Talk:Varman dynasty

message: , , , : From what I can tell, much of the content being questioned has been in the article since 2013. Qwertywander (who, I'm assuming, is the same as Qwertywander1) removed a large chunk of it without explanation in April and there's been a slow edit war going on since. I've reverted the page to a relatively stable version. Please discuss this issue here and gain consensus before modifying this section further. For starters, what is the problem with the section at the moment? (My opinion is that there needs to be a clear delineation between traditional sources and historical ones. I also think that some of the sources are dated and should be replaced/avoided.)—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic origins 

message: In this article , There are different claims made by different people in favor of different groups of peoples.  But, Modern scholar word used for the scholars who favor a specific group. In this way, Entire article give the message that recent research favor that specific group only. Which is absolutely not true. In order to give unbiased information,  This modern scholar word should be removed. Or same word should be used for recent scholars who don't agree with those claims. Thanks . Hope for perfection in the article.  Please think about it    
 PerfectingNEI (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I already told you that I prefer the word "Modern" since it covers a larger time frame. On the contrary, "Recent" is a comparative term and you can't say which is more recent. A new research may come up in future. At that time Urban's study will not be the most recent. A solution would be to remove "recent/modern" and mention year of publication which will let the readers themselves decide which is recent/modern. It is a trivial thing my man. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with user:Fylindfotberserk.  Chaipau (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As Urban is our bone of contention, i think we need to go through the work and make opinion about its reliability (it seems brief passing comment in a work concerning legends), here is the link .भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The older ref needs to be changed with your one. Secondly, this sentence: "Modern scholar Hugh B. Urban terms all kings of Brahmaputra Valley as non-Aryans" is an original research since Urban didn't mention Brahmaputra Valley and only mentioned a time frame ie 4th to 18th century. I think it would be proper if we keep it relevant to the article's subject (Varmans only) and frame it like:  - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought This thread is minor issue started by my.  So, I deleted it. Anyway,  You can continue with other editors.  Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The discussion here is relevant to the changes made on the article yesterday and  has pointed out a legit concern over the source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've read that journal where he compared many sanskrit scriptures and he found differences in Brahmanical and Tribe's culture. So, He claimed all kings are Non-Indo-Aryan. PerfectingNEI (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

text: , I updated the sentence. The article is about Varman dynasty so it is better to be specific IMO. Reword if necessary - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  One part is missing in this line sentence "according to the Dinesh Chandra Sircar since the claim to Narakasur's lineage was made at the end of the Varman dynasty (Bhaskarvarman);[9] and since it was natural for the ruling house to fabricate a respectable lineage.[10]" , Kindly add that part also. That was deleted by another editor.  Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is there in the first para of "Origins" section. After this sentence:  - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "he refuse to give much importance to these claims." This part is missing. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Are the two Suniti Chatterjee sources different editions of the same book? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not touch Chatterji, but the two citations on Urban were same.  One of them pointed to the DOI, the other pointed to the PDF in researchnet.  I combined the two.  Chaipau (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I got that, but I was asking if the two Chatterjee sources are same or different editions of the same book. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  They look like the same source.  Kirata-Jana-Kriti. Chaipau (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

text: OK, I shall do that. Chaipau (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Thanks - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chaipau (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added Samuel Beal version about culture and environment of Kamarupa . Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is not the right way to do it—by giving extended quotes in citations.  Chaipau (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've no much Idea. I'm just learning to be good editor. You can modify it or delete the quote. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The full quotes in citations is not a problem, but preferred over cherry pickings. Sharma 1978 is brief pickings of Chinese account (also we don't rely on single sources), i have inserted full quote by another author alongside to understand the context (policy don't permits inclusion of tiny minority viewpoints, e.g. Dinesh Chandra Sircar here).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

text: According to whom they are heavy weights in history of Kamarupa, i encourge you to approach WP:RSN (or gain consenus in talk with all other involved editors) before mass deleting citations in Kamarupa history related articles and elsewhere.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   Kindly add this  book  to bibliography  "Dynastic History Of Northern India Vol. 1"  link   "https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.39542/page/n277 "  high quality research from The Asiatic Society . Dynasties of Assam are properly concluded . Thanks . PerfectingNEI (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your quote contatin repeated information. It's better not to repeat same information again and again. Just give the necessary information because In the world there are 1000s of Intellectual. Will you repeat same line spoken by all of them ?  Of course not.  So, It's better not to repeat same peace of Information PerfectingNEI (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, nonetheless in references you can give multiple citations (generally single sourced content are not considered reliable because it is prone to author biases). But of course we don't need sources in bulk for same statement, in addition to it we need to prefer full quotes over cherry pickings to understand the context of author's statement.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:     Since, Name of the book is available in the bibliography. You can just  refer the page number in citation . It's simple . PerfectingNEI (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   Myself added the Dynastic History Of Northern India Vol. 1 in bibliography. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K., i appeal to all the editors to preserve relevant sources, unless stated unreliable by wp:rsn.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this reference " Sharma, Mukunda Madhava (1978). Inscriptions of Ancient Assam. Gauhati: Department of publication, Gauhati University. p. .35. Thus K.L. Barua's suggestion that the Mlecchas of Kamarupa might have been the people of the Mongoloid Mech community does not seem to be convincing. What appears to be more likely is that in case of their belonging to the Mongoloid race, they would have been referred to as Kiratas and not as Mlecchas. " contradict in Itself. Mlechcha was generic term. Kirata also belongs to Mlechcha group. In Mahabharata epic , Bhagadatta was mentioned as the Mlechchadhipati who fought with Army of Kirata and Cinas. And Mlechcha term include every foreigners .  If Mahabharata was history then According to H.C Ray Chaudhuri , Bhagadatta was Non-Aryan Kirata Prince.  I'm unable to understand , Why mlechcha related material are added here.  And Mech wasn't even proper designation. That was imposed by strangers (Hodgson) . So, Suniti Kumar Chatterji identified Mech was Sanskritized as Mlechcha .   PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

text: This is Varman dynasty page . Not mlechcha dynasty page. And MM Sharma was wrong in his conclusion. His claim can be dismissed since it's contradictory . Anyway . Keep it if you wish but It's contradictory claim  PerfectingNEI (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed Mlechcha is ambigous, it is referred to Aryans who has taken non-Aryan ways, foreigners etc. Asura was added later to king Naraka when he adopted non-Aryan ways due his association with King Bana of Sonitpura (Tezpur in Central Assam), so is his son Bhagadatta who is mentioned as Mlechcha but his army as composed of Kirata (epithet for mongoloid) and others, M.M Sharma argued that both Varman and Mlechcha dynasty has same ethnicity, so we included it here in origins. Also if we list the traits, there seems no evidences of extra-Aryan origins of dynasties of Kamarupa kingdom, most specifically Varman and Pala dynasty because their capital was in Western (Lower) Assam i.e. Kamrup which is Aryan land from time immemorial, although Eastern (Upper) Assam was Aryanised late. So, passing comments like Urban is not of much use, as he not provided any evidences or arguement to back his claim.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  As per, Apsad inscription of aditya sinha , Susthivarman defeated by Gupta King. Habung was colony of Brahmins.  Upper Assam was Aryanised before lower Assam.  Latest stone inscription of 5th century AD found in Upper Assam. Kamrup is related to Kamakhya. And Human Sacrifice was performed in Kamakhya just like Tamreswari temple in Sadiya.  As per inscription, Tamreswari Temple was named as eastern Kamakhya. Used for same purpose. And Kamrup , Mymensing, Dinaspur , Dispur etc are proved as Bodo origin term. And Sanskrit origin of Kamarupa is contradictory with Birth of Pradyumna = Kamadeva.  So, Sanskrit origin is denied by modern researchers.   Harruppeswar is proved as sanskritization of Ha-rubu-Apha by modern researchers. And Aryavat boundary don't have kamrup. North Indian never claimed Kamrup as part of Aryavart.  Anyway, It's wastage of time to counter who assume good faith.   PerfectingNEI (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   MM Sharma have given illogical conclusion. Oxygen is part of Air.  According to MM Sharma's logic , AIR word is used so it can't be oxygen. He is saying Subset isn't part of the Set. Which is mathematically illogical PerfectingNEI (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oldest references of "Brahmaputra valley" was of Kamrup region ("Suvarnakundya", "Hangsakonchi" etc) by Kautilya, Gopatha Brahmana, other Brahmanas. The inscriptions of Nilachal was oldest, Prayag (Prayagraj) stone pillar refers to Kamrup alongwith Davaka of central Assam. The Kingdoms of "Pragjyotisha" and "Kamarupa" were in Western Assam, first century Davaka was in central Assam, which later acquired by Kamrup. Kamrup is used indiscrimantely in Hindu scriptures and in other sources. History of Eastern Assam before second century is not known. Central Assam do had Davaka kingdom and capital of Mleccha dynasty. Yuan Chwang not taken Eatern Assam route to return due to its inhospitable nature and dangers present there, so no foreign traveller visited Eastern Assam. Eastern Assam cannot Aryanised before Kamarupa, because migration of Aryans was happened from west to east not vice versa. Even today Eastern Assam has large number of tribes, in contrast to Western Assam, which has only Koch, Bodo and Rabha tribes. Di prefix maybe associated with tribal languages, but "Pur" (city), "Kamrup" are Sanskrit words. With Aryanisation of Western Assam, it became part of Aryan speaking India, which proved by number of epigraphical references.The fast checking of sources is not considered appropriate here (such as Sharma 1978), if you want to remove Sharma 1978, remove him completely from Wikipedia (consult RSN).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 00:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Agree .  We should focus on facts instead of conclusions. I've read many the ASI reports.  They never try to find caste , tribe. They just try to present factual information. PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: M.M Sharma need to taken to RSN before removal, he is used overwhelming in Wikipedia. Second citation was already updated with chapter name and author name, but still removed for unknown reasons. In origins section we supposed to add relevant sources, which done for one view but excluded mostly for another. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 23:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that all views need to be presented as per guidelines. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: All view points are being represented here.  That they are Indo-Aryan, that they descend from Naraka, that they are non-Aryan.  What is the problem here? Chaipau (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

text: OK, now I see what BB means by all view points — he means everyone, all Tom Dick and Harry he can dredge up from Google searches.  This is nothing but WP:TE.  The most relevant references for each view point has been given.  We do not have to pack in more quotes. Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

text: PS: I am reverting these TE, on the basis of the links provided by User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric. Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bhaskarbhagawati,  Let this page stay historical not mythical. Try to add information from Historical Books of historians like H.C Ray Chudhuri etc . https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.39542  PerfectingNEI (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I was referring to this and this versions. Since a lot of content had been added/deleted lately, I was wondering if some view points are over/under represented. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let put facts not conclusions.  Some  scholars who aren't even considered as historian at national level. Their claims doesn't make much  sense.  Lets put information from history books not from writers claims.  PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Can you guys write all translated information of C.P.I  and S.I from Lahiri & MM Sharma in this page Kamarupa inscriptions PerfectingNEI (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not the place for that, even though one of the inscriptions has such an entry.  Try Wikisource instead. Wikipedia is supposed to be a digital encyclopedia (WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTEVERYTHING), not a repository (WP:NOTREPOSITORY). Chaipau (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Thanks, I agree with you. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks!  Could you please have a look at Kamarupa of Bhaskaravarman, and also the comments in the talk section from user:Cyphoidbomb made in 2013.  I tried to remove as much of the flowery language and the irrelevant stuff as possible; you could make an attempt as well, to retain just the relevant information.  This will hopefully be more readable.  If there is nothing much left, we could then add the text into Bhaskaravarman.  Chaipau (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , What you did here seems OK to me. Just by looking at the article, I can tell that it needs to be merged with Bhaskaravarman article. Besides, what was the purpose of a separate article like Kamarupa of Bhaskaravarman in the first place I wonder. Anything relevant could very well be included in the Bhaskaravarman article itself. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are WP:POVFORKs. Chaipau (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Totally agree with you. Request for Merge please. I'll support. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Merged Kamarupa of Bhaskaravarman into Bhaskaravarman (WP:BOLD).  Chaipau (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You did that? Nice. Now there's one less thing to worry. Cheers! - -Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

text: , Hi, I'm fine thank you. The version that I saw  didn't have much info on it. So I suggested a merger. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome dear, yes i know current version is stub, stable version was this (although it has presentation issues).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The version Bhaskarbhagawati was pointing to is mostly junk, with speculations galore from K L Baruah.  Once the speculative part was removed, what is left has been merged.  The historical sources from Bhaskaravarman is very limited. Chaipau (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manipulated Message 

message: I have removed two M M Sharma citations purported to be supporting Varmans were Indo-Aryan.  They were actually making some other arguments on the Mlecha dynasty, so removed on WP:OR.  There is another citation with no author name but a journal name.  I have kept it for now, with the assumption being it will be updated with the proper reference.  If not, I shall remove it on the basis of WP:V.  Chaipau (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree .  We should focus on facts instead of conclusions. I've read many the ASI reports.  They never try to find caste , tribe. They just try to present factual information. PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: M.M Sharma need to taken to RSN before removal, he is used overwhelming in Wikipedia. Second citation was already updated with chapter name and author name, but still removed for unknown reasons. In origins section we supposed to add relevant sources, which done for one view but excluded mostly for another. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 23:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that all views need to be presented as per guidelines. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: All view points are being represented here.  That they are Indo-Aryan, that they descend from Naraka, that they are non-Aryan.  What is the problem here? Chaipau (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

text: OK, now I see what BB means by all view points — he means everyone, all Tom Dick and Harry he can dredge up from Google searches.  This is nothing but WP:TE.  The most relevant references for each view point has been given.  We do not have to pack in more quotes. Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

text: PS: I am reverting these TE, on the basis of the links provided by User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric. Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bhaskarbhagawati,  Let this page stay historical not mythical. Try to add information from Historical Books of historians like H.C Ray Chudhuri etc . https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.39542  PerfectingNEI (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I was referring to this and this versions. Since a lot of content had been added/deleted lately, I was wondering if some view points are over/under represented. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let put facts not conclusions.  Some  scholars who aren't even considered as historian at national level. Their claims doesn't make much  sense.  Lets put information from history books not from writers claims.  PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Can you guys write all translated information of C.P.I  and S.I from Lahiri & MM Sharma in this page Kamarupa inscriptions PerfectingNEI (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not the place for that, even though one of the inscriptions has such an entry.  Try Wikisource instead. Wikipedia is supposed to be a digital encyclopedia (WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTEVERYTHING), not a repository (WP:NOTREPOSITORY). Chaipau (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Thanks, I agree with you. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks!  Could you please have a look at Kamarupa of Bhaskaravarman, and also the comments in the talk section from user:Cyphoidbomb made in 2013.  I tried to remove as much of the flowery language and the irrelevant stuff as possible; you could make an attempt as well, to retain just the relevant information.  This will hopefully be more readable.  If there is nothing much left, we could then add the text into Bhaskaravarman.  Chaipau (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , What you did here seems OK to me. Just by looking at the article, I can tell that it needs to be merged with Bhaskaravarman article. Besides, what was the purpose of a separate article like Kamarupa of Bhaskaravarman in the first place I wonder. Anything relevant could very well be included in the Bhaskaravarman article itself. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are WP:POVFORKs. Chaipau (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Totally agree with you. Request for Merge please. I'll support. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Merged Kamarupa of Bhaskaravarman into Bhaskaravarman (WP:BOLD).  Chaipau (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You did that? Nice. Now there's one less thing to worry. Cheers! - -Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

text: , Hi, I'm fine thank you. The version that I saw  didn't have much info on it. So I suggested a merger. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome dear, yes i know current version is stub, stable version was this (although it has presentation issues).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The version Bhaskarbhagawati was pointing to is mostly junk, with speculations galore from K L Baruah.  Once the speculative part was removed, what is left has been merged.  The historical sources from Bhaskaravarman is very limited. Chaipau (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Attributions

message: There are other WP:POVFORKs.  Ancient Kamrup and Medieval Kamrup.  These two articles try to project Kamrup region back, even as Kamarupa and Kamata kingdom exists.  Chaipau (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other WP:POVFORKS