Talk:Bihari Rajputs

Notability

Does the statewise population of a caste really matter. Does the article qualify on the scale of Notability. Please discuss, otherwise we need to accommodate 30+ more articles like Rajasthani Rajput, UP Rajput, Haryana Rajput, Punjabi Rajput, ................etc. .--MahenSingha (Talk) 19:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles already exist on Punjabi Rajputs ,Rajputs of Gujarat and Sindhi Rajputs. I don't see you looking into the notability of these articles and yet you are hounding this article as of you have some sort of vested interest. Many statewise breakdowns of certain castes exist on this website so I don't understand the problem here. I would also like you to remove the notability banner at the top of the page unless you plan to add it to the other pages that I have mentioned. I will look to see what other more experienced members like Sitush have to say as well.10:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

All the groups mentioned above are different by origin and culture and even their subdivisions are different. However, The Bihari Rajputs are not so, even the sources mentioned in the article indicate the same. The tags might have been put on those articles and must have been removed by consensus and agreements or may be the case that none of the editor think it reasonable to tag them. You can't simply remove the tag without obtaining consensus. Your act amounts to igniting the Edit war. Secondly, on what basis you blamed me of having some vested interest. I may take it forward as a Personal attack. However, I suggest you just put the tag back. Tagging is a normal process. Let the point be discussed. Removing the tag does not save the article. It has to pass through the stages of verification to reside permanently on wikipedia. Just removing the tag without consensus goes against interest of the article.--MahenSingha (Talk) 16:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you please point out where any of the sources mentioned say that Bihari Rajputs have similar sub-divisions to other Rajputs? And what do you mean by different culture and sub-divisions? That is an entirely subjective viewpoint and you haven't expanded on it at all. There are clans in Bihar that do don exist in any other regions of India. If you are basing this on Ujjaniya Rajputs claiming origin in Rajasthan then that is based on a dodgy oral reconstruction and can therefore not be taken literally. Perhaps I should edit that in. Likewise culturally Bihari Rajputs are different and have historically been reffered to as "Purbia" Rajputs". Even my sources mention the Purbia Rajputs in a separate vein to other Rajputs who were referred to as Desi Rajputs. I have consulted an actual Wiki moderator who told me that if a notability tag is considered fit for Bihari Rajputs then it should also apply to Punjabi, Sindhi and Gujarati Rajputs. Anyway I would like to expand on your reasons for ignoring those articles and choosing this one. I will not put the notability tag on until I hear a proper reason and an explanation as to how Bihari Rajputs do not have a distinct culture.8:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The contents presently are simply mess. Adding up the themes like Parmar Rajputs, who are already a separate article on wikipedia. Ujjainiya', the term itself is controversial because 'Ujjain' is located in Central India (presently Madhya Pradesh, which is not Bihar. You are adding up the sources indicating that they fought and defeated by Yavanas at Buksar, which is situated in Uttar Pradesh. What do you actually want to express. Talking about legends then all the Indian communities have the stories unbelievable. No one here is the son of Son, moon or fire. All fake stories. The articles on wikipedia follow the policy of WP:NPOV. An article on wikipedia has to be totally neutral including both the positive and negative aspects. It is not for advertising the caste glories. Include all the aspects. fine. frequent reverting gives you no gain because over a range of editors, all have resources to do so.--MahenSingha (Talk) 19:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You also desired to add Bhumihar, they are neither Rajput nor Brahmin. Their status is controversial historically. Please don't do the undesirable.--MahenSingha (Talk) 19:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually didn't come across the inclusion of Yavanas and even thanked you editing it on so how am I not neutral? Most of the references add up, it's only you that seems to have taken an issue with it. I would also like to know why you reverted my inclusion of the term Purbia? The source mentioned as such but you undid it without even specifying a reason. Buxar as it is currently called is in modern day Bihar. Could you also please be more specific as to what you are talking about when you talk about stories. Finally you have still failed to answer how Bihari Rajputs differ from there Punjabi, Gujarati and Sindhi counterparts in having a unique identity in the region? Also why did you remove Thakuria and Khanzada from the related groups? They are clearly just Muslim Rajputs as well. By the way I am unfamiliar with the full citation and page needed feature. If you could help me with those it would be much appreciated.19:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

See Baksar, a city on the banks of Ganges, It is in Uttar Pradesh. The term Purbia is not exclusively applied to Bihari, It includes Eastern Uttar Pradesh as well. Legends and stories do not form the historical evidences. Sindh, Guarat and Punjab are existing even from ancient times and as you yourself said that Bihar was not existing at ancient times, so it is certainly different. Adding Bhumihar, Khanzada etc. anything support your addition with reliable sources and sources should mention them exclusively as "Bihari Rajput", because anything popping out from the scope of Bihari goes to the scope of Main article Rajput. One more suggestion, when you next time report me or any other user just follow the correct procedure. It is mandatory to inform the user being reported. Reports without proofs brings no fruits. However, I suggest that keeping in mind NPOV, just resolve the issues having good faith of other editors. The articles on wikipedia are for information and certainly not for caste promotion/advertising. Happy Editing.--MahenSingha (Talk) 10:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It was obviously in reference to the Buxar which is in the region, unlikely to be related to a distant town in Western UP. I'm not sure why you are fixating on the inclusion of Bhumihars which was reverted a long time ago. I am not even a Rajput so I have no reason to glorify the caste, only you seem to have inteprepreted the article as glorifying. And your reaction to it was to post as many negative aspects based of dodgy sources as you could? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing I could also report you for that as well. You are teacher from you profile, I am merely a student studying at university. I would have expected to see some guidance from you in how to improve the article but instead I was given a confrontational tone and accused of a variety of different things including "glorifying a caste". In what way was it glorifying Rajputs? It refffered to them as mercenaries, how is that a good thing? You are not an administrator, it is not your job to decide whether or not this page glorifies a caste. Hence I had to inform more senior members who recommended I revert some of your edits including the British source which was dodgy at best. In the future I recommend you don't jump to conclusion and take out your caste prejudices on others. Thanks11:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Kindly go through your sources once again, It is "Baksar" on the 'banks of the Ganges' and it is not "Buxar", what you tried to interpret out of it and it is in Eastern U.P. The term 'Purbia" denotes the people of East i.e. the people from eastern UP and Bihar, a common region culturally. You yourself referred to the sources based on "Khyats" and all mythology then how can you consider Raj Sources unreliable. But still OK, I have not questioned that but at least give full citations so that anyone can review. Who am I and what special editing rights I have on wikipedia is not the matter of concern here, because any one can ask for worth having such an article here. You are not a Rajput or I am a Rajput is simply nonsense. Better be subjective instead of every time going personally on my attributes. Wish you happy editing. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 06:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --88.98.73.137 (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC) as the member above previously stated, articles exist on similar geographical Rajput groups such as Punjabi Rajputs and Sindhi Rajputs. From what I can see most of the citations match with what is posted as well.

If something some where is wrong that does not mean that it should be repeated everywhere. I don't have much idea about Sindhi or Punjabi Communities, but if they are the similar cases then they to deserve deletion. We have a Rajput article and Bihari Rajput, Uttar Pradesh Rajput, Gujarati Rajput, ........or Indian Rajput, Pakistani Rajput, American Rajput like articles have no sense other than being personal identifications.--MahenSingha (Talk) 14:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether it exists for other groups is irrelevant to this page. The member has previously provided sources to prove that Bihari Rajputs are a distinct group in there own right with there own gotras. If the groups you mentioned had a distinct identity from the mainstream Rajputs then they would have there own page. If they are proven to have a distinct identity then a relevant page will be created.

I do suspect that there is some form of bias here. I mean you create all these obscure Yadav related articles that receive no attention and yet this page is constantly looked at by yourself. You even made edits to this page yourself and yet all of a sudden have now decided to request a deletion? The reasoning is also not clear like lack of context? The context is clear to most native English speakers. Anyway I'm sure the administrators will reach there decision soon. I also hope themember comes online to give his reasoning as well.88.98.73.137 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for providing some good points. Looks like the decision to delete was denied which is a good development. Wikipedia is a neutral source of information and people trying to get rid of pages and manipulate this because it doesn't fit with some warped world view will not succeed here. This page was made with good intentions and the information reflects this 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The decision of eminent admin is most welcome. I congratulate author of the article because it takes a lot of pain hunting around the sources and building a page. I projected my view which stands still, yet that does not mean that I am against writing new articles. Anything in the light of the sources can be written and anybody here is free to express his/her views. I am active on around 1500 caste related article. However, It may be somebody's personal opinion that I edit few pages only. My Edit profile speaks the truth. Such personal interpretations are nothing more than the users own view.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can specific reasons please be added to the tags.

No reason has been given for this tags, can these be included and then reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burbak (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A reason has been given for the WP:COI tag, although I find it insufficient. However, can you please stop removing tags? Just as they shouldn't be added without a motivation, they shouldn't be removed without hardly any explanation. I can see that this goes back from way back then in this article, for instance you removed a WP:Notability tag. LjL (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm now aware of the edit warring rule and will refrain from doing so. I would like a discussion given for the tags however and for an admin to review them if possible. One of them in particular is just a speculation on my personal background. Burbak (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, doing my duty of reviewing the articles, I noticed some maintenance work is needed to make it better, I or anybody will put a tag. I always put the tag with reason See here. I even added the link by which you could have come to know that in what manner the citations can be given. Even if you disagree with my tagging then its you who has to initiate the discussion on talk page. You discusses about deletion tag much before on this talk page and i responded each and every query you raised. I even congratulated the page creator when consensus decided to keep the page. I even corrected few of the citations on the page but these were also reverted. It was you who did not let me do any thing even in the favour of the article and this is termed as "Taking ownership" of the article. You further from your account and from one independent I.P. (Admin detected and warned that it was you). All these activities and your contribution list togather formed an basis of COI See your contribution page here] and edits by the i.p.here. Discussion could have been initiated by you at anytime but you more interested in reverting the things which you did not stop even after a symbolic block.--MahenSingha (Talk) 14:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You again reach a conclusion of WP:COI (COI links to something else, by the way) on entirely inappropriate premises: please read what WP:COI actually says, note that it doesn't simply mean bias and that just feeling strongly about something is not a COI. If the editor has broken rules about sock puppetry, then that's what they've done, but you can't reach the conclusion that they have a COI from that alone. Judging from their contributions going back to 2012, I wouldn't say it's possibly a single-purpose account either. I'm not necessarily defending this editor, but you're making the wrong accusations. LjL (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed all references and thus removed the corresponding template; I have also removed the COI template per the above, pending (much) stronger evidence. What is left for now is a "needs attention from expert" template, which, @Mahensingha: I urge you to edit to add a talk page section discussing and justifying it (which you should create) as the template itself recommends. LjL (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I just suspected it on the basis of User behaviour. Just wait and watch. Things will come up soon. That does not mean that I am blaming anyone. I am just confirming and that is needed to maintain disciplined edit behaviour. But, rest assured that the truth will come up. For your better knowledge of the facts please have a look 2015 here]. The other people assessed this and found the things to be so. Presently, from my side did I do any thing of the nature which demands such a lengthy discussion? Have you interacted with the person who actually reverted the things without giving any valid reason of with out further discussion. does the lesson of mutual consent or consensus not equally apply on the other party? Am I the the only party who did everything? Anyway fine. Let me know now that presently what wrong I am doing. Simply resolve the tag issues, if you are really willing to work. Else, You can remove the tags and I will not revert, OK, yett to protect verifiablity and factfulness of the wikipedia information is everybody's duty because students worldwide depend to some extent on the information being projected here and I certainly dont want to give them unverified and misleading information. That's the only interest I have. --MahenSingha (Talk) 15:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the talk page link you provided gives no evidence that other people found things "to be so" i.e. that there was a WP:COI involved. That's your own conclusion, which I suggest you drop as lacking any evidence. Anyway, I have in fact resolved an issue the article was tagged with, and removed the tag; I have also removed the COI tag as it was unjustified. You are now asked to provide a justification for the "expert" tag since the tag expects it and you gave none. LjL (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually the admin discussed it with me on his talk page and acknowledged that it wasn't my IP address involved. I fail to understand why you feel so strongly about this and are throwing around accusations without basis. If you place a tag then a reason should be placed with the tag, this is a common practice that I have observed here. You failed to do this. In fact when I requested a discussion you instead start to throw accusations around. Now I request that you open a section on this talk page to discuss the tag which requires an expert from India. Thanks. Burbak (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that is necessary. The personal accusations may now stop and explanations for and/or against the tags be given instead. LjL (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you say now LjL? 2015 See here, ultimately the truth came out. I suggest you to always look both the sides. I suspected and reported nothing wrong. I am doing my job with honesty and since long. It is my earned credibility which granted me certain rights and privileges. You must have guided the other party about the wikipedia policies instead of sending links to me. I myself read and follow them. Still, I thank you for all of your advises.--MahenSingha (Talk) 14:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I say that you still should not have engaged in edit warring because that is not acceptable regardless of circumstances, and I say that you must be deluded about "rights" and "privileges" because you're a Wikipedia editor like everybody else, not exempt from policy, and I must mention it worries me that you call admins "eminent" and things like that. That is not at all the Wikipedia spirit. Get back down to Earth with the rest of us (including us editors-for-10-years). LjL (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Oh, and as I've said a few times before, the fact the editor has now been determined to be a sock puppet still does not automatically make them have a WP:COI. LjL (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not true, since the time We are on active talks, I think I have not made even a single edit on the target page then where arise the question of warring. It was all under a specific circumstance which I explained earlier many times and at many places.Rest of the things since are now known to the community, so let them decide. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And I have explained many times and at many places that you should not have edit warred anyway, but you do not seem to get this. I'm starting to feel sorry the other user was naive enough to use IPs and get blocked. Also, I note that you still haven't added the repeatedly-requested reason for the "expert in India" tag. Will you please do that, or can I just remove the tag? LjL (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

See, What I said much before on this same talk page.".....Simply resolve the tag issues, if you are really willing to work. Else, You can remove the tags and I will not revert, OK, yet to protect verifiablity and factfulness of the wikipedia information is everybody's duty because students worldwide depend to some extent on the information being projected here and I certainly dont want to give them unverified and misleading information. That's the only interest I have." My words are still same. Hence, I never had any objection. What else you need. You can still go ahead, if did not do it before. Initially, there was only one tag regarding improper citations, that too, much before I tried to correct the citations and even that was also reverted by the user and then only I put the expert tag so that someone else could do it.--MahenSingha (Talk) 19:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have fixed the citations already. Do you have any other concerns about the article? LjL (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

May a reason please be provided for the tag in the article? If not, then I see no reason not to remove as the editor refuses to take part in discussion. Burbak (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Presently all the tags have been removed except that the article needs attention from an expert. Most of the sources use the terms like "Ujjainiya Rajput" and "Purbia Rajput". It is presently not clear that how these terms are related to the term "Bihari Rajputs (Subject title of the article)". I thought it better to ask help from an expert nominated by the Project India on wikipedia to verify the sources for justification of the title. I suggest you to please add more and more sources mentioning the term "Bihari Rajput". Work for the content enrichment and the tag will automatically removed by the another visiting reviewer. Expert tag does demand content enrichment & refinement and expanding the article positively may draw attention of the reviewer and he may even upgrade class of the article on Quality scale.--MahenSingha (Talk) 04:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I see, would you recommend renaming the article as Purbia Rajputs? I am inexperienced in this so if you feel it would be more accurate than could you please do this? ThanksBurbak (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I still suggest that it is necessary to clarify in the article that how the different terms that you use for a common subject, are proved to be one. Please find the sources which establish this fact like "Purbiya rajputs are also called Ujjainiya and Bihari" and the terms define the same group of the people. However, I tell you the procedure you asked to move/rename an article.

1. On top right side there is a menu "More" by the side of * like symbol. Click on "More" to drop down and select "Move".

2. State new name for the article and also specify the reason to do so.

3. If everything goes well, your article has been renamed.

Wish you happy editing.--MahenSingha (Talk) 19:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That may not be necessary as there seems to already be a Purbiya page? Could you please push through a merger? Thanks Burbak (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a page for Ujjainiya Rajputs as well and that's why I asked you to find sources to interlink the terms. OK. I am pushing Merge of Purbia and Bihari Rajputs.--MahenSingha (Talk) 17:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeated Edit warring

Repeated edit conflicts by a significant user or i.p. dedicated to the same purpose is evident enough to prove the COI. Disputes if any, be resolved amicably within the scope of the policies. Making statements leading to personal attack on the user pages is never considered a healthy idea, instead the discussion be done on the relevant talk page specifically meant for the purpose. As an user, reviewer and rollbacker since long enough on wikipedia I never faced such a situation where an article is simply owned by a particular user who do not tolerate even the maintenance tags.--MahenSingha (Talk) 20:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI has very little to do with WP:SPA. You are throwing accusations of it and edit warring, but you've just done three reverts in succession. Are you aware of WP:BOOMERANG? LjL (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop throwing unfounded accusations around please, can you please discuss you reasons for the tags?Burbak (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see the relevant section meant for the purpose.--MahenSingha (Talk) 16:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"Clans" category

I hit the wrong button and so couldn't type an edit summary, but unless you can claim that Bihari Rajputs are, in themselves, a clan (gotra), the article does not belong in Category:Rajput clans of Bihar, which lists "Rajput clans (gotras) of the present-day state of Bihar, India.Sinha" (emphasis mine). LjL (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Proposed merger of Bihari Rajputs article with Purbiya page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burbak (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)