Talk:Bhargava

Mundkur reference - Incorrect

I am a Bhargava, I have no knowledge about Shree Durga Parameshwari of Mundkur being our Kula Devata.

Please remove this reference as it may be true only for certain sections of the community, not the community as a whole.

Vandalism

Someone revert this page's vandalism, please. 75.61.70.45 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Tamil Bharghavan

Udayar, Moppanar, Nainaar also under the comminity Called Bhargava Kulam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.24.24 (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Focus

This article is not about Bhrigu, so there is no need for extensive content relating to that figure. It is also not a means of promoting an identity that has been created by members of the community. That identity certainly deserves a mention but not to the point of overwhelming the content - see WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush stop reverting edits which was added by references, I think you are not totally aware of Gotra's (communities) of Brahmin, Bhargav is first community and some of the members of that community are use that to represent with their last name. Hope you got the intention of edit and stop reverting without any valuable reason, support enhancement. Thanks. - Netenhancer (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2014 (IST)

I know of gotras but I can't make head nor tail of what you mean above. Please also read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. The repeated addition of that list of names is not acceptable. Slow down, please, and discuss things: you are making all sorts of errors, some of them very basic, eg: per WP:INDICSCRIPT. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush is making illogical and irrational additions and deletions on this page. He should understand that a Bhrigu-Chavan rishi decendent is a Bhargava, also called Dhusar Brahmin. Bhrigu and Bhargavas remain inseparable.Bhargavaflame (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, Bhargavaflame is correct. Also thanks for sugessions, just chill / slow I have just reverted edits which was removed purposely by some others, and will get references for them. There should be references from web, if not will delete some of them. Netenhancer (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2014 (IST)

• @Netenhancer and Bhargavaflame:. As Sitush says, this article is about the Brahmin Gotar, Bhargava, not the individual Bhrigu. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, whilst all content must be neutral and on-topic. Please respect these guidelines and avoid including unnecessary content in the article—referenced or not. Thank you for your attention.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush should understand that Bhargava is not a single Gotra, it is a community with further 12 Gotras to it. Bhargavas are Brahmins and decendents of Bhrigu-Chavan clan, from the Dhosi Hill area and are called Dhusar Brahmins, part of 'Gaur Brahmins'. We find several examples and citations to it on various pages, but Sitush very dictatorially keeps changing them at will. At times he accepted the same citation which he rejected earlier. This can be seen on page Hemu also. There is no unnecessary addition here. Information is linked and relevent.Sitush claims that he knows all about Gotras. I wonder if he can name 12 Gotras of Bhargava community.Bhargavaflame (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Sitush, Philg88, and Netenhancer:. Gone through Bhrgava history, Yes Netenhancer and Bhargavaflame are correct this page Bhargav is having synonym of Bhrigu, so the referece of Bhrigu and the histroy how this part of Gotra - origin should be there, Sitush roam around for web and do respect truth and check references. Avoid the warlike corrections. Do respect corrections by others, do not undo totally although need to correct them. Thanks you all for working to get better Wiki. Do add reference and citation and keep page healthy. Thanks again. - MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) 11:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Sitush: I have gone through history of page, Netenhancer peaked some correct version and reference from them. Looks like you have reverted your talk page, Netenhancer warn you not to undo page. do not revert talks, Thanks. - MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) 11:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Let's say we have a school named after Swami Vivekananda. How much space in the school article do we devote to explaining the Swami? Usually, a line at most and that line includes a link to our article about him. The same general rule applies here. We do not need all the detail about Bhrigu: "the Bhargava community now claim descent from a rishi (sage) Bhrigu" or something fairly similar does the job. If people want to read about Bhrigu's life, they go to the article about his life.

The list of names is completely unacceptable because it fails our verifiability policy and in many cases also our biography of living persons policy. Also, like it or not, the consensus of the Wikipedia community here is that bearing the name Bhargava does not vouch for the fact that the person is in fact of the gotra. I've already provided you with a link to this aspect above, but here it is again. Hemu, by the way, is not definitively of the gotra: I agree that some sources mention him as such but many more say otherwise and this is typical caste politics/puffery, trying to "claim" a prominent warrior as your own. The issue has been discussed to death at the talk page for the Hemu article and I do not propose to go through the entire thing again here.

Once we have dealt with these issues, we're back at the article as it was before the three of you began editing it a few hours ago. I know you may not like it, but this place is not always about what any one person particularly likes to see, nor is it even the case that three people can "outvote" one person to force their way. If your version does not comply with our policies, it will not exist. It's a simple as that. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC):

After going through the history of page 'Bhargava' and talk page of Hemu, facts confirm my fears that Sitush has analysed citations wrongly and has to mend his opinion on these two pages. Bhargava prominent persons can be verified from any source, specially lists at the website of 'All India Bhargava Sabha' (www.bhargavasabha.org) the umbrella organisation of Bhargava (Dhusar Brahmins) community, which held its 125th Foundation Day, the annual conference last week, on 14-16th Nov. 2014 at Udaipur, Rajasthan, India. Atleast half the persons listed on the page were present in the conference, while some others have lived their life long back. Is there any controversy whether they were/are Bhargavas. If yes, please be clear on this.Bhargavaflame (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

On page Hemu also, Sitush is determind not to accept Hemu a Dhusar Brahim, though Hemu was son of a Purohit and his sister was married in to the clan of RajPurohits at Qutabpur, Rewari. Sitush claims that he understands Gotras of Bhargava community well, but fails to mention any Gotras and calls Hemu Bania/Vaishy etc..Bhargavaflame (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Objections of Sitush in relating Bhargavas to Bhrugu, are also ridiculous. The discussions/confusions on two pages Hemu and Bhargava, on caste of Bhargavas (Dhusar Brahmins) is continuing for some years now. Practically, they lead a life of Brahmins and follow Brahminical rituals. Sitush should consider various citations given on talk page of Hemu with open mind and dissuade from any pre conceieved notions and confusions on caste of Bhargavas. Only ignorants have written him as Bania/Vaishy because of his supplying of Guns and Saltpetre to Sher Shah Suri.Bhargavaflame (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You have to ground your arguments in policy, not by saying I am "ridiculous" etc. One thing that you should read is WP:RS, which explains how we deal with sources. You'd gather from it that your proposed caste-affiliated website is useless as a source for the list of people, and especially so for those who are living. As for the stuff at the Hemu talk page re: his caste, that was a decision reached by consensus, not one imposed by me. I really do think that you need to read up on some of these blue-linked polices and guidelines that I've been giving you, otherwise you're in for quite a shock. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bhargavaflame: Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. You must follow our policies and guidelines or your editing privileges will be revoked. Please read up on what wikipedia is not and the importance of reliable sources. Thank you.  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush do not take it on your own or do not own Wiki as yourself, refer your sentence 'does not comply with our policies', talk as Wiki policies. Do not arrogant here..

Rest, Lets do not argu more and do not undo page as per , users who are contributing taking efforts, lets edit it. Undo is simple way but it will remove lots of information. Lets correct them instead undo. - MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) 14:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want a little time to find sources for the list of names then that's fine but please do read my comments above, noting in particular that if the people are alive then they must self-identify: you'll need an autobiography, a newspaper interview, a news story saying that they are president of the caste mahasabha or something like that. I'd concentrate on the living people first because if you can't source them very quickly then they need to be removed.

I don't think the Bhrigu stuff has any place here in its extended form and, really, I don't think that is debatable. We just don't do what you are trying to do. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Sitush: Your objection was right, but instead only undo contribute it, I think Bhrigu sage preliminary info is require for relevance, I have contributed some lines which connected to the stuff in a right way. This article has been already rated as Stub-Class - MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) 14:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Alas, the only class lower than "stub" is "we don't have an article". The Bhrigu detail is far too much, and it is unnecessarily glorifying. I cannot seek a third opinion because there are more than two of us in dispute here but there are avenues that I could pursue which would draw the attention of other people to it. I'd rather not expose you to the big wide world of Wikipedia when (I think) you are all pretty new here but maybe that is what we will have to do. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• @MahajanDeepakv: Please don't accuse Sitush of arrogance. That is a personal attack and is not permitted. Your goal here should be to improve the article in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, not to argue with other editors and make accusations. Thank you.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The list of prominent persons have descriptions. Some have pages on wiki already and have been members of Parliament (5 of them), still all are removed again and again. More references/details of others can also be given. Bhrigu is not over-mentioned here, but he needs a mention to show links of Bhargava community to him.Bhargavaflame (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read the link I've now already given you twice regarding that list? We have policies here - you cannot usually make up your own rules and certainly not for this particular issue. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Sitush: Thanks for pointing. I think Mahajandeepakv has well said, regarding list you can enhance with the Wiki policy. Meantime I will check non-alive names and persons. Thanks - Netenhancer (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2014 (IST)

I've got a pretty good idea of what is going on here. For that reason, I have asked for more people to take a look at this situation. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Confusions

There are lots of confusions or confusing statements in the article:

• Gotras aren't castes. Gotras are exogamous whereas castes are endogamous. They are opposite concepts in a way.
• Gotras aren't limited to Brahmins. People of all castes have gotras.
• Jamadagni is mentioned as one of the saptarshi's of this manvantara. If he is a descendant of Bhrigu, which is widely accepted, then Bhrigu could not also be a saptarshi of the present manvantara. I think he is a lot older.
• Parashurama is dated to some time much earlier than Rama, and Rama was in tretayuga. So, Parashurama cound't be at the junction of tretayuga and dwaparayuga.

Sorry, I am probably opening a big can of worms. But this is Wikipedia. What we put up here has to make sense! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It is mostly rubbish. It was slightly better before the three new contributors turned up, although it still had references to the work of M. L. Bhargava, who almost certainly is not reliable for anything but their own opinion. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Kautilya3 you have some good points, after digging this subject, came to know that :

• Gotras aren't limited to casts.
• Bhrigu is not in saptarshi, but it was in current manvantara. But Bhargav gotra is on Bhrigu's name.
• Jamadagni is mentioned as one of the saptarshi's of this manvantara and Bhrigu is in his clan. So reference of Jamadagni and Bhrigu should be there, but how much is a dispute here as per Sitush
• Kautilya3 you were wrong at this, Parshurama was not at the junction. Go through Wiki page Parshuramaor I found another reference at Times of India - Lifestyle
• @Sitush: Thanks for adding dispute at Notice Board-Talk page, I think instead adding it in 'Noticeboard for India-related topics' you were added it in Talk(Discussion) page! By the way I am not new nor new-ish at Wiki, was with Wiki before 22 years and back with another name. Any way you are doing some right(not fully), that's why I suggested you instead using rollback power, add some time to improving articles - you have good command on language.

- I am not in part of Undo(rollback) this page, because it will remove some information which was added by another co-users, just need some improvement and correct whats wrong, Thanks - MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) 08:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem of the article was WP:UNDUE to individuals Bhrigu and Parashurama, which I have removed. M L Bharagava as well as Bhargava Jati Ka Itihas do not seem to be WP:RS. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Redtigerxyz. It is rapidly assuming the look of three days ago, which is how it should be. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mahajandeepakv: I think the fundamental confusion still exists in this page between a gotra and a "community" (which seems more like a kulam to me). The gotra page links here for the "Bhargava" gotra. If this page is becoming something else, at the least that link should be removed. As I said earlier, gotras are not limited to Brahmins. So, if this page is about the "Bhargava" gotra, it cannot also be about a Brahmin community called "Bhargava". So, what is this page about, the Bhargava gotra or the Bhargava community? Kautilya3 (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Sitush: If I am not wrong, I sense from your feedback, Bhargava Community and Gotra is different (first confirm this) then we have to seperate them with different pages. Might be Netenhancer or Bhargavaflame needs to disclose this first. Then we could decide about it. -- MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) 05:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya is right. There is utter confusion on Bhargava being a Caste, Community or a Gotra on this page. Bhargavas (Dhusar Brahmins-who are migrants from Dhosi Hill area) are a community with Brahmin as Caste and have 12 Gotras among them. Sitush should comment on this.Bhargavaflame (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mahajandeepakv: We know what a gotra is; you can just read its page. A gotra is like assigning a family guru and, in practice, it prevents incest because people of the same gotra don't marry. Whatever "Bhargava community" that this page is trying to talk about is not a gotra. So, I am removing all references to gotra from here. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I know that what a Gotra is and its details; but I want to be sure that Bhargav Gotra and commnunity is different, which you explained. Bhargav Gotra information is more important than community because community is part of Gotra, as we know that same Gotra people will not allow to get married, you can visit Nasik Chitpavan website's page on gotra and some important matter should be on this page, like which are similar gotra and prawara's etc.

- Now matter is that, it need to separate these two information, Bhargav community has mess here which also require some examples etc. - @Sitush:might help us in this two subjects. Whether we have two pages or seperate information in one page, else We will require redirect page for this. Sitush what is your views. -- MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) 05:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Bhargavas (Dhusar Brahmins from Dosi Hill) have been maintaining this page for long, say couple of years. This community has 12 Gotras to them. I think we should have two different pages on Bhargavas. One for Dhusar Brahmins, other for those, whose Gotra is Bhargava.Bhargavaflame (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that you will be able to satisfy our notability requirements for that. Even as things stand, the article barely meets the standard (and it will get tougher because M L Bhargava is going to be removed as a source). - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by our notability requirements ? What is this our-your concept ? Why are you silent on naming 12 Gotras of Bhargava community when you consider yourself an expert on castes ? It is quite unfortunate that a senior editor like you does not appreciate truth on wiki pages.Bhargavaflame (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on "truth" but rather on verifiability. You need to read the notability thing that I linked and stop having a go at me. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bhatgavaflame: Please behave in a civil fashion. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you can show significant coverage in independent reliable sources for your claims then you need to demonstrate that fact—please do not criticise other editors when they are merely informing you of community guidelines. Thank you.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

M L Bhargava source

Some experienced people here have already doubted the reliability of the book authored by M. L. Bhargava. So far, no-one has challenged that opinion. I'll be removing it unless someone can come up with an extremely persuasive reason for retention. - Sitush (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

M.L.Bhargava has been a renowned auther and has written many books on diversified subjects published by Reliance Publishing House, Delhi. His books include:1) History of Modern India, 2) Indian Ocean Strategies, 3) Indian National Army-Tokyo Cadets 4) Indian National Army-Secret Service 5) Indian National Congress-Its affiliates in North and East India 6) Role of Press in Freedom Movement. There is no reason to doubt his integrity as a writer. Could you be specific what all he has written is wrong ? Bhargavaflame (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific which experienced people have doubted the reliability of which book by M.L.Bhargave ? I could not find any objection or doubts here.Bhargavaflame (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That is the typical odd mix of books that I would expect from an amateur who likes writing. What academic authority does he have? What general authority does he have to write about this particular subject? What is/was his day job? And who the heck are Reliance Publishers? Some outfit connected to Reliance Industries? - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There is an M. L. Bhargava here [1], who seems to be an M. A. and D. Phil. I don't know if he is the same man being referenced here. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush has not replied who all have doubted the reliability of book by M.L.Bhargava, and where ?Bhargavaflame (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea if it is the same person, either, Kautilya3. We always tend to be wary of sources where the writer appears potentially to be a member of the community about whom they are writing, regardless of their qualifications. Bhargavaflame, Redtigerxyz is one very experienced contributor who has queried this source above. You can't just bludgeon your way through this process. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can find very little that cites Moti Lal Bhargava, regardless of which book we talk of. I have found "Netaji Subhas Bose in South-East Asia. by Moti Lal Bhargava Review by: Leonard A. Gordon". The Journal of Asian Studies. 44 (3): 630–631. May 1985. doi:10.2307/2056309. JSTOR 2056309. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help) but it doesn't look that great. The reviewer notes that Bhargava has found one thing of interest, although he expresses it in a disorganised manner, but is pretty critical with "The major shortcoming of this work ... is that the author presents Bose as the perfect hero, free from flaw and never wrong ... This is a work of both history and adulation; it teaches us about the past and about a typical Indian approach to its heroes." And therein lies the likely problem with the source that we use in this article: the chances of the guy being a dispassionate teller of a tale involving Hemu etc are slim-to-none and the likelihood of him glorifying his own caste and its beliefs gained through sanskritisation (if it is his own caste) is very high. Bearing this in mind and the fact that all of his books seem to have been published by fairly unknown/non-academic presses and I doubt that this is good enough. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You are only justifying your comments splitting a hair. It is not accepted. M.L.Bhargava is a respectable author whome you are criticising for no reason. M.L.Bhargava is not the only one to write on Bhargavas and Hemu. Several other citations on page Hemu which call him a Bhargava/Brahmin are rejected by you on filmsy grounds. Is there a single citation which says that Saint Puran Das was a Vaishy. He was a Purohit. Several temples owned by his community are still in existence in his place of birth and town of Rewari. Modern historians and researchers are fully convinced about caste of Hemu and his community. Prof. Satish Chandra Millal, National President of 'Itihas Sanklan Yojna', in his latest article on 'Second Battle of Panipat' in the book 'Panipat Ke Ran-Sangram' has also changed his stance now and confirms that Hemu was indeed a Bhargava and Brahmin. Please consider these facts with an open mind.Bhargavaflame (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)