You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bengali–Assamese languages; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Sharma, Chandan Kumar (2006), "Oral discourse and Bodo identity construction", in Muthukumaraswamy, M.D. (ed.), Folklore as Discourse, National folklore support centre, pp. 73–94
This is just book. Different tribe have different folklore. Baraha is title not Barahi subtribe of chutia. So, Is there any Barahi in Cachar ? Cachar name itself originate from Kachari. Just like Varman ,Pala, Khen are just dynasty name. Similarly baraha is just dynasty. It doesn't mean different should be seperate tribe. Is there any sworgodeo tribe ?
Dhruv Hojai (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dhruv Hojai In the book, look at the section "Who are the Bodos?" (p75). It says "The Bodo-Kacharis belonging to the..." and then goes on to use the term Bodo and Bodo-Kachari synonymously ("In western Assam they are more popularly known as Bodos or Bodo-Kacharis"). It has been the bane of Indian writing that the name Bodo has been so badly misused. So we have a situation where the term Bodo is used to denote the western politically dominant group (the Boro) as well as the greater group (which will include Boro as well as Dimasa, Thengal-Kachari etc.).
To avoid this confusion, we are trying to develop a convention in Wikipedia such that this confusion does not arise. Bodo-Kachari peoples refers to the greater group and Boro people refers solely to the western group. The Barahi people belonged to the Bodo-Kachari group, but they were subsumed by the Ahoms. It is not clear yet that the Baraha king, Mahamanikya (of Saptakanda Ramayana fame), is the same as the Mahamanipha the Dimasa king. If you see a reference that clearly states/proves that, then do include it in the Kachari kingdom article. Till then, Sharma's article belongs to Bodo-Kachari peoples because in the article Sharma is referring to the bigger group, not just to the Boro.
Do you have any evidence of Sukafa except your Buranjis ? Similarly we have our historical evidence of hachengsa dynasty who ruled kamarupa. Hachengsa means earth-born. What is your problem with our history ? Why are you deleting claims of Historian in support of Bodo-Kachari ? Dhruv Hojai (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the earliest historical mention of the Kacharis come from Buranjis, when Sukaphaa encountered them in the Tirap region currently in Arunachal. And much of what we know today about the Kachari kingdom comes from Ahom Buranji collected in Kachari Buranji. So be mindful of what you say about Buranjis too.
Ruins, coins and stone inscriptions are from the 16th century onward. The Buranji reference notices Kacharis in the 13th century. Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha=land , Tsung= cheng = split , tsa=sa=son=born , hachengsa = earth-born, Kamarupa means Kachari kingdom. Kalika puran Mahiranga = Mairong deity of Kacharis , Kalika puran , Tripura Rajmala etc have Kachari history. We don't lack evidence , We lack proper research. Dhruv Hojai (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chaipau: Hachengsa family deserve a place in kamarupa kingdom because it's royal claim and achaeologically evident. Hachengsa means earth-born. Dhruv Hojai (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Msasag: Yes. In the standard literature, Kamarupi Prakrit is not considered Assamese. Assamese, as found in literature, is only from the 12th century. But one should mention the earlier Charyapada etc. as shared origins. If Kamarupi Prakrit is proto-Assamese-Kamata language, then we do not know how it differs from proto-Bangla without a proper reconstruction. Chaipau (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my bad. That was a typo. Fully distinguished Assamese is found from 14th century, not from the 12th. So Early Assamese is from 14th-century. The 12th-14th period is the mixed period. I am following the time-boundaries as set down by Kakati, and followed by others. Surendranath Sarma follows the same division, but he calls Middle Assamese Vaishnavite period, ignoring the secular literature from Buranji etc. The current standard Assamese is pretty much the language of the Buranjis.
I declined your speedy deletion request on Greater Kamrup, since it doesn't meet the definition of blatant hoax. In your edit summary you mentioned WP:POVFORK. Those are not speedyable, especially for one that's been around for seven years already. If you feel it should be deleted, feel free to take it to AfD (I will contest a prod not because I feel it must stay but because I think this needs discussion).----Fabrictramp | talk to me04:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Asia
Hello Chaipau. You have been invited to join WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Asia-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the participants.
If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by:
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Bijni kingdom, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
You have been removing content related to Boro people. Your act is against a community. I don't think Wikipedia allow this type of Behavior. If you'll keep repeating same behaviour then you may be blocked DinaBasumatary (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dimasa aren't Boro and Boro aren't Dimasa. Don't you understand English ? Go and read what is written in Kakoty research. It's related to memoir of Sylhet and Cachar...
That paper talk about Kacharis of Cachar. Ramsa migrated from Cachar to Plain. You've no right to distort Boro History. Your act against Bodo community is not acceptable as per Wikipedia rule DinaBasumatary (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've removed Boro from Mahamanikya page also. That claim was backed by modern scholar. Read it. Sen, Debasis (1984). "ETHNIC ELEMENTS IN THE POLITICAL LIFE OF ANCIENT ASSAM". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 45: 101–106. DinaBasumatary (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DinaBasumatary: Don't mix up Bodo with Boro. The Boro are the Tibeto-Burman speaking people from the Bhutan foothills. On the other hand, use of Bodo has been changing, in academic contexts, so be careful. You cannot use the Bodo/Boro confusion and make outlandish claims on Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have cited Bathari very much. So, Add batharis claim about river crossing . That happened between Dimasa and Moran.
Gogoi assumption of Kachari ghat is mistake. DinaBasumatary (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've lifted the block; since the opposite party has now been blocked as a sockpuppet and since your message on my talkpage clearly showed that you recognised the problems with your own approach, I see no likelihood of the edit war continuing and thus no reason to maintain a block on editing the article. Yunshui雲水09:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since, Boro is phonetically better. Don't you think , Bodo-Kacharis page should be moved to Boro-Kacharis ? Scholars used Bodo with Boro pronunciation. S.K. Chatterjee, Grierson , Endle clarified the exact pronunciation. Thank you2409:4065:12:5789:E080:12CE:BAE1:C42F (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are trying to come to a consistent use of Bodo and Boro here in Wikipedia. Boro for the subgroup and Bodo for the super-group. Since this article is about the supergroup, we should continue using Bodo-Kachari. Chaipau (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boro, Bodo, Boro-Kachari, Bodo-Kachari are all used for Boro people. Early Scholars used to add race for super-group. Now, race is obsolete concept, So, confusion arised. Modern scholars are using Bodo-kachari for super-group and Bodo(=Boro) for sub-group. So, we can remove Bodo super-group word from the beginning. Etymologies clearly explain Bodo and Kacharis separately, mixing these two become bodo-kachari. 2409:4065:12:5789:7427:97B2:1D59:5FC8 (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem in statement related first publication of Bodo word. Martin Montgomery(1838) in The history, antiquities, topography, and statistics of eastern India writes that Proper name of Kacharis is Boro.(page 549) 2409:4065:8D:ED9F:106:B716:BEBA:D92A (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moamoria, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
I think you misunderstood my edit. I'm not linking Mahamanikya with Khalang or Borahi because Khalang Borahi were Chutiya and Barāha of Nagaon were Kachari. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it require move entire Kachari kingdom to Dimasa kingdom as you did here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kachari_Kingdom&redirect=no ? There were many small small Kachari kingdoms. Shin ignored beginning and took Hachengsa as base for Dimasa history. So, we can keep the confusion part as Kachari history. Some scholars confusingly connected Dimasa with Kachari kingdom of Ganeshguri. We can keep these unclear history in Kachari kingdom page. Thanks Logical Man 2000 (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. By Kachari kingdom we invariably mean the Dimasa kingdom and they are used synonymously in literature . The others were not "kingdoms", unless reported in literature (we need to follow WP:RS and avoid WP:OR). Please note that autonomous chiefs, like the Beltola chief, were called Datiyaliya Raja, but they were not kings in the true sense of the term. Even Darrang was not a kingdom---the "king" reported to the Borphukan. Chaipau (talk)
Ok then. I'm actually referring to the kingdom before rise of Koch and Ahom. There was a Heramba kingdom in Guwahati. Later it split into many pieces. Though Dimasa kingdom is in literature, Actual History is very different. Anyway, It's WP:OR. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. Many of these smaller fiefdoms too were actually older—Beltola, Rani etc. They were not independent. They could have been independent for short periods of time, but most often they were not. And the chiefs did not necessarily belong to the same ethnicity as the peasants in that. Chaipau (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neolithic
"Neolithic correlates of ancient Tibeto-Burman migrations" , This paper says many things about neolithic culture of Tibeto-Burman Northeast because many things discovered in northeast have relation with China. I would prefer to categorise Austroasiatic and Tibeto-burman within a new section "Neolithic" people of AssamLogical Man 2000 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Logical Man 2000: I have read many papers of van Driem. He keeps changing his positions and he can never clearly say anything definite. He looks like he tries too hard. I don't think we should use him for substantial. Same goes for his student, Manjil Hazarika. van Driem is also the one who is claiming that the Austroasiatics domesticated rice in the northeast. I am averse to using that.
As far as calling the Tibeto-Burman people in Northeast neolithic---let us not use labels, because the Tibeto-Burman display many different cultures. Some display hunter-gatherer and forest-dwelling characteristics, so we should not go into that debate.
Okay then. As per DNA report, There is very less difference between Khasi and Tibeto-Burman of Assam. Tibeto-Burman is very big group. Hill people are different from plain people. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the Tibeto-Burmans are so different from each other, how could they be so similar to the Khasis?
In any case, why do you want the Tibeto-Burman be so similar to the Khasis?
Tibeto-Burman is big group. They can still migrate from Tibet. Obviously there will be difference. And your second question don't make any sense. It's not my claim. You can read other journals. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guha had written that Indo-Aryan brought wet rice , iron etc without any reference. How can we believe it's true ?
And Taher, Mohammad (1993), "The Peopling of Assam and contemporary social structure" have mixed Bodo-Kachari with Monpas, Naga etc. Naga itself is mysterious name for many different tribes. If you've better source then please add it. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guha's claim is historical, and accepted widely. Have you seen a refutation somewhere? Taher has mentioned TB, and these groups are TB. Some of these groups did enter Assam just prior to Colonialism. Chaipau (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bhaskar Varma and his ancestors also had contact with China. Wet rice cultivation was known to China. So, This technology was already known or borrowed from Indo-Aryan is hard to say. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boros did asu , sali , pharma . You can check correct spelling in endle. And one more thing :
I would suggest you not keep tagging everything with Bodo-kachari peoples. It's no more racial group. Garo of hills were headhunter. Dimasa had completely different culture from Boro. Koch-Rajbongshi is confusing. So, Please be specific instead of mixing everything. Just like Pre-historic or medieval Indo-Aryan don't want to be categorised with Recent Bangladeshi immigrants. Infact, There is lots of opposition to Bodo or Bodo-kachari umbrella from other groups. Anybody can learn a language. Scholars have already suggested that Boro-Garo was kind of lingua franca. So, Based on language we can never say everybody were same people. Thanks Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Boros might have done ahu, sali and kharma in colonial times, but you cannot project ethnic identities even a few hundred years, leave alone a thousand. That is WP:OR. We are sticking here to the right category as given in the sources. Also, Endle had limited sources, and on Wikipedia colonial era writings, especially from these kind of authors are considered not reliable. For what it is worth, Endle could not even spell Boro properly and he used two to three different spellings in the same paragraph and mixed up the categories. Ahu and Sali are standard spellings.
IA immigration after the medieval times are treated differently, as are Muslim immigrations.
Also, please note identities do not remain constant over time. Boro identity developed in the post-colonial period. Assamese identity developed in the late medieval and colonial period. So it would be wrong to call the IA immigrants in the prehistoric times as Assamese. It would be wrong to call the Tais who came in in the 13th century as synonymous with the Ahoms today. And so on. Chaipau (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you replying to me? When did i say anything about Assamese? Which scholar have proved that Assamese identity medieval and Boro identity is post colonial ? Assamese means Ahom according to your Wikipedia edits in etymology of Assam. Boro identity isn't artificial thing to be developed. You can carry on your imagination. Remember one thing Boro isn't name given by others. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you still don't know who are Kacharis of Brahmputra valley then please read any recently published History book. I just said that there is lots of difference within Bodo-kachari peoples. So, I suggest you to be specific. But your replies made me uncomfortable. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Logical Man 2000: This issue has been extensively discussed here: Talk:Mahamanikya. Other Wikipedia editors too have given their opinions. You are pushing the same opinion that another editor was pushing, who is now banned. Even we discussed it here User_talk:Chaipau#Barāha_Mahamanikya, where you agreed to keep Mahamanikya out.
I have seen a surge in POV pushing from an ethnic point of view in recent times. Be it Ahom or Boro or Assamese or some other group. Wikipedia is here to tell everyone's story, but in a reliable NPOV way, but not participate in their real-life political conflicts.
History always lies between certianity and uncertainity. This time , i disagree with you. Please ask a admin, if he agree with your revert then it's okay. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my POV. It's the scholars who think Varaha --> Boro. If you ask my POV then Boro --> Varaha. Boro was sanskritized into Varaha. Your edits in etymology of Bodo in Bodo Kachari peoples are also twisted version of reality. You have written Bodo for Boro is confusing. But the truth is Bodo for everyone is confusing. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look at what Moshahary says---It should be Boro for the Boro people, not Bodo. It is not my opinion, you see. The 'd' entered here due to Hogdson, because of the way some phonemes in Hindi are romanised. It did not help that he confused categories of people as well. Look at Jaqeusson. Chaipau (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be saying the same thing. Hogdson made a mistake (1) Using Bodo for Boro and (2) Using it to define all people including the Boro. Unfortunately, Bodo caught on, after Grierson. Now we have "Bodoland Territorial Region" and "Bodo language" enshrined in the official documents.
For the purpose of Wikipedia, we can dissociate Bodo from Boro, following Mushahary. As far as possible. We cannot call Bodoland Boroland. We cannot call Bodo language Boro language. So what is your solution? Chaipau (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have either twisted or removed most things which goes in favour of Boro. Since, Mech word is related to founder of Koch kingdom. You opposed merge of Mech with Boro. Since, Varaha have relation with Boro. You removed the information from etymology. You can carry on. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mech is considered to be an independent language according to Burhling 2003. His classification is: Bodo languages: (1) Dimasa (2) Kachari (3) Boro and (4) Mech, as reported by Jacquesson. Given that Mech is listed separately from Boro, there is enough doubt that Mech and Boro should be listed differently. This has nothing to do with the Boros. Chaipau (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as long as we know what we are talking about. The linguists (example Burhling above) clearly makes a difference between Bodo and Boro. Jacquesson too. Chaipau (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about people. We can create different page for language. Within Boro there are four dialects. I'm talking about Mech people. You are talking about language. There is difference. No mech of Goalpara or Original Mech call themselves mech. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Logical Man 2000: Yes, I know the meaning of Etymology. I have no problems with any Ahom or Bodo people. I have problems with editors trying to push a POV on Wikipedia, both Ahom and Bodo. There is no doubt Assam's Etymology is related to the Tai-Shan people. It is specifically mentioned that Hogdson named the "Mech and Kachari" as Bodo. But all who were called Kachari do not call themselves Bodo or Boro. The Dimasa is an example So you should provide critically nuanced texts and not push Boro-centric definitions. Doing so in an example of disruptive editing. Chaipau (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you really know meaning of etymology then write how that term come into existence. There is no difference between Bodo and Boro. If it says Bodo people then it means Boro people, If it says Bodo race or Bodo linguistic group then it means everyone. You're making things complicated. I tried to make it simple but may be you don't understand other than yourself. It's not my POV , instead you don't want anything other than your POV. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since, Bodo or Bodo-Kachari is linguistic and anthropological term. Don't you think - we should change Bodo-Kachari_peoples to just Bodo-KachariLogical Man 2000 (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Austronesier, I suggest an ANI report with diffs, which requires a degree of familiarity with past accounts that I do not have. All I can say is that no genuinely new user has ever set a committed identity on their user page with their first edit. Guy (help!) 17:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zvikorn: I did not want to start a different process even as the discussion on the draft was going on. Do you recommend a speedy deletion? I shall go ahead an submit. Chaipau (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaipau, I don't recommend anything. I haven't looked at the article fully. You can look at the different types of speedy deletion and if it fits one of the categories then go ahead. Idan (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Logical Man 2000. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mech people without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't remove cited content of padmasri awardee scholarLogical Man 2000 (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No modern scholar use this Note on the Tribal Name "Mes (Mech)" Stuart N. Wolfenden . This is just arbitrary guess without proper investigation. It is WP:FRINGE. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Chaipau. You are invited to join the new WikiProject India 10,000 Challenge, a challenge which aims to see 10,000 improvements, destubs, and creations for Indian articles, covering every state of India and topic. Articles on all related topics are welcome. We need numbers to make this work and do something extraordinary for India on Wikipedia! Every 100 articles submitted will be copied into the wider Asian challenge. Sign up on the page if interested and start contributing! If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by:
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Boro people, you may be blocked from editing. If you don't know history of Boro then don't edit anything related to Boro people. Please stop doing disruptive edits. Boro culture is different from your culture. Boros have much more than you could even imagine. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please create a new page called Mech-Kachari people , then all the problem will be solved. Mech-Kachari are ST-Hill in Nagaland, So they identify separately. They can't leave Kachari word for ST-Hill , They can't join Boro for ST-Hill. Historically, Kachari and Mech are names of two different region. Mech aren't Kachari and Kachari aren't Mech in History but they are same people. Among them most people call themselves Boro. Other call themselves Sarania Kachari, Sonowal Kachari , Thengal Kachari , Mech Kachari , Dimasa Kachari etc Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary. There are historical Mech people. And there is a language called Mech that linguists talk about. There is actually no problem and it has been resolved to keep the page after discussion. Chaipau (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mech Kachari speak Assamese. Historical Mech and Kachari are names given by other. But today Kachari is also divided. Mech is also divided. Nobody can claim they are the entire Kachari or entire Mech. We can keep this page and we can also create Mech-Kachari. Mech is just like Kachari. Many Rajbongshi are Mech. We can divide Mech into Boro , Rajbongshi and Mech-Kachari Logical Man 2000 (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no community called Indian. But now we call ourselves Indian. Now Indian is self-designation, It doesn't mean we don't have other designation. This is basic thing. S.N. Wolfened took from grierson. Grierson took information from Bengali clerks. This is how confusion occured. He hadn't done field work. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All 'Mech' peoples i.e., Mech people of 'West Bengal' speaks Bodo as their mother tongue And identify themselves as Bodo/boro But All 'Mech-kachari' are partially Kacharies and different than 'Mech'. So New page should be created soon. Eulerfan1999 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eulerfan1999: Please take this discussion to the talk page. I wonder why you are adding your comments here is a discussion with a user who has been banned. This section is closed. Chaipau (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chutia people
I've undone several of your edits at Chutia people because you didn't provide a source. When editing, please find reliable sources first, write a citation for them (see Help:Footnotes to learn how), and then add your changes to the article along with the footnotes at the same time. Please respect Wikipedia's core principle of WP:Verifiability. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
May 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on People of Assam; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
FWIW, Chaipau simply undertook a laudable effort to keep fabricated info (which was not in the least supported by the cited source) out of WP. The only reproachable thing that I see here is the fact that Chaipau failed to immediately bring the disruptive IP edits to ANI. –Austronesier (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: I admit I am in the wrong just as you have said. I am/have been struggling a bit with the ethics of reporting an editor who I disagree with. But I am trying to come around to the view that not reporting harms WP and wastes everyone's time. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing Bodo-Kachari to Kachari
I edited added the information into talk page of Bodo-Kachari.
Bodo Kachari is currently only to address the Boro/Bodo tribe. Other Kacharis are not known as Bodo-Kacharis, but only as 'Kacharis'.
Tribes like Sonowal, Thengal, Dimasas, Sarania etc aren't considered as Bodo/Boro but instead Kacharis. Tizen03 (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I need your help in creating a new Wikipedia article for 'Ahomization'. Currently there's no Wiki page for that. Tizen03 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tizen03: I think it requires some more information. Currently it has information which already is available in Wikipedia. There was a lot of converts—even at the aristocratic Ahom levels. I think this article should get into those issues. Chaipau (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, check the Ahomisation page again. That's all the information I was able to find. If you have some more information, you can add it as well. If its correct then publish it. Tizen03 (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Chaipau help me in the process of creating this 'Ahomisation' page. As I'm actually on a tight shedule, also I'm not that experienced in Wiki editing. Tizen03 (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tizen03: I think it requires a little bit of editing. There are some original thoughts there and references are missing. I shall look into it in more detail in a few days time. Thanks for your efforts! Chaipau (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tai languages
I've been busy filling up the pages of these Tai languages in Assam, besides Ahom, such as Aiton, Phake, Khamti. They're finally starting to have some content. Glennznl (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fylindfotberserk: I have not idea what this source is about: http://www.populationu.com/ The IP-editor seems to be adding up all these numbers. I have no idea what the source is, will have to dig into census data to verify. In any case, I don't think we need to give the detailed breakup as given there. Also, i don't like the picture—makes the article look like a tourism brochure. The same is true for Meitei people. Chaipau (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Chaipau! I already discussed with you that mythological and mythical are similar words. That article does not have only one source. Mythological is more suitable word for these kind of characters which are found in scriptures. Ratan375 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I changed location of a (Sircar 1990:80) harvcol error: no target: CITEREFSircar1990 (help)</ref> this source because it's mention about Narakasura's successor. So this source is more suitable for that line.
Ratan375 (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sircar is not God that whatever he writes you have to copy, when other citations clearly mentioned it as mythological story. Mythology is a less offensive word for a particular community. Mythology means a collection of myth. It's a best word for modern era. Ratan375 (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A mythical entity is an entity in a myth. Mythology is the study of myths. It's also true that "mythical" and "mythological" are commonly used as synonyms, but if we are to maintain the, slightly useful, distinction between the two words, Sircar is using the correct one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I have met you in a bitter dispute and an ANI, not the best places to meet, and certainly no place experience and enjoy the good work you have done. But from the little I have seen, you are probably awesome.
I am here to request you that at the ANI stay true to the complaint you went there with - hostile edits at articles on Bengali-Assamese language/script. You have a valid complaint there, and you don't need to get muddled into discussions about Liberations Wars and stuff. If someone has a problem with the person you are complaining about, they definitely can take it outside. No need to get pulled into somewhat childish debates about topic-bans. Even if the person deserves a topic ban, you ANI is not a place for that discussion. I would rather offer my assistance to develop the articles in dispute. And I think I agree to your stand on those articles.
Thanks for reading this. The last few disputes and debates I have seen are so painful and upsetting, as well as a total wastage of time and energy! Y Here let me offer a cup of tea (to the Chaiwala, the irony). I hope its not as bad as my talk page comments. Aditya(talk • contribs)02:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aditya Kabir: As you might have noticed I have no comment on the his other activities besides the ones I have encountered with him. And I have explicitly stated that I am not taking a position on his topic ban. And, thank you. Your contributions on all these articles will be much appreciated. I don't WP:OWN them in any case . Chaipau (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You absolutely don't need to own them to be the awesome scholar you seem to be. I would probably begin with Bengali–Assamese script, a subject very close to my heart (though I can't claim to have any scholarship in that direction).
BTW, you are from Assam, right? I recently drew some flak at Quora (but not on Reddit) for suggesting that Bangla maybe a daughter language to Assamese. When I checked for academic sources, I was shocked to find that almost everything written about the subject was by Bengalis (guess what their opinion was... ). Do you have any idea which books I should be reading to get a clearer picture on that? Aditya(talk • contribs)11:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your Quora claim was probably too WP:BOLD and not just by Wikipedia standards. I am afraid all of us are in quest for a clearer picture, and it probably will not be found in a few books. Look forward to collaborations in the future. Chaipau (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aditya Kabir: I know why I shun Quora and Reddit LOL. Yes, that was pretty bold. The Bengali-Assamese dialect continuuum is quite similar to the continental West Germanic dialect continuuum (i.e. German and Dutch, but excluding Frisian). Like Standard German, Standard Bengali has long been a center of gravity which served as a point of reference for peripheral lects, however divergent they may be (Swiss German ≈ Chittagonian language). Dutch and Assamese came to thrive outside of the sphere of influence of their dominant neighbors. Nevertheless, Bengali and German "dialects" have a high degree of internal diversity, that is just as significant as the difference between Assamese and Standard Bengali, or between Dutch and Standard German. –Austronesier (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The comment I made was directed not to you but to Srijanx22 who claimed that I was misrepresenting sources. I think the source can be interpreted in different ways, I interpreted it as the Rajbanshis are using a form of earlier script which they could call their own and which has some similarities with Assamese alphabet but not entirely Assamese. You interpreted it as Rajbanshis are using Assamese alphabets which I respect, but was it really a WP:CIR on my part? You also said I help Wikipedia in nothing but just few comments above, another editor said I helped him create an article while one of my articles has been approved for DYK. You do know that I'm in a position where I at least have to refute the arguments who are supporting a ban against me. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tizen03: We usually split out phonology sections into articles of their own when the main article exceeds a certain size and if there are sufficient sources to built a descent specialized page. The first criterion is fulfilled at a level of still being optional, but NB mostly due to the presence of massive unsourced tables. The phonologyy section is perfectly sourced for a separate page, but splitting it out would somehow be a pity, because it is the best sourced part of the page next to the lede and "History". –Austronesier (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaipau: There's the rub. As long as they are unsourced, we cannot split them anywhere. Actually, their size is still decent compared to what has been going on in Hindustani grammar. And I am sure their content is valid. But personally, I would prefer comprehensive, yet concise tables with good sources which readers can consult if they want to learn more (per WP:NOTMANUAL). –Austronesier (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaipau: But last time I didn't submit it for review, I just moved it from draft to main space. And a lot of articles says I need to submit it for review first. Moreover the article wasn't showing in Google search, so I thought it was because of this reason.
So what should I do now ? Move it back to main space or let it stay this way for review ? Tizen03 (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have some stuff on me that I am going to put into the article. Please, be there, check if they are appropriate, and make ncessary changes (or suggest necessary changes).
BTW, my little research on this has increased my conviction that Assamese is the mother language to Bengali, the language that became more influential with help from our colonial overlords. Do you have any idea where I can get a copy of The Evolution of Assamese Script by Mahendra Bara? Aditya(talk • contribs)08:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Luwanglinux: please slow down. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so you need to cooperate with others. There are policies and guidelines the community has developed, please follow them. This is probably a good place to start: WP:LOP. Please familiarize yourself with at least the content and the behavior related policies. Chaipau (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
October 2020
Your recent editing history at Bengali–Assamese languages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. भास्कर् Bhagawatiसंवाद07:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@Bhaskarbhagawati: That's an utterly weird warning, considering that Chaipau has edited the page only twice this week (one single edit, one string of edits). Only the first was a revert, and FWIW the back revert in "violation" of WP:BRD was made by Za-ari-masen who to be fair is not edit warring on that page either. They fervently discuss on the talk page, and that's per se not reproachable at all. @Chaipau: This had to be said, if you want to remove the totally unsubstantial warning, feel free to remove my comment as well. –Austronesier (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: Thank you for saying that. The notice is the fallout of a longish engagement I had on an issue. The irony for Bhaskarbhagawati is that they invited their own semi-retirement by posting just such a notice on someone else's talk page.[2] I think I shall just let it stand as a reminder that Wikipedia has a long memory, its policies are fair and they actually work. Chaipau (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Austronesier, i had pinged by one editor of Bengali–Assamese languages on long standing conduct of User:Chaipau. When i checked indeed user has violated 3RR rule as confirmed by Wikipedia algorithm. It is long behavioural issue as ascertained by number of warnings he got. Obsequiousness helped him to get away with anything which he has taken it as granted. He invited his own block [3], although he promised to behave, it seems he has not changed his ways.भास्कर् Bhagawatiसंवाद16:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Rudra-Singha-Jayata-Kachari-inCourt.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
(Sarma 2016:76–77)It was built by Chokrodoz (Chakradhvaj), 4th raja of Cachar but long subsequent to the erection of Ghergong in the Jorhat district.
(Wade 1997:130) A Chinese plate was found in Jorhat which was deciphered and found to be the verification tally issued in the fifth year o-f the Yong-le reign (1407/08) to the "Di-ma-sa Pacification Superintendency".
Historical records clearly prove Dimasa had capital at Jorhat before Dimapur. Why are you trying to remove this part ? 2409:4065:20C:A3F6:18A1:9A5F:9452:ECA4 (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Just because some information exists out there does not mean it deserves to be here. There is no other source that says the Dimasa kingdom was a province of the Chinese. And the references you have cited (Sarma) mentions political contacts with not just the Dimasa but with the Ahoms and the Tripuris as well. And Chokrodoz is no know Dimasa king. Furthermore the Dimasa did not control Cachar in the 14th century. There are too many problems associated with this. I shall remove the entire paragraph because it has no value. Once this has been examined by historians, and placed in the right context, then cite those historians. Right now this is just WP:PRIMARY so not reliable. Chaipau (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Chaipau, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamic Invasions of Assam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal.
All 'Mech' peoples i.e., Mech people of 'West Bengal' speaks Bodo as their mother tongue And identify themselves as Bodo/Boro But 'Mech-kachari' peoples are partially Kacharies and different than 'Mech'. So New page should be created differently for this two's soon. Eulerfan1999 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chaipau. This is Gazal world from Gujarat. I just wanted to know that do you know Boro language ? OR do you know any person here who knows Boro? I need a small help regarding Boro language. I want to get written a Boro book title into Hindi. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that you should get your facts clear before making any changes. If you search in google you'll get the actual facts about the first Borpatrogohain. 11Anonymous1122 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@11Anonymous1122: this book is not necessarily RS because its primary topic is something else. (WP:RSCONTEXTInformation provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable. It does not cite the source of the claim it is making either. Please provide another reference. Chaipau (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Goalparia dialects
Hello Chaipau. I hope that you are in a good health.
Recently, when I read the articles on KRNB lects and Goalparia dialects, I was confused whether both the lects are one and the same, or are different from each other. Since these lects are spoken approximately in the same region (North Bengal, West Assam), it becomes very difficult to differentiate them. Can you please clear my doubts? I will be very grateful to you. Thank you! Mahakaal2003 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would like you to check this edit by the IP. This IP had tried modifying and adding OR before in this article and the related ethnic group before. I've reverted the Grierson part since it is sourced, but not the better tag they added. Please take a look. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fylindfotberserk: I agree with your edit—the claim is supported by the source. The better tag is also justified to some extent. So agree that they should remain till someone gets to address them. Nevertheless removing easily verifiable source is DE. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Swarnalata Baruah - A Comprehensive History of Assam (1985), Swarnalata Baruah - Chutiya jatir buranji (2004)
You removed the citation of Chutiya jatir Buranji with A Comprehensive History of Assam not releasing that these two authors are the same - Swarnalata Baruah. The same author in Chutiya jatir Buranji in 2004 claims that Habung to be under Chutia domain!! Homogenie (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The chutias were offered schedule tribe status not schedule caste in 1950s. Our leaders made a mistake of not accepting it. And they khels are originally chutia clans. Sarbananda singha of matak kingdom was a chutia of buruk clan, kanaklata Barua the Assamese independeence activist waa a chutia whose original was Kanaklata dolakasharia. Dolakasharia and khanikar , bharali are found in chutias were originally chutia clans later used by ahoms. Source sarbananda singha of buruk clan -http://atributetosankaradeva.org/mayamara.pdf page 13
@Homegenie: no one is disputing they are Chutia. But clan has a specific meaning in anthropology and the Chutia clans you describe are not clans. Sarbananda Singha called himself a buruk to establish his legitimacy. Dolakasharia, khanikar and bharali are professional titles, and do not define clans. The kinship relationships that define clans do not exist among the Chutia people. Chaipau (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Historians are adamant that legends were created in the 18th and 19th century and they have no historical basis. Read Neog (There are various accounts and succession lists of the rulers of the Chutiyãs (I do not call them Chutiyã kings precisely because in these accounts they are not described as Chutiyãs except the last one of them) with dates also assigned to their reign ; but these accounts are too much at variance with one another to deserve serious consideration as being of proper historical value.), D Nath ([T]his so called ancient chronicle might have been a later work of some members of the Chutiya aristocracy, as is possibly an attempt to legitimize the claims of the Chutiyas over a part of Assam during the establishment of the Matak kingdom in the beginning of the 19th century (1805) or after the Ahom power was abolished.), R Buragohain (The legends relating to the origin of the Chutiyas is full of absurdities without any historical moorings.) and even S L Baruah. There are no historical basis for these claims. Chutiya Jatir Buranji is an extension of these legends, even though it is "edited" by S L Baruah---but it is published by a political organization with a political agenda, a handbook of sorts for a political movement. That is why it is not reliable. Chaipau (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neog, D Nath, R Buragohain and S L Baruah wrote about the rulers list to be full of absurdities!! What is have to do with Chutia clans!! If Mishing had a list of rulers which is full of absurdities and than someone writes about the mishing clans!! So the because the rulers list of rulers were legendary that means the mishing clans dont exist??!! And books are bias more of them are!! Before Jae Eun Shin all the Kamrupa kings were Indo Aryan now all of them have before Tibeto Burman. So whose is reliable?? What will Kamarupa kings later become.!?? It seems that most authors were liars or unreliable??! Its seems most reliable authors were being politically motivated for last 100 years!! It seems some authors were systematically liars who books were taught as history in schools and colleges!! So now whose books will you consider a truth or whose books a liar And it is already written it was "ORIGINALLY" divided into clans!! You wouldnt find this in cities would you !! Visit villages in eastern Assam in dhemaji. Homogenie (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tripura Buranji until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tripura Buranji. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Back in 2012, you added a short cite to "Baruah 1983" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Is that a typo in year? Can you please add?
Additionally, Ahomisation is missing full citations for Boruah 2007, Gait 1887, and Phukan 2010. I did not check who added them, but would you be able to track them down?
Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js');// Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Chaipau. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bijni Kingdom, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Hello, Chaipau. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Migrations to Assam, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Peopling of Assam section is filled with lots of speculations and some unprovable claims. Shouldn't we write about peoples of assam in 1st century ? It's historically correct. Kirata isn't only IA term in the page like Brahmans, Aryan etc are also IA terms. KPAhmed (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KPAhmed: The claims made in the reference you have used are not entirely correct. Only Ptolemy uses Kirhadia. Periplus uses a different name. I have included this at the bottom of the Tibeto-Burman section, but this has to improve. We may mention the People of Assam having trade relations, but this would be incorrect. Because the goods were just collected without any real exchange taking place. Trade, therefore, was not what was happening with those people. Chaipau (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got it. I've one confusion. If AA and TB are mixed people then is it reasonable to divide the peoples based on today's linguistic status. Many of them have shifted to indo-aryan speaking population. KPAhmed (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aussie Article Writer: Gait 1887 should probably be Gait 1906. But it is a very old source, written by a colonial administrator - so a different source should be used if available (and there are many). I do not know Phukan 2010 off-hand, and will have to look around. But what you have done is probably the right thing to do there. Chaipau (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ARBIPA sanctions reminder
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on McMahon Line. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Please check the wiki page for maharani Gayatri Devi, it is already mentioned there that she is from a koch-rajbongshi family. So inclusion of these notable people should not be removed. Some random guy edited the page and removed this info and now everyone is after removing already verified inclusion. Please edit with an neutral point of view. Robo Zay (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is based on WP:SYNTH, which is not supported in Wikipedia. Please look at WP:RS for what a reliable source is. All the references about the origin of Rajbanshi people refer to an agitation to shake of the community's identity as a lower social group in the Hindu caste system. The Bijni family did suffer due to the low status, but did the Cooch Behar family suffer? It had no problem marrying into other royal families.
Nevertheless, the 16th century kings being named in 19th century categories is all the more problematic.
Hello, Chaipau. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bijni Raj Estate, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Laskar, Nitish Ranjan (1985). Mahishya Das of Cachar and their Social Background. Proceedings of North East India History Association. North East India History Association. p. 456.
E M Lewis (1868). "Cachar District: Statement No. XVIII: Glossary of Local Terms". Principal Heads of the History and Statistics of the Dacca Division. Calcutta: Calcutta Central Press Company. pp. 406–408.
WP: RS? Please publish information about the Pre independence history of Bengalis in Barak valley from the other sources I have mentioned. Otherwise the information about refugees when mentioned without mentioning the pre independence history of Bengalis in Barak valley will subject the Bengalis of Barak valley to even more discrimination and persecution which we already face. Famous personalities like Syed Mujtaba Ali, Arun Kumar Chanda, Moinul Haque Choudhary, Santosh Mohan Dev, Nibaran chandra Laskar all were born in Barak valley in the pre independence period. Despite that this aspect of history is often deliberately ignored or sometimes even deleted when published
WP:RS stands for reliable sources. 19th century colonial writings are generally not considered reliable for Wikipedia.
You had removed the section on refugees, here. Which has been restored. The issue of refugees from Sylhet in 1947 and after, and the presence of Sylhetis in Barak valley are different things. Why do you think they are same? Chaipau (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many Bengalis from Sylhet region migrated to the Cachar - Hailakandi region back when it was a part of Dimasa Kachari Kingdom ( 1745 - 1832 ) . The Bengalis worked as Soldiers, Labourers, Revenue administrators, agricultural labourers etc. The Bengali Brahmins who performaned the marriage ceremony between Prince Lakshminarayan Chandra Hasnu and Princess Kanchani ( daughter of Bhim Singha, the last Koch Rajbongshi king of Khaspur) we're given land grants by Maharaja Harishchandra Narayan Hasnu of the Dimasa Kachari kingdom. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Kachari kings had settle people from Sylhet before 1832. That does not mean there were no refugees in 1947 and after. Chaipau (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand. But adding information about the history of Sylheti people in pre independence Barak valley is important. The Sylheti ( Bengali) Mirashdars played an important role in the history of Barak valley. Just mentioning refugees without mentioning the pre independence history of Sylheti people in Barak valley in unfair. Even today the Bengali hindus of Barak valley , especially those having origins in pre colonial times worship Goddess Kachakanti ( known as Kechaikhaiti in Upper Assam) like their Barman Kachari neighbours.Some Sylheti ( Bengali) people both Hindus and Muslims used surnames given to them Dimasa Kachari kings in accordance to their post in the Mirashdari System. Some examples are Choudhary, Mazumdar, Deshmukhya, Barbhuiya, Mazarbhuiya, Laskar, Barlaskar and Sodial. My ancestors are from Patharkandi area of Karimganj District. My Paternal Grandfather was also born in Assam Province during the British period.My ancestors have lived in that area since ancient times. Even Sylhet was a district of Assam before independence. But these facts are deliberately ignored. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only Karimganj is from the Sylhet region, not the rest of "Barak valley". The history the non-Karimganj region is well known and mentioned in the article: Tripura kingdom → Khaspur of the Dehans → Kachari kingdom. If you want to document the settlement of people from Sylhet by these powers, please do so, but use WP:RS.
But if some people from Barak valley worship Kechaikhati from Sadiya, it might mean they, or at least some of them, are from Brahmaputra valley not Sylhet—even if they speak Sylheti language. The term "Sodial" could be derived from Sadiya.
Also, the people who were settled by the Kachari kings will likely retain the landed titles from the Kachari king, not the landed titles from Sylhet. It is only those who immigrated on their own will retain their landed titles from Sylhet. Chaipau (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the refugee part is important of course. But l am requesting the editors here at Wikipedia to add information about pre independence Bengali people of Barak valley in the article about Barak valley. Even today we are facing the problem of illegal migration from Bangladesh just like our Assamese brethren. Most of them are from Greater Mymensingh region, Dhaka region, Grater Comilla region and Greater Noakhali region, not even Sylheti. But we are often confused with these migrants and subjected to discrimination and persecution. Our pro migration stance is the result of discrimination at the hands of the political elite of Assam , rather than some real concern. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Bengali people of Barak valley adopted the worship of Kachakanti Devi from Barman Kacharis.The Barman Kacharis are related to Dimasa Kacharis,Bodo Kacharis,Chutiyas and Deoris etc. Moreover the Mirashdari system was modeled after the revenue system of Bengal. Sodial is generally used by Bengali Muslims of Cachar - Hailakandi region. You can search for people with the surname Sodial on Facebook. Plus Dimasa Kachari Kingdom and Ahom Kingdom were rivals. Why are you so reluctant to accept that there were Bengali people in Cachar-Hailakandi region in the pre independence period? The presence of Bengali people in Barak valley is well documented. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Barak valley was ruled by Tripura Kingdom then Koch Rajbongshi dynasty of Khaspur and then Dimasa Kachari kingdom. It is possible for cultures to be influenced by one another. Just like the Bengali (Sylheti) culture of Cachar- Hailakandi region was influenced by Dimasa Kachari / Barman Kachari Culture. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the 1700's century, the Dimasa Kachari rule extended into the plains of Cachar. The plains people did not participate in the courts of the Dimasa Kachari king directly. They were organized according to khels, and the king provided justice and collected revenue via an official called the Uzir. Though the plains people did not participate in the Dimasa Kachari royal court, the Dharmadhi guru and other Brahmins in the court cast a considerable influence, especially with the beginning of the 18th century. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Khels were organise on the basis of Caste and religion. The khel was headed by a Choudhary under whom there were Barbhuiyas Followed by Mazarbhuiyas, Barlaskars and Laskars. The Uzirs or Mazumdars were incharge of revenue collection. The Deshmukhyas were land surveyors. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Truthfulsoldier: sorry for the misunderstanding, but what I meant was that you should document the immigration and settlements in the relevant pages with the appropriate citations to references. Not here. Chaipau (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok. I don't know how to edit properly. That's why I was adding information from JB Bhattacharjee s book and other sources without providing citation. I was actually requesting you to add information about the pre colonial history of Barak valley. I have copied some information from Silchar page and added it to Barak valley page. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Truthfulsoldier: I have problems with JB Bhattacharjee on this point. His approach is nearly evangelical.
A case in point is the name Kachari which he is loath to admit is used in the Brahmaputra valley widely. It was used in the 16th century itself. Instead he goes on to creating colorful and speculative theories on how this name originates in Bengal. We need a better, more critical source for this. JB Bhattacharjee is not very good. Chaipau (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing is that we must represent all points of view. Some of his theories are at best speculative. The tribal designator Kachari is very ancient and used to denote the original pre - Indo Aryan and Pre - Ahom inhabitants of this land such as Bodo Kacharis, Dimasa Kacharis, Barman Kacharis etc. It is even used to denote groups like Sonowal Kacharis and Sarania Kacharis who have adopted Assamese language and Culture abandoning their original Tibeto Burman - Boro Garo languages. But he is on point as far as the 1745- 1832 history of Dimasa Kachari kingdom is concerned. In this regard Colonial sources are more reliable as these are free of Assamese - Bengali POV. I have mentioned some other sources too. Please quote those. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I have seen your work in editing Ahom related pages on Wikipedia. You're doing a good job. Can you write about 'Rajkonwar' surname? Because people with Rajkonwar surname are actually direct descendants of the first Ahom King Chaloung Sukapha, and are Prince of the erstwhile Ahom Kingdom. So there must be a page or atleast a category on them. AccurateInformation2004 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AccurateInformation2004: Thank you. But my interest is in improving encyclopedic knowledge in Wikipedia, not promoting any point of view. I have worked on other areas too, not only on Ahom-related pages. You are welcome to create content in Wikipedia, but please take some time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia probably with Help:Getting_started. Please pay particular attention to policies and conventions. Chaipau (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
March 2022
Hello, I'm Faster than Thunder. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dimasa Kingdom without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You removed 1,594 bytes to be exact.Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions | block)15:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole sentence has OR. The research doesn't mention anything particularly about the state and the river valley in question, only northeast and two communities, the samples of which may or may not have been taken from the state. Secondly, the lineages associated with the linguistic group is not restricted to this specific clade as can be seen here. I wonder whether we need to reword it having only the percentage part or drop it completely for being primary and synth. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, You've reverted my edit. But that's just one view. There are other views too and that source itself is just claiming someone else's claim. It would look better without such claims. Northeast heritage (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but i think that revert was not required. It doesn't seem to be NEUTRAL. If you don't have any objection, I am willing to remove it. If you have any objection, please tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northeast heritage (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the page about the battle or the entire ahom mughal conflict? Chakradhwaj Singha and Udayditya Singha were not even present at the battle, same with Aurangzeb, so what's the point of adding it. Ram Singh army composed was of 30k infantry, 15k archers, 18k cavalry and a small fleet of 41 war boats. Jonardondishant (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonardondishant: I don't understand what you are suggesting. The Ahom-Mughal conflicts address the entire 1616-1681 period. And there we numerous battles and campaigns in this period, including the one by Mir Jumla. If you want to RS numbers for only the final naval battle, then do so in the section I mentioned above. Chaipau (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaipau There is written infantry 2 times, as well as archers, I just added the numbers and wrote it as one. Is there a problem?
Hi . You added a quote to Ahom kingdom with the reference Baruah 1983. However there is no 1983 work by Baruah in the article, did you mean 1986's A Comprehensive History of Assam or 1993's Last Days of Ahom Monarchy? Both of these are already defined in the references section. Could you let me know which work you meant, and I'll coorect the error? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have added that, persecution of Shudra mahanta's started from the reign of Siva Singha and Tungkhungia kings, which is completely false and subjective. Since Pratap Singha their disciples and the Shudra Mahantas were persecuted. One eg of it is- 'Jayaditya Singha had executed the Mayamara Mahanta by an executioner, and threwed his body in the river. However, his body was rescued by a old women whom she gave to their disciples'. Please refer to- Last days of Ahom Monarchy and Matak and their kingdom.
Also execlusively by Shudra Mahanta they mean the Mayamara Mahanta, other shudra Mahanta had received patronage from the kings and the nobles like of 'Dihing'. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vishwanath2008: No, Baruah is explicit that all Shudra Mahantas were persecuted, but just that the Moamara Mahanta was most offended. The support to Dihing began after the monarchy tried to isolate the Moamorias.
Pratap Singha tested his officers and when they died, he stopped the tests. It makes sense since Pratap Singha could not have persecuted his own people, because he was dealing with the Mughals and he could not afford to antagonize half his population. In fact all kings from Pratap Singha's successor Jayadhwaj Singha to Sulikphaa were initiated by Vaishna Mahantas. The Tungkhungia kings had vanquished the Mughals and subdued the Kachari and Jayantia, and they could afford to persecute the Moamoria and others.
Furthermore, I see that you are again challenging cited/referenced material, just as you had done with Assamese cuisine. Please stop pushing your POV.
How do you justify the work of Jayaditya Singha. Furthermore the persecution was not a crusade against one's religion.
Also the persecution was a pure political cause, referring to a event- 'Jayadhwaj Singha actually wanted the initiation of Mayamara Mahanta but, he refused to initiate the king as same as Shankeedeva did to Naranarayan'. Jayadhwaj mainly wanted to do this because of the Mahanta's influence, here doesn't come the thing of being a sakta.
'The support to Dihing began after the monarchy tried to isolate the Moamorias'
This is what I am saying, whatever the cause may be, but the persecution was mainly turned towards the Mayamara satra. Even though they belonged to the same sect. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Religion has always been used politically. It is clear from the passage. I don't see what your objections are to the claims made in a well cited reliable source. There is no escaping the fact the persecution happened under Tungkhungia kings. The social and political causes and their political/religious nuances can be discussed elsewhere, in Moamoria rebellion and Moamoria, for example. Chaipau (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My clear objection is that, you have wrote that 'only from the Tungkhungia ahom kings (Siva Singha) the persecution started', whereas even before the tungkhungia the other kings had persecuted them which you have missed. I never claimed that there was no persecution under tungkhungia's. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you are entitled to your point of view. I have stated what Baruah (1986) has explicitly connected the persecution of the Shudra Mahantas and the Moamaria rebellion. I shall now include the intervening text in the citation to make this clear. Chaipau (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'and the persecution of the shudra Mahantas and their laity that began during the reign of Siva Singha ultimately led to the Moamoria rebellion and ultimately the eclipse of the kingdom'
Also it seems that this reference is outdated as even during Gadadhar Singha (ig) and Jayaditya Singha times when their Guru was killed, there were talks of vengeance and revenge and a event not to be forgetted. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The introductory part of the history section ends with how the kingdom ended. The main cause was the Moamoria rebellion, and the starting point of the rebellion was the Durga Puja incident. This part is not the place to discuss persecution of the Vaishanvites, which actually began at the time of Suklenmung, when Sankardev's son-in-law, Hari, was executed and the two gurus had to subsequently escape the Ahom kingdom. Chaipau (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The execution of Hari and the imprisonment of Madhabdeb was not the cause of the downfall of the Ahom kingdom. This happened before whatever happened during the time of Pratap Singha and Jayaditya Singha. Were these incidents connected to the downfall of the Ahom kingdom? No, they were not. So stop being an apologist for the Tungkhingia kings. Their failure to resolve the conflict ended their kingdom, and depopulated the entire region, which is why we have so many demographic issues today. Chaipau (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not being apologist to the tungkhungia's, nor I am justifying the sevre and tyrannical actions taken against rebels. I have not even edited the text of that. The seeds of the downfall was long sown by the preceding kings (before Siva Singha), and the seeds grew to give fruits during Lakshmi Singha reign, which he couldn't control in anyway being, because of those same old massacaring, which made the people more upset. Also nor could any aristocrat thought image of this, because anytime in past they had taken them out of troubles by any means.
Leaving all aside my main topic was about under whoes reign the shudras were first persecuted, you have wrote in a way by which it seems that all the Shudra Mahanta persecuting thing only started from the reign of Siva Singha.
Phuleswari insult to Mayamata Mahanta lightly might have affected the new Mahanta Astabhuj. Astabhuj referred the Ahom raja as his father till very late. And the first rebellion was organised by the disciples of the Mayamara Satra, not some other Satra, however later on point it inspired many oppressed subjects to take arms against the government. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chaipau! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Hinduism several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
@Kautilya3: I have reverted your edit just once: here. I reverted your edit, but added a citation quote that showed that those texts did not use the word "Muslim" or "Musalman" which you had inserted, something which the author specifically mentioned. I also let a note in the talk page (here). This is not edit warring, but your edit second edit (here) definitely is. Chaipau (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. As this diff shows "distinguish ... from Muslims" was already present in the original version. Instead of playing all these games, it would be best to engage in informed conversation on the talk page, and work towards a consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@Kautilya3: I struggled with the different pushes and pulls in the current version, and decided to pull the plug after all. I rewrote the entire section based primarily on Kimura 2013. I shall make updates and fold in other sources in later iterations. I think I shall update the main article as well. Chaipau (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I will pare it down a little so that it fits with the page better. But please free to include the full detail in the main page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have come to think it does not belong there. That is why the context and aftermath became larger than it should. It was not a "communal riot" as is understood in India. Chaipau (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Constitutional order is primary source and simply gives list. It doesn't say anything about actual ethnic group. So there must be secondary source to claim - Boros are listed as ...
Also these are not give under quotation mark so it is misleading because nobody uses "Boro, Borokachari". Northeast heritage (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution is an official document, it is simply used to show the official spelling used. You don't need a secondary source to say that the "Constitution calls the Boro people either "Boro" or "Borokachari". The quotation marks denote that the Constitution uses those exact spelling.
I've not read the Constitution. Where is the exact spelling "Boro, Borokachari" used except the list? Boro, Borokachari means either Boro or Boro-kachari.
Please do not raise objections with "might confuse people" hypothetical situations. Besides, there is a lot of explanation going on in that article. All extensively cited from secondary sources. Chaipau (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not expert in using quotation mark. I googled about it and couldn't convince myself that "Boro, Borokachari" is right. So I raised the so-called objections. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Please check the ST list of Meghalaya. You will find "Boro Kacharis" which is listed name for ethnic Boro. So secondary source is important in confusing cases. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas!
MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You had added an argument of Bareh's claim in some articles.
"Other scholars have pointed out that other river names such as Dibang, Dihang, Doyang and the like were mixture of Bodo di and -ong (Austric) which means water." (Bareh 1987:269–270)
Austric is proposed language family encompassing Austronesian and Austroasiatic languages. Neither "ong" means "water" in Khasi languages nor "ong" is Proto-Austroasiatic construction. Is it not a fringe theory? Does his claim belong to Wikipedia because he doesn't seem to refer any expert scholar? Northeast heritage (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We go by sources. Your expert opinion does not count. Sorry. The notion that the Austroasiatic were settlers before the Tibeto-Burman is well settled. Chaipau (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC) (edited) 02:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know the scholarly assumption that the Austroasiatics settled before the Tibeto-Burmans. I am not objecting this assumption which you advocate. Here I am objecting addition of fringe theory related to the names of rivers. Also, the source doesn't say Austoriasiatic, it says Austric but you interpreted Austric as Austroasiatic in the articles.
Thanks. I have reverted it further that is this one (looks like the same POV user), restored the ancestral script and have added the Richard Salomon source for it. I restored similar POV edits in another article, buut not sure about this. 117.201.118.14 (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
J N Sarkar
Hi, If the Author, J N Sarkar, of some chapters of "The Comprehensive History of Assam" is the same person as Jadunath Sarkar who died in 1958, Could you please tell me his original articles regarding those chapters? Actually, I don't have the book. Northeast heritage (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have used Urban and other recent authors. There is much research that is happening here. But I do see what you are trying to do here. Chaipau (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing what you have used. I had provided an alternative, if that is not acceptable , I am not pushing POV.
The alternative is very old and not endorsed by recent authors. That is why it is not a viable alternative. The current convergence rests on a wide variety of evidences. But if it is indeed of Boro origin, then then the new evidence has to be extraordinary and better than the current evidence. Chaipau (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the research problem but field-works by scholars like Ramirez will definitely make things clear.
If you read Bareh's thesis then you will find he claimed not only Kamakahya but also Hidimba, Sri-rajya, Manikya etc. You can understand the type of scholar he is.
And I appreciate your hardwork in maintaining good quality articles related to Assam. However, Your understanding seems to be largely based on The Comprehensive History of Assam by HK Barpujari and these sources are also extension colonial knowledge Northeast heritage (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. I consult very many authors. The most important in this case is Urban, of course. But what he has said agrees with anthropologists, linguists, and political scientists and also geneticists. So, taken together, this builds up a rather solid picture of our past. Chaipau (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Urban cites Bareh 1967. Before Bareh, Kakati invented the Austric origin of Kamakhya, however it was criticized by Chatterjee.
R M Nath also invented an formation from Austri
Do you know the Dimasa prayer about their journey? That prayer mentions Kamakhya as transient point. There is some similarities between Dimasa prayer and Bareh's folk story.
I shall not directly address the Kamakhya issue now because I know your position on this and what you are trying to do. But since you mentioned Ramirez, I shall just mention a paragraph from him:
Tribe-by-tribe depictions of the North-East undoubtedly stem from a nineteenth century European vision of human diversity which in many aspects converged with local representations. In this respect, colonial censuses have greatly contributed to the freezing of categories although its precise role in ethnogenesis has recently come under debate.
So, Ramirez in fact does not come to your rescue. He refers to the work of a number of authors with this claim. What is in debate in the precise role the colonial process played in ethnogenesis, not whether it actually did. Daimari says in the very first page of his thesis:
Colonial knowledge production and classificatory practices assigned a place for the Boros within a racialised hierarchy.
p1.
So, he too agrees with Ramirez. The best he could say about what existed before is:
Prior to the coming of the British and being subjected to their ethnological inquiries and census enumerations, Boros were, what could be termed as a 'fuzzy' but 'practically precise' community sharing kinship ties in the Northeastern region of the Indian sub-continent.
Though part of this claim is correct, other parts run into the primordialism problem that Austronesier had pointed out last year.[14] No matter how much you try to back project these categories, you will continue to run into this problem here in Wikipedia for a very good reason. Chaipau (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim prove that you don't understand primordialism. When a scholars writes about Identity Construction of a social group, He doesn't endorse primordialism. Identity formation is dependent on historical process. Historian will find out when an Identity formation began. Northeast heritage (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kamaika
You asked me to search for Kamaika (phonetically Khamaikha) in a PhD thesis which is all about Bathouist version of Bathouism. There is no mention of a single Hindu deity. Also it is folkloristic study, foklores are continuously being made and remande. There is be no mention of Khamaikha (Kamakhya) because She is now part of Hinduism. I wasted my time searching for Her in PhD thesis.
I consulted a Boro researcher. He told that Endle and Hodgson mention about Ai-deo / Ai and C A Soppit in his book "An Historical and Descriptive Account of the Kachari Tribes in the North Cachar Hills: With Specimens of Tales and Folk-lore" mentions bato , Kamaika etc when he compares Boro pantheon with Dimasa pantheon. I varified Endle and Hodgson but I could not read C A Soppitt's book. Also Hodgson confirms that Ai means KamakhyaNortheast heritage (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is not good enough for Wikipedia. WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE all apply here. You seem to be fishing for a reference.
If folk religions are made and remade, then it is possible that Ai itself is/was an external goddess. For all I see, Ai/Khamaikha has not been recorded/observed in recent times and this goddess is not part of the Bathou pantheon. This goddess is not even mentioned as a minor goddess. Bathouism itself is going through a re-imagination, which is part of the political process, which Narzary calls ethnic assertion. Wikipedia cannot take part in this political process (WP:PROMO), but only report on it. Chaipau (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither I claim this is enough for WP nor I am fishing for a reference. I simply thought you are interested to know about her. Sorry, I have done a great mistake of starting this discussion.
You can freely believe any possibility but Only the Historians expert enough to find out the plausibility. And for you kind information, Bathou is single god, There is no Bathou pantheon but Boro pantheon. BTW, Narzary reported on re-imagined and politicized Bathouism. Northeast heritage (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best to just delete them. Only referenced people. Since many of these people could be living, we have other problems. They may or may not want to be known by their ethnicity or caste.
Yes, I agree. "Language" here means "speech" not a standard language. There is no need to replace "language" with "dialect".
But there are other problems. The "Bangals" are people from eastern Bengal and "ghotis" are people from western Bengal. Though there are "Bengali" speaking people in Assam, Assam is not part of Bengal. So those parts in Assam also have to be removed. Only the Karimganj district was originally part of Bengal. The Hailakandi and Cachar districts of the Barak Valley were not part of Bengal. Chaipau (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. This user with their 'canned summaries' again. While POV is there, in this case it looks like they tried replicating the source quote, though the flow of the sentence is a bit off IMO. What do you think? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted. I think the original text is good since it has been vetted. If it is not the vetted form, then we should go back to the vetted form. Chaipau (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what their issue is. It seems to be related to the Boro people. From my perspective, they just drop names like van Driem and claim these scholars prove their point. No matter how many times I quote these authors to show that the scholars prove just the opposite of what they claim, they keep repeating the same things over and over again. Chaipau (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that someone (or somemany) has been systematically changing texts and replacing the standard references with non-standard ones. The article has a long list of references and now they are un-cited---all hanging around doing nothing!
"I can see where you are coming from" what is this for? see the edit summary of this removal. I think we don't discuss racial theories in WP. Eduardo2024 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When something is "poorly" sourced, you either insert a better source, or tag it {{bcn}}, unlike what you did here.
And [15] you replaced a cited text along with the citation.
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Regarding this edit. Shouldn't we stick to the sources or are we suppose to be more precise as in the change. I mean it is entirely possible that other branches of AA or TB, like some form of Mundari or a non-Bodo-Kachari language may have been spoken in ancient Kamarupa. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Another one I noticed. Considering this users POV, I wonder whether this edit is in good faith. I mean, considering that it existed till 13t century (per the article), wasn't the language spoken then? Another one is this edit. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He could be right on 13th century Bengali since Bengali is a Modern Indian language, whereas 13th century falls in the end of the Middle Indo-Aryan languages time period. So unless there is a specific reference that claims that a modern language, such as Bengali, was spoken in the 13th century, we should not be using that.
In the second edit, the same context applies. But I am also intrigued that Sanskrit is given in "common language". Was Sanskrit commonly spoken? Chaipau (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. First - some of the revisions seem logical but are Assamese a stateless nation, apart from what separatists orgs like ULFA thinks? 2. Second - highlighting one group Khacharis? 3. Third - this one looks like a logical edit but source [18] seems to be emphasizing religion. 4. Fourth - This is OR, source explicitly mentions the 3 districts. Possibly needs to be reworded. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Offline for a while
Hi Chaipau, I will be mostly offline for about a week starting today. I hope you can take care of all the discussions where we are both involved. If agreements cannot be reached, please feel free to start RfCs. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not this speech, but the pre-violence writings in WP:RS did point to this as the central issue. There are other characterizations now which has been reported in the press---and I shall put some links in the article talk page. Chaipau (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Technical news
Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)
Yes, I have seen a copy. He is generally a very thorough and meticulous historian. I found him very rigorous while researching for Buranji. It is sometimes easy to miss some significant findings he might have reported because he often omits giving too much context. I have some of his previous books. Chaipau (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
@Chaipau, hello, I am here to discuss regarding the historicity of Bagh Hazarika's wikipedia page. The whole page is devoid of any reliable sources, it's completely made of pov led e-articles which proves nothing about his originality or historicity of his character.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
That is plain wrong. "sh" in Assamese is pronounced /x/. But "kh" is a different letter altogether. So the editor is trying to approximate the correct sound but got it completely wrong. Chaipau (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I had moved it to "Dex" in 2013. I do not agree with that move at all. We should move it back to State Anthem of Assam.
Agreed, since we already have IPA-as mentioned in the lead, there is no reason to change Desh → Dekh. Actually changes the meaning ('country' to 'have a look'). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have started one both of them. Could you please have a look. I used to provide detailed rationale but I am short of time these days. Chaipau (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC) (edited) 15:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
