Talk:Mlechchha dynasty

message: Why does it appear that this word has separate spellings Mlecha, <I>Mleccha</i>, <I>Mlechchha</i>, and <I>Mlekkha</i>?  Are all of these correct?  Eebster the Great (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling? 

message: don't agree with my edit. Some part may be redundant, i'm not perfect. But, Chaipau unnecessarily delete images of kamarupa map, kamakhya temple which are related to mleccha dynasty. Chaipau also delete reference and bibliography of historians who support Dimasa or Bodo or Kacharis . Dhruv Hojai (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Older references have been trimmed — Gait, K L Barua not needed since they are very old references and it has been decided earlier not to use Colonial/old references as much as possible.  That he was a Bodo is claimed by Siniti Kumar Chaterji, and his reference is all that is needed. The Dimasas are associated with the Kechai-Khaiti tradition in the east and not with the Kamakhya tradition — so this association is suspect.  Nevertheless, such associations are appropriate in the Kachari kingdom or Dimasa people, not here.  Even more problematic is that fact Kamakhya is likely associated with Austroasiatic traditions (the Khasi people have a tradition of Ka-Mei-Kha) and not with Bodo-Kachari people traditions. Chaipau (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Dimasa and Bodo are related community. Bodos have Kamaika deity. (Soppit1885;P=82-83) Origin of Kamkhya deity is different and Builder of Kamakhya temple is different concept. Koch also rebuilt it. Dhruv Hojai (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of reference , bibliography , image 

message: I came here via WP:3O, where I have recently posted a request and thought I would clear the backlog. Before I give an opinion I have a coupleof points to make:
#there were more than two opinions expressed in this section before the 3O was requested, so although I will give an opinion it is not a third opinion and as such it is out of process.
#From the ad hominem comments it is clear that User:Chaipau and User:Homogenie have an   interaction history that is not always collegial. With my administrators hat on: be aware that the history of this article indicates that you are both engaged in a slow edit-war over this issue and could be sanctioned for it. 
Now to the issue. Borders between states in the pre-modern (and in some cases modern periods eg India and China today) can be difficult to find, due to lack of sources, or if primary sources disagree). In Europe, including in Britain, medieval states had counties governed by a count or the equivelent, and marches governed by marshals (or equivalent). Counties covered the territory under the firm control of the state. Marshes, areas under questionable control close to the frontier with another state. Where exactly the border was, was often not clear and was open to interpretation. Often the marshals had a lot of autonomy and, with inter-marrige across the frontier common, questionable loyalty to the central power. See for example the article "Anglo-Scottish border" and its links to more detailed articles.
So in most cases maps of pre-modern states tend to based on the informed guesswork of historians, and like all such academic work there may well be dissagreement as to the precise borders a state has. Having read the back and forth above and looking at the edit history of the article this is what appears to be happening, or possibly it is a misreading of the secondary sources by one or both parties to the dispute above. I am not sure.
I think that the best compromise and solution, is to keep the map,but add a footnote containing any information by reliable sources that provide an alternative prospective. Here is an example of a Wikipedia article dealing with a binary choice between two reliable sources: the text states one thing with a reliable source cited inline, followed by footnote to another (Führerbunker#cite note-will and marriage-42). The relaible source used to support the text was just as reliable as that in the footnote, but was a more recent historical work, where the historian would have been aware of the earlier work.
So user:Fylindfotberserk, User:Chaipau and myself user:PBS all think the map should remain on the page. User:Homogenie does not. I suggest (as an involved editor and not an administrator) User:Homogenie you accept the consensus and work on a brief footnote explaining what the criticisms are in reliable sources to the map. — PBS (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you for going through this wall of text and providing your 3O.  I would request you to please stay engaged and comment on which criticisms to the map are relevant, when they appear.  Chaipau (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion started in Talk:Kamarupa.  I have left a note there about the resolution here: Talk:Kamarupa#Resolution_of_this_discussion. Chaipau (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this map not removed when citation is provided that it extended till Central Assam Homogenie (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Kamarupa (break) 

message: In an effort to be properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we mention in this article which language was spoken in this kingdom? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which language was spoken?