Jump to content

Talk:Bhargava

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mundkur reference - Incorrect

[edit]

I am a Bhargava, I have no knowledge about Shree Durga Parameshwari of Mundkur being our Kula Devata.

Please remove this reference as it may be true only for certain sections of the community, not the community as a whole.

Vandalism

[edit]

Someone revert this page's vandalism, please. 75.61.70.45 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Bharghavan

[edit]

Udayar, Moppanar, Nainaar also under the comminity Called Bhargava Kulam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.24.24 (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Focus

[edit]

This article is not about Bhrigu, so there is no need for extensive content relating to that figure. It is also not a means of promoting an identity that has been created by members of the community. That identity certainly deserves a mention but not to the point of overwhelming the content - see WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush stop reverting edits which was added by references, I think you are not totally aware of Gotra's (communities) of Brahmin, Bhargav is first community and some of the members of that community are use that to represent with their last name. Hope you got the intention of edit and stop reverting without any valuable reason, support enhancement. Thanks. - Netenhancer (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2014 (IST)

I know of gotras but I can't make head nor tail of what you mean above. Please also read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. The repeated addition of that list of names is not acceptable. Slow down, please, and discuss things: you are making all sorts of errors, some of them very basic, eg: per WP:INDICSCRIPT. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush is making illogical and irrational additions and deletions on this page. He should understand that a Bhrigu-Chavan rishi decendent is a Bhargava, also called Dhusar Brahmin. Bhrigu and Bhargavas remain inseparable.Bhargavaflame (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, Bhargavaflame is correct. Also thanks for sugessions, just chill / slow I have just reverted edits which was removed purposely by some others, and will get references for them. There should be references from web, if not will delete some of them. Netenhancer (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2014 (IST)
Sitush should understand that Bhargava is not a single Gotra, it is a community with further 12 Gotras to it. Bhargavas are Brahmins and decendents of Bhrigu-Chavan clan, from the Dhosi Hill area and are called Dhusar Brahmins, part of 'Gaur Brahmins'. We find several examples and citations to it on various pages, but Sitush very dictatorially keeps changing them at will. At times he accepted the same citation which he rejected earlier. This can be seen on page Hemu also. There is no unnecessary addition here. Information is linked and relevent.Sitush claims that he knows all about Gotras. I wonder if he can name 12 Gotras of Bhargava community.Bhargavaflame (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sitush, Philg88, and Netenhancer:. Gone through Bhrgava history, Yes Netenhancer and Bhargavaflame are correct this page Bhargav is having synonym of Bhrigu, so the referece of Bhrigu and the histroy how this part of Gotra - origin should be there, Sitush roam around for web and do respect truth and check references. Avoid the warlike corrections. Do respect corrections by others, do not undo totally although need to correct them. Thanks you all for working to get better Wiki. Do add reference and citation and keep page healthy. Thanks again. - MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) 11:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's say we have a school named after Swami Vivekananda. How much space in the school article do we devote to explaining the Swami? Usually, a line at most and that line includes a link to our article about him. The same general rule applies here. We do not need all the detail about Bhrigu: "the Bhargava community now claim descent from a rishi (sage) Bhrigu" or something fairly similar does the job. If people want to read about Bhrigu's life, they go to the article about his life.
The list of names is completely unacceptable because it fails our verifiability policy and in many cases also our biography of living persons policy. Also, like it or not, the consensus of the Wikipedia community here is that bearing the name Bhargava does not vouch for the fact that the person is in fact of the gotra. I've already provided you with a link to this aspect above, but here it is again. Hemu, by the way, is not definitively of the gotra: I agree that some sources mention him as such but many more say otherwise and this is typical caste politics/puffery, trying to "claim" a prominent warrior as your own. The issue has been discussed to death at the talk page for the Hemu article and I do not propose to go through the entire thing again here.
Once we have dealt with these issues, we're back at the article as it was before the three of you began editing it a few hours ago. I know you may not like it, but this place is not always about what any one person particularly likes to see, nor is it even the case that three people can "outvote" one person to force their way. If your version does not comply with our policies, it will not exist. It's a simple as that. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC):[reply]
After going through the history of page 'Bhargava' and talk page of Hemu, facts confirm my fears that Sitush has analysed citations wrongly and has to mend his opinion on these two pages. Bhargava prominent persons can be verified from any source, specially lists at the website of 'All India Bhargava Sabha' (www.bhargavasabha.org) the umbrella organisation of Bhargava (Dhusar Brahmins) community, which held its 125th Foundation Day, the annual conference last week, on 14-16th Nov. 2014 at Udaipur, Rajasthan, India. Atleast half the persons listed on the page were present in the conference, while some others have lived their life long back. Is there any controversy whether they were/are Bhargavas. If yes, please be clear on this.Bhargavaflame (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On page Hemu also, Sitush is determind not to accept Hemu a Dhusar Brahim, though Hemu was son of a Purohit and his sister was married in to the clan of RajPurohits at Qutabpur, Rewari. Sitush claims that he understands Gotras of Bhargava community well, but fails to mention any Gotras and calls Hemu Bania/Vaishy etc..Bhargavaflame (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Objections of Sitush in relating Bhargavas to Bhrugu, are also ridiculous. The discussions/confusions on two pages Hemu and Bhargava, on caste of Bhargavas (Dhusar Brahmins) is continuing for some years now. Practically, they lead a life of Brahmins and follow Brahminical rituals. Sitush should consider various citations given on talk page of Hemu with open mind and dissuade from any pre conceieved notions and confusions on caste of Bhargavas. Only ignorants have written him as Bania/Vaishy because of his supplying of Guns and Saltpetre to Sher Shah Suri.Bhargavaflame (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have to ground your arguments in policy, not by saying I am "ridiculous" etc. One thing that you should read is WP:RS, which explains how we deal with sources. You'd gather from it that your proposed caste-affiliated website is useless as a source for the list of people, and especially so for those who are living. As for the stuff at the Hemu talk page re: his caste, that was a decision reached by consensus, not one imposed by me. I really do think that you need to read up on some of these blue-linked polices and guidelines that I've been giving you, otherwise you're in for quite a shock. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhargavaflame: Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. You must follow our policies and guidelines or your editing privileges will be revoked. Please read up on what wikipedia is not and the importance of reliable sources. Thank you.  Philg88 ♦talk 14:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush do not take it on your own or do not own Wiki as yourself, refer your sentence 'does not comply with our policies', talk as Wiki policies. Do not arrogant here..
Rest, Lets do not argu more and do not undo page as per , users who are contributing taking efforts, lets edit it. Undo is simple way but it will remove lots of information. Lets correct them instead undo. - MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) 14:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a little time to find sources for the list of names then that's fine but please do read my comments above, noting in particular that if the people are alive then they must self-identify: you'll need an autobiography, a newspaper interview, a news story saying that they are president of the caste mahasabha or something like that. I'd concentrate on the living people first because if you can't source them very quickly then they need to be removed.
I don't think the Bhrigu stuff has any place here in its extended form and, really, I don't think that is debatable. We just don't do what you are trying to do. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, the only class lower than "stub" is "we don't have an article". The Bhrigu detail is far too much, and it is unnecessarily glorifying. I cannot seek a third opinion because there are more than two of us in dispute here but there are avenues that I could pursue which would draw the attention of other people to it. I'd rather not expose you to the big wide world of Wikipedia when (I think) you are all pretty new here but maybe that is what we will have to do. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The list of prominent persons have descriptions. Some have pages on wiki already and have been members of Parliament (5 of them), still all are removed again and again. More references/details of others can also be given. Bhrigu is not over-mentioned here, but he needs a mention to show links of Bhargava community to him.Bhargavaflame (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the link I've now already given you twice regarding that list? We have policies here - you cannot usually make up your own rules and certainly not for this particular issue. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sitush: Thanks for pointing. I think Mahajandeepakv has well said, regarding list you can enhance with the Wiki policy. Meantime I will check non-alive names and persons. Thanks - Netenhancer (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2014 (IST)
I've got a pretty good idea of what is going on here. For that reason, I have asked for more people to take a look at this situation. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusions

[edit]

There are lots of confusions or confusing statements in the article:

  • Gotras aren't castes. Gotras are exogamous whereas castes are endogamous. They are opposite concepts in a way.
  • Gotras aren't limited to Brahmins. People of all castes have gotras.
  • Jamadagni is mentioned as one of the saptarshi's of this manvantara. If he is a descendant of Bhrigu, which is widely accepted, then Bhrigu could not also be a saptarshi of the present manvantara. I think he is a lot older.
  • Parashurama is dated to some time much earlier than Rama, and Rama was in tretayuga. So, Parashurama cound't be at the junction of tretayuga and dwaparayuga.

Sorry, I am probably opening a big can of worms. But this is Wikipedia. What we put up here has to make sense! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is mostly rubbish. It was slightly better before the three new contributors turned up, although it still had references to the work of M. L. Bhargava, who almost certainly is not reliable for anything but their own opinion. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Kautilya3 you have some good points, after digging this subject, came to know that :
  • Gotras aren't limited to casts.
  • Bhrigu is not in saptarshi, but it was in current manvantara. But Bhargav gotra is on Bhrigu's name.
  • Jamadagni is mentioned as one of the saptarshi's of this manvantara and Bhrigu is in his clan. So reference of Jamadagni and Bhrigu should be there, but how much is a dispute here as per Sitush
  • Kautilya3 you were wrong at this, Parshurama was not at the junction. Go through Wiki page Parshuramaor I found another reference at Times of India - Lifestyle
  • @Sitush: Thanks for adding dispute at Notice Board-Talk page, I think instead adding it in 'Noticeboard for India-related topics' you were added it in Talk(Discussion) page! By the way I am not new nor new-ish at Wiki, was with Wiki before 22 years and back with another name. Any way you are doing some right(not fully), that's why I suggested you instead using rollback power, add some time to improving articles - you have good command on language.
- I am not in part of Undo(rollback) this page, because it will remove some information which was added by another co-users, just need some improvement and correct whats wrong, Thanks - MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) 08:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of the article was WP:UNDUE to individuals Bhrigu and Parashurama, which I have removed. M L Bharagava as well as Bhargava Jati Ka Itihas do not seem to be WP:RS. Redtigerxyz Talk 11:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Redtigerxyz. It is rapidly assuming the look of three days ago, which is how it should be. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahajandeepakv: I think the fundamental confusion still exists in this page between a gotra and a "community" (which seems more like a kulam to me). The gotra page links here for the "Bhargava" gotra. If this page is becoming something else, at the least that link should be removed. As I said earlier, gotras are not limited to Brahmins. So, if this page is about the "Bhargava" gotra, it cannot also be about a Brahmin community called "Bhargava". So, what is this page about, the Bhargava gotra or the Bhargava community? Kautilya3 (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 and Sitush: If I am not wrong, I sense from your feedback, Bhargava Community and Gotra is different (first confirm this) then we have to seperate them with different pages. Might be Netenhancer or Bhargavaflame needs to disclose this first. Then we could decide about it. -- MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) 05:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya is right. There is utter confusion on Bhargava being a Caste, Community or a Gotra on this page. Bhargavas (Dhusar Brahmins-who are migrants from Dhosi Hill area) are a community with Brahmin as Caste and have 12 Gotras among them. Sitush should comment on this.Bhargavaflame (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahajandeepakv: We know what a gotra is; you can just read its page. A gotra is like assigning a family guru and, in practice, it prevents incest because people of the same gotra don't marry. Whatever "Bhargava community" that this page is trying to talk about is not a gotra. So, I am removing all references to gotra from here. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I know that what a Gotra is and its details; but I want to be sure that Bhargav Gotra and commnunity is different, which you explained. Bhargav Gotra information is more important than community because community is part of Gotra, as we know that same Gotra people will not allow to get married, you can visit Nasik Chitpavan website's page on gotra and some important matter should be on this page, like which are similar gotra and prawara's etc.

- Now matter is that, it need to separate these two information, Bhargav community has mess here which also require some examples etc. - @Sitush:might help us in this two subjects. Whether we have two pages or seperate information in one page, else We will require redirect page for this. Sitush what is your views. -- MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) 05:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhargavas (Dhusar Brahmins from Dosi Hill) have been maintaining this page for long, say couple of years. This community has 12 Gotras to them. I think we should have two different pages on Bhargavas. One for Dhusar Brahmins, other for those, whose Gotra is Bhargava.Bhargavaflame (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that you will be able to satisfy our notability requirements for that. Even as things stand, the article barely meets the standard (and it will get tougher because M L Bhargava is going to be removed as a source). - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by our notability requirements ? What is this our-your concept ? Why are you silent on naming 12 Gotras of Bhargava community when you consider yourself an expert on castes ? It is quite unfortunate that a senior editor like you does not appreciate truth on wiki pages.Bhargavaflame (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not based on "truth" but rather on verifiability. You need to read the notability thing that I linked and stop having a go at me. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhatgavaflame: Please behave in a civil fashion. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you can show significant coverage in independent reliable sources for your claims then you need to demonstrate that fact—please do not criticise other editors when they are merely informing you of community guidelines. Thank you.  Philg88 ♦talk 17:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mean to disrespect or hurt any one. If i hurt any one inadvertantly, I feel sorry for that. I appreciate facts should be verifiable. I can give you names of 12 Gotras of Bhargava community, which are practiced by the community and published in our own community publications. Wonder if Wiki accepts that.Bhargavaflame (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Numbered list item

M L Bhargava source

[edit]

Some experienced people here have already doubted the reliability of the book authored by M. L. Bhargava. So far, no-one has challenged that opinion. I'll be removing it unless someone can come up with an extremely persuasive reason for retention. - Sitush (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M.L.Bhargava has been a renowned auther and has written many books on diversified subjects published by Reliance Publishing House, Delhi. His books include:1) History of Modern India, 2) Indian Ocean Strategies, 3) Indian National Army-Tokyo Cadets 4) Indian National Army-Secret Service 5) Indian National Congress-Its affiliates in North and East India 6) Role of Press in Freedom Movement. There is no reason to doubt his integrity as a writer. Could you be specific what all he has written is wrong ? Bhargavaflame (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific which experienced people have doubted the reliability of which book by M.L.Bhargave ? I could not find any objection or doubts here.Bhargavaflame (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is the typical odd mix of books that I would expect from an amateur who likes writing. What academic authority does he have? What general authority does he have to write about this particular subject? What is/was his day job? And who the heck are Reliance Publishers? Some outfit connected to Reliance Industries? - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an M. L. Bhargava here [1], who seems to be an M. A. and D. Phil. I don't know if he is the same man being referenced here. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush has not replied who all have doubted the reliability of book by M.L.Bhargava, and where ?Bhargavaflame (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea if it is the same person, either, Kautilya3. We always tend to be wary of sources where the writer appears potentially to be a member of the community about whom they are writing, regardless of their qualifications. Bhargavaflame, Redtigerxyz is one very experienced contributor who has queried this source above. You can't just bludgeon your way through this process. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can find very little that cites Moti Lal Bhargava, regardless of which book we talk of. I have found "Netaji Subhas Bose in South-East Asia. by Moti Lal Bhargava Review by: Leonard A. Gordon". The Journal of Asian Studies. 44 (3): 630–631. May 1985. doi:10.2307/2056309. JSTOR 2056309. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help) but it doesn't look that great. The reviewer notes that Bhargava has found one thing of interest, although he expresses it in a disorganised manner, but is pretty critical with "The major shortcoming of this work ... is that the author presents Bose as the perfect hero, free from flaw and never wrong ... This is a work of both history and adulation; it teaches us about the past and about a typical Indian approach to its heroes." And therein lies the likely problem with the source that we use in this article: the chances of the guy being a dispassionate teller of a tale involving Hemu etc are slim-to-none and the likelihood of him glorifying his own caste and its beliefs gained through sanskritisation (if it is his own caste) is very high. Bearing this in mind and the fact that all of his books seem to have been published by fairly unknown/non-academic presses and I doubt that this is good enough. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are only justifying your comments splitting a hair. It is not accepted. M.L.Bhargava is a respectable author whome you are criticising for no reason. M.L.Bhargava is not the only one to write on Bhargavas and Hemu. Several other citations on page Hemu which call him a Bhargava/Brahmin are rejected by you on filmsy grounds. Is there a single citation which says that Saint Puran Das was a Vaishy. He was a Purohit. Several temples owned by his community are still in existence in his place of birth and town of Rewari. Modern historians and researchers are fully convinced about caste of Hemu and his community. Prof. Satish Chandra Millal, National President of 'Itihas Sanklan Yojna', in his latest article on 'Second Battle of Panipat' in the book 'Panipat Ke Ran-Sangram' has also changed his stance now and confirms that Hemu was indeed a Bhargava and Brahmin. Please consider these facts with an open mind.Bhargavaflame (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If modern historians and researchers are "fully convinced" then it should be possible to find plenty of sources. Can you find them? Since ABISY is a Sangh Parivar organisation, historians associated with them are expected to be less reliable. We certainly can't report their statements as facts. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are several modern writers and publications like:
  1. 'Early Aryans to Swaraj' by SRBakshi and others, Vol 5, p.163, exact wordings are " A resident of Rewari, Hemu was a Dhusar Bhargava*, and in his early days used to sell salt in the streets of his town. The aestrix explains that-in contemporary chronicles he is called Baqqual or Vaishya but he was in fact, a Bhargava (Brahmin of Gaur sub caste)."
  2. 'India's Historical Battles': From Alexander the Great to Kargil by Kaushik Roy, p. 68: exact words are "Hem Chandra was born in a Gaur Brahmin family of Alwar in Rajasthan. The heredity profession of his family was agriculture. However, some members of his family were traders of saltpetre, one of the chief components of Gunpowder. This probably explains Hemu's familiarity with firearms from a young age.". Also p 73, exact words are " Hemu's sister's son, Ramaya, a fat Brahmin, commanded the left wing."
  3. "The Successors of Sher Shah by Nirodh Bhushan Roy, written in 1934, has mentioned that Hemu was born in a Bhargava Dhusar family, a sub caste of Gaur Brahmins
  4. Gazetteer of Alwar, 1878 AD, p 164 also
  5. Imperial Gazetteer Vol. 3, page 286.
  6. Tods Annals and Antiquities Part 1, p 436-439, which describe Hemu's community as Dhusar Brahmins.
  7. Advanced study in the History of Medieval India', by J.L.Mehta, page 190, exact words are " Soon after Humanyun's death, Agra and Delhi were occupied by Hem Chandra, nicknamed Hemu Baqqal (Viz. Baniya) the brilliant Prime Minister and indomitable commander in chief of Muhammad Adil Shah Sur. Originally, he belonged to a Brahmin family of Rewari".
  8. Land & People of Indian States and UT, Vol 9, p 338, 2006, by SCBhatt & Gopal K Bhargava; exact words are " The celebrated warrior-general, Hemu was a Dhosar Brahmin" 9) Akbar the Great: Political History, 1542-1605 AD, p. 24, by ALShrivastva-1973; exact words are " Probably a Gaur Brahmin of Dhusar sub-caste (modern Bhargava) and of puny physique 'Hemu rose by gradual steps on account of his intelligence, loyality and great qualities of leadership until he became the de facto ruler of the Sur Empire.
  9. "'Whar Ails the Indian Army', A report to the Supreme Commander, p 79, By Man Mohan Sharma 1998; Exact words are " The second battle of Panipat was fought between Hemu Bakal and Akbar. Hemu a Gaur Brahmin by Caste was the Prime Minister in the court of Moh. Shah Adil, a descendent of Sher Shah Suri.
  10. 'Indica' Vol. 19, p 27, 1982; exact words are " Adil Shah's successful Brahmin General Hemu, paused in Delhi to crown himself Emperor of Hindustan with revivalist title of Vikramaditya"
  11. Historical Perspective of Warfare in India: some morals, By Sri Nandan Prasad, p 29: exact words are : "Hemu the commander-in-chief of the Pathan army at Panipat II (ad 1556) was of course, a Brahmin "
There are many more references which accept Hemu or Hem Chandra Vikramaditya and his community Dhusar Brahmins as Bhargavas.Bhargavaflame (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhargavaflame, who are you citing when you write above that M.L.Bhargava has been a renowned auther and M.L.Bhargava is a respectable author? Sam Sing! 19:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhargavaflame, you are missing the point anyway, I'm afraid. The fact that quite a few sources say Hemu was a Bhargava does not obviate from the equally evident fact that quite a few say otherwise. This entire issue has been dealt with on the talk page for the Hemu article and I'd be loathe to treat the matter differently here. It might be possible, for example, to say that some sources believe the man to have come from the Bhargava community, but it would be wrong to present it as an unequivocal statement.
The other point you seem to be missing is that we use M L Bhargava for far more than just the Hemu issue. As I've said previously, the effects of sanskritisation mean that it is rarely acceptable to use sources from within the community as if they were indisputably accurate. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I should add that many of the sources that you list are not in fact reliable. For example, we do not use Raj sources for history, we do not use works published by Gyan Publishers and we do not use the pre-Raj James Tod. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam : M.L.Bhargava is a well educated author (M.A., D.Phil) and has written several books on diversified topics in English and Hindi. Just because he is a Bhargava, and writes about Hemu, he cannot be doubted. However, M.L.Bhargava is not the only one who has written about Hemu as a Bhargava-Brahmin. There are several citations above. Many more can be given saying that Hemu was a Bhargava-Brahmin by birth. Also those who write Hemu as a Vaishy, called him so because of his being a businessman, not on the basis of birth. So Hemu should be considered a Bhargava and Brahmin, as all Bhargavas are Brahmin.Bhargavaflame (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but this seems to be just your opinion. If we allowed things to be said or not said in articles simply because someone thought it was right or not right to do so then there would be no point in us having policies and guidelines. And without policies and guidelines we would have anarchy. And if anarchy prevailed then there would be no meaningful encyclopaedia. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on M.L.Bhargava. However, his good books written on a variety of subjects say it all. Any aspersion on him is ill founded. Several other authors also have said that Hemu was a Bhargava-Brahmin.I again ask you Sir, to point out if any author has called Hemu's father Puran Das as a Vaishy, but you are not replying. If his father was not a Vaishy, how Hemu could be called a Vaishy Bhargavaflame (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are still completely ignoring policy and I'm begining to tire of it, sorry. Writing lots of books says absolutely nothing about reliability etc. Since you have no opinion but other people do - and their opinion is that he is unlikely to be reliable - the correct course of action is to remove all references to him. The question then becomes can we find alternate sources for the various statements and can we frame the Hemu point in a neutral manner. There is no way we are going to say "Hemu was a Bhargava" - for what is hopefully the last time, I ask you to consider our attitude to neutrality in articles (just click on that blue link and read). Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why I should accept your wrong assesment. There is no policy that says accept lies and untruth on Wikipedia. Instead of replying my question 'If any author has written father of Hemu as a Vishya'. you are bent upon calling Hemu a Vaishya and not Bhargava Brahmin, which so many authors have written him.Bhargavaflame (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhargavaflame: You don't seem to be getting the message so let me spell it out for you again. All information on Wikipedia must be from neutral and verifiable reliable sources. If such sources do not exist then whatever you may think, the information cannot be included in the encyclopedia. This is not "lies and untruth", it is policy and you must abide by it if you wish to continue editing here.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral and Verififiable Reliable Source is what I am striving for. I'll again request you to give me a neutral and reliable sources which confirm that Hemu's father was a Vaishya and not Brahmin.Bhargavaflame (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Examples are available at the talk page discussion that I linked earlier. One being this. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This writer calls Hemu a Brahmin, a Rajput, a Vaishya and a Shudra too ! It may be neutral but not verifiable ? This is merely kite flying and confusing. But maximum writers have written him a Brahmin However, no body among writer's references has called his father Rai Puran Das as a Vaishya. Hemu's father is called a religions person only, as he was a Bhargava-Brahmin Purohit.This is verifiable and should be written so.Bhargavaflame (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that author discusses various viewpoints that other academics have given. It is quite literally a text-book example of how we are supposed to approach such matters on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The writing of this author and describing Hemu belonged to all Vernas of Hinduism merely confuses the issue more and shows casual approach to Hemu's caste. But that does not mean one can pick any Verna and call Hemu belonged to that. If authors had known and talked about Hemu's father, family and community, this confusion would not have been there. Those who mention Hemu's father, family and community are clear and convinced that he was a Brahmin of Bhargava community.Bhargavaflame (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is basically going in circles. @Bhargavaflame: Sitush has no axe to grind here. He is merely saying that we do not have enough reliable information about Hemu's caste to be able to put it in black-and-white that he was a Bhargava brahmin. While you may be personally convinced that Hemu was such, Wikipedia must reflect scholarly consensus, not just your convictions. I suggest that you let Sitush write the text from a neutral point of view. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is in circles because a fact on Hemu is not taken with open mind. Sitush seems to be adamant on not calling Hemu a Bhargava-Brahmin. I am surprised that in the name of neutrality, more than a dozen important reliable sources are rejected. It is an intriguing situation, where a mother telling his son, who his father is, not acceptable on Wikipedia and some body sitting far away, not knowing family will be a better source to tell his father's name. Here Sitush has only mentioned those sources calling Hemu a non-Brahim, which do not mention about Hemu's father, family and community.This is a wrong approach.Bhargavaflame (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely wanting to follow policy. If you think that my approach is wrong then you still do not understand the policy. There is only so much that I can do to explain it to you, after which I'll just go ahead and fix things as best I can. I'm very nearly at the "just do it" stage right now. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*@Bhargavaflame: This discussion is going nowhere and wasting the time of editors that could be better spent elsewhere improving the encyclopedia. Please drop your crusade in order to avoid the sanctions mentioned at the top of this page being imposed on you. Thanks.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion merely shows how some editors, taking help of others can do any thing to boost their ego and circumvent and distort policies to suppress facts and threaten genuine editors with sanctions to force their points. This type of dictatorial cartelisation is visible on many pages and is only spoiling the reputation of Wikipedia. Despite giving dozens of citations that Bhargava is a Brahmin community and also Hemu belonged to Bhargava community, Sitush remains adamant on his point without any reliable citation on Hemu's family being a non-Brahmin. Several other editors have pointed out these discrepencies earlier, but Sitush's cartel always has its say. I do not mind to be blocked on wikipedia, but you must give the true reason so that people can analyse and understand the happenings on wikipedia. Putting the wrong stuff and garbage on Wikipedia is not going to help anyone.Bhargavaflame (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun fixing things. You may not like WP:V, WP:NPOV etc but they are Wikipedia policies. No-one is compelling you to participate here but while you are here, you have to abide by the rules of the place. There is nothing to stop you posting your preferred version somewhere else on the web. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This page shows how Wikipedia works. Despite so many references, bhargavas are shown and written as vaishy not brahmans. this is non sense. All know Dhusars are brahmans as well as vaishy and Bhargava fall in Brahman category. Only wikipedia calls them vaishy. Why ? stop non sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.194.39 (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find some accessible citations that would support your knowledge? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are many citations above numbered from 1 to 11 which confirm that Bhargavas are Dhusar Brahmans and not vaishya or Banias. Are elevan citations not enough ? Abusing a prominent writer M.L.Bhargava whose contributions are in various fields is not right for some editors. This way any writer can be abused. Bhargavas are Brahmans and should be written like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.194.39 (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are not enough, I need something like "http://wwww.xxxxxxx.xxxxx" and it must say "Bhargava are Dhusar Brahmans and not Vaishya or Banias". Just "xxxxxxx , p.xxxx, by xxxx" is not going to be helpful. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no! I don't think some random web site will settle the issue at all. As Sitush's text states beautifully, backed up an authentic source, the Dhusars were originally vaishyas/banias, and during the 19th century, they converted themselves to brahmins. Part of the sanskritisation process is the propagation of the myth that they have always been brahmins. So there would be plenty of sources that say so. The question is how good they are as sources. M. L. Bhargava is the best source they have. He was trained as a historian and coauthored a book published by OUP, but his independent writing seems to be all wishy-washy. So, sadly, this debate will never end. This is what Sitush is always up against. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was making things easier for him. Some of his named citations might be reliable, but they also need to have some base. If the named citations(e.g. xxxx, by xxxx, p.xx) can be accessible, then it will settle the issue. That's what I have explained. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Kautilya3 says Part of the sanskritisation process is the propagation of the myth that they have always been brahmins. This is at the core of the difficulties on many caste articles (be it claims to brahmin status, or kshatriya or whatever). One of the main reasons for the creation of mahasabhas, for example, was to promote such claims back in the days of the Raj when the administrators were practising scientific racism etc as a means of categorising and then controlling the population. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have given many references above showing Bhargavas are Dhusar Brahmins but they are rejected out right, and even MLBhargava blacklisted. This is a sad development. The genarlisation of so called 'Sanskritisation' is not good. Bhargavas have been Brahmins since the time of Rishi Bhrugu, who has contributions to many Sanskrit granths. Bhargavas have been the RajPurohits of Prithviraj Chauhan and his ancestors,the rulers of Delhi 800-1000 years ago. Ignoring MLBhargava and casting aspersions on him is also not right. Confusions arise because of Dhusar Brahmins and Dhusar Vaishyas. Some body rightly mentioned Dhusars are Brahmins as well as Vaishyas and Bhargavas who followed Brahminical way of living were indeed Brahmins. Hindu emperor of medieval times Hemu, born in 1501, was the son of a Purohit and a Brahmin. Sanskritisation has got nothing to do with Bhargavas. However, I submit another citation which says that Bhargavas are Dhusars Brahmins. 'The Tribes and Castes' of Central Provinces of India. by R.V.Russell, ICS Superintendent of Ethnography, Published by Macmillan & Co Ltd., Toronto, book.google.co.in/books isbn1465583035.Bhargavaflame (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your new source, which bit of this note do you not understand? - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basically You will not accept any citation out of dozens posted here for one reason or the other. You are perpetuating only lies and untruths on Wikipedia. You are only spoiling goodwill of Wikipedia for some reasons.Bhargavaflame (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem here is that you do not like our policies etc. Throwing mud at me is a diversionary tactic but it isn't going to make any difference, other than perhaps earning you some sort of sanction. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every day you threaten me of sanctions, how does it matter ? I have not said any thing wrong about you in person, except objecting to your stand on classifying Bhargavas wrongly and perpetuating lies about them. You are muffling the identity of a community and still threatening. Go ahead ! You are only spoiling the goodwill of Wikipedia.Bhargavaflame (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about "truth" or "lies" but rather about verifiability. See WP:VNT. - Sitush (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support verifiability of citations. But you rejected Pre Raj, Raj period, Todd's reports,Gyan publications,BhargavaPL and community authors etc for one reason or the other and are silent on other citations.On the other hand you accept a casual reference to declare the community as Vaishy. This is not fair and cannot be justified.Seniors in Wikipedia should take a fair decision on this.Bhargavaflame (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CfJ0PwAACAAJ, This book by Nirodh Bhushan confirms Hemu as a Dhusar Brahmin.Bhargavaflame (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page number? It is self published, thus unreliable. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does really matter anyway. You could produce ten books that say Hemu was a Bhargava and the article would still say, at best, that some sources say he was a B and others are less certain. I've already explained this above also. Really, this is pointless. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've looked, I noticed that the publication year is 1934. Er, Raj stuff again? - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this verifiable citation : http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Zm6dmJ7fXjIC&pg=PA163&dq=hemu+brahmin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TafNUYicNcKr0QWOzoHIAw&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=hemu%20brahmin&f=falseBhargavaflame (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhargavaflame: Will you please drop this and stop wasting people's time. Even the author of your latest citation says "In contemporary chronicles he is called Baqqal or Vaish, but he was, in act, a Bharghava (Brahman of Gaur sub-Caste)". Aside from the fact that this is poor English, there is no support for the assertion so it isn't "verifiable".  Philg88 ♦talk 17:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@philg88 May be author's English is poor,but his assertion that Hemu Bhargava in fact was a Brahmin should be taken in to account. This also implies that Hemu and his community is wrongly called a Vaishya.This is a verifiable citation that Bhargavas are Brahmins and should be incorporated..Bhargavaflame (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you doing here now? EdJohnston imposed a topic ban on you yesterday. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My fight for truth on Wikipedia with verifiable references will continue.Bhargavaflame (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016

[edit]

Bhargava community was never a Bania community - records shows several generations of Bhargava's as Brahmins. Named Bhargava's after Bhrigu Rishi the lineage is impressive with names like Parshuram (an avtaar of Lord Vishnu), Chavan, Jamagdni belonging to the community. A very forward community with a long history of modernism in approach and spirituality.

27.5.201.231 (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 06:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has been made a joke by editor Sitush, who thinks himself as the wisest man on earth. Several citations 7-8, are given on talk page of Hemu and Bhargava which state that Hemu and Bhargavas are Brahmins and always have been since the times of great floods, 10000 years ago. Bhrigu Rishi who has many contribution to Manusmriti Upnishads and Samhitas is a revered Brahmin among Sapt Rishis. Wiki editors should take our objections seriously and correct truthful facts on pages of Bhargava and Hemu.61.2.88.181 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks won't get you anywhere. Neither will rambling about pseudo-historical nonsense like "great floods, 10000 years ago". utcursch | talk 14:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at several citations above on Bhargavas mentioned as Brahims. But Sitush rejected them for no good reason. Time has come to decide the matter in courts as some editors on Wikipedia are denigrating a community for years together willfully for egoistic reasons. Sense and facts are not prevailing here. May I request you to mention Wikipedia's Indian office address here so that we could resolve the issue in court of law. I thank you in anticipation.117.198.134.70 (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Legal threats will get you blocked here. If you want to resolve a content dispute, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. utcursch | talk 04:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018

[edit]

edit 

MAHEEP BHARGAV (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bhargava&oldid=1199541062"