Talk:Rajputs in Bihar: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rajputs in Bihar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Bihar / Uttar Pradesh Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Bihar (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh (assessed as Low-importance). Ethnic groups Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Sociology Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

@Heba Aisha: Please advise why information on Awadh is relevant to an article on Bihari Rajputs.RuudVanClerk (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...it's true, ok I will see it in free time. Thanks Heba Aisha (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop including Silhadi in bihari rajput page, he wasnt bihari and irrelevant here. Stop reverting to your favorite version

@Heba Aisha: You are again and again reverting to your favorite version after misquoting Kolff, what kolff says is "These followers were Rajput or Pseudo Rajput..." which means some Silhadi followers were rajputs , some pseudo rajputs. Its a known fact all purbiya soldiers were not exclusively rajput. Why are you stuck on adding your interpretation here, seems like a malicious effort to defame a particular race of people.

@Heba Aisha: Please advise why you have removed the maintenance template without adequate discussion on the talk. Please be advised that if this continues, it will be escalated to an administrator intervention.RuudVanClerk (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RuudVanClerk:, the section is properly sourced. What's your dispute with respect to the particular information ? Heba Aisha (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha:, information pertaining to Awadhi Rajputs is not relevant on an article about Rajputs in Bihar. It would be better suited in a separate article for Awadhi Rajputs. Please provide a source detailing Awadh being a part of Bihar otherwise. This does not include the Dola Pratha paragraph which should be kept. Thanks.RuudVanClerk (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha: Once again you have added the same pic on bihari rajput , which is owned by you and there is no means to verify its content for caste of people involved. There has been multiple Discussions over this already and it was removed, still you went ahead and reposted it. also looping @Jack Frost: this seems like another attempt to bait me to revert her change just after User:RuudVanClerk made some edit, so as to implicate us in some other accusation. Anyways this pic has have multiple discussions and removed from article, for ex here [1] & here [2]. Also this is again trying to WP:OWN an article.I will wait for a valid verification proof that these are actually bihari rajputs, lacking which i will be removing this pic from article Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a verified image and it was removed in edit wars here. There is no issues with this image. And the discussion for it's removal was never completed here as all involved parties were blocked with time. You may see the last discussion in which Anony20 was talking about same image and he was finally blocked. This was restored after that. @Lord 0f Avernus:. Please see, the discussion was meant for Rajput page and this image is not used there after consensus. But it's ok to keep it here.Heba Aisha (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To both @Lord 0f Avernus:, @Heba Aisha:, second editor pls don't mislead here, I have raised similar points wrt image on an another article's talk page almost 7 months ago. The concerned editor was banned not for this removal of image but for some different reasons by admin as per his talk page. Otherwise this image would have been here and you won't be trying to insert it again to suit your perspective which is unfortunately not in WP:Good faith. This image was rightly removed and nobody complained. There is question of WP:DGF by editor, WP:RS, WP:REL here. The content of the page doesn't suggest like that also there is issue of WP:RS. Surprisingly, your contribution suggests you are doing contrary to this on other pages. Clear cut case of WP:DGF, this is not trolling page here but an article WP:REL is very important. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha:, there is question wrt WP:RS of the image and WP:REL wrt to article as the content of the page suggests the community is much better, they were landed gentry. Sorry, looks like the concerned editor involved is not impartial and right intention is missing while adding such trolling images on important articles. It seems the editor has got problem with pages with respect to this particular community as the contribution of the editor suggests, the behaviour is different on other pages. There is issue of WP:DGF, as well as WP:REL here. Thanks RS6784 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its simply not verifiable, whether an earlier user was blocked or not doesnt make all his comments irrelevant, i also see agreement on his point by other users who are not banned. There is no way to verify that what you have captioned as "xyz" is actually xyz.

When we already have so many GS/CASTE & RS/CASTE about any caste related edits, it should not be hard to understand how a image which has no way to verify it could not be used as representing a caste. Must be removed from page. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor @Lord 0f Avernus:, your raised points are a bit different to mine. I am talking about WP:REL as per the page, and WP:DGF on the part of the concerned editor,unfortunately doesn't seem impartial here. I am surprised do the concerned editor believe in trolling on Wikipedia. How can this platform allow fake images which are not even present anywhere ( in reputed journal etc), I have cross checked it and the subject of the article ( like being a landed gentry) isn't represented by the image. Pinging @Heba Aisha: Thanks RS6784 (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor @Heba Aisha:, please remember as per Wikipedia policy: when contested the onus of proof is on the author, Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof. WP: Burden, please provide WP:RS for the image, satisfying WP:REL, demonstrating WP:DGF on your part. RS6784 (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let me search and find the sources regarding reliability of image RS6784, i would place it then. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First share here, its veracity will be discussed under Wikipedia rules of WP:RS, WP:REL. Since, now the matter is here. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha:, Also there are questions wrt WP:DGF on your part here, I will take a note of this behaviour whenever you do editing on this page because this is serious matter. You tried to insert fake image here but your contribution page suggests you are trying to do opposite of the same in some other pages. This is a serious matter in my view and lacks WP:Good faith RS6784 (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Engaging me for same thing on different platforms and bombarding talk page with notices amounts to Wikipedia:Harassment. I am used to it, don't waste your time in reporting as untill now neither i have reverted thrice nor contending your claims that this image should be here without verification. Same applies to image on Koeri too. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you pointing at me? not interested in harrassing anyone here. I want to make it clear from my side the issue wrt this talk page subject is closed. I will not reply on this subject anymore. Thanks & Best RS6784 (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Heba Aisha, RS6784, Lord 0f Avernus, and RuudVanClerk: Please see comments here Talk:Koeri#Transfer_of_British_era_image_and_removal_of_image. Admin has also agreed that we cannot use such unverifiable images for any caste. Neither the caste of the villagers nor the caste of the fishermen is verifiable. But it does not mean that the image was taken in bad faith. But we cannot use this image if it mentions caste. I think it may be better to rename it as "Villagers from Bihar observing fishermen" and not mention the caste of the people. Same with the Koeri image. LukeEmily (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: contrary behaviour on two such cases doesn't point to WP:Good faith. Please have courtesy to gracefully accept that there was something wrong with the whole incident. Lets not extend it further. Thanks and Best. RS6784 (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha: If a section is disputed, then you cannot just remove it without consensus as you have done and continue to do so. Please advise why information on Awadhi Rajputs is relevant on this article and please provide a source for Awadh extending into Bihar. I have also requested administrator intervention so that the issue can be resolved. Thank you. RuudVanClerk (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RuudVanClerk, What's the dispute, you haven't answered yet. You people don't have problem in writing the lead to show that they are feudal elites and they have dominance in feudal society. The section expands that thing only to explain how do they exercise their power. And this is backed by high quality sources.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One minute, clarify one thing, you have problem with Awadh Rajput related content or the Dola Pratha and the related issues ? @RuudVanClerk:.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Dola Pratha can stay. The Awadhi section needs to go. RuudVanClerk (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before I respond, what exactly do you mean by “you people”? RuudVanClerk (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RuudVanClerk, Awadhi section is supported by sources. And the same applies to Bihar as both caste groups are present here also.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awadh has no relevance to Bihar. The title of the article is “Bihari” Rajputs. The tag will stay until you can demonstrate its relevance. Also, please clarify what you mean by “you people”?RuudVanClerk (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is much similarities between East UP and Bihar and sources support the content. RuudVanClerk.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per Encylopaedia Brittanica, Awadh is South-Central UP and not East UP:

https://www.britannica.com/place/Awadh

Can you provide a source for Awadh and Bihar Rajputs having similarities please? RuudVanClerk (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but both are neighbouring state and much similarities exist between them. And, during British period no such division existed. These sources are saying about that period only. @RuudVanClerk:.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put my 2 cents, taking risk of being called a SP again . Awadh is not bihar, Awadh wasnt bihar in British Era even, if anything Bihar was part of Bengal till early 1900s. If the content that you want to add regarding awadh is correct, You can add it in a section in purbiya or in up rajput. Bihari rajput cannot include information about Awadh , since either historically or currently these two have never been same. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Any claim about similarities needs to be sourced. Bihar was a part of the Bengal Presidency during the British period which Awadh was not this is basic history. The tag will remain. RuudVanClerk (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the other user is failing to respond, I am making use of dispute resolution procedure. My contention is that Awadh is a separate region from Bihar and information on Awadhi Rajputs is not relevant to Bihar and belongs on a separate article. Looking for comments and opinions from other experience editors.RuudVanClerk (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RuudVanClerk: I have earlier too provided my opinion on the same, why again need for a new section? Anyways pointing it out here again, Awadh is not Bihar and Awadh was not Bihar ever either. Bihar was part of Bengal till 1910s.

Neither have they been part of the same region ever, Nor the two regions share a common boundary. We cannot have material pertaining to awadh in bihari rajput page. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a RFC involves creating a new section. Unfortunately, if I did remove the irrelevant information then it would have potentially led to another edit war hence more opinions are needed. Following the comments, I don’t see any issue with removing the info although the practice of Dola-Pratha should remain as we shouldn’t gloss over the treatment of depressed classes like Paswans, Koeris etc. RuudVanClerk (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any information which is relevant, WP:RS and doesn't violate WP:GSCASTE should remain. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a no-brainer. If Awadh is not relevant to Bihari Rajputs, then there is no point discussing Awadh Rajputs on this page. It does not belong to the page. Actually, I have another suggestion. This article is small. I did a google book search for "Bihari Rajput" and did not get many hits and not sure why this article was created in the first place. Why not merge this article with main Rajput article(specifying the specific community we are talking about) and then delete this article? For example, some of the points do not apply to all Rajputs so we will have to specify which specific Rajputs we are discussing. This will also address concerns by some editor who also mentioned on the talk page of Rajput that we are not discussing Rajputs all across India.LukeEmily (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Rajputs and Bihar when searched together does bring up a lot of results (especially when related to modern-day caste politics) and there are plenty of sources so the article should stay imo but perhaps it should be titled as “Rajputs of Bihar” or something along those lines. RuudVanClerk (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with changing title to Rajputs of Bihar, Topic is notable enough and the community is around 50-70 lakh strong, not a miniscule one. Also rajputs of bihar have very different customs and traditions from those of lets say Rajasthan or Haryana, be it marriage or daily life. As a matter of fact I was thinking of creating even more such distinct rajput pages like that of Madhya Pradesh and UP, which have their own distinct flavor from the erstwhile rajputana. We also have existing similar pages like Bihari Ahir. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. Then if Awadh is not related to Rajputs of Bihar or was never historically related, my vote is that Awadh rajput related content should be deleted and moved to some more relevant article(like Awadh Rajputs etc.). Requesting all to wait for a few days before making any changes so we get more input from other uninvolved editors.LukeEmily (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the sourced content related to Awadh Rajput only, it will be interesting to see that whether editors removes other content which are related to "Bihari Rajputs" in the name of removing that part or not.

The Rajputs also countered the upward mobility of some of the peasant castes, who by virtue of their economic prosperity sought higher status by wearing Janeu, a sacred thread or claimed Kshatriya status. The records indicates that during the tenure of Asaf-ud-Daula in Awadh, when a section of Awadhiya Kurmi were about to be bestowed with the title of Raja, the Rajput nobles of Asaf's court caused stiff opposition to the move despite the fact that the Rajputs themselves were newcomers to the court and were peasant-soldiers a few year before.[20] In the words of historian Richard Barnett:

Ironically, the Rajput constituency of Awadh itself composed a “group of newcomers to the court, who had been peasant soldiers only a few years before. They were called, half sarcastically, the ‘Tilangi Rajas’ [or] ‘trooper rajas’—the people described by the shocked Muhammad Faiz Baksh as the new Nawab’s courtiers: ‘Naked rustics, whose fathers and brothers were with their own hands guiding the plow . . ::::. , rode about as Asaf ud-daula’s orderlies.’”[20]

According to William Pinch :

...the Rajputs of Awadh, who along with brahmans constituted the main beneficiaries of what historian Richard Barnett characterizes as “Asaf’s permissive program of social mobility,” were not willing to let that mobility reach beyond certain arbitrary sociocultural boundaries.[20], let me specify that only this much content is about Awadh Rajput and we should consider its inclusion in main Rajput article, as that one include rajput from all areas.RuudVanClerk Heba Aisha (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out earlier, it could be added to up rajput page. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of information on this page is better suited at other pages, like few content i removed which spoke of UC landlords, that should go to zamindars of bihar, similarly awadh content should go to up rajput. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove the part supported by United Nations document. It is clear that that content is about Bihari Rajputs only. Further, i would request LukeEmily to shift the content about "Awadhi Rajput" in main Rajput article. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, RuudVanClerk or Lord 0f Avernus please can you add it at the appropriate place on that page since I have not been involved too much on the Bihar Rajput page and don't have too much context on Bihar or Awadh? It may be better if the same editor who deleted it adds it on another page so it will look like a move rather than an edit war across pages to admins who are watching. Also, I am busy reading some research papers (not related to Rajput community) and want to finish them soon hence if there is some discussion after that addition on Rajput page, I may not have time to participate.LukeEmily (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed the sexual misconduct part, only the rape part and i quote from the UN report "At a meeting with the fieldwork team in the village of Sonatola, women discussed their protracted struggle against the upper-caste landlords of the neighbouring village, Berath, who "raped the Chamar Dusadh women in order to keep them and their men submissive and obedient" to the landowners." Its not clear here it was the rajput landlords who were involved in this incident, but i have left the generic misconduct part as it is, which is clear from further text in report. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the section as all parties are in agreement that it is not relevant and may be shifted onto a new article or an existing one. I have also removed the dispute tag. I will eventually change the title (hopefully with everyone’s consent) to something more encyclopaedic like “Rajputs in Bihar” or “Rajputs of Bihar”.RuudVanClerk (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha: Please be aware, the policy you quoted in your revert reads as follows:

“Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members; see this and this thread for the most recent consensus discussion on the topic.”

On a section relating to Jagdishpur, a picture of Jagdishpur is relevant and not an ethnic gallery but rather of a court. Please familiarise yourself with the difference between a picture of a court and an ethnic group. Also don’t revert unrelated edits as you did with the addition of Deo Raj. Please be aware that competence is required. Thank you.RuudVanClerk (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't repeat the statement which i said earlier. I have found you doing mistakes at several pages regarding proper understanding of WP:GNG and other such policies. Please, don't repeat these mistakes, at least don't make them unavoidable. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• making not “doing mistakes.

Repeat which statement? Firstly, can you please clarify how the court of Jagdishpur constitutes an “ethnic gallery”? Is a court now an ethnicity?

Secondly, can you please clarify what you mean by “don't make them unavoidable”? I’m sorry but it’s not very intelligible. As I previously mentioned, competence is required and so is a good grasp of the English language. Thanks. RuudVanClerk (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can choose Cambridge Dictionary or some other stuff to find the meaning of words. I told you already that i am on cellphone and finding it difficult to type nowadays. These days are different from days i used to create big articles. Also, while writing big articles we tend to do mistakes due to work pressure and WP:GOCE is there to identify and correct the mistakes. However, this is difficult to be understood by people who are involved in just reverting and doing minor copyedits.Heba Aisha (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who are interested in Rajput related articles are harbouring the view that we are still in 12-17th century and the world is static since then. These articles present Rajputs as feudal elites, which is not true, since abolition of Zamindari has taken place and now they are engaged in all sort of occupation like those pursued by Doms and Chamars, interestingly i know many sources due to my past experience in this topic area which highlights their history in post independence period. There was also a period of caste wars in Bihar, in which Rajput were sufferers and many a times villages of Rajputs were destroyed and cruelty with their womenfolks were observed. The tussle between Yadavs and Rajput are well known. There should be information about fall from political power and subordination by the backward castes like Koeri, Kurmi and Yadav. I have high quality sources on everything but untill now I have not taken proper time to edit this article. This article is written in a particular direction and needs major edits, i will think writing it from scratch if situation demands. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have managed to parse from this slightly odd paragraph, you seem to have an issue with the inclusion of information on Rajput Zamindars. Please be aware that the information on Rajput Zamindars is included under the History section. History is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as a “narrative of past events, account, tale, story etc”. So as you can see, information pertaining to the past is relevant to the history section.

With regards to your claim of “high quality sources”, please do include them when convenient however based on past edits that you have made, you often include poor sources from self-published books and third-rate news websites so rest assured that your sources will be heavily scrutinised to ensure that only the most reliable sources are used. Thanks. RuudVanClerk (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" The editors who are interested in Rajput related articles are harbouring the view that we are still in 12-17th century and the world is static since then. These articles present Rajputs as feudal elites, which is not true, since abolition of Zamindari has taken place and now they are engaged in all sort of occupation like those pursued by Doms and Chamars," - please be aware of WP:OR, their condition is much better than Koeri, Kurmi, Ahir etc and many such obc even as per the reports present on the article. RS6784 (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:OR, in democracy any OBC group will have govt benefits that doesn't raise their social status. Please be also aware of WP:Tendentious. Secondly, subordination ? How ? They got Chief Minister in UP and 2nd Highest MLAs as per Newspaper reports in the state of Bihar. It doesn't look like the case. Also do remember WP:AGF, WP:DGF considering past incidents wrt similar pages. RS6784 (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, do be aware that naxal period conflict can't be added on community pages. Yes, the article needs to be written from the start to remove "Anti-Rajput" bias from it and present it in neutral point of view, please do read WP:NPOV it works both ways, you cannot demonise a group also not glorify it. RS6784 (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RuudVanClerk, the article also misses the role of this community in 1857. RS6784 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Want to tell both of you that all the sources that i collected were from high quality publishers like Oxford University press and Cambridge University. Some of the sources are in my almirah in hard copy format (they are were costly man). You people need to trust me and believe that someone like me who is here for longer period than you must be aware of WP:Reliability, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:Sources. Since, i was out and not active i forgot many things, many people, many forums, but it is easy for me to be active with all requirements of a good editor being fulfilled. But, these major edits depends on my situation as i said. I am busy right now and i think our disputes are going to end as we have mutually resolved all issues with the help of admin. You people and me can get back to our works. Just thinking about major changes not sure. Happy editing. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha please do be aware of WP:NPOV it works in demonisation as well and do remember this here. Your longer period or not doesn't matter. Please don't make personal remarks on talk page. You or me don't own any page as an editor especially pages wrt communities, whatever added or removed will be based on rules and WP:NPOV. Considering present content on article wrt family income makes it clear that their situation is better than other groups. All this has to be taken into account before addition of anything new. RS6784 (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

,Relax, these are just arguments. I can counter everything you said above with high quality sources. Have you read Rise of plebeians by Christophe Jaffrelot also Community warriors? Btw, I need thrust to work on this article. I think, i have done injustice with it while i was very active on Wikipedia and wrote just in a summarised manner. But, i think it is okay in present form. If "situation demands", only then i will go for it. Rest, all of us should work in a collaborative manner and avoid confrontation as said by admin. Btw, you are doing good work on Koeri. Happy editing.`Heba Aisha (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of plebeians doesn't say that a particular group is finished or as such, secondly how much space should be given to topic of political alignments on community pages is matter of other discussion. This is of post democracy era and when we don't have concrete official data on situation of any community ( and all communities nowadays have both their rich and poor, numbers might vary), many Brahmins also poor ( I know but will not do WP:OR) and same for many other communities. The govt has already declined it as they think community obsession is becoming a thing of past. For history, definitely we will always have to mention the history part of it because that is where the community centric view was more important. In such a scenario, I don't know how much space this post democracy part should be given. Okay, thanks for your last line, I will keep up the good work on other pages. RS6784 (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not making edits as of now, i am very busy in my real life. I just wanted to say that i am completely aware of WP:OR and believe me, i have read a lot in this area. It's just the time which is not in my favour otherwise, i would have sources as reply to each of your comment above about the situation of this community and their social status.This article is stable as of now.I don't think right now of bringing immediate changes, cheers.RS6784. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have also read a lot. So, it is not like you are talking to a fool. RS6784 (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, this article looks less about rajputs in bihar and more about upper obc and other castes. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished my editing, included the role in 1857 revolution, which was last thing i wanted to add here. Other development in summarised format are covered as well, like the impact of naxalism on them. This is in perfect condition as of now. Thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dedication with which this article and the community has been maligned by some editors is a good example, shall be remembered. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lord 0f Avernus, threats/personal attacks are not useful. They put an editor on the defensive. To defend himself/herself, in good faith, he/she looks for more material to support his/her edits. Hence it ends up having exactly opposite effects as more sources and material is found on the topic that is disputed. The best approach is to find content that says the opposite. Please assume good faith, and note that other editors also were pinged and those who responded agreed. No editor writes his own opinions. I do not agree with the "malign" comment as it implies that something false is said. There were some errors that were corrected. If you feel that any content is not appropriate or WP:OR, please comment on it. But I do agree with your first comment. This article does not look like an article about the Rajputs of Bihar. I do not know why Brahmins working as peons is relevant to the article. I also think given the short article, we should shorten the rape related issues and just put a summary in one or two lines. The rulers are mentioned in a list but I think there should be a small section discussing them (in short- in 1,2 lines per ruler). For example "medieval history". I agree with you that the article is unbalanced and after reading it end to end I don't feel I have learnt much about Bihar Rajputs. I think we should work on balancing it. Please take the initiative if you like. My concerns are (1)5 lines about rape are not appropriate for such a small article (2) The rulers should have a section instead of just a listing. (3) Too much information about OBC and other castes. (4)Also, there should be a small note somewhere that not only Rajputs but other castes were also involved in abuse of women.(listed on Bihar landlords page).LukeEmily (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And your statement: The dedication with which this article and the community has been maligned by some editors is a good example, shall be remembered. User:Lord 0f Avernus 16:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC) is a threat , see WP:WIAPA.LukeEmily (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following content has been added to support the lines above it in the History section: When these women rejected the landlord's proposal of sexual contact, it was common for the landlords to falsely implicate the male members of their families and their kin in criminal cases. Besides sexual assaults, the drawing of water from the village wells and walking on the pathways alongside the landlords in Rajput villages were also forbidden for the lower castes.^[1]. But this is exactly what the references says on page 72-73, it basically describes about a fieldwork team visiting Sonatola village where women of that village are explaining about the mistreatment they faced at the hands of Berath village Landlords who happen to be from particular caste here Rajput.

At a meeting with the fieldwork team in the village of Sonatola, women discussed their protracted struggle against the upper-caste landlords of the neighbouring village, Berath, who "raped the Chamar Dusadh women in order to keep them and their men submissive and obedient" to the landowners. It was stated to be a common practice to force dalit women from agricultural labour families to have sexual contact with their Rajput landlords. If the women refused, their husbands, or other male kin, would be falsely implicated in criminal cases. Further, the women and other members of their families would not be allowed to draw water from the village well, walk on pathways or ease themselves in the village area, as these were considered to belong to the Rajput landlords. These practices had, it was stated, been reduced a great deal as a result of the peasant move ment in the area. However, dalit and agricultural labourers of Berath still had to face much injustice from the Rajput landlords. ^[1]

Now, how can this field work from one village be used to extrapolate and used as support statement without even mentioning that it is related to one Berath village. The content uses plural "villages" but in reference it is mentioned village and the last line talking about Berath village' openly. Isn't it a case of misquoting of source ?

pinging some very good experts who might have engaged on this page in the past for an external opinion on it Kautilya3, RegentsPark Akalanka820 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a very good point. Since the source is very specific that it is talking about a particular village, it is wrong to generalise it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kautilya3. Please be as close as possible to source. Please do not generalize specific content as it is WP:OR. We cannot assume that just because some landlords were perverts, all were bad. Second, "upper caste" involves 4 castes in Bihar(Bhumihar, Brahmin, Rajput, Kayastha) as per two of the sources speaking of landlords on the page. Hence , if the source simply says "upper caste landlords raped dalits", it should not be added to the Rajput page as we don't know which caste the source is talking about. Unless the source specifically says Rajput, we should not mention it. It is more likely that all landlords exploited the women, may not be a Rajput only issue. In that case, Zamindars_of_Bihar, is a better place to add it.LukeEmily (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LukeEmily, to whom are you explaining the above points ? I am bit confused here, so would be very happy if you can point out the editor in question. Akalanka820 (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Akalanka820, I simply answered your question. To be specific, it was meant for the editor who originally added the source as well as text but it was also meant for all other editors(including you and I) who continued editing this page although the source was easily available for verification. Let us focus on the content rather than focus on the editors. In this case the mistake in understandable because the name of the place is mentioned on the previous page and the editor might not have seen it.LukeEmily (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to give free pass to the other editors with whom you might be on friendlier terms, this isn't the first case here. I can point out one more instance on the same page in which the editor had added a reference which was misleading but it seems it has got removed now. This is not an understandable mistake but a clear case particular POV and even deception considering they have already expressed their disgust for this particular social group on one talk page in a discussion. Akalanka820 (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Zamindar of Bihar it can also be added but it talks specifically about Rajput caste people from Bihar, so no point to remove it from here. Further, this is not WP:OR as you are saying, other sources added by Luke are also supporting it.

• [19] Kaushal Kishore Sharma; Prabhakar Prasad Singh; Ranjan Kumar (1994). Peasant Struggles in Bihar, 1831-1992: Spontaneity to Organisation. Centre for Peasant Studies. p. 247. ISBN 9788185078885.

  According to them, before the emergence of Naxalism on the scene and consequent resistance on the part of these hapless fellows, "rape of lower caste women by Rajput and Bhumihar landlords used to cause so much anguish among the lower cates, who, owing to their hapless situation, could not dare oppose them. In their own words, "within the social constraints , the suppressed sexual hunger of the predominant castes often found unrestricted outlet among the poor, lower caste of Bhojpur-notably Chamars and Mushars.

  Admantine123 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another source too talks the same and in case the source added by me talks about particular village seems problematic, we may rephrase it to show it as one of the reference of the rapes and atrocities committed, which are supported by other two sources.You should have checked other sources too before putting notice on my talk

Page.Admantine123 (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admantine123, sorry but you again trying to give evasive response. I shared your content and the reference, just see the difference yourself. I am not contesting the misconduct by certain landlords of this social group but the content you used above word by word is different and without properly taking into account the reference. Akalanka820 (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the reference that you have quoted all talk Rajput and Bhumihar together, except the one reference of Ranabir Samaddar related to Dola Pratha. It is not exclusively as per say Rajputs but yes there is no issue in adding general misconduct part of Landlords with respect to this group but in the manner it has been extrapolated is a POV. And don't forget in another reference where the source mentioned "upper caste" but you had written the name of this group. All upper caste ≠ Rajput. I can share that as well. Akalanka820 (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only this,in the past Admantine123 had added this [[13]] using reference here [[14]] whereas in the reference it was only mentioned as upper castes which here could be either Bhumihar, Rajput, Kayasth, Brahmin or even any dominant group. Considering your negative views for this social group you shared on a talk page with me, all this is in POV pushing category. Akalanka820 (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it includes Rajput,and that's enough. Most of the caste based atrocities were conducted by these social groups only. If source specifically mentions them, please WP:STICKTOSOURCE.Admantine123 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

, Please, provide source to which says the opposite. And in case there is mistake of one two word go for rephrasing and don't just accuse of Pov pushing.

• Fernando Franco (2002). Pain and Awakening: The Dynamics of Dalit Identity in Bihar, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh. Indian Social Institute. p. 52. ISBN 9788187218463.

Even as late as the 1970s , the rape of lower caste women by Rajputs and Bhumihars had almost become a tradition , “ an accepted social evil , a fate which many bore unquestioningly ” , in parts of central Bihar

This one also talking about Rajput. Go for rephrasing, don't just tag and put notices.Admantine123 (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are deviating, firstly you added a content which was in a misleading manner and now come up with such responses doesn't change this fact. I am presenting this another case

The upper-caste landowners today behave well with these women, too". Women of the villages of Chauri and Babubandh described with anger how, in the pre-movement days up to the 1960s, "the upper-caste landowners would pinch our breasts while ordering us to work in their fields or mostly to do some begar (unpaid menial work) for them. The landlords no longer dare insult us like this; this is no longer possible after the move ment."

From the same reference of the case study of 1989, it doesn't mentions Rajputs here but but you had added the word instead of Upper caste that is equal to not only POV pushing but even some form of deceiving the readers". And do look at how you had added it: [[15]] using same reference here [[16] which I have quoted just now. Your responses are exactly in wrong opposite direction rather than recognising your continuous mistakes on the same page Akalanka820 (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you have added right now, is nowhere mentioned in article. So don't engage in gaming behaviour.The things added right now talk about Rajput.Admantine123 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more there in article and now only those things are here, which talks about Rajputs. Also, it's a very old edit and i can't remember, which page i scroll then. If you find mistakes in present version, go ahead for rephrasing, such minor things are not Pov pushing. As most of the time, all sources talk about Bhumihar and Rajput only. If you want, i can give plenty of other sources, in which Rajput is specifically mentioned. But, present one are also enough.Admantine123 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My final call:You are talking about old edits which are no more there and presently after scrutiny by LE and another editor only those thing are present, which mentions the word Rajput too. So, if you have sources to counter them, put them too. But don't remove the sources which mentions the word Rajput. Thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not gaming, I am just pointing out your continuous misrepresenting of references on this page. I can also share another one on the same page. These are not old edits as such, you have been continuously active on this page and even reverting, so it is not like you don't know what you are adding here. Akalanka820 (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, there is no WP:OWN here, yesterday your friend also scrutinized my edits, though that was mentioned in source, yet i gave them the space required. I work on large number of articles, and in the process of writing another too. In case i miss "one word", you are encouraged to rectify. But at present, article contains only sourced thing and mentioning Rajput too, so no scope for more arguments. Best wishes. Admantine123 (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The upper-caste landowners today behave well with these women, too". Women of the villages of Chauri and Babubandh described with anger how, in the pre-movement days up to the 1960s, "the upper-caste landowners would pinch our breasts while ordering us to work in their fields or mostly to do some begar (unpaid menial work) for them. The landlords no longer dare insult us like this; this is no longer possible after the move ment."- this was never added by me. Avoid the things that have gone. If you found any issue with present version, then only say. It's difficult for me to remember many things as i am not doing edits only, i have a "real life" too.:) Best of luck.Admantine123 (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased the minor mistake present in current version. No scope of more arguments now. Thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again very evasive response, firstly I am entitled only to my opinion. ,rather than coming up with such responses it is better you don't repeat the same. What is your friend ?? here, unlike you I don't tag any particular editor everywhere. Akalanka820 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in current version only one minor thing was missing and i rectified that too. Now nothing more to discuss vis a vis present content all sources are with quote and review. I would request to stop it now as nothing left here to rectify. Thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One last request, try coming to my talk page next time with "cookie" or something else. Avoid notices.:)Admantine123 (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was not minor mistake, it was a case of outright "POV pushing" to the point of deception. I will definitely keep notes of all this mistakes and evasive responses earlier given by you. Thanks, I will not respond now. Akalanka820 (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god, i am successful in satisfying you once again. Will take care of even "single word" from now onwards. But, next time, the notices should also be served with "cookies".:)Admantine123 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a lighter note next time it will be with a cookie. Please don't mind my harsh words, I took this up because it was not a case of "single word" as the meaning of the sentence changes completely. The particular content was related to one Berath village, and atleast the content of the reference can't be extrapolated as the writer didn't used the term "villages" as I explained above. Thanks this discussion is closed Akalanka820 (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• An aside: This disucssion reminded me of Shyam Benegal's Nishant, which I found available on youtube. So I went ahead and watched it. I am glad I did because it was a lot more hard-hitting than I remembered. I would highly recommend it. Don't worry it has nothing to do with Rajputs or Bihar, but the general phenomenon of zamindari exploitation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the content that has been added: Records of the time indicates that the upper-caste Rajputs practiced Dola Pratha in some regions of Bihar, in which the newly wed bride of the Dalits and landless labourers (who worked for wages in their fields), specially those from Chamar and Dusadh caste had to spend one night with the landlord before commissioning of her nuptial rites. But the reference on page 46 is talking about Rajputs of one Anwa Village and the victim openly mention that Anwa Villagers misbehaved more badly as compared to Hajipur village. Here the exact reference:

Talking about two neighbouring upper caste dominated villages, he mentioned that Hajipur is little farther away (1.5 km) and the zamindari system was never prevalent there. He added that as a reason the latter did not behave so harshly vis-à-vis Damuha villagers. In contrast, Anwa was a small zamindari village and they interfered in the everyday socio-cultural and political life of Damuha. Mitthu recollects, my grandfather told us that Anwa people used to forcibly take away vegetables and milk from our houses as a matter of right. Besides, for feasts they would demand and take away goats by sending their henchmen.' The system was assiduously built that for any of these commodities, there was no mechanism for payment, and so on. On the service side, cobblers had to make shoes for them free of cost, iron smiths had to make hal ka faal, khurpi, hansua, gandasi, kudaal (implements used in agriculture); carpenters had to prepare hal (wooden frame for the plough); potters had to provide earthen pot; barbers had to cut hairs and nails. Unlike the conventional zazmani system prevalent in different parts where zamindars used to provide support in cash and kind to the occupational caste groups, here it was complete callousness built on unjust and exploitative demands from the Rajputs of Anwa. Besides, upper caste Rajputs also practised dola pratha. It was one of such heinous and undignified practice that severely affected the psyche of the people and communities who were at the receiving end. Tormented Mitthu recounted that it was 30 years since his grandfather died; however, there has been no change in the behaviour of Anwa Rajputs and experiences of injustice and exploitation have been part of the growing up of the next generation too.^[2]

, in my view the content is not matching the reference and the mention of Dola pratha also seems to be in this context as on page 65 it doesn't says that this social group was practicing it except mentioning a cursory line that it was bad practice. Do we have another source for Dola Pratha otherwise it would be odd to generalise a whole group based on Anwa, Berath or some odd village. Pinging LukeEmily and others. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is this also a case misunderstanding of some page? Like it was said of possibility in the context of previous case. Here, I don't think so. This is getting continuous habit and I think I will have to go through the others references as well as to what they are saying. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Akalanka820:, I agree. We cannot generalize it. The specific names of these villages have to be mentioned. It is possible that 90% of Rajputs in Bihar were not involved in any form of sexual misconduct and were good people. WP:STICKTOSOURCE applies.LukeEmily (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you LukeEmily you have been very gracious in accepting this part. The other point is we can't mention all of one or two village based cases. In my view as example one case can be shortly described and other moved to the Caste-related violence in India, there are suitable pages for it. Putting all of it here doesn't fulfills WP:RELNOT as this is not directly related to it, we can mention general misconduct of Rajput Landlords here but the page cannot be only filled with it. Unfortunately, the way it has been done, 40% of the page has those contents. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem in mentioning two examples, you can add more things about this community here, but mentioning examples is not the case of WP:RELNOT.It just justifies, what other source say and since you have yourself said that you agree with the part of sexual misconduct of this particular community, there exists no disagreement about it's removal or keeping it. Thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily and TrangaBellam, i don't think that these content should be moved to caste based violence in India. I agree with mentioning of name of village and minor edit as we should stick to source, these things which are convered in various sources form the part and parcel of feudal society, in which Rajput were at top. So, it's not a particular case of violence like Nirbhaya Rape case of Delhi. These sources may be talking about particular village, but as we can see from other sources that this was a practice spread over most of the area of Bihar. I do agree with Akalanka that this article shouldn't be filled with this only.But, for that excuse we can't remove sourced content, instead more things about community can be added with source, if they have sources on Culture and Tradition and other things related to this caste, it should be added too. Thanks. Admantine123 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranabir Samaddar is a (very reputed) political scientist, which ought be the qualifier. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, Rajput violence —both sexual and non-sexual— on LC laborers etc. was not limited to a few villages; they were the rule of the day. And scholarship detailing such violence is in abundance. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not wrong, Chatarji (1992: OUP) has a definitive essay on this. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thapar-Björkert, Suruchi (2006), "Gender and Caste Conflicts in Rural Bihar: Dalit Women as Arm Bearers", The Situated Politics of Belonging, London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 127–146 TrangaBellam (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TrangaBellam, I was not denying the misconduct part on the part of Rajput Landlords but my point was in context to use example which only describes of particular village and extrapolating it to whole community. Secondly, can this whole page be filled just with it like the way it has been done. Akalanka820 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is short and may be we can add more thing like their culture and tradition, but what you are saying about some sourced content being WP:RELNOT is not correct actually. Since, these are not incidents, like in case of Delhi rape case (Nirbhaya incident), these are part and parcel of feudal society, in which Rajput community was at top. So,don't try to personally decide what should be there and what shouldn't be there. I agree with TrangaBellam about the authenticity of sources.Admantine123 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand my points are related to the two cases that I discussed in last two days and they were definitely incidents of caste violence related to Anwa and Berath village respectively as per the reference where the perpetrators caste was Rajputs. I would request you to stick to the issue that I had raised it was in respect to that cases. I am not contesting the general misconduct part but if there are better pages like we do have here in Caste-related violence in India available then those content should be added there and a para on "general misconduct" should be added on Rajputs in Bihar page. But not great to bombarding this page with regular examples and don't forget two times the content have not exactly matched with the reference as I had pointed out, so definitely it becomes a case of more than just improving the article. Secondly, no tit for tat responses. You gave your response, I have put it. Akalanka820 (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Akalanka, these incidents just describe the situation that prevailed in feudal society. There may be more instances as claimed by other sources, but the author recorded these two only in order to give example. I agree that this article should have more things on community but this can't be excuse for removal of sourced content. You may add more things like "Rajputs of Bihar developed an art form called Pari Khanda" and similar things related to Culture, diet, tradition. But, since the lead itself says they form apex of feudal society, this description of sexual misconduct is justified. Admantine123 (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful after last two cases where content added by you were twisted and not exactly matching the reference. Still, you have kept on coming with similar biased statements. Rest I again repeat that I am not denying the general misconduct on the part of certain Rajput Landlords but this was in no different to Bhumihar Landlords or even Jat Landholders of Haryana ( example Mirchpur violence). But we don't add such "generalisation" part on other community pages. I can understand if your point was only about adding general misconduct of the Landlords of this group. This is fine, I support it but adding case study of one or two village and extrapolating here when we have proper pages like Caste-related violence in India for it is not a very good justification. This is my last response to it. Now, I would request to not get into tit for tat here to deviate this discussion. Akalanka820 (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say just one thing that, if it exists for Jat and Bhumihars, you may add it there too. But, don't make it an excuse to remove it as many sources support the misconduct. And, you have already modified the content and have added the particular village, the case of which was documented by the author, so nothing more exist to rectify further. None of us have disagreement with the recent edits of yours. In WP:Goodfaith, i may advise that you may search into the book of "Sanjay Kumar" and mention their political achievement before the "Mandal Era", if you think that present version is casting wrong impression about the community. Also, your point of we generalising it for whole community is WP:OR, we should stick to source and source themselves say "Rajputs" were engaged not particular proportion of Rajput community was engaged. Thanks Admantine123 (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say: we should stick to source and source themselves say "Rajputs" were engaged not particular proportion of Rajput community was engaged. then why you didn't stick to the source when you had inserted it. I would better suggest please follow your own words. And for your information, the two particular reference I have talked about in the above cases described situation in two village Anwa ( Ranabir Sammaddar) and Berath ( Case study). So, sorry those cannot be used to generalise a group and in my view there description should be added on Caste-related violence in India which is the best page for it as it deals with those village. For the general misconduct part by Rajput Landlords, it should be there by using the already mentioned other references. This is the simple point I made, I don't know what is the problem here, I am not asking for any removal of the general misconduct part just asked for moving the two cases to a relevant page. Akalanka820 (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, i didn't see the last page that time, that it was written in context of a particular village. But, when it was removed, i didn't object too. Now, that problem is not existing here, i have clarified that this particular content talks specifically about Rajputs and it's related to day to day affair of feudal society of Bihar. Hence, can't be added on caste related violence as they talk about particular incidents, which are not connected to any "social practice". Second thing, you may scroll "n" number of sources about post independence history of Bihar, you will find that caste wars, sexual misconduct, caste army were not individual tragic phenomenon but a practice rooted in social order.This is something, different from the condition of Uttar Pradesh and other North Indian state. Any good book on post independence history of Bihar will show you the things that are mentioned right now in article and we can't avoid such thing which have lot of sources as TrangaBellam stated.For more knowledge on this, you may go through other sources like Life as Dalit which also focuses on rural society of Bihar in Zamindari period, you will find that this was a practice, not any incident, thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the request of mentioning these two references to "caste related violence" appears to be WP:GAMING behaviour, as it isn't talking about any violence, just mentions social practice for a particular village as case study and someone will remove that too from that article on many grounds. And from here also it will be removed, so despite having a source from reputed agency like "United Nations" and reputed writer like "Ranbir Sammadar" battle of words and Personal opinion by someone will make it difficult to keep sourced material in an article. I would request you to not engage in removing things, just for the reason that it appears "objectionable" to you. Rather, you may expand the article with adding more content in other areas like politics and tradition of the community. Admantine123 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not gaming as the content that you had added failed the reference and in way this isn't directly connected but only indirectly. On the other hand there is a case of continuous deception by misquoting references on multiple pages which should be WP:GAMING here. All of these cases of misquoting of sources is a more serious matter. Akalanka820 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I have been very generous in not taking this continuous content failing the reference and that too on a very contentious subject like caste/community. Akalanka820 (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about those articles, which i edited long ago, and after that edits by many other users and bots have moved the linked page here and there, also you are finding mistakes in my 12000+ edits, which i have done in past two years and if me or anyone else will do the same for other editors, they will also find a lot of mistakes like this. If i contest or revert your "minor corrections" then only you can claim that i am being disruptive. Also, editors are not aware of all the sources they are using in an article, nobody have actually read every page of every source they are using in an article. Our knowledge mainly relies on one or two sources but we add other sources too in order to solidify what we have added.Hence, i would request to not club all these things together, i clarified that i didn't see that it was a case of particular village was on another page, but after rectification it's fine. Moving the content can not be supported as it's not an "incident" but a phenomenon common in Zamindari period and it deserves mention on the page. If you have Sources, which are taking in opposite way, you may present, battle of words is not a solution.Thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, present source to proove that Dola Pratha was not in existence and for the other things too, which you are contradicting on the basis of your own opinion. And, if i challenge your rectification of some of my edits, which were done long ago, then only claim of me being disruptive. Don't keep that thing again and again from now onwards.Admantine123 (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, Akalanka820 many things on many articles also appears controversial to me, but i don't become admant in removing that, if it is sourced properly. You may understand this. In the above two thread, LukeEmily and TrangaBellam have also talked against this citing their own reason, so i will request you to move forward and if you have any source, which contradict what's mentioned here, you may add the opposite view of other authors too, which is the best thing for such contested part.Rather than outright removal, Thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is asking for removal but moving the two case content of a particular village to a relevant page here Caste-related violence in India. I don't know how my points have been contradicted. Akalanka820 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your content on multiple pages had been found misquoted, I had to correct the same and that too on a Caste related pages which is under strict rules. In all these pages you have been continuously active till recently so no excuses. It is better you look at your own conduct rather than coming up with such responses. And for your points on dola Pratha it is you who need to coming up with references where it explicitly mentions that this community practiced it rather than misquoting a case study of one Anwa village to extrapolate it to the whole community when the writer himself says Hajipur village conduct was fine. I again repeat what I have said here that I am asking for moving of the two studies related to particular village to a more relevant page like Caste-related violence in India. It is either you don't understand what I have said or deliberately trying to deviate from it. This continuous similar responses might force me to take all this up further. Tagging other experienced editors as well like Kautilya3 Akalanka820 (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is another case [[17]] related to an another community written in the wake of rape crimes against 19 women in Haryana. I want to ask experts like Dear Kautilya3, should such report be mentioned on those community pages or on relevant page like Caste-related violence in India. Here the written work has even done generalisation like calling out the whole community in a state rather than only village. Akalanka820 (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Present source also mention Rajput directly, if you have anything against it present your WP:SOURCES to counter it. Akalanka820.Admantine123 (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am understanding what you are saying, but these are not particular incidents, these are case study for a prevalent phenomenon in villages, committed by Rajputs. It's clearly mentioned in source. Hence, the most relevant page for that case study is this page only. Akalanka820Admantine123 (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My dear editor, the two are particular incidents as per the content of reference that said I am not contesting the general misconduct part of the landlords related to the community. I am sure this is simple to understand from my first comment itself, I request for no regular replies here, it is getting on the same track. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two case study of Anwa and Berath village that I am talking about here mentioned Rajput landlords of particular village and not the whole community in Bihar. I again for the last time repeat, I am talking about the two cases. The content to it should be on an other relevant page and not here. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akalanka820, the sources LukeEmily presented with quotes, were also saying that this sexual conduct related issues were present in whole Bihar not in a particular village. These case studies are just examples for that also TrangaBellam has also stated the same thing that there exist wide coverage regarding Rajputs being involved in such conduct.`This is what he said: That being said, Rajput violence —both sexual and non-sexual— on LC laborers etc. was not limited to a few villages; they were the rule of the day. And scholarship detailing such violence is in abundance. You are wasting time of others while continuosly repeating same thing.Admantine123 (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot extrapolate to have your own WP:OR, what matters is that particular references. The two case studies are definitely related to particular village as the quote suggested and for the last part I am repeating the general misconduct part of the landlords related to this community can remain but then there are such references for other groups as well and it needs a general discussion of its own. This is the last reply here to the two cases. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For dear TB, I think he might have thought that I am asking for removal of general misconduct part. The answer to it is no. I have only raised about the two case studies of two villages why it should be here? but not on a much better relevant page. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would request for you to stop repeating the same thing again. Same applies to me as well. The points have been made and now I hope you must have understood my point is wrt two cases of village. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kunwar Singh belonged to Bhojpur and the princely states were also few in Bihar, yet we are mentioning them in detail here. Rajput are in millions, these people don't represent all of them. Yet we have covered them as they are part of larger Rajput community. The Rajputs of these two villages also belong to Rajput community, so why should we mention only "good things" and skip "controversial things" on the basis of our judgement for the similar type of case.Admantine123 (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't come up with some kind of whataboutery and stick to the topic. Your disgust for this social group is known in a comment on a talk page and there has been regular errors with respect to your content here not matching the reference. Please, don't force me to take this matter up. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Akalanka820 and Admantine123:, the text can be on both articles(this and caste violence page). It is not a single incident but a pattern or custom. The name of the villages are explicitly mentioned hence there is no extrapolation. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no, there is a reason why we have pages like Caste-related violence in India, we cannot just put individual village incident to do generalisation of a community. Even here in one of those village report, Hajipur village conduct was fine which just proves that this was a general landlord problem be it Rajput, Bhumihar, or Jat Landholders. I have the reports like this [[18]] and more for Haryana specifically mentioning a group in the wake of rape of 19 women in Haryana. Similar, cases forany groups. I can share those links here but In my opinion, Jat page or any other community page is not the right page to mention those thing.LukeEmily, you may not like or have a favourable view of this social group but it is better to avoid generalisation of any community unless they are explicitly named without Landlords or specific village. pinging a lot of esteemed experts in this field Fowler&fowler, Kautilya3, Abecedare Sir. It would be very helpful if you guys can share your opinion here. Please do go through these two discussion:[[19]], [[20]] as well. This should be a larger debate as to whether we are going to do generalisation of any social group based on the misconduct of their Landlords because such reports are there for landlords of most social groups. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second issue should be if we add general misconduct here then are we also going to mention some individual cases of village? , like it has done here. In my opinion this is a complete generalisation of a community when in fact the conduct in question is of certain landlords. Pinging Abecedare, Kautilya3, Fowler&fowler,RegentsPark etc Akalanka820 (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Responding to various pings, but without doing a thorough study of anything. We have already talked about the inadmissibility of WP:SYNTHESIS. That would seem to apply to any idea of generalising material from landlords to all Rajputs, or for specialising material from all upper castes to Rajputs. All forms of SYNTHESIS are to be avoided.

On the other hand, I don't agree with the argument that some material can go in other pages and so it should be removed from here. Content for each topic should be decided based on the appropriateness for that topic. Detail can be pruned of course, if it can be found on other pages. Links like {{main}} and {{further}} can be used to point the readers to the more detailed pages. I hope this helps. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources which LukeEmily put are saying Rajputs not Rajput landlords, if it has been the case, i would have supported it's movement to Zamindars of Bihar. Also, caste based Senas and other things that characterized the period of 1990s in Bihar, was not specific to some members any community. It was applicable to whole community. No WP:SYNTHESIS here and i think Akalanka is talking only about these two case studies not the sexual misconduct part, which is not for "any particular village". Admantine123 (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this reference does mention landlords ^[3], Whereas I do agree the other Franco reference doesn't uses Landlords. I raised two points as you can see there. The case study is second point I had raised above. The sexual misconduct part also I did raised as such reports of misconduct are also present for landlords of many groups not specific to one, so why the generalisation being done here on this page. I did mention a link of similar report ( even more scathing content) on Haryana related to a social group. Lastly, I and you Adamantine123, had a lots of discussion on it with no conclusion. I would request let those who were pinged give their reply and we both keep some patience for now. Akalanka820 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Akalanka820 and Admantine123:, Even if they were or were not all landlords, the sources also specifically mention their caste. And many of Bihar Rajputs were landlords anyway. It can be on Bihar landlords page as well. The "Breast pinching", as per the source, is not single caste specific(it only says upper caste) so it does not belong to this page but can be added to the landlords page where the upper castes are mentioned. The dola pratha etc. was not a single incident with 1-2 people involved. To illustrate my point, here is an example of caste related violence that is NOT suitable for a Rajput or Rajasthani Rajput caste page because it is a single incident involving 1 victim. But it may be suitable for Dalit or caste violence pages. Giving a quote from Chakravarti.

Twenty year old Suman Balai was studying for her BA degree n Sikar district Rajasthan. On 15th August 2009, she was returning home from college along her usual route. On the way, she was accosted by three dominant caste Rajput men who lived in her village. They dragged her into the nearby dry well and took turns to rape her. Afterwards, they threatened to kill her if she reported the gang rape. When she told her family what had happened, they went to the police station to lodge a First Information Report. The police initially implied that Suman must have consented to what happened and the family had to struggle to get the FIR registered. The accused were known to have connections with the local police and politicians, and had allegedly raped two other Dalit girls in the past. Eventualy, though, they were arrested and the case went to court. Each of the three accused was sentenced to ten year imprisonment for the gangrape. Terrorized by the accused and their caste community, and pressurized throughout the trial to enter into a compromise, Suman did not leave her home. After the trial, her parents sent her to another village to continue her studies. Three years later, however, when she returned to her village, the Rajputs started to harass her again for having pursued her case against their caste men. Eventually, the mental trauma became too much and she committed suicide. Suman's is one of the countless stories of sexual violence that emerges if one travels across the Dalit colonies in Rajasthan.^[4]

Now, the above cannot be added to a caste page because it is a single incident. I have checked other pages and caste based major incidents are mentioned on multiple pages. Don't see any reason for removing from this page especially as it involves multiple victims and the crime seems to be caste specific, otherwise the source would have just said upper caste (implying 4 castes in Bihar) or only all-caste landlords(implying it was not caste specific). It seems that Brahmins did not engage in such pervert actions. It would be a good study as to why the difference in the communities - perhaps because Brahmins were more educated.LukeEmily (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily, please have a balanced approach on caste pages. FYI, in the two references it says Landlords of "Rajputs and Bhumihars", this was mostly a Landlord or any dominant caste problem. I have explained you above either you don't understand this or is just unwilling to. More scathing remarks are on a social group of Haryana. I have shared one reference and have more to it. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"upper caste (implying 4 castes in Bihar) or only all-caste landlords(implying it was not caste specific). It seems that Brahmins did not engage in such pervert actions. It would be a good study as to why the difference in the communities." - your own references does mention Bhumihar as well. Brahmins didn't had many landholders in the numbers of others. Do t try to show your personal disgust for a social group here to have your point here. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily, this is what the first reference on the page says: In a survey conducted in a few villages in Bhojpur, rape of lower caste women from Musahar and Chamar caste, by the Rajput and Bhumihar landlords was a major cause of anguish until Naxalism emerged on the scene.<ref name="SharmaSinghKumar1994">Kaushal Kishore Sharma; Prabhakar Prasad Singh; Ranjan Kumar (1994). Peasant Struggles in Bihar, 1831-1992: Spontaneity to Organisation. Centre for Peasant Studies. p. 247. ISBN 9788185078885. According to them, before the emergence of Naxalism on the scene and consequent resistance on the part of these hapless fellows, "rape of lower caste women by Rajput and Bhumihar landlords used to cause so much anguish among the lower cates, who, owing to their hapless situation, could not dare oppose them. In their own words, "within the social constraints , the suppressed sexual hunger of the predominant castes often found unrestricted outlet among the poor, lower caste of Bhojpur-notably Chamars and Mushars.. Atleast read before commenting anything. You have already made your opinion and in one of the cases I highlighted you or your friendly editor added their own words as well. I left it didn't took it up. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dola pratha reference is only available for Anwa village. You always shout here WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and for your info none of it is any special and different to landlords of any community doing violence against Dalits or others. So, why it should be here? Just to fulfill a particular opinion of 2 editors against a group. I have shared the reference for Haryana. I will take this matter up and highlight as to how the content fail the reference on this page. The whole game here seems to be not balanced approach to caste pages. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one report [[21]] related to a group in Haryana, similar cases available for others. It is not any unique Akalanka820 (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One should be knowledgeable about history of a particular state before commenting. Those words added by LE were not personal opinion i would say. As Gail Omvedt says this. Here she highlights that the rape were one of the cause of Naxalism in Bhojpur region of Bihar. I have other sources too which specifically talks about a particular community involved in these undignified abuse upon Dalits. Almost all sources talks about involvement of this specific caste. I would request not to make personal comments on fellow editors about their leaning, ideology etc. And use sources to counter the other opinion.

Omvedt, Gail (1993). Reinventing Revolution: New Social Movements and the Socialist Tradition in India. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 58–60. ISBN 0765631768. Retrieved 2020-06-16. The Naxalite challenge developed in the central districts where some agricultural development was producing an objective base to challenge the bonds of ex ploitation they called "semifeudalism." Its first mass leader was Jagdish Mahto, a koeri teacher who had read Ambedkar before he discovered Marx and started a paper in the town of Arrah called "Harijanistan" (dalit land), even leading a march of dalits on this demand. This was similar to innumerable assertions throughout India at the time, but Bihar contradictions drove Mahto in a more violent direction. Beaten up after supporting the CPI in the 1967 elections, he turned to Naxalism and began to organize murders of landlords and their gang ster henchmen in the area around his native village. The issues on which dalits were stirring were not only those of their abominably low wages, but also izzat, social honor, and especially honor defined in terms of the unrestricted and arro gant access of the upper castes to dalit women. In 1971, before he was killed, Mahto told a fellow teacher, "Brother, I know that I am going to die one of these days. But I will die partly satisfied. For one change that our movement has brought about is that landlords now do not dare to touch the women of the poor.

Admantine123 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what has all this got to do with this page ? Here is another I am sharing from Haryana with respect to an other social group, these are not even landholders but whole community has been put under question. Here - [[22]] Akalanka820 (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Naxal violence was not specific to any group. It had UCs vs working class struggle. UCs included Bhumihars and others as well. Even the two references for rape/violence you have added on this page doesn't mention Rajputs Landlords alone but with an another social group. Akalanka820 (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do have decent knowledge about Bihar and I am not here to share my professional qualifications. Please don't try to act like you are the only important and only editor on Wikipedia. Read WP:YANI Akalanka820 (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added this source as you were thinking that Naxalism has nothing to do with rapes and molestation and Luke has added his own words there. Many sources are there which explicitly tells that this particular community was engaged in these acts. Just two or three examples are added here otherwise i have sources on different form of atrocities they used to commit on Dalits. But, adding all those will definitely not be WP:REL. But, just two three examples are okay. Let me put one more quote about different form of atrocities they committed in another region in the feudal society of pre "land reform period".

Years later the then Jehanabad District Magistrate Ashok Kumar Singh, a Rajput, told me that some Thakur landlords found it stimulating to rape Harijan women in their own houses. “Some of these rogues force the women’s husbands to lie below the cot while they fondled and raped the women with their rifles lying next to them on the cot. Any noise made by the husband would provoke them to shoot them dead.”[23]

This source specifically talks about "Thakur/Rajput". I have in my collection many reports and books from organization like Human Rights Watch which specifically talks about Rajputs engaged in these acts in different regions of Bihar, making it an affair of whole state. But, since we have added only two such examples, i have not brought other sources. I will definitely add those later on in other articles. Admantine123 (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur is used by rajputs, bhumihars and even maithili brahmins, where does this quote say it was rajput thakur? Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not that it should require a source to the editors involved here to know this , anyone else can check in this book. [24].

In fact O'Malley, the compiler of the Shahabad Gazetteer, notes that Brahmanical titles such as Misr, Panre and Tewari were used by the Bhumihars along with Rajput titles of Singh, Rai or Thakur.

. Another prominent example would be C P Thakur , the politician from bjp. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur means landlord as per a simple google books search. It's other meaning when referring to deities is "God". For example, Lord Krishna is referred to as Thakurji by some people. Anyway, it is not really caste specific. Even some Nai(barber) caste people had Thakur last name - see Karpoori Thakur and Bhikhari Thakur. Thanks.LukeEmily (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the point is mistreatment of Dalit or various depressed groups is not any caste specific. Such reports are there for most communities who had historically access to land or have now access to landholding post democracy as proved from the shared links for a community in Haryana and their equation with SCs. Even the two references you have added has mentioned the Landlords of this group with an another community named "Bhumihar" not specifically them alone. I am not denying the misconduct part but it is not only specific to this community. So, why it should be here? when we already have better pages to explain all this in detail. It is mostly part of UCs or even dominant caste vs depressed class struggle in the state and even in the country. The other two examples are specific to village Anwa and Berath and in Anwa case as well the writer Ranbir Sammaddar mentions good conduct of Hajipur village which had landholders of same social group. For Dola pratha, you need to bring up a reference specifically saying it, that it was practiced by this community in the state of Bihar, not a case study of one village.Akalanka820 (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See proper method to WP:INDENT the comments. I haven't added it to Bhumihar, because that article was written by someone else and i don't know where to put these things, so that the flow of article do not get destroyed. I would clarify, all these sources talks about only two social groups among all the upper caste group in Bihar, i.e Bhumihar and Rajput. No source says anything about Kayastha and Brahmin.Admantine123 (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is mostly part of UCs or even dominant caste vs depressed class struggle in the state and even in the country., For this i would say please go through some of the good books available on post independence history of Bihar to understand that caste wars, rapes, massacre are not incidents of violence only. All that is linked to history of post independence Bihar. And here the Rajput and Bhumihar were on one side quelling revolution of Dalits and Backward Castes. In this background, these incidents happened, which are appearing to you as the cases of specific places . Thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do have my daily work, we don't get enough time, odd minor mistake with respect to WP:INDENT should not be an issue here. I would request not to make discussion too fast here. And for Bhumihar page, I think as per the diff it was you who had added Sadashivan and Sachidanand reference on a controversial topic there? It seems that you have been active on that page. And surprisingly you were reverting my edit some days back on Jaitharia (Bhumihar) on the same issue giving very different reasons. And for report mentioning Bhumihar, rajputs etc, let me make it clear there are reports on OBC groups like Kurmi, Yadav mistreating Dalits as well. So, this problem seems to be with those had access to land or are having access to land post reforms. Lastly, I am not going to respond any further to it here especially to you and your friendly editor. Akalanka820 (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I shared a report on Jats of Haryana mistreating Dalits, please share a report properly depicting it not some few lines like X reporter to Y. Even again the lines you shared the magistrate says adding some before it. It is district magistrate saying some person. Please understand your own points what you share here before coming up with anything. You and your friendly editors disgusting views wrt some social groups has been expressed. It is better we both stop discussing because I don't think it is possible to reach consensus with those who have very entrenched negative opinions with respect to certain social groups and are too adamant with their points rather than believing in some give and take consensus. I think this matter will need attention of outside editors other than me, you and your friendly editor Luke. Akalanka820 (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The is no restriction to adding about the mistreatment of women/dalits on all pages where it is relevant. I have no objection if anyone adds it to the pages - Kurmi Yadav Bhumihar Jat etc. as long it is well sourced. We have to be very specific though. Think from a non-Hindu western person's or non-Indian point of view. If he or she reads the word Shudra etc. on a caste page, they will hardly give it much importance especially since the varna has been mobile and based on rituals. But sexual offenses are looked upon very seriously even by people who don't believe in religion/caste or are atheists. Unless the source specifically mentions Rajput we cannot assume that any upper caste or thakur(landlord) related crime mentioned was related to Rajput community. BTW, I don't have any disgust towards any community or race as suggested by another editor. Every person is different. Every community has good people and bad people.LukeEmily (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:::: LukeEmily there is a difference! the important part is "relevant to the page" basically WP:RELNOT and all kinds of synthesis as pointed out by an uninvolved editor of such a possibility here. In my opinion I have already expressed there is a need for proper one report on this controversial topic that explicitly talks on this Bihar based social group alone (not along with Bhumihars or other UC and not only focused on certain landholders) like I shared about Haryana case dealing with Jats violence against Scheduled Castes here-[[25]], here again [[26]] where it talks about institutions having backing of Jats playing role in their favour, till the time we have such reports it is not great step to add on caste page, even if it fulfills the above points there is a need for larger discussion on it. Otherwise, why so many pages are being created and mostly related to such cases? Every such violence doesn't involve only caste angle, have multiple factors. And your point regarding source mentioning a "word" like "Rajput", in my opinion it doesn't mean anything in larger context. It is very important that we read the whole context before any two line quotes as in most cases I have found that the reference are more dealing with general Landlord violence against depressed classes. So, in line with all this it becomes important that caste pages should be more balanced and not only a hit-job project especially on such a contentious thing. The references added here on the issue are either case study dealing with odd village or some lines from book talking about bad behaviour against depressed classes by certain (not all) Landlords related to this group (in this case: Bhumihars, Rajputs etc not only Rajput). I tried to search for a JSTOR report on such a topic related to Rajputs of Bihar as I was told this was very notable, but didn't found one. On the other hand I got two reports exclusively dealing with Jats of Haryana and their equation with Scheduled Castes. For your rest of the point, it is better action speaks more than the words unfortunately that doesn't seems the case here. Lastly, I will not respond any further to replies here, so better not tag me. I think the time to reach any consensus on the talk page is over as various sides already have their established viewpoint and doesn't look like a case of give and take consensus is ever possible between you, me and your friendly editor on this topic. We have passed that phase. I might take this matter up now at appropriate time to involve other editors for external inputs and for larger discussion. Right now, due to hectic work unable to do it. Akalanka820 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PASSIVE, calling us friendly editors and our edits as our disgust towards this specific community is not good. Article's talk pages are meant for discussion on content related to articles only and i have been providing sources for every edits. Moreover, all those things which seems "contentious" are not mine words. These are written in numerous sources, all of which converges on same conclusion. So, i am not the person who wrote these things about them. If there are ample sources saying same things, these should be here anyway. Thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that is not how it works, as pointed out in other cases you just go through 2-3 lines to have your content. This has been the constant behaviour on many pages. I have even reverted on some, many times the content has also failed the reference which I corrected it. None of the references are explicitly based on a community but the context if we read is mostly Landlords vs depressed class pertaining to certain villages which is common theme in northern belt and not a community specific as such. This particular page deals with community, if this was notable we would have report on JSTOR like how I found for Jats in Haryana. I request you not to reply/ping me anymore. And for your other points yes if you and only one editor on every page reply within hours it does create this impression ( I didn't said this in negative sense). This is not a one page case here. I have seen 4-5 pages even more than that, while on wiki same interest in certain case is okay but continuous instances does raises something. Lastly, I am requesting you as probably we have failed each other to convince on this case. So, let us not come up continuously responding each other in a tit for tat. This may require larger discussion. Thank you. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lastly, I didn't called your edits disgust but the views ( with respect to this group) which you had already expressed on an admin talk page. I have the diff for it. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And last response ( apologies) just to clarify that having disgust views is not some attack, it just means somebody can have particular belief to something which is definitely not positive wrt it. All people have all kinds of belief. But in my opinion and I hope it shouldn't get into editing (as beliefs can also get pushed into that direction and then it becomes problematic). Thanks Akalanka820 (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deleting it, you can put it on pages of those communities. I hope we cannot have two logics on Wikipedia, one for X community pages and other for Y. Akalanka820 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

since you are removing it, you must add it before to other community pages and only after that remove it there. Otherwise revert your own edit to the last best as of now till the discussion on other matters are over. Akalanka820 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments by Akalanka820 are copied from my talk page , [27], [28], [29] Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rajputs in Bihar's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ahmad":

• From Paramara dynasty: Ahmad, Imtiaz (2008). "State Formation and Consolidation under the Ujjainiya Rajputs in Medieval Bihar: Testimony of Oral Traditions as Recorded in the Tawarikh-i-Ujjainiya". In Singh, Surinder; Gaur, I. D. (eds.). Popular Literature And Pre-Modern Societies In South Asia. Pearson Education India. pp. 76–77. ISBN 978-81-317-1358-7. Archived from the original on 25 December 2020. Retrieved 2 January 2012.
• From Gajpati Ujjainia: Ahmad, Imtiaz (2008). "State Formation and Consolidation under the Ujjainiya Rajputs in Medieval Bihar: Testimony of Oral Traditions as Recorded in the Tawarikh-i-Ujjainiya". In Singh, Surinder; Gaur, I. D. (eds.). Popular Literature And Pre-Modern Societies In South Asia. Pearson Education India. pp. 76–77. ISBN 978-81-317-1358-7. Retrieved 2 January 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: As you had also pointed out the excessive weightage given to the rape and other heinous crimes in the history section, I think we should have a separate section for caste-based wars and tussles instead of adding them in the history section and that too much exclusively. Or, we can even move that section to the List of caste based violence in Bihar page. What do you say? Iamritwikaryan (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He just said more WP:WEIGHT is given to that section. But with your edits, that problem is over as you have mentioned ruling dynasties and have expanded the article. Movement to caste based violence has been discussed a lot and many editors have clarified that it's not a single incident, but a pattern of abuse. Hence, can't be moved to that page, which contains sporadic events of caste violence.Admantine123 (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dont mislead here by saying many editors. An another editor also pointed out the problem of synthesis with this subject. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that paragraph plausible for History section? Should we create a new section if it's that important and can't be moved to that page? Iamritwikaryan (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clear this out here to all this is a community page and not a Caste war page or Landlords v Depressed class page. It is clear from the edit history that one-two editors are trying to have their own synthesis here. We don't have a single JSTOR report specifically dealing with this community violence against Depressed class and a lot of these references mention "Landlords of Rajput and Bhumihars". The real destination of such a page is Zamindars of Bihar not here. Community page is not hitjob project. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Akalanka820: I second your view. Iamritwikaryan (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well basic thing is that, it should be there on Wikipedia for the readers who would like to know about this. If this is gonna be the case. I am in the process to create a new article on "Atrocities against Dalits in Bihar". Since many sources are there and as i explained these are not sporadic events but a pattern, these events will be included in that article. Apart from these, i have collection of such sources, which i am going to use there. Thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Admantine123: FYI, these events are already mentioned in List of caste based violence in Bihar page. If even then you want to create a new page you're welcome to do that, it will be better than mentioning in the pages of every other community. Iamritwikaryan (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A report from a particular village of Bihar called Sonatola tells that in neighbouring village Berath, some Dalit women alleged that when the lower caste women rejected the landlord's proposal of sexual contact, it was common for the landlords of the village to falsely implicate the male members of their families and their kin in criminal cases. Besides sexual assaults, the drawing of water from the village wells and walking on the pathways alongside the landlords in that particular Rajput village were also forbidden for the lower castes as per their allegations.

According to my views, this content can be removed outrightly, it will reduce much space which is taken by rape related stuffs. For Dola Pratha, i read recently in a news article that it was practised in other regions of Bihar as well. A passing mention using both sources may be sufficient.Admantine123 (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Mr. Iamritwikaryan, i am the creater of the "List of caste based violence in Bihar". But, i don't remember when did i added any rape related stuff there. PS: Except 2 cases all cases on that page are also my addition. By the way, my memory is sharp. :)Admantine123 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Admantine123 and Iamritwikaryan:, we should not dilute anything, just remove duplications and summarize. Changing rape to sexual exploitation or even sexual violence is not correct as the latter two could also imply making street catcalling(verbal sexual violence) and exploitation could just be taking advantage. Secondly naxalism, Triveni Sangh and Kisan Sabhas and quite important. The details can be on another place. Please see the comments by Kautila03

We have already talked about the inadmissibility of WP:SYNTHESIS. That would seem to apply to any idea of generalising material from landlords to all Rajputs, or for specialising material from all upper castes to Rajputs. All forms of SYNTHESIS are to be avoided. On the other hand, I don't agree with the argument that some material can go in other pages and so it should be removed from here. Content for each topic should be decided based on the appropriateness for that topic. Detail can be pruned of course, if it can be found on other pages. Links like {{main}} and {{further}} can be used to point the readers to the more detailed pages. I hope this helps. -- Kautilya3 10:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

. In the current version, there is no synthesis. This material is very relevant to this page as others have also pointed out. Let us discuss where and how to move it. If we want to remove it from the history section and keep in on some section like "inter caste disputes" on the same page, that should be fine. After Godse killed Gandhi, innocent Brahmins - who probably had not even heard of Godse before- were harassed and some killed. I am planning to create a page on the riots but please notice that post Godse riots situation is currently on many pages although in small detail. Hence, I agree with Kautilya completely. Secondly, TB has pointed to some papers and has said that this was not only in certain villages. Can anyone go through the sources he is discussing? My earlier argument that the page is small is no longer true, so I am not even sure if we need any changes - except about Dola Pratha(maybe?). About Dola Pratha see Kalyan Mukerjee (1970: 1536-39), who writes about the peasant revolt in Bhojpur district (Bihar), says that 'izzat' (dignity) and 'unche niche jatka sangharsh' (upper and lower caste tensions) are the chief sources of conflict and tension between them. He further argues that the dehumanization of the lower castes is violent and physical: the dehumanization of the lower castes is violent and physical: rampant sexual tyranny perpetuated by the upper castes on lower caste women, the pride of the Bhumihar whose unwritten law prohibits them to remain seated in their presence even at their door steps, viewing and even wearing of a clean dhoti or receiving education, as intolerable ignorance, the "hakim" suffix after every sentence, at places the taking of dole i.e., Bhumihar or Rajput landlords are privileged to sleep with the new bride of a lower labourer on the wedding night. (Mukherjee, 1979: 1537)LukeEmily (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC) You can find this quote from Sharma's book. Here is more from Kelkar: [reply]

Rape and sexual assault on lower caste women, particularlyChamars andMusahars, wereonce considered the privilege of Rajput and Bhumihar landlords. The Dola custom (forcing every bride of the lower caste to spend the first nightfollowing her marriage with the local landlord) prevailed in the villages of Bhojpur and Rohtas districts. These practices caused much anguish among the lower castes,but the latter could not oppose them because of their socio-economic dependence on the upper caste landlords. By 1930s, however, resentment among the lower castes gained ground and the words izzat (dignity) and larai (struggle) were used frequently. The 1940switnessed two radical peasant movements, Tebhaga inWest Bengal and Telangana in Andhra Pradesh. The two movement were followed by the Naxalite movement in the late sixties in the areas of West Bengal, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh. In all these movements, women were reported to been the forefront of the struggle. (Custers;Lalita et al; Roy) The lowercastes(BackwardCastes and Dalits) include among them various classes of peasants and also agricultural labourers.

In summary (1) Let us move some details like village names etc. to some other page and then summarize in 2-3 sentences. Or summary may not be necessary as the article is big now. Please share your thoughts. BTW, others who committed atrocities on women should have it on their pages too for balance.LukeEmily (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Kelkar, a WP:HISTRS ?, The other reference that you mentioned takes name of Bhumihar twice and Rajput once. So why it should be added here ? I don't see an WP:AGF here. And here is another shared by the editor with whom your opinions matches, it was in the next thread: as per the above the Wire reference the other editor shared -

We were not allowed to wear slippers in front of the landlord. We couldn’t sit on the khatiya (cot). Our daughters were required to visit a Bhumihar household the night before her marriage. We wanted these samantwadi (feudal) practices to stop. We wanted our daily wages to be raised from Rs 5 to Rs 7. In return, we were killed,” he reminded this correspondent

, looks like practice was more common with Bhumihars. I would request not to engage in fooling here. I can add the post of yesterday's comments on my talk page.Akalanka820 (talk)

As suggested here by Admantine123,[[30]]. I am moving the above diff to the talk page of the article. Akalanka820 (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admantine123, you can check this if it is fine? I have added two Oxford and Sharma's ref which are on similar lines. The other ones are not as clear, and case study, specific village part I have removed as suggested. Akalanka820 (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine and acceptable but you have also removed Ranbir Sammadar, i can't create an article on "Dola Pratha", as the topic is not WP: Notable. Atleast, in your sentence, which you have added recently that landlords belonging to these caste were involved in sexual exploitation, you may mention which include practices like Dola Pratha with a one liner definition. I am saying this as recently through local newspaper in Bihar, i came to know about a lady who was regarded as living goddess in some region of Bihar.(She was first to attack this System as said in the report). Also, whole i was searching for some election related stuff i got this.[31]

Woh daur gaya. Magar samantwadi taakaton ki mansikta nahin badli. Doli pratha jaisi prathayein khatam ho gayi. Hamara vetan bhi thoda badha. Hum bhi unke kheton mein kaam ke alawa doosre kaam bhi karne lage, shahron mein gaye. Magar aaj bhi choti choti baaton mein unke ahankar ko thesh pahunch jaati hai. (The era of massacres is gone. But the feudal mindset is still there. Practices like the Doli Pratha (in which a Dalit girl is required to sleep with a feudal lord a day before her marriage) happens no more. Our wages increased too. We no longer work as bonded labour in fields; we have started taking up different work; we go to cities too. But even today their ego is hurt on small matters),” said a middle-aged man in the Musahar tola of adjoining Nanoor village.

It indicates that it was prevalent in more regions. Lastly, new users have added lot of "forts". I saw Sitush and Bishonen removing them from Rajput article. We know in the community of millions, we have people from all socio-economic background and the forts are meant for princely state related to Rajputs only. Rest is fine. I hope i may work in other areas from now onwards, away from this article. Admantine123 (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some more issues:

• If Radha mohan singh has himself identified with this caste, no problem in adding him as per WP:BLP. But, he is a Bhartiya Janata Party leader. I doubt that he is also a part of "I am Hindu" rhetoric. :)).Admantine123 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Individuals image shouldn't be there in caste articles- these are words of Sitush. One user has added Anugraha Narayan Singh here. We have never seen Lalu Prasad Yadav on Yadav page.
• I can clarify, why i added Raghuvansh Prasad Singh there. I think it has motivated a fellow editor to add Radha Mohan Singh, but Raghuvansh Babu is no more, we need just a source calling him Rajput, not his own self-identification.Admantine123 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admantine123, do you have a reliable references for Dola pratha, because Sammaddar reference talks about it for a specific Anwa village, he also says Hajipur village had no such. If you have references for Dola pratha, I will add it because I am not able to find that in other references. For the forts part, let me look into it. I will correct some. Akalanka820 (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, i am not searching anything related to that, so i don't have but can find. Admantine123 (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admantine123, as per the above the Wire reference you shared -

“We were not allowed to wear slippers in front of the landlord. We couldn’t sit on the khatiya (cot). Our daughters were required to visit a Bhumihar household the night before her marriage. We wanted these samantwadi (feudal) practices to stop. We wanted our daily wages to be raised from Rs 5 to Rs 7. In return, we were killed,” he reminded this correspondent

, looks like practice was more common with Bhumihars. Akalanka820 (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes. Agree. I saw Dola Pratha there, since no mention of Rajputs, let it be.Admantine123 (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantine123, I thought Upper Backward Class is not constitutional category but if it is no issue then. My aim was to avoid upper and lower in lead content. For other parts as suggested, I will change it.Akalanka820 (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a problem and many people misunderstood this. I would like to know, have you read about recent drive by central government for sub-categorisation of OBCs. They appointed Justice G. Rohini Committee. Don't take it in any other way, i know you are from engineering background, so it's not a big deal if you haven't read. Bihar government in the premiership of Karpoori Thakur itself sub-categorised the OBCs. Here we have Annexure 2 and Annexure 1 and the cutoff of Lower Backwards are less compared to Upper Backwards. This is a statutory provision in the case of Bihar, not just a terminology. Besides, the Upper Backwards are not given the benefits of many schemes like "Mukhyamantri Civil Seva Protsahan Yojna" unlike lower backwards.Admantine123 (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*"(Monograph 01/2013) Subaltern Resurgence, A Reconnaissance of Panchayat Election in Bihar" (Document). Asian Development Research Institute. Even in the Panchayat Election of 1978 itself, that was held no less than twenty-three years ago, there was visible shift in the political centre of gravity. Karpoori Thakur, the then Chief Minister, had implemented the Mungeri Lall Commission Report, which entailed reservation in the state government jobs, for the lower backwards (Annexure I castes) and the upper backwards (Annexure II castes) in Bihar {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |archive-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |archive-url= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)

Admantine123 (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not from Engg background, on this part I would disagree. I am not here to explain my qualifications. For rest of your points, there is still ambiguity on upper backwards but I would go with your point as this is related to the group in a particular state. So, no problem I agree state to state sub-categorisation can vary. Akalanka820 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]