Talk:Bhumihar

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)

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)

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

Aswani kumar contradicted this line

Kindly visit the page-126, Line-6th to 12th. 103.88.57.34 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

No word for human Behaviour I can understand

@Sitush

Even you Rectified Anachronism and varna

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 ...

Come on 103.88.57.42 (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian@Slatersteven 103.88.57.34 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

[I can understand ]

You should also visit Sandhya, Saryuparin, jijhotiya, Bengali kulins, other branches too

how they are part of it on What basis?

Continuously you are Rejecting All the Reasons of being bhumihar Brahmins.

Even judicial legal documents you Rejected.

Don't know why & what basis you have so much love towards Ashwani kumar and his Fantasy His written book??

This Article is not Neutral from Anywhere.

Aswani kumar Full name is Aswani kumar yadav

Aswani kumar's unit has hatred towards that caste, behind this there can be Ranveer Sena vs Left, Babhan vs Yadav in Bihar, verify this. ADMINISTRATION should see the source of ASWANI KUMAR YADAV 103.88.57.42 (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Remove Aswani kumar yadav from Bhumihar Babhan wikipedia right now 103.88.57.42 (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

What the hell edit is being requested, as there seem to be three or four? Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC) New questions need new threads, not just tacked onto the end of existing ones. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't Do Irrelevant Talk You have Enough Reasons Now Poor Anachronism, Poorly Aswani kumar yadav Claiming That Brahmins women on that such scale married to Rajput mens in East India, Enough is Enough..Yadav ji has his personal intention to disrespect Brahmin community, Nothing Else.

1."New questions need new threads"

First Read the Question Carefully then Text an Answer

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

Question is still Going on & 🚫 🆕

2.

3. You should also visit Sandhya, Saryuparin, jijhotiya, Bengali kulins, other branches too

how they are part of it on What basis?

Continuously you are Rejecting All the Reasons of being bhumihar Brahmins.

Even judicial legal documents you Rejected.

Don't know why & what basis you have so much love towards Ashwani kumar and his Fantasy His written book??

This Article is not Neutral from Anywhere.

Aswani kumar Full name is Aswani kumar yadav

Aswani kumar's unit has hatred towards that caste, behind this there can be Ranveer Sena a private army of that Babhan community vs Left Fight, Babhan vs Yadav in Bihar could be a Reason that's why Aswani kumar yadav internally and intentionally claims this, verify this. ADMINISTRATION should see the source of ASWANI KUMAR YADAV 103.88.57.42 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

You have not identified any unsourced claims. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

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

"Check the page-126 from 6th Line to 12th@Slatersteven 103.88.57.42 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

We do not cite page 126. Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "we do not cite page 126"

Here clearly The alternate name Babhan has been described as an apabhramsha for brāhmaṇ (Brahmin)".[9] this Etymology is incorrect unsourced

Cite page 126 from 6th line to 12th Line

It is not an Apbharansa

Where is written Babhan is an Apbharansa for Brahmin

It is merely a pali form of term synonysm of Bhumihara. Source- cited source under bhumihar wikipedia the community warriors by Aswani kumar page 126 from 6th Line to 12th Line. @[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven] correct the same through bhumihar wikipedia reference the community warriors & update the same 103.88.57.42 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

OK again I am out of here, this time read wp:cir, The claim is not unsourced; it is clearly sourced, unless you are saying the source we used does not say it. Is that what you are saying? Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I am Saying this what source by Aswani kumar the community warriors cited under bhumihar wikipedia reference saying in page 126 from 6th Line To 13th Line:

Etymology

"It has been pointed out that Babhan is merely the pali form of brahman, and the word is often found in Ashoka's Edicts. it has, been conjectured that those now known as babhans remained Buddhists after the brahmans around them had reverted to Hinduism, so the pali name continued to be applied to them; while the synonym bhumihar or bhumiharka is explained as referring to Their having seized the lands attached to the old Buddhists monasteries. @Slatersteven Rectified? 103.88.57.42 (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Slaterstevenwho gave you the money for this? 103.88.57.42 (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian@Slatersteven@Sitush 103.88.57.42 (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@SlaterstevenWhy are you behaving like this kid? "Babhan is described as an Apbharansa for Brahmin brahman" [Rectified unsourced].

Source by Aswani kumar The community warriors page-126 from 6th line to 13th Line saying this:

@Slatersteven@Ekdalian 103.88.57.42 (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

"unless you are saying the source we used does not say it. Is that what you are saying? Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)"

[YES, I AS SAYING THE SAME.] 103.88.57.42 (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

So you are saying it fails wp:v, can someone confirm what it says? Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Slatersteven, this discussion is going nowhere! I believe there's the WP:CIR issue apart from POV pushing, desperate attempts to promote the particular caste and possible sockpuppetry (please check the article revision history)! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but this at least was a valid point, does it pass wp:v? It's not a major line, and may even (due to the use of a non-English word) be confusing. What does it (in fact) tell us we need to know? Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Please quote which statements you are referring to? And the source? There's been a lot of irrelevant conversation, that's the reason I am asking! I shall try my best to answer your question. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

"YES, I AS SAYING THE SAME." to my question "unless you are saying the source we used does not say it. Is that what you are saying?" so I took that (though its a bit garbled) to be saying thqt "Yes, that is what I am saying". Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The source clearly mentions what has been stated in the article; it clearly qualifies WP:V. In fact, every bit of information in the article is properly sourced; otherwise the earlier WP:SPAs would have pointed it out. There was one deviation or incorrect interpretation of the source, which was pointed out, and I had rectified the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, then it has been verified, thanks, this needs to close now . Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, my sincere apologies! I misunderstood and confirmed, but this particular statement is yet to be verified! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven 103.88.57.42 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

What is your problem @Slatersteven ?

you have not taken any action even now ??

You totally misunderstood and misused the wikipedia citation policy or you are saying you didn't? 103.170.190.149 (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes I did I put a failed verification tag on the disputed line. I suggest you keep a civil tongue in your head. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Purpose of including malicious falsehoods?

Can the editors, please explain why they find it necessary to include unproven and baseless conspiracy theories with info page of a caste ethno-group. Inventions like union between rajput and Brahmins , finds a place in the page? Also,in (Bhumihars themselves dislike this claims of fallen status or hybridity) how do the authors ascertain what the Bhumihars like and don't like? how do you ascertain the likings of a community? It seems that the only purpose of making this page was to malign the image of one community even if it completely does away with fairness and neutrality. Wikieditor369 (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems that you haven't understood the basics of Wikipedia! Wikipedia is all about reliably sourced content, not your personal opinion or WP:OR! Moreover, Wikipedia is not censored. Even experienced editors are not supposed to remove sourced content; they are not supposed to decide whether it's correct or not, also they can't question reliable authors! If you still fail to understand, I have nothing more to say! Caste related POV pushing won't help. Also, read WP:SPA, WP:SOCK, WP:DUCK; repetition of the same point will hardly make any difference. Ekdalian (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Sources are for facts, not for whimsical fancies.

What makes for including unwarranted statement from a less known book, written by an even lesser known author on a caste page, other than slander and malice?

There must be thousands of conspiracy theories and every body is free to fabricate one. Somebody's FANCY OPINION doesn't makes for source. Wikieditor369 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Read the thread above it explains why. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It explains nothing 106.221.182.32 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes it does, we go by what RS say, not users OR. As such, apart from one line (which is now tagged) nothing is unsourced. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

bhumihar wikipedia misusing the wikipedia citation policy. There is many reasons Rectified to eliminate this particular Dr Aswani kumar citation and Indian history Congress citation from reference.

Enough Reasons rectified to Eliminate/Remove this particular Dr Aswani kumar cited Claim from Bhumihar Reference: 1.Rectified Dr Aswani kumar poor Anachronism in Italicorder to categorising or Grouping the Groups under varnas with mentioning/Addressing year(Rectified).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 . 2.Dr aswani kumar not shown Any reliable source or evidence from Indian subcontinent that which basis he claimed Brahmins womens on that such scale married to Rajput mens in East India?? Dr Aswani kumar have to Give Evidence for this claim yet as he is claimed this and not entirely 140 crore peoples of India you Got it Ekdalian. Go through the wikipedia Right citation policy to Eliminate Dr Ashwani kumar poor cited claimed source from bhumihar reference. 103.170.190.149 (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Redirect this bhumihar wikipedia to Babhan wikipedia

Babhan is more older term than bhumihar As well as bhumihar wikipedia itself covered this Term Bhumihar is recently used in 1865 Audh and agra provinces. Don't do lengthy Debate for this if you can then do this atleast. 103.170.190.149 (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes we say Bhumihar is of recent origin, as to Babhan, source for it being older? Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

"Yes we say Bhumihar is of recent origin, as to Babhan, source for it being older?"

"Being discussed above."

Check page-126 from 6th Line to 16th Line From citation The Community warriors by Dr Aswani kumar in Bhumihar wikipedia reference.@Slatersteven 103.170.190.151 (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The Kumar you seem to say above is not an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Also can we have a quote as this [[1]] says the earlest use was 1877. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

"The word is often found in Ashoka's Edicts"

It is covered Hard copy by Dr Ashwani kumar if you Rejecting this then Reject the whole statements cited pages by Dr Aswani kumar also reject the Etymology, history, Varna status and sanskritization of bhumihar Title Given by Dr Aswani kumar 103.170.190.149 (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Also I think this is a rename request. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven

Q"The Kumar you seem to say above is not an RS?"

Answer"Dr Aswani kumar is RS!"

As per Wikipedia policy, Already they have been kept here the community warriors by Dr Aswani Kumar from the beginning cited in the Bhumihar Wikipedia, Hard cited pages like Etymology, history or Sanskritization are covered by This citation . 103.170.190.149 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

"Also I think this is a rename request"

Yes, Atleast

"Redirect Wikipedia from Bhumihar Wikipedia to Babhan wikipedia."@Slatersteven 103.170.190.149 (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I am simply saying if you are Rejecting to consider Dr Aswani kumar today

Then Reject Etymology, history, varna status, sanskritization Given by Him(Dr Aswani kumar). 103.170.190.149 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Why you Act like this? You got your Answer point to point you have Enough Reason for being page Should be Redirected From (Bhumihar-wikipedia) To (Babhan-wikipedia)

OR

If you you are Rejecting this by Giving any kind of unnecessary excuse on Dr Aswani kumar Then Reject the Etymology, History, Varna status And Sanskritization Given By Same Dr Aswani Kumar. 103.170.190.149 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Read wp:or. How can one short line stretch over 10 lines? Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC) I'm out of here with a no, as I am really having difficulty even understanding some of what is being said. Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC) I will add, I am rejecting this as I find your argument it says this word was in use before 1855 unconvincing, as it is clear to me that this is just trying to make a point, and is not a real question. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Stop Debating me, what if I am 80 year old? To the point

@Slatersteven = "I am rejecting this as I find your argument it says this word was in use before 1855 unconvincing, as it is clear to me that this is just trying to make a point, and is not a real question."

[Finally You Accepted!,Thankyou!!]

@Slaterstevenhere you are Rejecting this as @Slatersteven You find Aswani kumar argument it says this word was in use before 1855 unconvincing, as it is clear to @Slatersteven You that this is just trying to make a point, and is not a real question. 103.170.190.149 (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

No I find YOUR arguements unconvincing, and read wp:point. Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Which one? 103.170.190.149 (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Pretty much all of them. Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Not all of them. 103.170.190.149 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

REQUESTED MOVE

FROM (BHUMIHAR-WIKIPEDIA) TO (BABHAN-WIKIPEDIA) 103.170.190.149 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose this is the WP:COMMONNAME. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven["I have very less time" you have to Support me this time.] 103.170.190.149 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Did you seen that? I just opposed! come in my Support openly We both saying Bhumihar wikipedia Etymology section is Right 👍 it should be (Babhan-wikipedia) from is of relatively recent origin(Bhumihar Brahmin- Wikipedia) or (Bhumihar-wikipedia). 103.170.190.149 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

What did you just oppose? Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

i just opposed (Bhumihar-wikipedia) it should be (Babhan-wikipedia) from is of relatively recent origin(Bhumihar Brahmin- Wikipedia) or (Bhumihar-wikipedia). 103.170.190.149 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

So you just withdrew your own move request? Slatersteven (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Redirect/Move this From Bhumihar Talk to Babhan Talk Now. 103.170.190.149 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, per above! Ekdalian (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian opposed! [" I have very less time".] What is next to do explain ? 103.170.190.149 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian@Slatersteven I want to see today that this this Bhumihar talk is finally redirected/moved To Babhan Talk and Thank to you Both. 103.170.190.149 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

And I do not want to see it, so drop it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not about what you want to see and what you don't. 103.88.57.43 (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is, its called wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Bad grammar: first sentence

Missing verb: "Bhumihar, also locally called Bhuinhar and Babhan, is a Hindu caste ..." 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:FDB3:C44F:4F50:7012 (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

MAybe, fixed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

You have fixed enough. 103.88.57.43 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Why are you not visiting Sanadhya, Saryuparin, Bengali kulins page Slatersteven?? why only Babhans?? 103.88.57.43 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

stop manipulation. Bhumihar means Kashi Naresh, sunil pandey, Hulas pandey, chote sarkar, Munna Shukla i.e Great grandson of freedom fighter brothers Yogendra Shukla and baikunth shukla, etc.,No one called them Bhuinhar locally. For more information Kindly visit Eastern Gangetic plain you Will get Your Answer. Bhuinhar is Another caste. 103.88.57.43 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment on content not users (see wp:npa). Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Remember once you stop this propaganda against Bhūmihārs then I will definately see this!

Even caste name is not correct

Check your own Wikipedia there is bhuinhar caste wikipedia too you will find

It is Same like "Saryuparin Brahmin also locally called Rajput is a Hindu caste.........." -Wikipedia 103.88.57.47 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and? Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Tell me yourself how can a caste be known by the name of another caste? & What about bhuinhar caste? They called themselves to be bhumihar Brahmin right? wtf 103.88.57.47 (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

What has this to do with the grammar of not using the word "is", what topic are you now trying to argue? Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

"what topic are you now trying to argue? Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)"

I am saying I am officially recognised Brahmin in Last British census of 1911 and 1931. On the other Hand the bhuinhar caste is different caste, they are part of sc or st. You should stop arguing & try to improve this Bhumihar wikipedia. I tried myself to redirect this Bhumihar wikipedia To Babhan Wikipedia but still you shown your 💔. Tell this to Ekdalian 103.88.57.47 (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with what was asked so this very much is off topic, so stop. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The question (the OP asked) has been dealt with. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2025

Sudhanshu malviya 2000 (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Empty request will not be actioned, you need to say what you want done. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

"Maga Brahmin also locally called Yadav is a hindu caste" -Wikipedia

This is what your wikipedia is. Citation 🤡 How caste claim status of Brahmin if caste is already recognized as Brahmins in last British census of 1931. 103.88.57.47 (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about, this is not a quote from our article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Pov:This is what Bhumihar wikipedia is saying. Why you get frustrated in just a second this is Only happening with bhumihar Wikipedia! Chill 103.88.57.47 (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Bhumihar Brahmin & Bhuinhar is two different caste there's two different wikipedia Also!

Babhan Community who adopted bhumihar Brahmin Title is an officially recognised Brahmins in Last British census of 1911 and 1931. Whereas Another caste bhuinhar is scheduled tribal caste. 103.88.57.47 (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

See wp:primary. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Stop it sending read this, read this, read this.

Remove the fake citations now

"I am only talking about bhumihars are officially recognised Brahmins in the British census of 1911 and 1931." So how they are claiming?? 103.88.57.47 (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Page number? Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Nice Acting 103.88.57.47 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Read wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

(Bhumihar wikipedia) :"For inclusion purpose"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bhumihar 103.88.57.47 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Read wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)