Talk:Boro people

Distorted information about Bodo

@Chaipau: has presented distorted information about Bodo term as of recent us. This is completely propaganda. Boros were known as Mech and Kacharis to others. But they called themselves as Boro = Bara & Bara-fisa & Bhim-ni-fsa . ref - Hodgson on koch dhimal and bodo https://archive.org/details/essayfirstonkoc00hodggoog & THE KACHARIS BOOK PerfectingNEI (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Some History Books for Boro people

1 . Riyazu-s-salatin https://archive.org/details/riyazussalatinhi00saliuoft/page/n15

2. The Cooch Behar State and Its Land Revenue Settlements https://archive.org/details/coochbeharstatei00chaurich/page/224 & http://coochbehar.nic.in/Htmfiles/history_book.html

3. Census of Assam 1931 , Volume 3 https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/handle/10973/37319 https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10973/37319/GIPE-CENSUS31009-Contents.pdf

4. Bishnu Rabha Rachanabali Volume 1 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.451480/page/n83

5. An Historical and Descriptive Account of the Kachari Tribes in the North Cachar Hills: With Specimens of Tales and Folk-lore https://digital.soas.ac.uk/AA00000195/00001/pdf

6. The Kacharis https://archive.org/details/kacharis009491mbp

7. Essay the First: Koch , Bodo , Dhimal tribes ; Hodgson 1847 https://archive.org/details/essayfirstonkoc00hodggoog/page/n150

8. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Volume 9, Part 2 , 1840 , Page 829 https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0TQzAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA829&lpg=PA829&dq=Ha-tsung-tsa

9. Kirata-Jana-krti ; S.K Chatterji 1951 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.32096/page/n117

10. Ahom-Englsih-Assamese dictionary by G.C Borua https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.463794 https://digital.soas.ac.uk/content/AA/00/00/06/16/00001/pdf.pdf

11. Journal of Assitic Society Bengal 1856 (Notes on North Cachar) https://archive.org/details/journalofasiatic2478asia/page/600

12. The early states

13. A Statistical Account of Assam V.1

14. A Statistical Account of Assam V.2

15. Extracts from the Narrative of an expedition into the Naga territory of Assam. By E.R. Grange ; JASB 8 Pt 1

16. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~dwbruhn/STEDT/Damant_1880_notes-tribes.pdf 47.29.189.107 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Cachar History of Bodo people

• Bhatt, S.C. (2005). Land and people of Indian states and union territories. India: Gyan Publishing House. ISBN 9788178353562.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

The Kacharis ; 1911 ( Ramsa & Ramsa-aroi & Ramsa mauza ) https://archive.org/details/kacharis009491mbp/page/n61

JASB V.9 Pt.2 ; 1840 ( Ha-tsung-tsa & Rangtsa / Ramsa ) https://archive.org/details/journalasiatics24benggoog/page/n223

Damant, G.H ; 1880 ( Hojai = Dimasa & Boro = Rangsa / Ramsa) http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~dwbruhn/STEDT/Damant_1880_notes-tribes.pdf

Soppitt ; 1885 ( Some explantion about Ramsa by Dimasa but I feel It's not correct ) https://digital.soas.ac.uk/AA00000195/00001/pdf

JASB V.8 Pt.1 ( Kosāree = Ramsa+Hojai ) https://books.google.co.in/books?id=3lBQAQAAMAAJ&q=ramsa#v=snippet&q=ramsa&f=false

JASB V.9 Pt.2 ; 1840 ( Uninhabitat Ramsa village ) https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0TQzAQAAMAAJ&q=Ramsa#v=snippet&q=Ramsa&f=false

Notes on North Cachar 1855 https://archive.org/details/journalofasiatic24asia/page/600

J,P Wade - A History of Assam 1800 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125418/page/n119

IITG - Bodo https://web.archive.org/web/20190430200542/http://www.iitg.ac.in/rcilts/bodo.html

47.29.189.107 (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Bodo people#History

@IP user halt edit-warring, following edit summaries are not wp:civil neither edits are helpful in anyway:

• diff 16:21, October 4, 2019‎ 2402:3a80:de4:2f2b:45d9:8249:ee0d:25df talk‎  18,353 bytes +968‎  →‎History: Narrow minded edits by Bhaskarbhagawati.
• diff 16:14, October 4, 2019‎ 2402:3a80:de4:2f2b:45d9:8249:ee0d:25df talk‎  18,353 bytes +968‎  →‎History: Bhaskarbhagawati don't know how to use Wikipedia. Somebody please block this editor.
• diff 15:56, October 4, 2019‎ 2402:3a80:de4:2f2b:45d9:8249:ee0d:25df talk‎  18,353 bytes +1,110‎  →‎History: History word always study past. Nobody can say everything about at once. Historical study infer new new things with latest discoveries. Bhaskarbhagawati is creating issues in issueless page . Jealousy isn't good for health.
• diff 15:28, October 4, 2019‎ 2402:3a80:de4:2f2b:45d9:8249:ee0d:25df talk‎  14,959 bytes -2,419‎  It's just Wikipedia . Better to delete everything to make happy Bhaskarbhagawati Be happy Bhaskarbhagawati
• diff 12:53, October 4, 2019‎ 2409:4065:48a:fd02:6113:95a3:175b:879b talk‎  18,355 bytes -153‎  →‎History: Bhaskarbhagawati disruptive tags

Your messages on my talk:

• diff 16:34, October 4, 2019‎ 2402:3a80:de4:2f2b:45d9:8249:ee0d:25df talk‎  4,804 bytes +3‎  →‎Bodo people: Challenge GU
• diff 16:34, October 4, 2019‎ 2402:3a80:de4:2f2b:45d9:8249:ee0d:25df talk‎  4,801 bytes +617‎  →‎Bodo people: Fantasy boy Bhaskarbhagawati
• diff 16:19, October 4, 2019‎ 2402:3a80:de4:2f2b:45d9:8249:ee0d:25df talk‎  3,586 bytes +330‎  →‎Bodo people: Narrow minded edits by Bhaskarbhagawati
• diff 15:31, October 4, 2019‎ 2402:3a80:de4:2f2b:45d9:8249:ee0d:25df talk‎  2,826 bytes +267‎  →‎Bodo people: Be happy Bhaskarbhagawati

Discuss your problem with other editors, if you can convince them, i have no issues.Thank you.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of information by Chaipau

I believe Wikipedia is for giving information. But There is a constant effort to remove History and Culture related information of Boro community by @Chaipau:. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&diff=948625820&oldid=948625016 , Darrang Kachari basically means Boro. At the beginning of book itselt written that plain kacharis call themselves Boro. And Boros of Darrang called themselves Bhim ni fisa and that information is in wikipedia since very long time. But Chaipau is removing all the historical information related to Boro people from every Wikipedia page. DinaBasumatary (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Activities of @Chaipau: in wikipedia. Removed information from kachari kingdom page https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dimasa_Kingdom&diff=944373934&oldid=944369401 Removed information from Boro people page https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&diff=948625820&oldid=948625016 Removed information from Boroland page https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bodoland&diff=947038671&oldid=947038420 Removed reference related to Boro people https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&diff=936224164&oldid=936217146 DinaBasumatary (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Basically Chaipau target Boro community related page. DinaBasumatary (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Since Bodo Kachari is a separate article, we should be adding contents that explicitly pertain to the Boros here, leaving the contents for the parent group in the Bodo Kachari article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk , Bodo-Kachari isn't a community, it's just umbrella linguistic term. That book itself is written from knowledge of Boro. Scholars don't use Bodo or Boro for other community. For example : They'll call Chutiyas belong to Bodo. But they don't replace Chutiya by Bodo or Boro. When they use Boro or Bodo means Boro only. Some communities neither have language nor they have historical evidence. So, Scholars give them Boro root, otherwise they'll become rootless. Different scholars had written for different tribe. C.A. Soppitt had written for Dimasa . P.R.T Gordon had written for Deori, Chutiya, Moran etc. Some other scholars had written for Garo. Some other scholar had written for Rabha etc DinaBasumatary (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: didn't know if you'd find Talk:Boro people/Archive 1#Untangling helpful. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no specified administrative action requested here, so I am closing the help request template. Please see the dispute resolution options for possible routes forward. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: Your claim in not true. Bodo is used for the umbrella group (e.g. "The Garos, a Bodo people", Chatterji, KJK p41) as well as the specific Boro group ("the Bodo speeches- Bodo, Mech, Rabha, Garo, Kachari and Tipra and a few more" KJK p23 ---here Bodo is used in the same sentence to refer to two different groups), whereas Boro is never used for the umbrella group. Therefore, you cannot claim that the Bodo you find in some reference automatically means Boro. Chaipau (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Read Hodgson and Endle, They are pioneer scholar and Later scholars followed them. Scholars use Bodo = Bodo + Garo + Rabha + Chutiya + etc. But scholars had written that Garo belong to Bodo but scholars never replaced Garo word by Bodo. DinaBasumatary (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Garo were headhunter. Scholars called them Bodo(Bårå) but they don't want be Bodo(Bårå). Don't try to mixed up everything. That reference was taken from Endle's The Kacharis. Information about cognate tribes are given in appendix. DinaBasumatary (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Bodos belong to Tibeto-Barman linguistic group. So, Tibetan and Barman will not stop writing their History because of Bodo. DinaBasumatary (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Half educated Chaipau. Read KJK properly. Pronunciation of Bodo is Boro or Bårå. Bodo race is named after Bodo or Boro community. Today, Bodo race concept is destroyed by people like you who is basically enemy of Boro community. DinaBasumatary (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW, Bhim ni fisa is added from Endle's book which was written for Boro people, not for Garo people. DinaBasumatary (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: The Kachari of Darrang is given in the context of the Kachari/Dimasa kingdom. Here is the fuller quote from Endle:

There they seem to have come more and more under Hindu influence, until about 1790 the Raja of that period, Krishna Chandra, and his brother Govinda Chandra made a public profession of Brahminism. They were both placed for a time inside the body of a large copper image of a cow, and on emerging thence were declared by the Brahmins to be Hindus of the Kshatriya caste, Bhima of Mahabharat fame being assigned to them as a mythological ancestor. Hence to this day the Darrang Kacharis sometimes speak of themselves as "Bhim-ni-fsa," i.e. children of Bhim, though as a rule they seem to attach little or no value to this highly imaginative ancestry.

— Sidney Endle, The Kacharis (1911) pp. 6-7

Therefore, this has nothing to do with the Boro people, but to the Dimasa people. Krishna Chandra and Govinda Chandra were kings of the Dimasa kingdom. If these particular Kacharis were Boro's (he is referring to people in the 19th century, not now) then it means that the Boros adopted a legend for the Dimasas that was created in the Barak valley. But Endle does not say they were Boros. He simply calls them Kachari. In any case, neither he nor the Kacharis seem to give it any importance. I wonder why it is so important for you.

Please note that Wikipedia is not a place to educate you. Your WP:OR, which is often wrong, is wasting other people's time.

Chaipau (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: From your comment, It's clearly understandable, who need education. 20th century folklore Boro people is ofcourse a folklore of Boro people. You have changed Kachari Kingdom into Dimasa kingdom. You have removed Boro History from Kachari kingdom. You have removed information about Ramsa. Dimasa have their folklore. Boros have their folklore. You are no one to remove anything from Boro people page. I suggest you to read just introduction from The Kacharis book then you'll understand what is meant by Kacharis in Brahmaputra valley.

This is just a folklore. I'm not claiming anything more. Yasmin Saikia had written that Today's Ahom have no relation with original Ahom. Just because you belong to this category, don't consider Boros belong to same category. DinaBasumatary (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: I take it that you have no answer to what Endle is saying. Clearly he is not saying what you are saying. Please use the proper references and your claim will be accepted. Right now, you are making outlandish claims not supported in the literature. Chaipau (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Why would somebody give importance to mythology ? It's just mythology. For your kind information, Enlde was not a historian. He just collected the information and tried to give some conclusion. Secondly, There is nothing called Dimasa kingdom. It's just recent name. Boros were Ramsa , original aristocracy. Kacharis call themselves Bodo or Boro(Page=xv). People known to us (author endle endle) as Kacharis and to themselves as Bada or Bara (Page=4). Read it Mr. Jealous. DinaBasumatary (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: That's Boro folklore shared Dimasa folklore. Dimasa were hill Kacharis and Boros were Plain Kacharis. Boros were aristocracies. Boro aristocracies were known as Ramsa. Dimasa were just citizens of Kachari kingdom. Endle clearly mentioned that he was writing for Boro people. Ref Endle,1911, Kacharis call themselves Bodo or Boro(Page=xv). People known to us (author endle) as Kacharis and to themselves as Bada or Bara (Page=4) DinaBasumatary (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

There is mistake in Historiography. So, I'm not commenting anything related kingdom. Just that folklore should be added. What if there was some small kingdom with Bhim lineage in Darrang ? So, we don't know everything. Just keep the information. DinaBasumatary (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Bhim-ni-fsa is used with Krishnachandra and Govidachandra Narayan, who were kings of the Dimasa Kingdom. It would be WP:OR to mention them here. We can have them in Bodo Kachari artilce though. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Just like Ramayana was popular all over India. Why can't Bhim-ni-fisa be popular among different community ? There is no Dimasa kingdom. It's just Wikipedia article made Chaipau. Tired of boring discussion. DinaBasumatary (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: You can add it here, but not using this source since the pages 6-7 specifically connects Bhim-ni-fsa with Krishnachandra and Govidachandra Narayan. That would be WP:OR. Now whether Dimasa Kingdom was real and/or passes notability in Wikipedia is another discussion, best done in that articles t/p. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Autochthon

Scholars have suggested different theories of migration. Scholars suggest Tibeto-Burman of Assam migrated atleast 3000 years ago. Some scholars also claimed Bodo-kachari migrated 4000 years ago. So, It's still not clear. But It's widely accepted that Bodo-kachari peoples are autochthon of Brahmputra valley. Is it wrong to add autochthon status for Bodo-kachari people ? Here, Chaipau had removed the autochthon word and added Pre-historic settlers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/954090362 Logical Man 2000 (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: is it wrong to add autochthon status for Boro people ? Logical Man 2000 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is not clear when they came in, but we know that the Boros were not the first and that they settled in and admixed with the already present. Linguists, geneticists and ethnographers—all agree on this. This does not satisfy the definition of autochthonous. We should not include this because it is not WP:NPOV. Chaipau (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Be careful, You are removing cited content. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No scholars have proved that Boros aren't autochthons. If you can bring any research paper then you can insert your claim. You are inserting something based on either hypothesis or WP:OR. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

As already accepted by van Driem (2007) on the basis of genetics: "The Y haplogroup 02a is represented at a frequency of 77% in Austroasiatic groups in India and 47% in Tibeto-Burman groups of northeastern India. This patterning could suggest that Tibeto-Burman paternal lineages may have partially replaced indigenous Austroasiatic lineages in the northeast of the Indian Subcontinent and that Austroasiatic populations preceded the Tibeto-Burmans in this area, as linguists and ethnographers have speculated for over a century and a half.". Therefore, it has been widely believed by linguists and ethnographers for more than a 100 years that the TB people followed the AA and admixed with them. This is precisely what autochthons don't do—follow other people and admix with them. This is what the Ahoms did as well in Assam. Wikipedia cannot say opposite things. It is possible some authors used the word autochthons, but that does not mean it is generally accepted. Chaipau (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You are comparing 1228 with 3000-4000 years old. I would prefer concensus from other editors than you. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Where did you get the cut-off year in the definition of autochthons? Chaipau (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Historians consider Kacharis are autochthons. Your comparison is based languages. In Assam, Mundas belong to Austroasiatic. As per your logic, Mundas are autochthons of Assam. Anyway, You can carry on your POV. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Which historians---given that this is a prehistoric issue? van Driem's quote above is the academic consensus as it has been for the last one hundred and fifty years. And the Mundas came to Assam after 1835. Not autochthons even though they are called adivasis. Chaipau (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

K.L. Barua , Gait consider Kacharis are aborigines of Brahmaputra valley. Khasi-Jaintia might be autochthons of Meghalaya. But Boros are earliest setllers of Brahmaputra valley. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

K L Barua and Gait are not WP:RS according to Wikipedia policies. These are nearly 100 year old works. Boros, who speak a TB language, are not the earliest settlers in the Brahmaputra valley. DeLancey, Taher and others agree on this point. Chaipau (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is it written that Boros aren't aborigines ? Everybody migrated from some places. Modern human evolved from primtive human. According to your logic, Modern Human being should always refer to primtive human. What if khasi-jaintia migrated after Boro and just their language belong to Austroasiatic category ? Leave it, If you're so interested to call Boros migrants then write that Boros are Chinese immigrant who came atleast 3000 years ago. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please look at the genetic data. AA reached Northeast approx 5000 years ago. TB is more recent, based on both Y-DNA as well as mtDNA. That is what van Driem precisely says in the quote above. Chaipau (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please give the exact journal and page number. Let me verify. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We can't compare with Austroasiatic of India, We should compare Khasi-Jaintia and Bodo-kachari because Austroasiatic from India can still come just like Mundas Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Varaha → Boro

Varaha → Boro cannot be taken seriously. Varaha is an Indo-Aryan word, and the Boro probably did not accept it for self-designation. Moreover there are other theories regarding the use Madhav Kandali. I have re-emphasized the Bara-fisa origin of Boro. Chaipau (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Please keep it for time being. Don't remove cited content. You are doing everything without any concensus of other editors. I totally disagree with your edits. You removed Dalton , You removed Bardalai etc . Logical Man 2000 (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC) You are doing everything at your will. Very unhappy with your dominant behaviour. Please restore to previous version. I would suggest you to follow wikipedia rules and re-add this : According to some scholars, Varaha-Raja Mahamanikya was popularly known as Varaha or Barahi, with passage of time it began to pronounce as Bara or Boro. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We had reached consensus on this. This is too controversial. I strongly suggest you should not use it. Furthermore, I do not see a Boro scholar like Mushahary support a self-designation of the Boros that might have come from Indo-Aryan. Your claim that Varaha came from Boro is your opinion, because there are other accepted etymologies of Varaha (Varaha#Etymology_and_other_names). Chaipau (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Different scholars give different opinion. We live in global platform. We shouldn't differentiate Boro vs non-Boro scholar. And etymology of Varaha can be anything but sanskritization is different thing. Boro community have Hindu, Christian , Bathou. So, There will be different opinion. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: I have looked at Kakati (1953). This article is actually written by Neog, not Kakati. Neog mentions Bardalai in his survey to figure out Kandali's date, not to figure out Mahamanikya's ethnicity. He gives examples of other claims which tried to identify Mahamanikya with the Jaintia's, the Dimasas and the Tripuri to date Kandali. In the end he sets a period, and is unable to date Kandali accurately. As far as the ethnicity of Mahamanikya is concerned, he leaves it hanging---Mahamanikya was a Varahi, Varaha being a tribe that belonged to the Bodo race. And as we know, Bodo is the genetic term for all TB tribes in Assam and beyond, not necessarily Boro.

So I think your claim looks even less NPOV now. Because I can very well claim Mahamanikya was a Jaintia, or a Dimasa, or a Tripuri with the same kind of justification as the one you are using.

Chaipau (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Kachari necessarily don't mean Dimasa. There were many kingdoms. Bardalai tried to connect with Boro. Kakati tried to connect with Barahi. Two different scholars. I'm only refering to bardalai's view , not neog , not Kakati. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Similarly Bodo does not mean Boro. Just as you used Bardalai from that text and claimed Boro, I could use Kakati and claim he was Jaintia. Wikipedia does not allow this. Sorry. Chaipau (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You are not even scholar. You're just editor. Jayantiapur is just name of place. I understand your intentions. Let other editor decide it. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Jaintia kingdom and Kachari kingdom of Jaintiapur are two different thing. If you don't know anything then I can't help you. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: You think you are All-knowing but you are just senior priviledged editor. You can't even understand what is written in text, Location and Time was unknown at that time but they agreed that Mahamanikya was Kachari king. But now it's well known because Lanka inscription is discovered and widely accepted by scholars that Mahamanikya was Kachari king. Two scholars view that Varaha have some connection with Boro. What is so big deal in it? In fact , That place was occupied by Boro. And your hard effort to make things controversial and remove information related Boro isn't a sign of unbiased editor. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: I have no extra privilege over anyone. I tried resolving it here by giving out my misgivings with your argument, but since you wanted to go down this path, I have asked for WP:3O. Chaipau (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I want that information to be written because different scholars have different views. You don't want it to be written based on your contoversial ideas. Let other editor decide because i've not added any uncited content. It's most plausible connection because Mahamanikya is widely accepted as Kachari king and Boros are also Kachari. Two scholars tried to connect Varaha with Boro. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:3O will refer to this discussion here. It will occur on this page, when it happens. Chaipau (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Dual meaning of name is very common among Tibeto-Burman communities. For example - Dimasa have sanskritized form Hidimba-sa , Tipra have sanskritized form Tripura , Koch have sanskritized form Kuvaca . What is wrong if Boro originate from Varaha ? Being a editor , I'm really unhappy with you. Boro scholars try to connect with Boro origin because he/she know Boro language, Brahmin scholars try to connect with sanskrit origin because they know about sanskritization. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi! 3O here. I don't have a specific opinion on the dispute here, since I am not familiar with the sources. I will, instead, remind both parties here of a few important policies: verifiability, due weight, and fringe theories. Note that fringe theory, in this case, refers to things that are not accepted by the majority of scholars in a field. If the majority of scholars say that Varaha and Boro refer to the same people, then we say that. If only a few scholars say that Varaha and Boro refer to the same people, then we can say that but need to attribute that to the specific authors. We also make sure that we give due weight - if an opinion is only held by one dissenting scholar, we shouldn't include it (unless there's significant coverage by other sources about the dispute), whereas if there's a significant minority that hold the opinion, it might be worth including. Regardless, I encourage both parties to assume good faith and focus on what the sources say. creffett (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Scholars try to connect Varaha and Boro. Scholar said Varaha --> Boro . No scholars said that these two names can't represent same people. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: Thank you for your comments, we greatly appreciate your help in resolving this. Below this, we will continue the discussion below here, but I shall first give a summary and I hope you will follow the discussion from now and help us. Chaipau (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: It's not WP:Fringe. You've already made your mind to remove the content. You're a senior editor with more privilege. I can't keep on arguing with you. Do as you wish. I totally disagree with your actions. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Summary for WP:3O

@Creffett: I am providing a summary here for you to review. If you require additional information or clarification, we shall provide them below.

Primary question: Can we derive the name Boro, by which the Boro people call themselves, from Varaha an ethnic group from 13th century?

Logical Man 2000 is claiming that Boro is derived from Varaha because:

• Bardalai, who is the 1899 publisher of the 13th century work in which Varaha occurs, claims in the preface that the name Varaha came to be pronounced, over time, as Bara or Boro.
• Recent authors, such as Bhattacharjee ([1]) and Neog ([2]), have repeated this claim.

Chaipau's objection:

• The current widely accepted etymology of Boro is Bara-fisa, where Bara stands for man or male member of the Boro ethnic group in their own language. This is the claim made by Hogdson and accepted by Grierson ([3] please read the first 5 lines) and also modern scholars such as Mushahary([4]).
• Bhattacharjee and Neog do not endorse the claim by Bardalai, but simply state the claim by way of literature survey in their individual works.
• The standard etymology (Bara-fisa→Boro) is further supported by the facts that (1) Boro is a self-designation and (2) Bara-fisa is in the language spoken by the Boro people themselves; whereas Varaha is a Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan) word and construct.
• Since there exists a standard etymology, Bara-fisa→Boro, Varaha→Boro is WP:FRINGE without current support in scholarship and should be avoided.

Chaipau (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Different scholars have different views. Tipra have sanskritized version as Tripura, Dimasa has sanskritized version as Hidimba-sa , Koch has sanskritized version as Kuvaca, Mech has sanskritized version as Mleccha, Similarly Boro has sanskritized version as Varaha. I'm unable to understand the problem of adding more information. I can't keep on arguing with dominant editor like Chaipau. We can't decide who is perfect scholar. Chaipau , You're simply wasting time of everyone. I'm done with this because you're dominant editor and you'll not allow me to add more information. You're free to do whatever you wish because you're senior privileged editor. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If your argument is Sanskritization (Boro→Varaha), then you cannot use Bardalai, nor can you use this in the etymology section. Sanskritization converts a native name into an Indo-Aryan name, i.e. Bhullambuthur→Brahmaputra ([5]). But Bardalai is claiming the opposite—that an Indo-Aryan name, Varaha, became the Tibeto-Burman Bara(Varaha→Boro, from your citation [6]).

Please assume good faith and let us focus on the issue to resolve this quickly.

Chaipau (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I'm not claiming anything like you. I've no propaganda. I just want to add what is claimed by Bardalai and repeated by Padmashri awardee and PhD scholar. I just gave few examples. Your controversial ideas don't make any sense. Koch don't call themselves Kuvaca. But scholars agree that Kuvaca word is sanskritized version of Koch , Mech don't call themselves Mleccha but scholars agree Mleccha is sanskritized version of Mech. Please follow Wikipedia rules. Respect PhD scholar , Padmashree awardee and First publisher of Saptakanda Ramayana. Don't remove cited content. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: Keeping aside the etymology vs sanskritization issue aside for a while, you seem to be claiming now that Bardalai is associating the Varaha king with the Boro people. But this is not true. Bardalai associates the Varaha king not with the Boro, but with the Jaintia people; though he derives Boro from Varaha:

Madhavachandra Bardalai, who had the credit of bringing out the first printed edition of Kandali’s Ramayana, in his Preface surmised that Sri-maha-manikya must be one of the three Kachari kings of Jayantapura (Jaintias) with the surname of Manika, Vijaya-manika, Dhana-manika and Yasa-manika. The Kachari kings of Jayantapura were known as 'Varahirajas' styled themselves as 'Jayantapuresvaras' and ruled over a vast territory extending to the modern district of Nowgong from the twelfth to the fourteenth century A.D. Bardalai further seeks to connect the term Varaha in the text with Bodo or Boro, the name of the Tibeto-Burmans who settled and ruled in Assam.

— Maheshwar Neog, M, Neog (1953), "Assamese Literature Before Sankaradeva", in Kakati, Banikanta (ed.), Aspects of Early Assamese Literature, Gauhati: Gauhati University, p 24

Therefore, this is what I see of your arguments so far:

• Your claim that Bardalai is providing an etymology Varaha→Boro is WP:FRINGE.
• Your claim that Bardalai is providing the Sanskritization Boro→Varaha is false.
• Your claim that Bardalai is associating Varaha king with the Boro people is false, because Bardalai is associating the king with the Jaintia people as well as the Bodo-Kachari peoples.

I am keeping only the references to Bardalai. Neog also mentions Goswami, another author, who associated the Mahamanikya with the Dimasa king.

Chaipau (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Mleccha, Kuvaca can be anyone in world. But in kamarupa region. Mleccha = Mech , Kuvaca = Koch. Similarly , Varaha --> Boro in kamarupa according to Bardalai and repeated by Padmashri awardee and PhD scholar. Please don't consider yourself above Padma Shri Awardee. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I'm not claiming anything. Please read the content properly. Jaintia kingdom (post 16th century) and Jaintiapur kingdom (Pre-15th century) are two different things. Dimasa name don't pop-up here, neither the scholars take name of Dimasa.You're presenting which aren't even in source. I'm leaving this matter upto you. You can do as you wish, please don't ping me anymore Logical Man 2000 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: I have quoted from the text you are trying to use here. It does not support any of your claims. Chaipau (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: That jaintiapur kingdom is Boro-Borok kingdom. That's why Bardalai used kachari kingdom of Jaintiapur. You try to disclaim other scholarly claim based on WP:RSSELF. If you don't know everything then just follow the instructions. And Dimasa = Timisa given by Gait , Colonial administrator and repeated by others. Technically entire Dimasa history is based on colonial historiography. J.B. Bhattacharjee's journals also begin with wrong name of the kingdom. Shin had corrected many things but she also followed Gait's Timisa=Dimasa. And Timisa word come from Ahom buranjis, why should we use Ahom buranji to write Kachari history ? So, I've already left this topic upto you. So, No more discussion. Don't present your theories here because they are WP:RSSELF Logical Man 2000 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: I am unsure how to proceed. Logical Man 2000 (talk · contribs) leaves a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and does not engage with the material presented. I requested this WP:3O because the other editor asked for an independent opinion. He seems to not want to proceed further with resolving the issue. I thank you very much for guiding us—stating the relevant principles to follow here. Chaipau (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Since, User:Chaipau present his personal theories to disclaim other scholars and categorize the claim of Bardalai , Neog and Bhattacherjee as WP:FRINGE. I have no more logic to proceed because User:Chaipau is above all these scholars. I've never claimed Bardalai claimed Boro --> Varaha . Boro--> Varaha belong to WP:OR (my claim). I just gave Tipra (Tripura ) , Mech (Mleccha) , Koch (Kuvaca) , Boro (Varaha) examples to make things understandable. Bardalai never connected Jaintia people and Jaintiapur. This is also fabricated by Chaipau. I've no choice to proceed because i can't argue with senior editor Chaipau, who has discussed something about me with Admin https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chaipau&diff=955057997&oldid=954810893. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Logical Man 2000, there is no such thing as a "senior editor" - we're all equals here. Chaipau and Logical Man 2000, if you are unable to come to an agreement, I would suggest following one of our other dispute resolution processes to get more knowledgeable people than I to weigh in. If this is genuinely a fringe theory situation, you could raise the discussion on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, otherwise you could request community input via a request for comments at the appropriate WikiProject (perhaps WikiProject India or WikiProject_Ethnic_groups) or get further help with the dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard. creffett (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: Thank you. Actually, I decided to step down because i don't want to waste more time just to add single. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:Fringe according to Chaipau

It is widely accepted by Scholars that Mahamanikya was Kachari king. Boros are also known as Kachari. Mahamanikya was called Varaha Raja. Therefore, scholars tried to connect Varaha with Boro but Dominant senior editor Chaipau don't allow me to add this cited content :

According to Bardalai, Mahamanikya was popularly known as Varaha or Barahi, with passage of time it began to pronounce as Bara or Boro. For example - Dimasa have sanskritized form Hidimba-sa , Tipra have sanskritized form Tripura , Koch have sanskritized form Kuvaca.

References

• Neog, Maheswar (2013). Singha, Maneesh (ed.). Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagavata Writers. Public Resource. Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Logical Man 2000 (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bodo people --> Boro people

This move was requested by Chaipau on the basis of better phonetic . https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&diff=944496316&oldid=944345409 But he is claiming Bodo instead of Boro in Mech people. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mech_people&diff=955379667&oldid=953909077 Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This was based on Moshahary's assertion given here: Boro_people#cite_note-13

Mushahary's reference was added on 30th April 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&diff=954154602&oldid=954153996 But page move happened much before. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of references

User:Chaipau glorify Ahom people ( example - Removed other possibility of origin of Assam and kept only Ahom claim https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Assam&diff=prev&oldid=952880242 ) . He removed many references and cited content. He constantly push his POV. Constant removal of reference and content - example https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&diff=956210563&oldid=956210476 Logical Man 2000 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The references were removed because they are not being used, or they are too old. The references were used like promotional material, or someone's list of references for other use. Chaipau (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Usually, it is good practice to keep unused references that are clearly related to the topic and helpful for readers (and also for potential editors who want to expand the article) in a "Further reading" section. Looks as if at least a few fall into this category. –Austronesier (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Yes, unused references can be helpful in a separate "Further reading" section. This works best when additional phrases are added to guide a person new to the subject. But the reference section has become bloated, unsorted and definitely could not be used for further reading. My procedure for cleaning has been:

• Remove non-WP:RS altogether, along with citations.
• Remove gray non-WP:RS if there exists other citations.
• Remove otherwise WP:RS citations if they are simply repeating from non-WP:RS material by way of a survey.

This has created a much leaner reference section. Logical Man 2000 (talk · contribs) (and some other sockpuppets, now banned) have been targeting small ethnic groups. This has happened with Dimasa kingdom, Mech people and others. This they are doing with the help of old colonial race-based texts that, which are not considered RS.

Chaipau (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Thanks for the details, that's a sound vetting method, although point 3 (I guess Kakoty falls into this category) crucially depends on whether the use of the non-RS information went through a critical analysis by the author of the RS or not. Chapter 3 of Kakoty (1981) indeed looks like an unfiltered survey. And FWIW, @Logical Man 2000: the lamented edit[7] is best practice of trimming a section if there is a main article that covers the details (including the fringier stuff). –Austronesier (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks. Also, yes, Kakoty is the perfect example for point 3. There still exists problems with remaining references. Endle, for example. A further thanks for a close reading of this situation. Chaipau (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Chaipau has been removing vital information related to Boro people. Chaipau has been moving pages, deleting information, presenting distorted information. This is misuse of Wikipedia. Chaipau treat wikipages like his personal dairy book. Biased character of Chaipau is clearly visible because he removes information. When everything is related then you can't remove things related Boro and add some fabricated stories. You can't use wikipages to spread information as you wish. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I just want to add content from reliable sources. Some scholars have written entire chapter based on assumption or WP:FRINGE. There are many vital information missed by them. These are repeated by some scholars or ignored by some scholars but Chaipau don't want them to be written because many things goes in support of Boro people. I'm totally against removal of information by Chaipau. Reliable information must be written then only people know judge the truth otherwise wikipedia will become Chaipau-pedia. You can check his edits, He had removed many cited content from this page. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: Please look at WP:IINFO. If you want to put up all information, consider creating your own website or using social media. Wikipedia has to be encyclopedia. Consider reading the entire WP:NOT. Chaipau (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the most explicit policy against what Logical Man 2000 (talk · contribs) is demanding: WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Chaipau (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't even know these things. But you shouldn't remove vital information. I can't add uncited , unsourced content but reliable sourced content is king of wikipedia. You try to remove reliable source. This is the difference between you and me. I don't add unreliable source but you remove reliable source. I can't argue with you anymore. You are expert in this field.Logical Man 2000 (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

First removed the content and citation to make the reference unreliable then removed the reference. Example - https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&diff=956210476&oldid=956210185 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&diff=next&oldid=956210476 & https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&diff=prev&oldid=956209121 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&diff=next&oldid=956209121 . There are many more example where User:Chaipau do the same. User:Chaipau has complained to block me from editing , User talk:Chaipau#Logical_Man.

I have sorted the references and removed some unused ones according to rules/policies and methodologies as above. Chaipau (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Boro heri geder heri

Dalton concluded meaning of Boro from the saying - "Boro heri geder heri". Chaipau removed the content https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&diff=956280868&oldid=956276462 Reason given by Chaipau : "Boro heri geder heri is not etymology of Boro. Boro is great in Indo-Aryan, cannot be self-identification of Boro" . Boros use Saan for sun (eng). There may be some linguistic relation with Indo-European. What is big deal if Boro word have similarity with Indo-European word ? Why do User:Chaipau have so much problem with Boro people ? Logical Man 2000 (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Need citation. Chaipau (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Also you cannot derive Boro both from TB as well as IA. Makes no sense. WP:IINFO. Chaipau (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Citation is already given. Nowhere it's written that it originate from Indo-European. Dalton was first person to conclude Boro means "Great people" using the saying "Boro hari geder hari". You make no sense. You just waste time in edit war. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have marked where a citation is needed by "cn". As mentioned above you cannot pack the etymology section with everything people have said till now (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). This an encyclopedia. Chaipau (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Citation is already given along with Borok = Man. (Bhatt). Etymology means origin. Dalton was first person to guess the correct form. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Chaipau has removed following references -

• Kakoty, Suchitra (1981). "The Historical Background of the Bodo-Kacharis". A study of the educational development of the bodo tribe during the post independence period with particular reference to the northern region of Assam (PhD). Guwahati University. hdl:10603/67775. {{cite thesis}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Ray, H.C (1931). Dynastic History Of Northern India Vol. 1. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Maity, Sachindra Kumar (1967). Corpus Of Bengal Inscriptions Bearing On History And Civilization Of Bengal. Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Nath, D. (1989). History of the Koch Kingdom, C. 1515-1615. Mittal Publications. ISBN 9788170991090. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Hodgson, B.H. (1847). Essay the first:Kocch, Bodo , Dhimal tribes. J. Thomas. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Rhyn, Prof. G.A.F. Van (1879). "Indo-Chinese Races and Languages". In Ripley, George (ed.). American Cyclopædia, Volume 9. New York D. Appleton. pp. 252–253. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Damant, G.H. (1879). Notes on the Locality and Population of the Tribes Dwelling between the Brahmaputra and Ningthi Rivers (PDF). Assam Secretariat Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Chaudhuri, Harendra Narayan (1903). The Cooch Behar state and its land revenue settlements. Cooch Behar. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Endle, Sidney (1884), Outline Grammar of the Kachári (Bårå) Language as Spoken in District Darrang, Assam, Assam Secretariat Press {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Soppitt, C.A. (1885). Historical and descriptive account of the Kachari tribes in the north Cachar hills, with specimens of tales and folk-lore. Assam Secretariat Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Logan, James Richardson (1970). The Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, Volume 7. Kraus Reprint. pp. 47–48. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Mushahary, Moniram (1981) Bodo–English Dictionary
• Pulloppillil, Thomas & Aluckal, Jacob (1997) The Bodos: Children of the Bhullumbutter
• Kakati, Banikanta (1953). Aspects of early Assamese literature. Gauhati University.
• Roy, Ajoy (1995). The Bodo Imbroglio. Spectrum Publications. ISBN 8185319588. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Barua, Birinchi Kumar (1964). History of Assamese Literature. East-West Center Press.
• Bhattacharjee, Debajani (2006). "Introduction". A comparative study of Madhava Kandali ramayana and Krittivasa ramayana (PhD). Guwahati University. hdl:10603/66684. {{cite thesis}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Siiger, Halfdan (2015). The Bodo of Assam: Revisiting a Classical Study from 1950 (PDF). NIAS Press. ISBN 978-87-7694-160-4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 May 2020.
• Kakoty, Suchitra (1981). "The Historical Background of the Bodo-Kacharis". A study of the educational development of the bodo tribe during the post independence period with particular reference to the northern region of Assam (PhD). Guwahati University. hdl:10603/67775. {{cite thesis}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Dodiya, Jaydipsinh (2001), Critical Perspectives on the Rāmāyaṇa, Sarup & Sons, p. 139, ISBN 9788176252447 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Logical Man 2000 (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I recommend to take the issue to WP:RSN, afterwards to WP:ANI.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

:: Since, Many information and citations were removed. Therefore, Some references became unused. Still many references within it can be used. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

History of Boro

Content removed by Chaipau " Section of Boros were known as Rangtsa or Ramsa. According to tradition the Kacharis had their domain in Kamarupa and they belonged to a lineage called Ha-tsung-tsa or Ha-cheng-sa or Hachengsa and Kacharis called themselves Rangtsa or Ramsa. * Bishnu Prasad Rabha, Activist, musician, songwriter and painter. A section of Boros called themselves Ramsa, which means Children of Ram. " Logical Man 2000 (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I know you are a sockpuppet of DinaBasumatary now. For some reason you are hung up on this issue. The evidence is overwhelming now that the Dimasas came from the east, from somewhere near Sadiya. You have been trying to insert this input from Soppitt for a long time. Chaipau (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

:: User:Chaipau mail (User talk:Chaipau#Logical Man) other editors and admins to block other users with sockpuppet allegation. If you're trying to spread fake information then you'll surely have conflict with those users who love to add true information. It's possible that you remove those specific information to match the conflict with other users. You may have conflict with many users, It don't mean i'm wrong, May be you're wrong. It's well known Bishnu Rabha was Boro. You removed the content. Boros of southern side called themselves Ramsa. All Ramsa section of Boro know it. If you remove these basic things then you'll surely have conflict with all other users. Why do you want to remove so many things from this page ? This must be biggest question for all future editors who will read this section. Then they'll surely learn about you also. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll consider your allegation as personal attack.  Done Logical Man 2000 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Note for other editors

User:Chaipau mostly edit Ahom people related pages where he writes things which support claims of Ahom people. He has a habit of removing things which support claims of Boro people. He only argue with other editors and mail admins to block other editors Logical Man 2000 (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Population

The population count seems to be sourced wrong. The population number as it stands now is the number of Bodo language speakers (1.45 million)[8]. But it should rather be the certified count from census tables, which is 1.36 million.[9] The language numbers are more appropriate in the Bodo language page. Chaipau (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: This would give us the figure for Assam only. Based on the language data per state[10] which lists 42,739 Bodo speakers in West Bengal, I would expect a significant number of self-identifying Boro there. Unfortunately, the West Bengal data[11] does not list the Boro individually, but presumably among the "Generic Tribes etc." Assuming a similar ratio of Bodo speakers and self-identifying ethnic Boro as in Assam (1.42M vs. 1.36M), we roughly get hypothetical 40k ethnic Boro in West Bengal. Adding these to the 1.36M in Assam, we get a total 1.4M for Assam + West Bengal.

However, these are only estimates which we cannot present to our readers unless an independent source has undertaken the same endeavor. Given the rather small difference between the linguistic and ethnic figures, I recommend to stick the speaker number as reliable indicator for the ethnic population, and add an explanatory note saying that in Assam, the ratio of self-identifying ethnic Boro to Bodo speakers in the census is 96%. –Austronesier (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: yes this sounds reasonable. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Bodo language speakers those who speak Bodo language as their mother tongue. Bodo population is more than what is counted as Bodo language speakers. Large population of Bodos who live outside of Bodoland region doesn't speak Bodo language but Assamese as their mother tongue. Nehemiahnarzary23 (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Bodo language speakers those who speak Bodo language as their mother tongue. Bodo population is more than what is counted as Bodo language speakers. Large population of Bodos who live outside of Bodoland region doesn't speak Bodo language but Assamese as their mother tongue. Nehemiahnarzary23 (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Credibility

@Chaipau: , South korean also have relation with Ayodhya, see Heo Hwang-ok. Can you give any source for your claim "this claim has no credibility" in this [[12]] ? You have removed sourced text. It's against the policy of wikipedia. Boros have Mythical relation with Rama. Its clear from their folk tradition and Its clearly written in myths section. I believe you know the meaning of myth. So, You're free to not believe it. Anyway, I just keep checking Boro people page and make corrections. 2409:4065:49E:77D5:7078:DCA1:D5E5:C03E (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@IP: FWIW, block evasion is against the policy of Wikipedia. The source by Dodiya is not about Bodo history, so of little relevance here. –Austronesier (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Ofcourse it's Myth, not History. And can you provide a source for your claim - "The source by Dodiya is not about Bodo history, so of little relevance here." ? Don't assume and accuse others. The Source is about influence of Ramayana. It clearly mention about Boro and many others. If you have other source then add it. 47.29.133.83 (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

"The source by Dodiya is not about Bodo history", that's obvious, right? One single mention of the Bodos in a 300-page volume. It would be even more obvious so if the citation were complete (B. Rajkhowa (2001). "Oral tradition of the Rāmāyaņa". In Jaydipsinh Dodiya (ed.), Critical Perspectives on the Rāmāyaṇa, New Delhi, Sarup & Sons.) –Austronesier (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: This has nothing to do with History. It's myth only. Wikipedia doesn't work based on our saying. Wikipedia need reliable source. That source is reliable. It talks about different communities including Boro. Cited text is for Boros. That books ofcourse talk about Boro and many other communities. So, It can be used for Boro and many other communities. If you don't believe me then you can contest it's reliability in WP:RS noticeboard. Thanks. 2409:4065:E0B:7CE7:1021:CBEB:B4F1:190A (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Do you know WP:RS and WP:SYNTHESIS. You don't have any source. And You are not authority for anything. Since, You lack any source so yoour WP:SYNTHESIS isn't acceptable infront of WP:RS. You are simply wasting your and my time 2409:4065:E0B:7CE7:AC90:2FEA:8945:B7C4 (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

And what is the need of concensus from @Austronesier: , are you authority of wikipedia ? do you have any source to reject the reliable source ? you're trying to WP:OWN here. It's against the policy of wikipedia . 2409:4065:E0B:7CE7:AC90:2FEA:8945:B7C4 (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If this information which you intend to add here with such verbose obstinance is so important, why is it not possible to present a source which covers the Boro people as main topic, instead of citing a volume about Rāmāyaņa-related mythology which only devotes a single sentence to that information on 300 pages? –Austronesier (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is the source for your "why is it not possible to present a source which covers the Boro people as main topic" claim ? Ofcourse it will be possible to present entire thesis if there will be proper funding to do research on this topic. But this source is already WP:RS and You're just waste of time. 47.29.202.28 (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Notable Bodo People

Some non-bodos who doesn't know Bodo history continuously targeting this category saying Bodo surname doesn't mean Bodo. Which is stupid argument seeing the present scenario. Bodos never take anyone's surname now, though they may have taken before. Also, Bodos' surname are never taken by other communities. Boro people aren't heterogeneous group. Nehemiahnarzary23 (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I've notified/warned you about not adding unsourced entries in the list of notable Boros twice before in your talk page. Wikipedia doesn't go as per your personal whims and wishes. Go through WP:V. Not writing somebody's name is not targetting a community. Be WP:NEUTRAL here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: what could be the criterion for adding names here? Should we go by general rules on caste? Also, it is uncertain that last names are enough. For example, Kenny Basumatary's middle name seems to be Deori (Deori people), and it is likely he has Deori heritage too. So is he Deori or Boro? He makes Assamese movies. So he is Assamese as well? Bishnu Rabha is another problematic issue. Identifying people sometimes by their names (Kenny) or biological parents (Bishnu Rabha) is fraught with issues. So what kind of criterion should we use? Chaipau (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Surnames are not enough. That would be WP:SYNTH. We should go by the general rule of WP:V, sourcing them with an RS. Caste will not apply since it is a community, otherwise self-identification will come into play for the living individuals. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Numbers, November 2020

@Eulerfan1999: The "Bodo" numbers in the census [13] of Assam 2011 is the language group which includes Kachari, Mech and other languages. As an analogy, note that that the census includes Rajbanshi, Chakma and Hajong among others in the "Bengali" group. And a lot more in the "Hindi" group, including Bhojpuri, Mewati, Garhwali, etc, all of these languages and their speakers are independently notable. If we keep the group numbers, then the sub-language figures will be meaningless. This can't happen. Pinging @Chaipau, Uanfala, and Austronesier:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

According to the census, there are 1,454,547 speakers of the Boro language in the whole of India, 15,984 of Kachari and 11,546 of Mech. The census reports groups these three under a single category called "Bodo", but Wikipedia doesn't follow this categorisation: there are separate articles about each of those languages and each of the ethnic groups, see Kachari people and Mech people. An unrelated issue is that these statistics are for the number of native speakers of the language, not for the number of members of the ethnic group. I imagine the two numbers shouldn't be very different, but they're not the same thing – for example, children raised in mixed marriages will often grow up speaking the local lingua franca, but still be ethnically part of the community. To avoid WP:OR, we should make it explicit that the figures are for the number of speakers (it's not OR if we round the number – and it may in fact be desirable to do so in order to avoid giving the misleading impression of precision). – Uanfala (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for you inputs Uanfala, the issue with the total population figure (1,454,547) seems to have been resolved in the past here, possibly after ORs and POVpushes by this same user in May 2020. I believe the same applies largely to the |region= parameter (Assam in this case), but without the rounding part since as per the template documentation, full numbers are mentioned. The same is followed in Greeks, a GA article and in other Indian articles Tamils, etc. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware of that discussion. Didn't they settle on using the "scheduled tribe" figures for the population in Assam? Otherwise, the fact that one/several/many decent articles employ misleading data presentation does not necessarily mean that all other articles should likewise use misleading presentation. – Uanfala (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Uanfala According to A-11 Individual Scheduled Tribe Primary Census Abstract Data and its Appendix, there are only 1,361,735 ethnic Boros in Assam, much less than the number of Bodo speakers, 1,407,711, as per this. Looks like 45,000 non-Boros speak Boro language , I suspected the opposite since Assamese is the lingua franca in the state - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Uanfala, Fylindfotberserk, Austronesier I am trying to think this through a little bit... The problem is that we have only Assam to go by, which we may take as the lower limit. "Boro, Borokachari"—1,361,735, but not all Boro people live in Assam. The other number we have are total Bodo speakers in India—1,482,929, but not all Bodo speakers are Boro speakers, and not all Boro people speak Boro language either. So maybe we can give an estimated range: 1.3M–1.4M or 1.3M–1.5M. Chaipau (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I think people are getting confused here, we are not discussing about the number at the top in the |population= which is 1.45 million (supported by census 2011 for the total number of Bodo speakers in India), we are discussing about the numbers in one specific region ie "|region1= = Assam" and |pop1= which is 1,407,711, as per C-16 Population By Mother Tongue, but 1,361,735 as per A-11 Individual Scheduled Tribe Primary Census Abstract Data and its Appendix. For that specific state number, we can have a range, but whether we should round it is a question since the template documentation suggest full figures, also supported by the Greeks article and many other ethnic article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Does the template suggest exact numbers? Sure, you can see a few exact figures in the example infobox given in its documentation, but that doesn't equate to explicit advice. Generally, if the population is bigger than a hundred or so people, giving exact numbers is a bad idea. To begin with, the census doesn't count people who have moved abroad, it doesn't always reach 100% of those inside the country, and for those that it does reache, not absolutely everyone who speaks a language will declare that they speak that language. If you also take into account the inevitable fluctuations that come with people being born or dying, then any large number with more than a few significant digits will turn out to be a complete fiction. – Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Obviously there will be fluctuations, I agree to that, but we need to follow the norms/maintain parity since in most ethnic articles, Greeks, Turkish people, Punjabis, Tamils, etc, the exact numbers are added next to the |region1=, |region2=,... fields even if in millions, and a rounded figure "X.YZ million" is added for the top |population=. Now a range in the case of |region1= Assam , is likely necessary as per the above excel sheets, seem easier to portray using rounded off numbers, but we need to be cautious that it does not look like it includes the figures of Mech, Kachari, etcs which is the primary topic of discussion here. Another thing to note is that we have nation-wise breakup of numbers in major populations, however in this case and in many NE tribal population articles, we have state-wise break-up, which is not advised in the template documentation. Perhaps we should remove them. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Though the two (Boro speakers and ethnic Boros) are related and probably close, they are not the same. Combining the two might be WP:SYNTH. So I endorse Austronesier's suggestion to use the number of Boro speakers as an estimate of the number of ethnic Boros—we could use the rounded number 1.48M (for 1,482,929) as Uanfala has suggested and explain in a note that this is an estimate and that the largest population 1.36M (for 1,361,735) lives in Assam. We may also mention that the number of speakers undercounts the number of ethnic Boro people since not all Boro people are L1 speakers of the Boro language. Though I am a little worried that in the enumeration of "Bodo language" in the census some others from Boro-Garo languages might have been included, we should ignore this for now. Also, Uanfala, I have checked the break-up of the Assam figures—the Mech, Dimasa, etc. are listed separately. Chaipau (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Additional comments: Fylindfotberserk the reason I suspect there could be other languages hidden in the census "Bodo language" number is because this suggests about 120,000 Boros in India live outside Assam. This number looks a little too big to me. But I could be wrong, so let us ignore it for now till we get some better numbers. Chaipau (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Chaipau: 1.48M? It seems the discussion above was zeroing on something 1.42M -ish for the total, isn't it?

• The number "1,482,929" is for the "BODO" language group here, which includes "Kachari, Mech and Others". The number for Bodo language should be "1,454,547", which is reflected in the infobox next to the "population rounded off as 1.45 Million currently.
• According to Part A (one of the sources, you and Austronesier were discussing in June above), the total comes to "1,482,929" exactly. So it is obviously calculating for the "Bodo language group" (inclusive of Kachari, Mech and "Others") rather than the "Bodo language". Thus, the statewise breakup numbers in this particular link can't be used.
• We may also mention that the number of speakers undercounts the number of ethnic Boro people since not all Boro people are L1 speakers of the Boro language.. - Actually the opposite is happening, the number of speakers according to the C-16 Population By Mother Tongue is higher (1,407,711) than the number (1,361,735) declared in A-11 Individual Scheduled Tribe Primary Census Abstract Data and its Appendix
• As for the Assam figures, since we have two numbers (from excel sheets), 1,407,711 (census as per language speakers) and 1,361,735 (per population), I suggest the following

1) The |population= would remain same as in current with a note mentioning about the L1 thing.

2) The "|region1= Assam" will use a range based on the above 1,361,735 - 1,407,711 or rounded format 1.36 M - 1.40M

The output infox would look something like this (with examples for both raw and rounded off numbers):

Boro

Total population
1.45 million (2011)
Regions with significant populations
India
*Assam:	1,361,735 to 1,407,711 (2011)
*Assam:	1.36 million to 1.41 million (2011)

- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Sorry, I was looking at the number at the all-India level. Though I had advocated using two sources (language/certified) as upper and lower levels I am no longer certain that is a good idea now now primarily because you have shown that the number of L1 speakers is higher than the certified Boros. I suspect that both the numbers are different kinds of lower estimates. Maybe the answer could be either to use the certified number consistently across different ethnic peoples (in the same manner as you have done in the Dimasa people page) or use an argument like the one employed by Austronesier above and use the L1 speakers. Chaipau (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Aged people don't carry ST certificate. Most people are unaware of it's use. Many child don't issue ST certificate until it's necessary. Number of ST certificate can't be used here. In Assam, Duplicate certificate are also issued. 2409:4065:D91:6E63:4867:5C20:BA24:D3A (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I believe there wouldn't be a problem dropping a note mentioning that these are figures of the "L1 speakers" in the ref (similar to what I did in the infobox example on the right) or somewhere below in the notes section of the article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: OK, I agree. We should use only the L1 speakers then and not the certified people number, because both are lower estimates and the L1 number is the higher of the two. Chaipau (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: That means the current infobox is alright, we have to add a note about L1 only. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: yes. Except I feel we should not use the certified number (1.3M). So maybe this?

Boro

Total population
1.45 million (2011)
Regions with significant populations
India
*Assam:	1.41 million (2011)

@Chaipau: Should we be using rounded off figures? Since we would already be explaining about L1 speakers and stuff you explained above in the note. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I tend to agree with Uanfala that all the digits give a false impression of precision. Furthermore, I tend to register only the first two or at most three significant numbers, never more. If I see more, I do round off automatically. On the contrary all the digits might be appropriate in the info-box but a round-off is better in the text. Other than that I do not have a strong preference. So please use your style and it will be OK. . Chaipau (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Hmm.. perhaps it is better to round it of for Assam. Atleast the Turkish people (not GA though) article does this for the first major break-up (Turkey), rest are in digits. OK, I'm updating it as discussed. Also, we should discuss, perhaps in a separate thread, whether to use state-wise breakups since this is not advised in the documentation nor it is done for major ethnic groups, but then again we are talking about smaller groups/tribes like Bodos? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

References

History

@Northeast heritage: place your objections here. You do not need to place ARBIPA alerts on my page, I am aware of it[14]. Chaipau (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Since nobody knows when Boros started calling themselves Boro and Author didn't write anything about origin of self-designation Boro identity, "Boro identity formation" section name is simply wrong. If you want to write about Boro identity formation, You should first collect good papers on this topic, I am damn sure many Assamese scholars don't know the fact that before Hodgson, Francis-Buchanan Hamilton wrote about Boros. In fact, Hamilton collected 1500 wrods of Boro language. There is enough evidence, the history of a marginalized community is totally suppressed under the burden of interests and preferences of a dominant community. Donno know how to convince experienced editors like you so i'm done. Northeast heritage (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage: The position which you echo here is pretty close to what is generally called primordialism. This is a common viewpoint taken by members of ethnic groups, but not really the theoretical framework of choice among mainstream historians and anthropologists. Ethnic groups are innately fluid, and labels employed to "classify" them even more so. If you have good sources which take the primordialist perspective on Boro history, we may well cite them here as well for balance, but considering due weight. –Austronesier (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Sorry, I don't have any good source. We still don't know when it started but surely it didn't start in British era. Boro community incorporated Brahma hindu religion in 20th century. It shows fludity of Boro culture and incorporation of new identity Brahma. After arrival of Europeans, Boro (anglicized as Bodo) was extended to all tribes having linguistic relationship with Boro because they assumed Boros to be most dominant community in past which we can call dissemination of Boro identity but we still don't know when it formed. Boro means Man so i believe it existed much before the separation of Borok (Tripuri) , Dimasa ruler (Bodosa). Most tribals have similar endonym like Garos call themselves Mande (means Man). Northeast heritage (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no problem in content of the section but name of the section is not balanced because Historians, Anthropologist, Linguists never claimed Boro identity formed in 19th-20th century. Northeast heritage (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The Boro identity formation lasted till Upendranath Brahma and continues today in some form. As pointed out, ethnic groups are innately fluid. Kalicharan Brahma's activity is just the first evidence of a positive identity movement from within the community. If there are earlier evidence, please present evidence/RS. Chaipau (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Any claim without source and out of context is meaningless. I didn't write nonsense to present RS. You need to provide RS for Boro identity formation which you don't have. It must be clear that Bodo identity formation started with Hodgson for Boro-Garo linguistic group. Northeast heritage (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I have provided RS. If you have RS for earlier Boro identity formation, please do so. Chaipau (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

She didn't discuss about Boro identity formation. If you misinterpret and keep on insisting same thing, There is no meaning of discussion. Only third person would be able to say whose interpretation is correct. So I am done. Northeast heritage (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You can name the section as "A new Boro/Bodo identity formation" as i did but your reverted. Northeast heritage (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I have added a citation which places Boro identity formation in the colonial period. I shall not entertain these tantrums from you henceforth. Please provide RS for your arguments. Chaipau (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no content dispute. So I don't need any RS. Main problem is your interpretation. Your just mix up everything. Brahma, a new Boro identity but a religious identity of some Boros which you claimed the Boro identity earlier.

You are just dumping EPW political articles for History section. Perhaps I should find some good papers on Northeastern tribes based on their folklores and culture documented by European scholars. There was no culture of deceitful in tribal communities and their folklores turn out historically accurate.

If "From the colonial period, the Bodos have been defining themselves as a community in opposition to other communities" means "Boro identity formation began in the colonial period", I will never come back here.

If my IQ level isn't so low, "From the colonial period, the Bodos have been defining themselves as a community in opposition to other communities" means "Bodos have been distancing themselves from other communities".

I am leaving for few months. Northeast heritage (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. We will reconnect in a few months. Chaipau (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage: I am somewhat disturbed to see you flip-flopping between very sensible/thoughtful comments and pretty naive remarks ("There was no culture of deceitful in tribal communities and their folklores turn out historically accurate" – that's super-naive) which latter remotely remind me of statements by User:Sairg and by his countless "reincarnations". Nothing implied here; I am aware that a strong literalist approach towards tribal traditions (as they were recorded by Raj-era scholars) is not a rare thing among NE Indian editors I have encountered here. –Austronesier (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I understand that my emotive comments might have high degree of commonality with comments from other editors. Almost all editors have read the same things and I am aware of Sairg but I am more of a reader than an editor. I invested my time here in this discussion because I know the issue of forceful assimilation and marginalization of tribal communities. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Striked thee naive comment. Now I realised it has negative implications. Northeast heritage (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Then you are in the wrong place. Wikipedia cannot right historical wrongs. Neither can it forcefully assimilate nor marginalize peoples.

There is one way it can help you, though. Start a Boro language Wikipedia. Here is the link to get started. Chaipau (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "to this discussion" instead of "here" to make things clearer. Wikipedia cannot right historical wrongs but POV-pusher editors wrong the rights. Since you pinged me, I commented here. Sigh, totally exhausted. Northeast heritage (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I am still trying to learn WP:P&G. I will contribute in future when i'll have free time. Northeast heritage (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It is 12:18am Indian time. Sorry for any mistakes in my writings, I am tired. Northeast heritage (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Linguists have reconstructed the origin of "Boro" from "Bara-fisa" and equated the "Bara-fisa" to "Brog-bu-tsa" meaning "the descendants of steppes", source : Mosahary, R N (1983). "The Boros: Their Origin, Migration and Settlement in Assam" , given in the Bibligraphy.

I don't know academic standard of writing such things but it appears to me that this reconstruction could be part of "Primordialism". And the current version of so-called "Boro identity formation" section is more of "Socio-religious/political transformation" than "Boro identity formation". Interestingly Christianity has more contribution to entire community whereas Brahma religion contributed to small section of Boros in Kokrajhar district but Author didn't call Christian Boro as a new Boro identity. Historically, Hindus imposed Mech or Mleccha and Kachari names demeaningly on Boro people. Some local scholars still love to use these names instead of Boro. Jae-Eun-Shin in her papers about Kamarup such as "Region formed and Imagined", has written how nationalist Indo-Aryan scholars portray an image of superior Indo-Aryan and inferior Mongoloid. Interestingly most scholars identifies ruling dynasties of Kamarupa with Boro or "Kachari" but yeah local scholars can always make unsubstantiated claims/controversies to burry the history of some ethnic groups and finally burry their existence.

There are great WP editors who are academic, linguist, computer scientist etc in real life so i trust WP and it helped me to enhance my knowledge. I'll be reading great articles written by such editors and I decided to leave editing. Thank you. Northeast heritage (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier, I notice now that the problem of primordialism is worse than what it looked like about a year ago. It seems that the Boros were first identified by the colonial ethnographers and administrators. I shall try my best to identify it here and steering clear of it (as well as in other articles) and shall require your help in keeping a check (oh no, once again! :-)). Chaipau (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought somebody will NPOVize the misinterpretation but nobody did, so i updated the misinterpretation to what Author said. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage: I have adjusted the text and removed the primordialism, as Austronesier had pointed out, that you introduced. Please do not do this again. Chaipau (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Where did I introduce Primordialism? Author didn't say such things which you interpreated. Pathak didn't even use the word "Identity". Please avoid WP:SYNTHESIS. Northeast heritage (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

There are 25 mentions of the word "identity" in the article by Pathak, and they are all attributed to the colonial period. Chaipau (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Not about the random use but about the use in quoted text given in the citation. Northeast heritage (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the sentence: "From the colonial period, the Bodos have been defining themselves as a community in opposition to other communities." Where is the synthesis? Most authors have identified the early 20th century as when the process began, as Pathak has done here. But if you want to refer to the identity consolidation in the later half of the 20th century in the Bodo Movement conquest, that is a different matter. Chaipau (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

See there is difference between the identity and its definition. People can keep on redefining their identities like Rajbanshi people. I am very confused why these Boro leaders like Kalicharan Brahma and Jadunath Khakhlary are given too much importance. These leaders can say anything. They aren't Academics. To my knowledge, not a single scholar ever claimed "Boro Identity formation" began in colonial period. This self-designation is analogous to self-designation "Arya". Also there is difference between Identity and Ethnicity/Community, Just take an example of Ahom, Ahom were original Assamese but today most people of Assam call themselves caste-Hindu Assamese. But Boro is a scheduled tribe so it's not flexible like Assamese, here non-Boros don't join the community. Pathak's comment is about origin of difference between Boro and caste-Hindu Assamese. So your interpretation is simply wrong. No doubt, Based on Raj scholarship, Chauvinist Boro leaders tried to merge other tribes into Bodo race which is an outdated concept. I will really appreciate if you can provide a source where scholars claim the identity formation process began in colonial period but Pathak's comment is not saying what you interpret. Northeast heritage (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Pathak's sentence says precisely that. The Boro community began to define itself in the colonial times (authors mention early 20th century). It is also widely known that the "tribal" category was created by the British, which the Boro people used to distinguish itself (Simon Commission, 1923). Scheduled tribe is a constituted category---so it is post-Indian Independence (1947) phenomenon. It has no anthropological value. The same ethnic group may enjoy benefits in one region but not in others. And the government of the day can admit groups into ST category according political needs.

Since you are arguing that Boro identity formation did not begin in the Colonial times the onus is on you to provide references. Chaipau (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No, Pathak's sentence doesn't say what you interpret. Let us wait for third opinion. I requested an Rfc regarding this issue. Northeast heritage (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

See, What Pathak said doesn't reflect in your interpretation. "A community in opposition to other communities" is the new definition according to her. This is a trivial thing. I don't understand why it is so hard to be understood. Fact is nobody knows when Boros started calling themselves Boro. Northeast heritage (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead

@Chaipau: This sentence - They are concentrated mainly in the Bodoland Territorial Region of Assam, though Boros inhabit all other districts of Assam and Meghalaya. - requires copyedit IMO. Part of it is redundant, "though Boros inhabit all other districts of Assam", since the lead sentence already says "largest ethnolinguistic group in the Assam state". Second, the "and Meghalaya" part implies that Boros are found in all districts of Meghalaya at significant percentages, which likely is not the case. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: thanks for looking into this. I agree. There are currently too many issues with the entire lead section. I think this should be corrected properly after a demographic analysis is made on all districts. Since the Boro people are a scheduled tribe, they are identified via the census. Chaipau (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Rfc about "Identity formation" in History section

We are having some issues with interpretations of what the Authors said and what an editor interprete. I assumed good faith in the editor since she/he is a senior editor but not a single source discusses "Boro Identity Formation". Authors discuss socio-religious and political transformation or aspirations of the community. Based on "From the colonial period, the Bodos have been defining themselves as a community in opposition to other communities. The Bodo-educated elites and intelligentsia have been articulating their divergence from the Assamese caste Hindu society and highlighting issues like land alienation and social and economic backwardness.", The editor interpreted the "Boro Identity Formation" began in the colonial period. To my understanding, Neither her/his interpretation is correct nor the section name is WP:DUE. Should there be some changes? I will appreciate your comments. Northeast heritage (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Pinging the concerned editor @Chaipau: Northeast heritage (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage I'm sure whomever you're talking about would appreciate a ping. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

done Northeast heritage (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: A little background—this issue has already been discussed in the history section above. In that discussion Austronesier has pointed out] that the OP's approach is an example of primordialism. (I am hereby pinging Austronesier, which OP has not done). So it is not just I who do not agree with OP but there are others too.

It does not look to me that OP quite understands what primordialism is. Even after the link was provided to them, OP makes a statement that is classical primordialism' here in which OP claims that "Historians, Anthropologist, Linguists never claimed Boro identity formed in 19th-20th century.". This is a strange claim since the quoted statement says precisely that. Also, the very first two lines from the abstract of the article has this to say: "The term "Plains Tribal" was first used by the colonial rulers in Assam to lump together a diverse set of people defined in semi-geographical and semi-sociological terms. It was taken up and crafted into an identity in the competitive politics of late colonial Assam by representatives of tribal groups who successfully welded this diverse set into a unified political and social category.". In other words, the identity of the Boro's were being crafted on the notion of "plain tribe", a colonial construct.

The section heading Boro identity formation uses a standard academic phrase identity formation. If we want to use the exact words used by the author, then the subject heading should be Crafting the Boro identity, which I am sure the OP would like less.

Chaipau (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't have disagreement with Austronesier who has pointed out about my approach. So I don't know if I should ping @Austronesier or not. Pardon my noviceness. Again I read the discussion history section above but I couldn't find whether Austronesier disagreed with me or Austronesier agreed with your interpretation. To my knowledge, It doesn't matter whatever approach I take because Wikipedia simply reports WP:DUE scholarship.

Now let us look into the sources used

1)Book of Sharma, Jayeeta (2011). Empire's Garden: Assam and the Making of India. Duke University

2)Political article of Pathak, Suryasikha (2010). "Tribal Politics in the Assam: 1933-1947". Economic and Political Weekly

Sharma discusses about different claims made by Boro leaders and their socio-political aspirations. Yeah She calls "Brahma", a new Bodo identity. Similarly Pathak discusses about Tribal politics and She states that the Bodos have been defining themselves as a community in opposition to other communities since colonial era.

Some well-known facts

1) Boro is the endonym reported by numerous scholars in their field work since the time of Francis Buchanan-Hamilton and B.H. Hodgson

2) Boros were known as Kachari and Mech which are exonyms. Before Linguistic Survey of India 1905, They were listed as Kacharis, Mech and Minor Bodo, but After LSI became influencial Boros abandoned Kachari and Mech name and got listed as Boro or Bara.

3) Some Boros follow Brahma religion and use Brahma surname which Sharma called a new Bodo identity.

3) Boros have been defining themselves as a community in opposition to other communities since colonial era which is reported by Pathak.

4) Boro leaders use tribal identity for political purpose and this identity is nothing but colonial construct, earlier "Tribal" identity was discriminatory so many tribes like Ahom, Chutia, Moran, Rajbasnhi rejected it but now this identity is politically privileged so different tribes are demaning the "Tribal" status.

So, How Chaipu concludes that Boro identity formation began in colonial era is beyond my understanding and Boro Identity formation will be a subtopic within Identity formation. Anyway, My RfC is more of a simple question whether Chaipau's interpretation correct or not. Northeast heritage (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion smacks of primordialism. Be that as it may, Wikipedia is not the place for WP:OR and the direction which Northeast heritage is trying to move this discussion is not appropriate.

Is standard scholarship addressing Boro identity formation? Yes. Boro identity formation has been mentioned specifically by Pathak above, as also by Smitana Saikia in the PhD thesis (2017) from King's College, London. The title of the 5th chapter is Identity formation and autonomy in the Assam plains in the early 20th century: The Bodos". The first sentence is "This chapter brings into sharper focus the processes of identity formation of the Bodo community from the early decades of the twentieth century till independence.". Here again we encounter the start of the Boro identity formation in the late colonial times. The author specifically states that the identity formation was triggered by local elites to find space in the colonial state: "Parallel to the efforts of the colonial state to define and govern Assam, there were efforts by these communities to identify and locate themselves in the social and political milieu of the colonial state. Developments in colonial Assam valley were thus linked and products of political struggles among local elites." (p160)

The title of the section "Boro identity formation" is not based on any "interpretation" as OP has suggested, but it is an active area of research and curiosity. Authors have attributed the origin to the activity of local elites, as Saikia has mentioned above and which Sharma also states in unambiguous terms in [15] and [16]. This is, in fact, not a special feature of the Boro identity formation, but a rather universal phenomenon. Chaipau (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Now you have added a PhD thesis to discussion. But our discussion belongs prior to this event. I don't understand why it is so hard to understand such simple things. Scholars have shown that the Identity formation is continuous process e.g. Some scholars discuss Boro Identity formation in 19th century and Some scholars discuss Boro Identity formation in 20th century and Some scholars may have discussed Boro Identity formation in 21st century. This doesn't mean Boro Identity formation began in 19th century. There is huge difference between "Boro Identity formation began in colonial period" and "Boro Identity formation in colonial period". I only object "Boro Identity formation began in colonial period" which is unsourced and misinterpretation of the quoted text in citation. Northeast heritage (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I have shown above that there is no interpretation involved. Authors, including Saikia, Pathak, and Sharma (and many others not named here) have explicitly or by a different phrasal expressions, talked about Boro identity formation. What we have seen from you so far are mentions of names (Boro, Bara, Bodo, Mech). None of these names denote the same people---instead they refer to different peoples and groupings as used by different sources in different times in the past and in the present.

I shall ignore your comments on why others find "it so hard to understand simple things" for now. Chaipau (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Scholars have already discussed about spelling variants. Scholars have also discussed about exonyms. These aren't issues at all. To my understanding, Saikia talks about Bodo Identity formation (latest addition) in 19th or 20th century, Pathak talks about Tribal Identity formation and Sarma talks about Religious/Brahma Identity formation. All these are separate subtopics within Identity formation. Is there any evidence about Boro Identity formation beginning in colonial era? Also please try to use authoritative sources on Identity formation because Political articles don't give indepth analysis. Northeast heritage (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation- Boro Identity formation began in colonial period, based on "From the colonial period, the Bodos have been defining themselves as a community in opposition to other communities. The Bodo-educated elites and intelligentsia have been articulating their divergence from the Assamese caste Hindu society and highlighting issues like land alienation and social and economic backwardness.". I object this interpretation while waiting for third opinion. Northeast heritage (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the basis of your objection? Please provide WP:RS to back your objection. The text you are objecting to are based on cited WP:RS. Chaipau (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC) (edited) 14:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

To my understanding, Identity formation is continuous process and All these scholars you referred discuss colonial phase of Bodo identity formation. So It's about Boro identity formation in colonial period. But Boro idenity formation began in colonial period means Genesis of Boro identity in colonial period so I object to the clause- "Boro identity formation began in colonial period". Beginning of Phase isn't same as genesis. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Please note that your "understanding" in not WP:RS. If you are unable to provide any evidence beyond your understanding then we cannot proceed with a fruitful discussion. Chaipau (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS, I can raise my objection. I am proposing "Boros identity formation in the colonial period began when the Boro elite and intelligentsia began differentiating themselves from the Assamese caste-Hindu society" instead of "Boros identity formation began in the colonial period, when the Boro elite and intelligentsia began differentiating themselves from the Assamese caste-Hindu society". If it is acceptable, I will have no more objection to this issue. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Under WP:CONSENSUS, An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Your dispute is not legitimate, given you have not provided any source, even after repeated requests. Chaipau (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I am disputing your interpretation, obviously using the same quoted text and same source. This is not an issue. Also I edited as per source but later you restored same objected clause. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I added my proposed text. If my edit will not be reverted, This RfC can be closed, otherwise we have to wait. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

And Understanding is the most important thing in Wikipedia because we can't copy paste actual texts. We have to understand clearly then write in own words. So my concerns are legitimate. As a result, you have added new source to back your claims, but a concern is still unresolved. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You have not only not provided any source for your understanding, but now you are quoting non-existent Wikipedia policy ("Understanding is the most important thing in Wikipedia"). If Identity formation began in the pre-colonial period, please provide a source.

Your problem here is that the Boro identity was based on Hodgson's definition of the "Bodo", which all writers have commented on. And the notion of "plain tribes" which also was a colonial construct. This is precisely why you are unable to provide a source. Jadav Khakhlari rightly anticipated the problem, but he is a footnote in Boro history. Wikipedia cannot solve the problems of Boro identity formation---it cannot do anything beyond what authors have said. It cannot present Boro national narratives in Wikivoice either, since these narratives overlap and are in conflict with other narratives, such as those of the Dimasas. It can only report on them, which is what the article is currently doing. Chaipau (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

When did I claim a non-existent policy? No doubt Understanding is most important thing in WP and It is required to give correct interpretation.

I didn't write Boro identity formation began in pre-colonial. Neither I know when Boro identity formation began nor I have found any scholarship which discusses when Boro identity formation began. It is you who write Boro identity formation began in colonial period so the burden to provide right citation lies on you. Now you have provided a new citation without a quote, but nowhere the Author discusses when Boro identity formation began. I can't repeat same things. So I am waiting for comments from other editors. Northeast heritage (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue related to the interpretation of Pathak's claim is already resolved. Discussion is very time-consuming. Interpretation of Saikia's claim is a different issue for some other days. So I am ending this discussion. Northeast heritage (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree and request that this RfC be closed. Please note that Northeast heritage has agreed (15:12) that the issue regarding Pathak's quote has been resolved following this edit (13:55) Chaipau (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Please note that Northeast heritage has since retired. Chaipau (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Francis-Hamilton

@Northeast heritage, I am not sure why you are inserting this: [17] and [18]. I removed it because of the following reasons.

1. Daimari's thesis does not attribute his claim to any source. Specifically, his sentence ...the proper name to refer to them was Boro is not attributed. I looked at his "Account of Assam", and I could not find the word "Boro" anywhere.
2. Hamilton left India in 1815 for good---about 10 years before the Treaty of Yandaboo (1826). Jaquesson writes: His greatest accomplishment is the survey of Bengal (1807-1814), to which he added a wealth of information about Assam. After that, for one year he took charge of the Botanical Gardens in Calcutta, which he handed over to Wallich (23rd Feb. 1815), leaving India forever on the very same day. He then assumed the name Hamilton.. He did not even enter Assam, which was off limits to him. Assam was very much a kingdom. Actually, Buchanan could not enter Assam, which was then closed to foreigners. All his information, as he himself explained, was collected from people he met in Rangpur or closer to the border. His approach came from outside.

So you are trying to insert an unreferenced claim from a PhD thesis here, about an issue where the original reporter did not even visit the place? He was reporting about people in Bengal not about Assam, first hand. His information has to be used keeping these caveats in mind, and Jaquesson does an excellent job doing so.

I rather go with Jaquesson who traces the use of the term Bodo to Hodgson.

Sorry, this quote from Daimari fails verification. Chaipau (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC) (edited) 17:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chaipau: , See page no. 14. It's well attributed. Historical Assam didn't include undivided Goalpara where he visited and collected information about language and culture of the people of the region. Jaquesson's work is obviously not comprehensive. Northeast heritage (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Martin Montgomery had reproduced FBH's work in book. Daimari quotes the relevant claim in page no. 14 and analyses in page no. 67. I don't understand why are reverting my cited text. Jaquesson's article is mainly about discovery of Boro-Garo languages. It's not about discovery of Boro-Garo peoples. Jaquesson wasn't working on Boro Identity formation so his work obviously didn't mention many things about Boro people. Northeast heritage (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage, the Francis Hamilton quote fails verification for te reason above and I shall remove it again. You have not been able to verify it. Martin Montgomery is something I shall verify and let you know, and if correct, I shall place it where it belongs. Your latest addition as it stands now is very confusing. Chaipau (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage, help me find the quote in Montgomery. The volume iii is given here. Please help me locate the text Daimari quotes from Montgomery in p14

Daimari says very specifically that "As such, whenever Bodo is used in the body of the thesis, it is used as a colonial construct." (p14) Not just he, but most academics today agree (look at Sanjukta Das Gupta, cited in the article; Jaquesson etc.) So it is important to figure out how this colonial construct impacted the Boro identity formation. Daimari himself says that "However when they became colonial subjects, Boros increasingly transitioned from this fuzzy existence to a more definite and defined category. One of the factors facilitating this transition was the knowledge produced by the British administrators and anthropologists through descriptive accounts, ethnographies, ethnologies, gazetteers and subsequently the census." (p5) Unfortunately, modern academics do not consider this as records but "colonial constructs". Wikipedia too considers the Raj ethnographers as unreliable. And as a result, we can at best state when specific claims were made and not state the claims in WP:Wikivoice. Chaipau (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you are unable to find the citation. Please see citation no. 64 and 65. It is clear that the source isn't "Account of Assam" but "Martin Montgomery, Histories Of Eastern India" and page no. 549 Northeast heritage (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

See this . Northeast heritage (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Daimari quots in page no. 14 what is given in Martin's page no. 549. Northeast heritage (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage, thank you for the link. It is just as I had suspected. Here is the complete paragraph:

The Kachharis form a tribe, of which a few families are settled in two eastern divisions of this district, and a great many in the lower hills of Bhotan, and in Asam. Indeed they allege, that their prince was sovereign of that country, when it was invaded by its present rulers ; and he still retains the sovereignty of a considerable extent of hilly country south from Asam, and east from Silhet (Cachar R). It is perhaps from this territory, that they derive the name usually given to them; for my informants say, that the proper name of the people is Boro. Although long separated from their prince, and scattered through dominions of more powerful sovereigns, they allege, that they still retain their loyalty, and every year contribute to give him support. Each family, wherever settled, gives from one to five rs. , which are collected by persons regularly deputed from Kachhar the number of families in this district may be about 200.

1. First, this is from Montgomery, not Hamilton-Buchanan. Neither you nor Daimari have provided any reference where Hamilton-Buchanan mentions Boro/Bodo.
2. It is clear Montgomery in the paragraph quoted above claims Boro as the self-designation of the entire Kachari people. The territory where the Kacharis live is said to include Rangpur, foothills of Bhutan, North Cachar hills, as well as the Cachar district. This is different from the use of Boro in Daimari's thesis, where he uses it to designate only the Boro people as defined today, and does not include the Dimasa who are present in Cachar hills and valley which Montgomery includes in his Boro.

I shall change the text and references accordingly.

Chaipau (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You can't interpret/misinterpret anything. Montgomrty himself acknowledged Buchanan in "Introduction". Montgomery is the editor, not original Author. That work is about Kacharis who called themselves Boro which is further confirmed by description of religion in next page. quote1="Though Montgomery’s account is being used here as a source, he had taken as his sources the accounts written by Buchanan-Hamilton, and hence the reference to Buchanan-Hamilton in the first person", page no.=68f , quote2="Here we can safely assume that Buchanan-Hamilton indeed meant the Boros—not taking into account the stray reference to tribute paying Kacharis(Dimasas) — as is evident from the description of their religious practices, which was said to be centred around the worship of what was described as the Siju and the female deity Moynong, as these are deities specifically worshipped only by them and not by any other community" , page no.=69.

You are free to start an RfC to remove cited text. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage, as I said earlier, we need to verify this in very specific ways. According to Daimari, Hamilton collected information about Assam from people in Bengal in 1808/1809. Even if he was in Goalpara at that time the Goalpara Duars (where the Boros historically have been) were still with Bhutan at that time (it was with Bhutan till the Duar War 1864/65), for another 50 years or so. So he could not have been in the Boro areas.

Furthermore, we have many authors remarking on how colonial ethnographers basically were advancing colonial interests. So it is natural to look at their reports very critically.

There is one other issue which Daimari has been very specific about---how the Boros have been using "colonial knowledge" for their own unnati (progress). This is OK to do in real life, but not in Wikipedia. You cannot apply the tools of Boro unnati in Wikipedia, since that would be WP:PROMO. Chaipau (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

LOL, Obviously your claims are simply wrong because Duars were not even part of Goalpara then. You're claiming that Wikipedia is place to critically review articles which is also simply wrong, we had such discussion earlier.

I can definitely prove, Daimari is right but I must follow WP:FORUM guidelines.

Buchanan wrote about Sijou , Mainao and collected atleast 1800 words of Boro language. No scholar will ever claim that this account isn't about Boros.

You OWN. Northeast heritage (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage, you need to get the proper cites. Daimari does give any citation, as I have said. Chaipau (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

My first citation was enough. I cited the knowledge produced, by Daimari, based on historical account/report. You are free to do whatever you want. Northeast heritage (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)