Talk:Bhumihar

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bhumihar article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 30 days

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 18 March 2014, see discussion.
speedy keep, 12 April 2008, see discussion.
delete, 22 February 2008, see discussion.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

India Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Odd edit summary

I don't understand the edit summary here and am pretty sure the edit is not an improvement to the article. - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@$govindsinghbabhan$ 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

I have tweaked the edit. See my two edit summaries for reason. Abecedare (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just need to correct his name's spelling, Chait Singh. |govind| (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both spellings, Cheyt and 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)[reply]

I want Inclusion of Reference cited in bhumihar wikipedia properly.

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)[reply]

Can Anyone explain that why Even cited claims and the claims which is appearing in Wikipedia is different? Indicating unsourced Editing??

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]