Talk:Varman dynasty

Ethnic origins

Qwertywander1, Qwertywander, Chaipau, Bhaskarbhagawati: From what I can tell, much of the content being questioned has been in the article since 2013. Qwertywander (who, I'm assuming, is the same as Qwertywander1) removed a large chunk of it without explanation in April and there's been a slow edit war going on since. I've reverted the page to a relatively stable version. Please discuss this issue here and gain consensus before modifying this section further. For starters, what is the problem with the section at the moment? (My opinion is that there needs to be a clear delineation between traditional sources and historical ones. I also think that some of the sources are dated and should be replaced/avoided.)—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Problems related to the Article

1. Most of the contents are based on K.L Barua's book which is very old book (1933)

2. K.L Barua had PRESUMED many things based on some facts written in book Si-Yu-Ki , copper plates & some other sources. These assumption may or may not be true.

3. New discoveries had been made . We are supposed to add new new content.

4. Some users willingly changing meaning of sentence . For example - BB is identified as Thief vs BB is believed to be thief.

5. If you don't believe me then just read the sentence related - " According to the Dinesh Chandra Sircar ... " Today = 16/06/2019 . And find out name of the user who did this type editing.

6. In my opinion, whenever we get original sources , we should use original sources like Si-Yu-Ki and copper plate inscriptions book instead of K.L Barua's presumption.

7. If contents were added from authors personal book then that content should begin with According to XYZ . For example , Content from K.L Barua's book should begin with - "According to K.L Barua". K.L Barua's book isn't Einstein Formula. K.L Barua's book isn't source of history. Many points of his book is just some guess work.

Thanks and Hope for Truth @Doug Weller: @Abecedare: @Chaipau: @Fylindfotberserk: @Oshwah:

• Yes, K L Barua (1933) should not be used directly on Wikipedia (as per @Sitush:), because it is too old. Many of his speculative theories are no longer tenable.
• No, we cannot use primary sources, like Si-Yu-Ki as per WP:PRIMARY.

Chaipau (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Kanak Lal Barua is considered one of the top historians of Assam, which works are considered standard, regularly republished and quoted by modern historians. Also, there seems no objection on Raj era colonial administrator authored works like "History of Assam (1906)" and so on. I don't think Wikipedia is right place for nationalistic soapboxing.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati you can add content from K.L Barua as per his opinion. But you made the article look like reading his entire book. Instead you can make new page in the name of K.L Barua's Kamrup Itihax. And Nobody ever used used the Gait's book to complete entire article. PerfectingNEI (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Article used multiple sources, there is policy of representation of all academic viewpoints, so go ahead and add your sources.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If K L Barua is reported critically in recent academic reports, that can be cited, not K L Barua directly. Gait can be reported on historical findings that have not been contradicted in recent times. Gait, though older, has better historiographic reputation than K L Barua. But if a more recent reference is available, that should be used. Chaipau (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, individual editor cannot make rules for reliability of sources. Kanak Lal Barua wrote most authoritative work on the subject, while 1906 was written by colonial administrator, who himself lack knowledge of local languages, said works was heavily criticised by local historians like P.N Bhattacharya and others for its political overtones, still we are using it. Nevertheless, i agree with PerfectingNEI on Si-yu-Ki, but without excluding other reliable sources.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, let us take it to WP:RSN on a case by case basis. Chaipau (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk and PerfectingNEI, what is your opinion ?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: British sources should not be considered that reliable. Were proven wrong for ethnic articles, I don't think they could be considered a standard when it comes to historical dynasties either. I'd say keep the sources with proper attribution. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Instead of trying to prove Varmans were either Indo-Aryan or Non-Indo-Aryan, Just write everyone's point of view. Quotes from 100s of scholars claiming Varman as Indo-Aryan or Non-Indo-Aryan will not prove anything. New new researches have already proved the reality. For example - Maimansing , Dinaspur , Kamakhya = Kham-Ai-Kha = Burnt-Mother-Structure , Kamrup = Khambru = Something Burnt are also Bodo-Garo linguistic origin . Linguists and Historians are doing their job. PerfectingNEI (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, PerfectingNEI, indeed, i agree with your point of view, we need to assume that standard approach for conflict free article development, thank you.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, To write the exact fact , we should use published source material just like Si-Yu-Ki and procedure to use source material is given in Wikipedia only . To write conclusion , we should refer highly acknowledged book from Historian Edwart Gait , Padma Bhushan winner Linguist Suniti Kumar Chatterjee etc. PerfectingNEI (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD , Xuanzang record can be directly added from Si-Yu-Ki . PerfectingNEI (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Si-Yu-Ki can be used for direct quotes, but not to assert factoids that are contradicted by others. So you can say: Xuanzang says this, but someone else says this. Sure. Chaipau (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it is policy in Wikipedia to include all academic viewpoints (wp:v), unless a minority academic opinion. Si-Yu-Ki text are very brief account of Kamarupa, original, most comprehensive and detailed account of Yuan Chwang is Great_Tang_Records_on_the_Western_Regions,PerfectingNEI do you have this work.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Varman_dynasty&action=edit&section=2

WP:V does not mean all views will have to be accommodated — it means a claim must be verifiable. Chaipau (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: Here is The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions. Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. Berkeley, California https://www.bdkamerica.org/book/great-tang-dynasty-record-western-regions PDF: https://www.bdkamerica.org/system/files/pdf/dBET_T2087_GreatTangRecordofWesternRegions_1996_0.pdf PerfectingNEI (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Can you tell that recent research about BhaskarVarman where He explicitly claimed to be Non-Indo-Aryan . Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It is in the article itself: [1], [2]. They are not recent. They are well known. Chaipau (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok , I know it. I thought recently some new discoveries were made. Anyway, Thanks. PerfectingNEI (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Do NOT use K.L. Barua, not only that older sources are heavily discouraged per WP:HISTRS but also that many of his hypotheses/speculations et al have been disproved/rejected by modern scholars. There have been multiple instances where he un-critically wrote a flowery narrative of dynasties banishing the society into the sidelines, often accepting dubious literary sources w/o verifying their authenticity. Obviously, if K L Barua is cited by recent scholarly texts, those particular parts can be cited.
  And, are we even serious about using Si-Yu-Ki; travelogues of a medieval voyager? Just NO.
  Gait is widely regarded as the pioneer figure behind the introduction of modern-historiography on Assamic studies. But, he had his foot, firmly stuck in the fraternity of martial-race-scholars and his commentary about ethnography is nonsense. Also, Gait was not a trained scholar but an amateur officer whose by-motives were to support the colonial rule.Also, it was a colonial historiography. So, no reason to use that, either.
  In totality,

  Edward Gait represented the British imperialist tradition. His approach, according to Mignonette Momin, "vindicated James Mill's hypothesis that Indian society had hardly changed from time immemorial. Gait believed that the major changes in Assam were those of dynasties until British intervention brought stability to the Valley by putting an end to hostile incursions and internal dissensions." .... The works that came to be written after the first few decades of the twentieth century came under the gradually developing nationalist ideology in which the main attempt was to focus on the heritage of the Indian culture and also to glorify that culture, very often without much critical assessment of the historical realities .... This glorification aspect is particularly evident in K.L.Barua's narration of the political history of Kamrupa .... The perceptions regarding history existing at that point of time and the methodologies used in the writing of history did not equip the historians to handle social and economic developments. But what should be of concern to historians of the region today is that K.L. Barua's perceptions and ideas about history of the pre-Ahom period have been used almost unquestioningly by historians even today ... To see Barua being used uncritically in a work written as late as 2001 does raise very serious concerns about the status and trends of historiography in the region ...

  Further stuff may be read at:-

  Shin, Jae Eun. "Searching for Kāmarūpa: Historiography of the Early Brahmaputra Valley in the Colonial and Post-Colonial period". PURAVRITTA, Journal of the Directorate of Archaeology & Museums, vol. I, 2016, pp.115-132.

  Pranab Jyoti Sarma. "Historical Myths or Mythological History: A Fresh Approach to Understand the History of Assam". Space and Culture, India. 2 (3). ISSN 2052-8396.

  Aquil, Raziuddin; Chatterjee, Partha, eds. (2008). History in the vernacular. Ranikhet : Bangalore: Permanent Black ; Distributed by Orient Longman Private. ISBN 9788178242255. OCLC 277279524.

∯WBG^converse 08:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Scholarship is so poor in this region that authors often times keep repeating long refuted claims. Just because someone has repeated a KLBarua claim recently does not mean that it has not been refuted earlier. Chaipau (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

In Assam, Self-glorification is the reason of biased history in Assam. Kamrupa was influenced by India and Kamrupa had equal chance being influenced by China. PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that older sources (say before 1960s) should not be used in wikipedia. But problem with this approach is, it will open a pandora box, which may result in poverty of resources for Assam related articles in Wikipedia. For example Banikanta Kakati (1941) is considered one such work which established Assamese language's independent status, which formerly considered dialect of Bengali language; this work is heavily criticised for its unscientific and nationalistic tone in recent times. Thus, the "principle of recent scholarship" cannot be rigidly enforced in Assam articles, when there are dearth of modern standard works.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: thank you for the comments and the references. I strongly agree. Chaipau (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: It's not about old. It's about validity as told by Winged Blades of Godric. K.L Barua's book is highly flawed PerfectingNEI (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it is not solely about how old the reference is. I am removing K L Barua and Gait as far as their opinions are concerned, or updating their citations on facts to more recent ones, as possible. I do not think a discussion on the geneology of Naraka, Bhagadatta and other mythological figures are relevant in this page, since they are myths and made up stories without historical or factual basis. If editors disagree, please discuss here, before inserting them in the article. Chaipau (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Implementing the convergence above under WP:BOLD

We seem to have some convergence on the issues here, with the points raised and the references provided by user:Winged Blades of Godric. These are some of the general conclusions we can generally draw from the survey of the literature.

• The Varman dynasty draws its lineage from Naraka, Bhagadatta, and Vajradatta. This lineage appears only under Bhthaskarvarman in the 7the century, though the claimed progenitor Pushyavarman ruled in the 4th century, and Naraka is claimed to be the progenitor 3000 years before that.
• Outside historical sources are conflicted (Brahman vs Chinese).
• Modern writers make different claims: Dravidians, Brahman, Kshatriya,
• Recent scholarship have converged on: local group that used the lineage of Naraka to legitimize the rule over a heterogeneous population—as a form of negotiation.

Chaipau (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, try to reconsider your opinion on "Early history of Kamarupa", it is taken as license to create havoc.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The non-use of K L Barua is widely accepted. His book is a modern-day mythology, not history. Removing him is in line with WP:HISTRS. Chaipau (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the information content has remained exactly the same. Nothing has been lost. Chaipau (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"According to K.L. Barua , Yuan Chwang wrote about existence of hundreds of Hindu temples. Brahmins and upper caste Hindus makes large chunk of lands population. Being a seat of learning people from other countries visits for studies" This statement seems to conclusion not a fact. This should be replaced by Samuel Beal original version PerfectingNEI (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, care must be taken of where Yuan Chwang went. The recent scholarship do not agree that the entire kingdom was Sanskritized, only the urban centers, probably. Chaipau (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati, your request makes no sense. What do I need to reconsider? We don't use unreliable sources. ∯WBG^converse 08:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, "Early History of Kamarupa" is still considered standard work on the subject, it is frequently cited by most modern historians (link above). But as you have shown, few people maybe critical of his work, but their credibility is questionable. The problem i am referring is on pretext of excluding him, other major related/unrelated reliable sources are removed after your comment (link above), which seems wp:tendentious editing.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you please specify here what WP:TE you are accusing others of? I am keen on taking this to WP:ANI to resolve this once and for all. Chaipau (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You bothered ANI multiple times since 2012. The removable of major reliable sources (and large cited content)(with intention to keep out some academic point of view) amounts to wp:tendentious editing, when done over longer period of time spreading over multiple articles. I am giving most recent example with this article (excluding other articles here).

The removal of (diff):

• Choudhury, P. C. (1966). The History of the Civilisation of the People of Assam to the Twelfth Century AD. Gauhati: Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies of Assam. p.111
• Choudhury, P. C. (1966). The History of the Civilisation of the People of Assam to the Twelfth Century AD. Gauhati: Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies of Assam. p.113
• Dalal, Roshen (2011) "Narakasura" in Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide p274
• B M Barua Common Ancestry of Pre-Ahom rulers and some problems of early History of Assam in "Discovery of Northeast India" (ed Sharma S. K et al.) p277.(1)
• B M Barua Common Ancestry of Pre-Ahom rulers and some problems of early History of Assam in "Discovery of Northeast India" (ed Sharma S. K et al.) p277.(2)
• Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute, India (1983),Vishveshvaranand Indological Series - Issue 77, p.26
• Sylvain, Lévi (1929). Pre-Aryan and Pre-Dravidian in India. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. p. 114
• George van Driem (2001), India - Volume 2; Volume 10, Page 506
• Sarkar, Ichhimuddin (1992). Aspects of historical geography of Prāgjyotiṣa-Kāmarūpa (ancient Assam). Naya Prokash. p. 295.
• Sharma, Mukunda Madhava (1978). Inscriptions of Ancient Assam. Gauhati: Department of publication, Gauhati University. p. .34.
• Sharma, Mukunda Madhava (1978). Inscriptions of Ancient Assam. Gauhati: Department of publication, Gauhati University. p. .35. etc.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: History of Narakasur isn't established . And Geography of Narakasur is contradictory with geography of Assam. Some nationalist historian erased contradiction and tried to write mythological history of Assam. If you want to add Narakasur story then also add the fact that It's contradictory with geography. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

PerfectingNEI definitely, that is also required as per policy.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The issues with Naraka belong in the Narakasura page, not here. Chaipau (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: @Chaipau: I think in the page, One information isn't correct. Old scholars claimed Varman dynasty as Indo-Aryan . It's not modern scholars . It should be corrected . Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: @Fylindfotberserk: Please don't marge Indo-Aryan claim and Tibeto-burman claim. Let them be in separate line because Aryan first queue doesn't look convincing . Secondly except one modern book, No modern scholars claimed Indo-Aryan origin of Varman. So, Many modern scholars is misleading. I have removed the modern term. Anyway, All these were local scholars claim. Please add the word local scholar line. PerfectingNEI (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@PerfectingNEI: Relax, I'm not gonna merge it, but those scholars are modern obviously; I've readded the term. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion went off the rails. Remind everyone of WP:CIVIL. Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@PerfectingNEI: Relax, I'm not gonna merge it, but those scholars are modern obviously; I've readded the term. As a side note, Kacharis, likely related to Varmans have substantial Aryan/Dravidian genes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC) @Fylindfotberserk: Dravidian are later immigrants from easter India. And Caucasoid are earlier than Dravidian. There is no dravidian King . And There was nothing call Aryan Vs Mongoloid. That was egalitarian society. Ofcourse there was marriage relation with Aryans. That's why we have Caucasoid blood , Swargiary , Deoris , Basumatary , Barahari etc surely have caucasoid DNA . PerfectingNEI (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC) @Fylindfotberserk: @PerfectingNEI: Do not use racial categories such as Aryan, Dravidian, Caucasoid and Mongoloid, even if you find them in modern references. They were created by Risley and have no scientific basis and carry no meaning. Use linguistic categories instead—Indo-Aryan, Austroasiatic, Tibeto-Burman and Tai-Kradai—or genetic arguments. Chaipau (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC) I agree Chaipau and you've probably seen me enforce it as well, but it was an unrelated comment based on PerfectinNEI "No modern scholars claimed Indo-Aryan origin" and I was referering to genetic types of the Aryan/Dravidian speakers not hypothetical races. PerfectingNEI, why are you bringing obsolete racial terms. Dravidian speakers migrated from Iran-Indus Valley and most contemporary South Asians except for Tibeto-Burmese have that basic genetic type whether be Indo-Aryan speaker or Dravidian (some of the highest shifts among Indo-Aryan Kalash people). The Indo-Aryans which migrated to Assam had substantial Dravidian/Indus periphery+Onge genes. Secondly, the original settlers of the whole sub-continent including north-east were AASI. Thirdly, original Indo-Europeans Yamnaya were 50% ANE which was a East Asian 'mongloid' looking group. I'll delete these posts next time - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC) @Fylindfotberserk: Look Mr. unnecessary evidence less talk doesn't work. First try to give International Journal. Now due to Intermarriage people got genetic component from Tibeto-Burman. Secondly , There is no historical evidence of your claim. Instead there is clear evidence that Kamarupa people were dark-yellow. First try to given International Journal. Stop trying to THREATEN as I'll delete XYZ. And there is no prove ASI being original settlers . Nobody knows exactly what happened 5000 years ago. People used to move here and there. Stop claiming someone else's guess. There is no prove. Even Tibeto-Burman evolved from people who migrated from Africa. PerfectingNEI (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC) @Fylindfotberserk: Further analysis reveals that the genomic structure of mainland Indian populations is best explained by contributions from four ancestral components. In addition to the ANI and ASI, Basu et. al (2016) identified two ancestral components in mainland India that are major for the Austro-Asiatic-speaking tribals and the Tibeto-Burman speakers, which we respectively denote as AAA (for “Ancestral Austro-Asiatic”) and ATB (for “Ancestral Tibeto-Burman”) . Look Mr. Tibet is closer than South East Asia . Our language is Tibeto-Burman but DNA have most of the North East ASI DNA. North East ASI have gone through DNA mutation. So, It's different from LATER Immigrant ASI . I can't Go to Tibet and China to claim I'm also Tibeto-Burman So, I'm oldest people of Tibet China. PerfectingNEI (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC) There is nothing called North-East ASI dna LOL. According to the original Reich's paper, South-East and prehistoric South Asian genepool were grouped within ASI. Considered Nyshis, Ao Nagas as high on the ASI scale. Later studies by the Reich's lab separated the East Asian. ASI is a made up term which is a combination of "AASI and Indus/Iranian" farmer DNA according to Narsimhan et al 2018. I don't wish to talk genetics here, I only retorted because you said Varmans couldn't have Indo-Aryan origin and brought racial terms. Listen my original field of expertise used to be in genetics, I can very well write a 1000 words essay with proper sources from PubMed, etc. It is genetically proven that the original settlers of the subcontinent were Hunter Gatherers with genetic similarity to Andamanese. What language they spoke? certainly not any of the modern Indian languages. Secondly, I didn't make any claim, happened a lot of things in the history that do not have any evidence or journals. It is a proven fact that the basic Indian types ie Aryan, Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic speakers carry a basic amount of genes from he Iran/Indus. Now why are you getting scared? I told you it is unrelated in my initial post. Would I use it in this article? obviously not unless some paper comes out with an exclusive paper on thr aDNA of Varmans which is highly unlikely. And I said I'll delete this genetic and racial crap written by you and me not the whole thread LOL . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC) @Fylindfotberserk: Haha , You have no Idea who Am I . Lol . It's genetically proven that Northeastern early settlers have gone genetic mutation . Okay Mr. Expert don't give me money earn PhD scholars journal Lol . PerfectingNEI (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Instead of Indo-Aryan Debate . People should claim which existing community is most probable candidate to be Varmans because Kings are bound to marry beautiful girls so they have married Indo-Aryan, Tibeto-Burman etc. This type of debate are stupidity . Bye bye . Trying to establish Varman were immigrant Narakasur descendant is highly unfortunate. Narakasur mythology is contradictory with geography of Assam. So, Most probable candidate for Varman is Bodo groups. PerfectingNEI (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Every group goes through genetic mutations Mr. intelligent. East Asian genepool is mostly related to 8000 ya Ancient DNA from South East Asia after anatomically modern humans migrated out of Africa 60-70 kya and settled in various parts of India, Middle East, and South-East Asia. Even Han Chinese are 75% related to this group. And Hans are Sino-Tibetan. North-east Indian Tibeto-Burmese and Khasis are genetically closest to East Asians than South Asians but they have some South-Asian DNA obviously. I'm talking based on results done by private firms along with published journals. Secondly, Tibeto-Burmans have Aryan/Dravidian specific Y-DNA as well s - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Bodos obviously are immigrants from Indo-China after the migration of Austro-Asiatics. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Bodos migrated from Africa and continuously evolved and then settled in Northeast. According to research Asutro-Asiatic Khasi Jayantia and Tibeto-Burman are earliest settlers of Northeast. Genetically Khasi also look like Bodos. Only their language survived because they lived in Hills. PerfectingNEI (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC) You can't claim nomads as the settlers because we Bodos have also gone through northeast upto Siberia. So, Nomadic phase can't be called as settlements PerfectingNEI (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC) PerfectingNEI and Fylindfotberserk, recent discussion at Talk:Assamese_people maybe of your interest.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC) PerfectingNEI Bodos migrated from Africa lol? When ? 60000 years ago? Find me a journal will ya. Those Bodos spoke African or Bodo? It is a proven fact that the original settlers of South Asia were a group called Ancient Ancestral South Indians (AASI) which is a sister group to the Onge and the Ancient SE Asian group I told you above. It is obvious you believe in fantasies a lot. Bodos in Siberia! Just to add, I have Siberian component in my admixture analysis which was brought by both the Steppe/Indo-Eurpean people(more) and the Indus Farmers Bhaskarbhagawati Which, the Dravidian one? It seems there is a consensus that there was no Dravidian element but there were Southern Indian influences on SouthEast Asia which likely encountered NE India en route but proper Dravidian kingdom might be unlikely. As for genetics, obviously a more southern Indian like element can be expected. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC) @Fylindfotberserk: World knows which community fantasize . World knows which community are expert in making fantasy. ASI and ATB are considered to be earliest settlers. It's already proven. Work for your Indo-Aryan. Byee . No more discussion. Gud night. And Where are those AASI . They are nomads. They are never considered as settlers. Ok We are not early settlers but we are indigenous. You aren't considered as Indigenous . You are considered as Immigrants PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC) I can sense jealousy of one person. Somebody please delete all the conversion. PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC) @Fylindfotberserk: You have given preprint article . Haha. LOL. So funny. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/292581v1 That's Narsimhan et al and that doesn't say anything about Tibeto-Burmans being the first settler? You're making an original research in the talk. Get updated, ASI is obsolete and ATB term is only used by Basu's lab. ASI is a mixture of Iranian farmers around Indus + AASI. AASI is the new term for the original settlers of Mainland South Asia. Nobody guessed which language they spoke so it is obviously nothing about fantasies you are pointing to. Anyways, bye. Enough of this useless discussion - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@PerfectingNEI: there is no point in trying to pin Pushyavarman/Bhaskarvarman Tibeto-Burman (Bodo). By Pushyavarman's time, there was enough admixture between Tibeto-Burman and Austroasiatic, and it is fruitless to try to determine Bhaskarvarman's genetic makeup. Most recent scholarship have converged on "non-Indo-Aryan" in origin (Hinduized indigenous). That is all we can reasonably claim now and we should stick to that. Chaipau (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Why did you delete Sunitit kumar chatterji claim ? I'm not trying hard anything ? I've just said the possibility ? I don't understand why people are so interested dividing the past into the Tibeto-Burman and Austroasiatic . Chaipau , are you sure about such type of division in past ? I'm not claiming anything. Just be unbiased , Just write whatever is written in the source. Don't change the original content. And can you tell me, Who is Austro-Asiatic group of Assam ? PerfectingNEI (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Can I add Origin of Kamrupa name from recent research papers ? I've asked it because somebody may delete my edit. If you agree then I'll add it. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@PerfectingNEI: I did not delete Chatterji's quote, but I brought the text in the article in line with Wikipedia standards. SKC writes "Hinduised Indo-Mongoloids (most probably Bodo)" If you read his section on the Khasi, you would find he includes them in Indo-Mongoloid and when he says Bodo, he means all Tibeto-Burman. In the text, we (1) avoided using the racial nomenclature "Indo-Mongoloid" and converted Bodo to Tibeto-Burman since Bodo is an ambiguous term in Wikipedia that requires disambiguation.

Please, we do not need etymology of Kamarupa. There is a derivation from Indo-Aryan, there are derivations from Austroasiatic, and I am sure you would be deriving it from Tibeto-Burman. These are all speculative at the moment. Please also remember that the Varman rulers completely ignored Kamakhya, to which the name Kamarupa is traditionally connected. It was the next two dynasties that emphasized Kamakhya. Chaipau (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Actually Probably Bodo was used for the person who first entered into Hinduism. Suniti Kumar chatterji had identified Mleccha word to be sanksritization of Mecch because Mech name was imposed by Strangers. Later , Suniti kumar chatterji had called Varman as Bodo in next few pages. If you find it hard to add Bodo then please add Bodo-Garo linguistic term. Thanks . PerfectingNEI (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

why Bodo-Garo? This is a classification based on modern languages and linguists are still not agreed on the classification—whereas we are dealing with historical Tibeto-Burman here. Chaipau (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I think you have misunderstood the writing. In the book, It's clearly written About Ahom also. Bodo was used for Bodo tribe only. PerfectingNEI (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If that is your interest Wikipedia is the wrong place for you—WP:PROMOTION. If you write with proper citations to WP:RS, it will hurt no one. Chaipau (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I'll add more information tomorrow with proper citation. I'll update the K.L Barua's culture and environment with Samuel Beal version PerfectingNEI (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Since, Some editor added Modern scholar for 1980s and 2000s scholars . I have added Recent scholar for 2011 Scholar Urban. Kindly don't revert my edit PerfectingNEI (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello sir @Abecedare: , I've added Recent Scholar with Urban since his book was published in 2011. Modern scholar term was used for 1980s and 2000s scholar by some editor like Fylindfotberserk. But he is reverting Recent Scholar term used for urban. Am I wrong ? Please suggest something. I can't understand why some people can't accept others opinion PerfectingNEI (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What is the purpose of using the phrase "Recent Scholar" before Urban's name. You cannot determine the meanings of the term Modern and Recent. Modern doesn't mean something from 1980s to 2000s. That's just your POV. Recent is a comparative term. Suniti Chatterjee's work is recent/modern than T'sang's work, Urban's is recent compared to Suniti's work. In future someone might come up with a 2020 article, then? Are we going to add "Recent scholar" to every new paper? That didn't look encyclopedic so I removed the phrase. And give some time for other users to comment. I got an Edit Conflict - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@PerfectingNEI: Kindly go through WP:BRD - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: You don't have to keep on adding "recent scholar" every time. You can just convert the phrase as " Many recent scholars like a, b , c, d" then Your problem is solved. Suniti Kumar chatterji had written everything in factual manner according to available sources at that time. And he got padma bhushan for his works and He was linguist and historian. Facts don't become old. But K.L Barua's book isn't even matching with si-yu-ki as he claimed . He had given lots of conclusions . Many things are just proved to be wrong. Thanks. PerfectingNEI (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@PerfectingNEI: I believe the word modern is better. If you have a problem with that, a better solution would be to add year of publication, e.g. Suniti Chaterji in his 19XX book said ..... and Urban in his 2011 book said ..... Will it be OK for you? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Doesn't make any sense. Let's other editor decide what is correct. If you can prove something wrong in Suniti Kumar Chatterji then tell that but Your comment against Suniti Kumar Chatterji seems to be your uneasiness with his claim. You are also editor . I also want to add true facts. So, If my facts aren't proved to be wrong then My POV should be allowed to written. PerfectingNEI (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@PerfectingNEI: Where did I say I've problem with Suniti Chatterjee's work? Kindly read edit summaries and posts properly. I only said, there is no logic categorizing 1980s to 2000s works as "Modern" and 2000s + as "Recent". All these can be clubbed as modern/recent. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: When discussion was related to Urban. There is no use of pointing out Suniti Kumar Chatterji . You called him less recent. Words aren't only part of sentence. A sentence also make sense. Your words give that sense of little bit uneasiness with Chatterji's work. PerfectingNEI (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Bye everyone. I'm leaving all this conversation and edits. I'm tired of arguments. I'm not given any space to add my thought. PerfectingNEI (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Kindly stop assuming things and read properly what other users say. And bye, take care - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Kindly allow everyone's thought. " Modern scholar claimed " phrase make your sentence look like accepted with latest research. Which is of course not true. If you can't accept the "recent scholar" phrase then you should also delete "Modern scholar" phrase. Try to understand msg given by your sentence and try to understand msg given by my sentence. Deletion of my phrase proved that you try to dominate only your point of view. PerfectingNEI (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I always spoke against this type of manipulation . I'll keep speaking against this type of word game to convey different meaning of entire article. PerfectingNEI (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Manipulated Message

In this article , There are different claims made by different people in favor of different groups of peoples. But, Modern scholar word used for the scholars who favor a specific group. In this way, Entire article give the message that recent research favor that specific group only. Which is absolutely not true. In order to give unbiased information, This modern scholar word should be removed. Or same word should be used for recent scholars who don't agree with those claims. Thanks . Hope for perfection in the article. Please think about it @Chaipau: @Fylindfotberserk:

PerfectingNEI (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I already told you that I prefer the word "Modern" since it covers a larger time frame. On the contrary, "Recent" is a comparative term and you can't say which is more recent. A new research may come up in future. At that time Urban's study will not be the most recent. A solution would be to remove "recent/modern" and mention year of publication which will let the readers themselves decide which is recent/modern. It is a trivial thing my man. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with user:Fylindfotberserk. Chaipau (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

As Urban is our bone of contention, i think we need to go through the work and make opinion about its reliability (it seems brief passing comment in a work concerning legends), here is the link [3].भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: The older ref needs to be changed with your one. Secondly, this sentence: "Modern scholar Hugh B. Urban terms all kings of Brahmaputra Valley as non-Aryans" is an original research since Urban didn't mention Brahmaputra Valley and only mentioned a time frame ie 4th to 18th century. I think it would be proper if we keep it relevant to the article's subject (Varmans only) and frame it like: Hugh B. Urban, in his 2011 journal, infers that the 4th century Varmans descended from non-Aryan tribes... - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk I thought This thread is minor issue started by my. So, I deleted it. Anyway, You can continue with other editors. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The discussion here is relevant to the changes made on the article yesterday and Bhaskarbhagawati has pointed out a legit concern over the source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've read that journal where he compared many sanskrit scriptures and he found differences in Brahmanical and Tribe's culture. So, He claimed all kings are Non-Indo-Aryan. PerfectingNEI (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

user:PerfectingNEI, that is a rather simplistic statement. Chaipau (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau, I updated the sentence. The article is about Varman dynasty so it is better to be specific IMO. Reword if necessary - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

One part is missing in this line sentence "according to the Dinesh Chandra Sircar since the claim to Narakasur's lineage was made at the end of the Varman dynasty (Bhaskarvarman);[9] and since it was natural for the ruling house to fabricate a respectable lineage.[10]" , Kindly add that part also. That was deleted by another editor. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@PerfectingNEI: It is there in the first para of "Origins" section. After this sentence: The dynasty traces its lineage from the mythical Narakasur, Bhagadatta and Vajradatta.[8] - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"he refuse to give much importance to these claims." This part is missing. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau, Are the two Suniti Chatterjee sources different editions of the same book? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I did not touch Chatterji, but the two citations on Urban were same. One of them pointed to the DOI, the other pointed to the PDF in researchnet. I combined the two. Chaipau (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau, I got that, but I was asking if the two Chatterjee sources are same or different editions of the same book. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: They look like the same source. Kirata-Jana-Kriti. Chaipau (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau That's what I was thinking. I found only one such book. Will you merge those two? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk OK, I shall do that. Chaipau (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau, Thanks - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Chaipau (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Added Samuel Beal version about culture and environment of Kamarupa . Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is not the right way to do it—by giving extended quotes in citations. Chaipau (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've no much Idea. I'm just learning to be good editor. You can modify it or delete the quote. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The full quotes in citations is not a problem, but preferred over cherry pickings. Sharma 1978 is brief pickings of Chinese account (also we don't rely on single sources), i have inserted full quote by another author alongside to understand the context (policy don't permits inclusion of tiny minority viewpoints, e.g. Dinesh Chandra Sircar here).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you are at a minority here. D C Sircar and M M Sharma are heavy weights in this game. If you have trouble accepting their quotes, take this to WP:RSN. Chaipau (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

According to whom they are heavy weights in history of Kamarupa, i encourge you to approach WP:RSN (or gain consenus in talk with all other involved editors) before mass deleting citations in Kamarupa history related articles and elsewhere.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Kindly add this book to bibliography "Dynastic History Of Northern India Vol. 1" link "https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.39542/page/n277 " high quality research from The Asiatic Society . Dynasties of Assam are properly concluded . Thanks . PerfectingNEI (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati Your quote contatin repeated information. It's better not to repeat same information again and again. Just give the necessary information because In the world there are 1000s of Intellectual. Will you repeat same line spoken by all of them ? Of course not. So, It's better not to repeat same peace of Information PerfectingNEI (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, nonetheless in references you can give multiple citations (generally single sourced content are not considered reliable because it is prone to author biases). But of course we don't need sources in bulk for same statement, in addition to it we need to prefer full quotes over cherry pickings to understand the context of author's statement.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati Since, Name of the book is available in the bibliography. You can just refer the page number in citation . It's simple . PerfectingNEI (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Myself added the Dynastic History Of Northern India Vol. 1 in bibliography. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

O.K., i appeal to all the editors to preserve relevant sources, unless stated unreliable by wp:rsn.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati:I think this reference " Sharma, Mukunda Madhava (1978). Inscriptions of Ancient Assam. Gauhati: Department of publication, Gauhati University. p. .35. Thus K.L. Barua's suggestion that the Mlecchas of Kamarupa might have been the people of the Mongoloid Mech community does not seem to be convincing. What appears to be more likely is that in case of their belonging to the Mongoloid race, they would have been referred to as Kiratas and not as Mlecchas. " contradict in Itself. Mlechcha was generic term. Kirata also belongs to Mlechcha group. In Mahabharata epic , Bhagadatta was mentioned as the Mlechchadhipati who fought with Army of Kirata and Cinas. And Mlechcha term include every foreigners . If Mahabharata was history then According to H.C Ray Chaudhuri , Bhagadatta was Non-Aryan Kirata Prince. I'm unable to understand , Why mlechcha related material are added here. And Mech wasn't even proper designation. That was imposed by strangers (Hodgson) . So, Suniti Kumar Chatterji identified Mech was Sanskritized as Mlechcha . PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Mlechcha is a term for foreigners and included Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Turkics, Cinas(Chinese), Kiratas, etc. BUt since there was a Mleccha Dynasty, so it might be relevant. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This is Varman dynasty page . Not mlechcha dynasty page. And MM Sharma was wrong in his conclusion. His claim can be dismissed since it's contradictory . Anyway . Keep it if you wish but It's contradictory claim PerfectingNEI (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed Mlechcha is ambigous, it is referred to Aryans who has taken non-Aryan ways, foreigners etc. Asura was added later to king Naraka when he adopted non-Aryan ways due his association with King Bana of Sonitpura (Tezpur in Central Assam), so is his son Bhagadatta who is mentioned as Mlechcha but his army as composed of Kirata (epithet for mongoloid) and others, M.M Sharma argued that both Varman and Mlechcha dynasty has same ethnicity, so we included it here in origins. Also if we list the traits, there seems no evidences of extra-Aryan origins of dynasties of Kamarupa kingdom, most specifically Varman and Pala dynasty because their capital was in Western (Lower) Assam i.e. Kamrup which is Aryan land from time immemorial, although Eastern (Upper) Assam was Aryanised late. So, passing comments like Urban is not of much use, as he not provided any evidences or arguement to back his claim.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As per, Apsad inscription of aditya sinha , Susthivarman defeated by Gupta King. Habung was colony of Brahmins. Upper Assam was Aryanised before lower Assam. Latest stone inscription of 5th century AD found in Upper Assam. Kamrup is related to Kamakhya. And Human Sacrifice was performed in Kamakhya just like Tamreswari temple in Sadiya. As per inscription, Tamreswari Temple was named as eastern Kamakhya. Used for same purpose. And Kamrup , Mymensing, Dinaspur , Dispur etc are proved as Bodo origin term. And Sanskrit origin of Kamarupa is contradictory with Birth of Pradyumna = Kamadeva. So, Sanskrit origin is denied by modern researchers. Harruppeswar is proved as sanskritization of Ha-rubu-Apha by modern researchers. And Aryavat boundary don't have kamrup. North Indian never claimed Kamrup as part of Aryavart. Anyway, It's wastage of time to counter who assume good faith. PerfectingNEI (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

MM Sharma have given illogical conclusion. Oxygen is part of Air. According to MM Sharma's logic , AIR word is used so it can't be oxygen. He is saying Subset isn't part of the Set. Which is mathematically illogical PerfectingNEI (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Oldest references of "Brahmaputra valley" was of Kamrup region ("Suvarnakundya", "Hangsakonchi" etc) by Kautilya, Gopatha Brahmana, other Brahmanas. The inscriptions of Nilachal was oldest, Prayag (Prayagraj) stone pillar refers to Kamrup alongwith Davaka of central Assam. The Kingdoms of "Pragjyotisha" and "Kamarupa" were in Western Assam, first century Davaka was in central Assam, which later acquired by Kamrup. Kamrup is used indiscrimantely in Hindu scriptures and in other sources. History of Eastern Assam before second century is not known. Central Assam do had Davaka kingdom and capital of Mleccha dynasty. Yuan Chwang not taken Eatern Assam route to return due to its inhospitable nature and dangers present there, so no foreign traveller visited Eastern Assam. Eastern Assam cannot Aryanised before Kamarupa, because migration of Aryans was happened from west to east not vice versa. Even today Eastern Assam has large number of tribes, in contrast to Western Assam, which has only Koch, Bodo and Rabha tribes. Di prefix maybe associated with tribal languages, but "Pur" (city), "Kamrup" are Sanskrit words. With Aryanisation of Western Assam, it became part of Aryan speaking India, which proved by number of epigraphical references.The fast checking of sources is not considered appropriate here (such as Sharma 1978), if you want to remove Sharma 1978, remove him completely from Wikipedia (consult RSN).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 00:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong Attributions

I have removed two M M Sharma citations purported to be supporting Varmans were Indo-Aryan. They were actually making some other arguments on the Mlecha dynasty, so removed on WP:OR. There is another citation with no author name but a journal name. I have kept it for now, with the assumption being it will be updated with the proper reference. If not, I shall remove it on the basis of WP:V. Chaipau (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree . We should focus on facts instead of conclusions. I've read many the ASI reports. They never try to find caste , tribe. They just try to present factual information. PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

M.M Sharma need to taken to RSN before removal, he is used overwhelming in Wikipedia. Second citation was already updated with chapter name and author name, but still removed for unknown reasons. In origins section we supposed to add relevant sources, which done for one view but excluded mostly for another. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 23:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: I agree that all views need to be presented as per guidelines. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

All view points are being represented here. That they are Indo-Aryan, that they descend from Naraka, that they are non-Aryan. What is the problem here? Chaipau (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, now I see what BB means by all view points — he means everyone, all Tom Dick and Harry he can dredge up from Google searches. This is nothing but WP:TE. The most relevant references for each view point has been given. We do not have to pack in more quotes. Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

PS: I am reverting these TE, on the basis of the links provided by User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric. Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati, Let this page stay historical not mythical. Try to add information from Historical Books of historians like H.C Ray Chudhuri etc . https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.39542 PerfectingNEI (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau Actually I was referring to this and this versions. Since a lot of content had been added/deleted lately, I was wondering if some view points are over/under represented. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Let put facts not conclusions. Some scholars who aren't even considered as historian at national level. Their claims doesn't make much sense. Lets put information from history books not from writers claims. PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk We have deleted a lot of text from the article, but the amount of information has remained the same. What we have removed is, effectively, noise. The noise was getting in the way of readability. If now we keep adding more and more citations to a point of view and using it as a form of "vote" for a particular POV, then it is WP:TE and WP:GAME. We should not be doing this. After we have removed the noise, then we can add more information, and there is much we can add here. I am trying to avoid nationalistic tendencies (some real, some imagined) and cultural appropriations here. Chaipau (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you guys write all translated information of C.P.I and S.I from Lahiri & MM Sharma in this page Kamarupa inscriptions PerfectingNEI (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for that, even though one of the inscriptions has such an entry. Try Wikisource instead. Wikipedia is supposed to be a digital encyclopedia (WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTEVERYTHING), not a repository (WP:NOTREPOSITORY). Chaipau (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau, Thanks, I agree with you. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk thanks! Could you please have a look at Kamarupa of Bhaskaravarman, and also the comments in the talk section from user:Cyphoidbomb made in 2013. I tried to remove as much of the flowery language and the irrelevant stuff as possible; you could make an attempt as well, to retain just the relevant information. This will hopefully be more readable. If there is nothing much left, we could then add the text into Bhaskaravarman. Chaipau (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau, What you did here seems OK to me. Just by looking at the article, I can tell that it needs to be merged with Bhaskaravarman article. Besides, what was the purpose of a separate article like Kamarupa of Bhaskaravarman in the first place I wonder. Anything relevant could very well be included in the Bhaskaravarman article itself. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk These are WP:POVFORKs. Chaipau (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau, Totally agree with you. Request for Merge please. I'll support. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, Merged Kamarupa of Bhaskaravarman into Bhaskaravarman (WP:BOLD). Chaipau (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: You did that? Nice. Now there's one less thing to worry. Cheers! - -Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk how you are doing, definitely reliable academic viewpoints need to represented here, i have restored the citations. Some old citations (1931) are included recently in the article (their viewpoint don't seem mainstream), author of which don't have own article, can we avoid such sources ? Another issue is "Kamarupa of Bhaskar Varman" which i created for detailed account of Kamarupa kingdom/region of seventh century (not only monarch), which i thought cannot be included in other articles due to its volume (i found Kamarupa kingdom article inadequate), is by any chance we can keep it ?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati, Hi, I'm fine thank you. The version that I saw [4] didn't have much info on it. So I suggested a merger. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome dear, yes i know current version is stub, stable version was this (although it has presentation issues).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The version Bhaskarbhagawati was pointing to is mostly junk, with speculations galore from K L Baruah. Once the speculative part was removed, what is left has been merged. The historical sources from Bhaskaravarman is very limited. Chaipau (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Other WP:POVFORKS

There are other WP:POVFORKs. Ancient Kamrup and Medieval Kamrup. These two articles try to project Kamrup region back, even as Kamarupa and Kamata kingdom exists. Chaipau (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)