User talk:Ananya Taye

Please do not use primary sources (Buranjis) in Charaideo. Please use other sources. Since you are a new editor, please familiarize yourself with the rules. Chaipau (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any Wikipedia rule disallowing primary sources.Ananya Taye (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at

WP:PRIMARY. Buranjis contain conflicting information and Wikipedia cannot choose one over the other. Chaipau (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I have read that part. No where is it mentioned that primary sources should not be used. I don't see anything conflicting in Buranjis regarding the fact that Charaideo was a place of worship prior to the arrival of Ahoms. What is conflicting here is the "etymology of Charaideo". As you have said, Wikipedia cannot choose one over the other, therefore both viewpoints should be stated. By removing one, you are promoting the other. Ananya Taye (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It says primary sources have to be read carefully. You are trying to insert an opinion that it is "controversial". You need a secondary source to say it is controversial, and you cannot use the a primary source to create a "controversy". Chaipau (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am reiterating what I said here. Please read the section on primary sources. If you continue to insert primary sources, you will be reported. Chaipau (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the issue of Habung at the talk page before removing standard secondary sources. Chaipau (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: The source you are referring to about Habung is outdated. At the time of publishing the book, there weren't any reliable primary sources available about Habung's history, thus the writer SL Barua assumed it being under some Bhuyan chief. However, once data in the form of copperplate inscriptions was available about the region, the same author writes the Habung region to be a part of Chutia dominion well into the 16th century. I quote from a secondary source "Chutia Jatir Buranji" by SL Barua published in 2007,p. 128, "Suhungmung attacked Panbari, the western region of Habung province, situated on the North bank of Luit(Brahmaputra). Habung was a part of Chutia kingdom...This is the reason why the Chutia king Dhirnarayan launched a naval as well as land attack against the Ahoms in the year 1513 at Dikhoumukh."

Mind you that it is same author writing a few decades later when primary sources were available. As for the year of Suhungmung's conquest, go and read "A History of Assam" by E.Gait, "Ahom Buranji" by GC Barua, Deodhai Buranji or any other Buranji which mentions 1512 AD, not 1510. SL Barua herself corrects it in her 2007 book. In fact, there isn't a single primary or secondary source except the erroneous source of 1986, where it is mentioned as 1510, instead of 1512. Ananya Taye (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Chutiya Buranji that you are citing is promotional material, therefore it is

WP:QUESTIONED. This claim has to be verified or published in a professional peer-reviewed journal because it involves a key historical event and the question has to unambiguously answered---was Habung part of the Chutia kingdom at the time the Ahoms took possession? What was its actual relationship with the Chutia kingdom etc. You cannot create historical facts on Wikipedia. Sorry. Chaipau (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

What is really ambiguous here is claiming Bhuyans to be ruling Habung. In the entire history of the region, there isn't a single reference even remotely relating any "Bhuyan" with the Habung province. This claim has to be verified or published in a professional peer-reviewed journal because it involves a key historical event and the question has to unambiguously answered----Is there any primary source stating Bhuyans to be ruling Habung at the time the Ahoms took possession? Was there any relationship between Habung and Bhuyans?? You cannot create historical facts on Wikipedia. Sorry. Ananya Taye (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Habung as a Chutia territory in 1510/12 is a minor point, but it is a definite historical issue. If S L Baruah did say that it was a Habung was a Bhuyan territory in 1986, then she should have clarified her new position in the Chutia Jatir Buranji and explained the older claim. Why did she not do so? If she has done this earlier, could you please point to the reliable source?

Additionally, the Chutia Jatir Buranji is "promotional" material, because it is published by Chutia Jati Sanmilan, an organization that is involved in the struggle demanding ST status to the Chutia's, as this video demonstrate. [1]. The Chutia Jatir Buranji is, therefore, promotional material pushing forward a particular point of view and it is not a reliable source. The inscription on which this is claimed needs to interpreted in a reliable source critically. If you provide a reliable source, then you may use that source to make the claim.

Chaipau (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim SL Barua made in her older book wasn't based on any evidence. She corrected her mistake as and when evidence in the form of copperplate was available with her. If you read properly, the Dhirnarayan copperplate of 1522 was discovered just two decades ago in the year 2002. When new data is available, there is no clear need to explain some speculative claims which the author made 40 years back.

The book "Chutia Jatir Buranji" is jointly written and edited by SL Barua and Dambarudhar Nath. Both the writers are well established in the field of historical studies. The Jati Sanmilan is merely involved in publishing whatever material the writers have provided with proper citations and evidences. Had the book been written by some organisation people without any proper citations, it could be called promotional, but any book with proper citations is considered reliable, regardless of the publisher. As for the 1522 inscription, it was interpreted independently by Dr. Nityananda Gogoi with the help of Sanskrit scholar Dr. Khemram Nepal as mentioned in the book. The mention of king "Dhirnarayan" of "Vijutsva bansha" and the year "1522"(Saka 1444) is clearly evident in the Sanskrit prose, not needing any interpretation.Ananya Taye (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since S L Barua and D Nath are themselves editors their own contributions in the book have not gone through the process of peer review. The translation of the recent inscription is also not peer reviewed. The other contributions in this compilations are in areas other than history and the editors are not experts in those areas. The point is that this is a Chutia centric publication and promotes a particular point of view and is not a reliable source. Chaipau (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will say it again, the mere mention of king "Dhirnarayan" of "Vijutsva bansha" and the year "1522"(Saka 1444) is clearly evident in the Sanskrit prose. It is not something the writers need to interpret here. There is nothing about a so-called "point of view" here. These are hard and straight facts. Nobody is interpreting or analysising anything from this. Simply mentioning the mere existence of the copper inscription cannot be dismissed blatantly for an unreliable source. There are far more blatant wild speculative claims like bringing in "Bhuyans" in Habung. Forget about being peer reviewed, there doesn't exist even a single evidence of this claim. Your partial and hypocritic viewpoint is not only unhealthy, but dangerous for Wikipedia. This attitude clearly shows

WP:OWN.{{Ananya Taye (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no dispute that the plate mentions Dhirnarayan of the Chutia kings. There is no dispute that the year is 1522, if it is written. What is yet to be interpreted is whether the grant is where this land was granted, whether it was at Habung and where was this Habung. Chaipau (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The land grant mentions the boundaries as: "Dandibari Bindha" (east), "Parkkati"- a tree (south), "Khaxitta" (west), "Dayamambe xomo bandhakaxa" (north). Nowhere in the inscription is "Habung" mentioned. These boundaries are not used in ascertaining the location of this granted land, instead the find-spot (near Dhakuakhana) is being used. You are now making two assumptions:

1. The find-spot is the location of the land that was being granted
2. The find spot is Habung

Neither of these are given in the inscription. But they lead to major impact on our understanding of history. It would mean, for one, that the Chutia king had recovered Habung after the Ahoms had occupied it in 1512. This is a major reversal and has to be corroborated from other sources. Where is the additional evidence that this happened? None of the Buranjis mention that the Chutia's were able to gain anything after 1512. If you have reliable sources, please share.

The points I have made above are historical arguments. They are given here only for reference. What is important from the Wikipedia perspective is

WP:RS

.

Chaipau (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no reversal here. Haven't you read any Buranjis?? The Ahoms were routed out from the region in the year 1520 AD, when the Chutia forces defeated and killed the Ahom general Khenmung who was stationed in Mungkhrang fort(Dihingmukh). It is clearly mentioned that the Ahom forces retreated from the region after this. Even Gait in his book corroborated the facts("A History of Assam", p.84 "The Chutias made no effort to regain their lost territory until 1520, when they attacked the Ahom fort at Mungkhrang. The Ahom commander was killed in a sortie and the garrison fled; and for a time the Chutias once more ruled this tract of country."). Dihingmukh at that time was what is western Majuli today. Dhirnarayan made the land grant in the region to Brahmins in the year 1522, but soon Suhungmung attacked and displaced the Chutias from Dihingmukh.(Deodhai Buranji,"Lakni Raishi Sakat Chuhupha Rajadeo goi Nangkangmuŋgot roi somostoke jabo dile, bule, Dihingor mukhot batot Chutiyak dhorgoi.")

1. As for the location of the grant, the copperplate was found in the same locality(Dhakuakhana) as all the other copperplates. The other plates have references to locations like Baghmari, Ghatapara, Dhal river, Subansiri river, etc. all within present-day Dhakuakhana region, indicating that the grants were made in the same region as the findspots. If the find-spots of other plates match with the location of the land grants, why should this particular plate be an exception? Dr. Nityananda Gogoi has also agreed to the same as mentioned in the CJB p. 42.

2. Wade has clearly mentioned Habung to be located at the confluence of the Subansiri and Brahmaputra which is precisely today's Dhakuakhana region. Besides, there isn't any other place outside Dhakuakhana(in Lakhimpur or Dhemaji district) where any such copperplates have been discovered indicating Dhakuakhana to be the site of the Brahmin settlement.Ananya Taye (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove cited texts. If you repeat this again, you will be reported. Chaipau (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—SpacemanSpiff 17:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Chutia Kingdom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please self-revert or I will file a report. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, please look at

WP:ONUS, as already pointed out to you in the edit summary. Chaipau (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ananya Taye! Your additions to

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double
  inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners
  , for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images.
  non-free content criteria
  in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jonardondishant and User:Ananya Taye reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: ). Thank you. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Chutia people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Homogenie § Reply

 – Xiliuheshui · chat 17:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@瑞丽江的河水:

Da Gula or Xiao Gula cannot be Sylhet from any direction.

1. Gu-la doesn't necessarily translate to Gaur and has different meaning in Chinese (Gu-la meaning ancient one, Ku-la meaning Indian) as far as I know. In Tai-Ahom language too, the word Ku-la was used to denote Hindus. Thus, if the word Gu-la is indeed derived from Ku-la, then it is accurate in describing the Chutia and the Kamata kingdoms, as these were the only Hinduised kingdoms of Northeast India. Other kingdoms of the region like Dimasas, Jaintias, Ahoms, etc were still largely Indigenous and converted in a much later period. That is also the reason that there are Sanskrit/Hindu inscriptions found only for these two kingdoms.

2. That Gour kingdom of Sylhet mentioned by @Homogenie existed in the 1200s and was absorbed by Islamic rulers of Bengal(Ban-ga-la) in 1303.

3. There is no Hindu ruler of Sylhet or Bengal in its entire history with the title "Narayan". That title was specifically used by Northeast Indian rulers like Chutia, Dimasa(after 16th century conversion) and Kamata. So, it can be safely said that Sylhet cannot be Da Gula. Now, Xiao Gula is mentioned to be an independent entity at first, but was later annexed by Da Gula by the start of 1400s. So, even if we assume Xiao Gula as Sylhet, there is no history of Sylhet ever being invaded or annexed by any Hindu king from some other region(Da gula). Infact, it was the Muslims who invaded and annexed Sylhet during that period.

4. If Sylhet was Xiao-Gula(lesser Gula), that would naturally mean that Bengal was Da-gula/greater Gaur. But, the Ming Shi-lu clearly mentions Bengal(Ban-ga-la) separately as ruled by the Islamic ruled Ghiyasuddin.

5. The geographical position of Da-gula/Xiao Gula is nowhere close to Sylhet. Da-gula was located Northwest of Di-ma-sa and Northwest of Mongmao. Dimasa kingdom was located in today's Dimapur region and Mongmao was located in today's Northern Burma/Yunnan border. Sylhet is located Southwest to both Dimasa and Mongmao and is infact quite distant from both regions. Dimasa is nearer, but Sylhet still doesnot share any borders with 14-15th century Dimasa kingdom. Chutia on the other hand shared borders with Dimasa and was located in the exact directions(Northwest to both kingdoms) as mentioned in the chronicle. The Ahom kingdom founder Sukapha also travelled northwest from Mongmao and reached the borders of Chutia kingdom. There was no significant kingdom mentioned in between Mongmao and Chutia, except for some tribal chiefdoms. After he established his kingdom in the buffer region between Dimasa and Chutia kingdoms, the Ahom rulers still maintained relations with the Mong Mao rulers. After the fall of Chutia kingdom under the hands of Ahoms, the Mong mao king even sent one of his generals to invade the capital region Sadiya assuming that the Ahoms wouldn't be able to control the newly acquired region well. But, the Ahom ruler somehow managed to sign a treaty with the invading cheif by sending him a part of bounty that they looted from the Chutia capital and a princess as well. Ananya Taye (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@瑞丽江的河水: Could you please tell me where can I get the content of this inscription? The content of the inscription was originally in the Sanskrit language and written using the Assamese script. There is an Assamese translation available with me. I could send a translated version to you if you want. The inscription was found some decades back in the Sadiya region, which was the capital of the Chutia kingdom. Ananya Taye (talk)

Many thanks for your reply. Very reasonable explanation. Please share a translated version of the inscription to me, thank you so much. Xiliuheshui · chat 17:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@瑞丽江的河水:

Sure. Could u give me an Email address where I could send the translation? I donot want to write the entire thing here.

Just remembered a point. Note that the Islamic ruler of Bengal(Ban-ga-la) which included Sylhet at that time(after the conquest of Slyhet in 1303) was Ghiyasuddin Shah who had his capital Sonargaon, not that far off from Sylhet. So, even if the Chinese had considered Sylhet as a separate territory(under Bengal Vassalage ofcourse), wouldnt they have mentioned it with Bengal, instead of far away kingdoms like Dimasa, or Cha-Shan in the Brahmaputra valley? Ananya Taye (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, please send to [email protected]. Yes I think you are right, Sylhet may not be an option of Xiao Gula. Xiliuheshui · chat 17:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]