No edit summary |
SpacemanSpiff (talk | contribs) →Notification of discretionary sanctions: new section Tag: contentious topics alert |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
== Kamarupa == |
== Kamarupa == |
||
Please do not remove cited texts. If you repeat this again, you will be reported. [[User:Chaipau|Chaipau]] ([[User talk:Chaipau|talk]]) 23:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC) |
Please do not remove cited texts. If you repeat this again, you will be reported. [[User:Chaipau|Chaipau]] ([[User talk:Chaipau|talk]]) 23:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Notification of discretionary sanctions == |
|||
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = 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 [[India]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Afghanistan]]. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic. |
|||
For additional information, please see the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan|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. |
|||
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->—[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<span style="color: #BA181F;">Spaceman</span>]]'''[[User talk:SpacemanSpiff|<span style="color: #2B18BA;">Spiff</span>]]''' 17:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:31, 12 August 2021
Charaideo
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)
I don't see any Wikipedia rule disallowing primary sources.Ananya Taye (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Look at WP:PRIMARY. Buranjis contain conflicting information and Wikipedia cannot choose one over the other. Chaipau (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
@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)
- 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)
@Chaipau: How can you claim something to be promotion just because it doesn't confer to your POV? This is WP:POVPUSH and WP:OWN. Both the secondary sources are written by the same author, SL Barua. If you are trying to reject the citation with primary source available by claiming it to be "promotional", what will you call the one making wild claims, without any primary source?? The writer, in her latest book, clearly uses the information obtained from the 1522 copperplate issued by king Dhirnarayan at Habung region. Granting land to Brahmins itself proves the land belonging to the ruler. As for being peer-reviewed, the 1986 claim also isn't reviewed or verified in any journal. Forget the ruler, even the year Panbari was annexed is mentioned erroneously to be 1510, instead of 1512 (mentioned in almost every other source).
So, what you really want to say is that when the author claims or rather guesses Habung to be ruled by some Bhuyan, without any single bit of primary evidence/source in hand, he/she is right. You then deem that content to be "Wikipedia worthy". But, when the same author, again after some years, writes Habung to be a part of Chutia dominion at that period, on the basis of land grants dating back to 1522,1428 and 1392, then he/she is wrong? You then claim that he/she is writing promotional content?? Can you even realise the level of hypocrisy involved in this?
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- The find-spot is the location of the land that was being granted
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
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)
Kamarupa
Please do not remove cited texts. If you repeat this again, you will be reported. Chaipau (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Notification of discretionary sanctions
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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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.
Template:Z33—SpacemanSpiff 17:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)