Talk:Kamapitha

You are promoting just one of the divisions, and this is just POV pushing. Please do not revert the edits. If you have issues with this, discuss in the talk pages. Chaipau (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are now in position to say certainly what exactly is Kamapitha in light of research by scholars like Banikanta. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I come to a consensus when I am just filling out the information from a source? Chaipau (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets determine what actually is Kamapitha. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any attempt to determine it would be original research. Different sources have defined it differently. Your removal of my edits, where I have simply filled the details of your references is POV pushing. You are using the KAS and Kakti references to claim that Kamapitha is the region between Manas and Guwahati. I have checked those references and see that you are making a false claim. I ask you to revert your changes immediately. Chaipau (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided direct quote for your false sourcing accusation and giving weight to more reliable sources over lesser is not original research. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see. So you inserted the same definitions that I had provided earlier. Good. Now you see that they don't support the claim? The claim is that Kamapitha is defined as the region between Manas and Guwahati (roughly the undivided Kamrup district). But the other two definitions include (1) the undivided Kamrup districts and parts of undivided Nagaon and Darrang districts --- KAS and (2) the undivided Goalpara and Kamrup districts --- Kakati. All three references define Kamapitha differently! Chaipau (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except eastern boundary of Silghat by KAS, sources points to area roughly equivalent to Undivided Kamrup district. Goswami gives justification behind the name Kamapitha which makes sense. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. All three sources give three different eastern boundaries: Goswami (Guwahati), KAS (Silghat) and Kakati (Kopili river). If we can argue that river courses have changed, then the Kakati boundary may be reconciled to Silghat. According to Kamarupar Buranji (the reference to which you had removed), the eastern boundary was Duimunisila, which is identical to Silghat. So we may reconcile the eastern boundaries of Kamapitha, given in three historical sources, to Silghat.

But Silghat is in the southern bank of Brahmaputra, and Kamapitha is defined for the northern bank. Silghat is further east of Tezpur, on the north bank. Thus in addition to the undivided Kamrup region, three of the four references add large portions of undivided Darrang and undivided Nagaon to Kamapitha.

Chaipau (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources which gives eastern boundary as Kapili and Rupali rivers. Location of Silghat in South makes it invalid contender but i am not sure about existance of other Silghat. Guwahati/Kapili/Rupali is suspected eastern boundary till now. Guwahati and Rupali are within Kamrup while Kapili is nearby river. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize that Guwahati and Kopili are both in the south bank. So your rejection of Silghat and acceptance of Guwahati/Kopili makes no sense. Rupali is defined as the eastern boundary of Ratnapith, as defined in Gait, which you have rejected---because you cannot accept Kamapitha between Karatoya and Sankosh. You position is riddled with contradictions. I do not think any consensus is possible when the source references themselves are so contradictory. Chaipau (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The boundary of Kamapitha as given in the different sources.

* All regions are the "undivided" varieties. For example, Kamrup means Undivided Kamrup district.

^‡ This region correspond roughly to Koch Hajo (called Kamrup in Ekasarana texts).

^¶ This region correspond roughly to the Lower Assam region and a little more.

^† Goswami 1998 quotes from Nath, RM (1978) "The Background of Assamese Culture" (2ed) p4. Nath does not cite his sources. Even though he defines the boundary of Kamapitha as "Guwahati region up to Manas", the preceding paragraph gives the boundaries of Ratnapith explicitly: between Bharali and Rupashi (Rupahi) river in Nowgong. So if one were to keep Ratnapith and Kamapith contiguous, the eastern boundary should read Rupahi river in Nagaon.

^# This is the complete reconstructed Kamapitha boundary from R M Nath. Guwahati region is not a good marker, because Kamakhya itself is in Guwahati.

Chaipau (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

There are arguements that Kamakhya is integral part of Kamapitha. So Kamrup is Kamapitha, no doubt about it. Guwahati and Rupali are corresponding landmark of southern boundary parallel to northern river bank. Silghat is odd one. Most importanly there is a reason behind that Kama prefix, that is shape of land fits with shape of Kamrup.Will give more sources. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if you use your theory that Kamapitha is associated with Kamakhya (and thus ignore Gait), the boundaries of Kamapitha still do not agree with each other and none of them correspond to the current Kamrup region. We cannot use R M Nath's boundaries because his boundaries are not attributed, and they appear to be a product of his fertile mind. R M Nath is known to make very original and speculative suggestions.
• The theory associating the "Kama" part of the body with a pitha, which finds favor with you, forces R M Nath to place Ratnapitha (neck and breast) to the east of Kamapitha, which does not agree with the other sources as they all (except Gait) place Kamapitha to the east of Ratnapitha.
• Bhuyan's and Kakati's boundaries seem the most reasonable, and they agree with each other. But that boundary includes the Goalpara region and represents Koch Hajo more closely than it does the current Kamrup region.

Chaipau (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(i)History of Buddhism in Assam, c. 300 B.C.-1200 A.D.,Page 14,S. Sasanananda,1986 - (i) Ratnapitha, (ii) Kamapitha, (iii) Swarnapitha and (iv) Saumarapitha. (i) The area from the river Karatoya to the river Sonkosh was Ratnapitha, (ii) from Sonakosh to the river Rupali the area was called Kamapitha

(ii)Goswami, Kali Prasad (1998). Kāmākhyā Temple: Past and Present, p. 25, The Guwahati area upto the Manas river formed the waist on the position of the genital organ (kama) and was known as the Kamapitha.

(iii)Proceedings, Indian History Congress, Page 501,Indian History Congress,1960 - It is of interest that each of the Pithas is in-charge of a presiding deity, namely, Jalpisa in Ratnapitha Kamakhya in Kamapitha

(iv)Adi deo Arya devata: a panoramic view of tribal-Hindu cultural ... - Page 267,Sandhya Jain, 2004 - The Yogini Tantra lists four pithas in Kamarupa, viz., Ratnapitha, Kamapitha, Suvarnapitha and Sumarapitha

(v)A cultural history of Assam - Volume 1 - Page 15,Birinchi Kumar Barua, Banikanta Kakati,1969 - (1) Ratnapitha, between the Karatoya and Svarnakosa, (2) Kamapitha, between the Svarnakosa and the Kapill भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Till now Goswami's book explores the concept of Kamapitha, along with justification of name. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give other sources which justifies the name Kamapitha. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific justification are you referring to?

Chaipau (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why said land called Kamapitha भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what does your source say? Please give full citation. Chaipau (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you are back, I ask you to move closer to a conclusion on the discussion. Chaipau (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guwahati area upto the Manas river formed the waist on the position of the genital organ (kama) and was known as the Kamapitha. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major problem with this.

• His explanation requires him to put Ratnapitha (neck and breast, where ornaments are worn) to the east of Kamapitha. This is not supported by the two sources you have yourself quoted in that article (which places Ratnapitha to the west of Kamapitha). R M Nath is clearly making up his own explanations and distributing the regions at will. So this explanation is not acceptable.

Chaipau (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have other theories ? Why Ratnapith should be in east of Kampith ? Legend says genital organ of Sati fell in Kamakhya area of Kamrup, making it a Kama Pitha. Kamrupa Pithas do not represent entire body i.e head to toe, which you maybe assuming. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The theories are irrelevant, because R M Nath's reference is not acceptable (even his boundary is suspect because he provides no reference, which are just made up according to his convenience), and none of the other references (even excluding the Gait reference) define Kamapitha that corresponds to the Kamrup region. Chaipau (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even K.P Goswami accepts the view. You have you to provide your quote, which says why it is Kamapitha. Nath's statement shows he has done through research, maybe unlike others. What ever the sources, everyway and mostly, Kamapitha roughly equivalent to Kamrup. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeating the arguments and making us go around in circles. Just because Goswami repeated what R M Nath said does not mean that R M Nath's concocted version is true. It is not. Among the various sources you have yourself provided, you make this particular choice because it serves your purpose, even as all the other sources contradict what you are claiming. There is no reason to accept this concocted version. Chaipau (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there are two sources that actually agree to a large extend. Kakati and Bhuyan. They are duly sourced to actual manuscripts. If at all there has to be a consensus on the region of Kamapitha, then that region has to agree to this definition, from two different scholars, who have sourced it to two different manuscripts. And that region includes Goalpara, Kamrup and parts of Nagaon and Darrang regions. Chaipau (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why i asked for quotes describing its origins. Even Svarnakosha and Rupali boundary roughly equals to Kamrup. Kapili river flows not far away from eastern boundary of Kamrup, as well as uncertainity of river course at Kamapitha period. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Svarnakosha includes Goalpara region. So you cannot claim Kamapitha equates Kamrup region. Let me repeat again. Your quotes are discredited (R M Nath) and you should not try to use them. Chaipau (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then i will say, his work is part modern scholarship and fresh interpretation of old sources. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That can be done only if he examines the other sources critically. He has not done that. He has not cited a single source, an indication it is not scholarship. He simply stated his imaginations. Chaipau (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is because his findings are fresh outlook on subject. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is not how scholarship works. Scholarship is not simple imaginings to fit a pet theory. I would like to conclude that there is not consensus on this topic. If you have objections, please take it to the next level soon. In the meantime, I think it would be prudent to revert the changes you have made on Kamarup region, because your claims are controversial. Please revert it yourself. Chaipau (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about sources. We are concerned about references, not about research methods of scholars. Sources also mention Manasha and Rupali as western and eastern boundaries. You are yet to provide a source which details Kamapitha. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not lecture me about Wikipedia. Just take it to the next forum. The bottom line is your edits on Kamrup region are controversial. You have cherry-picked a reference that supports your POV and subsequently are resisting other sources. I have no problem with you putting up R M Nath on Kamrup region, or here. But to claim that is the sole definition is POV pushing. Chaipau (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then please provide requested source. Ball is your court for some time now. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references are there in the table above. Chaipau (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

A consensus is impossible on the issue of the boundary of Kamapitha. BB's insistence on using R M Nath's definition (which itself is problematic and not clear), ignoring the other's is not acceptable. Chaipau (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 2

What source i asked you ? भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the other sources I have cited in the table. Chaipau (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is assured that you do not have sources with explanation of Kamapitha. Even in your above listing, out of five sources (excluding Gait as per RSN), three gives Manasha as western boundary. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

• You need to count again. Only two sources mention Manas as the western boundary. I have repeated R M Nath once.
• R M Nath's explanation does not define the boundary, and so in infructuous as far as this discussion is concerned.

Chaipau (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if Kamakhya is the epicenter of the Kamapitha domain, how could it be at its boundary? Goswami's (as you have interpreted Nath's) boundary places Kamakhya at the boundary of Kamapitha. And Goswami's definition makes it into a very small region, which is surprising, considering how important a religious place Kamakhya has been for over a millennium. Chaipau (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should one definition of the boundary (Goswami, 1998) be accepted as the standard one, overriding the other definitions, summarized in (Talk:Kamapitha#Summary_of_boundaries). Chaipau (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (invited here by the bot) Question Is this an area defined for current governmental purposes? For example, does a current unit of government govern and provide services completely and only for an area named "Kamapitha" / are there taxes specific to an area named Kamapitha? North8000 (talk)
  • Thank you for participating in this. No, this is not defined for any current government purpose. It is not clear if it was ever a politically defined region. Chaipau (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the slow response. I was trying to figure out what to say next. Some of it relates to that I don't know the subject and there really is no article to read yet. My guess is that it was a vaguely and variably defined area. My advice would be for you two to have some fun and work enjoyably together to build this article instead of arguing over this one point. But on the debated point, I would recommend putting in what all of the sources say, and attribute it in the wording. For example, "according to Mr. XYZ, Kamapitha was........" "Author Mr. ABC states that Kamapitha was ..........." . This would also be nice content for the article. A similar example is Macedonia (region) where a big and interesting and informative part of the article is covering the varying definitions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I do think that would be appropriate. I hope the other editor agrees. Chaipau (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine to include all view points, though i think lede should be from modern scholarship. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is the heart of the dispute. I see that BB does not agree with the third opinion. Chaipau (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then the answer could be determined by Wikipedia policy. Briefly, per

wp:RS criteria must be included. North8000 (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

As per modern scholarship, and more reliable as backed by two authors atleast. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 01:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Gait 1906, as per earlier recommendations of RSN, so will be not used in any form. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to the RSN recommendation? Chaipau (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=501578753 en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=501656173 भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was in a different context. You cannot just reject the entire "History of Assam" because of that comment. I suggest you submit it to WP:RSN and get an opinion. Chaipau (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As North8000 says, policy is rather clear: all non-
  fringe viewpoints should be represented. Current academic consensus may favor the most modern scholarship, but that is the only situation that would allow special weight to be given to the most recent source. Unfortunately, like North8000, I know nothing about this topic, which hinders my ability to offer an informed opinion. However, the most recent source does not automatically trump all other sources; even if this source can be demonstrated to be the current academic consensus, it should be presented as such, not as the only viewpoint. Any non-fringe viewpoints should be presented in the lead. So, depending on the particulars of this case, my answer would preliminarily be no, as long as these viewpoints are not fringe. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I really hate it when editors use an RFC to try to create definitions from Consensus. North has this correct. Work together, use RS and mention everything notable.--Mark 17:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the

Thanks for your action. The issue is currently under discussion at WP:RSN. Chaipau (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And RSN verdict is here. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a "verdict". That was a general comment on British raj sources, as the user himself admitted diff. Look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters. Chaipau (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier recommendation, helds that Gait is old work and second time Raj sources are generally not reliable for boundaries atleast, both remarks Gait, as an unreliable source. It is not possible to include an old work, which says something very out of line. Finally, little part of Goalpara, Kamrup and some part of central Assam, makes Kamapitha area roughly Kamrup, if not wholly as per modern sources. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, Gait's views are fringe, as his boundary do not include Kamrup area, unlike others. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 22:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, and you seem to be resisting this definition because it goes against your POV that Kamapitha is associated with Kamakhya. The boundaries stated in Gait are quoted by

WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Of the three boundaries mentioned by Sircar, two of them are from Gait. Sircar does not mention the other obscure boundaries. Chaipau (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Furthermore, you are trying to fit the evidence to your POV. Sircar has called into question whether these divisions are at all historical. These divisions of Kamarupa are given in manuscripts that are dated to many centuries after Kamarupa had ceased to exist. You are trying to use non-historical data to push a POV. The reason all these boundaries do not agree is because they are all possibly fabricated, and have no historical value. Chaipau (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamakhya is integral part of Kamapitha, is as per sources and acts as important landmark of Kamapitha, thus rejecting Gaits view. Sircar is ridiculous in his statements, he says Kamarupa Pithas are fabricated in medieval times (which too recently inserted in both articles by user Chaipau), while in reality Yogini Tantra was major source, which gives boundaries for ancient Kamrup also,i.e said ancient work was sources of boundaries for Kamarupa and Kamarupa Pithas, not Kamarupa inscriptions. Sircar is an unknown scholar as well, who quotes Gaits book, but do not mention his own analysis, which means no independent research at all. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 23:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Yogini Tantra was composed in Assam in the 16th century ([1]). It mentions the Koch dynasty. So Yogini Tantra was late medieval period, long after Kamarupa ceased to exist in the 12th century.

Please follow the link given here to find out who Sircar was: Dineshchandra Sircar. Chaipau (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yogini Tantra is considered as authentic work in academic circles, as it gives boundaries of Kamarupa as well. DC Sircar junior, says that it is fabricated work, which is acceptable to nobody. Link is provided by user Chaipau is DC Sircar 1, whereas we are discussing DC Sircar 2. I have replaced DC Sircar with Kamarupa Anusandhan Samiti. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Who are DC Sircar junior, 1 and 2? I have quoted only one D C Sircar. I don't think you have

WP:OWNERSHIP of this article. If you have problems with Sircar, please take it to WP:RSN. You cannot prevent references on your personal whim. Chaipau (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You keep fighting about a single source and the exact borders of a poorly defined historical region - but neither of you even bothered to rewrite the lead to say what "Kamapitha" actually is, not least for the sake of MOS conformity. Hope you agree the current "definition" of Kamapitha can only be summarised as ignotum per ignotius.

One more thing: if edit war continues, I will be forced to arrange full protection of the article - again. kashmiri ^TALK 14:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First draft of proposed lede.

Kamapitha (

Sanskrit: कामपीठा kāmapīṭhā) was a geographic region and/or administrative unit of the ancient Kamarupa kingdom in what is now north-eastern India

. The precise designation of Kamapitha, as well as its exact borders, are contentious. The name is not found in the

Kamarupa Pithas) of Kamarupa, giving also its exact boundaries. Some scholars^[who?] suggest that the name has been coined long after Kamarupa ceased to exist to designate the region around the famous Kamakhya Temple

, an ancient pilgrimage centre.

Thanks for comments and suggestions. kashmiri ^TALK 14:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great start. Thanks. Here is a version.

Kamapitha (

Kamarupa Pithas) of Kamarupa, giving its boundaries; besides other definitions in Haragaurisamvada, Vrihadgavakashtantra, Kamrupar Buranji etc. It is suggested by R M Nath that the name designate the region around the famous Kamakhya, a pilgrimage center.^[3]

Chaipau (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. (1) Then, Yogini Tantra article should be corrected to have "16th century" as origin date (and possibly sourced) instead of 1350 AD. (2) On a second thought, maybe we shouldn't include individual scholars' names in the lede, mentioning them further in the body instead – e.g., "It has also been proposed that the name designates...".

Additionally, the fragment "besides other definitions..." is a bit unclear to me. "Definitions" of what - of Kamapitha or of the four divisions? We should avoid lists in the lede, rather saying "certain other works".

In brief, lede should be just a summary of what is elaborated further on in the article. kashmiri ^TALK 15:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Yogini Tantra mentions the Koch kings, so can't be earlier than 16th century.
• R M Nath has to be mentioned, if you want to associate the name Kamapitha with Kamakhya. But I am a little queasy mentioning him, because he is a very speculative and imaginative writer.
• Why mention only Yogini Tantra in the lead, since other sources are equally "reliable".

Chaipau (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks. It feels good to be able to have a conversation and work out things. Chaipau (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:)

OK, then let's drop R M Nath from the lede if he's just only writer to propose that - even though personally I think he was correct (regions are often named after their central or most important town, and the famous Kamakhya Temple could definitely be known, esp. outside of the region, as Kāmākhya-pīṭhā → Kāma-pīṭhā).

"Later sources, like Yogini Tantra, a 16th-century scripture that originated in the region..." At least this one source has an article on Wikipedia which can be consulted by a curious reader.

Also, I'd argue against having citations in the lede, an option admissible per

WP:CITELEAD

.

Generally, I believe lede should be concise enough to give, to a reader unfamiliar with the subject, a rough idea what Kamapitha is all about - but without forcing all this debate and controversy upon him. kashmiri ^TALK 17:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that should work. I am not a fan of refs in lede anyway. Chaipau (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamapitha (

Kamarupa Pithas. Often Kamapitha is associated with the famous Kamakhya Temple

.

What do you say to this? I have basically followed your prescription, and tried to make include more precise text.Chaipau (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]