Talk:Dutta

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unreferenced![edit]

The whole article is unreferenced. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please add reliable sources while adding information in this article. --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article requires referenced information[edit]

The content of this article is totally unreferenced. I don't understand, why it should not be replaced by sourced information, as far as Bengali Kayasthas are concerned. Ekdalian (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition of Information related to Bengalis[edit]

Hi Joshua Jonathan, I believe the information on the Bengalis here is just is a repetition of what we already have in the article on Bengali Kayastha. Therefore, this is totally redundant, and a link will serve the purpose. Rather, incorporating a statement from a relaible source, supporting the fact that Duttas are Bengali Kayasthas, would make sense (which is missing here). Since we were the editors who were involved in re-writing this part, I would like to have your opinion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anymore... Why bother? People search for a specific topic, read it, and that's it. Those who search for Dutta are happy; same for Bengali Kayastha. But that's my first thought on it; I don't really have an opinion on it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there was no concencus yet, and it read (again) as upgrading a specific group by emphasizing the brahmana-element in it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely the reason I asked for your opinion. We have a separate article on Bengali Kayastha. Is it logical or as per our practice to have the same content in another article on just another surname belonging to that community? Long-term consensus on Wikipedia is to have the relevant link. This is not an article on the community, and please note that not all Duttas are Kayasthas. Therefore, isn't it irrelevant to discuss about the community in details, where we already have a separate article on Bengali Kayastha.

And moreover, in any case, we require a reliably sourced statement to show that Bengali Duttas are mostly Kayasthas. Please share your opinion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that the statements (by Tej Ram Sharma) incorporated in order to cite a reliable source supporting that Bengali Duttas are Kayasthas, do not amount to upgradation of Kayasthas (Duttas in this case) to Brahmins. It clearly states that "some scholars have suggested that there is a considerable brahmana element in the present day Kayastha community of Bengal", and this fact is not in dispute. All other opinions, as we have, suggest that only. Therefore, there's no question of upgradation, as you have said. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Some scholars have suggested" - to me it looks like kind of cherry-picking. I'll give it a try too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joshua Jonathan. The key statement, mentioning Bengali Duttas as Kayasthas, need to be incorporated. Let me try as well. Let us come up with the best possible version together! Warm Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Josuha. That is cherrypiching and vague. This user is pushing PoV everywhere with some Sharma source. --Tito☸Dutta 08:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joshua Jonathan, I have tried my best. Thanks to your version, I have done mostly minor modifications including adding some links, aligning with source, and rearranging the references as per convention. I have incorporated a shortened version of the quote by Tej Ram Sharma, which is used just in order to establish that Duttas are Kayasthas. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. You want a shorter text, but you included an extended quote, without context. What's the use of this quote? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan, rather I don't have any clue about your objective. Reverting valid and obvious edits is least expected from you! Please let me know, what is the basis of the statement - "Bengali Duttas/Dattas belong to the Kayastha caste." Where's the reference? Why do you assume that Bengali Duttas are Kayasthas? Let's start from here. Ekdalian (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Bengali Duttas may belong to other castes as well, like one i.e. Baidya is mentioned here. Will you elaborate on each and every caste that Duttas may belong to, in the same way as you are describing the formation of the Bengali Kayastha inspite of having separate articles on these castes? Please explain. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about reversing the question? Why do you think Duttas are Kayasthas? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have earlier mentioned categorically that the quote (by Tej Ram Sharma) was provided in order to show that Dutta is now mostly used as a surname by Kayasthas. I still don't understand your problem with the quote. I believe, no editor here should think that his way of representing things is perfect. That is why we talk about consensus among editors. You are yet to answer my second question, why do you at all think that the discussion on Bengali Kayastha is necessary here, in spite of having a separate article; why can't a simple link serve the purpose. The article should look uniform as well. Why don't you discuss about the Baidya caste or the Mohyal community or the Assamese Kalita (caste)? Does it make sense to discuss about one particular community and mention others as links (which is usual), when we have dedicated articles on the same? Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan, awaiting your response.... Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian, why don't you discuss the birthplace of the Buddha, or the origins of Hinduism? You say you want to shorten the info on the Kayastha-caste, but what you is re-insert quotes and info that suggest a high status for some specific groups: "some scholars have suggested that there is a considerable brahmana element in the present day Kayastha community of Bengal". The info is shortened, the Kayastha-caste info is referenced, so, that's it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

In the recent edits, a reference has been added which I can not verify. However I want to check it, please let me know what exactly it states about the caste. Plus, bringing Pujabi to top is undue. It's better in alphabetical order. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224125101/http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=756131 to http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=756131

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Datt which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misspellef[edit]

The more commonly used spelling is 'Datta' which has to be used in the title. Saptajit D (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for changes[edit]

the pronunciation can be added for this page. As there are various spellings and the the bengali pronounciation does not match with the English spelling. The native bengali spelling of dutta/datta which is 'দত্ত'can also be added. Most article are in this format only. 117.226.214.163 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not allowed to edit Wikipedia, even unregistered. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]