar to maratha, sikhs and bundelas. Bhumihar is quite a recent name given to brahmin zamindars especially of eastern up and bihar. In british census they were called by their old name babhan and they were kept in aristocratic class of society. Babhans were also grouped under marital race even after they were brahmin. Later on it was found that the same word babhan depicted in ashokan inscription to refer brahmins of magadh in that era. some of so called scholar concluded that they are fallen brahmin or buddhist brahmin. It is really pathetic that some people and some so called scholars are concluding the fact in misleading way and lack the basic level of logic to prove them. All the historical evidences regarding babhans/ bhumihars points towards their brahmical origin. History is not at all based on tales or rumours but it need some evidence to back it. All the tales which are repeatedly put up on wikipedia does not have any historical ground, a sensible man can easily tell its authenticity. There are so many rumours regarding many caste but it can not be considered as origin. so please do not put up such a defamatory statement about any community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2014

I am surprised by such objectionable articles on sensitive subject like defining caste which are matter of belief.Recent references of late 20th century may not be authentic source for any conclusive remark on castes.Wikipedia should desist from such articles which are highly subjective and devoid of merit.

14.99.229.166 (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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. Cannolis (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to a comment about sources on my user page

Bpandey89 (talk · contribs) recently posted this on my User page. Since this is the correct venue I'll respond to it here later today, although I rather think we've already dealt with the sources mentioned. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've been distracted both on- and off-wiki today. I'll try tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yang and Bayly are fine as sources but I've no idea what it is you wanted us to examine in their books. William Crooke, like most Raj sources, is inappropriate; Tyagi's is one of the most notorious books published by Gyan and should never be used; and Saraswati is clearly a POV work and can only be used in very limited circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Aggressive removal of sourced content

There has been some aggressive removal of sourced material recently, usually with rather cryptic explanations. For example, this one says that the source does not even mention the BBM ... but there it is on, for example, page 7. I've reverted the removals pending some more detailed explanations. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Article is probably better than most of the other social group related articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2014

PLEASE CHANGE "Bhumihar" 
               TO 
      "Dogamiya bhumihaar"

because the mythical is related to "dogamiya bhumihaar" only, other bhumihar gotra has other mythical Vikram989 (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihars are known as Babhan. They are a community of Brahmins who have taken up Land and given up (TYAGI) priest craft (begging and doing Karmakand) even though there are few karmakandi Bhumihar brahmins in Hazaribagh Gaya, Patna & Benaras. They are spread from Afghanistan, Punjab, Maharastra, Gujrat, Kerala to Bihar. In Punjab they were known as Mohiyals, Chitapavan, Anavil, Havyak, Niyogi, Barendro but they claim descent from Lord Parshuram.

Actually Lord Parshuram was the first Brahmin in History to wear arms and to teach lessons to the Kings and bring them to justice. He also seized their land and handed over to Brahmins. The same brahmins are known as Bhumihar brahmins.

Bhujbal bhumi bhup binu kinhi, bipul bar maheedevan dinhee.

(Ram-Charit-Manas)

The word Bhumihar derives its name from sanskrit word “Bhumi�? meaning land and Hara meaning maker. Earlier ethnographic accounts [Risley, Crooke1896] contain a large number of legends, which trace their Brahmin origin and the Brahmins who abandoned their priestly profession and took to landowning. “Babhan�? is a corrupt form of the word Brahmins. Some scholars, Pandit Hazariprashad Dwivedy and Sree Kameshwar Ojha believes; Bhumihar is a short form of Bhumi-Agrahar Bhojee Brahmin. Brahmins, who were responsible for Agrahar collection. King Harsha of Kannauj appointed them for this purpose.

According to the different standard dictionaries Bhumihar means a community of brahmins of UP&Bihar ( Standard Hindi to Hindi dictionary – Manak hindi shabdkosh; Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag ). Almost all Hindi dictionaries says Bhumihar or Babhan means Brahmin. According to Sammanantra Kosh Bhumihar brahmins means- Babhan, Tyagi.

As per Kanyakubja Vansawalee, Bhumihars are one of of the divisions of Kanyakubja brahmins. There are five divisons of Kanyakubja Brahmins namely Sarvariya, Sanadhaya, Jujhotiya, Bhumihar and Prakrit Kanaujiya, This view was supported by the great historian Sir H. Eliot in his book supplemental glossary and also seen in the population report, It is also mentioned that all the above said division have common custom and traditions.

Suryanarayan Pandey in his book Sainik Brahmin has noted that only in two situation they were seprated from Kanyakubja brahmin the first was, when they were honoured and given land as AGRAHARAM by the kings of different states and second when they were attacked by muslim ruler. They wanted to preserve Hindu cultural heritage so they came to Eastern Kashi.

Lot of other Brahmins also have mixed and mingled with Bhumihar Brahmins such as Prachin Brahmins of Bihar known as SOBARNIYA has Savarna Gotra, Jujhotiya from Bundelkhand Sarvariya and Sanadhya from Kanyakubja Tatiha, Nokhuliya of Nonhtar of Bithur, Kinvar of Aakin(Kanpur), Baruar of Bafra, Sankarvar of Fatehpur, Pahitipuri Pandey of Pahitiya, Hirapuri Pandey of Haripur Unnav, Eksariya of Hastinapur (Mohiyal-Bali).

Sources:

1. Manak Hindi Sabdkosh- Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag,(Ramchandra verma and group) 2. Sammanatra Sabdakosh-National Book Trust (Sri Arbinda kumar and Kusum Kumar) 3. 543 faces of India by H.D.Singh,Newsmen publisher.New Delhi 4. Vikash Ki Ek Dhara – Kuldeep narayan Jhadap 5. KANYAKUBJA VANSAVALEE-MUKUNDRAM 6. Brahamarshi Vansha Vistar – Swami Sahjananda 7. Sainik brahmin – Pandey Suryanarayan sharma. 8. Jujhotiya brahmin ke itihas kee ruprekha – Pt.Gorelal tewari 9. Mohiyal History-Chunilal Dutta 10. Brahmnotpatee Bhaskar (Pt Batuk Prasad Mishra ) 11. Shree Saryuparee vansawali – Acharya Rajnarayan Shukla 12. Sarvariya brahamnotpati Deep – Ram Lagan Tripathy 13. History of Kanyakubja-Pt.Raghunandan Mishra 14. Shree Shree Swami 1008 RANGARAMANUJACHARYA-HULASGANJ GAYA 15. Shree Swami RAMPRAPANNACHARYA-KATRASIN Jehanabad,Gaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.99.193 (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Lord Parshuram was not a hisotrical character, he is part of Hindu mythology. That's like treating Adam as a real person. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

common title surname of bhumihar brahmin correction

please remove Surname Malviya Dikshit pradhan Jha Yajee karjee Kunwar these are not bhumihar brahmins. and also stories section remove it if any administrator is here

please remove Surname Malviya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rai -Pandey-Singh Royal chulbul king brahmin (talk • contribs) 05:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Dikshit pradhan Jha Yajee karjee Kunwar these are not bhumihar brahmins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rai -Pandey-Singh Royal chulbul king brahmin (talk • contribs) 05:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell if the citation is unreliable? It will be removed if it is unreliable or stories have been changed throughout the times. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2015

The writer of the page is prejudice to real Brahmins ( Gaud Bhumihar Brahmans ). The author do not provide the source when he propagate some insulting / fake statements-as-the statement about the origin of Bhumihar Brahmans.From which source he mentions the theory of Rajpoot and Brahman male and female- So disgusting, it is like a conspiracy, it is criminal offense to defame a highly respectable community.It is a matter of degrading the prestige of Wikipedia also.Same fake and insulting efforts we can see about all Ayachak Brahmans ( Bhumihar,Chitpawan,Mohyals,Tyagis,Kanyakubjas,Havyak,NambudiriIyyer,Iyengar,etc).How can you (Wikipedia)will claim to be a perfect knowledge bank when you propogate fake things.If you do not know that - in all over India and in Religious texts there are two categories of Brahmans 1- Ayachak Brahmans ,who are superior because those not accept alms,those only accept Pratigrah means the wage of any kind of educational-service,like-teaching, ministering etc.Those are the followers of the ideology of Lord Parashurama to not take alms and to accept military positions also.All aadityas (Devtas) are Brahmins as the kids of Brahmarshi Kashyap.Even Lord Vishnu is a Brahman who is a son-in-law of Brahmarshi Bhrigu and the son of Brahmarshi Kashyap ,The ayachak Brahmans are the descendents of these Dev-Brahmans and Brahmarshis.These Brahmans are related to Dharma and knowledge of kingly jobs.In all religious hindu texts these alm refusing Brahmans are mentioned superior than the alms - receiving Yachaks.Bhumihar,Chitpawan,Mohyals,Tyagis,Kanyakubjas,Havyak,Nambudiri,Iyyer,Iyengar,etc are of tis category.2- Second category is Yachaks who are recieving alms.In all hindu religious texts the alms receiving sect is consider very bad and for so the alms receiver category is considered below than the alms refusing category of Brahmarshis.The alms refusing category is called Brahmarshi Brahmans or aadi Brahmans while the alms receiving category is called sadharan Brahman.In all ways the alms refusing Bhumihaar Brahman and other Ayachak Brahmans are superior than alms receiving category of Yachaks. The author mentions about Sanskritization but he did not know about this concept of Prof M N Sriniwas in the book name-SOCIAL CHANGE IN MODERN INDIA , who is the Sociologist who proposed this concept about lower castes in this book and he accept that Bhumihar Brahmans are superior category of Brahmans who opposses the Sanskritization.The author is a criminal because he is mentioning the book but tell us not the fact of the book, he misguide the readers about the content of the book and about the Brahmarshis. Same fake principle about Chitpawans origin of Bene Israel.It is a statement of a joker.It could not be a statement of a responsible website because all scholars know that Gaud (Bhumihaar) Brahmans and Chitpawan,Mohyals,Kanyakubjas,Nambudiri,Tyagi,Anawil, Havyak,Iyyer,Iyyengar Niyogi etc are related to the Brahmarshis and by the time those follows the ideas of Lord Parashurama ( the Yachaks were oppsing the Parashurama)in the time being Bhumihaars and all ayachak Brahmans support the reforms proposed by Lord Buddha and it is a fact that by the efforts of these Ayachak Brahmans like Bhumihar Brahmans the Lord Buddha was accepted as an incarnation of Vishnu.Chanakya was a Bhumihar Brahman of Chanakiya gotra,Pushyamitra shung's shung wans, Kanwa wansh , Saatwahan wansa , Emperor Samudragupt were all are BBhumihar Brahmans.Baji rao peshwa, Mangal pandey,Lokmanya Bal gangadhar tilak,Gopal krishn gokhle aal are of same category, even the Brahman who faught for Hassan and Hussain , Bhai Matidas who was the prime minister of Guru teg Bahadar, Sant Longowal , Prime minister PV Narsinha rao etc so many history makers were / are of this category but your author of bad intentioned view is try to defame Wikipedia by defame the highest prestigious Bhumihar-Brahmans and its other related clans like Chitpawan Brahmans.It is shameful for Wikipedia not for us because truth is truth which is available in the writtings of responsible scholars.