Talk:Bhumihar

Why do you keep deleting and removing

It seems you suffer from some personal grudge against Bhumihar Brahmins. Even when I provide with proper citations you keep removing my additions. Who are you? What special interest do you have in this article? As far as Muslim Bhumihars are concerned their mention is given at the end of the page. That does not mean Bhumihars are muslims. Lot of Hindus converted to Islam and they are muslims and not Hindus and they have no relation to Hindus whatsoever. There is no need to confuse between the two. You are trying to show as if Bhumihar Brahmins hae some fluid identity. What prejudice do you have? Trayambak Dwivedi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.116.233 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are people deleting info from page VibrantBabhan 12:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VibrantBabhan (talk • contribs)

read the rest of the page. Because the content is inappropriate to an encyclopedia and inappropriately sourced. see the appropriate policies at [[WP:NPOV] / WP:RS / WP:V / WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't Mislead and show your prejudice

Bhumihars are Hindu and they are a sub-caste of Brahmins. It is an established fact also based on marital relations between Bhumihars and Maithil Brahmins and Kanyakubja Brahmins. You are trying to show as if they aresome kind of a fluid community. Don't do this otherwise I would take you to court for spreading lies. Trayambak Dwivedi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.208.104 (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation issues

• Page 168 of the book "Agrarian Movements in Bihar:Studies in 20th century Bihar" by by Arvind N. Das was given as a reference for a claim. However, on investigation, I found that the book had only 152 pages. See [1]

• Page 18 of "Rulers, Townsmen and Bazars" by Christopher Alan Bayly is given as reference here. However, it appears that the specified page in the particular book does not contain the particular claim about "military Bhumihars" increasing their sway. I've repdroduced the contents of the page here

...and consolidated the intermediate classes of society - townsmen, traders, service gentry - who commanded the skills of the market and the pen.

Varieties of eighteenth-century regimes in the Ganges valley

So far an attempt has been made to draw out from the limited secondary literature some tendenceis which seem to be common for many regimes of the area: the search for cash and a local base, the foundation for new towns and an attempt through patronage to grow closer to the power-holders in an agrarian society. But it is important not to lose sight of regional variations. Eighteenth century ruling groups differed in culture and organisation. These differences created patterns in commerce, in the incidenceoftowns and markets or in the organisation of agrarian production which persisted into the colonial period and form the subject mkatter of this study. To take only one example, the greater density of market towns in the west of the region wasone precondition for the more dynamic agriculture and artisan production which existed there well before the coming of the British canals and railways in the mid-nineteenth century. This early urbanisation was consolidated by the settlement in the region after 1720 of town dwelling Muslim warriors from the north-west.

Most of the regional and localpowers which will be encountered in the following chapters gained autonomy between 1735 and 1762. Aurangazeb's attempt to revive the Mughal Empire had foundered through over-expansion before 1700. Faction plagued the ruling elite in Delhi in the 1710s and 1720s

• The article also claims Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya's "Hindu Castes and Sects" as a source that Bhumihars were Brahmins. However, a search for"Bhumihar" in the stated book does not yield any results.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 19:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

ANSWERING YOUR CITATION ISSUES

South of Avadh in the fertile riverain rice growing area of Benares, Gorakhpur and Bihar and on the fringes of Bengal, it was the 'military' or Bhumihar Brahmins who strengthened their sway. And the link can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=xfo3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PP1&dq=Christopher+Alan+Bayly,+%22Rulers,+Townsmen+and+Bazaars%22#PPA18,M1

Professor Christopher Alan Bayly has used Brahmins for Bhumihar Brahmins in his entire book. You can check for yourself.

On the social scale, although the Bhumihars are known to be Brahmins, on account of the fact that they were cultivators they were not given the ritual status of Brahmins. And the link can be found here:http://books.google.co.in/books?id=GL_yRdwbQP8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Agrarian+Movements+in+India#PPA51,M1

And you are hell bent on this page which does not reflect an unbiased approach. All the other community pages are spreading all kinds of silly notions and you are promoting them or not changing them and not demanding better citations. What does this show?

Now, include these portions in the article.

Thanking You, Trayambak Dwivedi

While your cooperation is most welcome, you haven't still specified the exact page from the book "Hindu Castes and Sects" where Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya regards Bhumihars as Brahmins. A search for "Bhumihars" does not yield any results. Instead, you had removed a well-sourced paragraph containing a quote by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya. Have a look at this.

Of course, some other caste-based articles, too, are made of nonsense. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But then, this article contains "controversial nonsense" which is even more despicable than "nonsense". We have previously had editors modifying the contents of this article (like User:Ranvir Sena who could very well be you) on behalf of terrorist organisations. And your edits, too, appear to carry a sympathetic point-of-view.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

FAST IN DELETING AND SLOW IN ADDING

You are very fast in deleting but slow in making the additions!

Thanking You, Trayambak Dwivedi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.143.99 (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I strongly insist that this article be written and edited by non-Bhumihars. This is to avoid a conflict of interest. I find that there a group of members from the Bhumihar community who have been indulging in spreading racism hatred across the internet and online forums by declaring Bhumihars to be "Aryans" and "greatest of all Brahmins" and calling for the destruction of Dalits, Muslims and Christians like here and here. One of them had openly declared in Orkut that he was involved in POV-pushing in Wikipedia. One-sided edits and the presence of users like User:Ranvir Sena seems to justify this fear. Till now, I've been as neutral as possible and have been dealing sternly with these POV-pushers. However, in case, if there is someone who doubts my commitment to NPOV, he/she is free to edit this article. However, I strongly insist that Wikipedians who edit this article are non-Bhumihars so as to avoid this article becoming prejudiced propaganda material or mouthpiece for some terrorist organisation.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 13:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Running a Propaganda Machine

Some Bhumihar Brahmins were engaged in communal activities in just one district of U.P. alongwith other Brahmins and Rajputs but it is being shown as if the whole community is communal and communal everywhere.........Do not give vent to personal prejudices......The fact is all communities at some point of time have shown communal tendency. I register my protest to this biased reading by wikipedia.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.61.177 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Past archive

can someone help me pull out archive of this page, which is missing now. Infact, I have come to know the banned user:vandalpatrol whose several anon. IPs had been listed in archive(no more visible now), is actually a Hindi wikipedia admin, whose favorite passtime on english wikipedia is to make abusive remark and vandalize some caste pages and articles.  Ikon |no-blast 17:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I want an admin's help to get the various sockpuppets of above mentioned user:vandalpatrol, because this page was once deleted and, talk page of previous page which is deleted now is missing. Kindly post the details here. It will help me initiate the sockpuppetery investigation against the suspect.  Ikon |no-blast 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Bhumihar - The Buddhist Brahmins

Babhan is a Pali word used for Brahmanas. Some historian who worked on Buddhist literature are of firm view that during the period of Ashoka, many Brahmans adopted Buddhism in and around Magadha, the modern Bihar. These Brahmanas gave away the Vedic Karmkands and accpted agriculture as their profession. They were known as Babhans, a separate community than Brahmanas following Vedic culture. The famous Brahmans of Buddhist Sangha listed by Buddha himself were –

1. Aagya Kondinya of village DronaVastu near Kapilvastu 2. Matryayani Putra of village DronaVastu near Kapilvastu 3. Sariputra of village Nalaka in Magadha 4. Mahamaugllayan of village Kolil in Magadha 5. Mahakashyap of village Mahatrith Brahaman in Magadha 6. Pindol Bharadwaj of capital Rajgriha in Magadha 7. Radh of capital Rajgriha in Magadha 8. Mahakatyayan of Ujjayani 9. Rewat Khadir Vaniya of village Nalak in Magadha 10. Upasen BangantPutra of village Nalak in Magadha 11. Vakkali of Sravasti, Kosala 12. Kund-dhan of Sravasti, Kosala 13. Vangish of Sravsti, Kosala 14. Bilind Vatsya of Sravasti, Kosala 15. Mahakothittha of Sravasti, Kosala 16. Shobhit of Sravasti, Kosala 17. Swagatt of Sravasti, Kosala 18. Moghraj of Sravasti, Kosala 19. Uruwel Kashyap of Kasi

Further the Parasurama origin of Bhumihar is probably a myth as land of Parasurama, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka etc do not have any Bhumihar community.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.232.189 (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 
     we have vast misunderstandings about the bhumihar caste.we must know that bhumihars and brahmins two totally opponent castes.In fact ,brahmans are those budhists who migrated from Iran to India.They did never respect the Rigveda and that is why no vaidic gods are served by them.In vedic traditions,begging alms is always prohibited but the so-called brahmans are always indulged in begging and this indicates that they are budhist bhikshus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.66.106 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 

Bhumihar bhavans are the supreme brahmin of all brahmin..as by birth they are brahmin, intelligent and they never beg like other pandit which is supreme they are alway rich of knowlege and intellectual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.156.9 (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Saraswati

Concerns have been expressed in the past regarding the reliabiltiy of Saraswati - Saraswati, Swami Sahajanand (2003). Swami Sahajanand Saraswati Rachnawali in Six volumes. Delhi: Prakashan Sansthan. ISBN 81-7714-097-3.. For this reason, I've just reverted a massive contribution that relied upon him. Can someone please explain why he should be considered reliable. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting and I'm still reverting the repeated reinstatements, usually by IPs. I got no response when I asked about this at WT:INB some time ago and there isn't much point taking such a specialist thing to WP:RSN. So, until someone starts engaging in a discussion I am going to continue removing anything related to Saraswati. He was a Bhumihar and he was a religious leader: no way is he independent. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Problematic section

Someone recently added a section and I have now twice removed it - see here. As I said in my first edit summary, the people being quoted are not considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia and I have some doubts about the book that apparently quotes them. I cannot see the book but I'd appreciate an explanation as to why a book that cites these unreliable pseudo-historians etc should be considered reliable in itself. I'd also appreciate sight of the thing. Please do not reinstate until the issue is resolved, per WP:BRD. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know how to cite some sources like the puranas which I have read and the information I provided are from there only. Sorry about the ignorance. But in case someone can help me we can add some relevant information from such ancient books which can be of great help in understanding such disputed issues of caste system, specially the origin of Bhumihars.

Thanks. - Vikku.pandey (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vikku and thanks for joining the discussion. I've merged your answer into the section that had just been started because I think that the issues are related, per a message I'd left on your talk page earlier.

The problem with ancient epic texts etc such as the Puranas, Rg Veda, Mahabharata etc is that Wikipedia considers them to be unreliable. They are very old, they are primary sources and scholars have for many years acknowledged that their content is contradictory, fragmentary, glorifying, ambiguous and, well, just about any other criticism that could be applied to a source.

The solution to your Puranas problem is to use more recent secondary sources that provide an analysis of those older works. Alas, that also poses difficulties in this case because books written by members of a particular caste about their own caste are rarely ever reliable for matters of history etc. Also, since castes often fragment and coalesce, they're not even reliable as a statement of the community's opinion. In rare cases, an exception could be made if a caste member is also a recognised academic authority on his caste. I'm not sure that this applies to the works that you were adding.

Might I suggest that you spend a little time reading the various blue links I listed? Feel free to ask questions about them and, hopefully, you'll be able to come back here either with alternate sources or with a justification for use of the ones that you have been using. I'm really pleased that you were citing anything - many newcomers do not and it is good to see you making that effort. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2014

This is Totally Incorrect Information; It looks that some one is trying too hard to miss-guide the community. There are to many rivals of Bhumihar Brahmin, History Itself can proof this. Kindly Revert the data back to 07:25, 7 February 2014‎ 202.131.143.2 Snr327 (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please give exact change and proper references instead of asking to revert to a previous version. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014

Rrvrai (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Dear Admin, I am a regular visitor of this page and viewing the content carefully. Since last one year I am seeing lots of useful and reliable material being deleted by some lumpen elements. So please allow me to edit the page.

Thanks & Regards, Rrvrai

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

CHANGE

Kingdom of Kashi- an independent Bhumihar Brahmin state until 1994.

TO

Kingdom of Kashi- an independent Bhumihar Brahmin state until 1194.

184.153.69.33 (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihars not brahmins check ground reality please  ! Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

I have to add and edit a lot of things in this page as i belong to the bhumihar caste and liked to contribute in it , people often are writing and trying to fuse our caste into that of brahmins which is not at all true as brahmins in the bihar and eastern up doesn't even recognize us as brahmins plus marriages in bhumihars don't even happen with the brahmin community (Its only one sided a daughter of brahman can marry a bhumihar boy but vice versa is not true!), we on the contrary are a regional upper caste having some similarities with both brahmins and kshtriya varna both. Some might say that because of having surnames similar to the brahmins we belong to that varna but thats completely mistaken because if surnames are to be considered then we should call the bhumihars of benaras region and ahirs of western bihar as a similar caste because both use the Rai sirname, sirname don't define your belonging or being an ofshoot of another caste we are an independent and regional cast not any offshoot of any certain caste.

Plus I would like to add details of various tribes of bhumihar also here so that people could start putting information regarding their tribes, like i belong to the donwar bhumihars and have knowledge of 4 - 5 bhumihar tribes of which i can write and increase the e-information regarding our community. Amitesh93 (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
What "you have knowledge of" is NOT acceptable to Wikipedia - if the information cannot be Verified in an Independant, Reliable, Source it should not be included in the article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please change for independent Identity of bhumihars and not a subset of a caste

Change any where written "Bhumihar Brahmin" To just "Bhumihar"

and also make this article as linked to just "Bhumihar" keyword not "Bhumihar Brahmin".