Talk:Koch dynasty

message: The appellation Rajbanshi does not have anything to do with the dynasty.  This was a name adopted by the Koch people (not the dynasty) in the colonial times (late 19th century, early 20th century), to claim Kshatriya varna status.   
It makes no sense for a royal dynasty to call themselves Rajvanshi, when they are already royalty.  Therefore, this reference is not relevant in this page about the Koch dynasty, but it is very relevant in the Koch people article.  
Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rajvamshi 

message: This article only talks about the era of Koch dynasty after the fall of Khen dynasty. 
What about the founders like Sandhya (r.1228–1260) ? They ones before Khen were Koch too. Tizen03 (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: look at Kamata kingdom.  Also Cooch_Behar_State and Koch Hajo. Chaipau (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koch vs Kamata ??? 

message: you are making this article too much about ethnicities.  Please tone this down.  It is impossible to figure out who belonged to who.  Just focus on "Koch power" as Shin (2021) has done.  Chaipau (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very concerned with the great emphasis on ethnicities that is made in this article.  Look at the edit here.  We really need to tone this down.  Different authors have said that these tribe-based narratives make no sense.  For example Shin(2021) ""  Chaipau (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much ethnicity

message: This article is becoming too much about ethnicities.  It is impossible to identify these people 500 years ago in terms of present-day ethnic identities.  We should not even attempt to do so.  Here are issues which Shin (2021) points out.
#  In other words, there is no point in trying to understand the rise of Koch powers in terms of ethnicities.
#  In other words, it was not Bisu who moved the capitals, but others.  
These points are very clearly stated.  And this article should abide by this attitude. The ethnicities are just not clear so far in the past.
Besides, just as modern writers such as Kondakov distinguish between the nation-building Koch (Rajbanshi) and the present-day tribal Koch people, there is a difference between the current Mech and the nation-building Mech (if we could call them that).  The ancestors of the current Mech people did not participate in this nation building and an association with the historical group makes no sense.  
 need your inputs here as well.
Chaipau (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Shin (2021) is pretty clear about most of these things, please donot pick up a specific sentence to push your POV Homogenie (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are "these things"?  The quotes are clearly given. Chaipau (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic identities

message: Administration does not belong here.  If the administration is of the undivided Koch kingdom, then it belongs in Kamata kingdom.  If it describes the western portion after the Bihar/Hajo split, then it belongs in Koch Bihar.  This article should focus on the dynasty.  Chaipau (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administration 

message: This article has too much of present-day caste/tribe projected into the past.  This is something that modern anthropologists have warned us.  Ramirez 2014, p18 says:   And that this ethnicisation is the a phenomenon specially of in the post-Independence period: "" We should not overplay the ethnic angles in Wikipedia.  Would like more inputs.  Pinging ,  and others.  Please tag people here.  Chaipau (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Could you demonstrate what kind of changes should be made? I mean with an example. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  such as  and .  Chaipau (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by present-day caste/tribe projected into the past? Where is it written that the history of present-day caste/tribe can't be written? If you need WP:RS closer to Historical chronciles, Use Nath. To my understanding, Your quoted text is about division of caste and tribe which didn't exist in past, It has nothing to do with history of these caste/tribes. Instead of using "tribal" to designate them, using their names is better per Ramirez. Northeast heritage (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projection of caste/tribe into the past 

message: These edits are not related to the Koch Dynasty, but to some policies a particular king had implemented.  This does not belong here, but in the rightful sections in the historical sections of either the Bodoland Territorial Region or Rajbanshi people. Chaipau (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynasty policies