Talk:Saha (surname)

Mention in Bengal inscriptions

The title Sadhu or Sah is widely found in numerous 10-13th century inscriptions in Western/Central India all associated with the merchant communities (mainly Jain). I have seen an article mentioning the title in Bengal in a Pala period Buddhist inscription. I will see if I can dig that out.Malaiya (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

October 2024

The claim by the @Ekdalian that most of the sources are unreliable is unfounded. References such as the University of Chicago, the Anthropological Survey of India, and rajasthan.gov.in are widely recognized as authoritative and reputable sources. These institutions are known for their scholarly work and are frequently cited in academic research. Furthermore, the content in question is neither controversial nor debatable, as it is based on well-documented facts. Therefore, it does not necessitate prior discussion before being added to the article. The focus should be on ensuring that reliable sources are used, which is already the case here.  Saurabh  ^Talk? 18:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I shall respond tomorrow; it's too late here now! Ekdalian (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to respond. However, I believe it’s important to address this matter promptly to ensure clarity and maintain progress on our discussion. If you could provide your thoughts now, it would greatly help in moving forward effectively.  Saurabh  ^Talk? 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Saurabhsaha, "The Saha people, divided into Teli (oil producers),[7] Gandhabanik (spice traders),[8] and Subarnabanik/swarnabanik (gold merchants)..."- reading something like this for the first time. How do you define "Saha people" ?CharlesWain (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

According to Achyutanarayan Choudhury in his book History of Shreehatta, the term "Saha" is not a caste but an honorific title signifying wealth and nobility, granted by the Nawabs to affluent families in ancient times. The Saha people are traditionally associated with merchant communities in Bengal and are categorized based on their occupations, such as Teli (oil producers), Gandhabanik (spice traders), and Subarnabanik (gold merchants).  Saurabh  ^Talk? 03:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No! It's written in Baishya Saha article- "Before the seventh or the eighth centuries A.D. when historical evidence indicates that the society was based largely on trade and commerce, the merchant classes had a notably high position in society. The low rank experienced by the Subarnabanik (gold merchants), Shunri (winemakers), Teli (oil producers), and in later times also by the Gandhabanik (the dealers in spices), possibly indicates that the primary economic activities of the Bengali society shifted from trade and capital producing devices to cottage industries and agriculture. The caste ranks of the merchant classes became more and more lowered and reached a decidedly low stage at the beginning of the Sena and Varman periods."(Sarma, p15)

Why have you twisted lines from reliable source like Jyotirmoyee Sarma? Why have you rewritten the time period as 1900s? And, Why have you omitted Shunri? Infact Shunri and dissident Shunris (Saha/Baishya Saha) are the main communities Saha surname is associated with.CharlesWain (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It is essential to recognize that historical accounts and interpretations often evolve as new research emerges. Twisting lines from a source like Jyotirmoyee Sarma is a subjective accusation, as interpretations of historical facts can vary depending on context and intent. Rewriting the time period as "1900s" could have been a necessary simplification for clarity or thematic coherence, rather than a distortion of facts.

Subarnabanik (gold merchants), Shunri (winemakers), Teli (oil producers), and later, the Gandhabanik (dealers in spices) are all caste groups, not surnames. Surnames and castes are two different things. If you have read the honorable Supreme Court judgment and the gazetted notification of the West Bengal government, it is clearly mentioned that Shunri (excluding Saha) falls under the Scheduled Caste category.  Saurabh  ^Talk? 05:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks CharlesWain for your response; you have already mentioned part of what I was going to say. User:Saurabhsaha has a clear conflict of interest as far as this article is concerned! The source from the Anthropological Survey of India is not considered as reliable by the community. Rest, you are deliberately misinterpreting the sources as pointed out by CharlesWain! You clearly lack consensus since two editors (including me) have serious objections to your edits. You need to achieve consensus here among experienced editors on castes and social groups. Ekdalian (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The Anthropological Survey of India (ASI) is a reputable government body whose research is widely used by academics. Dismissing it as unreliable without evidence weakens your claim. Can you provide specific proof to support this assertion?

After using a tool called Editor Interaction Analyzer, I discovered that you and CharlesWain have the same editing habits and often support each other with claims not backed by proper, notable references. Are you sure you're not the same person? I'll check the IP addresses if I find more suspicious activity.  Saurabh  ^Talk? 06:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Saurabhsaha, you may please check whether we are socks!! By the way, we disagree pretty often, e.g. see Talk: De (surname). Ekdalian (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You have smartly ignored the question I asked about the Anthropological Survey of India in the above. You dismissed it as unreliable in the edit summary with the others while reverting my edits. Please provide your views or a reply.  Saurabh  ^Talk? 07:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@ArnabSaha:@Titodutta: Here, I am tagging more experienced editors with expertise in Bengal and Bengali history.  Saurabh  ^Talk? 07:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Read this, Saurabhsaha! Sitush is considered as a highly experienced editor on caste articles; we have other discussions where experienced editors have supported Sitush and the community considers the same as unreliable!

@LukeEmily, Fylindfotberserk, and Adamantine123: you may please join the discussion if you can spare some time. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No Saurabhsaha, you can't misrepresent a source !

Apparently in the phrase "Shunri (excluding Saha)", the terms "Shunri" and "Saha" represent caste, not surname. Saha as a caste is distinct from Teli or Subarnabanik. Saha as a surname is almost exclusively found among two castes in Bengal- Shunri and Saha/Baishya Saha.CharlesWain (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

By the way, University of Chicago digitalize books in collaboration with Google. You need to mention actual publisher in citation. I suppose you already know that.CharlesWain (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Keeping it as a surname only list article is better IMO. Otherwise we have to merge content from atleast two distinct castes (Baishya Saha and Shunri) into this, confusing the WP:READERS further. Hence, anything caste related and particularly associated with the term "Saha" should be taken to Baishya Saha. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources mentioned in Baishya Saha article that support the claim. Moreover, Hinduism has four varnas: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra; so, some people are mixing varna status with the surname. Although some claim that Saha is an Aryan Vaishya, there is no proof to support this claim according to the references mentioned in the article. That is why the content of Baishya Saha should be merged into the article on the Saha surname.  Saurabh  ^Talk? 13:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I am still waiting for the user Ekadilian to provide a single reason for undoing my properly sourced edits twice on the page. Later, he claimed that the source from the Anthropological Survey of India is not considered reliable by the community. When I asked him to provide a source for this claim, he was unable to do so. According to the Government of India, the Anthropological Survey of India (ASI) is a reputable government body whose research is widely used by academics. I have asked him twice to support his assertion that ASI is not notable, but he has not done so. There is nothing wrong with undoing edits, but it is important to clearly specify which text or paragraphs have issues. If there is no problem, then how can content that is properly sourced be removed?  Saurabh  ^Talk? 13:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Read the link provided above before saying I have not shared the discussion related to the consensus that Singh is not considered as reliable; I have also mentioned about Sitush and about the discussions in other forums. The most concerning fact is that you are trying to promote the caste by misinterpreting sources. If you continue like this, you may soon be blocked from editing, per WP:GS/CASTE. We are used to such attempts of caste promotion, and know how to handle these! Ekdalian (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the point about Singh; the reference is only used in the first paragraph. But can you provide proof that B.R. Rizvi, A. Hasan, and J.C. Das are also not notable? History of Shreehatta and Historical Dictionary of the Bengalis are reliable sources.  Saurabh  ^Talk? 07:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

We shall review and let you know. We have our regular jobs and we take care of hundreds of such articles. You need to wait; you have tried to misinterpret sources and promote the caste & there is a COI as well; let other editors share their opinion. Currently, there's no consensus for your changes. Ekdalian (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

References