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 Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Bihar (assessed as Low-importance). This article was last assessed in March 2012.

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 16 April 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Most of this article seems to be written by Plagiarizing Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya's book. Please see WP:Plagiarism. I don't think it is good to have plagiarized material on WP.MW ^ℳ 11:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the book at archive.org [1]-MW ^ℳ 13:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what plagiarism means? True, it is not great to rely mostly on a single source but whoever it was that did so in this instance appears not to have had many options available to them. If you know of alternative sources then feel free to use them. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I am talking about something other than "plagiarism", but using the word by mistake, you have poor powers of perception. You need not deal with everything that happens on caste articles. Stay away from things you do not understand.MW ^ℳ 15:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism means to use the work of someone else without suitable attribution. Please can you indicate where in the article the work of Bhattacharya has been used without such. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the only meaning of plagiarism. Using someone's else's wording can also be plagiarism. Much of this article is using wording which is borrowed from the Bhattacharya book. That is what I mean by "plagiarism" here and that is what I find unbecoming of WP to do. The methods of getting over "plagiarism" concerns are described in the policy which I linked.MW ^ℳ 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC) In any case, the book is too old and from a non RS. Material from this book should be deleted.MW ^ℳ 16:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you mean that there is close paraphrasing, not plagiarism. Please give some examples & I will address them for you. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing is a form of plagiarism. So, it is incorrect to give the impression that close paraphrasing is not plagiarism. It is. There is only one page of that book which is being used here. So, it should be easy to locate which parts of the wording is being copied in the article.MW ^ℳ 16:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you make an "accusation" then you must follow it through. Please do so. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd Casteism is still alive here You ppl won't let us move forward. Even after knowing our political status and social position you have made us backward here on Wikipedia.

Kuswaha (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is losing credibily as you people are monopolising it. Today I edited this article about caste group to which I belong a total 23 times and every time your rollbacker and managers deleted whole necessary changes even after I put reliable sources. This is injustice Kuswaha (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Complaint Box. Put your issues in a proper format instead of complaining. See WP:TALK#USE. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper are not source s absurd Kuswaha (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles later become s chapter of history Kuswaha (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added back the Shudra category which was removed earlier today. The article does refer to this point and it does not at present appear to be in dispute, and neither is the existence of the category itself. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush whatever you are doing knowingly or unknowingly could have grave consequences on socio-economic situation of people of this particular community in India. Farmers of India were particularly rich and we have so much gold with us that British never afford to leave us until they steal all our money and resources and left farmers in their misery. And what they left for us is just Shudra status as stated by so called William Pinch and some noble scholars from India who were born with silver spoon. It is very easy by an outsider to declare any community as Shudra in India but the consequences will be grave and maybe you don't understand the political situation in India. Sitush I have heard you earlier had some discussion on Indian castes especially Kushwaha. You took the note of William Pinch to call the caste Shudra. But do you know about Varna System in India. If you really need to adhere to the facts then according to correct Varna system as introduced by Aryans a person who is a blacksmith is a shudra but since his father is serving in an army then the father is kshatriya.In a family in varna system, family members could belong to different varnas according to their occupation. But since in most of the cases a son copies his father job, so also started doing the same job and then people recognised them according to the work done by family for generations so varna system collapsed and caste system came. But now in present scenario caste depicts social status of a person in India. Suppose you are a scholar of some low caste then you won't be getting respect that you deserve . Your caste will overshadow your knowledge. Keep yourself in the feet of those who suffers such discrimination. Instead of wrongly editing these articles you should try to go to the base problem of anything. Before declaring any community as Shudra you should check the present and past of that community. Wikiknowcorrect (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires verifiability by use of reliable sources. I am well aware of the way the varna system operates and the historic and current situation in India, thanks, but Wikipedia is not censored - we present things as the reliable sources show them. - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added latest Political status and a reliable source please help me to ward off stigma from my caste

Kuswaha (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caste is a sentitive issue. You should better discuss your changes here (talk) before making any changes in the main article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You ppl will pay for it. Monopolistic strategy by forward caste on Wikipedia is not good. Actually it's you who made ppl enslaved Kuswaha (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In absense of reliable sources there is everything good written about forward castes on Wikipedia. You are hiding truth from world.My making koeri Community a backward and useless community you are showing ugly face of casteism Kuswaha (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia ensures to prevent vandalism but you are promoting it. Kuswaha (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no historical proof of other communities like Rajputs being Kshatriya but you readily made them Kuswaha (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even you have given heavenly origin of Rajputs from fire and kayastha from chitragupta do you have the proof that a person can take birth from 🔥 fire .same on you Kuswaha (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You people also removed all controversial fact about plight of Rajput and other forward community to make them seem higher than us. And you talk of neutray Kuswaha (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly I would like to warn that this may cost Indian society heavily as in future when our children will read this stigmatized editorial it will create problem. Kuswaha (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On pages you can leave us behind but you can't do it in three dimensional world.

Kuswaha (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is violation of my right.you are regarding us as shudra based on book of a guy who has no relevance Kuswaha (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the Shudra varna is disputed we cannot put them in this category. In fact, having a "Category:Shudra_castes" in wikipedia is a bit too much IMHO although I understand that it is uncensored. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shudra status should be removed its not true Kuswaha (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of relevant source for u. Even after providing details from newspaper you are not changing status of koeri Kuswaha (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant sources in this case would be reliable secondary sources like books, not newspaper articles. Secondly, how the political alliance of Yadavs and Koeri has anything to do with the social status of these castes, not to mention you only added some Wikipedia links which are not reliable as per WP:UGC. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am extremely offended to see it here I don't know how to post it m giving you a source please see it Community head (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.co.in/url?id=wWDnTWrz4O8C&pg=PA404&q=http://www.abc-clio.com&clientid=ca-print-abc_clio&linkid=1&usg=AFQjCNGHGp6gYA1tW4ebviH54aVvG7ihdg&source=gbs_pub_info_r Community head (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello a link added it's reliable plz approve Community head (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plz add list of notables Xxxxxxxxy (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Queercofeminist sir y removed list of notables Xxxxxxxxy (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why list of notables added by me removed plz reply Xxxxxxxxy (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Baidyanath Prasad Mahto .jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Keshav Prasad Maurya.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Dear sitush thank you for writing about koeri community.I would like to suggest that it need expansion i.e latest political development and landholding.if u really want to improve article I m suggesting some source and making some changes.i would like it if u review and fix it in right place.I think we need not move to admin noticeboard and fix the issue here only about critical debate on new addition Sanghamitramaurya (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: since u are writer of this article I think u should make new addition as flow of article should continue Sanghamitramaurya (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:the picture shown in this article is not perfectly true of present scenario ....koeri are now developed community so plz add new things I m adding sources here)) Sanghamitramaurya (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1.Kunnath, George (2018). Rebels From the Mud Houses: Dalits and the Making of the Maoist Revolution ... New york: Taylor and Francis group. p. 31. ISBN 978-1-138-09955-5. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

.Reddy, D. Narasimha (2009). Agrarian Reforms, Land Markets, and Rural Poor. Concept Publishing Compan. ISBN 8180696049. Retrieved 2020-06-16.

Yes, I agree that it needs to be expanded & brought up to date. There is information at the Kushwaha article that can be used here. I am just too busy on other articles at present but this one is on my list. However, it isn't my article - other people can change things directly or propose specific changes here. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: dear sitush I have spent two days to find book sources to expand this article.As u were busy I have used my first experience as writer.I would be very grateful to u if u approve my writing after checking all sources and scrutinizing my mistakes.I see no problem in adding jagdish mahto as he was mass hero and a lot of standard writing exist for him and similar heroic man exist in various caste articles

Ok Sanghamitramaurya (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Sitush was busy I expanded it with quality book source.

Ok Sanghamitramaurya (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've not looked at your changes closely but the gist of them matches what I have read over the years. I will try to tidy things up. If this was your first go at editing an article, it isn't bad at all. There are issues with your style (example - things that should have capital letters, thus Koeri rather thankoeri) but it is easily fixed. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: hi sir ,i think something is still left which could make this article perfect even after mam @Sanghamitramaurya: had spent a lot of time editing it.I found some useful stuff in books that were used at article kushwaha.so i want consent of both of you to add a new section on myth of origin. ??

Feel free to add stuff, as I said above. Just remember that if you are copying actual text from the Kushwaha article then you should make a note of that in the edit summary, eg: "copied from Kushwaha". - Sitush (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: tq sir ....for quick reply.actually not copied but i went through source books listed there and found stuffs which i tried to write in my own words. further,i went on some google search to find more source.

As you said i added it.But i m little cautious about whether it appears good with an article already written by someone or not.can you pls help.sir, Do you think that sources i used are worth existing on Wikipedia. Must reply. ..tq

Added more Heba Aisha (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick query - you say in your edit summary here that there is no caste census. I don't know what is planned for next year's census but I think there was a caste census in 2011. Am I right? - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir....there is a census exercise every 10yrs but that just gauge population but population of particular community or caste is not calculated specifically

So need to rely on news source and rough estimate as all caste article does. https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/lalu-prasad-makes-fresh-pitch-for-caste-based-census-in-npr-1632263-2019-12-29&ved=2ahUKEwif6JX-zKbqAhWk7XMBHRasDKcQFjACegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1Eyo1Wtq93YUZr9Hthd4r1&ampcf=1

See here sir, you can understand from it

K Heba Aisha (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: hi sir....ur copyedit was necessary and i m thankful to u for helping me in improving this article.plz keep going with punctuation etc thank you Heba Aisha (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, some tips: names are capitalized; do not put a space between a word and the punctuation (comma or period) that follows it; always put a space after the punctuation at the end of a word; always put a space after a </ref> tag and the next word. Schazjmd (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to clarify, I accepted your pending edits as they looked sourced and didn't appear to violate policies. However, the sections you added are very wordy and repetitive. It's likely that other editors that are more familiar with this topic may want to tighten the language and remove some redundancies. Schazjmd (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that i m in touch with @Sitush: who has more idea on the topic.i would like to mention that u have removed one note which was added along with reference and one quote which was present since beginning of the article.would u like to clarify?

Thank for ur reply in advance Heba Aisha (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: Also since i m not the real writer of this article it is possible that some facts could be repeated.would you like to mention which facts seems repititive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heba Aisha (talk • contribs)

I removed a sentence that was redundant, I don't believe I removed any references. Schazjmd (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I removed a claim that was not supported by the source (the "primary motivation" for forming Kushwaha Kshatriya Mahasabha). Schazjmd (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell the repititive sentences which you were talking about Heba Aisha (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I promise that I will get round to looking at this but, as Schazjmd says, it seems to be basically ok. I am a bit concerned about the statements about sanskritisation but cannot see the source that is used (that is, I don't have a copy and Google Books does not let me view it). The opening sentence - Every caste in india traces its ancestry to some epic hero or the lead character of a folk tale which is described by a term called Sanskritisation - may be what the source says but it isn't right. It sort-of applies to many castes but certainly not all of them. I've never been convinced by books about caste which are published by Atlantic and so may try to find a better source and work with that. Do you have any idea what expertise the author (N. Jayalapan) has? - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it is not a big issue.As u already know what sanskritization is?.The sentence you have issue with just describes the meaning of sanskritization and there is nothing to worry about.I have added it just to give the section a good beginning.There is no doubt regarding it.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what it is but does the source say what you have written? I would dispute that all castes have created myths of origin in order to present themselves as further up the ritual scale, if only because the Brahmin castes are already at the top and because it is clearly hopeless for many dalit communities to even waste their time on it (hence, for example, so many Mahars opting for Buddhism). - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually the source goes worb by word that i have written.I think the word every* is creating problem here.If you think there is issue you can suggest better version of that.tqHeba Aisha (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Hey , and Atlantic Publishers are also not worth questioning.see i saw the books of same publishers on articles like Jat.Another problem i encounter is that it is very difficult to find the source book of Cambridge University Press and similar high quality books for writing an article related to indian castes.As they only present a macro level view of the subject and for delving deeper we need to go through the local publishers and writers to some extent. I thnik you will also agree with this.Heba Aisha (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And sir, not all dalits go for budhhism.As for example Paswans.They call themselves gahlot kshatriya and their folk hero is chauharmal.I will work in future on an article on chauharmal as he is very popular in local culture of bihar and it will be a notable topic.Heba Aisha (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it in Maratha article. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=oDeFAAAAIAAJ&q=koeri+women&dq=koeri+women&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIj4um2KrqAhWr8HMBHWn6B3cQ6AEINDAC. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ((reply to|Can I Log In))'s talk page! 05:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: hey i saw that my pending changes which were sourced is now removed by you.I want to request that if you have problems with the sentence and its placement you can replace it written in ur own words.tq Heba Aisha (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koeris are also known as Kacchis.^[1][2] They specialize in growing of vegetables (शाक/साग in Sanskrit/Hindi). Kushwaha is Sanskritization of Kachhi.^[3] Shakya a modern term used in some regions.Malaiya (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infornation from the British-Raj era is generally avoided. Also, there is questions as to what relevance a quote from 1941 has on a modern-day caste group.RuudVanClerk (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have transferred the British era image to respective section as per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC) a[reply]

Further wrt to image added by another user apart from WP: Verifiablity issue, the WP: BURDEN and WP:ONUS lies on uploader to verify that this image is of people from Koeri community.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to provide proof of the identity of these Koeri individuals to an admin. Please contact an admin and I will provide them with the proof as required. RuudVanClerk (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no problem with the sourcing or verifiability of the Raj-era image. It is from the 1868 The people of India: a series of photographic illustrations, with descriptive letterpress, of the races and tribes of Hindustan, which can be accessed here. However, I don't think this image (or, any other from that work) should be used to "illustrate" what people from a particular caste supposedly look like anywhere on wikipedia. The 1868 book is now widely recognized as an misbegotten attempt to "scientifically" classify people along strict caste lines and represent them through photographs of 'typical specimens', which reflected the racial attitudes of the era. Here is how Thomas Metcalf describes the endeavor:

Denied a history of their own, the peoples of India were defined by unchanging racial and cultural identities. The most important of these, by far, was caste. As Bernard Cohn has written, for late Victorian anthropologists 'a caste was a "thing", an entity which was concrete and measurable; above all it had definable characteristics - endogamy, commensality rules, fixed occupation, common ritual practices'; and these 'things' could be ascertained and quantified for reports and surveys...This increasing systematization of caste was intimately connected with the development of photography. As much of the effort of ethnological classification was directed by a search for 'scientific' precision, the recording of 'exact' images by photography logically complemented the compiling of statistical information. Insofar as different castes were conceived of as representing distinct racial types, a photograph of a 'typical' member of an ethnic group could be used to identify the precise characteristics, of physiognomy, dress, and manners, that defined the group as a whole...Those, above all the educated Indians, who rejected the notion of their country as an ethnographic 'museum', vigorously endeavoured to distance themselves from this collection. Shown the volumes in the India Office in 1869, Sayyid Ahmad Khan was horrified to see his countrymen portrayed as 'the equal of animals'.

— Metcalf, Thomas R. (1994). Ideologies of the Raj. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 117–119. ISBN 978-0521589376.

While the project and publication remains of historical interest and it is okay to use illustrations from it when presented in its proper historical context (as at the The People of India article), uncontexualized use of the image in this article (either in the lede or the body) just perpetuates the Victorian era prejudices. Pinging @Sitush, Fowler&fowler, and TrangaBellam: in case they disagree or have further thoughts. Abecedare (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I didn't realize that there were two images being discussed. Namely:

1. this Raj-era image, and
2. this user-generated photograph

My above comment concerns the Raj-era image and I have tweaked it to clarify that. I agree that the second, user-generated image, raises veribiability and self-identification concerns distinct from the issues I mentioned, and should not be used in the article either. Abecedare (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• About the other image (photo uploaded by RuudVanClerk): A group of Kushwaha Koeris in Nalanda district of Bihar@RuudVanClerk:,@Heba Aisha:(copying my comment from common), Although I do not have much interest in images, I have been reading the current disputes. IMHO,we cannot use this image on a caste page even if there is consent from those people. This image - just like the Bihar Rajput image does not satisfy WP:BURDEN for caste as pointed out recently by another editor. Also, see User_talk:Abecedare#Discussion_on_photos_in_our_caste_articles. Even if there is a video of these people or a signed document self-identifying as Koeri, it does not matter. Because the "source" is the editor RuudVanClerk and wikieditors are not considered WP:RS. The evidence needs to be published or given by a reliable source. For example, if you had the same set of people in another pose and posted by a newspaper(and self identifying as Koeri), then you could use it. This is different from the picture of a historic place which is not contentious. Both of you may be correct in identifying the community of the people in the two images(they could be Bihari Rajputs and Koeris). But even then, it is better to rename these images - for example "a group of young men from XYZ area" for the Koeri image and "some people watching Fishermen in XYZ area" for the Bihari Rajputs image. It is better not to use random unverifiable pictures of living people on wikipedia to represent what X caste looks like. My 2 cents. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here: ^[1] it is just the print, article on a web portal . To use this article for making absurd mythological claims in the article shouldn't be allowed. I am raising this issue here. RS6784 (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just looked through the edit log and it looks like the use of this third-rate source was included by @Heba Aisha. Unfortunately there has been a trend of them using unreliable sources in multiple articles including Bihari Rajput and Zamindars of Bihar. It might be worth him familiarising himself with Wikipedia:Reliable sources to gain a better understanding of what is and isn’t a reliable source. RuudVanClerk (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @RuudVanClerk:, I had only pointed about this particular case and for the rest cases I cannot comment here without seeing into it. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some Koeris like Shivcharan Bhagat were well known for their knowledge of Persian and they also contributed to the Ramanandi Sampradaya and their disciples later became major contributors to Ramanandi literature.^[2], please, just look at the quotes ??? RS6784 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened due to copyedits by other editors. You will find everything in the book cited. I have the hard copy of Peasant and Monks and this book is available freely on Google too. You may glance for the particular content you want to find, page numbers may vary but search for shivcharan bhagat and you will get it.Heba Aisha (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not corrected then it needs removal. Why did you responded here? I didn't tagged you as such as I could be again get accused of "harassing" the editor, I just observed something casually after going through this article so pointed it out. It needs to be corrected or has to be removed. RS6784 (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of content added here is just 100-120 yrs old ( late 19th Century to Early 20th Century) sanskritisation claims of this non-elite community traditionally involved into horticulture. Unfortunately it has been presented on this article like history giving a lot of WP:WEIGHT than it requires. This is a case of WP:Puffery and it needs some sort of corrections or even trimming. The particular community has been regarded as shudra or low caste by all the writers, not even single contradicting it. They were anyday involved into serfdom, or non-elite jobs, so rather than building on it, the content has given more weightage to the absurd claims which just needed 3-4 lines and not more than that. RS6784 (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but this is with all caste articles. See Kayasthas or Yadav. This is because, caste is all about social status and most of the stuff we have for these articles deals with attempt of Sanskritisation. I have identified some problems regarding static nature of Bihari Rajputs too. When i was giving more time to Wikipedia, i had a lot of sources to add things that i identified recently on talk page.But, due to paucity of time and other issues i dropped my plan. I am now thinking to do major changes. Infact, in Rajput article too the politics section need complete overhaul. Christophe Jaffrelot has written a good book on politics across all state in contemporary period and he has identified that these people are now dominated by various castes in various states. In Rajasthan itself, Gujjar and Jats have assumed power. Go ahead, i will think according to my situation to do major edits on respective pages. Happy editing. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RS6784, you have deteriorated ref38. Please rectify that, it's showing error. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, since you added one quote, please correct it otherwise the tag should remain. Secondly, as far as what I can retrieve it talks about one ward not the whole region, as the table doesn't says so. Therefore, to use it to make such big statement might be WP:OR, if you have references from other sources then you may add it, till that time tag should be there. RS6784 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it, the data talks about one ward probably where many castes were not present. Please provide better reference to remove the tag as the claims looks dubious. RS6784 (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a study conducted in 1991, in villages of the Buxar district of southwestern Bihar, the Koeris were one of the largest landholding castes.^[3] The above content is misleading as it includes just 10 villages of a panchayat ward block not Bhojpur district or even South West Bihar as such in the reference. The table on the pages given also points out "per capita landholding", it doesn't suggest any higher for this group. So, to extrapolate a particular panchayat ward data to make such a big statement looks gross exaggeration. RS6784 (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as per the table of the ward, it suggests out of 286 Koeri families 44 families were landless and 100 owning just 0-1 acre. That is equal to 50% of Koeri households. The per capita land holding is also not big for Koeri as per the limited data presented there. So, it is unwise to make such a conclusion like "Koeri were the largest landholding caste in Bhojpur" based on a just 10 villages panchayat ward and the data says the radius of the proximity of those villages are also low. RS6784 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than outright removal, you may tag it or change the language to make it in this way: " at some places in Bhojpur". If you want disruption, then go ahead and remove the sourced content. But, it's a public Platform and all of your disruptions are being counted. It could be used later to show the neutral admins that you are destroying caste articles in order to glorify a particular caste.Heba Aisha (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]