Talk:Rajputs in Bihar

Silhadi was not bihari rajput
Stop including Silhadi in bihari rajput page, he wasnt bihari and irrelevant here. Stop reverting to your favorite version

Kolff calling bihari rajputs pseudo
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.

Regarding rape and other stuff on Rajput in Bihar
Hey, i realised after reading the article in one go that bombarding so many case studies regarding rape and sexual misconduct is not the correct way to write a caste related article. A summary may be sufficient for that. You may go through edits to remove the "case studies", you were talking about. I will create a more suitable article on that subject when get time. ThanksAdmantine123 (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

You may move this comment of mine to talk page of that page. has also supported this view. Thanks and best wishes. Admantine123 (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 This was posted on my talk page by here - User_talk:Akalanka820  Akalanka820 (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * moving it here with details of it. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , please see my other comments and quotes. I think you misunderstood me. Summaries are fine but diluting is not. Anyway, these do not look like single isolated incidents. Many authors are mentioning them (see Kelkar for example). Any now, the reason for summary(short article) no longer exists.LukeEmily (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood what you said. Recently was involved here, you may ask him with the two sources you are pointing to, to do the required edits. I can't find the books you are talking about for the last two quotes you mentioned yesterday. Also, if you have those two books you may put it here along with quotes, i will use them later in my article on "Atrocities against Dalits in Bihar".Admantine123 (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * what is your problem ? What is this kind of WP:Gaming here? goes to my talk page and definitely points to consensus, I took the initiative and corrected it and later you revert it to your liking. I am pinging, ,  and other esteemed editors like ,  Sir. It is very urgent that you guys stand up and see into it. The above case is a classical mockery of consensus on this platform? Are we going to have collaboration like this? Akalanka820 (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the third editor who reverted working on your Mr behalf because he never participated in any discussions on this page but went reverting with very rude edit summaries. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * if you had problem, you could have chosen to come up with reply on my talk page where pinged you. But you didn't do it and went reverting to your liking. Akalanka820 (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (I'm not entirely sure why I was pinged – It's an honour to come to mind when someone looks for experienced help, but I'm not sure if this is the right way to ask for it. A better place to report edit warring is WP:ANEW, a better place to discuss users' conduct is on users' talk pages and WP:ANI if that completely fails, a page describing dispute resolution techniques on Wikipedia can be found at WP:DR. This talk page here is best reserved for discussing the content of the article, not the conduct of specific users.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear, Sir, I will take that step according to your suggestions. Akalanka820 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It is impossible to wade through the above discussion where an editor has extensively devoted verbiage to baselessly speculating about other editors' motivations. But it appears to me that WP:WEIGHT and "what about other castes who did the same thing" are the two arguments brought forth. Invoking WP:WEIGHT without bringing sources which deal with other aspects is lazy. It is also useless for an in-progress article like this. Further, if all reliable sources note and/or discuss oppression, the article will also have to give sufficient attention to it. I do not see a single source in the discussion above which refutes any of the issues at all or supports in any way the argument that the landlord oppression is something that's a minor part of Rajput history. "Bhumihars also did this" and "this content belongs in some other article" are plainly stupid arguments. and, please explain - with zero words about anything other than content - why you think this edit reflects scholarly opinion correctly and with no dilution or whitewashing. Hemantha (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC) blocked sock Akalanka820 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , firstly you stop writing "stupid" on article's talk page, this is the second time you are doing after your last post on my talk page. Coming to the arguments, it seems you just read the last response I gave to an editor. The debate with respect to cases were discussed and a lot of it was corrected by me as per the reference, otherwise content was failing the reference. The issue here is larger, this is a community page and not Landlords vs Depressed Class struggle. Still, as per the suggestion on my talk page, a content was added. Aren't we diluting everything on the page, including history, removal of photos of some estates. One reason being this is not a directly related article but indirect one at max. And for the last time I am repeating again avoid words like stupid. Akalanka820 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue here is larger, this is a community page and not Landlords vs Depressed Class struggle - this was the only relevant-to-this-talkpage (barely at that) sentence in your post. And nobody is disputing that at all. But that doesn't mean we should remove everything about class oppression from this article. I'll once again (for the last time) request you to explain, solely focusing on content - what is the issue that requires this edit, given that WP:WEIGHT and "other articles exist" arguments have been refuted and dilution/whitewashing arguments have been raised against that edit? Hemantha (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC) blocked sockAkalanka820 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding, speculation part I will not say anything further on it but it does raises questions when an editor who have not interacted before too often responds and reverts in a rude way, it definitely was not ordinary way to do it. Akalanka820 (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * okay responding to your query the content I had added did mention sexual violence part by landowners by Rajputs and Bhumihars except the individual case study and a Franco's reference. I will post that content so that it becomes clearer to you. Thanks Akalanka820 (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear, tell me what was the problem with this content that was added by me when I was pinged and even the editor who I discussed regularly on it was more or less fine with it. Here is it- " In the certain regions of Bihar, landowners belonging to Rajputs and Bhumihars were found to be exploiting lower-castes including sexual violence against women." , this was all there except the two case study of individual village which can be explained on a better page as they become incidents of their own. Now rather than completely reverting you could have easily took to talk page and suggested the improvement over it. Akalanka820 (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The content which you have cited here, which got removed eventually appears precise and to the point. For history section involving a community that appears enough and if one has to read details of it then that can be added on the page created for that subject. And please note to add "some" before landlords, as all of them were not involved in these activities. Iamritwikaryan (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Akalanka requested my input on the current dispute. Looking at this content, which was apparently removed by her and reinstated by Luke Emily, it does look overweight in a section on the "history" of the caste. The prose is also meandering and quite repetitious. I think it should be cut down to roughly half the current size. The word "rape" should not be omitted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please participate in this discussion and raise any points that you may have now, rest I agree with the comment of User:Kautilya3 as i have raised similar point in this talk page already. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am also okay with the proposed suggestions by Sir.  Akalanka820 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Thanks Kautilya3 for helping us resolve it. I was against removal of the word "rape" - that was my main objection - names of each place is not important and we can remove any repetition without removing any information. We can come up with 2-3 lines (or half of the text) and replace it. Can we start building a summary on talk page first to avoid any edit wars?, please let us know your feedback.LukeEmily (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. I do not completely agree with the resolution here - that the content "should be cut down in half" - because it is simply going to add to more repetitive bludgeoning by the editor who simply refuses to consider any objections others have raised. The issue of WP:IDHT isn't going to be solved by more discussion with the same editors.Moreover, compare how the section was, before the current set of editors got involved, to how it is now. The verbiage about mentioning specific districts, long attributions about authors etc were insisted upon by Akalanka820, Lord 0f Avernus, RuudVanClerk etc. which has bloated the section. But now the same editors are arguing it is too long.I propose that we restore the paragraph from the old section (with any relevant modifications you and Adamantine123 think suitable). If Akalanka820 and Lord 0f Avernus cannot articulate their issues with content without bludgeoning or commenting upon editors or speculating about motivations, there can be no productive discussion to be had. Hemantha (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC) blocked sock Akalanka820 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't using words like stupid, look at you own conduct for a second. Anyways K3, has come up with solutions to it and if all are okay then it is fine. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , the old section you have talked about here in the above comments - [],  some of the content from it had failed the reference. It is better you read the old corrections made before talking this old section. I am sure, knows it. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want I can point it out here what all had failed the reference from that old section Akalanka820 (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please no. That's the "pinching" sentence, I think. By tomorrow, I'll replace the current paragraph with a suitably paraphrased version. Stop with the incessant repetitions. Hemantha (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC) blocked sockAkalanka820 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * not only the pinching part, the content from two other references were found to be dealing with Anwa village and Berath village respectively as per the references and were added in a way to make it sound to whole community. This was explained by me with quotes on talk page of the article in two sections. So, there were additional problem to it apart from the pinching part. I am clarifying it last time ( request you not take it as repetition), just explaining so that it becomes easier. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

, and others, please see Kautilya has talked about cutting it half of the current size. I rushed to the talk page of Akalanka and told them about removing one particular case study but they took it in a different way and whitewashed all the content to reduce it in "two line". I never said that it should be in two line. Anyway, i agree with Kaultiya and i want no reply to this by as i am not in the mood to tolerate same WP: BLUDGEONING and counter-attack on talk page of article, my talk page, unlimited pings and threats that '''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.'''. I saw even the pretext of content failing the verification as a "threat" to reach forced consensus, like here it is said by Akalanka that that issue (Dola Pratha) was limited to particular village of Anwa only and they used this issue to enforce submission on me infront of their arguments, but if they had taken the lead to find source for supporting it in place of doing this, they would have find this source that LukeEmily found (talking about prevalence in wide area, almost two districts ). Just close the matter with the consensus of all and i will agree with the version decided by, and Kautilya.(i clarified here earlier too, after that comment on their talk page that they have removed almost everything  ) Admantine123 (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , recently you made this comment in the reply of which you were told by another editor that many problems existed here in the article, that phase is over now. You also said that you will write a good paraphrased sentence in some days.
 * I contested removal of Dola Pratha in the above diff. LukeEmily has provided this quote, in case you want extra resources it may help you in reinstating some content (see LukeEmily wanted that word "rape" shouldn't be diluted as it was supported by many source, i was against removal of Dola Pratha, later i agreed as i am writing another article and didn't give time to search the good source for this, but now we have this source to include that Pratha as well), which can be removed on the ground of less citations. Further, i would like to clarify that as  said yesterday that this is not the place to discuss conduct of users, i even after provoking didn't put my diffs, which i would like to use if taken to WP:ANI or anywhere else. I saw the way to force someone own views by using "threats" here rather than putting source to counter the present source and it has been happening with  as well from yesterday onwards. But just leave it all. Will like to respond on correct platform and will advice the editors to not resort to these ways to reach consensus. Admantine123 (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I know you will agree with the , that is different point. But please don't twist the lines that you wrote there, you used word "summary": "A summary may be sufficient for that" and you had not raised any questions to the content. And Yes I will go with whatever is given go ahead by . He is the more independent in this case then and the other editor as the dispute to it was between LukeEmily, you, I and  two more editors. They did contested Dola Pratha by explaining me through a the Wire report on the topic but it mentioned Bhumihar and then they agreed here is the diff following the diff they shared now this was following to it here - [], you said okay I agree. Please don't quote half part of that conversation. I have kept each and every diff of that. Now, let's leave it Akalanka820 (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And for the counter-aggressive approach I do also have each and every diff including saying words like in a very different tone on an article's talk page. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , please correct the lines as per the diff here [], I didn't say I will take it up. This is misrepresenting of that diff Akalanka820 (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * as well, he was also part of the discussion. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was ok with what Kautilya3 proposed, i was never averse to having things which are sourced like dola pratha or sex atrocities, my whole point was it should not be taking up a large portion of the whole section. An average rajput in bihar is no different than other commoners, so the article should have respective weightage for atrocity done by elites. That said, after continuous engagement i dont see it possible to ever reach a consensus amongst us with the current set of people. Maybe once some fresh set of editors come, it might be possible. Till then i will rather not waste my time arguing the same things again and again. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * there is also problem of content failing the reference on this page in the past. I am hopeful Sir will ensure this doesn't happen here. The past content failing the reference ( a Kind of POV in some cases) in my view were a serious matter on this community page. Akalanka820 (talk)

Trimmed version
My suggested text: "; Feudal dominance

The Permanent Settlement act by the British East India Company did not significantly alter the landholding patterns in Bihar, leaving Rajputs and Bhumihars as the major zamindars. It curtailed some of their powers, but also took away the customary occupancy rights of the peasantry. The British rule enabled Rajputs to continue their dominance by cementing their entitlements related to land and tax collection. Exercise of coercive power by the dominant castes over the vulnerable landless labourers took various forms such as forced labour, higher rents, lower wages, social restrictions, evictions and sexual harassment. Rape by Rajput and Bhumihar landowners was common in the Shahabad district and a couple of villages in Bhojpur. Emerging organizations of middle peasant castes like Triveni Sangh and Kisan Sabhas took up the issues of exploitation, with the Naxal threat also acting as a check."

Dola pratha is ultimately sourced to a book by a journalist which I'm unable to access and the context isn't very clear to me. So I have dropped it. Hemantha (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's also the following for Dola, which are independent from "Bhojpur: Naxalism in the Plains of Bihar", but I didn't have time to properly evaluate. Perhaps needs another discussion.


 * Hemantha (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Dola Pratha is described in note 7 here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks - the above version does not say much about atrocities on women. Also, as Trangabellum said, there are sources that say it was prevalent all over(BTW I also found sources for UP while searching for these issues). Will add a few quotes from other sources specific to Bihar. I think the only issue is to remove repetition or minor details like names of places studied but not delete the information. Will post my suggestion today this weekend without modifying yours.LukeEmily (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is also seriously incorrect to say that the permanent settlement did not alter the "land holding pattern". Prior to this system, the zamindars were only revenue collectors. But the permanent settlement made them land owners. So, private property was created and gifted to the elite by the state. See -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * LukeEmily, do go ahead, I'm not really particular about getting the above text in. A lot of the refs talked about zamindars or landlords, so I did not wish to get drawn in to another round of countering "this belongs in Zamindars of Bihar" arguments and limited myself to a brief summary. Kautilya3, I was, perhaps badly, going for something like - "the same zamindars under Mughals continued under British", based on source's Permanent Settlement (1793) did not venture to challenge [zamindari system] fundamentally ... and account of instances where landholders were evicted and restored later.  But the period - late 18th and early 19th century - requires much more than a clause and needs to be dwelled upon at some length both here and especially at Zamindars of Bihar anyway; which I hope those with better knowledge will do. Hemantha (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)  blocked sock Akalanka820 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am happy to acknowledge that I quite appreciated your text, which covered a lot more ground than the previous content. (The fact that most Indians don't know that 90% of the ills of the Indian economy were actually British creations, is a general phenomenon, attributable in this case to a contributor to the Indian History Congress. It is not your fault.) But, as Luke Emily pointed out, we also need more text on the sexual exploitation aspects. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am happy to acknowledge that I quite appreciated your text, which covered a lot more ground than the previous content. (The fact that most Indians don't know that 90% of the ills of the Indian economy were actually British creations, is a general phenomenon, attributable in this case to a contributor to the Indian History Congress. It is not your fault.) But, as Luke Emily pointed out, we also need more text on the sexual exploitation aspects. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Trimmed version 2
This part focuses only on the women. Added only one line each for triveni Sangh, 1930s, Kisan Sabha and Naxalism and one for the dola pratha. Total 4 lines only. It spans 1930s to 1970s. There is one more paper by Kelkar(quote on talk page) published in a Canadian journal [ https://cws.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/cws/article/download/37661/34211 ]] but the sources are a bit repetitive. Also, left out another source by Sharma/Mukherjee(quote on talk page) as these are enough. This seemed to be a common issue in Bihar and UP. Not sure if it is still prevalent. Kautilya, please can you edit it further if necessary?
 * In the Shahabad district, Rajput and Bhumihar landowners frequently raped low-caste women of the landless labourers, and by 1930s, the Triveni Sangh gave the abused women a platform to express their frustration. The Kisan Sabhas, led by middle peasant castes who also brought the issues of women rights and dignity within its fold and allowed the agricultural labourer women to voice for themselves. In studies conducted in the 1970s in Bhojpur, rape of poor lower caste women from the families of agricultural labourers such as Chamars and Mushars, by their Rajput and Bhumihar landlords, had almost become a tradition, until Naxalism emerged on the scene.  Some Rajputs practiced Dola Pratha in which the newly wed bride of the Dalits and landless workers in their fields, had to spend one night with the landlord before  commissioning of her nuptial rites and rejection of such sexual exploitation by the woman allegedly resulted in the false implication of the male members of the families of these women in criminal cases.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeEmily (talk • contribs)


 * What is the difference in the last proposal to the corrections that I had made with those two references in two earlier threads? How can you use  some Rajputs  based on two individual studies of Anwa and Berath village respectively where the writer from the top to bottom in the paragraph only talks about those two villages. I am raising it with the last para of  version. And one more correction, Sahabad and Bhojpur are same as far as I know. Akalanka820 (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually Kelkar is not limiting the comment to those two villages. You can see the quote from the Canadian journal above. Anyways, I don't have issues mentioning only specific villages/districts to be more specific. We should never generalize nor specialize as Kautilya03 rightly says. "Some" implies that not all were involved. I agree that this may apply to some landlord Rajputs only not to a school-teacher Rajput(for example). We can say some Rajputs from XYZ places if that is OK with you. Secondly, I made sure that  accusations by the Dalit women are not represented as facts. That is why the word "alleged" - the source does not say if there was any independent verification to their accusations. It is also possible that they(Dalits) might not be telling the truth about some incidents- so we have to use the word alleged.LukeEmily (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * the reference of the case study on page 72 that has been added in your suggested trimmed version in last para talks about Berath village explicitly, I have already explained this in a thread and there shouldn't be any confusion on it. It would be wastage of time to discuss same thing when the para in the reference is clear. Secondly, we need to be careful when using peasant castes gave them support. There are counter-references to it as well which shows that these  middle castes landholder  were themselves involved into exploiting Dalits like here  It seems exploitation of Dalit in Bihar is not particular to any community here is another on the same line I have been saying, very detailed explanations-.This has been the result of unfortunate difference between Landed and Landless. I find the first version suggested by the  editor before you better and more appropriate/balanced, we can add any suggestions by dear K3 to the same. Lastly, I again repeat Sahabad is old name of Bhojpur district.  Akalanka820 (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

We may not conclude anything like you are saying that the "exploitation" was only the question of landless vs those who possessed land. Yes, there are references showing that Yadav and Kurmis also exploited the Dalits in some regions of Bihar, but these phenomenon were not widespread as you are saying. As far as this article is concerned, i will urge to be specific and use the name of particular place if the sources say so, otherwise i have many such sources which explicitly say that the exploitation of Dalits was more pronounced in the case of Rajputs and the Senas formed by middle peasant castes were not as ruthless as those formed by the Rajputs and other Upper Castes. In fact, CPI(ML) liberation itself published a document in which it has claimed that these peasant castes were good allies in their war against the Rajputs and Bhumihars. And fortunately, since we rarely use WP:Primary sources (considering the CPI-ML document as primary), i also have Ranabir Samaddar source which has analysed the document to write about the "caste wars" of Bihar.(This source will be WP: SECONDARY and best for use). Hence, i would again say that putting lot of sources to justify these things will only deteriorate this caste group related article, so we should accept the modification in present "trimmed version"( which talks about specific villages and the specific struggles, in which peasants and untouchables are on one side, i don't say this was the case in every village and every place but i have sources which tells that it was so, in majority of cases.)Admantine123 (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Lets don't go in the discussion of which caste were on which side as i have many sources to challenge this viewpoint that those who possessed land had necessarily exploited the Dalits. The exploitation has remained prerogative of some specific caste groups in the case of Bihar. I can cite a Human Rights Watch report specific to this topic, which says that:" Rajput militia usually attacked women and children as they couldn't defend themselves". But, let's not get into that, these sources will be used on right pages at right time. Admantine123 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources you cited has just commented in a summarised manner to conclude that Kurmis and Yadavs were also involved in exploitation. Yes they were, but in "rare cases", as very few landlords from these castes had emerged by the time. On the other hand the significant Naxalite groups fighting for the Dalits, were manned by these middle peasant castes in a significant manner. Here is more:


 * Admantine123 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We may not conclude anything like you are saying that the exploitation was only the question of landless vs those who possessed land. Yes, there are references showing that Yadav and Kurmis also exploited the Dalits in some regions of Bihar, but these phenomenon were not widespread as you are saying. As far as this article is concerned, i will urge ...My response here is - your personal opinion is immaterial. I don't share newspapers to put my point. I don't want to say except some references I have come across most of it comes from Google books even involving "journalists" and not from a very reputed publications especially in the contentious matter like this. Now, here is another incident involving an OBC group Kurmi violence against SCs on page 62-63, It is not same to views of a journalist. Writers have logically explained the reasons for the cases in Bihar not specific to a particular region or an incident. The book is by reputed writers and it passes the test. I don't know what you didn't understand on page 58? I again repeat some part from the quotes in the book that I had shared a day back, it is very clear The writers are Jan Breman noted Sociologist [] and Marika Vicziany Professor with vast  experience in South Asian Studies and this is written in a book on "untouchables and their struggle" in a reputed publication. Even the first reference that I had shared by SK Srivastava also wrote how the backward castes or middle peasantry have been equally exploitative of untouchables on page 35 here And these books deals with studies on untouchable communities, I would say more important than just reference describing some incidents. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That do not mean that we can't include rape and other things here. As said by LukeEmily earlier, no one here has problem with adding these exploitations in the article of those community as well. Why are you making it a point to remove it from here altogether. If other communities (3 or 4) did the same, we may include in those articles as well. It is not fair to remove it from here considering so many sources saying the same thing. Admantine123 (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the second response which I had given to the trimmed 2, I had written this I find the first version suggested by the editor before you better in the last line, these responses were with respect to trimmed versions 1 & 2. It would be helpful if you read responses before replying to it. I would give any further response if needed here only 24 hrs later. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In reply to your concern about the reputed source, i would like to say that many a times, sources from oxford and cambridge don't give much deeper insight into the topics.I've been writing here on politics and caste related topics for last 2 years and i realised that those sources many a time not cover the things in depth. This is a matter of common sense that some of the regional issues come to us mainly through journalists. The scholastic sources will also take cue from news sources in future to write about these issues. I had a book called "Naxalism in plains of Bihar", now it's not from Cambridge or other reputed publishers, but those who have written on the "Naxalism", specially in the context of Bihar have used that book as citation.One example is Ranabir Samaddar.Admantine123 (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends on the book, in case of published sources from Oxford or Cambridge. Here it deals with Untouchables and extensively covers Bihar.￼ Akalanka820 (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources used in the rape issue are good quality. If there are any concerns about specific sources, please clarify. We have not written about Ranbir Sena (which also included Rajputs) and some Kuer sena that committed atrocities. The first trimmed version is not appropriate as it misses a lot of information. We cannot sanitize atrocities on women (irrespective of their caste or religion). If other communities have committed such atrocities please add them on their pages too. I did not find studies mentioning Brahmins committing such atrocities like rapes etc. Normal journalists are good for news and trivia about caste but not analysis of studies on caste etc.(unless that journalist is a political scientist like Jaffrelot) but I don't think we have used low quality news source on this page, have we? If so, we can replace them or remove them.LukeEmily (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , your suggested trimmed 2 version has lots of repetition, for example Bhojpur and Sahabad are historically same, Sahabad being the older name of the district. Secondly, we cannot cross the mandate of the reference like Ranabir Samaddar in that para from top to bottom only talks about Anwa Village, he even says "Hajipur village conduct was fine", can't use it to make some Rajputs. Similar case with Berath village in the other study. And Like I explained various writers have given reasons and context example: the Land control being a factor and untouchable exploitation is not specific to a caste. I shared the reputed professors analysis. For your point, I did not find studies mentioning Brahmins committing such atrocities like rapes etc.- Here, FYI Bhumihars for all practical purposes are called as Landed Brahmins or military Brahmins in many references. Please do read what I shared in the last reply- it is about land control as it says, priestly Brahmins historically never owned land to the level of Bhumihar or Bhumihar Brahmins and Rajputs. This could be another factor, just for clarification here-, so it is about media coverage as well but a deeper search will definitely give out many cases.Akalanka820 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, Bhumihars are another caste different from Brahmins. Here in Bihar, Brahmins are also present but matrimonial relationship between Brahmin and Bhumihars is impossible. In fact, Brahmins and Rajputs were the challenger in pre independence india to the Bhumihar attempt to sanskritise themselves. In fact, Ranvir Baba, the motivation behind Ranvir Sena, was actually a military man from the Bhumihar caste, who fought against the Rajpoot landlords to save the Bhumihar peasants. In post mandal phase too, Yadavs were much closed to Rajputs in social ties and other spheres compared to Bhumihars.(This is different thing that in Aurangabad district, most of the massacre against Rajputs and other atrocities like rape of Rajput women were conducted by Yadav militias). Similarly, in Nalanda and Warlisganj, there used to be attack and retaliation between caste based gangs of Kurmi-Koeri caste on one side and those of Bhumihars on the other side, but the twin communities of Kurmi-Koeri are more closer to the Bhumihars than Rajputs. You may witness the thing i explained above in the composition of JDU and RJD too. Badri Narayan has explained it in an article. Many other books are also available, which says the same. You may also witness the rift and anger between the Rajput and Bhumihars in day to day life. Many caste based website are also available, where they make remark on each other. (see the comments section for example). "Military Brahmin" is a claim, and most of the sources of British era mention them as Shudra. Hence, LukeEmily is correct that Brahmin and Kayastha had no such involvement in the rape and massacre in the pre-Zamindari agrarian society. The Rajput were involved because they took it as a way to assert 'kshatriyatva'. I had one source, in which an account of a Rajput hamlet was given, where the Rajpoot were comparing massacres of Dalit women and children with "elimination of demons by Rama. They also compared the assertion of lower castes and inclusive development of all castes as the phenomenon associated with "Kaliyuga". (means according to them Ram Rajya means concentration of all wealth of few and dehumanisation of others). That source was from any foreign publisher as you demand always. Need to find. Admantine123 (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't as simple as you think it to be. Benares Bhumihar rulers were referred as Brahmins in many records, and if you look at Ain-i-Akbari a lot of areas where it is written Brahmin as landholder in it, the land were mostly with Bhumihar in actuality ( Landed or military brahmin). This is bit complex. Writer Purshottam Kumar has given explanation for their early problem with the census, he says it was more because they didn't participated in 1857. So, not completely true. Kayasth were very very small elite in the state confined to urban pockets. And for marriages I know a lot of Brahmins and Bhumihar Brahmin marriages but that is immaterial to the discussion. I can back all the above points with references but this is not exact topic of discussion. And no OR here, I gave the reference where the professors are very explicit that all this problem in Bihar had to do with land control and not particular to caste, and my closing comments here are we cannot ignore such high level analysis and reference. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * woah woah, interesting discussion sir, never heard so many lies about bhumihars in my life. Firstly, bhumihars ain't any caste, it is clan of kanyakumbj,  saryupreen and maithli brahmins. Bhumihar word came in 1865 only to depict our immense land holdings.  Before 1865, we were referred as military brahmins,  zamindar brahmins or babhan, you can check any british records.
 * Secondly, No British era census or any source classified bhumihars as shudras, it is just rumour as some people have some sort of vendetta against us to tarnish our image.
 * THIRDLY, Britishers recognised priestly brahmins and warrior or military brahmins aka Bhumihar Brahmins separately, as they performed different roles in society.
 * Fourthly, plzzz understand this that our claim is of ayachak brahmins, we don't want to be clubbed with priestly brahmins, we were already recognized as brahmins before 1850s, but our claim was that,  to be brahmins,  you don't need only to perform priestly functions and take alms but you can go to battle field and be warrior brahmins to defend your land and dharma and give up priestly functions.
 * IN 1926, kanyakumbj brahmins formed sabha and tried their utmost to bring Bhumihar Brahmins under the realm of priestly brahmins, but maximum bhumihar brahmins denied it as we are ayachak brahmins. Regards. GRAI777 (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I only said Brahmins were not involved in abuse of women. I have come across references where castes such as Khatris and Kayasthas in the north abused women too(Bachanan says they openly kept sex slaves in the 18th century). I think the reason the Brahmins did not abuse women was probably the need to be spiritual and their teetotalism. But that is irrelevant for this discussion.LukeEmily (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this tangent is, but the contrived reasoning is at least slightly better than the logic - since the offenders were upper-caste men and included a Brahmin, the rape could not have taken place, because Bhanwari was from a lower caste - from a famous judgement in 1995; but still as uninformed and/or motivated. There's the entire institution of Devadasi, for one example to the contrary. The wikipedia article is white-washed as usual, but Anjali Arondekar for example, has written a lot based on records kept by Gomantak Maratha Samaj. Hemantha (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC) blocked sock Akalanka820 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think this should clear your doubts. There are many such and all will have Landlords as central theme here -, I will not discuss further on this. What you said is more like personal opinion not backed by references. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we move ahead with the suggested Trimmed 1 version ?, Further discussion can be continued here, if needed but for now trimmed 1 version can be added. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The example of that Brahmin above is just one news incident. I did not come across any source that said Brahmin landlords were regularly raping women across decades. Even if there were such a source it should not affect this page. But based on the sources I have seen, Brahmins in India have generally been victims(examples: Kashmiri Pandits, Mandayam Iyengars who do not celebrate Hindu festival of Diwali(massacred by Tipu Sultan during Diwali) and the riots against Brahmins after Godse killed Gandhi). There will always be exceptions as you have shown above. Anyway, that is not too relevant here. The trimmed version-1 as pointed out by some editors loses a lot of information. Agreed that it was Rajput landlords related and it is unlikely that a Rajput teacher/engineer would get involved in such things. But the incidents were so many that studies were conducted. Also these are past events and no one is accusing the present Rajputs. I don't know how the relations are now but I assume they must be better as I did not find sources that discuss current situation. The trimmed version 2 does say landlords. I can try to trim it down further but not sure how to since only one line if given for each organization. Kelkar is reliable source BTW (to answer your previous question). You can search for her qualifications.LukeEmily (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , I don't know what kind of references you are going to accept but it seems that you are not fully aware or have already made up opinion on it. FYI there are more to the tangent discussion  that you have brought up and I think an editor before me just gave an appropriate response to it. It is better to keep away personal opinions, there are more references with tough words on  that subject. But this page is not to discuss it. Right now, the point is about trimmed version 1 which we can add for now and if the further discussion is needed it can be continued. For your points here- The trimmed version-1 as pointed out by some editors loses a lot of information., My answer to it: at the least avoids repetition of words unlike trimmed 2 version and I am okay with adding trimmed 1 version along with a counter argument from Jan Bremmer's and Marika Vicziany's book., We should desist from my way or highway tactics here. trimmed version 1 is not by me, an editor came up with some form of solution which is better than present content having tag, so it should be allowed for now and any further discussion required can be done on talk page.Akalanka820 (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have no further comments. I agree with you that this looks more like a landlord issue not a caste issue. But at the same time, we cannot whitewash atrocities on Indian(or other) women and the sources do mention Rajputs - and as editors we are stuck with sources - not personal opinions. See my comments here. If other editors agree with your suggestion, I have no objection to your change. You can trim it as per consensus with other editors. For now, I just added "some" to emphasize that no one is blaming the entire community(although that should have been obvious). Thanks. LukeEmily (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have no further comments. I agree with you that this looks more like a landlord issue not a caste issue. But at the same time, we cannot whitewash atrocities on Indian(or other) women and the sources do mention Rajputs - and as editors we are stuck with sources - not personal opinions. See my comments here. If other editors agree with your suggestion, I have no objection to your change. You can trim it as per consensus with other editors. For now, I just added "some" to emphasize that no one is blaming the entire community(although that should have been obvious). Thanks. LukeEmily (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Kindly include notable people
Kindly include as many as notable peoples and avoid controversies in present circumstances. Gikku1 (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits
@Sankul Rai You should state your views here and offer appropriate references; if deemed right, they will be included to the main article.

@Kashmiri Stay neutral; you have a bad record for it.

Aditya Prakash-080 (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)