Talk:Bhumihar/Archive 3

It seems that some people in your editing team are prejudiced against Bhumihar Brahmins. They want to paint the community in a negative light as if the whole community sides with retrograde organizations like Ranvir Sena. Apart from that, they seem to have read little, and rely on some obscure sources to write about their origin. I can bet that they have not read Swami Sahajanand Saraswati's works. First they should read it and then reach their own conclusions. And many other writers who have not written positively about the community have not read his works. What kind of rearch is this, and how can an encyclopedia run like this. The greatest of Communist and Socialist leaders have come from Bhumihar Brahmins and this fact is conveniently overlooked. - An ardent student of Law and History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.244.42 (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place to publicize your community or spread misinformation. -Ravichandar 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Nobody is prejudiced against the Bhumihars, as the IP claims. There is just one sentence about Ranvir Sena in the article. The article also states the Bhumihars have played an important role in the social and political movements of Bihar. The article talks about Sahajanand's claims as well. If any of the sources is "obscure", it's Sahajanad's work, not others.

The "ardent student of Law and History" seems to be hellbent on turning the article into an ethnic propaganda piece. utcursch | talk 04:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear wikipedia organizers, I have been noticing that the statement of Professor Siyaram Tiwari where he has mentioned about Nambudiri Brahmin (cited from Times of India) is conveniently changed to Ambalavasis. It is plagiarism. Please refrain from it. Another fact which is haunting me is that the citation where Pandit Jogendranath Bhattacharya has mentioned Bhumihar as Bhumihar Brahmins is deleted. Is this prejudice or not? Furthermore, all communities mention about the achievers of their respective communities and they also mention about them in their webpage which cannot be considered to be any kind of publicizing. It is mentioned with proper citations. Please do not remove such information. It is a humble request.

If the website co-operates I can help it in writing about so many other issues and prove to an asset for the website

Trayambak Dwivedi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.206.108 (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I sign it. I would be happy if I get a response to my previous remarks. Trayambak | talk 12:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to sign by taking help from previous users. Is it all-right?Trayambak | talk 12:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.206.108 (talk) [reply]

Yes,of course, statements which don't have citations to back them have been REMOVED. However, none of the statements which have citations have been removed. And by the way, as you might observe from the page history nowhere in the article has Namboodiri Brahmin modified to Ambalavasis. Yes, I don't think there is anything wrong in mentioning the names of prominent individuals of a particular community. But then, you see. This article was ridden with list of Bhumihar Zamindars, etc. There is every chance that every person with the name Dutt, Sinha, etc. would be included in the list of famous Bhumihars as had previously been done. Dutt, for example, is a Punjabi surname and the title Sinha is also used by Kayasthas. So, if one comes across people with such surnames it creates a great deal of ambiguity whether the person is a Bhumihar or from some other community. This is blatant propaganda and is not permissible, as non-Bhumihars could easily be passed off as Bhumihars.

Besides, we also don't want this article to be used for propaganda purposes in online forums. Imbibing these articles with falsehood or unreferenced material would greatly affect the credibility of the site. And then also have a look at WP:NPOV.

http://www.orkut.co.in/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=583718&tid=2501766470114531959&kw=bhumihar&na=3&nst=11&nid=583718-2501766470114531959-2505216799879648932

http://ja.globalcoordinate.com/items/549485

http://vn.globalcoordinate.com/items/29982

And then, The Imperial Gazetteer of India Vol VII, in its descriptions of the communities of Bihar in page 232, does not mention any caste by name "Bhumihar". Its speaks of Bhuinhar as "an aboriginal tribe".

Yeah, you are welcome to contribute. :-) The section on "controversies" speaks about individual incidents of Maoist killings in Bihar. It would be great if you could balance POV by describing incidents involving Ranvir Sena's

pogroms of Dalits in Bihar.-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 19:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not gone through the Imperial Gazeteer where some tribe by the name of Bhuihar has been mentioned. But terms and titles make it still more confusing. Pandit is a title used by both Brahmins as well as Kahars who are extremely low in the social hierarchy. We cannot surely confuse Brahmin pandits to be Kahars. Pandit literally means "the learned one". The term Bhumihar Brahmin got into wide usage only at the turn of the twentieth century. There are still arranged marriages solemnized between Bhumihar Brahmins and Maithil Brahmins in North Bihar and between Bhumihar Brahmins of Jujhoutia clan (to which Swami Sahajanand Saraswati also belonged) and Kanyakubja Brahmins attesting to their equal social stature. I believe this article has the most number of authentic citations considering its small size. None of the other articles of different castes has as many citations for such a small article. Some articles have no citations at all. An improvement is needed there. More attention should be paid at articles which do not have any citation. I would sincerely await your response with more inputs. Thankfully yours, Trayambak | talk 12:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.39.188 (talk)[reply]

I am sorry dear. But we don't permit POV in articles. Designations as "Bhumihar Brahmin" may be regarded as POV. We don't use terms as Nair Kshatriya, Jat Kshatriya, Nambudhri Brahmin, Iyer Brahmin or Iyengar Brahmin etc. in articles. Well, Bhumihars are not regarded as Brahmins by all. This being the case the usage of such terms would be used for caste propaganda, etc. The lead section starts with "Bhumihar Brahmins, also called...". It should be replaced with "Bhumihars, also called..". The lead section also states that "Bhumihars are regarded themselves as Brahmins, but their claim is disputed by some other castes.." We do not know who these "some others" are and how much their numbers are. They could form 10% or 99% of Bihar's population. And we couldn't refer to Bhumihars as "Brahmins" if there is an extremely negligible minority which regards them thus.-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 05:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed at your single-minded devotion to Bhumihar Brahmins and the article on them. No other community is getting this much attention and many which do not have any citation and references. Leaving these things apart, I am looking for the adequate citation for the fact that the erstwhile Akhil Bharatiya Bhumihar Brahmin Mahasabha had objected to British India's census of 1901. And an arbitration was held by the same British Government and the decision was reached that Bhumihar Brahmins were not alone Brahmins but the highest among Brahmins themselves which was reflected in the last caste-census of 1931 in which, of course the Brahmins were placed on the top of the hierarchy, and Bhumihar Brahmins were at the top of the Brahmin list as well. In fact, the Viceroy had himself addressed the Akhil Bharatiya Bhumihar Brahmin Mahasabha convention in 1922 and apologized for their mistake of 1901. I will not go into this debate. This was what the British held. Otherwise, all Brahmins are on the same platform, including Bhumihar Brahmins. Fact and truth cannot be distorted for the belief and prejudice of few people or even communities. I will place this in the main article soon with proper citations. The fact that Bhumihar Brahmins are Brahmins cannot be disputed for the prejudice of few people or communities. It is an irrelevant consideration. Tommorrow, if somebody claims that, there is no caste-structure, no Iyer, no Iyengar, Lord Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi are mythical creatures, all Muslims are terrorists, it will not become true even if the saying goes if a lie is repeated hundred times it becomes true". It is the Brahmins who wrote all the religious texts and placed themselves at the top of the hierarchy and which was even socially accepted, tomorrow some other communities can claim all this also to be bogus and claim them to be the most inferior, but it will not change the course of history and India's social formation. I will eagerly await your response to my submission. I am happy that a healthy discussion is being generated on the topic. Trayambak Dwivedi Trayambak | talk 10:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.170.102 (talk) [reply]

I am sorry. Your argument is not at all convincing. Bhumihars -- the greatest of Brahmins??? Well, well, so you aspire to convert this talkpage into a hub of casteist propaganda???? I feel User:Utcursch's version the most acceptable of the lot. Well, and though your statements on "Brahmin glory" appear unrelated to the topic apart from from being inappropriate for Wikipedia, I would like to point out that Valmiki was a Dalit. -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 19:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, could you provide relevant references about the Viceroy's speech. Please back up your claims with evidence from reliable sources.-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 19:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this dispute persists, I suggest filing an WP:RfC. utcursch | talk 02:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely have the right to disagree with me, but it will not change facts. And I did not write Bhumihar Brahmins as the greatest among Brahmins, I wrote "highest" in the hierarchy in the caste census of 1931 (the last caste census). And, perhaps, you did not read my article carefully , I have written that I will include the fact of arbitration by the British Indian Government and address by the Viceroy in the main article only when I have the proper citations. I will include it very soon. My words are carefully chosen. And it is not any kind of caste propaganda but an academic exercise to bring to light proper and true facts to light. May I please get to know the distinction between writing facts (and sometimes even debates) about a particular caste or community and casteist propaganda? I personally believe there is a lot of difference between the two and I am carefully avoiding any casteist propaganda. Had I been casteist I could have removed the fact that some communities dispute Bhumihar Brahmins as Brahmins in the very introduction of the article. But I did not do that. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Trayambak Dwivedi Trayambak | talk 01:00 P.M., 29 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.167.135 (talk)

Well, well, yes, individuals from different communities dispute the Brahminical origin of the Bhumihars. This being the case, the inclusion of the term "Bhumihar Brahmins" at the start of the article appears to be mischievous and POV. You are welcome to include statements as "Bhumihars are mostly regarded as Brahmins and hence use the designation "Bhumihar Brahmin" " but then, if you start the article with "Bhumihar Brahmins are ...." It deliberately projects the misinformation that the view expressed is an universally held one and is clearly POV. And then, as per Wikipedia's rules and regulations, the article should usually start with the name of the subject, which is usually depiected in boldface. Here, the name of the article is Bhumihar not Bhumihar Brahmin or something like that. And as for your statement about the Viceroy's speech, let me remind you that the contents of the Viceroy's speech should be mentioned only if the authenticity could be established through neutral, unbiased sources. We don't regard sourcing from community websites or discussion forums to be reliable. Well, your statements on Brahmins and religious texts was definitely casteist. This article is not about Brahmins in general. -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 08:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

There are two important issues affecting this article:

The article should not commence with the words Bhumihar Brahmins are.... As I've repeatedly stated before, starting an article like this appears like POV. However, this concern is yet to be addressed.

The section Political and social movements reads like a "Bhumihar Hall of Fame" list. While there are individual articles for the personalities mentioned, their biographies, replete with POV, are outside the scope of this article. The title of the section also appears completely irrelevant. The section may very well be wiped out clear or reduced to two or three lines.

Until these concerns are addressed, I insist that the NPOV tags remain. Any attempt to remove them shall be regarded as an act of vandalism. Thanks -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 14:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to the Issues

I have removed the instances where individual pages are there mentioning about some of the personalities mentioned in the Political and social movements. But some of the personalities who do not have a separate page on them and who deserve one, I have let some information remain about them in the article and with footnotes. Hope that is fine. It is not a "Bhumihar Hall of Fame" as alleged. It is a list of those who have made a mark for themselves. I find that you even dispute that they are Bhumihar Brahmins and in no other page, for other communities, a footnote is required for the community to which they belonged. And I have provided with the same whereever I could trace one. But why this special requirement only for Bhumihar Brahmins? Every community mentions about their great personality to instill a sense of pride and self-respect and I believe they have a right to do so. And if there are others who feel opressed by the fact, nothing can be done for it.

Another important fact about the Mythology in the article with proper footnote, (even the page number is mentioned) was convenienly deleted. Please do not do that.

The article starts with Bhumihar Brahmins but the very introduction includes that some communities object to it, thus, safeguarding its neutrality. I do not think it is any kind of POV.

Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Trayambak Dwivedi Trayambak | talk 12:00 P.M., 1 October, 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.162.154 (talk)

First of all, your logic seems to be ridden with deficiencies and irregularities. Your point of reasoning is that Most caste-related articles in Wikipedia are composed of filth, so what if this article, too, is made of filth. First of all, yes, most caste-related articles in Wikipedia are filled with propaganda and we are working to clean them up. However, this is no excuse to infuse caste-related propaganda in this one, too. And then, do I need to remind you that an earlier version of this article had been deleted via deletion discussion because it was almost wholly filled with propaganda nonsense and unsourced content. And then, it has been stated in this very article that Bhumihars are a politically volatile community. It is well-known that Bhumihars are at the centrestage of caste-wars and articles related to them could easily be used for propaganda purposes as I've already indicated above. Hence, extra care is given to maintain encyclopedic standards and keep off POV-pushers.

And then, we cannot allow you to fill this article with irrelevant biographical information. See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. You either create new articles for the aforesaid individuals or move the content to your userspace. Well, well, and I need not prove my credentials here. My track record in fighting propagandists and POV-pushers in caste-related articles is quite well known in Wikipedia circles. On the contrary, this one appears to be the only article you seem to have edited. Could you please explain why is it so?

As for the POV contained in the first line of the article, I've already explained why it isn't permissible to start an article in the way that you suggested. You are yet to give a definite answer. -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 04:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone looking for marriage relation b/w Bhumihar Brahmin & others brahmin as a proof to assign Bhumihar as a Brahmin then i would like to put one example here In Knyakubj Brahmin do not regard any other brahmin as a brahmin & they only get arrange marriage b/w kanyakubj the way Bhumihar prefered to get marriage. So Pls do not use marriage as a sign of community. Now a day so many arrange marriage i can give you which have been arranged b/w Bhumihar & Kanyakubj & Maithil & Jujhotiya. If you ready to know those talk personally with me. Now no need of this debate because at the time of Swami Shahjanand when he become first Bhumihar Brahmin of the Kashi Brahmin leader on that time itself there were so many debate b/w Swami & other Sanskrit scholar ( Kashi Famous Pundit ) about this topic & finally it was confirmed that Bhumihar is a superior Brahmin.So now again opening debate on this topic does not make sense to me & to whole Brahmin Samaj. But some other jelous person who do not have their background & talk any thing it does not matter. If you want to see this article then read "Brahmanshi Brahm Vistar" book which was written by Swami Shahjanand & approved By his ancector Guru ( who was Kanyakubj) of whole Kashi Nagri.--Kishoranand 77 (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC) --Kishoranand 77 (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]