Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:47, 17 December 2014

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, 18 March 2014, see discussion. speedy keep, 12 April 2008, see discussion. delete, 22 February 2008, see discussion.

India Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. More information: /  This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. This article was last assessed in April 2012. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

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

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: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

• 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)

Notes

1. Bayly, C.A. (1988). Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1770-1870. Cambridge University Press. pp. 504 (at p 18). ISBN 978-0521310543.
2. Das, A.N. (September 1, 1982). Agrarian Movements in India: Studies on 20th Century Bihar. Routledge. pp. 152 (at p 51). ISBN 978-0714632162.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

DO NOT DELIBERATELY DIVERT THE ISSUE

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 Origin

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)

Swami sahjanand saraswati was a freedom fighter and revolutionary. He himself was born in jujhotiya brahmin clan of bhumihar brahmin. He has written Many books on origin of Brahmin especially kanyakubj Brahmin. Many other brahmins also refer his work to know their origin. Even govt. of india is conferring agriculture award in the name of swami ji. No body can really question his credential. Swami ji did many works for enlistment of peasants. He fought against Zamindars which included babhan/bhumihar brahmin zamindars too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashumech527 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 June 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 Misplaced Pages - 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) Hey Mr X i am sure you are not bhumihar. Bhumihar has clans that are mostly in the name of places from where they have migrated. Some are in the name of Brahmin groups which has mingled with babhans Like jujhotiya clan, Chitponiya babhan, mahiwal babhan. warrior brahmins (like Mohyal and Shahi), Kanyakubj Brahmins and saryupian Brahmins came to Bihar at the time of advent of islamist force in northern part of india. These Brahmins were firstly known by the name of places from where they had came. Later on they were said to be paschima brahmin (western Brahmin). They along with magadhi babhans in a meeting named themself as Bhumihar Brahmins. For ur kind information you should know most of the brahmin tribes are practicing endogamy in their own tribe. so it is not a matter of astonishment that bhumihar brahmins are not marrying with other brahmin community so frequently. Bhumihar Brahmin name itself has come in existence in early 19th century. Babhan is their ancient name which is mere pali word for brahmin. you might be knowing in nepali brahmins are said to be bahun similarly in pali brahmins are said to be babhan. Babhan name clearly suggest that they are ancient brahmins of magadh. Babhan word is there in Ashokan inscription. Sunga and Kanva are Brahmin dynasty of magadha. they have defied the basic rule that brahmins can only be pujari (priest). Sugania babhan is a clan in bhumihar brahmins. So please erase all your confusions. Babhans are the royal brahmins of magadha just like mohyal of panjab, tyagi of western up, niyogi of andhra, anvil of gujrat, chitpavan of maharastra, and Nambudhiri of kerala. Bhumihar brahmins are the royal brahmins who are priest also in places like gaya hajaribagh patna and benaras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashumech527 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 24 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". - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashumech527 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 June 2014‎

It is your removals of the Brahmin bit across numerous articles that have led to your block from contributing. The issue is complex and we have to reflect the sources, which use both terms. I am attempting to improve the article at the moment and disruption such as that which you were engaged in is not helpful. There is absolutely no doubt that the Bhumihars at the very least claim to be Brahmins and we have to balance that sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - semi-protected edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The See Also section contains a random list of items. Jhansi, Iyers and Sangli State should surely be removed as they are completely unrelated to Bhumihars.-117.193.222.125 (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I have already removed some irrelevant/highly tangential items that were in the section. However, my efforts to improve the article are being stymied by what appear to be members of the Bhumihar community who are attempting to censor it. I'll leave the removal of those three links to someone else in order not to draw more flak. - Sitush (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Done --Mdann52talk to me! 11:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

SPI

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashumech527. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Origin theories

Instead of deleting reliably-sourced commentary regarding origins, as here, why don't the Bhumihar community members who have descended here try to find reliable sources that discuss other such tales? The source used does say that there are a myriad of myths etc out there but only discusses these two.

Having multiple folkloric theories of origin is a common situation with castes and we have to deal with it. The Rajput-Brahmin hybridity type of tale is not unique to the Bhumihars and, for example, the Rajputs have their own bizarre (to me) folklore about lunar, solar, fire dynasties etc. Misplaced Pages is not censored and there is no deadline when it comes to improving articles but the more disruption that goes on, the less time is available for people to who have done the research and do understand how Misplaced Pages works to improve the article. I've got a stack of books etc lined up for this one but it looks like they'll gather dust while the disruption continues. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Origin Theories 2

The refernce in itself is a myriad composition by research work done by a person on basis of tales rather factual proof, The references given by the author of the book if traced back it takes us to references

"Mahamahopadhya Haraprasad Shastri, “Babhan,” J o u rn al of th e Asiatic Society o f Bengal, vol. LXXl, Part 1, (1902), 61-2. Shastri writes “it appeared very probable that Babhans were originally Brahmins and their degradation from the status o f Brahmin dates back to the downfall o f Buddhism. Babhan was merely the Pali form o f Brahman and was found in Asokan pillar inscriptions as a corruption of Brahmi in one place in connection with the Sramanas or Buddhist monks”"

this is no where stating that bhumihars are buddhist converts to hindu it clearly mentions that Babhan is a pali word not at all projecting they being converts. The other reference traces back to

"To understand how strongly Bhumihars react to their identity issue can be gauged from the debate triggered off by the article published by Girish Mishra and Braj Kumar Pandey in the Searchlight on April4, 1970. In their article entitled “Socio-economic Roots o f Casteism in Bihar”, they suggested that Bhumihars are offspring o f a Brahmin mother and a Rajput father. The counter reply by P.P.Sharma, P.P.Sharma and Dashrath Tiwari, in the Searchlight, November 14,1970 revives and renews “substantialised” construction of Bhumihars’ identity in the post-independence Bihar. Interestingly, this construction looms large in the minds o f most members o f Bhumihar intelligentsia. Quoting colonial and ethnographic records, the authors give credit to Maharaja Ishwari Prasad Singh o f Benaras for popularizing the nomenclature “ Bhumihar” in the late 19th -century"

here also the subject is in contradiction and if any point of the publisher of article in searchlight is to be deemed as true it revokes all the theories of bhumihar being brahmins as india being a patriarchal society moves our shift towards kshatriya lineage which is in its own sense absurdified by thousands of articles available on the internet. So i deem the portion to be removed on the concept of it not being Reliable Source.--Amitesh93 (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Amitesh Rai

Would require your comments as I don't want to start a war of "editters" User:Sitush User:Dougweller

You should not delete material from a reliable source and that source appears to be reliable: the writer is a professional historian, not a fringe theorist, and the publisher is reputable. What you can do is introduce alternate points of view from equally reliable sources. However, I have no idea what Searchlight is, nor the credentials of the authors you mention. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well Sitush how do you proclaim this author as reliable not a mere "fringe theorist" Ashwani Kumar I call him as a historian Dr Ram Sharan Sharma and his statement to the above quote

Indeed, I got my authors mixed up. It changes nothing, though: see his cv. I've just amended the section heading, by the way, because having two sections with the same title will be confusing. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As for the Sharma thing, I don't see what difference it makes. Our article says that there are numerous legendary stories - note: "numerous" and "legendary". No-one is saying that these things are correct. Furthermore, Sharma says the BB term gained popularity in Saraswati's time: that may be true but it doesn't alter the statement that the first reference to the term was in the 1800s. If we can find the book where Sharma makes the popularity point then I'd be happy to see it added to the article. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well Sitush it do changes a lot as the comments are mythical and not legendary, rest your second comment on finding that book or reference of sharma regarding BB's popularity in 1920's< if we get hands on it what of it, will it mean non attesting bhumihars from BB phrase--Amitesh93 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And also Sitush i don't understand your statement "It changes nothing" why? well an eminent historian rubbishes the comment on the grounds of no "valid" proof we can not include the data as authentic just because a research paper writer of a college has written something and got it published.--Amitesh93 (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Legend, myth, folklore - it is all pretty much the same thing. I think we have a comprehension problem here because you are also misunderstanding what the article says. Nowhere does it say that those tales are "authentic" as in "true". In fact, the article goes out of it way (as does the source) to note that there are many such tales knocking around. And the article, as with the source, makes no pronouncement regarding which, if any, might be accurate. If you can find a book by Sharma that says that one of the stories is definitely wrong then we can add that because it would be the opinion of a reliable source. The Times of India has a somewhat awkward status in terms of reliability and the reported comment is throwaway: Sharma must have discussed it in some depth, as Kumar does in his book. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sitush please if you can provide me with the material that you are researching regarding Bhumihars i would be highly obliged.--Amitesh93 (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr sitush i want to tell You that if the so call historian by you (ashwani-kumar) has mentioned so much misdeeds of bhumihar then why not he has mentioned the senari massacre in which many babhan/ bhumihar families were killed by maoist by chopping off their heads. The author has presented many fake and derogatory tales without any substantial historic proof to back the statements. The author has mentioned that bhumihar wanted to be enumerated in babhan during imperial census 1891, which is totally false. Bhumihar word was never used in any british census they were always called as babhan and enumerated in aristocratic class. Some of the babhans especially kashi naresh then started popularizing bhumihar brahmin name and advocated the enlisting of Babhan or new name bhumihar brahmin in brahmin category rather than aristocratic category. Brahmin category was made only for professional priest during that era. Christopher Alan Bayly an eminent historian has mentioned bhumihar to be millitary brahmin(http://books.google.co.in/books?id=xfo3AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Christopher+Alan+Bayly+military+brahmin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OgTaU-TYHdGNuAS5rIL4BA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=bhumihar&f=false). The term bhumihar itself is an adjective which has similar meaning as bhumipati. Bhumihar are more known by the adjective than their original name (i.e.babhan). Whatever swami sahjahjanand saraswati has told is backed by research done by him. He has mentioned about the origin and migration of different clans of bhumihars and their parental clan from were it bifurcated. Swami sahjanad saraswati was a famous nationalist. Agriculture award is conferred by indian govt in his name to commemorate him. These things are false for you and freaky stories by aswani kumar are true for you. Do not get preoccupied just search the truth if you are willing otherwise just put down this wikipedia page of bhumihar community. Hardly anybody is referring wikipedia for these type of cast and community topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

hi every one, books like:- (Evolution and Spatial Organization of Clan Settlements By Saiyad Hasan Ansari; Martial races of undivided India By Vidya Prakash Tyagi; Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British expansion,1770-1870 By C. A. Bayly, brahmarshi bansh bistar written by nationally acclaimed personality swami sahjanand saraswati (https://archive.org/stream/BrahamharshiBamshaBistar/Brahamharshi%20Bamsha%20Bistar#page/n0/mode/2up);The Limited Raj: Agrarian Relations in Colonial India, Saran District, 1793-1920 By Anand A. Yang; The tribes and castes of the North-western Provinces and Oudh by William Crooke; ) are reliable document because all the authors are either renowned historians or social activist. these books clearly tells about the association of bhumihar brahmin with kanyakubj brahmin and it also tells about the old name of this brahmin as babhan. bhumihar brahmin name is quite a new name to babhan community that gained popularity only after 19th century. Origin of some of the clans of bhumihar brahmin is also written in the book. All these books never asserted the mixed origin of babhans/bhumihar brahmins. Mixed origin theory is a fake propaganda spread by some people to spread hatred. Spreading a false tale or rumour is not at all sensible so put down the words of Mr aswani kumar. This author has never mentioned the plight of babhans. Why not he (aswani kumar) has mentioned the senari massacre in which babhans were beheaded cruelly and mercilessly. It is unfortunate that uppar caste of society are always criticized for their wrong deeds and dalits are not for the same. All human beings are equal and their deeds should not be judged with prejudice and preoccupation. All the false tales should not be put up in wikipedia for the reference purpose. just mention the work of some credible and knowledgeable author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihar brahmin/babhan are totally distinct community from Rajputs and have ancient brahmnic origin from magadh. Babhan/bhumihar shared only one trait with rajput i.e both were royal and aristocratic class of hindu society. Bhumihar brahmin is a modern name to old babhans which was popularized by many wealthy landlords or kings like kashi naresh. Until 1891 census entire bhumihar brahmin community was named under babhan and put under millitary or aristocratic class of society which is totally evident from link of document i am mentioning . It is also a historic fact that babhan is a pali word for brahmin and present in ashokan edicts. Ancient magadh empire like sunga empire and kanva empires were brahmin empires of magadh. Some historians claims gupta empire to be a brahmin empire on the basis of marital alliance. Gupta was a word used by people of many communities like vishnugupta for chanakya unlike present day gupta surnames which is confined to vaishya community. So writing any mythical or framed story of babhans is totally injustice towards a community. Babhans are old aryan people of magadh who were present during ancient ashokan era or even before in magadh. It is a total historical fact that Rajputs came to bihar after advent of islamic force in northwest part of india. Rajputs are warrior community just like marathas of maharastra and sikh and jats of punjab and hariyana. So telling babhans to be mixture of brahmin and rajput is totally illogical and fictitious. Association of babhans with budhhism might be true but not substantially proven but association with rajput is totally fictitious. Any sensible person can easily rule out this core myth and fiction which has come out of inter community jealousy. So i request all the editors to consider this and put down the derogatory fictitious tales about babhan community.

Bhumihar pride

kindly please remove that wrong information about bhumihar origin" offspring of rajput men and Brahmin women"

this is absolutely wrong according to our Hindu mythology... who the hell you are ??

this is a spam.. parashuram killed all Kshatriyas...that's why Kshatriya hate parashuram origin..

Bhumihar are the sons of great maharishi kashyap.....

please take it seriously

bhupathiBhupathi999 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Already discussed above. It is staying in. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Rajputs are quite new community to bihar or magadh. It(bihar) was ruled by palas and senas in medival era. They(rajputs) came to magadh only after islamic invasion in western india to escape from persecution. some of Rajputs were definitely big zamindars in bihar /Magadh but they were never ruler. They(rajputs) are warrior clan similar to maratha, sikhs and bundelas. Bhumihar is quite a recent name given to brahmin zamindars especially of eastern up and bihar. In british census they were called by their old name babhan and they were kept in aristocratic class of society. Babhans were also grouped under marital race even after they were brahmin. Later on it was found that the same word babhan depicted in ashokan inscription to refer brahmins of magadh in that era. some of so called scholar concluded that they are fallen brahmin or buddhist brahmin. It is really pathetic that some people and some so called scholars are concluding the fact in misleading way and lack the basic level of logic to prove them. All the historical evidences regarding babhans/ bhumihars points towards their brahmical origin. History is not at all based on tales or rumours but it need some evidence to back it. All the tales which are repeatedly put up on wikipedia does not have any historical ground, a sensible man can easily tell its authenticity. There are so many rumours regarding many caste but it can not be considered as origin. so please do not put up such a defamatory statement about any community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am surprised by such objectionable articles on sensitive subject like defining caste which are matter of belief.Recent references of late 20th century may not be authentic source for any conclusive remark on castes.Misplaced Pages should desist from such articles which are highly subjective and devoid of merit.

14.99.229.166 (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to a comment about sources on my user page

Bpandey89 (talk · contribs) recently posted this on my User page. Since this is the correct venue I'll respond to it here later today, although I rather think we've already dealt with the sources mentioned. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've been distracted both on- and off-wiki today. I'll try tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yang and Bayly are fine as sources but I've no idea what it is you wanted us to examine in their books. William Crooke, like most Raj sources, is inappropriate; Tyagi's is one of the most notorious books published by Gyan and should never be used; and Saraswati is clearly a POV work and can only be used in very limited circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Aggressive removal of sourced content

There has been some aggressive removal of sourced material recently, usually with rather cryptic explanations. For example, this one says that the source does not even mention the BBM ... but there it is on, for example, page 7. I've reverted the removals pending some more detailed explanations. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Article is probably better than most of the other social group related articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

PLEASE CHANGE "Bhumihar" 
               TO 
      "Dogamiya bhumihaar"

because the mythical is related to "dogamiya bhumihaar" only, other bhumihar gotra has other mythical Vikram989 (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihars are known as Babhan. They are a community of Brahmins who have taken up Land and given up (TYAGI) priest craft (begging and doing Karmakand) even though there are few karmakandi Bhumihar brahmins in Hazaribagh Gaya, Patna & Benaras. They are spread from Afghanistan, Punjab, Maharastra, Gujrat, Kerala to Bihar. In Punjab they were known as Mohiyals, Chitapavan, Anavil, Havyak, Niyogi, Barendro but they claim descent from Lord Parshuram.

Actually Lord Parshuram was the first Brahmin in History to wear arms and to teach lessons to the Kings and bring them to justice. He also seized their land and handed over to Brahmins. The same brahmins are known as Bhumihar brahmins.

Bhujbal bhumi bhup binu kinhi, bipul bar maheedevan dinhee.

(Ram-Charit-Manas)

The word Bhumihar derives its name from sanskrit word “Bhumi�? meaning land and Hara meaning maker. Earlier ethnographic accounts contain a large number of legends, which trace their Brahmin origin and the Brahmins who abandoned their priestly profession and took to landowning. “Babhan�? is a corrupt form of the word Brahmins. Some scholars, Pandit Hazariprashad Dwivedy and Sree Kameshwar Ojha believes; Bhumihar is a short form of Bhumi-Agrahar Bhojee Brahmin. Brahmins, who were responsible for Agrahar collection. King Harsha of Kannauj appointed them for this purpose.

According to the different standard dictionaries Bhumihar means a community of brahmins of UP&Bihar ( Standard Hindi to Hindi dictionary – Manak hindi shabdkosh; Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag ). Almost all Hindi dictionaries says Bhumihar or Babhan means Brahmin. According to Sammanantra Kosh Bhumihar brahmins means- Babhan, Tyagi.

As per Kanyakubja Vansawalee, Bhumihars are one of of the divisions of Kanyakubja brahmins. There are five divisons of Kanyakubja Brahmins namely Sarvariya, Sanadhaya, Jujhotiya, Bhumihar and Prakrit Kanaujiya, This view was supported by the great historian Sir H. Eliot in his book supplemental glossary and also seen in the population report, It is also mentioned that all the above said division have common custom and traditions.

Suryanarayan Pandey in his book Sainik Brahmin has noted that only in two situation they were seprated from Kanyakubja brahmin the first was, when they were honoured and given land as AGRAHARAM by the kings of different states and second when they were attacked by muslim ruler. They wanted to preserve Hindu cultural heritage so they came to Eastern Kashi.

Lot of other Brahmins also have mixed and mingled with Bhumihar Brahmins such as Prachin Brahmins of Bihar known as SOBARNIYA has Savarna Gotra, Jujhotiya from Bundelkhand Sarvariya and Sanadhya from Kanyakubja Tatiha, Nokhuliya of Nonhtar of Bithur, Kinvar of Aakin(Kanpur), Baruar of Bafra, Sankarvar of Fatehpur, Pahitipuri Pandey of Pahitiya, Hirapuri Pandey of Haripur Unnav, Eksariya of Hastinapur (Mohiyal-Bali).

Sources:

1. Manak Hindi Sabdkosh- Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag,(Ramchandra verma and group) 2. Sammanatra Sabdakosh-National Book Trust (Sri Arbinda kumar and Kusum Kumar) 3. 543 faces of India by H.D.Singh,Newsmen publisher.New Delhi 4. Vikash Ki Ek Dhara – Kuldeep narayan Jhadap 5. KANYAKUBJA VANSAVALEE-MUKUNDRAM 6. Brahamarshi Vansha Vistar – Swami Sahjananda 7. Sainik brahmin – Pandey Suryanarayan sharma. 8. Jujhotiya brahmin ke itihas kee ruprekha – Pt.Gorelal tewari 9. Mohiyal History-Chunilal Dutta 10. Brahmnotpatee Bhaskar (Pt Batuk Prasad Mishra ) 11. Shree Saryuparee vansawali – Acharya Rajnarayan Shukla 12. Sarvariya brahamnotpati Deep – Ram Lagan Tripathy 13. History of Kanyakubja-Pt.Raghunandan Mishra 14. Shree Shree Swami 1008 RANGARAMANUJACHARYA-HULASGANJ GAYA 15. Shree Swami RAMPRAPANNACHARYA-KATRASIN Jehanabad,Gaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.99.193 (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Lord Parshuram was not a hisotrical character, he is part of Hindu mythology. That's like treating Adam as a real person. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

common title surname of bhumihar brahmin correction

please remove Surname Malviya Dikshit pradhan Jha Yajee karjee Kunwar these are not bhumihar brahmins. and also stories section remove it if any administrator is here

please remove Surname Malviya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rai -Pandey-Singh Royal chulbul king brahmin (talk • contribs) 05:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Dikshit pradhan Jha Yajee karjee Kunwar these are not bhumihar brahmins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rai -Pandey-Singh Royal chulbul king brahmin (talk • contribs) 05:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell if the citation is unreliable? It will be removed if it is unreliable or stories have been changed throughout the times. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A REQUEST

if such articles are added then also add

Bhumihars have been the traditional priests in Prayag, at Vishnupad Mandir in Gaya as Gayawar Pandas and in the adjoining districts like Hazaribagh. (with refernce it is true please please please add this if it is not added then bhumihars will never know the fact that they are also priests brahmins in some places) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyaprakash ji (talk • contribs) 10:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You will need to provide a reliably published source with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight that can verify the claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the previous version of the article cited a work by Sahajanand Saraswati as the reference, but it's not verifiable since it's not available online. Also, Sahajanand was the chief of Bhumihar Mahasabha, which indulged in historical revisionism to glorify the Bhumihar history. So an independent source is needed -- I couldn't find any. utcursch | talk 01:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihar brahmin/babhan

Some of the historic accounts by renowned authors mentioning bhumihar Brahmin / babhan community.

1)Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British By C. A. Bayly url= http://books.google.co.in/books?id=xfo3AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=bhumihar&f=false

2)The Limited Raj: Agrarian Relations in Colonial India, Saran District, 1793-1920 By Anand A. Yang url== http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ck4jmD7H34UC&pg=PA59&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=bhumihar%20brahmin%20origin%20by%20historians&f=false

3)Man in India, Volumes 54-55 by Sarat Chandra Roy (Ral Bahadur) url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=CGMqAQAAIAAJ&q=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw

4)Bazaar India: Markets, Society, and the Colonial State in Gangetic Bihar By Anand A. Yang url== http://books.google.co.in/books?id=D5lQutvzAp4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=bhumihar%20&f=false

5)Caste: The Colonial Theories by Braja Bihārī Kumāra url== http://books.google.co.in/books?id=voe3AAAAIAAJ&q=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&dq=bhumihar+brahmin+origin+by+historians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x54UVLvYGcaTuATng4HgBw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ

6)Evolution and Spatial Organization of Clan Settlements: A Case Study By Saiyad Hasan Ansar url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=dxDWbsztdVQC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=Evolution+and+Spatial+Organization+of+Clan+Settlements:+A+Case+Study+of+...++By+Saiyad+Hasan+Ansari&source=bl&ots=Z2K627D9Qw&sig=p0YFJjE2ASP6v09wVCn3DY6riRo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tKMUVOqGKonjuQShw4DoAw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Evolution%20and%20Spatial%20Organization%20of%20Clan%20Settlements%3A%20A%20Case%20Study%20of%20...%20%20By%20Saiyad%20Hasan%20Ansari&f=false

7)Brahamharshi Bamsha Bistar by swami shahjanand saraswati. url==https://archive.org/details/BrahamharshiBamshaBistar

8)Hindu caste and sect by yogendra nath bhattacharya url==https://archive.org/stream/hinducastesands00bhatgoog#page/n136/mode/2up

9)Census of India 1891 by British Indian Govt. url==https://openlibrary.org/books/OL24179313M/Census_of_India_1891

10)Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the ... By Susan Bayly url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=HbAjKR_iHogC&pg=PA203&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bhumihar&f=false

11)The State at War in South Asia By Pradeep Barua url==http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FIIQhuAOGaIC&pg=PA76&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Bhumihar&f=false

12)Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465;brand=ucpress url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress;query=#1

Note : Bhumihar Brahmin/ Babhan/ Bhumihars (short name of bhumihar Brahmin) are names to same community. Sometimes they are also called as Bhramarshi. Brahmin is a priestly class in hindu community, but many Brahmins were landlords during British and mughal era.

Hi everybody, whatever books I have mentioned earlier are the books from renowned Historians or social activists. None of these books have mentioned any relation of bhumihar with rajput. Bhumihar (i.e. Babhan, which is an old name for bhumihar brahmin which had been used in early colonial census of british india (ref 9)) is a distinct community different from rajput, but having Brahminic (of brahmin) origin. It is a total bias to write a tale and false fiction mentioned in ashwani kumar book (i.e. Bhumihar made up of union of rajput and Brahmin). You can find a lot about the plight of dalit ( i.e. so called downtrodden section of society who are not at all downtrodden in present time and politically awaken since independence) in his (aswani kumar) book, but hardly about the plight of Bhumihar Brahmin/Babhan. He has not mentioned massacres in which Maoist (i.e. naxalite) and dalit led army beheaded bhumihar/babhan. Any kind of cruelty should strongly be condemned but writing only one corner is also prejudice. This book is a totally biases against upper Class and trying to emphasize only on false tales and fabricated story which has come out of sheer jealousy. There are some bad persons in all community which have been over hyped in ashwani kumar's book. Entire babhan community has been made culprit in his book. If anyone is writing anything in Misplaced Pages he should write all the issues, and not merely some defamatory and derogatory tales, which is not at all true. Ashwani kumar has written many fictitious stories about babhan/bhumihar which cannot be simultaneously true. Rajput is a community which come into existence only after fall of Harshavardhan kingdom. (Refer Rajesthan by RK gupta and s r bhakshi. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=gHNoU2zcDnIC&pg=PA1&dq=rajput+origin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qr8eVKO8MZKTuATy3YLwBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=rajput%20origin&f=false or you can refer book from eminent historian like Satish Chandra for medival india.) Initially they (Rajputs) were centered around north-west India and some part of central India. They came to eastern India only at the time of emergence of Islamic force in western India (i.e. around 1200 AD or Muhammad ghori period). Bhumihar brahmin is a new name to babhan community which gained popularity in late 19th century and popularised by babhan landlords as well as sahjanand saraswati. In early british census report(till 1891 census) they were enumerated as Babhans under aristocratic and military community along with rajputs, nairs and marathas. So I request wikipedians to remove this fairy tale which has been fabricated by some jealousy community out of sheer jealousy. Please put up historic fact about babhan community rather than some fabricated story. Swami shahjanand saraswati was a peasant leader and social reformer (https://en.wikipedia.org/Sahajanand_Saraswati) who advocated mere priesthood for babhans rather than landlord ship and wanted inclusion of Bhumihar Brahman/Babhan in mere donation taking Brahmins list and also attempted to abolish zamindari (landlord ship) from bihar. Babhans were already included in aristocratic class till 1891 british census. There is hardly any book or early historical evidence giving relation of bhumihar/Babhan with rajput. It is a pure myth to associate bhumihar with rajput which are two distinct community. So please put down the myth and include the materials from reliable and credible citation regarding bhumihar/ babhan community. Bhumihar is a Sanskrit word for zamindar or jagirdar which means landlord or landholder. Swami shahjanand saraswati books (Brahamharshi Bamsha Bistar by swami shahjanand saraswati. https://archive.org/details/BrahamharshiBamshaBistar) are cited by most of the Brahmin community for reference like kanyakubj Brahmin, (https://en.wikipedia.org/Kanyakubja_Brahmins) Saryupareen Brahmins (https://en.wikipedia.org/Saryupareen_Brahmins) Jujhautiya Brahmin (https://en.wikipedia.org/Jujhautiya_Brahmin). In many of the sites the sahjanand thoughts are distorted before presenting which is pathetic.

One more point I want to mention is that a new fictitious and imaginary theory has evolved recently and has not been mentioned by any historians in past and in colonial era. Babhan (Bhumihar) has been categorised as shudra along with kayastha in British colonial census report.(http://books.google.co.in/books?id=sQcGAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) this book mentions this claim but it has not mentioned which year census report did so. I am including one of the early British census report and one book abstract which evidently tells the falsehood of the above statement. (Census of India 1891 by British Indian govt url==https://openlibrary.org/books/OL24179313M/Census_of_India_1891 & url==https://archive.org/stream/cu31924023177268#page/n195/mode/2up) and (Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465;brand=ucpress & url==http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress;query=#1) above books clearly show that babhans were considered and listed as military community similar to rajputs, nairs and marathas till 1891 colonial census. They(babhans) fought to get included in mere priestly (i.e. donation taking) Brahmin list since they have brahmanic (i.e. of brahmin) origin. Bhumihar name was not used to list this entire community till 1891 census report. This entire community was listed with the name babhan till 1891 census under military and aristocratic category. There after sahjanand demanded abolishion of zamindari (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/spa/zohkohb0i282t94/Area%20Studies/public/SouthAsia/Misc/Sss/whpsnts96.html) and inclusion of babhan as mere priestly and donation taking brahmin list (since they have brahmnic origin). Bhumihar word was also popularised and created by their groups(sahjanand group) which included kashi naresh. 1901 onward, bhumihar (i.e. babhan ) was categorized under mere priestly brahmin category. Please do not let some editor write some spurious and false facts which do not have historical evidences or account to back the fact. We are talking about British India census claim without any substantial fact to verify that claim. some People have started unnecessary inclusions in wikipedia which is not at all historic. I feel that British census report statement or claim can be verified from the same census report not from mere supposition of an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bpandey89: WP:TLDR. Please bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is not the place to push a partisan point of view and that you need to work constructively with other editors if you wish to improve this article. Thank you for your attention.  Philg88  23:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am also trying to put up neutral point of view. Defamatory things without historical facts should not be put on the wikipedia. This thing i am repeatedly telling since the beginning. My aforesaid blog is never intended to defame or popularize some sect of society but i wanted to point out the erroneous statement as well as fictitious stories (many may regard as legend). These things should not be put on the wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is generally referred by novice to know the starting knowledge of something. Putting up flaw full statement should be therefore avoided in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

some editors of this page have extreme hostility and grudge towards babhan community. They are consistently putting up defamatory and fabricated tales as well as deeds of some rough elements of the babhan community. some rough element is present in all the community. Do you people feel that entire babhan community is made up of roughs. It is total bias which they are showing. Whenever i tried to put up some neutral point of view they delete my statement stating the neutral point of view issue. Some rough elements are present in all the community that does not mean that one should write on the front page of wikipedia. If people are so keen to write why not they put IS on islam wikipedia. I know doing this is wrong because some people do not define masses. Many of the statements present on babhan community wikipedia is taken from unreliable and unacceptable source in the name of neutral point of view. It is sheer hostility toward this specific community. Please take corrective action against it and put up some acceptable facts rather than fables or legends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

what nonsence and false information you have allowed in this site about bhumihars .

kindly filter the whole article it is very controversial and or either give me details of that account who has edited tgis article so that i can drag him to the court or even kill him.

dont talk wrong about any community or religion.

i hope wikkipedia team will help and allow me to edit this section. if you cant do so then please delete this page.

• Start-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• India articles needing attention
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in India
• WikiProject India articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics