Talk:Zamindars of Bihar

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

India: Bihar / History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Bihar.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.
	This article was last assessed in May 2020.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disputed content

I have removed this second paragraph from the article lede since it was subject to recent dispute and edit-warring:

The majority of these zamindars usually belonged to upper-caste Hindu communities such as Maithil Brahmins, Bhumihar Brahmins, Rajputs, Kayasthas or Muslims. The Bhumihar Brahmins and Rajputs holded approximately 73 percent of the total land area in Bihar with little other enterprise, land ownership in State which shows the dominance and power structure of these two castes. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/18863/12/12_chapter%204.pdf ^[1]

YaRaabAlHind and ItWiki97, please discuss the issue here on the talkpage using sources to back-up your claims and invite a third opinion if you cannot resolve it yourself (other editors are welcome to chime in too). I have protected the page for now, and the protection can be shortened or extended depending upon how the discussion proceeds. Note that continued edit-warring or disruption may lead to the involved editors being blocked or sanctioned; hopefully that won't be needed. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jha, Hetukar (1 October 1977). "Lower-Caste Peasants and Upper-Caste Zamindars in Bihar (1921-1925): An Analysis of Sanskritization and Contradiction between the Two Groups". The Indian Economic and Social History Review. 14 (4): 549–559. doi:10.1177/001946467701400404.

The only issue seems to be whether Rajput or Bhumihar goes first. The original had Rajput first but the other editor wanted to put Bhumihar first likely for caste promoting reasons. You can put the second paragraph back with Bhumihar first if that would end the dispute but I was just reverting an unneeded change.YaRaabAlHind (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff from Shodhganga can be dodgy - the name Hetukar Jha rings a bell but whether good or bad, I cannot recall right now. One thing is certain: as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the Bhumihars are not Brahmins - yes, they claim to be such but it is a claim not widely accepted outside their own community.

I am not sure what else might be in dispute here but the phrasing would need a copyedit, eg there is no such word as holded. Easily fixed if it goes back in the article. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to last best

HindustaniHindu, Kroshta and their sockpuppets like Krishnaut Yadavji and Ramesh Mishra Naugachia has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Ram Manohar Dubey is blocked for indefinite period. Reverting to last best version. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bihar men samajik parivartan ke kuchh ayam

Is this book a reliable source? Published by Vani Prakashan. Will take it to the reliable sources notice board and and based on their judgement will remove the reference and sentence. Further input is welcome here.RuudVanClerk (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I have removed the source. RuudVanClerk (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RuudVanClerk, the discussion you are talking about doesn't exist at all. You got this reply for your query [1] and the respondent didn't say that it's not a reliable source. Stop deliting the sourced content. Go through WP:RS properly, Hindi sources are also reliable source and can be used on English Wikipedia. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current discussion indicates that it is not a reliable source I am afraid. Please refrain from rude remarks. If you feel passionately about this, then you should demonstrate this. From what I can see, English isn’t you’re first language but generally, we only accept work from academic publishers and authors. RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha: please be aware of the rules relating to reliable sources and also of the 3 revert rule. Thanks.RuudVanClerk (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RuudVanClerk:, We are not the only editors editing in same topic area. There are various methods to ask whether a source is reliable or not. May be the information about author is the simplest thing to decide it. Tagging other editors in the topic are, they will make the things clear.@Chariotrider555:, @LukeEmily:, @Fylindfotberserk:Heba Aisha (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for you. As per the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, most agree that it is not a reliable source. It may be appropriate for WhatsApp group chats but a different standard is used on Wikipedia. As I have advised, there is also the 3 revert rule and what you are doing in this situation may be considered WP:Canvassing RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha:Although i am unrelated to this topic, but since this discussion has crossed my eyes, my 2 cents are :

i can see an administrator himself has said here [2] that it doesn't seem a reliable source, you should present your case there first and try to create consensus on it. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RuudVanClerk:, i saw only one comment there and you are misleading us to say that everyone agrees.`Heba Aisha (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. @Slatersteven, @RegentsPark and myself agreed it was not a reliable source. That’s three. @LukeEmily was unsure. So only one person thinks it’s a reliable source and that’s you. You may wish to work on your English comprehension. RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May be, but they are not editing in this topic area, and if this is so, we need to scrutinize a lot of articles about princely states of Bihar, where the users have used similar authors. Wait, and let me scrutinize the various articles like Kharagpur Raj and all.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a threat, you should be careful about "Threatening another person is considered harassment. This includes any real-world threats, such as threats of harm, and threats to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia.". If you feel there is something wrong with an article you should just go ahead and improve it, but never try leveraging it to your benefit. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Look like the user is threatening to “scrutinize” an article I edited in the past as some sort of “tit for tat” because he disagrees with an edit I made on this page. RuudVanClerk (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although them saying it out to prove a point is still ok, but if they start removing such edits from the Kharagpur Raj page, I must point out as per WP:NOTPOINTy that it will count as disruptive editing. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: Now that the issue has been raised at RSN, that is the right venue to establish the reliability of the source in question. As of present, the consensus there appears to be leaning towards the source not being acceptable but everyone is welcome to continue the discussion there, esp. if they have additional evidence to present in support of (or, in opposition to) the source's reliability. Note though that "they [ie, responders at RSN] are not editing in this topic area" would not an acceptable justification for disregarding the input received at that venue. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

Most of these articles portray the situation of 1950s, and there has been deliberate attempts to maintain the status-quo. In past 70 yrs, a lot of changes have occurred and there is a need of expansion in this article. I will further add situation of masses under Zamindari system. Till then wait, and don't say that, lead is so long. :)Admantine123 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Review

Take a look at my recent edit Since there was no information provided regarding the 1781 rebellion, I updated the title from "1781 rebellion against the British" to "Relations with the British". I also included significant lines and paras from the source, which I modified slightly without vandalism.

Before reverting, please let me know if there is anything wrong with my edit so that I may fix it. Would someone please have a look at this? @Admantine123 @Sitush @Ekdalian Aditya Prakash-080 (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the article after your recent addition of content, and left a message on your talk page! Other experienced editors may further review the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help . Aditya Prakash-080 (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Jha, Hetukar (1 October 1977). "Lower-Caste Peasants and Upper-Caste Zamindars in Bihar (1921-1925): An Analysis of Sanskritization and Contradiction between the Two Groups". The Indian Economic and Social History Review. 14 (4): 549–559. doi:10.1177/001946467701400404.

[1]