Talk:Ghasidas

Conflicts of Interest and Social Animosity - Caution
I read the page. I am not sure how unbiased the various parts of the information or their presentation in this page is: many taken directly from the reports (including one of pre-independence India at the time of extreme hatred between communities) prepared by individuals belonging to social segments with direct enmity to subject of their reports.

Readers should keep in mind that there is at least a century of extreme hostility leading to conspiracies, hand to hand fight and murders between Satnamis who rejected and made fun of traditional Hindu thoughts and practices and Hindus who considered these Satnamis sacrilegious for such thinking: you can infer this also by reading the current wiki content. The relation between Satnamis and caste Hindus is same as is between Jews and Muslims. Therefore, readers should be warned not to expect any unbiased presentation on Satnamis by writers who are caste Hindus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.238.56 (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/chhattisgarh workgroup Addition
WP India with chhattisgarh workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Chhattisgarh or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate, please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 11:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tried writing Ghasi Das
Couldn't find this article before, tried starting a new one that found this already existed. Here's my draft in case we want to incorporate anything: MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Ghasi Das (1756-1850CE ) was the initiator of the Satnami sect of Hinduism in the early 19th century. Ghasi Das was an "untouchable" farm servant in Girod, Raipur district who preached Satnam to a number of low-caste Indians, particularly the Chamars of Chhattisgarh. Ghasi Das's guruship was carried on by his son, Balakdas, following Ghasi Das' death in 1850.

What the heck, wipe and rewrite
The current version of the article is unforgiveably bad, and despite a re-cock of the tags most of them have been applied since 2010 or earlier. Nobody has done substantive work to truly address this ground-up disaster in years (though many have nobly chipped away at it). As has been suggested in some edit summaries, I'm just going to do a wipe and re-write from scratch, setting a proper bar for actual sourcing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Copy and paste move and loss of history
A copy and paste move was done from Ghasidas to Guru Ghasidas fairly recently, with no discussion that I can find. This obscured significant history, and causes the current page to fail attribution. Moreover, the talk page has been left at Talk:Ghasidas, which is non-standard and quite confusing. The page had been properly moved from Guru Ghasidas  to Ghasidas, back in 2008.

In a Teahouse post ,at WP:TH, wrote  which constitutes an objection to the move, so it was not uncontroversial. (Note that the teahouse link will change when the thread is archived in a few days.)

In my view, two things need to happen here:
 * 1) There needs to be a move discussion, to decide which title should be used for this article. WP:COMMONNAME is almost surely the main relevant policy.
 * 2) There needs to be a history merge, bringing the complete history of the article under the selected name, whichever that may be.  And everyone involved needs to understand that copy&paste moves are a bad idea.

I am willing to do the history merge, once there is a consensus on which name should be used for the article. I am going to ping all editors who have touched the article recently.

Please discuss the proper name below. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I prefer Ghasidas. "Guru Ghasidas" is indeed more commonly used by the Indian media, but WP:NCINDIC recommends that titles like "Guru" be "questioned'. Some other other articles seems to follow this: Tukaram instead of Sant Tukaram and Dayananda Saraswati instead of Maharshi Dayananda Saraswati. Another relevant guideline is MOS:SAINTS which says Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint", if such a title is available and the saint is the primary topic for that name. which I think can apply to Indian Sants too. MOS:HONOR supports this position too, with the exception Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included which I don't think applies to Ghasidas, since most scholarly works I've read don't use "Guru", including Encyclopedia Britannica. TryKid (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * can you give citations to some of the scholarly works that you refer to? Perhaps some would be suitable for adding as sources to the article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From Draft:Satnampanth:
 * TryKid (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thoughts? TryKid (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I can't understand what is being discussed. Are you asking for references, or comments on the above references? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The main question being discussed is "what should the title of this article be?". In discussing that mentioned that a number of scholarly sources used the name without the title "Guru". I asked what those sources were, and TryKid supplied several. But if you have (or anyone has) comments on those sources, their reliability or relevance, that might also be helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thoughts? TryKid (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I can't understand what is being discussed. Are you asking for references, or comments on the above references? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The main question being discussed is "what should the title of this article be?". In discussing that mentioned that a number of scholarly sources used the name without the title "Guru". I asked what those sources were, and TryKid supplied several. But if you have (or anyone has) comments on those sources, their reliability or relevance, that might also be helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Tricky question, MOS:HONOR suggests simplifying to Ghasidas, although there is potential for future disambiguation. But a quick check of some newspaper articles suggest Guru Ghasidas is frequent naming e.g. (thus WP:COMMONNAME) and possibly Guru Baba Ghasidas or Baba Ghasidas. Probably leaning towards Guru Ghasidas, but perhaps some assessment whether simply Ghasidas is in wide use in sources. Dl2000 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If he started a sect, then I suppose he qualifies to be titled as "Guru". We have such precedents as Guru Nanak and Swami Vivekananda. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't a question of whether he "started a sect", . Wikipedia does not normally title articles with honorifics, which is why our article about the founder of Islam is not at Prophet Mohammad (although that is a redirect) or at Muhammad, PBUH but simply at Muhammad. The question is whether "Guru" has in effect become part of Ghasidas's name to the extent that "Ghasidas" without the Guru becomes confusing or ambiguous, just as [Mother Teresa]] is pretty much never refereed to as just "Teresa" or even as "Mary Teresa Bojaxhiu" (although that is her legal name, as I understand it). This standard is spelled out at MOS:HONOR and WP:NCINDIC, as others have said above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep at 'Ghasidas' Guru is clearly an honorific and while popular media and followers use it often, scholarly sources (at least the ones I spot-checked) don't. See eg,
 * The first two don't use 'Guru Ghasidas' at all, and the third only in quotes and in the Epilogue (the, various, reviews of Dube's book, don't apply the honorific either). Abecedare (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first two don't use 'Guru Ghasidas' at all, and the third only in quotes and in the Epilogue (the, various, reviews of Dube's book, don't apply the honorific either). Abecedare (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first two don't use 'Guru Ghasidas' at all, and the third only in quotes and in the Epilogue (the, various, reviews of Dube's book, don't apply the honorific either). Abecedare (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first two don't use 'Guru Ghasidas' at all, and the third only in quotes and in the Epilogue (the, various, reviews of Dube's book, don't apply the honorific either). Abecedare (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep at 'Guru Ghasidas' always use Guru Ghasidas as Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya and Guru Ghasidas National Park Jaycharan Khandey (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote, you need to provide reasons for why it should be "Guru" Ghasidas. Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya and Guru Ghasidas National Park are proper and official names of institutions and places. The same can't be said about Guru Ghasidas. TryKid (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You also removed a nearly a decade old message with when you posted here. I'll restore it. Try no to do that again. TryKid (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And it seems a cut-paste move of Balakdas, which had existed at that title for 8 years, to Guru Balakdas was done by Jaycharan Khandey too. Please read WP:MOVE to understand how to do a proper move. If there is a consensus to not include Guru, and I think there is, Balakdas page needs to be fixed too. TryKid (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * the discussion seems to have run it's course, I think it's time to close it. Please do the needful. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 17:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)