|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ghosh article.|
|WikiProject India||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 Topics from 2007
- 1.1 Regarding editing
- 1.2 To keep the article in control
- 1.3 Regarding Expert assistance request
- 1.4 Protected
- 1.5 A comment
- 1.6 Reply to your note
- 1.7 Please explain this?
- 1.8 It is good that the page has been protected
- 1.9 interesting note
- 1.10 Please provide references
- 1.11 The current article is wrong
- 1.12 well you cant claim its bengali hindu then
- 1.13 Most indian surname wikis won't have reliable sources
- 1.14 I am reminding you again
- 1.15 expert help
- 2 Topics from 2008
- 2.1 Wrte any thing about ghosh in webpage =
- 2.2 Please mention =
- 2.3 Wikipedia Is Really Awful If It can't even sort this out
- 2.4 add notes
- 2.5 Retrofit topic year headers/subpages
- 2.6 Online source
- 2.7 Edit request from 18.104.22.168, 12 May 2010
- 2.8 Please add this Information to the Ghosh Article of wikipedia.org
- 2.9 Modified The Article
- 2.10 Requested move
- 2.11 Edit request on 7 February 2013
Topics from 2007
I would like to suggest to those folks working on this article that you review the policies of Wikipedia, specifically with article format, how to make lists, when and when not to wikify links (nearly every single word was wiki-linked, even things like "period" and "warrior" and "organization". That is unnecessary, so I removed them. Things that are relevant to research should be wiki-linked, but normal daily words, not needed.
Also, I'd strongly suggest that people bring their editing here, rather than just drop it in. As I've mentioned to several others, I'm simply cleaning up the formatting, I'm of no use with regards to content, as I'm not an expert. This article desperately needs someone from the expert community to come help with validity, which is why it has the tags on it. Please do not remove them.
The goal is to get information in a readable format, that is valid and referenced, and readable to the lay-person. Please keep these things in mind, and please see Wikipedia:Help for links regarding formatting and the proper way to use Wikipedia's special formatting language. (It is not done in html)
To keep the article in control
I request the admin of this article to keep it locked, after making the article, objective, neutral and unbiased. Also spelling errors must be taken care of.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
- Articles don't have admins assigned to them. There are a series of monitors and patrol users, but unless it is a major featured article or something highly controversial, from what I've seen, pages don't get automatically protected. I think the starting point as I mentioned to you, would be to get an expert here, to verify and clean up, get some references, and then see where things stand. After that, if there are validity issues, or WP:NPOV issues, perhaps it could be taken to a third party or a committee somewhere for review, and possible temporary protection if need be.
- I must be honest, I really don't have any idea what this article is about. It seems to be about a common last name of people, and the history of that name, but as for the rest, I couldn't tell you a thing, lol. Perhaps that makes me ignorant, but I'm ignorant about a lot of things, so hey, :) I guess what I'd suggest (and I'm by no means an expert, so don't take my word for things) is the above advice. In the mean time, I think I'd suggest taking the article a little less personally, and realize that those users editing it are probably just trying to improve it, and don't realize their information may be (or is) incorrect. It isn't worth getting into edit wars over, so if you find yourself having to constantly revert it, perhaps step back and evaluate whether it is worth being upset over.
- One thing I'll promise to do: I will look around and try to find a project committee that is in charge of Indian articles/culture, and attempt to get an expert in here. How does that sound? Ariel♥Gold 21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good only if all versions of this article are read by an expert. Its obvious that 2 articles are being alternated in a tit for tat game, and obviously you cant judge. When an expert gets to sort this mess out im pretty sure the other article will be vandalising the page again. Thus please get an expert to have a look at both versions, as I am condifident that my information is much more credible. At the least it is gramatically correct having no spelling mistakes and making sense, and so can actually be edited.
Thankyou for all your help and your concilliatory efforts, it is gettin quite personal but when its your clan and such a poorly written piece is written about it you do get quite fightful.
Shivaji Ghosh126.96.36.199 01:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're definitely right, I can't judge, lol. I didn't even notice that there were two versions of the article, I've simply been fixing the obvious formatting problems. This really should not become an issue for edit wars, and I'd hope whoever is editing can understand that we must retain a Neutral point of view and cite sources. I'm still looking into getting an expert for this. As for the rest, I guess I would just have to say take it with a grain of salt, and don't take it personally. It is by no means a reflection of you! :) Thanks for the reply. Ariel♥Gold 15:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Expert assistance request
I have again asked on the Notice board for India-related topics for assistance, as I see the edit warring is still continuing. My sincere apologies to those who are genuinely trying to get the article to a neutral viewpoint, and verify factual accuracy. I hope you will soon be assisted by someone who can give you more information here on the talk page. I notice the article is up for peer review, but in the current state (Aug 5 revision) it is still quite in need of cleaning up and organizing, as well as in need of references.
There will be no edit warring. Additions without provided references to reliable sources will not be allowed, according to wikipedia policies which allow only verifiable contributions. `'Míkka 21:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
U are Not Have Any Right To appeal
listen i can get your adress and if so then people know,s how bad is police i will arrest u because u don,t have any regard,s for your surname.
===A.P.GHOSH=== ===SP,IN POLICE DEPARTMENT===
<irrelevant chat removed>. `'Míkka 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I have few friends with Ghosh as surname (family name), but never heard that they are of Rajput descents! I have extensively toured parts of Bihar (including north-eastern parts), West Bengal and Jharkhand, and have always an impression that Ghosh families belong to Kayastha caste. I think the page requires some real references instead of what we (the people belonging to parts of India where the Ghosh families originally resided) may have heard since childhood. --Bhadani (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Reply to your note
You will find that many people with this name talk of being agnivanshi rajputs. If you look at the archive to talk ghosh you may find some more information on this. In the bengal caste system the top for kayastha families Ghosh, Bose, Guha, Mitra used to only marry within these group of families and all families claim to be rajputs thus the reason for only marrying amongst these kayastha families. Reagardless rajput is a very generic name which can be applied to all Kshatriyas. Kayastha is a sub-caste of the Kshatriyas. So regardless it can be cited here in this article. I tried writying this on your page but it is protected
188.8.131.52 19:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Additions without provided references to reliable sources are inadmissible, according to wikipedia policies which allow only verifiable contributions. Please don't waste your and other people valuable time. I will not look into talk archives for the same reason. I am not an expert in Indian castes and not going to be. I can judge only whether you are writing a wikipedia article in a proper way. `'Míkka 20:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Please explain this?
"Many of these also lala ji"
This line in the GHOSH article What does this mean? —184.108.40.206 07:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
'lala ji line'
this was put in by User:220.127.116.11, who had some trouble being able to speak or write intelligible english and preceded to make pathetic threats at everybody before being blocked by wikipedia. its funny tho, lala ji 18.104.22.168 08:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It is good that the page has been protected
Before the editing vandalism started, the article had grown up to be informative... Now it can again continue :) So i restored the older advanced version instead of "rajput ghosh" article... —Rupm (talk • contribs) 16:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It will be interesting to note, for those users who have been following this vandalism... that the same person has also added Ghosh in the Rajput Wikipedia article... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput —Rupm (talk • contribs) 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please provide references
Regretfully I have to revert yor restorstion. Wikipedia policies that articles must be based on reliable sources and supplied with cotastions. Please see the corresponding policies, wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:CITE, WP:RS.
Unfortunately in wikipedia this is the only way to ensure the correctness of the information. Please don't add text without supplying references from which the information may be verified, thank you. `'Míkka 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The current article is wrong
"Ghosh is a rajput surname"
Thats the first line... Its never been verified...
But the previous article had arose because of a good and intelligent discussion and sharing of information from various Ghosh accounts The article was unbiased, which is not now...
To keep things simple i suggest we revert back to the old article which had developed before the vandalism started.... —22.214.171.124 12:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
well you cant claim its bengali hindu then
if ur gonna get that bitchy, how can u write it is used by bengali hindus, no reference, frankly you cant put a single word in cos there are no sources —126.96.36.199 09:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Its all the fault of that wanker who kept vandalising the article with his baly written english —188.8.131.52 11:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Most indian surname wikis won't have reliable sources
Its not a Thesis Paper, its a wiki... that means it develops through user contribution...
Can we cite reliable sources if the information is first-hand and comes from users themselves? No we cant...
Ofcourse, this surname is a very small subject to have something called as source... Because no one has probably ever written anything on this... besides old oral folklores...
We are writing something about Ghosh for the first time, thanks to wiki and internet... Somethings have to be contributed by the users first-hand and then disagreements sorted out... Sources are not possible...
Consider this article... Sharma
Too much strict administration without room for growth will leave this article, without any information... even if there are many Ghosh who can provide information first-hand...
So unless its a vandalism (which we can easily notice), please let the article grow...
- Sorry, you are seriously mistaken. PLease learn the wikipedia rules, starting with Wikipedia:Attribution and WP:Citing sources. `'Míkka 17:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I am reminding you again
Please don't add information to wikipedia without providing references to reputable sources, see Wikipedia:Attribution for the summary of the basic wikipedia rules in this respect. Since in wikipedia "everyone can edit", the only way to verify the added information is to check the references provided by contributors. Please understand that otherwise wikipedia would have long been a prey of numerous jokers, hoaxers and vandals. `'Míkka 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Now see the tamasa
- If I see one more comment of such type, this talk page will also be protected from editing by anonymous accounts. `'Míkka 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
yes why not =
(Sorry I'm not signed in) I had given up on this page due to the childish vandalism from some contributors, but I think somewhere in the depths of the history of the page there are good versions that need review by an expert. (Basically before people started to delete non-kaystha histories and started to add exciting episodes from TV serials into the text!)
Mikka, I understand your point completely and I guess its best to leave this very light page here until we can find someone to verify the information in earlier posts.
My only request is that any expert takes the time to have a look at some of the earlier versions that I believe provide a sound foundation to be tested and verified.
This version (needing cleaning up etc etc etc) could be worked from
If appropriate could we use this version to test here on the discussion area and work up a verified version that could then migrate to the actual page?
== Introduction == + —
|This article does not cite any references or sources. (December 2006)|
- + Ghosh (Bangla ঘোষ) is a surname used by people who are mostly modern day Hindu Bengalis. Although mainly found in the state of West Bengal in India, some Ghosh families were originally found in areas in East Bengal (now in modern day Bangladesh). Ghoshes are also found across India and, as with the broader India diaspora, across the world; particularly in the US and in the UK. - Ghosh (Bangla ঘোষ) is a surname used by some people, most of whom are modern day Bengalis. Although mainly found in the state of West Bengal in India, many Ghosh families were originally found in areas that are now in modern day Bangladesh. Ghoshes are also found across India and, as with the broader India diaspora, across the world; particularly in the US and in the UK.
+ The Ghosh surname is used by people of Israel and Lebanon. Though they are not Hindus.
- == Classification of different branches of the Ghosh Family == + ==People with surname Ghosh== - + *Acharya D.P. Ghosh - NOTE THIS SECTION IS IN PARTICULAR NEED OF ATTENTION FROM AN EXPERT - - The name Ghosh in Hinduism is a surname, and is meant to denote the caste, or sub-caste, of a person. Family histories, both oral and written, imply that the surname Ghosh in fact covers a range of different groups, with potentially different origins. - - - === 1. Kayastha Ghosh === - - Many Ghoshes identify themselves as belonging to the "Kulin" Kayastha clan. Kayasthas are a sub-caste of Hindus, found across both historical and modern India. The Kayasthas emerged as a sub-caste of the Kshatriyas in Bengal during the 5th-11th centuries AD. Unlike Chitragupta Kayastha families in Northern India, Bengali Kayasthas claim their origin from King Bhadrasen and his Kshatriya subjects. Historically Bengali Kayasthas emerged as a sub-caste of Kshatriyas who started looking after administration in newly formed Kingdoms. Some of them even formed their own independent Kingdoms for example the Deva dynasty, Chandra dynasty, Shur dynasty etc. In medieval Bengal, Kayasthas were able to play a key role under Muslim rule by learning foreign languages such as Persian. - - After the defeat of the Afghan Karani rulers of Bengal by the Mughals at the battle of Patna in 1576, some Kayastha warlords or zamindars played a key role in resisting further incursions into the east of India. As part of the "Baro Bhuiyan" (lit. Twelve "bhuiyan" or landowners), partially independent kayastha zamindars fought for around 50 years resisting Mughal rule. - - Prominent Bara Bhuiyan who were Kayasthas included: Raja Pratapaditya, Raja Ranchandra, Raja Satrajit, Kedar Ray, Chand Ray etc. Raja Ranchandra specifically belonged to the Ghosh kulin kayastha clan. - - As a sub-caste, their position in Bengal is after the Brahmins. Other common Kayastha names include Chanda, Gupta, Nag, Aditya, Nandi, Mitra, Sil, Dhar, Kar, Datta, Rakshit, Dev, Palit, Bose, and Guha. However, many people of other sub-castes also sometimes use these surnames. - - In Bengal, Kayasthas form a developed and affluent class whose contributions to arts, crafts, science, literature, economics, education and social development are noteworthy. Their religious and social activities follow the regional patterns of Hindu tradition. - - A characteristic of Kayastha Ghosh families is that they have regarded themselves as part of a single extended family, and have preferred not to inter-marry with other Kayastha Ghosh families. However they do often practice sub-caste endogamy, preferring to marry members of other kayastha families (Bose, Mitra, Dutta, Guha etc.). - - As with most caste-based marriage traditions, these "rules" are adhered to much less strongly in modern day India, particularly in urban communities. - - - === 2. Kshatriya Ghosh or "Rajput" Ghosh === - - There is a second group who identify themselves specifically as Kshatriyas. - Some people of these families claim association with the Kanyakubja or Kanauj Rajput who appeared in Bengal during the medieval period under Ballal Sen, who was then re-establishing a Hindu kingdom in contemporary Bengal. - - Various family accounts suggest that Kshatriya Ghoshes may have at some point been warrior caste inhabitants of northern India with Kshatriya antecedents from locations such as Kashmir, Ayodhya and ancient Mithila mentioned as points of origin. It is thought that they were brought to Bengal in order to revitalize a caste structure that had been eroded under the previous Pala Empire.Many Ghoshes who claim a Kshatriya origin, come from Vikrampur, near Dhaka (the capital of modern day Bangladesh) and surrounding areas - Thanks,
on what basis can you claim that the ghosh's in lebanon and israel are not hindu. You removed all of the valid information from this article because you failed to find any so called internet sources, which thelmselves can be doctored. Yet you still have information in this article which you cannot prove. On what basis do you claim the abu ghosh community are not hindu find a source to prove it...? Also how can you claim most ghosh's are hindu have you taken a poll...? If you contacted the indian geneological agency you will find a written history based on the kayastha and kshatriya status of the clan and its roots in mithila, north central india. —184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Topics from 2008
Wrte any thing about ghosh in webpage =
Please mention =
Sir, write anything
Wikipedia Is Really Awful If It can't even sort this out
The people who run this site are really pathetic.
There are infinite sources through books and the Indian genealogical survey. Yetin essence what these so called experts want on this article is online sources from unverifiable websites.
It would be good if someone went through and added short notes after the names saying what they are significant for e.g. Indian mathematician. See e.g the how it is done for the name Bose Jagdfeld (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrofit topic year headers/subpages
03-Dec-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2007" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I dated/named unsigned comments, shortened 10 auto-signatures, and removed hackings/profanity.
Then I added "Talk-page subpages" beside the TOC. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I hear the experts are looking for online verifiable source about the origins of the Ghosh. I am not really sure about this. Which sites do you consider trustworthy here? Bookrags for example has an article on Kshatriya which contains the information that Ghoshs are Agnivanshi Rajput (Kshatriya). I was not sure if you trust bookrags, so I checked for other sources. I found another article in TripAtlas which also concurs with the view. I am putting name of the sites below:
http://tripatlas.com/Agnivansha#The%20%27%27Agnikunda%27%27%20legend [please search Ghosh on the browser]
Bookrags has another article:
This is from The site about Chauhan's. It is well known that the Chauhan's were Rajput Kshatriyas. Pritviraj Chauhan was the famous king in medieval/ancient India. I don't think they will put the name of a non Rajput Kshatriya in the article. They are really exclusive about it.
This is another instance from the StateMaster website.
It clearly says Ghoshs are of the Rajput descent who live in modern day Bengal.
Now I am not sure if you don't trust some of these sites or any of these sites for that matter. But atleast I have given you some evidences that Ghoshs are the Kshatriya Rajput clan. That was my responsibility. If you are still finicky about it, then it becomes your responsibility to prove that Ghoshs are not Kshatriya. Which I believe will be very hard. So why don't you restore the article containing that information until you get a compelling reason to not to do so? In any event, so many websites from different domains can't lie. Then why don't we stop being so sceptical about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 18.104.22.168, 12 May 2010
The surname Ghosh belongs to Bengali Hindu families who belong to the Kshatriya class. However, there are Kayasthas from East Bengal, now Bangladesh who use this surname.
Please add this Information to the Ghosh Article of wikipedia.org
Ghosh is a Bengali surname, common among residents of the Indian state of West Bengal. According to the Indian caste system, Ghosh have traditionally belonged to the Kayastha Brahmin group and along with Bose, Mitra, and Dutta,etc. constitute the top rung of the Bengali Kayastha Brahmin caste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Modified The Article
- are you sure (or can you add any reference in support of) Ghosh people are Kayastha? --Tito Dutta Message 08:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Support in that statement will not be absolute but statistical. Statistical evidence can be obtained from matrimonial sites that talk about castes. Majority of Ghosh there identifies themselves as Kayastha and that is accepted. One can argue that all Ghosh might not be kaystha. Possible, but in my defense, I have added the caste name in the line which says "mostly" Kaysatha instead of always kayastha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not realize that I was not logged in. Anyway the evidence for all caste names are statistical anyway. We really don't have a database for any caste name. However if you want it to be written in any text that Ghosh is generally a Kayastha surname, that can also be found. A google search gave me this link http://books.google.com/books?id=P8b9A7J_v-UC&pg=PA133#v=onepage&q=ghosh&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaonghosh (talk • contribs) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- You need to sign talk page using --~~~~ too. Anyway, matrimonial sites may not be reliable source, see WP:RS, and in the Google book pages you have referred I can not find the word Kayastha, but I can see the word "Sudra".. anyway, I know Dutta-s are Kayastha and I feel Ghosh-s are Kayastha too. I heard about a book "Kotha hote asiyachho?" in Bengali which dealt with all surname, origin, source. If you have that book (I don't have the book and forgot the author's name too, actually I read about this book long ago in a magazine), we may get some good help there, not only for "Ghosh" article but also for all other Bengali surname related articles in Wikipedia English! --Tito Dutta Message 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course I did not mean to use matrimonial sites as a reference. I am saying that one can do a statistical study on that. What I mean is that if one does such study a strong correlation can be found. The Shudra label was given to all Kayasthas in Bengal by the calcutta high court. That is the reason you find the mention. More on this is available on the main kayastha talk page. I am not repeating it here. It was rejected by the Allahabad court later. Anyway, I am not talking about the four fold varna system, but the social structure where Ghosh are popularly called Kaysatha along with Bose, Dutta, Mitra, Guha and several others. Please refer to the article called Kulin Kayastha in wikipedia for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaonghosh (talk • contribs) 00:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC) because there are two ghoshes in bengal one is gowaal ghosh(mudhugulla gotra)it falls under OBC & there is kulin ghosh(soukalin gotra)forward caste--Hrishiraj talk (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 7 February 2013
Template:Correct ghosh surname wiki <besides Ghosh, Basu, Guha, and Mitra, who are given precedence among Bengali kshatriyas, other surnames such as Pal, Datta, Dev and Ray are also kshatriyas. But due to some historical reasons involving medieval politics and society, Bengali kshatriyas came to be known as Kayasthas. But they have no relation to Kayasthas elsewhere like in UP etc who are not kshatriyas. Bengali Kayasthas are subdivided into three main groups today - Vangaja Kayasthas (who are originally from East Bengal), Uttar Rarhi Kayasthas and Dakshin Rarhi Kayasthas 9Both of whom are from West Bengal). Some other surnames (Sen, Gupta, Sengupta, Dasgupta) are known as Vaidyas who are also descended from kshatriyas>
- Please provide reliable sources in support this information! --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
there are four kulin kayastha ghosh , bose , guha , mitra see in bose surname wiki as Boses belong to the Kayastha clan, a sub-caste of Kshatriyas (warriors/rulers) that originated from Kannauj, the capital of India during much of the classical period, and emerged in eastern India during the 11th century AD. Boses are Kulin Kayasthas, the highest-ranking group amongst all Bengali Kayasthas, and were originally accorded kulin status by King Ballal Sena. "Bose" derives from an Indian word meaning "forest dweller" or "quarrelsome man." and also refer kulin kayastha wiki please correct with ghosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulin ghosh (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)