16:4216:42, 20 September 2020diffhist−271
Chutia Kingdom
"Reign in progress" should include only the years where the specific king was mentioned as the donor. Lakshminarayan wasn't the donor in 1392.
15:2915:29, 20 September 2020diffhist+455
Chutia Kingdom
Reference shows the presence of Chutia polity in early 13th century. Primary source can be included in the absence of secondary source. Read WP:PRIMARY
15:2415:24, 20 September 2020diffhist+23
Chutia Kingdom
Name given in the reference needs to be mentioned. Logically, a king mentioned as father of another(Durlabhnarayan) in 1428 may not be the same supposedly young(yuva) king in 1441.
14:0714:07, 20 September 2020diffhist+86
Chutia Kingdom
→Rulers: Added reference for Paya-Tamreswari, as per Neog's recommendation. Neog considered Dharmanarayan (early 15th century) and Muktadharmanarayana (mid 15th century) to be the same person, although they might have been two separate individuals as well.Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit
22:2722:27, 19 September 2020diffhist−22
Chutia Kingdom
Sentence restructured. This is a list of rulers mentioned in epigraphical records, not a tentative geneological list or anything of that sort.
21:4621:46, 19 September 2020diffhist+583
Chutia Kingdom
Shin's article didnot focus on the list of rulers. It was about the geneological claims made by the rulers. There was Dimasa kingdom mentioned as well. Did she mention all the kings of the Dimasa dynasty?? Clearly she used Neog's old reference here. SL Barua's CJB already works as a secondary source.Tag: Undo
20:5520:55, 19 September 2020diffhist+583
Chutia Kingdom
This is not a geneological list. It is merely a compilation of the names from the inscriptions. In the absence of secondary source, primary sources are feasible.Tags: UndoReverted
17:5917:59, 18 September 2020diffhist+12
Chutia Kingdom
Reference changed to the page with the epigraphical records added. This is not a geneological list. It is merely a list indicating the names from epigraphical records.Thus, all the epigraphical records are to be included.
17:5617:56, 18 September 2020diffhist+6,251
Chutia Kingdom
Undid destructive edit. It is sufficient enough to remove Khanikar's reference. There are other reliable sources mentioned as well.
17:3317:33, 18 September 2020diffhist+571
Chutia Kingdom
Most of the names from the "experimental list" are avoided. Only the three names derived from epigraphical record included( as mentioned in page 590-591 of Chutia jatir Buranji.) This is merely an extension of Neog list(based on land grants, not on traditional accounts)Tag: Undo
16:4216:42, 20 September 2020diffhist−271
Chutia Kingdom
"Reign in progress" should include only the years where the specific king was mentioned as the donor. Lakshminarayan wasn't the donor in 1392.
15:2915:29, 20 September 2020diffhist+455
Chutia Kingdom
Reference shows the presence of Chutia polity in early 13th century. Primary source can be included in the absence of secondary source. Read WP:PRIMARY
15:2415:24, 20 September 2020diffhist+23
Chutia Kingdom
Name given in the reference needs to be mentioned. Logically, a king mentioned as father of another(Durlabhnarayan) in 1428 may not be the same supposedly young(yuva) king in 1441.
14:0714:07, 20 September 2020diffhist+86
Chutia Kingdom
→Rulers: Added reference for Paya-Tamreswari, as per Neog's recommendation. Neog considered Dharmanarayan (early 15th century) and Muktadharmanarayana (mid 15th century) to be the same person, although they might have been two separate individuals as well.Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit
22:2722:27, 19 September 2020diffhist−22
Chutia Kingdom
Sentence restructured. This is a list of rulers mentioned in epigraphical records, not a tentative geneological list or anything of that sort.
21:4621:46, 19 September 2020diffhist+583
Chutia Kingdom
Shin's article didnot focus on the list of rulers. It was about the geneological claims made by the rulers. There was Dimasa kingdom mentioned as well. Did she mention all the kings of the Dimasa dynasty?? Clearly she used Neog's old reference here. SL Barua's CJB already works as a secondary source.Tag: Undo
20:5520:55, 19 September 2020diffhist+583
Chutia Kingdom
This is not a geneological list. It is merely a compilation of the names from the inscriptions. In the absence of secondary source, primary sources are feasible.Tags: UndoReverted
17:5917:59, 18 September 2020diffhist+12
Chutia Kingdom
Reference changed to the page with the epigraphical records added. This is not a geneological list. It is merely a list indicating the names from epigraphical records.Thus, all the epigraphical records are to be included.
17:5617:56, 18 September 2020diffhist+6,251
Chutia Kingdom
Undid destructive edit. It is sufficient enough to remove Khanikar's reference. There are other reliable sources mentioned as well.
17:3317:33, 18 September 2020diffhist+571
Chutia Kingdom
Most of the names from the "experimental list" are avoided. Only the three names derived from epigraphical record included( as mentioned in page 590-591 of Chutia jatir Buranji.) This is merely an extension of Neog list(based on land grants, not on traditional accounts)Tag: Undo