Talk:Bhumihar/Archive 7

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

They are sub caste of Brahmins. 2409:4064:230F:EA49:0:0:1629:10A5 (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

refer to bhramharshi vansh vistar by swami shajanand sarawati which is a trademark evidence of the topicGaurav 3894 (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2021

Bhumihar Are pure landlord brahmins , none can be called Babhan Which literally means Brahman If he / she is not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshu shyam (talk • contribs) 08:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

Bhumihar is sub caste of Brahmins. 2409:4064:2315:292D:0:0:CDD:E0B1 (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

kindly check the book bhramharshi vansh vistar by swami sahajanand sarawatiGaurav 3894 (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Editing by Gaurav 3894

Anyone else thinks that Gaurav 3894 should be topic banned for the disruption on this Talk page? Starting several sections on the same day about virtually the same issue, making edit requests that are not actually edit requests, constantly mentioning some Swami as highest authority (but without even mentioning the book's title), etc. etc. My patience is already wearing thin. Any comments? — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

They did mentioned the book's title in their first post - Bhramharshi Vansh Vistar, by swami Shajanand Sarawati. It seems to have been written in the early 1900s, though, so it's a Raj era source, and (if I understand correctly) therefore not usable here. The editor has offered to provide more modern sources, but has yet to do so, except perhaps for their allusion to a judgement by the Allahabad High Court (which I assume also isn't usable, even if it can be found, but I don't know much about the topic area). Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 17:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

If you think that swamiji thought and else prove is not reliable,then I also think that the information you gave is also not reliable because many are raj era source and the writer,you hove mentioned,not gave new reliable source but raj era source.I think that in the absence of so-called reliable source,you should not write so long article, which has not prove but only rumours, which is totally baseless. Sukrsh (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

'Wikignome Wintergreen dear brother can you tell me why the raj era sources wold not be considered ?? because there are many many topic which have raj era sources and the book you are talking was published in 1916 quite near the end of British era and it will be very hard to find books about caste in the modern era kindly give me some time so that i can give you detailed info,the name of the book is dharmachary bhramin which was published recently like not in 2015 or 16 it was around 1980 or 70 not sure right now give me some time thanksGaurav 3894 (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Gaurav 3894, Sahajanand Saraswati and his arguments are already mentioned in the article, as are those of another Raj-era scholar, Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya. That's perfectly fine. But you can't point to them and say, "These are truth", ignoring all of the other scholars who have researched and written since. You can, of course, provide more statements from different scholars who agree with your position, but they are not going to establish a truth which wipes out all other claims. They will be another voice among the voices. Also, I'm not anyone's brother, though you can call me 'sister' if you like, I don't mind. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 15:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

An explanation of why Raj-era sources are considered unreliable can be found here in the section CasteAFDs, which includes a link to a page with more general explanations - WP:HISTRS. Note that neither of these are official guidelines, and Raj-era sources are used for some things in some places (including this article, obviously). WP:RSN is the place where folks can debate whether a particular source is reliable or unreliable. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 16:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

'Wikignome Wintergreen that is what i said there is only one author who has written it and this has been called a rumor by other authors even by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya who has written this in his book which was there in the reference list and there is just one single author who has written this so i don't think it would be considered thats what i wrote in my comment and that is the reason it should be removed Gaurav 3894 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

As long as the author is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia' standards, what they wrote will remain in the article. If you want to challenge their reliability, feel free to do it at the noticeboard I linked to above. If you want to add new, reliably sourced statements, please do so by writing out exactly what you want added, indicating exactly where in the article you want it added, and citing your source. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 03:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

As the caste system appears during raj era then why the proofs from raj era not should be accepted.

There are many more froofs from the book 'Kanyakubj Wansawali' William Crooks anthropological studies and many more western scholars, M N Sriniwas is mentioned in his book 'Modernisation and other essays' etc.

Even the Bhumihars called Babhan in the villages by normal people.

Mr Gauraw ji your view looks like biased. You did not clarified your caste identity because regarding your caste you can not provide any proof before raj era because there was no caste in India before raj era there was 'Warn System, which was absolutely different from the caste system.

Before the raj era there was not the caste system and the Warn System is not the Caste system. The mentioning of Brahman as a Warn system' was based on karma not on birth, while in caste system is based on birth not on karma.

So 'Warn system' and caste are absolutely different things. Dr Abhai Kumar Rai Sociologist (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Dr Abhai Kumar Rai Sociologist Dear you need to read more Varn system had 4 categories The bhramins [most superior] Kstriye [The kings and warriors] Vaishyas [trader and merchant] shudra [untouchables ] and they wre divided by karm but when manusmriti came it strictly forbid anyone from changing caste and divided people from their genetic traits, the varn system is same as caste system the difference is that caste is English and varn is sanskrit and both are same, there are many caste that are not just these four because of the tribal people who had many traits so could not be divided into one and just do one job so sub caste came to existence and also because of different regions and languages. Bhumihar are sub-caste of bhramins because they are also kings and warrior by karm but by birth they are bhramins so they should be bhramins and if you want reference before raj era kindly read kyankubj vanshavali you will find bhumihar in the vanshavali and there is Gautam chandrika where it is also mentioned and you can also find it vishnu puran not by the name bhumihar but you will find that there are bhramins whom lord parshuram has given the knowledge of shastrs or shastr vidya who are no more taking daan. kindly read them ,all of them are before raj era and the varn system you are talking is from vedic period. i did not give because they said it wont be considered only the soureces after raj era will be considered but there are already proves of that given , my problem is that the hybrid theory has no proves or references only a book written by on writer who himself has not given any proves Gaurav 3894 (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Humbly I want to request that I am not deer of you because you show your biased prejudiced against facts.

You told me that I should read more 'Warn System' and told that there is no difference between 'Warn System' and 'Jaati System'.

After visiting your illogical answer, I am laughing on your tricky involvement against facts.

1- Why the British period documentation can not be accepted ?

2- If the documents written by freedom fighters like Swami Sahjanand Saraswati during British era can not be accepted by you then why the false statements of pre British period written by 'Ponga Panthis' should be accepted ?

3- How can any book remove the 'Karma' based 'Warn Wyawastha' to 'birth' based 'Jati Wyawastha' ? And how this kind of vandalism can be justified if any book (you say Manusmrity) try to change the norm of stratification in Indian society from 'Vedic books' , based on achieving norm 'Warn Wyawastha' to Jaati Wyawastha which is based on birth which is a 'ascribed norm' ? Vedic classics are our guide for Sanatan/Hindu Society and we have to follow the norms of Vedic books ? As you explain wrongly Manu smriti , it make Manu Smriti controversial . Truth is, 'ManuSmriti' never changed norm of stratificatiin from 'Karma' to 'Birth'.

As a Sociologist ( M A, Ph D in Sociology and Assistant Prifessor of Sociology since 2004 ) I know about this kind of prejudicing people, who make false statements.

Dr Abhai Kumar Rai Sociologist (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Abhai Kumar Rai Sociologist: Sir i think you misunderstood me I said why The document of raj are considered and i too deeply respect swami ji and if you do not know [vey unlikely] swami ji's book is one of the landmark books on the topic and after reading you will you will say the same . it was also given in veds but not specifically and manusmriti just made it clear . There was no vandalism in caste system when it came like in vedic time [yugs eg treta dypar etc ] or in early kaalyug . It happened in the British period . One more thing this thing was there quite before kaalyug i think from treta yug the caste system came as you will find the words kstriye bhramin etc and you can find out that changing of caste was not allowed kindly read the story of the birth of lord parshuram , this is also a prime of the existence of bhumihar bhramin as they by birth they are bhramins but by karm are kstriye , if you want proves before raj era kindly read vishnu puran you will find that lord parshuram has taught some bhramins who are no more performing the karm of daan [one of the 6 karms] . kindly read the book Kankubj vanshavali .Gaurav 3894 (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Gaurav 3894 ! I agree with you but for Mr Kashmiri, I amazed to know that he not know about the most reliable freedom fighters like 'Swami Sahjanand Saraswati' ji. Actually I want to clarify to the person who pretend to not know Swami Sahjanand Saraswati' gravity, to whom Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose all were accepted most reliable freedom fighter and notable scholar of that time of India. Actually I want to clarify the person who with conspiracy ignoring the 'Brahmanship' of 'Apratigraahi Bhumi ke Haar Brahmans'. Even till now this Brahman community is called 'Babhan' in folk language. 'Babhan' word in folk language is a word used for 'Brahman'. Even the field research, Vedic literature,Walmiki krit 'Ramayan', Bhagwat Puran, Skand Puran, Megasthnese's Indiaca, Buddhist literature, Swami Sahjanand Saraswati ji's famous book 'Brahmarshi Wansh Wistar', Hajari Prasad Dwivedi Rachnawali, BanBhatt Ki Aatmkatha, Banbhatt's Harsh Charit, Akbarnama, William C. Crooks's books, Riseleys survey reports, High Court and District Courts decisions, G S Ghurye'Caste , Class and Occupation, M N Sriniwas's 'Social Change in India and other essays, the legal acceptance by the Government of India records etc and all facts of mainstream have no doubt that Bhumi ke Haar Brahmans are the superior Brahman Caste as an 'Apratigrahi Ayachak Brahman'rather than 'Yachak groups'.

But a gang have no creative work for facts have only job to spread vandalism to spread rumours to the dignityful groups like Bhumi ke haar Brahmans.

Though Bumi ke haar Brahmans are accepted as the Arnament (haar/neckless) of the earth by people so the children of Chandals feel not good and trying to change the truth.

You are almost right. Dr Abhai Kumar Rai Sociologist (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

plz topic ban gaurav for the disruption on this Talk page - Mishra ji

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2021

The Etymology is wrong and the sources are unverified and manipulating Arnik24 (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The word 'Bhumihar' is the synonyme for the word 'Brahman'.

All Sanskrit dictionaries have the meaning of 'Bhumihar a synonime of Brahman'.

The word 'Bhumihar' is made by the synthesis of two words, Bhumi + Haar means the 'Arnament of the Earth '.

With regards.

Dr Abhai Kumar Rai Sociologist (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What is reference or citation for these lines given about the offspring of Rajput man and Brahman woman ?

There is no reference but you included this false thing.

So objectionable. Dr Abhai Kumar Rai Sociologist (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Editors kindly help

I have been researching on the credibility of this article and i not so unexpectedly found that there is only one writer who has this theory that bhumihars are not bhramains and which has been presented as a very credible and reliable source and should be trusted and when i opend it i found that the author hasn't given any references for his words so they are null and void but when i said that they were i got a reply from a user kashmiri that Wikipedia is based on quality content not someone's like and dislike which if it is true then why there is just one book reference given for it . the second reference was from the THE Hindu Castes and Sects written by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya in which he quotes that "The theory that Bhninhar Brahmans are an ofshoot of the Rajputs, involves the utterly unfounded assumption that any of the military clans could have reason to be ashamed of their caste status." and even praises them by calling them as "royal race" it is given on page 110 . [dont mind the speeling errors as it is due to scaing in archive] so again we do not find any proves of them being a hybread." Like many other castes, the Bhumihars followed the process of sanskritisation to achieve their end. The Bhumihar zamindars and princely state rulers established caste-based associations (sabhas) to form a community network and to advance their claims to Brahmin status. The Pradhan Bhumihar Brahman Sabha ("Chief Assembly of Bhumihar Brahmins") was established in Patna in 1889. Its objective was "to improve moral, social and educational reforms of the community and to represent the wants of the community to the government".[19] The Bhumihar Brahmin Mahasabha ("great assembly") was established in 1896.[20] The local Bhumihar Brahmin Sabhas included the ones at Muzaffarpur (1899), Patna (1899), Gaya (1900) and Saran (1908).[21] " this whole para is false as the citation which are given only says that bhumihar bhramins formed a sabha or council for spreading strict bhramic rules which in any way does not mean that they followed any proces of sanskritisation to achive their non existing end. if you do some research will find a renowned famous and well researched book by swami sahajanand sarawati which is a landmark book on the topic but it is only one of the thousands of books which clearly state that they are bhramins and even honorable Allahabad High Court and even gave a judgement , if you want more feel free to ask , waiting for your reply and edit. Thanks and regards Gaurav 3894 (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that "there is only one writer who has this theory"? Maproom (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ever heard of English spelling, grammar and punctuation? Sorry but your WP:WALLOFTEXT is illegible. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

dear brother Maproom i could not find any other books which say that neither in reference section nor online if you have then please be kind enough to share Gaurav 3894 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

kashmīrī ^TALK 14:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC) i feel like you have some personal issues with the topic first you did not care to read my post and comment bluntly reply and try to ban me for no reason and second you my friend tell me which source would ya consider right one which is backed by many references and citation or the one which is nowhere proven and other writers call it as utterly unfounded assumption so you only tell which one would you consider right, third i am very bad in English so does it in any way change the situation ? and by the way our brain scans things it doesn't read then so i think most most the people can understand what i am saying fourth i did three templates by mistake first was because i did not get a reply from or the other person so i thought that you all left so i did another one and the other 2 were by mistake and i am sorry and i hope you know about the topic and you have read some books Gaurav 3894 (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Mr Kashmiri ! I want to humbly say that:

I couldn't know about your real identity with actual name, surname (if any), and acadamic qualification to assert on theories.

But I think if someone not playing foul game, then the person will come with their real identity and if she/he hide their identity then certainly their is not a fair effort.

---

I saw that you are playing as a self approved dictator to show your non scientific, non objective prejudice to spread hatred among Hindu castes, based on fictitious things. And for support only these words and only these sentences from any book or any book to spreading rumours about a very dignityful jati of'Apratigrahi Ayachak Bhumi ke Haar Brahman.'

I think you are here not for searching and providing facts but with your jealousness for your comptetive caste to spread rumours .

You dictate us about false bases about being a reference book that ' the books of such era can not be accepted '.

False statements about 'Warn System' and even about 'Manu Smriti' etc.

You select books which are written by people who are from the rumour spreading gangs of the competative castes against the 'Apratigrahi/Ayachak Bhumihar Brahmans' and you provide here only the Bhumihar jealous caste's writers who are jealous to Bhumihar like you, and making gangs to spread rumours and trying to degrade the high dignity of this very nice project of 'Wikipedia'. Your selected writers are famous for jealousness against many castes and who are never accepted or never known as a neutral people.

So please maintain the dignity of Wikipedia and don't show here the actual face which make Hinduism , so weak. You mentioned about two so-called elite classes . Your this self proved so-called elite classes statement is showing that you are from one among these two non dignitiful classes which were never elite because these are dericed from 'Chandals' but your gang member 'Arun Sinha' saying them so- called elite, while reality is, 'the so called your elite classes which derived from Chandals and are from foreign origin of Malechchhas, and rest of these two lower clasees, all other hindu castes are real dignitiful classes in India, and 'Apratigrahi Ayachak Bhumi ke Haar Brahmans' are Spiritual leader of India from the starting point of the universe.

With regards. Dr Abhai Kumar Rai Sociologist (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you remove all of your writing above, because it violates the core Wikipedia policy - WP:CIVILITY. Else, you risk consequences, including being blocked from editing Wikipedia in part or in whole. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2021

kindly remove the hybrid theory and lower caste theory because there are no proves and hence are null and void and bhumihar are pure bhramain which has been written in many historical books like "bhramharshi vansh vistar" by swami shajanand sarawati and also approved by British high court 04:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Gaurav 3894 (talk)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

the following line shuld be removed as it does not have reliable source to check the statement's credibility " but some non-Bhumihars have implied that they are the mixed-race offspring of Brahmin men and Kshatriya women.[9] Other legends state that they are the offspring of a union between Rajput men and Brahmin women, or that they derive from Brahman-Buddhists who lost their high position in Hindu society. The Bhumihars themselves dislike these narratives involving "hybridity" or "fallen status", and claim to be pure Brahmins." Gaurav 3894 (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is based on quality published sources, not on someone's likes or dislikes. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

did i not give my reference if i did then how could you say that that is and if it is about that kindly tell me which time periods references and how many you want you want i can give of vedic period or colonial period or even the modern period so tell me but after i give you will also keep your word and edit it and as you said it is based on quality published sources which are supported by several texts Gaurav 3894 (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Gaurav 3894 (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) @userjonesey havent got any responces from your side

When the quality published works of W C Crook like Anthropologists, proves that this very high ranked Brahman sub caste Bhumihar is Brahman then which kind of quality published work you ask for ?

Do you agree only with the low level rumour spreading published works against a dignityful community ? If you try to spread hate against dignityful communities then you trying to defame this very nice platefarm - Wikipedia.

The acceptance of the quality published works of Walmiki Ramayan, Bhagwat Puran, Skand Puran, Anthropologist W C Crook, G S Ghurye, Irwati Karwe, M N Sriniwas, Hajari Prasad Dwivedi, Freedom Fighter Swami Sahjanand Saraswati, Rahul Sankrityayan, Prof Ram Sharan Sharma etc hundreds of famous neutral scholars who stated normally about the fact of the Brahmanhood of Bhumi ke har Brahman, have no importance for you and the agenda of rumour creation of the gangs which are from competative castes against Bhumi ke Haar Brahmans and which gangs are sponsored for negative casteist political published work have very much attraction to you also then it is not a healthy atmosphere to develop this platform for objective articles and it is affecting the dignity of Wikipedia also.

The word 'Bhumihar' is the synonyme for the word 'Brahman'.

All Sanskrit dictionaries have the meaning of 'Bhumihar a synonime of Brahman'.

Even in field research, people call the caste Bhumihar by the name of 'Babhan' from the ancient ages, while the word 'Babhan' is the folk word used for the Sanskrit word 'Brahman'.

All things are for no debate because Bhumihar Brahmans are naturally the Brahmans of 'Apratigrahi/Ayachak branch'. According to Walmiki Ramayan and Bhagwat Mahapuran (see in the both books , the matter related to Vashishth, when Dewata's went to request him to become the priest of Raghukul) there are two streams of Brahmans : 1- Apratigrahi (Ayachak) who refuse to take alms/Daan , 2- Pratigrahi (Yachak) who find their livelihood from Alms/Daan.

Bhumi ke Haar Brahmans are of the first and superior category so the adjective 'Bhumi ke Haar means the Arnament of the Earth' was sanctioned for this group of highier Brahmans to revering their highest dignity.

There in all Vedic texts the second stream of 'Pratigrahi/Yachak group' treated as worst and degraded as non Brahman.

So you should not collect the sponsored published work for politically spreading of baseless rumours against any caste.

So as you have many more evidences that 'Bhumi ke Haar Brahmans' are the superior subcaste of the Brahman word so you should delete the false things like so called Rajput/ Brahman theory or so called Brahman / Rajput theory or the low caste theory.

If you have not any agenda against the dignityful castes,then you should contain only facts but not false things pruduced by sponsored publications of negative castiest politics.

With regards. Dr Abhai Kumar Rai Sociologist (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

No Sanskrit dictionary contains the word bhumihar, because that word was came to existence only in the 19th century. I suggest you stop accusing others and instead look at your own competence. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Add this fact

The term babhan occured many times in the edicts of ashoka in reference of Brahmins, which is published on the journal of Asiatic society of Bengal ,after that British government officially recognised them as bhumihar Brahmins in the census of 1911.I am surprised to know that this important fact is not mentioned in this article.I want to call you that this should be added. Sukrsh (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Please can you provide citation and quote for a post 1947 WP:RS for this?LukeEmily (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

chanda, Ramaprasad(1916),the Indo-Aryan race, published by varendra research society,page no.165-167.i want that you read the information given in this book related to edicts of ashoka.please not relate it to raj era source. Sukrsh (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Bhumihar

Bhai kindly add nepal in list bcoz 1lakh bhumihars live in Nepal specially in saptari mahotari morang sarlahi siraha district ..and kindly mention the history of fateh bahadur shahi from hhussepur and siya ram singh form bhagalpur who lead a massive gurilla war against British and made parallel government from north bhagalpur to dist of nepal terai..also sent fine recruits for azad dasta of JP..a bhumhar wrestler from khagaria parth barhmcharijee supported him with training and arms.. Chakwar89 (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, these legends of real history of Bhumi ke Haar Brahmans should be added but few casteist polotical paid people are making vandalism here at the dignityful platefarm of Wikipedia .

Kindly add these reality based information given by Chakwar 89. Dr Abhai Kumar Rai Sociologist (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Genetic Paper on Bhumihar Brahmins

It is a paper I found which shows that Bhumihar Genetic DNA resemblance is more close to Brahmins than Rajputs. Hope it helps on something.

Bhumihar word is synonymous of the word Brahman.

The meaning of Bhumihar is actually in Sanskrit is 'the arnament of the earth. As the Brahman is the arnament of the earth so the adjective for the superior Brahman is the name Bhumihar Brahman. Dr Abhai Kumar Rai Sociologist (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, genetics is not considered in wikipedia caste articles. For other points you mentioned, please provide WP:RS (not related to genetics), so they can be added to the article. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: why ? are they official ? Gaurav 3894 (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

References

References

1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44158695 Deep Singh Parashar (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Appearance and Characteristics of Bhumihars according to The British

British Indologist M.A. Sherring noted the appearance and character of Bhumihars in his works . Deep Singh Parashar (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. However, genetics and related topics such as physical appearance, skin complexion, etc are discouraged on caste pages. Second, pre-Independence sources are not considered reliable.LukeEmily (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2021 (2)

Change "Some of the early censuses of British India categorised Bhumihars of Bihar as Shudras, the lowest of the four varnas" to "Some of the early censuses of British India categorised Bhumihars of Bihar as Shudras, the lowest of the four varnas . Because unlike the Brahmans or Rajputs , Bhumihars didn't rebel during the 1857 rebellion and thus, in the ad-hoc census of 1865 Bhumihars were placed in the third category and then again in the regular census of 1881 ." . Deep Singh Parashar (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The reason for Bhumihars being placed in the third category in the census wasn't mentioned . Deep Singh Parashar (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Why hasn't my edit request been accepted . I have given proper citation and wrote in the form of Change "X" to "Y" . Deep Singh Parashar (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I added this information (with edits) right underneath the block quote in the Varna status section. The third-category status detail is not cohesive with the information about Shudras (fourth/lowest-category status), and it would have disrupted the flow of the text to place the new information there.

Thanks for your patience. The backlog is currently high, and it takes time to review the requests. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

They were never classified as shudra by the britishers. Gangu12 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2022

Bhumihars also called Babusheb in some parts of Bihar and U.P Alphatrivedi (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Please grant me to edit Alphatrivedi (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Hemantha (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2022

This is the sub cast of brahmin. 2405:201:A404:5078:292C:9A85:2565:CF41 (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Bhumihar is a sub caste of brahmin.

Your information about bhumihar is not perfect. Bhumihar is not claiming but actually a sub caste of brahmin. Source- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Brahmin_communities_of_Bihar 2405:201:A404:5078:CD1:988B:3950:9F (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2022

Bhumihar is a Brahmin community in India. 2405:201:A404:5078:980D:ADCE:380A:A2D4 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding other name of bhoomihar

In some region of bihar bhoomihar is also called Babushaeb Alphatrivedi (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Muslim Bhumihar?

Does anyone have any information about Muslim Bhumihar community? That article does not cite any sources and I did not find any reliable sources either. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

==Highly biased article. a lot of negative things just highlighted but nowhere mention Bhumihar controlled the majority of land in Bihar so anybody tells that from where that lands came from if they are the lowest caste in caste system?http://www.ihdindia.org/rpb/pdf/study/Chapter-6.pdf .for someplace(this article) it is written lowest caste in the caste system and from this article https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/bihar-elections-caste-obc-mandal-6929329/ they became a highest landowning caste. and a lot of things just cited Arun Sinha.I think this article was written by either lower caste or some brahmin.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

Please Remove "Other legends state that they are the offspring of a union between Rajput men and Brahmin women". Please Remove "Other legends state that they are the offspring of a union between Rajput men and Brahmin women". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riteshroshan7 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Reason: No citation provided.

 Not done: It's in source 8. Cannolis (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

About political parties

I made a change recently to the page. I think someone had included "personal opinion" about the membership of two political parties as the source do not actually says that. It goes like this:

Realizing the importance of the Bhumihars in electoral arithmetic and organizing political power in the face of increasing Maoist insurgency, the Rashtriya Janata Dal and Janata Dal (United) and Lokjanshakti party also started wooing Bhumihar leaders. This has led to the emergence of Akhilesh Singh (RJD) and Arun Kumar (Samata Dal) from the so-called 'Jehanabad lobby' as important Bhumihar leaders in the state.

Admantine123 (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Varna status of Bhumihar community in 1865 Census

Bhumihars were classified variously as both Brahmins and Kshatriya in United Provinces in the census of 1865 .

"Bhumihar community too, the populations in Gorakhpur and Banaras provinces are placed in Brahmin Varna while those in Azamgarh and Mirzapur provinces are placed in Kshatriya Varna"

Ref - http://gana.santhagara8.tripod.com/8.2-indian-censuses-and-lineage-of-bhumihar-and-malla-sainthwar.html Deep Singh Parashar (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

About caste history

Please remove the line that some people claim that they are mix off rajput and bhramin women. Because according to kanyakumbj bhramin vansavali of 1524 bhumihar bhramin are part of kanyakumbj bhramin 45.250.212.246 (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You need to provide published sources in support of your claim. Read how to do it here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia has any proof that bhumihar is mix off rajput and Brahmin, Bihari9871 (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Some people hate bhumihar community strongly hence they always try to decrease it's social status Bihari9871 (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2022

{{subst:trim|1=

Thakur surname is also common So is chudhary and ओझा/ jha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4050:dba:c2dc::1289:7100 (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜  melecie  talk - 10:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Origin Section

Please Create a seperate origin section of this article to describe the origin part. It would be helpful for the readers to read, Thanks. কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

How can you add comment of non bhumihars?

Don't add comment of non bhumihars . They are bias. 106.77.180.180 (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

How could Jogendra Nath Bhatacharya,a Brahmin himself be proved despite evidences supporting Brahmin origin of bhumihars?

How could Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya be proved despite evidences favouring Brahmin origin of Bhumihars ? 2401:4900:1207:E9EB:1:1:AABE:6E90 (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

How many Brahmins have actually remained priests ?

How many recognised Brahmins do priestly functions now ? 2401:4900:1207:E9EB:1:1:AABE:6E90 (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2022

In the Census of 1911, the Bhumihars were enumerated with Brahmins in U.P. But in Bihar, Edward Gait, the Census Superintendent did not agree with this.

Please add this infomation Sigmaron (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:RAJ.LukeEmily (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi,@LukeEmily this source is from 1995 I guess. Sigmaron (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sigmaron, Edward Albert Gait, a Raj era adminstrator (not a scholar, anthropologist, political scientist or historian, or a Brahmin scholar having background of the caste system or involved in a debate). There are plenty of better opinions on the community by scholars.LukeEmily (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok lukeEmily, thanks for your efforts. BTW in Bengali Kayastha article the opinions of Rabindranath Tagore and Hutton are there, Hutton was also a British Administrator and Tagore was also not a Historian. I hope you will handle that matter also, Thanks. Sigmaron (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Please can you start discussion on the respective page so Hutton as can be removed if he has no training for caste opinions? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Colonestarrice (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Very biased article

Refer to these lines - Unlike the Brahmans or Rajputs, the Bhumihars did not participate in the rebellion against British rule in India in 1857, and to their dismay, they were consequently placed in the third-lowest varna in the ad-hoc census of 1865 and the regular census of 1881

Now read the referenced article - Bhumihars of Bihar and U.P. did not participate in the common front of Brahmins and Rajputs in 1857....A furore was created in the minds of Bhumihars, as they were placed third in the ad-hoc census of 1865 ....regular census of 1881.

The above example of how a well written historical essay has been distorted by unscrupulous elements to score thier political and social vendetta.

I personally met the writer Sh Purushottam Kumar at his house in Doranda Ranchi while he was still a Professor of History at Ranchi University. He would would weep at seeing how his own article has been misused to score against his caste. 2405:201:4038:4884:50E:D880:359:B4C0 (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Only the first paragraph of his essay has been Used in drawing a very unfair and incorrect conclusion. There seems to be an ulterior motive to defame a community and malign it's contributions in shaping nations progress. Shantanu-genuine (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you call not being a brahmin, defamation? Get a life. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Calling third as third lowest definitely signals malicious motives and definitely is not a true representation of history. Atleast get a honest and truthful life. Shantanu-genuine (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Let Wiki be a platform to upload facts. Not a battleground for your targeted propaganda and malicious campaign. Shantanu-genuine (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Current Status

Bhumihars faced significant deterioration after zamindari abolition in not only social & political areas but also financials. Their source of income (agriculture) showed significant deterioration there after. Their in-fighting, rising corruption in state machineries and ceiling cases made big dent and made them marginal farmers or even land less in many cases. For the reasons like reservation & corruption in government jobs, deteriorating education standard along with sinking opportunities of employment around their native areas from Bihar and Eastern UP forced them to migrate for education as well as jobs, like land less labourers. Since early 21st century their presence in manual labour force kept on rising. For the seck of social status they could not do few jobs which were not commensurating to their caste image, and hence, they migrated and adopted them as well. The rest characteristics of Bihari labour like quick learner, laborious worker and others appeared with them as well. This community broke many social stigma and most prominent of them encouraging daughters for higher education and taking up jobs at far places even. The community has good mix of brains and militancy. They firmly believe that the education to their children can only uplift their status, hence, they even don't mind selling their land for the children education, which has been their bread earner. Today large number of their youths are trying for Army and Administration jobs. Even though the software industries are far from their native places but they have let their presence felt even there. Ranjanps57 (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2023

There is a lot of mistakes, I know very well about Bhumihars... please let me edit it so that world gets to know right about them not manipulated stuff thank you Dhroov15 (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Cannolis (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

Bhumihar babaar (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

bhumihar is the upper caste

 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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2023 (2)

Bhumihar babaar (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

miss information is there about bhumihar caste

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2023

Spelling of blocks is written blocs which is wrong. Please correct it. TheProEditor11 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please see Political bloc. M.Bitton (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Bhumihar not bhabhan

What is the source you have they comes under

bhabhan 103.158.239.10 (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC) Bhumihar is a term of recent origin indicating landholding state of this community and used as a synonym of zamindar term prior to which this caste was known as Babhan, Magahi brahman and Francis bucchanan and Robert mountgomery martin in 1811 and 1838 mentioned this caste as magahi brahman and military brahmans. They also stated that Bhumihar and zamindar are equivalent terms meaning involved in management of land. refere following [1] Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste ... : Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/hinducastesands00bhatgoog/page/n132) [2,a] The Tribes And Castes Of Bengal: Ethnographic Glossary, Volume 1 By Risley, Herbert Hope, Sir, The Tribes And Castes Of Bengal: Ethnographic Glossary, Volume 1 : Risley, Herbert Hope, Sir, 1851-1911 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/TheTribesAndCastesOfBengal/page/n139) [2,b] Census Of India 1901 Vol.1 (india ) (ethnographic Appendices) By Risley, Herbert Hope, Sir, Census Of India 1901 Vol.1 (india ) (ethnographic Appendices) : Risley, H.h. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.55922/page/n199) [3]Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch Peasants and Monks in British India (https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.id=ch3&toc.depth=1&brand=ucpress&anchor.id=d0e4900#X) [4] Indo-Aryan races: a study of the origin of Indo-Aryan people and institutions : Chanda, Ramaprasad Indo-Aryan races: a study of the origin of Indo-Aryan people and institutions : Chanda, Ramaprasad : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/Indo-aryanRacesAStudyOfTheOriginOfIndo-aryanPeopleAndInstitutions/page/n173) [5] Hindu Tribes and castes Hindu Tribes And Castes Vol 1 : Sherring : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.469749/page/n63) [6,a] Census of india 1901, Census of India, 1901 : India. Census Commissioner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/cu31924071145571/page/n405) [6,b] East India (Census) [microform] : General report of the census of India, 1901 ( https://archive.org/details/pts_eastindiacensusg_3720-1115/page/n513)

[7] Refer Census of India from 1872 -1881–1891–1901–1911–1921–1931–1941. These census and ethnographic study by Indian and British historians and officers clearly tells about all the castes in India. [8]Census of India 1931 (Census Of India 1931 Vol.7 Bihar And Orissa Pt.1 Report : Lacey, W.g. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive) [9]. Statistical Account Of Bengal Vol.12 : Hunter, W.w. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.534069/page/n197) [10]. A Statistical Account Of Bengal Vol.xiii : W.w.hunter : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.279433/page/n237?q=babhan) [11]. Report of a tour in Bihar and Bengal in 1879-80. Vol. 15 : Cunningham, Alexander : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/pli.kerala.rare.12155/page/n121) [12]. A Manual of the Land Revenue Systems and Land Tenures of British India : Baden Henry Baden -Powell : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/amanuallandreve01powgoog/page/n247) [13]. Report On The Census Of Bengal(1872) : Beverley, H. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.94529/page/n217) [14]. Bengal District Gazetteers Sahabad : O’malley L. S. S. : Fre (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206888/page/n59)e Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive [15]. Bengal District Gazetteers Darbhanga : O’malley L. S.s. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206867/page/n55) [16] Caste And Race In India by G.s. ghurye (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.78637/page/n119)

[17] Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.281614/page/n67)

[18] Ethnography by   Baines, Athelstane, Sir

(https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.31432/page/n35)

[19] The Tribes And Castes Of The North-Western Provinces And Oudh, Vol. 2 (https://archive.org/details/tribescastesofno02wcro/page/64)

[20] Warren Hastings And Oudh by Davies, Cuthbert Collin (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.49887/page/n135) I will publish more in later time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.119.172 (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

Under history - varna status, replace ---- Unlike the Brahmans or Rajputs, the Bhumihars did not participate in the rebellion against British rule in India in 1857, and to their dismay, they were consequently placed in the third-lowest varna in the ad-hoc census of 1865 and the regular census of 1881

With

Unlike the Brahmans or Rajputs, the Bhumihars did not participate in the rebellion against British rule in India in 1857, and to their dismay, they were consequently placed in the third-highest varna in the ad-hoc census of 1865 and the regular census of 1881 Shantanu-genuine (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Shantanu-genuine: "Second-lowest" sounds less confusing to me, but I'm not sure whether the four-varna system applied in these censuses? small jars tc 17:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The referenced article says third. So keep it third. There are lots of castes and censuses are not limited to the 4 varnas. Shantanu-genuine (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• The cited source says "third". It doesn't specify whether third from top or bottom, but the natural way to read it, in my opinion, is third from the top, i.e. third highest, not third lowest. Also, both the contributors to the discussion above evidently read it that way. I have therefore substituted "highest" for "lowest", as suggested by Shantanu-genuine. I have no personal preference between "third highest" and "second lowest". In the absence of any strong reason to do otherwise it seems to me reasonable to stick to "third" as that is what the cited source says, but if anyone does have a strong reason for preferring it the other way, obviously they can explain that reason. JBW (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Why has third been replaced by third-varna and hyperlinked to Vaishya wiki page. Someone is adamant to destroy the correctness of this page to suit their political agenda. Shantanu-genuine (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Sub-castes of Bhumihar

What is Dugamia Bhumihar? Gikku1 (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

No British era census classifying Bhumihars as Shudras

This article references a book by Jeffrey Witsoe titled " Democracy against Development " and says, Bhumihars were classified as Shudras in an early British Census. This claim is unfounded. In the referenced book, Jeffrey Witsoe has nowhere mentioned the exact census year and just vaguely stated that Bhumihars were classified as Shudras by the British.

I've gone through every census conducted during the British era (Primary sources) and not a single one of them ever mentions Bhumihars classified in the Shudra Varna. All the British era censuses have inconsistently grouped Bhumihars with either Brahmins or Kshatriyas. None of them ever clubbed them in the Shudra varna. I can cite every census report with exact page number. Waiting for a reply by current editors of this page. I will cite each and every British era census with page number where Bhumihars have been classified.

I will present the proofs after a reply by the current editors managing this page.

I request the removal of unverified content after a healthy discussion. Reply, and I will present detailed primary source references instead of vague tertiary sources like that of Jeffrey Witsoe's book. The best way for verifying the claim would be to check the very source upon which the claim is based on.

Konstantin 1789 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Likewise Buddy, I have gone through every census report of British raj, nowhere bhumihars were classified as shudras. IN EASTERN Uttar Pradesh, bhumihars were classified as brahmins and kshtriyas[ united provinces] and Bihar [ Bengal province] , Bhumihars were classified as brahmins, kshtriyas and vaishaya. SOME people has some sort of vendetta against us to tarnish our image. I mean look at the Wikipedia content of bhumihars, the origin story, our varna status etc , is just pure farce, cause bhumihar is not a caste , it just a clan of brahmin warriors and kings. There is no logic , for example, how can someone classify rulers of varanasi as shudra, i mean every caste , upper or lower used to work under kashi naresh. GRAI777 (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have compiled all the mentions of Bhumihars in every British census case classifications. All I need is a reply from the current editors and I will present it. Jeffrey Witsoe's book is a secondary source that doesn't even mention the census year. We have thoroughly gone through the very primary sources Jeffrey Witsoe is citing, there's absolutely zero backing to the Shudra claim.

If the same censuses that Jeffrey Witsoe's book cites contain information contradicting exactly what HE claims those censuses contain, then the Shudra part must be removed immediately. It violates the Wikipedia neutrality clause.

Also, Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya's work is only partially mentioned, only half of what he said is mentioned and the other half is very CLEVERLY omitted. Waiting for reply by the current editors. I will bring forth every British census report and it's totally an open and shut case after that. Konstantin 1789 (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I also feel that this article has been distorted with some malafide intention. Either vague/unknown references have been picked up or willfully wrong conclusions have been derived from citations. For eg, the cited article mentioned third, but page here writes it as third-lowest. It's high time Wikipedia editors accept edit requests in an impartial and unprejudiced manner. Shantanu-genuine (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the article is deliberately written with a malicious bent. It's obvious that some Biharis are extremely casteist and they are targeting this caste for some reason. India has a very serious caste problem and the Wikipedia community should be watchful about it. I encourage you two to engage in constructive, scholarly debates and edits. Edit away and discuss. --Trickipaedia (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia was meant to let others know and acknowledge about something which they don't know about... this article looks more like demeaning bhumihars and it is so far away from reality.. seems like the editor of this page has done a mistake or he might have some personal enmity with bhumihars.. something should be done immediately, such malicious article about anyone is wrong 49.204.16.20 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Please follow WP:NPOV and WP:RS while editing. Nobody is stopping you once you are autoconfirmed.--Trickipaedia (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously biased article with a large coat rack

This article in its present form seems obviously biased to have a long and unnecessary WP:COATRACK about varna status and malicious themes like "hybridity", "Shudra", "fallen" and "collusion with the British". Please collaborate to make this page encyclopaedic and not be guided by caste bias or hatred. I hope there is scholarly, unbiased collaboration, not requiring Admins noticeboard etc. I think there is a pattern of caste glorification and vilification on the Wikipedia and editors should be wary of both.--Trickipaedia (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• KUMAR, PURUSHOTTAM. “BHUMIHARS STRUGGLE FOR BRAHMIN STATUS (1857-1911).” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 56, Indian History Congress, 1995, pp. 739–41, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44158695

The cited source from Indian History Congress, which is considered reliable, clearly mentions this. Yet, you removed the stuff regarding their participation in 1857 Indian Rebellion here [1].

Bhumihars of Bihar and U.P. did not participate in the common front of Brahmins and Rajputs in 1857. Maharajas of Benaras. Hathua and Bettiah rendered signal service to the British during 1857. On the other hand the Britishers believed that 1857 was the mechinations of Brahmins and Rajputs in Bihar and U.P. Maharani Victoria's declaration on 1st November, 1858, obliquely accepted the Caste hierarchy of Hindu Society. The result was the acceptance of Brahmin superiority and Kunwar Singh's Rajput caste as second in caste category. A furore was created in the minds of Bhumihars, as they were placed third in the ad-hoc census of 1865 in U.P. and Bihar. The Regular Census began in 1881. The Bhumihars were greatly shocked and felt humiliated. finding themselves in the third position in the Regular Census.

-Admantine123 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Second mistake from your side is putting K.S Singh here.[2] This author is not considered reliable and community has rejected it long ago. Recently there was addition of work of this writer on another article too, and the relevant discussion can be found here. Talk: Rajput#K.S Singh as a source- Admantine123 (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Kumar, Ashwani (2008). Community Warriors: State, Peasants and Caste Armies in Bihar. Anthem Press. pp. 125–127. ISBN 978-1-84331-709-8.

Third, you have removed this [3]. It was sourced from Ashwani Kumar. The reason do not seems genuine. -Admantine123 (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, what i can see that the stuff you removed, was added here by Sitush [4]. He is well versed in caste related matters. The ground for its removal by you was not accurate. Tagging Fylindfotberserk, Kashmiri and Ekdalian here for this specific edit. That's all from my side, i am pulling myself back from this. Have to do a lot of work. The interested editors will decide the way forward on the basis of mistakes mentioned by me above. -Admantine123 (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Tagging them for what? You think they are all just as impassioned about this? One of them had a Sanskrit dictionary to create a folk etymology. Remember WP:NOR—no original research. I can cite an academic source, giving a different etymology instead. I do not see why this caste group should be called "land seizer" based on Monier-Williams dictionary. It means landholder. The current version of the Wikipedia article itself mentions that this is a late nineteenth century word adopted by landlord Babhans to indicate their landholder status. You think they consulted Monier-Williams Dictionary of Sanskrit to come up with the cool name of "land seizer"? There is a caste called Kahar and one called Lohar. Are they work seizer and iron seizer, respectively? Keep the article unbiased, neutral and encyclopaedic, please. --Trickipaedia (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I see that one Wikipedian considers Dr KS Singh as unreliable and the other reliable. Sitush finds his Oxford University Press reliable and Popular Press work unreliable; I cited Oxford. Also, a mere debate on Rajput vs Rajputra does not mean that Dr KS Singh can never ever be cited. I did not mention anything he said that is not used by historians like Kim A. Wagner. So, I do not see a debate here. --Trickipaedia (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Really? We should have "hybridity" narratives in an encyclopaedia? Can you name other castes which have this word or this "narrative" on their page? This page is the only caste page with other malicious words like Shudra all over. All the castes officially and socially seen as Shudra castes do not have this word and instead they are described as Kshatriya, Maurya etc but a caste which is officially known as "Bhumihar Brahman" and described as agricultural Brahmins or Zamindar Brahmins by historians—modern and colonial— should have deliberate Shudra narratives pushed, quoting such eminent sources as the world-renowned casteism activist Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya. He is no academic and is not a reliable source and is merely a casteism activist. Therefore, his citations should be deprecated here.--Trickipaedia (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I cited a better source (a modern, non-Indian historian published in Cambridge University Press) claiming the opposite. Remember that modern researchers have access to a lot more material than they used to in the past. Consider the fact that you as a non-historian can access pretty much anything right now.--Trickipaedia (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

woah, purushottam kumar is himself a Bhumihar and he would weep his heart out seeing his article being used to score against his own caste.

Firstly, genius editors here need to understand how brahminism works i.e. to be a priestly brahmins, you need to live certain style of lifestyle, perform certain rituals daily, for example yagnas etc. They can't participate in wars, they can't have greed for property and kingship, otherwise they would loose their priestly status. Britishers have divided these kind of brahmins and warrior brahmins I.e. bhumihars. Bhumihar word came in 1865 , before that we were referred as military brahmins, warrior brahmins of babhan. IN no British raj Era census, bhumihars were labeled as shudras. Bhumihars were aghast that they were divided into brahmins, kshtriyas and vaishyas. Kashi naresh was not pleased bhumihars were placed alongside priestly brahmins and rajputs. So, according to purushottam kumar, bhumihars are fighting for ayachak brahmins status , not priestly brahmins status. Swami sahajanand have extensively discussed on ayachak brahmins.

Secondly,regarding 1857 war, only bhumihar princely estates didn't participate , but bengal regiment which was made up of bhumihars and rajputs [ not priestly brahmins] had huge role . INFACT, Bhumihars from Bengal regiment planned the whole 1857 event, that's why they were kicked out of the regiment while the rajputs were still hired. GRAI777 (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey Trickipaedia, your edits seem to be problematic; I agree with Admantine123! You must be aware of the discretionary sanctions on such caste articles. I would urge you to discuss & sort it out with Admantine123 here; if required, I shall also participate in the discussions. Moreover, Admantine123 has pinged other editors, let's wait for their opinion in case they choose to participate in the ongoing discussions. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your view that my edits were "problematic" because you did not mention why citing modern historians like Kim A. Wagner is problematic or exactly what part of my edits is problematic. I encourage you to participate in the discussions there instead of bringing up "sanctions" unnecessarily. How can normal editing be immediately sanctioned? Please participate in the discussions on this talk page and mention every single thing that you find problematic and things that you do not have a problem with. Merely reverting will not suffice.--Trickipaedia (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I have clearly mentioned that I agree with Admantine123, which means I agree with the points raised by them; that's the reason I have urged you to sort it out with them since they have already explained their objections. I mentioned about the contentious topics / discretionary sanctions just in order to remind all of us to be extremely careful. For example, you have removed some reliably sourced content, which is not acceptable! I shall definitely participate when I feel it's appropriate! For now, Admantine123 seems to be on the right track and I don't find any reason to repeat the same issues already mentioned above. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I am engaged in a fruitful discussion with him. While overstressing Raj era sources, he is conspicuously silent on the modern historian Kim A. Wagner. Is he a reliable source? In my opinion, emphatically yes.--Trickipaedia (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Trickipaedia, please provide the page numbers and quotes from Wagner, so that we can add relevant content from this source. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Ekdalian, it's more than 24 hours, and still Trickipaedia hasn't provided relevant quote from Wagner, which counters Purushottam Kumar on Bhumihars participation in 1857 revolution. Even if he counters Kumar, we can write views of both. The paragraph may contain views of Kumar that they offered signal service to Britishers as well as views of Wagner, who counters it. For another editor who commented here recently, i would say, please see WP:OR. We don't need original research of yours telling what they are demanding or what bhumihar community thinks. If you have modern source saying the same, present it here. Also, I never stressed on Raj era sources or the work of Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya. Purushottam Kumar is a modern and reliable scholarly source.- Admantine123 (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

make another content in the Bhumihar page namely "Kingdoms and chieftaincies founded by Bhumihars in Bihar"

there are more than 10 well known princely states owned by Bhumihars in Bihar & east Uttar Pradesh.... I can name them all along with the relevant sources needed..... please edit & make another section regarding this thank you 49.204.18.169 (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

'Bold text'

Ai-vimessenger (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya a reliable source?

His page says that he was a 19th century casteism promoter and Brahminism activist at loggerheads with social reformers who wanted to do away with casteism. Is he a reliable source? He is not, according to the principles laid out in WP:RS. Therefore, I propose removing his citations and instead focus on neutral, academic sources.--Trickipaedia (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. Moreover, Raj era source is not supposed to be cited here! You may remove such content. Ekdalian (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This page is totally absurd and looks like Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya has no knowledge of Bhumihar Brahmins at all. This page should be removed ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:937F:4560:553B:4367:E976:AA85 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

Rakesh Kumar Vats (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Where's your proposed change? Please state clearly the desired changes in proper format. Ekdalian (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

2409:408A:1185:800B:395D:757C:B833:DB42 (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Brahman who got land during ancient time they called today as Bhumihar Brahmin . During ancient time Bhumihar Brahmin also known as Magadhi Babhan (Babhan) . According to many source like Buddhist text , Ashoka stupa we got to know about Bhumihar Brahmin . Battle of Madarpura mentioned in an Authentic text Kanyakubj Vaishali where got sources of Bhumihar Brahmins who Fought Bravely . Shunga and Kanava dynasty Brahmins was the ancestor of Bhumihar Brahmin

It is not clear what exactly you would like to change! Moreover, the text mentioned above is unsourced, (read WP:RS, WP:V) and such original research (WP:OR) hardly makes sense! Ekdalian (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Minor Change in The Article

I would like to Request the editors to Transfer the 1st para of the "History" ( From - As with many castes in India, To - claim to be pure Brahmins.[9] ) into 'varna' since it's more of a debate about Varna rather than 100% reliable Point from History. Aditya Prakash-080 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: that sentence introduces the reader to their origin (be it claimed or real). Their status is discussed in details in its own subsection. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2023

Sir, the admin of this page has not proper knowledge about BHUMIHAR caste. Bhumihar caste is originated from Brahmin. About thousands years ago, Some Brahmin family left their professionnal jobs of priest and Pandas and started agriculture work, they were known as BHUMIHAR. Bhumihar are pure Brahmin. The story of hybrids and originated from bhuiyan are fully false. it is created by the admin to defame the bhumihar caste. the admin holder of this page are anti-bhumihar. In the society, every Hindu pays proper respect to Bhumihar as like as a Brahmin.In most of the temple there are bhumihar priest. the first priest of Kashi Vishwanath temple was also a bhumihar. Presently, Whole Hindu religion are being controlled from Kashi ( Beneras) by Kashi naresh Anant Narayan Singh at Ramnagar fort a Bhumihar king provided with guard of honour by state. Rakesh Kumar vats (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC) . If you may not delete wrong facts about BHUMIHAR caste then bhumihar union will take legal steps against Wikipedia and the Admin I'd holders of this page who has posted false and abusing words as hybrids about BHUMIHAR caste. The Admin who is frequently posting fake story about BHUMIHAR is a real bastard. It seems that Wikipedia is being runned by some bastard. Bhumihar are pure Brahmins. The Admin of this page,if belongs from India are the illegal son of any Bhumihar so he is frequently posting hate story about BHUMIHAR. We will forbid and educate our people not to use Wikipedia through all the social platforms. Wikipedia is one of the worst platform to know about anything. Boycott Wikipedia. Wikipedia hy hy. RIP to all the Admin holders of this page who has posted wrong facts and abusing words about BHUMIHAR.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Additionally, you are warned against making personal attacks and legal threats against Wikipedia editors and the Foundation. Liu1126 (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If you will be able to remove these wrong and defaming things about BHUMIHAR as hybrids, bhuinhar and mixbreed words. Bhumihar are pure Brahmins. Bhumihars are always called as BHUMIHAR only.The difference between Brahmin and Bhumihars are as. Brahmin does priest work and Bhumihars does Agriculture and military services. Bhumihars are the rulers and King of Bihar, Jharkhand, Purvanchal and Kashi till independence of India since thousands years ago. Whole Bhumihar community of India will be thankful to Wikipedia 🙏🙏 Rakesh Kumar vats (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Rakesh Kumar Vats, First educate yourself what Wikipedia is and how it's edited. No point discussing with uneducated people. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)