Talk:Baranwal

My recent reverts

I have been reverting additions of unsourced and poorly sourced material over the last few days. Those additions were combined with edits that removed valid maintenance tags (citation requests) without addressing the issue which caused the request. Please can we discuss these matters here. Thanks and not edit war on the article. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars

Despite providing valid sources, which are not self-published as claimed by Sitush (talk; he has been reverting my claims. I kindly ask him to verify the authenticity of my sources and not declare his judgements without any research. Varanwal (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baranwal Chandrika. 3 (22 ed.). Gorakhpur, India: Barnwal Vaishya Mahasabha and similar: look at the publisher. It is an advocacy group for the Barnwals, which means that the source needs to be treated with considerable care. We would much prefer independent sources, per WP:RS. Are there any such sources for any non-trivial information?

The list of last names and of gotras seem to be trivial, with the former being particularly so because it does not include all such names and those which it does include may not be restricted in use solely to the Barnwal community. Indeed, it is arguable that because the list of names is incomplete then it might even constitute undue weight.

The information about Abirhan is excessive given that there is a separate article about him. If the list of names is removed then the Abirhan content dominates the article, which seems also to be undue weight. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Baranwal/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article provides good background information about an Indian community Barnwal but it can be further improved. Few of areas, article needs attention are

citation from reliable sources
better layout with sub headings.
wikification. e.g. avoid decorative words, italic fonts for Indian names, etc.
putting internet link within article negatively affects, they should be provided in external link section, mentioning them in main body completely unnecessary
lacks information about how a person uniquely identified of Barnwal when generic surnames such as Lal, Kumar, etc are used.

Last edited at 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 16:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnwal → Baranwal – This page has been made Barnwal by mistake, as Barnwal people write their surname Baranwal Harsh Barnwal 06:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC) --(Harsh Barnwal 06:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC))

Support, that spelling does seem to be more common. BegbertBiggs (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removing content even after giving plenty of links

Hi, User:Fylindfotberserk User talk:Fylindfotberserk, why have you remove so many of my edits on this web page? I gave plenty of links including British historians and censuses. 2405:201:A407:A800:F49F:41BA:9A9A:EE96 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British era sources, particularly, are not considered reliable in Wikipedia. Perhaps you haven't seen my edit summary. There have been multiple consensus against their inclusion at WP:INB and WP:RS. See this one, this one for example. Check article Jat people, for example, see no mention of British era sources. Also see this search result. I'm reverting it back as per consensus. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about British sources used in this page

Why can not I quote and link British Raj era sources, official British censuses and ASI(Archaeological Survey of India) sources to write about Barnwal? 2405:201:A407:A800:F49F:41BA:9A9A:EE96 (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reiterating, British era sources, particularly, are not considered reliable in Wikipedia as I've discussed in my previous posts. There have been multiple consensus against their inclusion at WP:INB and WP:RS. See this one, this one for example. Check article Jat people, for example, see no mention of British era sources. Also see this search result. I'm reverting it back as per consensus. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am repeating that the links i have given are of British official censuses and ASI, not ethnographers.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 2405:201:A407:A800:F49F:41BA:9A9A:EE96 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The exemption is not restricted to ethnographers only. British Raj sources are not considered reliable. You were quoting ethnic groups and their relation to certain other castes using census figures which is WP:OR as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

consider the baranwal a left out community of marwari or agarwal in the present .

please its very requesting urge that our community of Baranwals are losing its own identity because we are not focusing on its use. basically, the casteism principles are not followed by Baranwals because we do not allow to cover us as a high caste reason being none of Baranwals' community has consider the casteism the weird concept. Baranwals formerly has a history connected with respect to the Ahibaran and also with the kind Agrasen. king Agrasen has been considered to be the Marwaris Ancestors lord. The Marwaris worships the Agrasen lord as their one ancestor. Its very shocking and devastating that in our community there are very rich and noble people carrying Baranwals caste but still no one even tries to give the Baranwals a Legal and social caste recognition. In many states we are considered just as a baniya, whereas some include Baranwals in Modi Surname which is considered to be the Gujarati caste.. Our caste has its own identity the problem is we have left from most caste. As in most Marwari caste there are abundance in their work and origin as some are marwari-baniya,marwari-brahmins,marwari-lala,marwari-jatt,marwari-punjabi because the diversified and vibrant reach of their belonging and ever updated attitude towards their caste and communities . that shows the uniformity and mutual understanding . nowadays many caste even not being the origins of Rajasthan or Marwar claims to be the part of Marwari community, but our Baranwals caste being a pure part of such great community refuse to even talk about these recognition. Some people from Patna namely Raju Baranwal ,Jiggyasa pd Baranwal, and some other fellow had conduct the conference of getting the backward status for the caste because the reservation system and its benefits. Its not about getting the benefits in a the efforts but its all about identification of the background information. Lack of our history we as a Baranwal lacking a lot to give us a great background introduction. Also there has been the meeting in Varanasi for the same reason but giving it the right what it suppose to have would be the only right thing. no one wants the obc reservation because everyone tries equal effort when it comes but a background that should never be lost in these times. Kripanshadesh (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]