Talk:Purbiya (soldiers)

Merger with Bihari Rajputs

Would some member more experienced than me be able to add the contents of the Bihari Rajputs page with this article? Would be appreciated. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burbak (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Bihari Rajputs

There are three articles viz. Bihari Rajputs, Ujjainiya and Purbiya covering the same subject. Hence the contents be summed up to form one good article. MahenSingha (Talk) 18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done Klbrain (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the merge has worked very well at all. I've fixed a few bits but I'm rather concerned that we've mixed chalk and cheese here. If we haven't then the merge has gone even worse than I think because it makes little sense at all. - Sitush (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Bihari rajputs consist of many Non Purbia rajputs too. Andy murrey (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the list of zamindaris?

I only posted the major ones, what seems to be the issue for it to be dubious?Burbak (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The article shall stick to the subject only.It can not simply include the lists of others. I find no logic behind including such listings. Refer Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not--SMahenS (Talk) 20:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not an exhaustive list and only refers to the notable zamindaris. It is also relevant to the article as it focuses on those specific regions.Burbak (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The text just above these lists already speak up of the suggested relevance, hence it is needless to list them. They can be listed as independent entities in the articles covering them. It is better to list only Purbias in this articles. Less or more, quantity is never a criteria.--SMahenS (Talk) 20:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay but how does that relate to this? The text above the list speaks about Purbiyas controlling there own states and land as well as fighting for others so there is no harm done in listing the major ones. You need to tell me how they are not relevant to the article, then we can amend if needed.Burbak (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well just go through Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, still if you feel the need then we will discuss.--SMahenS (Talk) 21:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please point out the relevant area, since you placed the notice it is courteous to point out the reason. Burbak (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have already told you and suggested you the maxims of how to write a good article which stand intact forever. I am not in mood of any edit warring here. I hope you too better understand the consequences. Rest is up to you. Because a discussion can only be fruitful if you logically agree to the policies and procedures.--SMahenS (Talk) 22:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're failing to point out how does maxims apply and seem uninterested in a discussion. Tell me the specific problem instead of skirting around the issue. So far you stated that it's not related however when I gave my POV you didn't respond. Would you be happier if a Ahir Zamindari was included? The point of the talk page is for both parties to reach consensus which I hope will be possible. Burbak (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The article shall stick to the subject only.It can not simply include the lists of others. I find no logic behind including such listings. This is what I suggested. I edit near about 1500 articles. What I edit and where I edit is pointless to mention here. Mind one more thing that what I suggested is just for the reason to make the present article more objective and stable on wikipedia. Rest is up to you whether you understand or not.--SMahenS (Talk) 03:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Change of article name to "Purbiya Rajput"?

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to rename the article as "Purbiya Rajputs" or "Eastern Rajputs"? These days the term Purbiya denotes anyone from Eastern India regardless of caste or occupation as opposed to the soldiers/mercenaries of Bhojpur or Awadh which is the focus of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Curnow (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I am fairly sure we have had a discussion about this before, which is why it ended up at the present title. In any event, the answer to your question lies in WP:COMMONNAME. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

My memory is returning! The issue related to Bihari Rajputs, which now redirects to this article. So the discussion is probably at Talk:Bihari Rajputs. I must admit to not being aware that Purbiya was a generic term for anyone from Eastern India - first I've heard of it in that context. Would that not be because of sanskritisation, which is something we tend not to pander to? - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

And it isn't; just an unanswered merge proposal. Still, there definitely was a discussion somewhere and I think a part of the issue was related to pov-forking. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay, that's fair enough. I was just curious as to what to do but the WP:COMMONNAME approach makes sense. Michael Curnow (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Michael Curnow: if you think that COMMONNAME is better served by renaming this thing, ie: Purbiya Rajput is more frequently used etc, then feel free to present the arguments and proofs. As is obvious from the above, my memory of the events is vague and I haven't been able to track down exactly what happen, probably because sockpuppets etc took me away from it (they infest this topic area). I'm not opposed to renaming in principle.

If, as you say, Purbiya alone is often used generically for people from Eastern India then we probably should make some sort of mention of that even if only in a footnote. Sourced, of course. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Curnow blocked by checkuser as a sock. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

introduction is currently unintelligible

due to edits and mixed up sentences. 92.5.101.201 (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)