Talk:Guha (surname)

Guha and Guhan are different

Guha and Guhan may have common roots, but they are different. Guha is a Bengali Hindu surname. If Guhan or Guha is another name for Kartik, then we should have a disambiguation page rather than a merge. I am therefore removing the merge proposal. BengaliHindu (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Kulin Kayastha or Brahmins

Editors, please note that Guha is a Brahmin surname in South India, whereas it is a Kayastha surname of the Kulin order, in West Bengal and Bangladesh. Amicus autem populus (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

An example of a Brahmin Guha is Ramchandra Guha, a prominent Indian historian. He was born into a Tamil Brahmin household. Amicus autem populus (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please cite reliable and verifiable source(s) as per WP:RS & WP:V. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I have provided the necessary and verifiable source... Please consult the link provided in References Amicus autem populus (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please consult See Also for further references Amicus autem populus (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No such source is available. Do share the source i.e. the url here itself so that the same can be verified. In between, stop your edits till we arrive at a consensus. You are constantly violating the policies of Wikipedia, and you may be banned from further editing, if you continue with such usourced and unconstructive POV edits. Ekdalian (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The so-called reference you had added, which has been removed in the next revision, is a copy of Wikipedia itself, and therefore not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Ekdalian (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The source provided is reliable and has been verified by Wikipedia itself... Please scroll down the page for authenticity of the source and verification by Wikipedia. Thanks you Amicus autem populus (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please check the url on See Also Amicus autem populus (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Members of the Kulin Kayastha community are putative Kshatriyas and mostly Brahmins, as per Wikipedia. Let facts be as it is. Stating the truth isn't vandalism, Mr. Ekdalian. Amicus autem populus (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Ekdalian ... This is to inform you that Guhathakurata/ Guhathakurtas are infact Kulin Kayasthas and there is nothing wrong or 'puffed up' with this article. This article is devoid of any factual error and you are advised not to indulge in such editing endeavours, which may render this article erroneous. Thank you. Amicus autem populus (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I have attached another link with See also... Kindly take the trouble of going through it thoroughly before deeming it unreliable. Thank you Amicus autem populus (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Amicus autem populus if you change the article again without first getting consensus to do so, I will find someone to block you from editing. This is a collaborative project, not one where you can steamroller your opinion into an article. You cannot make a comment here and then change the article based on it - you must get agreement to do so first. If there is a stalemate in discussions then we have dispute resolution procedures to resolve the issue. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Editors, please consult Ramchandra Guha's Early Life and education on Wikipedia before editing back. Amicus autem populus (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You added the "Brahmin" claim to the Ramachandra Guha article: the source cited in the article does not support this claim, and clearly states that "Guha" in "Ramachandra Guha" is not the Bengali surname - he is from a Tamil family. utcursch | talk 01:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Guha and Guhathakurta

Editors please note that Guha and Guhathakurta aren't different. To be specific 'Guha' is the surname, and 'Thakurta' /'Thakurata' is the title. Many prefer to stick with Guhathakurata/ Guhathakurta, but due to confusion in the spelling and spacing of 'Thakurta', many others have started using only Guha as their surname. Semper Curious (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

"The Bengali Kayasthas evolved as a caste from a category of officials, Between the 5th/6th century AD and 11th/12th century AD, its component elements being putative Kshatriyas and mostly Brahmins" Ekdalian LukeEmily in which basics this line is written here?? the varna status of Kayasthas are disputed. even according to some sources present in many caste articles vaidyas and Kayastha are drawn from various varnas. why it is written here kayastahs are drawn from Kshatriyas and mostly brahmins???this thing is present in other kayastha surname articles such as bose,ghose,mitra,dutta.Nobita456 (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, this is not at all related to varna status; read carefully, this is about the component elements who initially formed the caste. And more or less, almost all reliable sources agree on the same. Ekdalian (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

So am I allowed to write the same in Baidya surnames??? I found some sources that clearly said Baidyas was formed by brahmins. Nobita456 (talk)

Reliable & verifiable sources required! Same should be supported by multiple reliable authors, though we can cite one or two such sources after discussions on the relevant article's talk page. Ekdalian (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent Revert: Nov '24

I have restored the long-standing consensus version along with some relevant changes. In case any editor wants to remove reliably sourced content, please read WP:REMOVAL and achieve consensus here! I believe, the information available in the article is relevant as far as our readers are concerned. @Arjayay, LukeEmily, and Adamantine123: would request you to share your opinion here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

How come you didn't ping Ratnahastin who rightly removed your caste glorification months ago but have canvassed those editors who are uninvolved in this dispute? CharlesWain (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Ratnahastin would automatically get involved since this article must be a part of their watchlist! I have pinged uninvolved editors for neutral opinion! Ekdalian (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a textbook case of canvassing. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The content you restored has nothing to do with this surname or its history. This is a surname list and should only reflect that. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to remind all of you the comment of Admin Vanamonde93 on Saini (surname). In Indian context surnames have association with particular caste; no one can deny that. Even Fylindfotberserk agreed to it at one article's talk page [1]. For protecting BLP violation we can put a disclaimer that particular surname donot belong to particular caste. The content added by Ekdalian should remain here as a single article is serving as both clan and surname article as in case of Jat clans like Sandhu, Randhawa and others.Adamantine123 (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That does not pertain to this page. You must gain consensus on WP:INB to see if uninvolved editors would agree to bloat a surname list with irrelevant details of a caste's history that does not even concern the surname. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Some surnames are clan name as well; as an Indian you are aware of this thing. If we seperate same term one for clan name and another for surname then there will be a lot of FORKS on wikipedia. Adamantine123 (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem mentioning the primary caste/clan(s) associated with a given surname in appropriate section(s) especially if we do not have significant chunks of information warranting a fork. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'm not in favour of introducing details about a caste's history that does not concern the surname itself. We can instead add this detail to the Kayastha page where it is relevant. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Think calmly for a while and you will also agree with me, Fylindfotberserk and Ekdalian. The problem with these surnames is that we know that they are related to certain castes, in case of Rajput surnames such a case don't exist as most of the Rajput surnames are appropriated by other castes. But, these specific surnames have been associated with particular clan of certain castes say Kayastha in this case. There are different kind of Kayasthas and their clans are not notable for creating a seperate article. This is not caste glorification as someone pointed out above, this is just an attempt to eliminate confusion. Adamantine123 (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't add details about any specific caste and gotra in surname article. We have separate article on Kulin Kayastha; notably among all Bengali caste articles only Kayastha has separate article on their Kulin clan. Cherry picking some lines about the caste and adding it on surname article is presenting unbalanced view, and apparently caste glorification in this case. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. No need to bloat a surname list with content that does not pertains to the surname. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, Ratnahastin, Adamantine123, and Ekdalian:, I have to admit that I do not have expertise in this caste/topic nor did I know what caste/clan Guha belongs to before looking at this page. So I cannot comment on the exact content/context of the source nor did I verify the source. Hence, I looked at the history of the edits and one of the admins has edited this page see this and he seems to have no objection to these lines. This is a long standing text and just one or two lines. It is sourced, been there for several years. But are two sourced lines really worth debating over? I agree with Ekdalian, Fylindfotberserk, Adamantine123 that in general lets not remove long standing well sourced content. No point in removing sourced content from stable pages.LukeEmily (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:STONEWALLING. That admin example is ridiculous too. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

And selectively blanking out long standing sourced content without consensus is OK? I couldn't care less if the Guha were Chinese or White or Black. I am talking about Wikipedia policies. What is wrong in pointing out that an admin who edits in India topics was also OK with it?LukeEmily (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Contents about Kaystha do not belong here. Wink hasn't mentioned Guha surname at all. Irrelevant contents were removed per WP:REMOVAL, and relevant part(That is, Guha surname is mainly found among Kulin Kayasthas) were kept. If I say, for the sake of argument, contents about Kayastha belong here just because they're sourced, why don't we add at least couple of more lines supported by multiple sources to present neutral point of view? CharlesWain (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me share two incidents that I have myself witnessed-

1. Last year I went to a law college in Calcutta for my cousin sister's admission, and a merit list on the notice board came to my notice, where I found one Guha , who belonged to scheduled caste. 2. There's a temple in my home town established by a Kayastha employee of Murshidabad Nawab. An inscription on the temple describes the temple was built by Rameshwar Mitra Das in 1694. Mitra is one of the four Kulin Kayastha surnames, and Das was used for shudras (other temple built by non-brahmins also used 'Das' if there's any inscription). And to be noted, These are not just personal experiences, I have reliable sources which explain or directly support my above two statements. Despite this page is not giving a true and fair view to the general readers, rather an unbalanced view about just one caste in surname article. An article on wikipedia is always open for edit and improvement. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a pervasive problem across South Asian surname lists/stubs. We should get a consensus of uninvolved editors at WP:INB to see if they would approve of surname lists being turned into quasi-caste articles. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that's why a disclaimer is needed in such articles to show that following surname doesn't necessarily belong to a particular caste. Adamantine123 (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, Adamantine123; the latest version clearly states that "it is occasionally found among other Indian communities" in the lede, and mentions all the caste names associated (as per RS). It is true that the surname is mostly found among Bengali Kulin Kayasthas (multiple sources may be cited) and the content is in line with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not WP:DUE, in fact it is completely irrelevant not only to this subcaste but to this surname as a whole. The source in question does not mention Guha at all nor is it speaking in the context of their caste formation. It is talking about Kayastha caste as whole, not even their subset to which this clan is relevant to (e.i Kulin Kayastha) Here's the relevant quote:[2]

The Pāla, Sena and Varman kings and their descen-dants — who did make claims to kshatriyahood — almost imperceptibly merged with the Bengal caste of the 'Kāyasthas', which also ranked as shudras. Abul Fazl, for instance, describes these kings as Kāyastha. Bengal, in effect, became the land of the kāyasthas, having been fuled by kāyasthas 'for about 2000 years'. Sanskrit sources such as the Rājatarangini however do not yet regard the Kāyasthas as a caste in any sense but as a category of 'officials' or 'scribes'. Between the fifth or sixth centuries (when we first hear of them) and the eleventh-twelfth centuries, its component elements were putative kshatriyas and, for the larger majority, brahmans, who either retained their caste identity or became Buddhists while laying down the sacred thread. The Kayasthas obtained the aspect of a caste perhaps under the Senas.

Therefore the content below is completely irrelevant and does not belong here. You can consider adding it to the Kayastha page.

The Bengali Kayasthas evolved as a caste from a category of officials, between the 5th/6th century AD and 11th/12th century AD, its component elements being putative Kshatriyas and mostly Brahmins

Only the second source [3] concerns Guhas or Kulin Kayasthas as whole. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The Kulin Kayastha (subset of Bengali Kayastha) related origin theory (migration from Kannauj) is nothing more than a legend according to historians. Our article cites RS and mentions - Multiple versions of this legend exist, all considered by historians to be myth or folklore lacking historical authenticity. Relevant article says - According to Swarupa Gupta, "this legend was fitted into a quasi-historical, sociological narrative of Bengal and deployed to explain the realities of caste and sub-caste origins and connections during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century". Therefore, the fact is, Guha is basically a Bengali Kayastha surname according to all reliable authors e.g. Ronald Inden! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not the point, what I'm arguing is that the content about Kayastha caste formation does not warrant inclusion on this surname list. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ekdalian and Adamantine123:, I just found out that Ramachandra Guha was Tamil Brahmin. So Guha last name belongs to Tamil Brahmins too? @CharlesWain:, @Ratnahastin:, I am beginning to see the point you are making. Otherwise we might have to write about every caste it belongs too.LukeEmily (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

As i repeated earlier, there may be some exceptions but if many sources say that this surname is associated with a particular caste or clan, then we can write the same and for exceptions we have disclaimer. If any source say Guha is a surname among Tamil Brahmins too, we can even mention it. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not the dispute. The dispute is about mentioning the history of caste formation of the kayastha caste when clearly the source in question does not concern this particular clan or surname. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Guha is Kulin of Bangaja(Eastern Bengal) clan only. In Bengal proper there're only three kulins , and Guha isn't one of them.(Check GK Ghosh and Hopkins) Hence the informations present in the article are inaccurate and not aligning with the source. Information about gotra can't also be found in citation. We need to remove inaccurate and irrelevant contents per WP:REMOVAL, and present relevant and accurate details as per the sources. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with Adamantine123. @LukeEmily: I have modified the lede so that it is more inclusive. You may check the same now and share your comments! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks Ekdalian. I am ok if it is inclusive.LukeEmily (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"The Bengali Kayasthas evolved as a caste from a category of officials, between the 5th/6th century AD and 11th/12th century AD, its component elements being putative Kshatriyas and mostly Brahmins" — This line is undue and should be removed. Afterall the source does not concern this clan much less the surname, as I explained above - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. It's totally WP: UNDUE and should be removed. "Otherwise we might have to write about every caste it belongs too", as pointed out by LukeEmily. And we don't want a surname lists turning into quasi-caste articles. A little more relevant details about the surname can be added from GK Ghosh and Hopkins though. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Can't access the first citation sham.org pdf. Could anyone please help with it? CharlesWain (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Here [4]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)