Talk:Mech people

Proposed merge with Bodo people

Not sure which should be the preferred title but these appear to be synonymous. Sitush (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The Mech and Bodo people are listed separately in Endle. Chaipau (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: @Chaipau: Mech was listed in counting the number . But proper designation used for them was Bodo in Hodgson. We should merge it. Because Original Mech Identity of lower assam completely merged in Bodo. In Endle , Instead Bodo , Kachari term was used. Instead Bodo , Mech term was used. You can see that in endle. If you want to create separate article for Mech then you can create Mech-Kachari who are more or less Sarania culture they can be found in upper Assam. So, Bodo = Mech + Kachari of the endle book. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The Mech people are listed separately in People of India (Vol XV) (2003). [Addendum: They are listed separately in the ST list as well (http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf)] They are a related, but separate people. Chaipau (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Not separated. Today's Mech is just few families of Original Mech. Upper Assam Mech was from single family. People who claimed Bodo write Bodo as their tribe not as Mech. PerfectingNEI (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

PerfectingNEI, sorry. We are going by what is available in the sources. Chaipau (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Mech tribe is different from Bodo and instead bodo tribe is the offspring of Mech tribe. Koch Rajbanshis who are decendant of Mech had been given ST status earlier through an ordinance. If they are same then why separate ST status given to both bodo and Koch?InspireTheWorld1 (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I think this page should be merged with Boro people page because no mech call themselves mech. ST-Certificate is government document, they don't give proper explanation. It can be changed also. This page speak nothing more than Boro. For example- Among Dimasa , there are three-Four different certificates Dimasa, Hojai , Barman, Kachari. And you surely know that the place inhabited by Mech is called Bodoland.Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Not true. Mech do call themselves as Mech, as seen from references. Chaipau (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay keep it for now. Reference says the some Mech also called themselves mech but they were exactly same with Boro. It is matter of research why some Boro called themselves mech. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Some people also called themselves mech, it does't mean they didn't call themselves Boro. For example - Some Boro call themselves Assamese , it doesn't mean they don't calm themselves Boro. Mech was temporary name , It's ultimate truth. We are discussing about people, not about name. Mech people means Boro people, It's the reality. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sijou Bathou.jpg

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

The Bodo-Kachari is problematic

@Chaipau: You have added Bodo-Kachari instead Bodo. You have just made the Mech as father of All tribes. All Bodos aren't even Mech. Mech tribe was caste name because It's Hindu origin term . Even Kachari is also caste name because It's given by Hindus. Mech is name section of Bodos imposed by strangers who lived in undivided Goalpara to Mechi river in Past. Please rethink about your writing. You can find information about it in Hodgson. So, Bodo-Kachari is inappropriate . Instead It should be Mech is section of Bodo not All. Like I'm not Mech. My Family don't have Bathou. I've never seen Bathou before the age of Internet. I was always considered as Hindu. I'm not even Shankaria. Please rethink about term. Thanks PerfectingNEI (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Corrected. Chaipau (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I have added - Hodgson wrote as "Mech is name imposed by strangers. This people call themselves as Bodo" and Bodo language along with citation of Book. PerfectingNEI (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Bodo-Boro

Hogdson used Bodo. So did Grierson. Keep Bodo. Using Boro is WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Can people please stop treating Hodgson(1847) and Grierson(1903) as reliable sources for anything (see User:Sitush/CasteSources), let alone how this word is spelt in contemporary English. We need sources from the last few decades, not British Raj and pre-Raj sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Thank you. Yes, I agree. Need a little help here because we have had a series of POV pushing based on colonial texts. Chaipau (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

For example, the quote from Brahma here: " (Brahma 1989:iv) Exact sound is better represented by spelling it Bada or Bara. Bodo or Bara is the name by which Mech or Mes and the Kacharis call themselves" The two sentences are paraphrasing Griesrson and Hogdson,respectively, very closely. So can we accept this as a source? But we know that Hogdson's claim at least is patently false. His definition of Kacharis included the Dimasas. But the Dimasas do not call themselves as Bodo and have recorded their protests.

I was a little surprised at the push for colonial texts—look at Draft:Historiography of Assam. It basically lists all the colonial texts and links to them. The push to merge this article with Boro people and the push to anoint the colonial text seems rather problematic to me.

Need some help resolving this.

Chaipau (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Kameswar Brahma himself is mech. Brahma surname came after Brahma religion by Kalicharan Mech. He is surely recent scholar and he is padmasri awardee. Raj era research and documents are still used by modern scholars. There is enough evidence. BTW, Recent scholars and scholars from Mech community themselves don't like mech name imposed on them and they call themselves Boro. What is so big deal in it ? Logical Man 2000 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Journal of Jacquesson belongs to 21st century and Padmasri Awardee Kameswar Brahma's book belong to 1980s. These are clearly reliable source. If chaipau is above all the scholars then i can't help him. Scholars may agree or disagree with Raj era conclusions but they too used them. It's very bad to play with a community's sentiment. People imposed mleccha or mech name on Boro. But Boro's have our own name that is Boro. This is the reason , You'll not find lots of book related to Mech because they don't call themselves mech. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Repeating: We cannot go by Hogdson's claim that all Mech and Kacharis call themselves Bodo, which is a patent lie.
2. No one is calling the Bodo Mech. Please do not bring in Boro sentiment here since this article is not about the Boro. Also, please do not try to bulldoze smaller groups.
3. We still have people who don't mind being called Mech, and who don't call themselves Bodo. See 1 above.

Chaipau (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, you have great habit of making things complicated. You are the one to claim all the fake things. Hodgson claim was surely not lie. Dimasa weren't even discoved then. He was talking about Kacharis (plain kachari). Dimasa were known as Hill kacharis at that time. Chaipau can you show me where people call themselves Mech ? Don't bring politics here. This is encyclopedia. You give example of WP:FRINGE but you are pushing POV and brining WP:FRINGE. If somebody don't call themselves Boro and call themselves mech then it's new discovery. There will be many reason behind it. If You'll find such case then you can create wikipedia page again. But historically, Mech was name imposed on Boro. This is what all the scholars write. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: , You are claiming that I'm promoting colonial text but you've been directly using first colonial history book from 1800s by JP Wade in Ahom kingdom page . Logical Man 2000 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Logic presented by Chaipau don't belong to sane category. Name is basic thing. Who will know my name better than me ? We know there is something called mech because of mech people. Mech people call themselves Boro and Mech name originated from Mleccha or Barbarian. It's simple thing - Nobody call himself or herself Mleccha. What is your problem in it ? Remember one thing, You know about mech because of colonial documents. Colonial documents prove that there was something called mech , otherwise Khilji mughal were invaders. Why should we treat Khilji-Mughal better than Britishers ? And your behaviour towards British scholars isn't right. Just because they belonged to colonial era doesn't mean they did completely baseless research. It's well known that Mech call themselves Boro. If Chaipau want to create different mech community then delete picture of mech taken from colonial book. And truth remains same either it was claimed by Britishers or Brahma (Mech) Logical Man 2000 (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You have claimed that Using Boro is WP:OR. But when you requested to move Bodo people --> Boro people then you claime that "Boro is the more appropriate name here, phonetically as well as per modern usage" . So, please don't waste my time. Just check it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&diff=944496316&oldid=944345409 Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I shall reply to your Tu quoque arguments in the rightful places.

The Dimasa kingdom came under British occupation in the 1830s, so Hogdson definitely knew about the Dimasas when his book came out in 1847. He specifically says "But Tularam is a Bodo" in page 153. We know Tularam commanded the Dima Hasao region, the core Dimasa area of today. Dimasas do not call themselves Bodos. Hogdson's claim is false.

Hogdson was a British officer, and the British Raj's interests are well known. Hogdson basically defined the Bodo race. Jaquesson clearly says that he made no linguistic arguments in defining the Bodos. This is Jaquesson commenting on Hogdson:

"This is not very clear for people unfamiliar with the local names of people and places. As he admits in the end, his way of seeing the “Bodos” is twofold: he starts by using “Bodo” to designate a wide range of people (“a numerous race”), then wonders if some others are not “Bodos in disguise”. He ends on a cautionary note and refrains from unmasking the dubious tribes, registering only the Mechs and Kacharis, which is indeed better from the present linguistic point of view. However, Hodgson does not cite any linguistic argument here. His approach cannot be taken as a classification, but rather traces more or less tightly linked circles with the Bodos in the center"

Jacquesson is clearly pointing out how Hogdson is trying to use the term "Bodo" to define an expansive race. He did not go full out limiting himself to only the Mech and Kacharis. But from the Dimasa example, we know that even here he was wrong. So we cannot use those modern writers either who simply repeats Hogdson/Grierson (like Brahma) and who does not critically examining them.

It is clear that the Mech in North Bengal and eastern Assam do not call themselves Boros, though they clearly say they belong to the Bodo-Kachari peoples.

Chaipau (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Tula Ram never called himself Dimasa (wp:OR). Your claim "Mech don't call themselves Boro" is false or WP:OR. There is no evidence that people called themselves Mech or Mleccha. This page only deal with Boros who were known as Mech. Infact, Image of Mech is taken from Endle's book. In that, It's clearly established that Mech call themselves Boro. You can also call yourself Mech or Mleccha, But you are not subject of this page. You should create different page. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: According to your Mech of Upper Assam don't call themselves Boro. Mech of WB surely call themselves Boro ref - Hira charan narjinari , satyandra nath mandal (meche) etc. I request you to create Mech Upper Assam People then all the problem will be solved. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If a Mech anywhere calls himself Boro, then what is the problem—call him a Boro. You seem to be pushing a nationalistic agenda here, which is clearly not NPOV. Chaipau (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm editor. I prefer accuracy than anything else. You imagine and guess so much about me. Thank you Logical Man 2000 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been learning WP:FRINGE , WP:NPOV etc from you. Thank you. As per my knowledge, WP:RS is king of wikipedia. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no agenda. You too edit lots of pages related to Ahom people. What is your conclusion about yourself. So, Please don't put allegation on me. I've seen some mistakes, So tried to simplied or correct them. But you're ready to revert my edits. And what is wrong in adding new new information to any page ? No other editor have any problem with my edits but why only you ? Strange! Logical Man 2000 (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Boro people

Do not merge: This has been partially discussed in other places. Chaipau (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mech_people

Misuse of Government ST list and WP:FRINGE or WP:OR. Mech and Boro are synonymous. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep it for now

Resolved

Logical Man 2000 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Content removed by Chaipau

Mech call themselves Bodo or Boro.

References

Reason- Brahma is paraphrasing Hogdson (not WP:RS). Jacquesson is quoting Hogdson (not endorsing him) - removed. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I have checked Jacquesson, he does not say what is being claimed: " gave accurate information about Boro : Kacharis call themselves Boro, so do the Mech, also Kachari chief deities such as Siju, Maigrong and Agrang are likewise Mech deities , therefore Boro is proper designation". What he says has been quoted above. Jacquesson gives a critical appraisal of Hodgson's claims, he definitely does not endorse them. Chaipau (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: As he admits in the end, his way of seeing the “Bodos” is twofold: he starts by using “Bodo” to designate a wide range of people (“a numerous race”), then wonders if some others are not “Bodos in disguise”. He ends on a cautionary note and refrains from unmasking the dubious tribes, registering only the Mechs and Kacharis, which is indeed better from the present linguistic point of view.(Jaquesson 2008:21). Either you don't understand properly or you revert without reading. I request you to go for WP:ANI intead of reverting cited content Logical Man 2000 (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Jaquesson says that use of Bodo for everyone isn't correct but use of Bodo for Mech and Kacharis is correct then he quote Hodgson. Please try to understand the content instead of wasting my time. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Your claim is obviously WP:OR. Here Jacquesson is saying that grouping Mech and Kacharis together makes linguistic sense. He has no comment on the use of the term Bodo, which Hodgson is using to define a race. Chaipau (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Don't waste my time. Read other books. Hodgson had written entire book with Bodo name. And 100s of scholars have written that Bodo and Mech are same. Anyway, We know about Mech because of raj-era documents. Otherwise Khilji's Meg/Mej wouldn't be equated to Mech. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: I would like to remind you of WP:AGF. Please make a good faith attempt at resolving the disagreement here, or else take it to WP:3O.

• Why read the entire Hodgson, when it is not WP:RS? It is well known that Colonial texts (different from Raj-era material), written by British officials have ulterior motives. You seem to have missed the distinction between "peoples" and "languages". This is where Jacquesson calls out Hadgson's use of Bodo to denote a race: "he starts by using “Bodo” to designate a wide range of people (“a numerous race”)." We know that today that race has no meaning today. Even if writers like Birinchi Barua uses "Bodo race." in his writings, we cannot do so in Wikipedia.
• Modern-day linguists don't even use the name Bodo or Boro to denote the group of the languages, let alone a race. This is what Jacquesson says: "The dvandva technique is better than, for instance, calling “Bodo” or “Boro” the whole group, whatever its extension. Using “Boro” for the whole group would lead, in indexes or out-of-context literature, to severe misunderstandings (most people would not realize whether the group or the eponymous language is being referred to). Secondly, by using one name only, as a kind of symbol or metonymy for the whole, we run the risk of mixing up extensions of different sizes, depending on reference or fantasy." This is why the group of languages is called Boro-Garo languages not "Bodo group" that Grierson used and Chatterjee continued to use.

Therefore, there is nothing called the Bodo race that we could use in Wikipedia. When we see post colonial literature using Bodo as a race, we will have to examine how it has been used, and then accept or reject it.

Chaipau (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: It's very simple. We aren't talking about Race. We are talking about people. Raj-era source aren't usefull but Raj-era works have been reviewed and reused. Leave about Raj-era scholars. Recent scholars from both Mech and Non-mech community have written that Mech call themselves Boro. Write it. It's simple. I've added 3,4 books written by Mech scholars. Add content from them. Add more books and content. Please don't waste time. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You can't mix up 21st century's mech with 18th century's Mech. You can't connect them if modern mech are different group. Hodgson book is part of Mech History who called themselves Bodo. Just like Ahom Buranji are part of Ahom History. I can also say - Why should we use Ahom Buranjis ?

Stop wasting time. Nobody can write anything without reference. Even Mech category was created by Britishers. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: That the Mech belongs in the Bodo-Kachari peoples group is not controversial—and it is mentioned in the first sentence itself. But are they the same as the Boro people? Even Endle does not think so. [1]. He lists Boro and the Mech separately, in the first and the third rows respectively in the table. So are you now claiming that the Mech have converted to Boro since Endle? That is not what we have seen from the census and other data. And you have not shown any reference to back your claim. Chaipau (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you read entire book ? This name was given by others. Mech means Boro of undivided Goalpara. Kachari (Boro) means Boro of Kamrup, Darrang and Nagaon. This is just census report. I think Goalpara was part of coochbehar. So, Mech was used. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You had removed many references before, claiming them Raj-era. Just check them. Mech is just a name given by others. You are trying to degrade Boro into Mech. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dimasa have three certificate - Hojai , Barman , Dimasa. These are just certificates. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please check their books . I'm giving you page numbers. I can't write so much using mobile.

(Hodgson 1847 ; P=105) ( Hodgson 1847 ; P=142) ( The Kacharis 1911 ; P= xv) ( Endle 1911; P=81 ) (Endle 1884, P=v-vi) Logical Man 2000 (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hodgson had written many journals. Jaquesson analysed only last part of Koch,Bodo,Dhimal - in three parts. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: You insertion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mech_people&type=revision&diff=955624498&oldid=955620791 what do you mean by Bodo? If you are going by Hodgson's use of the Bodo term, as in the reference, they we cannot accept that because Hodgson is WP:RS and because it is a definition based on race. Will you please remove it? Chaipau (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You already know that Race concept don't exist now. Hodgson used Bodo or Bodo tribe and Bodo race to differentiate between tribe and race. Bodo and Boro have same pronunciation, clarified by later scholars. You are just wasting time. What author meant is understandable. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Bodo , Boro , Bara , Bodo-kachari , Boro-Kachari are same thing. Britishers tried to name the race using Bodo or Boro. Just like Assam is name after Ahom. Now ,Race concept is obsolete. So, Bodo linguistic group means everyone. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You already know but you're trying to waste time. Bodo = Boro. Alphabet isn't enough to represent Varnamala. This the reason modern scholars use Boro-Garo.

And Boro is better in phonetics. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Boro/Bodo is not the same thing. Jacquesson is discussing Hodgson's Bodo = Mech + Kachari formulation. That does not definitely mean Jacquesson is claiming Mech = Bodo/Boro. Your claim is WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you don't understand English. Read entire page. Jaquesson says that use of Bodo for Kachari and Mech is correct then he prove his claim with citation from Hodgson. Hodgson had written only Bodo who were known as Mech and Kachari to others. If you have so much problem then change the sentence to Bodos (Boros) were known as Mech to Hindu. Problem solved. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Mech name is discovered as name imposed on Bodo (Boro) people. You can't deny the History. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hodgson Bodo means Boro. Are you above all the scholars ? Please don't waste time. Jaquesson also clarify the pronunciation. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Note:There was a tendency to create Sanskritic roots of all names by colonial officers. The Mlechchha → Mech is one such example. In Assam Gait claimed that Asama → Assam. Scholars do not believe this to be true any longer, since Sanskritization was very limited in Assam, right up to the 16th century. Wolfenden gives an alternative etymology that is based in Tibet-Burman and better explains why the Mech people self-designate themselves as Mech, despite the claims of Hodgson, which has been demonstrated to not be true. That is why writers, such as Barua, use qualifiers like probably" when they state the Mlechchha → Mech etymology. Chaipau (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Your claim is WP:FRINGE. This scholar had his own goal to find tibeto-burman root. It is just a name. Sometimes some people may have used that name becuase it has been in use since 13th century. Just like today, People call themselves Assamese. But the fact is that paper also says that they are same people with Barafisa. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Stuart N. Wolfenden was a linguist from University of California, Berkeley, so not colonial.
• You keep re-defining the Bodo-Kachari peoples as Boro people. There is not controversy on this.

Chaipau (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Mech is just a name given to Boros of Goalpara. It is well known fact. S.N. Wolfenden's hypothesis isn't supported by any other scholar. His hypothesis don't fall under the category of Boro-Garo language. His hypothesis is equivalent to Ahom hypothesis of Che-Rai-Doi for Charaideo. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hodgson's Mech belongs to 1840s, Endle's Mech bongs to 1880s , S.N. Wolfenden's Mech belongs to 1930s. They might be different communities also. So, We have to write everything. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The well known fact is that Hodgson named the Mech and Kachari from that period as Bodo. We also now know that not all Kacharis call themselves Bodo and that Mech is a self-designation after all, unlike what Hodgson claimed. We also know that he was trying to create a Bodo race based on a group of languages, and this is no longer supported by any modern-day scholar. Jacquesson is very clear on this. This is what he writes:

"In linguistic discussions held over recent years, the amalgamation between people and language has stopped. If local scholars, for “nationalistic” reasons often want to parade their language as evidence that they are the true people, the oldest ones etc., very few linguists and very few anthropologists would now induce “race” from “language” or vice-versa. This precaution is all the more necessary in North-East India, where matrilinearity (a favourite keyword of ancient classificatory anthropology) is widespread among people of very different languages; and where the court language of old, Ahom, completely disappeared when the speakers gradually shifted to Assamese."

Many local and nationalistic scholars still follow the older colonial formulation. Newer ones don't.

Chaipau (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hodgson had written what was available to him. Mech is just a name. Just like some Boro call themselves Assamese, similarly it's not at all unlikely that sometimes some boro called themselves Mech. It's doesn't mean that they didn't consider or call themselves Boro. S.N. Wolfenden clearly says that western section of same people (Barafisa) and he clearly mention about use of mech by Hindu. From all these data, we are able to understand that Mech = Boro + Mech (same with Boro but sometimes designate themselves mech) Logical Man 2000 (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Mech calls themselves Boro

@Logical Man 2000: We have had an extensive discussion on the issue. There is no evidence that all Mech call themselves Boro, despite what Boro nationalist writers have written. Either not go there, or provide an NPOV version of what you want to say. Chaipau (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You're adding your POV. You are trying to change History. S.N. Wolfenden misunderstood the use of Mech for example - Kalicharan Mech. Don't try to distort anything. Today you can also call yourself Mech. It means you're different from the original Mech. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Mech-Kachari people

Please create a new page called Mech-Kachari people , then all the problem will be solved. Mech-Kachari are ST-Hill in Nagaland, So they identify separately. They can't leave Kachari word for ST-Hill , They can't join Boro for ST-Hill. Historically, Kachari and Mech are names of two different region. Mech aren't Kachari and Kachari aren't Mech in History but they are same people. Among them most people call themselves Boro. Other call themselves Sarania Kachari, Sonowal Kachari , Thengal Kachari , Mech Kachari , Dimasa Kachari etc Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Not needed. It was resolved to keep this page and not merge it with Boro people. Those who call themselves Boro are Boro. There is no ambiguity here. Chaipau (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This will create confusion because Mech of Goalpara are Boro. This is the reason Kokrajhar Chirang are part of BTR. Just like Boro can't say that all Kachari means Boro and all Mech means Boro. Similarly, Nobody can use Kachari name and say they are entire Kachari. Similarly, Nobody can use Mech name and say they are entire Mech. Identity politics of Assam creates any arbitrary community. Government of Assam is willing to create some new community called Kachari-Muslim. Then surely their population will grow exponentially but they can never claim they were entire Kachari. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Historical Mech can be divided into Boro , Rajbongshi and Mech-Kachari. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Mech and Boro are same people. Historically, Mech was name given by others to Boro people. If I add this fact then Chaipau forcefully revert my edit. I had also given citation. Today politically there is also Mech-Kachari group. All these facts are intact. But why Chaipau want to erase basic fact that People called Boros Mech>

--2402:3A80:162D:3EE5:C79A:59C1:58F6:236B (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion, disregarding. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet, I'm trying to tell the truth. Assamese pages are controlled by single editor Chaipau and he contact Admins to block others. 21:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

New edits

@Eulerfan1999: Please discuss here. Please also note this: [2]. Chaipau (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)