Talk:Dimasa Kingdom

13 century to 18th century

Need correction. Lets discuss this topic more Himsiringdao (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Coat of arms

@PerfectingNEI: Please do keep searching for the historically accurate coat of arms. Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Entrance to Kachari ruins.jpg
• Mushroom Pillar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Need Modification

@Chaipau: Crossing of Brahmaputra is conflicting with existence of Kachomari ruins of golaghat and doiyang-dhanshiri ruins. And Hidimbi and Heramba are different kingdoms. Dima = dhansiri in dimasa language. So, Dimasa should be children of dhansiri. There is lots of confusion. It's better to delete the Kachari ghat part. As per my knowledge kachari ghat was related to involvement of kachari in saraighat war. Mahamnipha was Borahi King . Kachari history is full of doubts. PerfectingNEI (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a conflict, but Kasomari/Doiyang-Dhansiri are not from a much older period, and currently not associated with Dimasa yet. Chaipau (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Kasomari is 6-7th century ruin and Doiyang-Dhansiri started from 2nd century PerfectingNEI (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The not in my comment above should not have been there. Chaipau (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Still river crossing doesn't fit brahmaputra because Ambari is in southern side. Actually , The folk story was part of Boro folk story. And Tezpur is in Upper Assam. Here , no use of Kachari Ghat. PerfectingNEI (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hachengsa rulers and Dimasa coat of armor can be found here

Some http://dspace.nehu.ac.in/bitstream/1/11414/1/S%20K%20BOSE%2001.pdf PerfectingNEI (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This is too similar to the Ahom insignia. Chaipau (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually that's Ahom insignia only. There was another but koch insignia PerfectingNEI (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Ha-Tsung-Tsa and Rang-Tsa

Found one interesting fact of Kachar in 1840 https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0TQzAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false PerfectingNEI (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

According to Ahom Buranjis and Ahom dictionary , Kacharis were called as Ti-Mi-Sha. Ti means Land , Mi means Female / Not to mix / Less and Sha means Good looking / people PerfectingNEI (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Now are you an Ahom language expert? And how is this relevant? The Ahoms called Brahmaputra Tilao, after the Kachari name Dilao. What is the meaning of Tilao? The land of lao? The name of a river? Chaipau (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Your comment is unrelated. I've added content according to source. I wanted to add more information so I added. You reverted it. I don't understand your intention. I'll given an report to higher administrator. If you wish then I can add content from Fragmented memories by Yasmin Saikia in some pages. PerfectingNEI (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mr. don't ask me meaningless question. According to source , Word isn't Timisha, Word is Ti-Mi-Sha. Which means three words as a phrase. PerfectingNEI (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahom word for Brahmaputra is different. Show me prove of your claim. Don't ask me anything PerfectingNEI (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't insert factoids anywhere you want in Wikipedia. You are not helping Wikipedia one bit by randomly dropping something you discovered somewhere, without any context. You should not expect others to accept your random discoveries and place them in relevant places. Chaipau (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it random discovery ? Or is the basis of entire history ? I don't expect you to accept my view. I've just added sourced content. I'm not some blind person. Let me , What type book , I should use to insert the same information. I've all type of book. Just tell me your choice. PerfectingNEI (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: First prove your claim. Where is Tilao ? PerfectingNEI (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

PerfectingNEI Will you please stop your disruptive editing on Wikipedia. You have only managed to add noise---random, unreliable information. This is what Terweil (1989) write: Prior to his appointment to assist Gait, not more than five years before he produced the Specimens, G.C. Barua had no knowledge of Ahom, nor was he familiar with any of the other Tai languages. G C Barua's dictionary is not reliable. You are inserting noise here, nothing else, and that too in the wrong place, out of context. So I expect you to remove this yourself.Chaipau (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau I don't think he had to know Ahom language to produce Ahom dictionary. He might havd brought Tai expert. Which scholar found mistake in his work. Show me some review paper on his work. I've just added Ti-Mi-Sha which is basis of history. It shouldn't be problem for you. PerfectingNEI (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have given the reference. Terweil (1989): NEO-AHOM AND THE PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL SON, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, Deel 145, 1ste Afl. (1989), pp. 125-145. Now stop WP:DE. If you do not know the subject, please do not insert noise. Chaipau (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Bodosa

DinaBasumatary (talk · contribs) is trying to spin the word Bodosa to mean Bodo/Boro. This is not correct. The Bodosa are a clan in the Dimasa community. As [Bathari] (p16) clearly mentions: "As per Dimasa tradition, the Bodo or Bodosa is the first clan to attain to royalty. The Bodo clan was followed by other clans like Thaosensa, Hasnusa (Hacchengsa)." Therefore, it is not that the Dimasa kingdom was ruled only by the Bodosa clan. Moreover the Dimasa people resent the use of the name Bodo: "Dimasas form a distinct identity even while sharing affinities with other cognate groups. Contraiy to Hodgson’s claim, they prefer to identify themselves as Dimasa rather than Bodo."

Bathari suggests that the Boros of the foothills of Bhutan merely internalized the Bodo name after a ruling dynasty: "It is probable that the community came to be called Bodos later as they belonged to the same group and in the long run the larger section of the community internalised the name." There are parallels where this has happened.

Historical extant documents too call this kingdom Timisa (a corrupt form Dimasa). Therefore, to suggest that the clan-name Bodosa means the Bodo people is an illegitimate insertion of Bodo in this article---it is biased and a purely POV push.

Chaipau (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

There is clear evidence of Ramsa and Heramba kingdom. Bodosa is ofcourse name of Bodo. Timisa isn't Corruption of Dimasa. You are trying to corrupt timisa to Dimasa. Your act of erasing Bodo History is kind of hatred towards Bodo community. DinaBasumatary (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

According to Chaipau, Timisa can be Dimasa. Bodosa can't be Bodo or Bodosa. What a great logic. Britishers used Bodo for Boro. Don't you know ?

Can you prove Timisa is Corruption of Dimasa ?

Truth is Ahom militant didn't know anything so they had written anything. Tiura of Chutia , Timisa for Dimasa , Tunisa for Moran. But Bodo History have nothing to do with Timisa or Ahom. Bodo History is related to Heramba. Ahom are no one to delete History of Bodo. Your forceful deletion of Bodo History is act of hatred. DinaBasumatary (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Who is bathari ? Is he god ? Is he all knowing ? There is no evidence Dimasa have anything call Bodosa but Dimasa have been trying guess they were known as Bodosa. And Dimasa have no evidence of their History. It's only Ahom Timisa. There is evidence of Bodosa and Ramsa. Bathari's imagination don't prove anything. It's just his claim. DinaBasumatary (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Dimasa claiming Bodosa to be their clan is recent. There is no evidence that Dimasa have clan named Bodosa. DinaBasumatary (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do not insert "ruled by Rungsta" – WP:FRINGE. Chaipau (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have given reference where Timisa is explicitly equated to Dimasa (Ramirez). Chaipau (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: You cannot insert Rungsta in the lead of the article because it is WP:FRINGE, and when Dimasa is already mentioned. You seem to be suggesting that Dimasa is not a real identity. Kakoty mentions it during the survey portion of the thesis where they lists what all others have written earlier. So your position is not supported in mainstream literature. Please stop this disruptive approach of yours. Chaipau (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You are inserting recent claim and you are removing older record. People can understand your section. It's just Wikipedia. It will change in future. DinaBasumatary (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: I am not inserting recent findings—I am removing older claims that have not been accepted into the mainstream. What you are trying to do here is hijack the Dimasa-related articles into "Boro history".

• Here you have inserted the link to Bodo people surreptitiously into Bodosa [1] and claiming that the Kachari kingdom was ruled by the Bodo people.
• Here you are removing Dimasa and replacing it with Kachari, and in your edit you are claiming that the Bodosa people are not Dimasa. [2]
• Here you are removing the names of Dimasa clan names from the kings [3]
• Here you have removed more mentions of Dimasa and Dimasa clan-names, claiming "Dimasa is just biased name" [4]

And so on. There is enough evidence to show that you are trying to ambush Wikipedia, hijack the Dimasa-related articles and inject Bodo into them. If you persist with this activity, you will be reported to WP:ANI.

Chaipau (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Dimasa clan names are uncited. Wikipedia need citation. Since, It's Kachari kingdom. It's not Dimasa kingdom. Kachari is better suited. Removal and addition is already explained. Dimasa recent 2014 PhD claim can't be accepted as Historical evidence.

There is no evidence that Bodosa or Bodo or Boro is Dimasa clan. It's just recent claim. And Kakoty PhD thesis have evidence from 1840. Chaipau have distorted that the History of Ramsa of Heramba kingdom.

Chaipau i know you know nothing. You are acting like controller of Wikipedia.

DinaBasumatary (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau have removed evidence for old record to forcefully establish recent claim and Ahom Buranji in Wikipedia. DinaBasumatary (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Bodo or Bodosa or Bodofisa was used by Bodo since very long time. Very soon I'm going to publish my research on Ahom Buranjis. Then all problem will be clear. Now, I'm tired with minister Chaipau whose goal is to forcefully write and spread fake things. DinaBasumatary (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Everything written by Chaipau is just ahom buranji based claim. It has nothing to do with Discovery. Recent claim isn't discovery. Kachari kingdom have nothing to do with Dimasa. Dimasa is just another clan like Ramsa. Stop timisa logic everywhere, if ahom already know name of dimasa why would they write timisa, if ahom don't know name then timisa is ofcourse not dimasa, it's basic logic. Truth is ahom militant had nothing to do with civilization written in gazetters of Assam by B.C. Allen. When ahom become civilized after the influence of hinduism, ahom copied story from burma and started to write history of sukafa ref- yasmin saikia , stuggling to be tai ahom in India. Ahom have star organisation and paid wikipedia editor to forcefully establish ahom buranjis. Chaipau is also trying to forcefully remove boro history. Even Hachengsa royalty didn't called themselves Dimasa. How can Bodosa be Dimasa ? It's just Dimasa appropriation and recent claim. Dimasa recent claims are forcefully written against boro by chaipau like ahom buranji lover. I'm realing going to write research paper based on your activity also. DinaBasumatary (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• There is no Ahom Buranji reference here–they are primary sources and are not used here (WP:PRIMARY). Only reliable secondary and tertiary sources have been used.
• Boros are located in northwest Assam and historically have been at the foothills of Eastern Himalayas, whereas the Dimasas have always been to the south of the Brahmaputra, with the earliest reference to them being close to the Nagas. This kingdom is already attributed to the Dimasa people and reported widely in peer-reviewed literature. You cannot drop in suddenly and claim this was a Boro kingdom. Sorry. You cannot throw a temper tantrum and change history—not even Wikipedia policies.

Chaipau (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Your understanding is very low. Your jealousy is very high. Kachari kingdom means kingdom of Boro , Sonowal , Thengal and Dimasa. You are addng recent imaginary claims not actual facts. Timisa logic doesn't work everywhere. You can't behave like minister who ignore, corrupt , delete facts and write arbitrary claim. There is 100s of PhD thesis which claims Kachari kingdom = Boro kingdom. 2409:4065:19F:6667:4060:379:E1B4:2918 (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Rangtsa or Ramsa

Royal kacharis called themselves Rangtsa or Ramsa. So, It was ruled by Rangtsa or Ramsa or Boro. 2409:4065:19F:6667:4060:379:E1B4:2918 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

You have kept repeating yourself and the only evidence you have provided is what was recorded by a colonial administrator in the 19th century. He asked, general people, not the Dimasa royalty. The evidence is that the Dimasa kings called themselves Hachengsa (rather Hachengsa vamsaja - of Hachengsa family) in some of their coins suggests this was one of the sengfongs (clans) to which some of the Dimasa kings belonged. And these are properly recorded and not controversial at all. There is no dispute regarding these. Chaipau (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: God of knowledge, That's royal record given by royal family. For your kind information, Dimasa aren't king. There is no evidence of Dimasa king. And you are no to decide who were king. So called 40 sengphong is also recent. You are no one to decide what is truth. 2409:4065:199:AB5E:5032:36A7:576A:9615 (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: God of knowledge chaipau, It's clearly written according to record preserved among family of late king. Do you think , I am a fool ? Do you think, Royal family forgot to tell name of their community ? Why are you forcing to me believe Ahom = liar ? There is clear evidence Hachengsa family called themselves Ramsa , They used Ram title. Chaipau just be editor. I know everything. 2409:4065:199:AB5E:5032:36A7:576A:9615 (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: According to you, Britishers to talk to normal public Rangtsa or Ramsa. Whatever explanation you give, Rangtsa were there. You can't deny the fact that there was Rangtsa. So, Don't try to remove Rangtsa word. 2409:4065:199:AB5E:5032:36A7:576A:9615 (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: You are trying to claim the Kachari kingdom was not Dimasa and that it was Boro by inserting Rangsta. This conflicts with too many Wikipedia policies, as pointed out earlier. Chaipau (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: My dear old friend, Dimasa is just one clan. Thaosengsa dynasty ruler identified themselves Dimasa. Bhauma dynasty ruler identified themselves Varaha or Boro or Borofisa . Hachengsa dynasty ruler identified themselves Ramsa. Kachari kingdom belong to everyone. That's the point.DinaBasumatary (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: You just add everyones name. Okay. Ramsa came to help your ancestors in saraighat war. You will get that in your ahom buranjis also. You will get this point from old books related Dimasa. DinaBasumatary (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I've added just single line. Don't remove it. For example, In Koch kingdom there was influence of Mech. Similarly, In Kachari(Recently Dimasa) kingdom, there was influence of Rangtsa (should be Ramsa). added "Captain Fisher also reported that the name Kachari was of modern date, and the proper name by which section of these people call themselves was Rangtsa" single line DinaBasumatary (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It is well known that everyone is related in one way or the other, but that does not mean everyone is Boro. Sorry, but that discussion is not relevant here because it is part of the current Boro politics. You cannot use Wikipedia to play out your politics (WP:NOTPROMO). Chaipau (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Everybody knows Ahom politics. Wikipedia is for information. You are no one delete Boro history. Dimasa are ofcourse not Boro. Dimasa are hillmen. Boro are plainmen. You can't destroy history of Boro. DinaBasumatary (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

So we are dealing with Dimasa here. How is this related to Boro? Chaipau (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Dimasa is just arbitray name based on Timisa. Originally different people identified themselves by different name for example Ramsa , Dijua etc. Ramsa means Boro of Cachar. DinaBasumatary (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: what is your problem in writing information about Rangtsa or Ramsa of Cachar .

The Dimasas of Cachar are called Barmans today, and are considered to be part of the Dimasa social group, not Boro. Chaipau (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This is from Shin (2020):

Nevertheless, the mobility to kshatriya status, despite its inherent limitation, was further extended to other groups within the Dimasas. Under Govindacandranārāyaṇa the dominant section of Dimasa people adopted Barman, a typical kshatriya surname, as their own; and they abided by social customs and observed religious rites like the Hindus of Bengal. Their supposed kshatriya identity was accentuated by their imagined past of being the ‘aristocratic families who accompanied the fugitive Dimasa king from Maibong to Khaspur’. At a later time, a local historian provided the supplementary explanation that king Lakṣmīcandranārāyaṇa (1772–74) organised the Dimasas into two groups: the Barmans, following the faith of their generic kshatriya father, Bhīma, and the Hidimbasas, adhering to the faith of their generic demon mother, Hiḍimbā. The former abstained from eating pigs and fowls, wore the sacred thread and paid homage to brahmins, whereas the latter continued to eat these animals and followed their own animistic beliefs.

Chaipau (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC) @Chaipau: We are talking about History not Today. Ramsa migrated to plain.DinaBasumatary (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: Fisher mentions Rangsta as the name the Kacharis called themselves. Fisher specifically mentions that the ruling dynasty drew the lineage from Hachengsa. Therefore, he is giving the name Rangsta as an alternative to Kachari (or Dimasa), and that among the Dimasas, he is calling out the rulers as being belonging to the Hachengsa lineage. This is what he writes:

According to records preserved among the family of the last princes of Kachar (which, however, are but traditions reduced to writing) the Kacharis conquered the kingdom of Kamrup, and gave to it a succession of Rajahs from whom the late royal family of Kachar of the line of Ha-tsung-tsa derive their descent. The term 'Kachari' is of modern date, the proper name by which that people call themselves being Rangtsa, and the country from which they trace their origin being situated in the north-east of Assam.

— Thomas Fisher, "Memoir of Sylhet, Kachar and Adjoining Districts", The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol IX, part 2, Jul-Sep 1840, p. 829

As you can see, Captain Fisher clearly mentions

• The royal family as belonging to the Ha-tsung-tsa lineage.
• That "Rangsta" is a self-designation of the Kachari people of Cachar.
• There is no mention of Ramsa.

And now it is widely accepted that the self-designation is Dimasa (as evidenced from from the 20th and 21st century writings), not Rangsta. Earlier (historical) the self-designation too was Dimasa (as widely quoted in the modern literature), not Rangsta; and Rangsta is not the current self-designation either (in literature and official documents). Thus, Fisher's mention of the name "Rangsta" is neither historical nor modern, it is simply a noisy blip from 1840. It is safely a WP:FRINGE. Your attempt to connect it to Ramsa and thus identify the Dimasa kings as Boro kings is WP:OR—a double whammy.

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a place for WP:FRINGE or WP:OR.

Chaipau (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Shin2020 has written about Rangtsa. Just like Abusive Timisa term from Ahom buranjis is considered Dimasa , similarly Rangtsa term has it's importance. Rangtsa is spelling mistake. Just like Timisa word is used similarly Rangtsa deserve a place. DinaBasumatary (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Kachari don't mean Dimasa. There is no inscription of Dimasa. Rangtsa(Ramsa) only means original aristocracy not everyone. For you kind information, Dimasa claims anything without any prove. No problem old man. Please don't ping me. I'm bored with your ping. Everything will change.DinaBasumatary (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: you are displaying WP:IDHT. Fisher's text clearly mentions the rulers drew their lineage from Hachengsa and the people self-designated themselves as Rangsta (without any mention of Ramsa). You have a right to your opinion, but Wikipedia is not obligated to carry it.

Also, please do not WP:BLANK again, as you did here: [5]

Chaipau (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Old man, You've removed Hojai called Boros Rangtsa or Ramsa in Bodo people page. I understand your problem. You've removed Mahamanikya related Boro claim. You've removed Boro claim from mleccha dynasty. You will remove everything from wikipedia. Hachengsa wasn't Dimasa. Recently Dimasa have copied it after leaning from scholars like you. But Hachengsa vamsa , Ramsa identity or clan. I'm bored with you. This page will change in future. Dimasa history itself is incomplete. Recent claims ignoring original people. DinaBasumatary (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Separate page for Kachari Kingdom & Timisa Kingdom ?

Shouldn't there be separate articles for Timisa & Kachari kingdom ? Timisa kingdom was the original kingdom of Dimasas (current Dima Haso district) before it got destroyed by Ahom kingdom. Whereas Kachari kingdom didn't include Timisa kingdom region, but was only restricted to Barak Valley region. Tizen03 (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sections.

Khoushal Langthasa I appropriate your enthusiasm to edit the article however you need to state why you are removing sourced material. I don't know much about this subject however please state why you are removing sections. Please keep in mind no original research is allowed, so bring links as well, or books or anything else. I know nothing on what is being removed all I know is the citations are reliable and the info was removed without any source or reason. If you think the wording is false please make it clear why and state how we should reword it. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Major political powers in Assam in early sixteenth century.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Chinese name

@Chaipau: Can the Chinese name of Dimasa be used?? Homogenie (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: neither the Chinese name nor the Ahom name in the lede makes sense. No one today calls this historical kingdom by these name. Chaipau (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC) (edited) 17:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: i mean Chinese script!Homogenie (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ming Shilu

@Homogenie: regarding your revert[6] could you please show where these specific claims have been endorsed? Please make your claims here instead of edit summaries. Chaipau (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is in Laichen (2000) page 78 Homogenie (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ming Shilu (June 2022)

I have removed the major portion of the claims with Ming Shilu. These claims have to be accepted by a wider scholarship to be accepted. It must be explained how the Ahoms came to use a Dimasa plate to stand their king's titular deity. This is just speculation and needs further acceptance. Chaipau (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Though the section was contributed by Homogenie, it is very useful and properly cited. Di-ma-sa plaque, Ming Shi-lu and Burmese inscriptions are primary sources. Just because Assam-based scholars don't know about these things, doesn't mean it isn't accepted by wider scholarship. Gerini, Wade, Sun, Banerjee and some others are WP:RS. There is no content dispute. Northeast heritage (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It would be very surprising if Assam scholars did not know about Gerini. Gerini published his claim in the same issue of The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland , Apr., 1913, (Apr., 1913) in which P R Gurdon published his "Origin of the Ahoms" which describes the discovery of the Jorhat plates. Gurdon's identifications went on to a robust discussion among many others, such as Cochrane, Taw Sein Ko, etc. but Gerini's did not. This is not a surprise because his identifcations are based critically on a number of weak assumptions. Furthermore, he does not explain why the Ahoms would use a plate recovered from a defeated and vanquished king and place the symbol of the Ahom kingship on it? The Ahoms will have most likely obtained it from their kinsmen, the Shans with which they have a common origin, as Gurdon claims. What made Gerini's ideas weak in 2013 make Wade's ideas weak too since Wade just quotes Gerini and he does not provide additional evidence. Also, independent from these arguments, Chinese annalists too think Timasa is not Dimasa of Assam, as Wade himself points out.

Homogenie and before them, Hachengsa, have affected a massive WP:OR operation here pushing a fringe theory. The portion that has been removed is a massive WP:SYNTH of these fringe, discarded theories into a narrative delivered in WP:WIKIVOICE. This is the evidence of OR operation:

• Hachengsa (talk · contribs): Want to know more
• Homogenie (talk · contribs): Reply

It is now established that the Ahoms were Shans, and they based their rule on the king being a descendant of the lord of the heavens Lengdon---Gurdon's major contention has been widely accepted, unlike Gerini's. I do not see any point in highlighting this fringe and discarded theory of Gerini into the supposed attention of Assam scholars. WP:PROMO is not a legitimate activity for Wikipedia.

Pinging Fylindfotberserk for visibility. Chaipau (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, Gerini and Gurdon are very old and recent scholarships weren't available to them. Wade and Sun are best sources available who takes care some of your questions. I don't know your WP:FORUMy claims because this is not place to discuss WP:OR. Di-ma-sa plaque was issued by Chinese for Di-ma-sa polity. How Ahom came to use it doesn't matter because Chinese didn't issue it for Ahom. It is most likely that Assam-based scholars ignore the fact that Ahom rulers used Dimasa plaque to legimitize their rules. How this fall under WP:PROMO ? Northeast heritage (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

One more thing, Content of Dimasa plaque is my collection and i uploaded the plaque. I also don't know meaning of chinese words which can be ignored, but some words are explained in Wade and Sun's works which can be used here. If you try to understand how Wade gave his conclusions, You will find that some scholars studied Dimasa plaque and some scholars studied Ming shilu, and gave some conclusions, but Wade studied all these studies and gave final conclusion which is endorsed by Sun, Bannerjee and probably more. Wade and Sun are WP:RS, and fall under WP:SCHOLARSHIP so Dimasa plaque deserve to be added here. I leave this issue upto you but I strongly believe you should revert some part of the section removed by you. Northeast heritage (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

First your statement Di-ma-sa plaque was issued by Chinese for Di-ma-sa polity is not true. The plaque was issued for a polity called Timasa. And whether it was issued for Dimasa (as in Dimasa kingdom) is a point in dispute. You again have confused Timasa with Dimasa when you say It is most likely that Assam-based scholars ignore the fact that Ahom rulers used Dimasa plaque to legimitize their rules. This was the Timasa plaque, not Dimasa.

Second, both Gerini and Gurdon are old, yes, but Gerini's assertion is not shared by anyone. This is stated by Wade himself. He writes that Gurdon and Cochrane (1914) identifies Timasa with Chiang Mai; Gong Yin (1988) identifies it with a Mon polity; Fang Guo-yu (1987) and Oben, X.ie arid Lu (1986) identify it with Tenasserim. None of these place Timasa anywhere close to Assam, but in Burma/Thailand. Irrespective of the exact location of Timasa, Gurdon's claim that the plaque the Ahoms received was from their kinsmen is still the standard view. Unless it is established otherwise any other claim is still WP:FRINGE. Chaipau (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not confused, It is most likely that Assam-based scholars ignore the fact that Ahom rulers used Dimasa plaque to legimitize their rules. is reply to why Assam scholars don't write anything about Dimasa plaque possessed by Ahom. Uff, You are claiming First your statement "Di-ma-sa plaque was issued by Chinese for Di-ma-sa polity" is not true if you have knowledge of chinese characters. Chinese characters have multiple pronunciations. Some scholars tried to locate Timasa/Dimasa of Ming Shilu without knowledge of Dimasa plaque but they were unsuccessful. You are trying to win an argument using very old and unsuccessful works. Wade and Sun are WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP so you know what you should do as per WP:P&G. Northeast heritage (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You are also WP:CHERRYPICKING those things rejected by Wade. You claims have no strength. So, I don't need to waste my time. Also, I am having health problems so i can't continue with your silly claims. Northeast heritage (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You are just repeating your statement (WP:BLUDGEON)

without any serious WP:GF arguments to state your case. Please note that this is against WP:TPG. Chaipau (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Your claims don't make any sense. You lack evidence which rejects Wade, Sun, Bannerjee and probably others to support your action. Northeast heritage (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: you will need much more "counter evidence" to disproof and remove that much "source content" under the term "mere speculations" 2409:4065:D10:570:0:0:7C49:6714 (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Could you still tell why you have removed the sourced content without any proper reason, it actually shows you to be a biased editor!!