Talk:Rajputs in Bihar/Archive 1

Review and index page
, Hi could you guys please review and index this page please?ChuckAlor (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

bro please help!ChuckAlor (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant image in the article
Is the image being added by in Bihari Rajput article, relevant to the topic? Is that image even verifiable with citation to prove it? Anony20 (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Anony20


 * yes as myself captured it in sonepur village.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * One can't verify your claim, you should understand this. How will I know if you have clicked pics of an Ahir Shudra or a Rajput, etc. I'll provide a better image of rajput men with source.
 * Cheers :) Anony20 (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * see my contribution on commons I have added a lot of genuine image related to Bihar.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm not questioning your credibility rather just pointing out how vague your reply was in concern to that image.
 * Is that image the relevant picture of Bihari rajput and is it verifiable or concerned to the topic. Instead of your "Rajput men watching Mallah", there are much suitable and relevant images for this topic, which one can verify too from source. I'll update the pic if you don't have a problem with making this article better. Anony20 (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I never had problem but usually ppl have glorification attempt at caste page and putting image of a notable individual verifies that. I have told u to see User:Sitush castelist .A great person donot represent community.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * don't presume that I'll update the image with an image of a notable man. I'll instead provide an image of Bihari rajput rebels of 1857 that too with proper citation. I guess it will not have an issue. If a great person do not represent community then on similar terms a group of unverified men watching Mallah doesn't represent a community. Anony20 (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * as conveyed to you, I've provided a proper image. If there's any issue do write here in this talk page. Anony20 (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All Rajputs are not feudal elite. I have a big issue with this generalisation. See you at WP:AEHeba Aisha (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * still this image reflects rajputs of Bihar unlike the earlier unverified group of men watching Mallah. Anony20 (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with Anony20. Heba Aisha is adding random irrelevant images. The one added by Anony is much more pertinent to the article and actually verifiable.KashKarti (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that you agreed with my argument and image. My edit, don't know where it goes wrong, but it has landed me in dispute and Heba marked it in WP:AE(See heading Anony20) Anony20 (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the photo in this page
Should the image Heba Aisha uploaded Special:Diff/991119337 and trying to upload again be kept in this page as it goes against long standing consensus, see User:Sitush/Common it states if you upload an image of living persons as representatives of a community (see "Group of unverified people with semiclothed man and children" which you uploaded as Bihari Rajputs ), then you should cite the source where they self identify themselves as belonging to that community. Lastly this image is updated with a group of Bihari Rajput rebels of 1857, as the page contains history of Bihari Rajputs too. Isn't the updated image a more suitable one? Anony20 (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the image that Heba Aisha uploaded is to be used, there needs to be a reliable source stating that those people are indeed Bihari Rajputs and self-identify as them. Additionally, the image should show the status of an average Bihari Rajput of the modern era. However, given that the article has no content on modern Bihari Rajputs, and is almost completely filled with info about their warrior heritage, the image should be from that period. The image of people watching fishermen feels out of place given the content of the article. The article states that the Bihari Rajputs were "part of the royalty and feudal elite respectively", and so I feel that as long as the article focuses on the warrior heritage of the Bihari Rajputs, the lead image should reflect that. However the image should still show an "average" Bihari Rajput(s) from that era, and not any single exceptional figure.Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes the updated image is of Bihari Rajput rebels from 1857 and not of an individual. Thanks Anony20 (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes but there is a scope to expand it further as it is a stub and it is about caste and let me tell, this community as of now is in no way different from lower caste chamar, Musahar and Mallah socio-economically.See this report it is of contemporary time and here image of some Rajput guys from bihar is given. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Heba, this WP:RFC is for the image that was uploaded by you and which you still want to upload anyhow. Bihari Rajput highlights the feudal and royal status which the community held and the updated image is not contradictory to it.Anony20 (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are citing an online news portal to justify your edit? Have a look at wikipedia "What can be used as a source" and reliable sources cited by User:Nitish/Castelists Anony20 (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * typo above User:Sitush/Castelists Anony20 (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Aren't both photograph same?
Hi plz see...the uploader has uploaded a poor quality image of the image already uploaded on wikimedia commons. Isn't it a cropped version and poor quality extraction of this image..As per consensus in past there shouldn't be image of notable people on top of caste articles.Pls see here Anony20 also says that man in middle name is Kunwar Singh at WP:AE and admant to put their image on top of caste articles. Heba Aisha 23:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

No the image which you have uploaded here reads "Engraving from a photograph" while the one shared by me is the original photograph. You're misquoting what I had said, read again. Pls don't start a new thread when there is already one in this issue. Anony20 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel asking a better experienced user regarding this will help you. will you pls help HA in differentiating between my uploaded image on Bihari Rajput and her's. HA is adamant to get my upload removed anyhow from wikiCommons and wiki(en) Even agreed that my image is a more suitable one Anony20 (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe you are right in saying that photographs of living unknown person can't be used as images for caste pages because there is no way of knowing the authenticity of that photograph which is clicked by submitter himself and not any reputed media house or anything.Sajaypal007 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I m also concerned about what it represents. As you have also said that person is middle is kunwar singh.Then wat is logic to keep it in a caste article. Sitush has always objected to it.here  Heba Aisha (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am further requesting u to keep the comments at one place i.e WP:AE and you are WP:Wikibullying me by engaging me on multiple platforms.Also removed the tag to other users who are not involved as it appears you are gaming the consensus building. Since AE is closed keep discussion here but not tag others who are uninvolved.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't include pic as it is policy violation. I have removed it now.The reason being Kurmi can put Nitish Kumar Teli can put Narendra Modi.Reverted to LE versions with his explanation.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have clarified the pic is not of an individual neither it's caption mentions one. A group of Bihari rajputs is what they are. If I would have uploaded Sushant Singh Rajput image, may be you could've have questioned me and I would have removed it straight away. Anony20 (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No they are notable warriors. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No it's not. Just a group rebels. Anony20 (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In above link you have confessed that they represent kunwar singh and their men. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not a confession but a reply to your argument.This is a group photograph not of an individual, neither it's caption depict so, Read User:Sitush#Castelist Anony20 (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If we don't have image right now.. This article should be kept image less but donot glorify by marking entire community as freedom fighters and zamindars. Heba Aisha (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This page is being constantly vandalized by Heba. HA has opened multiple threads regarding while the issue was already discussed. Anony20 (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a need to stop constant image vandalism done to Bihari Rajput. Anony20 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You should file a report at WP:ANI if you feel an editor is behaving improperly. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Primefac, this user is currently blocked with talk page access disabled due to edit warring among other things (look at their their talk page).  PorkchopGMX Push to talk!  is signing off w/ 4 tildes. 14:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I know, but it's temporary, so my advice was for when that block expires. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the photo at the top
Should we keep image of Kunwar Singh and his attendants on the top of caste article.? Heba Aisha (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Since there has been a consensus on this and the editor who wants to keep it has also confessed earlier that it represent kunwar singh and fellows. inviting comments from, , , Heba Aisha (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Depends. Are the attendants of Kunwar Singh also Bihari Rajputs? If they are, does that image accurately reflect the social reality for most Bihari Rajputs during that time period? If it does, then I see no problem as it would be an accurate depiction of most Bihari Rajputs at the time period. However, if Kunwar Singh is the only Bihari Rajput, then he better represent a "normal" Bihari Rajput of that era, otherwise the image is just showing one notable, elite Bihari Rajput.Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * plz cooperate....many editors are putting their views as issue is contentious. You are also allowed to keep ur stand.Heba Aisha (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You are engaging me at multiple platforms and it appears you are gaming the consensus building by inviting other ediors.HA, stop WP:Wikibullying me. Anony20 (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * All your queries have been answered. You are acting as owner of this page, I have warned multiple times for serious WP:VANDAL Anony20 (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No its on "single platform", the best one I.e the talk page of disputed article.Which are made for discussing the issue regarding article only .So plz don't make personal attack and cooperate with other editors.It may take time but we will get needed input from all if we are not able to decide issue bilaterally. You may read WP:Rfc guidelines. Heba Aisha (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I would not be in the favor of adding the image. My reasons:
 * Soldiers does not represent normal population of any community. They are well looked after by the their lord/king/emperor.
 * Kunwar Singh was a Maharaja and not some ordinary person participating in the rebellion.
 * It will set a bad precedent because other castes like Kunbis, Dhangars, Jats might follow this suit with photos of Shinde, Holkar, Suraj Mal soldiers. This is not a platform for caste promotion. Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * and, yes we can't put image of some of the notable feudal lords on the caste pages. Ex: we can't put some of the Shivaji's generals like Tanaji and Kanhoji with their supporters on the top of their respective caste articles. I am replying as of now because I think that Anony20 is unblocked now and he should also be given chance to speak. But overall, I think both of you are agreed upon this to remove the image as it was said by Anony20 himself that it is image of Kunwar Singh and his supporters.?Heba Aisha (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha, Anony20,  and, in my opinion both images cannot be used in the current condition but the second image (Kunwar Singh's) may be usable if we remove him from the image: 1. Fishermen image cannot be used as they are living people and have not self identified. 2. Kunwar Singh rebels image has a notable in it but is usable if we remove him as others are not notables. Can we crop the image to create a new image without Kunwar Singh and use it? For example we can show the people standing on the left or right of Singh in as they are not notables. LukeEmily (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess we could crop the Kunwar Singh image so only those on the right are shown in the image. However, do the people on the right represent the average Bihari Rajputs of that period? Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think self identification has ever been necessary for pics of ethnic group. What would you say about this pic on Yadav.Ahir woman.jpg, also on Mohana tribe. There is no way to show that they self identify. I have been working in Bihar and contributed images of other community too.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we remove this image, as its contrary to pretty old consensus on caste articles.? Final reply from all the stakeholders., and .PS: Anthony Gomes had cleared his stand.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am neutral about this issue. Whatever you all decide is OK with me.LukeEmily (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Khanwa Battle
User: Anthony gomes 92 reverted my edits on Silhadi Tomar desertion in Khanwa Battle. He called it unsourced info, I am not sure whether he has read or not but the assertion given in the article isn't written anywhere in the sources provided with the link. Jadunath Sarkar doesn't even talk about pseudo thing. Incorrect referencing. Moreover, on Silhadi Tomar issue, I think the most credible historian should be given precedence over any other and that is GH Ojha, known as the father of History of Rajasthan.

Reverting edits made by User: Anthony gomes 92 unless he provides a source that specifically talks about pseudo thing and Silhadi desertion in one go. Bhojpal1234 (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Awadh is not in Bihar
Please advise why information on Awadh is relevant to an article on Bihari Rajputs.RuudVanClerk (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


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

Removal of maintenance tags
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)
 * , the section is properly sourced. What's your dispute with respect to the particular information ? Heba Aisha (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , 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)

Again Addition of unverifiable caste images
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 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 & here. 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)
 * 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 was talking about same image and he was finally blocked. This was restored after that. . 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)

To both, , 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)

, 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)


 * 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)


 * Editor, 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  Thanks RS6784 (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear editor, 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)
 * Ok let me search and find the sources regarding reliability of image, i would place it then. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , 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)

Engaging me for same thing on different platforms and bombarding talk page with notices amounts to 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)


 * 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)


 * Please see comments here Talk:Koeri. 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)

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)

Removal of tag
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)
 * , 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)
 * One minute, clarify one thing, you have problem with Awadh Rajput related content or the Dola Pratha and the related issues ? .Heba Aisha (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Dola Pratha can stay. The Awadhi section needs to go. RuudVanClerk (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Before I respond, what exactly do you mean by “you people”? RuudVanClerk (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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. .Heba Aisha (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Ethnic galleries
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Issues regarding article
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)


 * 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)


 * " 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)


 * 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)


 * , 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)


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


 * 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)

,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)


 * 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)
 * 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.. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)

About movement of Anand Mohan Singh
, Anand Mohan was undisputed leader of community and the anti mandal agitation brought by him was based on caste line only. Also, his tussle with Pappu Yadav involved caste based attack and retaliation. I have many sources to justify these things, see this: Admantine123 (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Anand Mohan is one of the many caste politicians of the time, if we start adding individual instances of caste figures and politicians to a community page, not just this but a lot of other community pages too will not only become unencyclopedic but too large. These things need to me moved to the page of the concerned person and the person added as a notable Rajput in Bihar. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am also against adding individual politician related stuff on caste articles. I know a number of MLA and MP are elected from different castes.But, many of them just come and go. But, it's important to add those people who are linked to mobilisation of particular caste group. And reliable source exist for the same. Like we have several sources telling that Anand Mohan mobilised Rajputs on caste line in Kosi belt. One such source i shared here. .Admantine123 (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Presenting one more source book, which explicitly talks about mobilisation of Rajput community by him against Yadav on caste line. I hope you understand now, as we have sources directly saying these things. It's similar to Ambedkar mobilising Dalits.
 * Admantine123 (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Admantine123 (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * ,, since the matter is similar to I raised on Koeri page wrt some content related to Upendra Kushwaha or some political leader added on the page, I think I can give my small brief take on it. I think the content mentioned above should be added but in my view the real destination of it should be on that leader's Anand Mohan Singh Page, or his old party page BPP (if there is any such page) and some portion can be added on the page of Caste-related violence in India . Coming to the first reference of Sanjay Kumar the quote says " it drew some support from the upper caste Rajputs.", So fair some support was given by members of the community. Where is Anand Mohan relatives now ? Looks like they are in RJD ( If I am right), so comparing him with Dalits under Ambedkar is definitely not justified here. I am not contesting the content, it should be added but on the political leader's page and we should not forget as per the rules of WP:BLP, it requires self identification by living politician. I do agree that it should be added but on the leader Anand Mohan Singh page. Lastly, I will have to remind  that you have also got a similar notice wrt Rajput related articles like me, here :[], I have been following the admin instructions on the concerned pages but I hope you should as well follow it. Akalanka820 (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I already did mention it should go to the individual's page. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BLP thing you are correct. There are numerous sources in which the said leaders themselves claims to be part of respective caste groups. In case of Upendra Kushwaha it is easily available. Little search is required to find the source for Anand Mohan Singh.Don't care about notices as none of them say that there is prohibition on expanding the article with WP:RS towards modern period. If large number of sources talks about political mobilisation on caste line, why should the article portray that the caste is still in pre-Zamindari abolition period. Also, at Koeri talk page, i asked you about ways in which we can represent political development wrt to that particular community without naming the individual leaders, you didn't stated anything yet. Admantine123 (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, since i want to end this matter soon, i would like you to tell the ways in which we can show the political empowerment of respective castes without naming the leader associated with mobilisation, i think little rephrasing is required. But don't know how we can explain the caste rioting between Yadav and Rajput in Kosi belt without naming Anand Mohan.Admantine123 (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * please also be aware that caste and community is mostly relic of past. In 21st century, the caste leanings are not permanent or dominant as such and it is now more matter of an individual that is why WP:BLP rule there for living personalities? For your notices, you may not be concerned ( fair no issue), but I do care so just shared information. For your last point, some content wrt communities are already added in different pages. Even on this page Dola Pratha etc has been added. The thing is content should be related to community more and less with the political leader or political party, but in this case it does seem the above content right place should be Anand Mohan Singh, I just checked no such content has been added there. Why don't you add it on that page? and for violent incidents part we do have a page on Caste-related Violence page. So, your last part I have covered now. Akalanka820 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear, you can easily add and explain any clash involving members of community on this page Caste-related violence in India. The fact is not all members of the community are involved into any clash, so it would not appropriate to add it on community pages especially when there is already article on caste related violence. Thanks 14:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

As i pointed out with number of quotes, this content was also related to the caste not Individual politician. It says the mobilisation on caste line by leaders of these two communities led to exodus of Rajputs and Bhumihars from Yadav dominated villages. Please, don't choose unsatisfactory reasons to remove the content like it was done with content related to Kisan Sabha's activism, (another user realised that it's disruptive edit and restored it. )


 * Admantine123 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear, I would request you please not only pick up one page and ignore others. Kindly please read the page 48 of the reference of Srikanta Ghosh, SK Ghosh book's- the chapter 8 from which you are quoting deals with Election, mafia and guns here is the starting of it Elections: Mafia Gangs and the Guns-In Bihar, mafia gangs and the guns are an integral part of the electoral process. A parallel machinery of mafia gangs with guns is conducting a parallel process of polling, over the years. Worse, even ministers identified with pre-poll and post-poll violence and supported, if not instigated, the mafia gangs with guns, in action. - On page 48, and after that you will read for the most part is talking about Electoral practices including Chief Election Commisioner Sheshan views on the next page. I would again repeat when you quote any reference " do see what is written before and in what context it has been said". The whole chapter deals with the topic of Electoral process in the region. Akalanka820 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * dear, you cannot ignore page 48-51 including the subject of the chapter before picking up only just four lines on page 52 to suit your POV, especially when the chapter is dealing with Electoral process in the region. I think while discussing with you should definitely go into details of the reference. Akalanka820 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * for your other part here - "Please, don't choose unsatisfactory reasons to remove the content like it was done with content related to Kisan Sabha's activism," - I am entitled to my case. I wasn't involved into this. And please do remember, in many cases your edits also gets removed like recently which I had observed on a page. So, this shouldn't be a big deal on this platform. Akalanka820 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * And this is not case of WP: GASLIGHTING as I am not contesting the reference, my point is WP:RELNOT, especially when there are better pages where it can be added. As I have pointed out this just before in the previous comments. Thanks Akalanka820 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , I partially agree and partially disagree with both of you. The detailed info about other castes is not relevant. Since there is no standard meaning for "upper castes"(does the author mean politically dominant or does he mean rich or does he mean most educated?) and authors may use it in different context, not always meaning the Wikipedia definition, only the caste names could be specified for the understanding of a naïve reader. But other details about other castes (like professions followed by Brahmins as Peons) etc. are really unnecessary. However, "The electoral malpractices and terror brought by him led many Rajputs and Bhumihars to flee the Yadav dominated villages." This statement seems very relevant. We cannot include the name of a politician just because he belongs to a caste but if he/she is involved in politics related to that caste, it is a different issue and should be included IMO. Violence, if related to an organization or group or caste, is relevant just as history or other attribute of the caste. I don't have any opinion about Anand Mohan Singh, I don't know how much he is involved in the Rajput community or if he uses his caste for Politics.LukeEmily (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Anand Mohan is deeply involved in casteist politics and he was the crusader of Rajput community in 1990s, when affirmative action in form of quota in government jobs was granted to OBCs., i am sharing a source which clears it that the gang war and exodus of Rajputs and Bhumihars were part of a greater picture, that were related to changing social dynamics in post independence period in Bihar. pointed above that sources he saw here were talking in different "context".But, it's not just cherrypicking of sources. Admantine123 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , quote does not say anything about his Rajput association. He may simply be opposing the reservations in which he represented all upper (non-OBC) castes. Was he specifically demanding reservation for Rajput community? Sorry for asking such questions, I am ignorant about this.LukeEmily (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear ,today it seems Anand Mohan whole family is in RJD, so a politician like any other politician in democracy. The real issue was no such content has been added on his page Anand Mohan Singh and let us not forget  in democracy certain people fight in violence related incident and that should act as an event of its own''', to say this community fighting that on a community page and this when we have relevant page Caste-related violence in India would look a bit odd. And rest we must also see that book's context including Chapter 8 which deals with Electoral practices. I would request your attention on the Srikanta Ghosh's book page 48-51, the chapter deals with Electoral process in the region and involvement of mafia, guns. Akalanka820 (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear, I pointed out pages of Srikanta Ghosh's book. What you are sharing in last post is from Bihar times a newspaper. In newspapers, every leader just only a caste leader but that is not how it works in democratic system. Akalanka820 (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

,yes he was not only demanding reservation but also leading a movement to organise Rajputs against the rise of OBCs. He was not an ordinary legislator as claimed by fellow editor here. At least for a decade during ascendency of Lalu Yadav he was the only recognised leader of Rajputs in Bihar. Those who are opposing, please present sources to counter it. No personal opinion please. Admantine123 (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * this reference [] is talking about Anand Mohan Singh profile, at the top it says Anand Mohan Singh ( Samata party). The content is fine and should be added on Anand Mohan Singh page. But I would request for no WP:SYNTH by picking up few lines from  multiple sources to have a paragraph of your own that to '''on not a directly related page to it like Rajputs in Bihar. Akalanka820 (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is another : his son is in RJD and RJD is also supporting his release. The lines:  Akalanka820 (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * just see bjp openly using Narendra Modi to woo "Teli" community here-[], so now we are going to add all this stuff to Teli page. There are some such reports which also say that he might have favoured his community. You will find such things with respect to many leaders. Are we going to add all that on caste pages ? In my opinion, it should be added on leader or party pages.Akalanka820 (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no prohibition on adding a few line on Teli community as well in summarised format if Narendra Modi has ever tried to mobilise them on any cause. He hadn't done anything for that and his case is entirely different from Anand Mohan. Book source are also available which covers his (Anand Mohan) role in mobilisation of Rajputs, which was a part of the history of Bihar in post independence india. I would stress, this is not cherrypicking, as you are thinking. caste wars, political mobilisation are all part of modern history of castes like Sanskritisation was part of ancient history of caste. I would request that don't be admant to forbid other editors from expanding these articles with the addition of modern history. All such pages are showing that the world has not moved ahead from Medieval Period and same socio-economic condition exists now also, which was present in Zamindari period.Admantine123 (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Further, these two lines explicitly tell that it's not something personal related to him. It's about whole Rajput caste. Why shouldn't we add the things which involve caste as a whole. Only some Rajputs were rulers of princely state (other being common agriculturist), yet the article about Rajputs are dominated by content on those princely houses only. Why is it difficult to add the things where many ordinary Rajputs are involved. Sources say: that mass exodus took place, involving people from this caste.Admantine123 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * can you back the mass exodus from an another reference ? Because your points are only based on Srikanta Ghosh 4 lines and if we read page 48-51 of the same book, it looks like he is talking about Electoral malpractices for the most part in that chapter. Was it during election days? We need another reference which says same thing about the Kosi belt like mass exodus of Rajputs and Bhumihars. Thanks Akalanka820 (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * if you can get another reference which says the same about Kosi belt you can add it but don't make it X vs Y politician on this page. It seems already you had added Brahmin related content on this page in the past and some editor has just removed it. I think this is the best give and take consensus from my side. Find another reference saying the permanent mass exodus part from Kosi belt, because any permanent mass exodus has ripple effect and it would have led to volatile situation even in Uttar Pradesh. We know about Kashmiri Pandit exodus it was a big incident, if such an incident in Kosi belt then definitely you will have more than 2-3 references repeating the same. But I don't think using only Srikanta Ghosh's book to present it is justified here as the chapter where it is mentioned talks mostly about Electoral malpractices. Thanks Akalanka820 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Reading the pages of this book, one can see that this conflict was not limited to individuals as you said earlier. Just see this, it is explicit that the castes were involved here. This was a conflict between castes. It's on page 149, i would request to add it in a neutral way, to represent it as conflict of castes not individuals. Thanks. Admantine123 (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * my point was on "mass exodus from Kosi belt", is it there in the reference? If yes then please go ahead. But in the above quoted lines as I can see the writer isn't talking about any permanent mass exodus from Kosi belt. Thanks Akalanka820 (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * for the mass exodus of Rajputs and Bhumihars from Kosi belt, we definitely need more references than Srikanta Ghosh's 4 lines because this is a big claim. Please do search it and add it. This is my closing comments on it. I would request not to respond me anymore here. Thanks Akalanka820 (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * can you remove term " Rajput leader" after Anand Mohan, because as per WP:BLP, you cannot use it on his page but here we are calling him as such, isn't it contradictory ? I request that minor change in good faith. Thanks Akalanka820 (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The content related to Dola Pratha etc is pre-mandal definitely old than 1990. I think request for correction there and if possible the Anand Mohan content can be moved to politics section because on the most pages same has been done. Akalanka820 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks for understanding and cooperating. I will wait for comments from, and if not received in 24 hours, will close this discussion.Admantine123 (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following this discussion, whatever you guys have decided among yourself is fine with me. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks all of you for your valuable time. As requested by, i have made the changes required in the article. Closing the discussion now.

A similar case to the previous one
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:, 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 and others. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * Thank you 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)
 * 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)
 * and, 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)

Is the content matches what the reference says?
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.''. 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. 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, Akalanka820 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I agree with . 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)


 * Dear, 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)


 * Dear, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Admantine123 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * , 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)


 * 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)


 * Not only this,in the past had added this [] using reference here [] 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)
 * 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)

, 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.

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


 * 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 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: [] using same reference here [ which I have quoted just now. Your responses are exactly in wrong opposite direction''' rather than recognising your continuous mistakes on the same page [[User:Akalanka820|Akalanka820]] (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Wrt recent edits on Rajputs in Bihar
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)


 * 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)

Above comments by Akalanka820 are copied from my talk page, , ,  Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on inclusion of information of Awadhi Rajputs
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * [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. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out earlier, it could be added to up rajput page. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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 to shift the content about "Awadhi Rajput" in main Rajput article. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , or  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)


 * 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)

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)