(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Talk:Bhumihar - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:Bhumihar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bhumhiar is not from Rajmut man and brahmin woman

This is false allegation of Rajput without any proof ...Brahmin and Bhumhiaar girl never considered Rajput because they are socially lower than them. Bishwarup Dubey (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On record babhan

"AS PER THE JUDICIAL RECORDS BHUMIHAR BRAHMIN IS THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT BIHAR PROVIVINCE UNDER BENGAL PRESIDENCY & THE STATE OF BENARAS BASED ADOPTED TITLE FOR THE "ON RECORD BABHAN". Abhijeetkumar51 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refuting baseless claim on History

While going through this article i saw a shocking claim that Bhumihars are descended from Rajputs which is purely based on dubious source which i'm going to refute.

In Hindu castes and sects Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya clearly mentioned on page 109 that Bhumihars are descended from Brahmins and Kshatriya(Rajput) women. This source is not unreliable as per WP:RAJ as it's written by local Indian historian and not some british civil servant.

This article clearly mentions Bhumihar term was first used in 1865. Let's see what the first mention of this term says about origin. Census of the N.W. Provinces, 1865 which is a WP:RAJ source but i am only citing it here to prove my point. It also mentions on page 115 that Bhumihars/Bhoomihars say that their ancestors are Brahmins who married Lunar Chuttee(Kshatriya) women. There are many sources like this. All this implies that Author Ashwani Kumar confused the Father mother equation or probably by mistake mentioned the vice versa equation in his source. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jogendendra Nath Bhattacharya is not a WP:RS according to WP:RAJ. Tagging Ekdalian, LukeEmily and Ratnahastin. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing but i want to know why it isn't a reliable source as still there are things in Wikipedia i'm learning @Adamantine123 . I think i am not completely aware of this so please tell me the reason so i can avoid any future imperfections in my edits. Thanks for adding other experienced editors. Will surely act according to what consensus you guys achieve. If that's not the WP:RS then i will request to remove that whole paragraph as it's just opposite of what most of the sources about Bhumihars mention. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamantine123 Can we just remove that whole paragraph as If you see the author of the book cited after it Ashwani Kumar (scientist) is a biologist and not an ethnologist or historian which makes his source unreliable for caste information? You all can check author's info on his Wikipedia article Ashwani Kumar (scientist) and decide by yourself if his source is eligible for ethnology of castes. In my opinion that whole paragraph should be removed. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been there for decades, I can't agree as we need to bring all editors in caste area for this to happen. A good thing is to keep proposal at noticeboard for India related topic for external input. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vedant Katyayan:, If Ashwani Kumar is not reliable for such caste topics (if he is biologist, engineer , doctor etc.), then I agree we can remove him. Rajputs are not considered Kshatriyas - even in Hindu scriptures - but that may be irrelevant to this page. If there some reliable source for "Bhumihars/Bhoomihars say that their ancestors are Brahmins who married Lunar Chuttee(Kshatriya) women", I have no objection to it being added to the page. Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya is not reliable.LukeEmily (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeEmily Here we go, In this source it's clearly mentioned that Bhumihars are descended from Brahmin fathers and Rajput mothers and this source is way reliable than source of Ashwani kumar as it's written by Centre of social studies, Surat and is reliable for ethnology. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Har Prasad Shastri is a historian and if any of his source say that Bhumihars were descendants of Brahmin father and Rajput mothers, then it can be considered to be added here. Adamantine123 (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamantine123 Should i go ahead and make changes if you allow me? Vedant Katyayan (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per my opinion, you cannot reject Ashwini Kumar altogether as Ratnahastin has showed that this Ashwini Kumar is a reliable source in this area. So, you should add the Harprasad Shastri by quoting him or by saying that according to Har Prasad Shashtri..... Adamantine123 (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamantine123 I feel sorry to disagree here, Degree in Political science does not makes anyone eligible on topics of ethnology as both are different disciplines. Doesn't matter which Ashwani Kumar this is, He isn't reliable on ethnology and history of caste. Hope you understand and analyse it neutrally and direct me accordingly to make changes. Thank you. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamantine123 Also Ratnahastin never said he is reliable on this topic, He simply made a point that This Ashwani kumar is not same as the Ashwani Kumar Biologist. Check his latest reply. The equation mentioned in source by me corroborates with all the sources of 19th century rejected under WP:RAJ. It can't necessarily mean that all the info in those sources is false when it's also mentioned in modern sources. It's not a good idea to add just opposite information based on source of author who isn't eligible to write on ethnology and reject actual Ethnology sources. Please allow me to make changes if we have consensus. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaking the author for a different Ashwani Kumar. The author of the cited work is an associate professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences with a PhD in Political Science from the University of Oklahoma [1]. The reviews of this book can be found here. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin No sir, in order to figure who this Ashwani Kumar is, kindly go through the names of books written by same author on Google books here. Most of his books are on Biology or Biotechnology topic which is the main field of Ashwani Kumar (scientist). The book which is cited on this caste article is by Ashwani Kumar Biologist. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the works under publications header in this link, Google's inauthor parameter shows works by different authors in the same search if they happened to have the same name. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin Even in this authors bio says "Centre for Public Policy, Habitat and Human Development,Centre for Electoral Management Studies, School of Development Studies". Can you provide me link which says he did PHD in social sciences? Anyway i have already cited source here by Centre for Social studies, Surat which is an autonomous research institute in Social studies which contradicts assumption by Ashwani Kumar. The source i cited corroborates with numerous of sources said to be unreliable as per WP:RAJ but it's clear from Raj Sources that first time in 1865 when Bhumihar term was mentioned(also mentioned in this article), it was mentioned to have originated from Brahmin father. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link I provided above clearly states: "He has obtained his PhD in Political Science under the guidance of Prof. Robert Cox from University of Oklahoma" Ratnahastin (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin Political science is indeed a branch of Social science but it deals with political behaviors, thoughts, systems of governance and power not with ethnology or castes & social groups. Are you sure that he is more reliable than an autonomous research institute in social sciences quoting Har Prasad Shastri? Vedant Katyayan (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I claim that? I'm only pointing out that you were mistaking him for someone else. That's the only involvement I have had on this talkpage so far. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin Thanks for clarifying. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bhumihar&oldid=1254896999"