Talk:Bhumihar#Experienced editors, please preview my edit.

I don't understand the edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhumihar&diff=1289712971&oldid=1289651979&variant=en here] and am pretty sure the edit is not an improvement to the article. - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have just mentioned about date of revolution, which was not mentioned earlier, and replaced reference with another which have date. And nothing concerning. Edit summary explains everything, but you need to understand |govind| (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Sitush I have not made any edit according to my interest. Nor I have modified any sentence. You can't accuse like this. |govind| (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::@$govindsinghbabhan$ I am struggling to understand. That is likely the problem. I don't think your ability with written English makes it easy to understand, sorry.

::I haven't accused you of anything here, although I have said on your talk page that there may be a WP:COI issue and that might affect things. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Sitush I have not made any edits that can affect things. Mention of date is just an improvement. |govind| (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Sitush I request you, can you tell me why my summaries feel odd. I want improvement. |govind| (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@$govindsinghbabhan$ I just struggled to understand it. No big deal - I asked and you answered. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have tweaked the edit. See my two [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhumihar&diff=prev&oldid=1289975099 edit] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhumihar&diff=prev&oldid=1289975761 summaries] for reason. Abecedare (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Just need to correct his name's spelling, Chait Singh. |govind| (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Both spellings, [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_State_at_War_in_South_Asia/FIIQhuAOGaIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA76&printsec=frontcover Cheyt] and [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Limited_Raj/Ck4jmD7H34UC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA67&printsec=frontcover Chait], are prevalent although I haven't looked into which is more common. Incidentally, the Maharaja Chait Singh article will need to be renamed to remove the honorific and, from a quick glance, is likely to require other clean up. Abecedare (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

REFERENCE 34.kumar Aswani(2006)- Page:126

6TH LINE- It has been pointed out that Babhan is.....

I also want that This Article Get Redirected to its original caste name Babhan, this move not gonna be controversial from anywhere.

Conduct Consensus and support it to make this article better almost all E Sources even cited claims under reference section of this Article which 99.99 portion always seem like abusive to the members who belong to this Babhan caste and I believe the same as I also belong to same caste.

Also Anachronism that Administration have Rectified. 103.88.57.34 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:@103.88.57.34

:Yes, I also find this article somewhere disrespective to Bhumihar Brahmin society. Niraj Kumar Guddu (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::We go by what RS say, so proived RS backing your request. Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Slatersteven I can understand your point and I am not saying that this should be changed right now, I just expressed my feelings for that article. I just feel that if possible, it would have been good if some improvement was made keeping in mind the feelings of the people of that society. Niraj Kumar Guddu (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::We do not censor articles to please people. We are not censored. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Slatersteven What did I say? Look at my lines again. What did I say? I meant to say was that this article has been written in a disrespectful tone towards the Bhumihar Bhramana Society. Niraj Kumar Guddu (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Slatersteven This article is looking like as written in a personal point of view. Niraj Kumar Guddu (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::So provide an example of one line that is unsourced, or fails wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Slatersteven Ohh! you are not understanding what I am saying, what is the problem with you, I am not talking about any individual line here. Niraj Kumar Guddu (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::: Becasue talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not to discuss the subject. So unless you have a proposed improvement, this is pointless. Also STOP pinging me. Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You also do not have to ping me, it is annoying to have to check each one. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

babhan is described as an apbharansa for Brahmana.....

Whereas the cited Academic source itself covers this page:126, 6th Line it has been pointed out that Babhan is....

?? 103.88.57.34 (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Is what? Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:And what line in our article are you referring to? Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::In your Article I am referring to this Line:

::but to their dismay, they were classified as belonging to the third position after Brahmins and Rajputs in "BIHAR and UP" in the ad-hoc census of *"1865" and the regular census of *"1881".

::Here clearly Anachronism indicating poor source Rectified by Wikipedia Administration Itself which you can see above yourself .

::After this

::[Babhan term is more older in comparison of bhumihar term]

:: point is wikipedia administration should conduct Consensus:

::We should decide to redirect this article to its original caste name Babhan from designated title bhumihar article also it will contribute Great to this article and it's improvement we should think about it.

::

::

::Another Point is I referring to inclusion of same Academic cited claim which is explaining the meaning of Babhan term [pg:126 From 6th Line To 16th Line] Same Acadmic citation covering almost part what we thought about it. 103.88.57.34 (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I am having difficulty perusing what you have written, but if I understand you correctly. Well the source we use says that the decision to classify them as ,belonging to the third position after Brahmins and Rajputs caused "A fuorea". So what we write seems a reasonable rewording. And we deal with one issue at a time, if you want to move the arcove start a move discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::No, you didn't understand

::::I am saying that this anachronism indicates poor sourcing clearly here,The cited claim actually uses the terms Bihar and UP then it is poor - neither of those names existed at the time 1865.

::::@Slatersteven Ones investigate the kumar Aswani cited claim on my request

::::I think you would be better positioned with 70000+ Edits to judge the cited claim and tweak/remove it. 103.88.57.34 (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The source makes it clear it is talking about Bhumihar's who live in those places, are you saying they don't? Or are you really saying that Bihar and Uttar Pradesh did not exist in 1885? Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::The Source is talking about (Bhumihar's) Their categorisation they were classified as belonging to the third position after "brahmins and Rajputs" using the term bihar and Uttar Pradesh at the time 1865.

::::::Putting as it line

::::::"but to their dismay, they were classified as belonging to the third position after Brahmins and Rajputs in Bihar and UP in the ad-hoc census of 1865 and the regular census of 1881.[21]" 103.88.57.34 (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::So how are we misusing the source, or are you saying the source is incorrect? Were they not put third, were they not pissed off? Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Now it is admins turn to judge the cited claim and tweak/remove it. 103.88.57.34 (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Sitush @Ekdalian

::::::::@Slatersteven 103.88.57.34 (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I have made my position clear. Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::ARE YOU ASKING THIS IN RELATION TO KUMAR ASWANI'S CITED CLAIM OR ARE YOU ASKING ME INDIVIDUALLY/PERSONALLY? WHERE DID THEY (BHUMIHARS) PLACED IN THE CENSUS, TILL A FEW MONTHS AGO, THE THIRD POSITION WAS BEING DESCRIBED AS OF VAISHYA VARNA UNDER BHUMIHAR WIKIPEDIA VARNA COLOUM, LATER THEY CHANGED AS PER THE KUMAR ASWANI'S CITED CLAIM INTO THE THIRD POSITION AFTER (CASTE ) AND (CASTE) WITH AS IT IS WRONG ANACHRONISM TALKING ABOUT THEIR (BHUMIHARS) CLASSIFICATION USING THE TERM BIHAR AND UTTAR PRADESH IN 1865 .... 103.88.57.34 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:OK, with the shouting I am out of here with a firm no. Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

103.88.57.34 (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::you not just disrespected Only An User Id but Whole Indian community. 103.88.57.34 (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::these Cited claims are completely baseless No improvement in this Wikipedia there is no such evidence regarding Bhumihars from these words

::"One legend states that they are the offspring of a union between Rajput men and Brahmin women"

::[Fake Cited claim without no evidence ]

::Kumar Aswani fake claim such union is not recorded nor Any Source said such point like Brahmin women on that such scale married to Rajmut mens in East India. It is baseless allegation of Kumar aswani.

::"The Bhumihars themselves dislike these narratives involving "hybridity" or "fallen status", and claim to be pure Brahmins."

::[Bhumihars Including me as I also belong to same community I like or dislike Aswani kumar has nothing to do with it. Unnecessary cited claim

::Improvement

::Under history section

::From this Line

::"The weakening of the Mughal suzerainty over the region gave........"

::He is saying foolish things here that the Cited claim even Attacking Rulers of Benaras for being A king of Benaras🤦.

::Replacement:

::"Bayly, Christopher Alan (1983). Rulers, Townsmen, and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1770–1870. Cambridge University Press. pp. 17, 18. ISBN 978-0-521-31054-3."

::This will surely Improvement to this Article Here.

::Benaras State History pg with proper Academic Source 103.88.57.34 (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Exactly, A, one is a legend; we do not say it is true. B, you do not get to dismiss what RS say. C, we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::unnecessarily, Too much talking

::::Don't talk personally, talk how we can improve this bhumihar wikipedia 103.88.57.34 (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree, so lets see an RS supporting this suggestion. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Kumar Aswani fake claims Related bhumihars Rectified but Why you are doing unnecessarily talking continuously it is coz useless to talk like this personally Right? Give Evidence/source/proof that Brahmin womens on Such scale Married to Rajput mens in (East India) or Remove it from bhumihar wikipedia Stop texting unnecessarily. Anyone can help to remove this from Bhumihar wikipedia. 103.88.57.34 (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You are supposed to provide reliable and verifiable sources, not Slatersteven! Don't waste our time! You are 'texting unnecessarily' and asking others to stop! Strange! We rely on reliable sources only, and the content of the article is reliably sourced, as per our policies. If you don't have any contradictory source, stop pushing your POV! Ekdalian (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Just recently Slatersteven agreed with me and my genuine point identified from bhumihar wikipedia's Aswani kumar claim

:::::::: "One legend states that they are the offspring of a union between Rajput men and Brahmin women"

:::::::: Aswani kumar & EKdalian's claim/Allegation Regarding bhumihars such union is not recorded nor Any Source said such point like Brahmin womens on that such scale married to Rajput mens in (East India). It is baseless claim of aswani kumar & EKdalian. if EKdalian you have proof/evidence/Anything then Show or Just remove it now

::::::::Don't be oversmart Ekdalian talk about aswani kumar cited claim and not about me further How we can improve bhumihar wikipedia

::::::::Even it is rip for replacement, but Incorrect Anachronism, Without evidence/Record/proof/Tradition on what basis Aswani kumar/EKdalian claimed Brahmin womens marrying Rajmut mens on that such scale in (East India) ? Even wikipedia policy excuse can't save you at this point Ekdalian 103.88.57.34 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I edit hundreds of caste articles! I don't have any personal opinion! We state what reliable sources say! We are not supposed to engage in original research. Why should we provide evidence related to the author's statements. If you still fail to understand our policies even after such lengthy discussions, please read WP:CIR. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Ekdalian -"I edit hundreds of caste articles! I don't have any personal opinion! We state what reliable sources say! We are not supposed to engage in original research. Why should we provide evidence related to the author's statements."

::::::::::You just did it

::::::::::Now listen Laswani Lumar cited claim itself covered the origin and Meaning of Babhan Term....Page 126, From 6th Line to 12th Line complete this under Etymology section/coloumn of bhumihar wikipedia EKdalian 103.88.57.34 (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::But why it is taking so much time Slatersteven? 103.88.57.34 (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Because you are yet to give us a source that contradicts anything in our article. Read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Aswani kumar cited claim is rip for replacement, and it's doesn't matter I have read numberous talks on bhumihar wikipedia, they provided many genuine sources like Gayawal pandas are bhumihar Brahmins, Kanyakubja vanshavali itself mentioned bhumihar Brahmins as its one of Branch. Even Laswani Lumar cited claim enough explained origin and meaning of Babhan term which is more older comparatively to bhumihar Brahmin term in his Reference here at this point you still showed...... 103.88.57.34 (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This exercise in OR needs closing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Absolutely! I completely agree with you, Slatersteven. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think Slatersteven is agreed with me here under Bhumihar Brahmin wikipedia

::Brahmins Who Refused To Beg Brief History Of Bhumihars “Ayachak” Brahmins Of East India

::ISBN: 9798888333709

::Slatersteven cite this under bhumihar wikipedia reference section 103.88.57.34 (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:EKdalian cite this under bhumihar wikipedia here I provided reliable and verifiable source better than Aswani kumar It is covering Narayan Dynasty 1,00,000 Clanmens information

:REPLACEMENT UNDER HISTORY SECTION: 103.88.57.34 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::Replacement:

::"Bayly, Christopher Alan (1983). Rulers, Townsmen, and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1770–1870. Cambridge University Press. pp. 17, 18. ISBN 978-0-521-31054-3."

::This will surely Improvement to this Article Here. 103.88.57.34 (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::" It is covering Narayan Dynasty 1,00,000 Clanmens information " What do you think you just said? Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::What I think it doesn't matter [I PROVIDED RELIABLE AND VERIFIABLE INFORMATION REPLACEMENT FOR LASWANI LUMAR CITED CLAIM HIS POV ON BENARAS STATE/NARAYAN DYNASTY/LATE KASHI NARESH] 103.88.57.34 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

" It is covering Narayan Dynasty 1,00,000 Clanmens information " What do you think you just said?"

::::putting some as it is Line from the source/Replacement of Laswani Lumar cited claim just i provided:

::::"There were perhaps as many as 100,000 clansmen backing the Benares rajas in what later became the districts of Benares, Gorakhpur and Azamgarh. This proved a decisive advantage when the dynasty faced its rival and nominal suzerain, the Nawab of Awadh, in the 1750s and the 1760s. Their support gave the Benares ruler the capacity to mount an exhausting guerrilla war against the Awadh camp using his Bhumihar Brahmins clan levies which forced the Nawab to withdraw his main force."[1]

Ekdalian Stop unnecessarily supporting Laswani Lumar cited claim, Slatersteven is agreed with provided Reliable source and variable source here under bhumihar Brahmin wikipedia

103.88.57.34 (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::What has this to do with a census? Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Slatersteven you are Supporting Laswani Lumar cited claim/Ekdalian pov OR Me [just provided Replacement 103.88.57.34 (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No I am asking what the whole thread is about. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::"Slatersteven you can Easily Conclude it Go through the Laswani Lumar cited claim Related Bhumihars." 103.88.57.34 (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::[I PROVIDED RELIABLE AND VERIFIABLE INFORMATION REPLACEMENT FOR LASWANI LUMAR CITED CLAIM/Ekdalian POV ON BENARAS STATE/NARAYAN DYNASTY/LATE KASHI NARESH]

::::::::::It is more informative and really contributive to the bhumihar wikipedia 103.88.57.34 (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::No to replace a sourced statement you need a source contradicting it, not a source that has nothing to say about it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::"[the same Laswani kumar community warrior cited claim contradicting on page-126, from 6th Line to 12th Line that Babhan is an Apbharansa for "Brahmana" which means "brahman".]"

::::::::::::Rectify it Here Ekdalian & Slatersteven Kindly Go through the Laswani Lumar the community warrior source by Anthem press cited under bhumihar wikipedia Reference. 103.88.57.34 (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Also, what are you quoting with "Slatersteven you can Easily Conclude it Go through the Laswani Lumar cited claim Related Bhumihars"? Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Stop unnecessarily talking, the same Laswani Lumar cited claim Addressed the Line explained the origin and meaning of Babhans ["the community warriors pg 126 from 6th Line to 12th Line"] complete this.....under Etymology section/coloumn of bhumihar wikipedia. 103.88.57.34 (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Enough is enough, whatever the suggestion now is I am saying no, and it remains no untill I say otherwise. This has been a big enough time waste. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:ASWANI KUMAR COMMUNITY WARRIORS

: "the Already cited claim under bhumihar wikipedia Ashwani kumar Community warriors Source Rejecting/contradicting the Etymology coloumn

:Putting as it line

:"The alternate name Babhan has been described as an apabhramsha for brāhmaṇ (Brahmin)".[9]

:"Check the page-126 from 6th Line to 12th Line" 103.88.57.34 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)