Talk:Bhumihar/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Bhumihar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Negative representation of Bhumihars

The whole content seems to be written by someone who has personal grudge with this community. There are multiple citations wherein sentences have been loosely quoted in such a way that anyone new to this will be churned into believing that this is an evil, unpure caste blatantly fighting for higher status.

For e.g

The very first sentence "The Bhumihars claim Brahmin status, and are also referred to as Bhumihar Brahmin" - sounds so negative

Citation no. 6 - Bhuinhar is a different caste (basically used for bhuinyan) and not at all same as Bhumihar. This was used as a derrogatory term for Bhumihars. Just because it has been used once somewhere doesn't mean it can be implicated on mass.

citation no. 30 - there is no history of the event mentioned here like what led to what. Massacre was wrong but the way the sentence has been put here leaves so little to address.

Citation 7 & 9 - Just because few people (with grudge) say it verbally, it does not entitle the theory to be put on paper with such audacity. Also it was Britishers who deteriorated the status of Bhumihars (who were land owners and thrones in path of british succession) socially

There are multiple instances of such wrong narratives in this article. Kabhiranjan (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Similar is done with us koeris they have made us dalits while no other caste is politically more strong as us in North india.For Rajputs they have added their birth from 🔥 Kuswaha (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It is absurd. The Wikipedia in India is no more reliable Kuswaha (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Bhumihar(Brahmin)

Bhumihar is Brahmin , they are landholders , kings and warriors from the time of Sri Bhagwan Parshu-Rama , Ayachak brahman's are warrior brahmans from lord Parshurama inspiration. Bhumihar is one of the varna in ayyachak-Brahmins maily found in Purvanchal , Madhya Pradesh bundelkhand region and Bihar. Mayankrai045 (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Should remove brahmin- rajput lines

Reference is only taken from a book, where the writer is himself not sure. Hence all lines related to bhumihar, buddhist and rajput mix should be removed.

This is hurting for all community. Monisays2u (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

This edit request to Bhumihar has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Some important information about bhumihar which majority of people explained Akash Singh bhumihar (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2020 (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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

This edit request to Bhumihar has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Akash Singh bhumihar (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Bhumihars are sub caste of brahmin they don't claim brahmin status we have proof Akash Singh bhumihar (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you have proof; please supply it to support your statements / suggested changes. Jack Frost (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

This edit request to Bhumihar has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"change hindu caste to hindu high caste" 2405:204:A19F:6ECB:0:0:571:C0B0 (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: What makes them a "high caste"? I don't see a source for that, and in any case WP:NPOV means we should usually avoid using non-neutral languge. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

This edit request to Bhumihar has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Bhumihar are Brahmins , please remove "Bhumihar claims Brahmin). This as othe ayachak Brahmin like Mohayal etc. Mayankrai045 (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Please process it. Mayankrai045 (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The information appears to be reliably sourced--regentspark (comment) 12:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Genetic profile of Bhumihar brahmins

As the research published in Annals of Human Biology, National Center for Biotechnology Information ( US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health ) on Sep-Oct 2003. Which was done on "Genetic profile based upon 15 microsatellites of four caste groups of the eastern Indian state". It was found that the DNA genetic profile of bhumihar clustering with the Brahmin group. As expected, since Bhumihar is known to be a subclass of Brahmin.

Reference : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12959898

We do not used genetics in caste articles. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Traditional proof of Bhumihar brahmins

"Mool" The way to learn "Veda" (The ancient literature of Hinduism) is one of the keys to distinguish between brahmins of different origin and "Gotra" the followers of the ancient scholar "Rishi". There is no disparity between bhumihar brahmins and any other brahmins of northern states of India.

As Wikipedia is not a verified and authentic encyclopedia. so here anyone can write anything junk without proof and ignoring factual evidence. I understand the frustration of some Society, Who are jealous and quotes irrelevant information about bhumihar brahmins. From Genetic to Spiritual and traditional there are no proofs against bhumihar. So please change the word "claim to be brahmin" to a "sub-caste of brahmin".

This is Wikipedia. You may not like it but WP:V applies. There is nothing to stop you from saying differently elsewhere but not here. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Risley view is indicated in wrong way

[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 by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya,Page No-109 https://archive.org/details/hinducastesands00bhatgoog/page/n132

[2,a] The Tribes And Castes Of Bengal: Ethnographic Glossary, Volume 1By Risley, Herbert Hope, Sir, https://archive.org/details/TheTribesAndCastesOfBengal/page/n139 (https://archive.org/details/TheTribesAndCastesOfBengal/page/n139)

[2,b] Census Of India 1901 Vol.1 (india ) (ethnographic Appendices) By Risley, Herbert Hope, Sir, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.55922/page/n199 (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.55922/page/n199)

On the basis of use of brahmaical gotras and terroterial clans for inhibition of marriage among babhans had led Risley to show possibility of babhans to be an offshoot of Rajputs. He never shown firmly that babhans are rajputs. He has said a possibility, which was later disapproved by Mr Yogendra nath bhattacharya, who had shown that similar kind of terroterial clans and brahmaical gotras exist in sarswat and maithils which do not make them offshoot of rajput.

Do not mention that Risley believed such thing. It was the possibility he has just mentioned. Mention risley book on citation too so that things get clear.

H. H. Risley isn't a great source for any caste info but if he called them Babhan then probably we should say so because it is the term that will apoear in Raj era documents which people still refer to. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Socking

Editor wikip6 (talk · contribs) has been sock-blocked & has been very disruptive at other articles. I suspect that they have here, too, so we either need to revert to a "last best version" or someone needs to do a careful check. I have fixed/removed some misrepresentations of sources but would be surprised if there are not more. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted. Far too many problems. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)