This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Boro people article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
@ Chaipau: has presented distorted information about Bodo term as of recent us. This is completely propaganda. Boros were known as Mech and Kacharis to others. But they called themselves as Boro = Bara & Bara-fisa & Bhim-ni-fsa . ref - Hodgson on koch dhimal and bodo https://archive.org/details/essayfirstonkoc00hodggoog & THE KACHARIS BOOK PerfectingNEI ( talk) 18:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
1 . Riyazu-s-salatin https://archive.org/details/riyazussalatinhi00saliuoft/page/n15
2. The Cooch Behar State and Its Land Revenue Settlements https://archive.org/details/coochbeharstatei00chaurich/page/224 & http://coochbehar.nic.in/Htmfiles/history_book.html
3. Census of Assam 1931 , Volume 3
https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/handle/10973/37319
https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10973/37319/GIPE-CENSUS31009-Contents.pdf
4. Bishnu Rabha Rachanabali Volume 1 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.451480/page/n83
5. An Historical and Descriptive Account of the Kachari Tribes in the North Cachar Hills: With Specimens of Tales and Folk-lore https://digital.soas.ac.uk/AA00000195/00001/pdf
6. The Kacharis https://archive.org/details/kacharis009491mbp
7. Essay the First: Koch , Bodo , Dhimal tribes ; Hodgson 1847 https://archive.org/details/essayfirstonkoc00hodggoog/page/n150
8. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Volume 9, Part 2 , 1840 , Page 829 https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0TQzAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA829&lpg=PA829&dq=Ha-tsung-tsa
9. Kirata-Jana-krti ; S.K Chatterji 1951 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.32096/page/n117
10. Ahom-Englsih-Assamese dictionary by G.C Borua https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.463794 https://digital.soas.ac.uk/content/AA/00/00/06/16/00001/pdf.pdf
11. Journal of Assitic Society Bengal 1856 (Notes on North Cachar) https://archive.org/details/journalofasiatic2478asia/page/600
12. The early states
13. A Statistical Account of Assam V.1
14. A Statistical Account of Assam V.2
15. Extracts from the Narrative of an expedition into the Naga territory of Assam. By E.R. Grange ; JASB 8 Pt 1
16. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~dwbruhn/STEDT/Damant_1880_notes-tribes.pdf 47.29.189.107 ( talk) 15:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)The Kacharis ; 1911 ( Ramsa & Ramsa-aroi & Ramsa mauza ) https://archive.org/details/kacharis009491mbp/page/n61
JASB V.9 Pt.2 ; 1840 ( Ha-tsung-tsa & Rangtsa / Ramsa ) https://archive.org/details/journalasiatics24benggoog/page/n223
Damant, G.H ; 1880 ( Hojai = Dimasa & Boro = Rangsa / Ramsa) http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~dwbruhn/STEDT/Damant_1880_notes-tribes.pdf
Soppitt ; 1885 ( Some explantion about Ramsa by Dimasa but I feel It's not correct ) https://digital.soas.ac.uk/AA00000195/00001/pdf
JASB V.8 Pt.1 ( Kosāree = Ramsa+Hojai ) https://books.google.co.in/books?id=3lBQAQAAMAAJ&q=ramsa#v=snippet&q=ramsa&f=false
JASB V.9 Pt.2 ; 1840 ( Uninhabitat Ramsa village ) https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0TQzAQAAMAAJ&q=Ramsa#v=snippet&q=Ramsa&f=false
Notes on North Cachar 1855 https://archive.org/details/journalofasiatic24asia/page/600
J,P Wade - A History of Assam 1800 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125418/page/n119
IITG - Bodo https://web.archive.org/web/20190430200542/http://www.iitg.ac.in/rcilts/bodo.html
47.29.189.107 ( talk) 15:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@IP user halt edit-warring, following edit summaries are not wp:civil neither edits are helpful in anyway:
Your messages on my talk:
Discuss your problem with other editors, if you can convince them, i have no issues.Thank you. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I believe Wikipedia is for giving information. But There is a constant effort to remove History and Culture related information of Boro community by @ Chaipau:. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=948625820&oldid=948625016 , Darrang Kachari basically means Boro. At the beginning of book itselt written that plain kacharis call themselves Boro. And Boros of Darrang called themselves Bhim ni fisa and that information is in wikipedia since very long time. But Chaipau is removing all the historical information related to Boro people from every Wikipedia page. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 03:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Activities of @ Chaipau: in wikipedia. Removed information from kachari kingdom page https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dimasa_Kingdom&diff=944373934&oldid=944369401 Removed information from Boro people page https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=948625820&oldid=948625016 Removed information from Boroland page https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bodoland&diff=947038671&oldid=947038420 Removed reference related to Boro people https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=936224164&oldid=936217146 DinaBasumatary ( talk) 03:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Basically Chaipau target Boro community related page. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 04:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Read Hodgson and Endle, They are pioneer scholar and Later scholars followed them. Scholars use Bodo = Bodo + Garo + Rabha + Chutiya + etc. But scholars had written that Garo belong to Bodo but scholars never replaced Garo word by Bodo. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 01:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Garo were headhunter. Scholars called them Bodo(Bårå) but they don't want be Bodo(Bårå). Don't try to mixed up everything. That reference was taken from Endle's The Kacharis. Information about cognate tribes are given in appendix. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 01:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Bodos belong to Tibeto-Barman linguistic group. So, Tibetan and Barman will not stop writing their History because of Bodo. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 01:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Half educated Chaipau. Read KJK properly. Pronunciation of Bodo is Boro or Bårå. Bodo race is named after Bodo or Boro community. Today, Bodo race concept is destroyed by people like you who is basically enemy of Boro community. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 02:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
BTW, Bhim ni fisa is added from Endle's book which was written for Boro people, not for Garo people. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 02:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
There they seem to have come more and more under Hindu influence, until about 1790 the Raja of that period, Krishna Chandra, and his brother Govinda Chandra made a public profession of Brahminism. They were both placed for a time inside the body of a large copper image of a cow, and on emerging thence were declared by the Brahmins to be Hindus of the Kshatriya caste, Bhima of Mahabharat fame being assigned to them as a mythological ancestor. Hence to this day the Darrang Kacharis sometimes speak of themselves as "Bhim-ni-fsa," i.e. children of Bhim, though as a rule they seem to attach little or no value to this highly imaginative ancestry.
— Sidney Endle, The Kacharis (1911) pp. 6-7
@ Fylindfotberserk: That's Boro folklore shared Dimasa folklore. Dimasa were hill Kacharis and Boros were Plain Kacharis. Boros were aristocracies. Boro aristocracies were known as Ramsa. Dimasa were just citizens of Kachari kingdom. Endle clearly mentioned that he was writing for Boro people. Ref Endle,1911, Kacharis call themselves Bodo or Boro(Page=xv). People known to us (author endle) as Kacharis and to themselves as Bada or Bara (Page=4) DinaBasumatary ( talk) 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
There is mistake in Historiography. So, I'm not commenting anything related kingdom. Just that folklore should be added. What if there was some small kingdom with Bhim lineage in Darrang ? So, we don't know everything. Just keep the information. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 17:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Fylindfotberserk: Just like Ramayana was popular all over India. Why can't Bhim-ni-fisa be popular among different community ? There is no Dimasa kingdom. It's just Wikipedia article made Chaipau. Tired of boring discussion. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 18:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Scholars have suggested different theories of migration. Scholars suggest Tibeto-Burman of Assam migrated atleast 3000 years ago. Some scholars also claimed Bodo-kachari migrated 4000 years ago. So, It's still not clear. But It's widely accepted that Bodo-kachari peoples are autochthon of Brahmputra valley. Is it wrong to add autochthon status for Bodo-kachari people ? Here, Chaipau had removed the autochthon word and added Pre-historic settlers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/954090362 Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 17:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: is it wrong to add autochthon status for Boro people ? Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 17:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Historians consider Kacharis are autochthons. Your comparison is based languages. In Assam, Mundas belong to Austroasiatic. As per your logic, Mundas are autochthons of Assam. Anyway, You can carry on your POV. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 10:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Chaipau ( talk) 10:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Where is it written that Boros aren't aborigines ? Everybody migrated from some places. Modern human evolved from primtive human. According to your logic, Modern Human being should always refer to primtive human. What if khasi-jaintia migrated after Boro and just their language belong to Austroasiatic category ? Leave it, If you're so interested to call Boros migrants then write that Boros are Chinese immigrant who came atleast 3000 years ago. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 16:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Please give the exact journal and page number. Let me verify. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 16:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
We can't compare with Austroasiatic of India, We should compare Khasi-Jaintia and Bodo-kachari because Austroasiatic from India can still come just like Mundas Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 16:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Varaha → Boro cannot be taken seriously. Varaha is an Indo-Aryan word, and the Boro probably did not accept it for self-designation. Moreover there are other theories regarding the use Madhav Kandali. I have re-emphasized the Bara-fisa origin of Boro. Chaipau ( talk) 09:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Please keep it for time being. Don't remove cited content. You are doing everything without any concensus of other editors. I totally disagree with your edits. You removed Dalton , You removed Bardalai etc . Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 09:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC) You are doing everything at your will. Very unhappy with your dominant behaviour. Please restore to previous version. I would suggest you to follow wikipedia rules and re-add this : According to some scholars, Varaha-Raja Mahamanikya was popularly known as Varaha or Barahi, with passage of time it began to pronounce as Bara or Boro. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 09:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Different scholars give different opinion. We live in global platform. We shouldn't differentiate Boro vs non-Boro scholar. And etymology of Varaha can be anything but sanskritization is different thing. Boro community have Hindu, Christian , Bathou. So, There will be different opinion. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 11:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Kachari necessarily don't mean Dimasa. There were many kingdoms. Bardalai tried to connect with Boro. Kakati tried to connect with Barahi. Two different scholars. I'm only refering to bardalai's view , not neog , not Kakati. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
You are not even scholar. You're just editor. Jayantiapur is just name of place. I understand your intentions. Let other editor decide it. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Jaintia kingdom and Kachari kingdom of Jaintiapur are two different thing. If you don't know anything then I can't help you. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: You think you are All-knowing but you are just senior priviledged editor. You can't even understand what is written in text, Location and Time was unknown at that time but they agreed that Mahamanikya was Kachari king. But now it's well known because Lanka inscription is discovered and widely accepted by scholars that Mahamanikya was Kachari king. Two scholars view that Varaha have some connection with Boro. What is so big deal in it? In fact , That place was occupied by Boro. And your hard effort to make things controversial and remove information related Boro isn't a sign of unbiased editor. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 13:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Hi! 3O here. I don't have a specific opinion on the dispute here, since I am not familiar with the sources. I will, instead, remind both parties here of a few important policies: verifiability, due weight, and fringe theories. Note that fringe theory, in this case, refers to things that are not accepted by the majority of scholars in a field. If the majority of scholars say that Varaha and Boro refer to the same people, then we say that. If only a few scholars say that Varaha and Boro refer to the same people, then we can say that but need to attribute that to the specific authors. We also make sure that we give due weight - if an opinion is only held by one dissenting scholar, we shouldn't include it (unless there's significant coverage by other sources about the dispute), whereas if there's a significant minority that hold the opinion, it might be worth including. Regardless, I encourage both parties to assume good faith and focus on what the sources say. creffett ( talk) 23:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC) |
@ Chaipau: It's not WP:Fringe. You've already made your mind to remove the content. You're a senior editor with more privilege. I can't keep on arguing with you. Do as you wish. I totally disagree with your actions. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 09:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Creffett: I am providing a summary here for you to review. If you require additional information or clarification, we shall provide them below.
Primary question: Can we derive the name Boro, by which the Boro people call themselves, from Varaha an ethnic group from 13th century?
Logical Man 2000 is claiming that Boro is derived from Varaha because:
Chaipau's objection:
Chaipau ( talk) 11:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Different scholars have different views. Tipra have sanskritized version as Tripura, Dimasa has sanskritized version as Hidimba-sa , Koch has sanskritized version as Kuvaca, Mech has sanskritized version as Mleccha, Similarly Boro has sanskritized version as Varaha. I'm unable to understand the problem of adding more information. I can't keep on arguing with dominant editor like Chaipau. We can't decide who is perfect scholar. Chaipau , You're simply wasting time of everyone. I'm done with this because you're dominant editor and you'll not allow me to add more information. You're free to do whatever you wish because you're senior privileged editor. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 11:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: I'm not claiming anything like you. I've no propaganda. I just want to add what is claimed by Bardalai and repeated by Padmashri awardee and PhD scholar. I just gave few examples. Your controversial ideas don't make any sense. Koch don't call themselves Kuvaca. But scholars agree that Kuvaca word is sanskritized version of Koch , Mech don't call themselves Mleccha but scholars agree Mleccha is sanskritized version of Mech. Please follow Wikipedia rules. Respect PhD scholar , Padmashree awardee and First publisher of Saptakanda Ramayana. Don't remove cited content. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Madhavachandra Bardalai, who had the credit of bringing out the first printed edition of Kandali’s Ramayana, in his Preface surmised that Sri-maha-manikya must be one of the three Kachari kings of Jayantapura (Jaintias) with the surname of Manika, Vijaya-manika, Dhana-manika and Yasa-manika. The Kachari kings of Jayantapura were known as 'Varahirajas' styled themselves as 'Jayantapuresvaras' and ruled over a vast territory extending to the modern district of Nowgong from the twelfth to the fourteenth century A.D. Bardalai further seeks to connect the term Varaha in the text with Bodo or Boro, the name of the Tibeto-Burmans who settled and ruled in Assam.
— Maheshwar Neog, M, Neog (1953), "Assamese Literature Before Sankaradeva", in Kakati, Banikanta (ed.), Aspects of Early Assamese Literature, Gauhati: Gauhati University, p 24
Mleccha, Kuvaca can be anyone in world. But in kamarupa region. Mleccha = Mech , Kuvaca = Koch. Similarly , Varaha --> Boro in kamarupa according to Bardalai and repeated by Padmashri awardee and PhD scholar. Please don't consider yourself above Padma Shri Awardee. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Creffett: I am unsure how to proceed. Logical Man 2000 ( talk · contribs) leaves a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and does not engage with the material presented. I requested this WP:3O because the other editor asked for an independent opinion. He seems to not want to proceed further with resolving the issue. I thank you very much for guiding us—stating the relevant principles to follow here. Chaipau ( talk) 21:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Creffett: Thank you. Actually, I decided to step down because i don't want to waste more time just to add single. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 14:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It is widely accepted by Scholars that Mahamanikya was Kachari king. Boros are also known as Kachari. Mahamanikya was called Varaha Raja. Therefore, scholars tried to connect Varaha with Boro but Dominant senior editor Chaipau don't allow me to add this cited content :
According to Bardalai, Mahamanikya was popularly known as Varaha or Barahi, with passage of time it began to pronounce as Bara or Boro. [1] [2] For example - Dimasa have sanskritized form Hidimba-sa , Tipra have sanskritized form Tripura , Koch have sanskritized form Kuvaca.
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 13:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This move was requested by Chaipau on the basis of better phonetic . https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=944496316&oldid=944345409 But he is claiming Bodo instead of Boro in Mech people. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Mech_people&diff=955379667&oldid=953909077 Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 16:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Mushahary's reference was added on 30th April 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=954154602&oldid=954153996 But page move happened much before. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Chaipau glorify Ahom people ( example - Removed other possibility of origin of Assam and kept only Ahom claim https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assam&diff=prev&oldid=952880242 ) . He removed many references and cited content. He constantly push his POV. Constant removal of reference and content - example https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=956210563&oldid=956210476 Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 04:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Usually, it is good practice to keep unused references that are clearly related to the topic and helpful for readers (and also for potential editors who want to expand the article) in a "Further reading" section. Looks as if at least a few fall into this category. – Austronesier ( talk) 10:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Chaipau has been removing vital information related to Boro people. Chaipau has been moving pages, deleting information, presenting distorted information. This is misuse of Wikipedia. Chaipau treat wikipages like his personal dairy book. Biased character of Chaipau is clearly visible because he removes information. When everything is related then you can't remove things related Boro and add some fabricated stories. You can't use wikipages to spread information as you wish. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Austronesier: I just want to add content from reliable sources. Some scholars have written entire chapter based on assumption or WP:FRINGE. There are many vital information missed by them. These are repeated by some scholars or ignored by some scholars but Chaipau don't want them to be written because many things goes in support of Boro people. I'm totally against removal of information by Chaipau. Reliable information must be written then only people know judge the truth otherwise wikipedia will become Chaipau-pedia. You can check his edits, He had removed many cited content from this page. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Dalton concluded meaning of Boro from the saying - "Boro heri geder heri". Chaipau removed the content https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=956280868&oldid=956276462 Reason given by Chaipau : "Boro heri geder heri is not etymology of Boro. Boro is great in Indo-Aryan, cannot be self-identification of Boro" . Boros use Saan for sun (eng). There may be some linguistic relation with Indo-European. What is big deal if Boro word have similarity with Indo-European word ? Why do User:Chaipau have so much problem with Boro people ? Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 14:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Chaipau has removed following references -
{{
cite thesis}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
citation}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite thesis}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite thesis}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
citation}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Logical Man 2000 (
talk) 06:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Since, Many information and citations were removed. Therefore, Some references became unused. Still many references within it can be used.
Logical Man 2000 (
talk) 20:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Content removed by Chaipau " Section of Boros were known as Rangtsa or Ramsa. According to tradition the Kacharis had their domain in
Kamarupa and they belonged to a lineage called Ha-tsung-tsa or Ha-cheng-sa or Hachengsa and Kacharis called themselves Rangtsa or Ramsa.
[1] *
Bishnu Prasad Rabha,
[2] Activist, musician, songwriter and painter. A section of Boros called themselves Ramsa, which means Children of Ram.
[3] "
Logical Man 2000 (
talk) 14:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
::
User:Chaipau mail (
User talk:Chaipau#Logical Man) other editors and admins to block other users with sockpuppet allegation. If you're trying to spread fake information then you'll surely have conflict with those users who love to add true information. It's possible that you remove those specific information to match the conflict with other users. You may have conflict with many users, It don't mean i'm wrong, May be you're wrong. It's well known Bishnu Rabha was Boro. You removed the content. Boros of southern side called themselves Ramsa. All Ramsa section of Boro know it. If you remove these basic things then you'll surely have conflict with all other users. Why do you want to remove so many things from this page ? This must be biggest question for all future editors who will read this section. Then they'll surely learn about you also.
Logical Man 2000 (
talk) 15:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Chaipau mostly edit
Ahom people related pages where he writes things which support claims of
Ahom people. He has a habit of removing things which support claims of
Boro people. He only argue with other editors and mail admins to block other editors
Logical Man 2000 (
talk) 17:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The population count seems to be sourced wrong. The population number as it stands now is the number of Bodo language speakers (1.45 million) [8]. But it should rather be the certified count from census tables, which is 1.36 million. [9] The language numbers are more appropriate in the Bodo language page. Chaipau ( talk) 01:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Bodo language speakers those who speak Bodo language as their mother tongue. Bodo population is more than what is counted as Bodo language speakers. Large population of Bodos who live outside of Bodoland region doesn't speak Bodo language but Assamese as their mother tongue. Nehemiahnarzary23 ( talk) 01:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Bodo language speakers those who speak Bodo language as their mother tongue. Bodo population is more than what is counted as Bodo language speakers. Large population of Bodos who live outside of Bodoland region doesn't speak Bodo language but Assamese as their mother tongue. Nehemiahnarzary23 ( talk) 01:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: , South korean also have relation with Ayodhya, see Heo Hwang-ok. Can you give any source for your claim "this claim has no credibility" in this [ [12]] ? You have removed sourced text. It's against the policy of wikipedia. Boros have Mythical relation with Rama. Its clear from their folk tradition and Its clearly written in myths section. I believe you know the meaning of myth. So, You're free to not believe it. Anyway, I just keep checking Boro people page and make corrections. 2409:4065:49E:77D5:7078:DCA1:D5E5:C03E ( talk) 22:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Austronesier: Ofcourse it's Myth, not History. And can you provide a source for your claim - "The source by Dodiya is not about Bodo history, so of little relevance here." ? Don't assume and accuse others. The Source is about influence of Ramayana. It clearly mention about Boro and many others. If you have other source then add it. 47.29.133.83 ( talk) 08:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Austronesier: This has nothing to do with History. It's myth only. Wikipedia doesn't work based on our saying. Wikipedia need reliable source. That source is reliable. It talks about different communities including Boro. Cited text is for Boros. That books ofcourse talk about Boro and many other communities. So, It can be used for Boro and many other communities. If you don't believe me then you can contest it's reliability in WP:RS noticeboard. Thanks. 2409:4065:E0B:7CE7:1021:CBEB:B4F1:190A ( talk) 09:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
If this information which you intend to add here with such verbose obstinance is so important, why is it not possible to present a source which covers the Boro people as main topic, instead of citing a volume about Rāmāyaņa-related mythology which only devotes a single sentence to that information on 300 pages? – Austronesier ( talk) 12:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Some non-bodos who doesn't know Bodo history continuously targeting this category saying Bodo surname doesn't mean Bodo. Which is stupid argument seeing the present scenario. Bodos never take anyone's surname now, though they may have taken before. Also, Bodos' surname are never taken by other communities. Boro people aren't heterogeneous group. Nehemiahnarzary23 ( talk) 01:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
|region=
parameter (Assam in this case), but without the rounding part since as per the
template documentation, full numbers are mentioned. The same is followed in
Greeks, a GA article and in other Indian articles
Tamils, etc. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 16:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
|population=
which is 1.45 million (supported by census 2011 for the total number of Bodo speakers in India), we are discussing about the numbers in one specific region ie "|region1=
= Assam" and |pop1=
which is 1,407,711, as per
C-16 Population By Mother Tongue, but 1,361,735 as per
A-11 Individual Scheduled Tribe Primary Census Abstract Data and its Appendix. For that specific state number, we can have a range, but whether we should round it is a question since the template documentation suggest full figures, also supported by the
Greeks article and many other ethnic article. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 18:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
|region1=
, |region2=
,... fields even if in millions, and a rounded figure "X.YZ million" is added for the top |population=
. Now a range in the case of |region1=
Assam , is likely necessary as per the above excel sheets, seem easier to portray using rounded off numbers, but we need to be cautious that it does not look like it includes the figures of Mech, Kachari, etcs which is the primary topic of discussion here. Another thing to note is that we have nation-wise breakup of numbers in major populations, however in this case and in many NE tribal population articles, we have state-wise break-up, which is not advised in the template documentation. Perhaps we should remove them. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 07:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: 1.48M? It seems the discussion above was zeroing on something 1.42M -ish for the total, isn't it?
We may also mention that the number of speakers undercounts the number of ethnic Boro people since not all Boro people are L1 speakers of the Boro language..- Actually the opposite is happening, the number of speakers according to the C-16 Population By Mother Tongue is higher (1,407,711) than the number (1,361,735) declared in A-11 Individual Scheduled Tribe Primary Census Abstract Data and its Appendix
|population=
would remain same as in current with a note mentioning about the L1 thing.|region1=
Assam" will use a range based on the above 1,361,735 - 1,407,711 or rounded format 1.36 M - 1.40MThe output infox would look something like this (with examples for both raw and rounded off numbers):
Total population | |
---|---|
1.45 million [1] (2011) | |
Regions with significant populations | |
India | |
* Assam: | 1,361,735 [2] to 1,407,711 [3] (2011) |
* Assam: | 1.36 million [4] to 1.41 million [5] (2011) |
- Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 15:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Total population | |
---|---|
1.45 million [6] (2011) | |
Regions with significant populations | |
India | |
* Assam: | 1.41 million [7] (2011) |
References
@ Northeast heritage: place your objections here. You do not need to place ARBIPA alerts on my page, I am aware of it [14]. Chaipau ( talk) 03:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
From the colonial period, the Bodos have been defining themselves as a community in opposition to other communities." Where is the synthesis? Most authors have identified the early 20th century as when the process began, as Pathak has done here. But if you want to refer to the identity consolidation in the later half of the 20th century in the Bodo Movement conquest, that is a different matter. Chaipau ( talk) 04:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@
Chaipau: This sentence - They are concentrated mainly in the Bodoland Territorial Region of Assam, though Boros inhabit all other districts of Assam and Meghalaya.
- requires copyedit IMO. Part of it is redundant, "though Boros inhabit all other districts of Assam", since the lead sentence already says "largest ethnolinguistic group in the Assam state". Second, the "and Meghalaya" part implies that Boros are found in all districts of Meghalaya at significant percentages, which likely is not the case. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
We are having some issues with interpretations of what the Authors said and what an editor interprete. I assumed good faith in the editor since she/he is a senior editor but not a single source discusses "Boro Identity Formation". Authors discuss socio-religious and political transformation or aspirations of the community. Based on "From the colonial period, the Bodos have been defining themselves as a community in opposition to other communities. The Bodo-educated elites and intelligentsia have been articulating their divergence from the Assamese caste Hindu society and highlighting issues like land alienation and social and economic backwardness."
, The editor interpreted the "Boro Identity Formation" began in the colonial period. To my understanding, Neither her/his interpretation is correct nor the section name is WP:DUE. Should there be some changes? I will appreciate your comments.
Northeast heritage (
talk) 02:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Pinging the concerned editor @
Chaipau:
Northeast heritage (
talk) 17:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Historians, Anthropologist, Linguists never claimed Boro identity formed in 19th-20th century.". This is a strange claim since the quoted statement says precisely that. Also, the very first two lines from the abstract of the article has this to say: "
The term "Plains Tribal" was first used by the colonial rulers in Assam to lump together a diverse set of people defined in semi-geographical and semi-sociological terms. It was taken up and crafted into an identity in the competitive politics of late colonial Assam by representatives of tribal groups who successfully welded this diverse set into a unified political and social category.". In other words, the identity of the Boro's were being crafted on the notion of "plain tribe", a colonial construct.
Identity formation and autonomy in the Assam plains in the early 20th century: The Bodos". The first sentence is "
This chapter brings into sharper focus the processes of identity formation of the Bodo community from the early decades of the twentieth century till independence.". Here again we encounter the start of the Boro identity formation in the late colonial times. The author specifically states that the identity formation was triggered by local elites to find space in the colonial state: "
Parallel to the efforts of the colonial state to define and govern Assam, there were efforts by these communities to identify and locate themselves in the social and political milieu of the colonial state. Developments in colonial Assam valley were thus linked and products of political struggles among local elites." (p160)
Boro Identity formation began in colonial period, based on
"From the colonial period, the Bodos have been defining themselves as a community in opposition to other communities. The Bodo-educated elites and intelligentsia have been articulating their divergence from the Assamese caste Hindu society and highlighting issues like land alienation and social and economic backwardness.". I object this interpretation while waiting for third opinion. Northeast heritage ( talk) 07:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
"Boros identity formation in the colonial period began when the Boro elite and intelligentsia began differentiating themselves from the Assamese caste-Hindu society"instead of
"Boros identity formation began in the colonial period, when the Boro elite and intelligentsia began differentiating themselves from the Assamese caste-Hindu society". If it is acceptable, I will have no more objection to this issue. Northeast heritage ( talk) 16:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Your dispute is not legitimate, given you have not provided any source, even after repeated requests. Chaipau ( talk) 16:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Northeast heritage, I am not sure why you are inserting this: [17] and [18]. I removed it because of the following reasons.
...the proper name to refer to them was Borois not attributed. I looked at his "Account of Assam", and I could not find the word "Boro" anywhere.
His greatest accomplishment is the survey of Bengal (1807-1814), to which he added a wealth of information about Assam. After that, for one year he took charge of the Botanical Gardens in Calcutta, which he handed over to Wallich (23rd Feb. 1815), leaving India forever on the very same day. He then assumed the name Hamilton.. He did not even enter Assam, which was off limits to him.
Assam was very much a kingdom. Actually, Buchanan could not enter Assam, which was then closed to foreigners. All his information, as he himself explained, was collected from people he met in Rangpur or closer to the border. His approach came from outside.
So you are trying to insert an unreferenced claim from a PhD thesis here, about an issue where the original reporter did not even visit the place? He was reporting about people in Bengal not about Assam, first hand. His information has to be used keeping these caveats in mind, and Jaquesson does an excellent job doing so.
I rather go with Jaquesson who traces the use of the term Bodo to Hodgson.
Sorry, this quote from Daimari fails verification. Chaipau ( talk) 17:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC) (edited) 17:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
As such, whenever Bodo is used in the body of the thesis, it is used as a colonial construct." (p14) Not just he, but most academics today agree (look at Sanjukta Das Gupta, cited in the article; Jaquesson etc.) So it is important to figure out how this colonial construct impacted the Boro identity formation. Daimari himself says that "
However when they became colonial subjects, Boros increasingly transitioned from this fuzzy existence to a more definite and defined category. One of the factors facilitating this transition was the knowledge produced by the British administrators and anthropologists through descriptive accounts, ethnographies, ethnologies, gazetteers and subsequently the census." (p5) Unfortunately, modern academics do not consider this as records but "colonial constructs". Wikipedia too considers the Raj ethnographers as unreliable. And as a result, we can at best state when specific claims were made and not state the claims in WP:Wikivoice. Chaipau ( talk) 11:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Northeast heritage, thank you for the link. It is just as I had suspected. Here is the complete paragraph:
The Kachharis form a tribe, of which a few families are settled in two eastern divisions of this district, and a great many in the lower hills of Bhotan, and in Asam. Indeed they allege, that their prince was sovereign of that country, when it was invaded by its present rulers ; and he still retains the sovereignty of a considerable extent of hilly country south from Asam, and east from Silhet (Cachar R). It is perhaps from this territory, that they derive the name usually given to them; for my informants say, that the proper name of the people is Boro. Although long separated from their prince, and scattered through dominions of more powerful sovereigns, they allege, that they still retain their loyalty, and every year contribute to give him support. Each family, wherever settled, gives from one to five rs. , which are collected by persons regularly deputed from Kachhar the number of families in this district may be about 200.
I shall change the text and references accordingly.
Chaipau ( talk) 14:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Boro people article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
@ Chaipau: has presented distorted information about Bodo term as of recent us. This is completely propaganda. Boros were known as Mech and Kacharis to others. But they called themselves as Boro = Bara & Bara-fisa & Bhim-ni-fsa . ref - Hodgson on koch dhimal and bodo https://archive.org/details/essayfirstonkoc00hodggoog & THE KACHARIS BOOK PerfectingNEI ( talk) 18:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
1 . Riyazu-s-salatin https://archive.org/details/riyazussalatinhi00saliuoft/page/n15
2. The Cooch Behar State and Its Land Revenue Settlements https://archive.org/details/coochbeharstatei00chaurich/page/224 & http://coochbehar.nic.in/Htmfiles/history_book.html
3. Census of Assam 1931 , Volume 3
https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/handle/10973/37319
https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10973/37319/GIPE-CENSUS31009-Contents.pdf
4. Bishnu Rabha Rachanabali Volume 1 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.451480/page/n83
5. An Historical and Descriptive Account of the Kachari Tribes in the North Cachar Hills: With Specimens of Tales and Folk-lore https://digital.soas.ac.uk/AA00000195/00001/pdf
6. The Kacharis https://archive.org/details/kacharis009491mbp
7. Essay the First: Koch , Bodo , Dhimal tribes ; Hodgson 1847 https://archive.org/details/essayfirstonkoc00hodggoog/page/n150
8. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Volume 9, Part 2 , 1840 , Page 829 https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0TQzAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA829&lpg=PA829&dq=Ha-tsung-tsa
9. Kirata-Jana-krti ; S.K Chatterji 1951 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.32096/page/n117
10. Ahom-Englsih-Assamese dictionary by G.C Borua https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.463794 https://digital.soas.ac.uk/content/AA/00/00/06/16/00001/pdf.pdf
11. Journal of Assitic Society Bengal 1856 (Notes on North Cachar) https://archive.org/details/journalofasiatic2478asia/page/600
12. The early states
13. A Statistical Account of Assam V.1
14. A Statistical Account of Assam V.2
15. Extracts from the Narrative of an expedition into the Naga territory of Assam. By E.R. Grange ; JASB 8 Pt 1
16. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~dwbruhn/STEDT/Damant_1880_notes-tribes.pdf 47.29.189.107 ( talk) 15:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)The Kacharis ; 1911 ( Ramsa & Ramsa-aroi & Ramsa mauza ) https://archive.org/details/kacharis009491mbp/page/n61
JASB V.9 Pt.2 ; 1840 ( Ha-tsung-tsa & Rangtsa / Ramsa ) https://archive.org/details/journalasiatics24benggoog/page/n223
Damant, G.H ; 1880 ( Hojai = Dimasa & Boro = Rangsa / Ramsa) http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~dwbruhn/STEDT/Damant_1880_notes-tribes.pdf
Soppitt ; 1885 ( Some explantion about Ramsa by Dimasa but I feel It's not correct ) https://digital.soas.ac.uk/AA00000195/00001/pdf
JASB V.8 Pt.1 ( Kosāree = Ramsa+Hojai ) https://books.google.co.in/books?id=3lBQAQAAMAAJ&q=ramsa#v=snippet&q=ramsa&f=false
JASB V.9 Pt.2 ; 1840 ( Uninhabitat Ramsa village ) https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0TQzAQAAMAAJ&q=Ramsa#v=snippet&q=Ramsa&f=false
Notes on North Cachar 1855 https://archive.org/details/journalofasiatic24asia/page/600
J,P Wade - A History of Assam 1800 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125418/page/n119
IITG - Bodo https://web.archive.org/web/20190430200542/http://www.iitg.ac.in/rcilts/bodo.html
47.29.189.107 ( talk) 15:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@IP user halt edit-warring, following edit summaries are not wp:civil neither edits are helpful in anyway:
Your messages on my talk:
Discuss your problem with other editors, if you can convince them, i have no issues.Thank you. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I believe Wikipedia is for giving information. But There is a constant effort to remove History and Culture related information of Boro community by @ Chaipau:. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=948625820&oldid=948625016 , Darrang Kachari basically means Boro. At the beginning of book itselt written that plain kacharis call themselves Boro. And Boros of Darrang called themselves Bhim ni fisa and that information is in wikipedia since very long time. But Chaipau is removing all the historical information related to Boro people from every Wikipedia page. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 03:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Activities of @ Chaipau: in wikipedia. Removed information from kachari kingdom page https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dimasa_Kingdom&diff=944373934&oldid=944369401 Removed information from Boro people page https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=948625820&oldid=948625016 Removed information from Boroland page https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bodoland&diff=947038671&oldid=947038420 Removed reference related to Boro people https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=936224164&oldid=936217146 DinaBasumatary ( talk) 03:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Basically Chaipau target Boro community related page. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 04:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Read Hodgson and Endle, They are pioneer scholar and Later scholars followed them. Scholars use Bodo = Bodo + Garo + Rabha + Chutiya + etc. But scholars had written that Garo belong to Bodo but scholars never replaced Garo word by Bodo. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 01:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Garo were headhunter. Scholars called them Bodo(Bårå) but they don't want be Bodo(Bårå). Don't try to mixed up everything. That reference was taken from Endle's The Kacharis. Information about cognate tribes are given in appendix. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 01:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Bodos belong to Tibeto-Barman linguistic group. So, Tibetan and Barman will not stop writing their History because of Bodo. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 01:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Half educated Chaipau. Read KJK properly. Pronunciation of Bodo is Boro or Bårå. Bodo race is named after Bodo or Boro community. Today, Bodo race concept is destroyed by people like you who is basically enemy of Boro community. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 02:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
BTW, Bhim ni fisa is added from Endle's book which was written for Boro people, not for Garo people. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 02:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
There they seem to have come more and more under Hindu influence, until about 1790 the Raja of that period, Krishna Chandra, and his brother Govinda Chandra made a public profession of Brahminism. They were both placed for a time inside the body of a large copper image of a cow, and on emerging thence were declared by the Brahmins to be Hindus of the Kshatriya caste, Bhima of Mahabharat fame being assigned to them as a mythological ancestor. Hence to this day the Darrang Kacharis sometimes speak of themselves as "Bhim-ni-fsa," i.e. children of Bhim, though as a rule they seem to attach little or no value to this highly imaginative ancestry.
— Sidney Endle, The Kacharis (1911) pp. 6-7
@ Fylindfotberserk: That's Boro folklore shared Dimasa folklore. Dimasa were hill Kacharis and Boros were Plain Kacharis. Boros were aristocracies. Boro aristocracies were known as Ramsa. Dimasa were just citizens of Kachari kingdom. Endle clearly mentioned that he was writing for Boro people. Ref Endle,1911, Kacharis call themselves Bodo or Boro(Page=xv). People known to us (author endle) as Kacharis and to themselves as Bada or Bara (Page=4) DinaBasumatary ( talk) 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
There is mistake in Historiography. So, I'm not commenting anything related kingdom. Just that folklore should be added. What if there was some small kingdom with Bhim lineage in Darrang ? So, we don't know everything. Just keep the information. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 17:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Fylindfotberserk: Just like Ramayana was popular all over India. Why can't Bhim-ni-fisa be popular among different community ? There is no Dimasa kingdom. It's just Wikipedia article made Chaipau. Tired of boring discussion. DinaBasumatary ( talk) 18:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Scholars have suggested different theories of migration. Scholars suggest Tibeto-Burman of Assam migrated atleast 3000 years ago. Some scholars also claimed Bodo-kachari migrated 4000 years ago. So, It's still not clear. But It's widely accepted that Bodo-kachari peoples are autochthon of Brahmputra valley. Is it wrong to add autochthon status for Bodo-kachari people ? Here, Chaipau had removed the autochthon word and added Pre-historic settlers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/954090362 Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 17:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: is it wrong to add autochthon status for Boro people ? Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 17:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Historians consider Kacharis are autochthons. Your comparison is based languages. In Assam, Mundas belong to Austroasiatic. As per your logic, Mundas are autochthons of Assam. Anyway, You can carry on your POV. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 10:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Chaipau ( talk) 10:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Where is it written that Boros aren't aborigines ? Everybody migrated from some places. Modern human evolved from primtive human. According to your logic, Modern Human being should always refer to primtive human. What if khasi-jaintia migrated after Boro and just their language belong to Austroasiatic category ? Leave it, If you're so interested to call Boros migrants then write that Boros are Chinese immigrant who came atleast 3000 years ago. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 16:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Please give the exact journal and page number. Let me verify. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 16:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
We can't compare with Austroasiatic of India, We should compare Khasi-Jaintia and Bodo-kachari because Austroasiatic from India can still come just like Mundas Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 16:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Varaha → Boro cannot be taken seriously. Varaha is an Indo-Aryan word, and the Boro probably did not accept it for self-designation. Moreover there are other theories regarding the use Madhav Kandali. I have re-emphasized the Bara-fisa origin of Boro. Chaipau ( talk) 09:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Please keep it for time being. Don't remove cited content. You are doing everything without any concensus of other editors. I totally disagree with your edits. You removed Dalton , You removed Bardalai etc . Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 09:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC) You are doing everything at your will. Very unhappy with your dominant behaviour. Please restore to previous version. I would suggest you to follow wikipedia rules and re-add this : According to some scholars, Varaha-Raja Mahamanikya was popularly known as Varaha or Barahi, with passage of time it began to pronounce as Bara or Boro. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 09:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Different scholars give different opinion. We live in global platform. We shouldn't differentiate Boro vs non-Boro scholar. And etymology of Varaha can be anything but sanskritization is different thing. Boro community have Hindu, Christian , Bathou. So, There will be different opinion. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 11:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Kachari necessarily don't mean Dimasa. There were many kingdoms. Bardalai tried to connect with Boro. Kakati tried to connect with Barahi. Two different scholars. I'm only refering to bardalai's view , not neog , not Kakati. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
You are not even scholar. You're just editor. Jayantiapur is just name of place. I understand your intentions. Let other editor decide it. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Jaintia kingdom and Kachari kingdom of Jaintiapur are two different thing. If you don't know anything then I can't help you. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: You think you are All-knowing but you are just senior priviledged editor. You can't even understand what is written in text, Location and Time was unknown at that time but they agreed that Mahamanikya was Kachari king. But now it's well known because Lanka inscription is discovered and widely accepted by scholars that Mahamanikya was Kachari king. Two scholars view that Varaha have some connection with Boro. What is so big deal in it? In fact , That place was occupied by Boro. And your hard effort to make things controversial and remove information related Boro isn't a sign of unbiased editor. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 13:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Hi! 3O here. I don't have a specific opinion on the dispute here, since I am not familiar with the sources. I will, instead, remind both parties here of a few important policies: verifiability, due weight, and fringe theories. Note that fringe theory, in this case, refers to things that are not accepted by the majority of scholars in a field. If the majority of scholars say that Varaha and Boro refer to the same people, then we say that. If only a few scholars say that Varaha and Boro refer to the same people, then we can say that but need to attribute that to the specific authors. We also make sure that we give due weight - if an opinion is only held by one dissenting scholar, we shouldn't include it (unless there's significant coverage by other sources about the dispute), whereas if there's a significant minority that hold the opinion, it might be worth including. Regardless, I encourage both parties to assume good faith and focus on what the sources say. creffett ( talk) 23:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC) |
@ Chaipau: It's not WP:Fringe. You've already made your mind to remove the content. You're a senior editor with more privilege. I can't keep on arguing with you. Do as you wish. I totally disagree with your actions. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 09:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Creffett: I am providing a summary here for you to review. If you require additional information or clarification, we shall provide them below.
Primary question: Can we derive the name Boro, by which the Boro people call themselves, from Varaha an ethnic group from 13th century?
Logical Man 2000 is claiming that Boro is derived from Varaha because:
Chaipau's objection:
Chaipau ( talk) 11:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Different scholars have different views. Tipra have sanskritized version as Tripura, Dimasa has sanskritized version as Hidimba-sa , Koch has sanskritized version as Kuvaca, Mech has sanskritized version as Mleccha, Similarly Boro has sanskritized version as Varaha. I'm unable to understand the problem of adding more information. I can't keep on arguing with dominant editor like Chaipau. We can't decide who is perfect scholar. Chaipau , You're simply wasting time of everyone. I'm done with this because you're dominant editor and you'll not allow me to add more information. You're free to do whatever you wish because you're senior privileged editor. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 11:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: I'm not claiming anything like you. I've no propaganda. I just want to add what is claimed by Bardalai and repeated by Padmashri awardee and PhD scholar. I just gave few examples. Your controversial ideas don't make any sense. Koch don't call themselves Kuvaca. But scholars agree that Kuvaca word is sanskritized version of Koch , Mech don't call themselves Mleccha but scholars agree Mleccha is sanskritized version of Mech. Please follow Wikipedia rules. Respect PhD scholar , Padmashree awardee and First publisher of Saptakanda Ramayana. Don't remove cited content. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Madhavachandra Bardalai, who had the credit of bringing out the first printed edition of Kandali’s Ramayana, in his Preface surmised that Sri-maha-manikya must be one of the three Kachari kings of Jayantapura (Jaintias) with the surname of Manika, Vijaya-manika, Dhana-manika and Yasa-manika. The Kachari kings of Jayantapura were known as 'Varahirajas' styled themselves as 'Jayantapuresvaras' and ruled over a vast territory extending to the modern district of Nowgong from the twelfth to the fourteenth century A.D. Bardalai further seeks to connect the term Varaha in the text with Bodo or Boro, the name of the Tibeto-Burmans who settled and ruled in Assam.
— Maheshwar Neog, M, Neog (1953), "Assamese Literature Before Sankaradeva", in Kakati, Banikanta (ed.), Aspects of Early Assamese Literature, Gauhati: Gauhati University, p 24
Mleccha, Kuvaca can be anyone in world. But in kamarupa region. Mleccha = Mech , Kuvaca = Koch. Similarly , Varaha --> Boro in kamarupa according to Bardalai and repeated by Padmashri awardee and PhD scholar. Please don't consider yourself above Padma Shri Awardee. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Creffett: I am unsure how to proceed. Logical Man 2000 ( talk · contribs) leaves a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and does not engage with the material presented. I requested this WP:3O because the other editor asked for an independent opinion. He seems to not want to proceed further with resolving the issue. I thank you very much for guiding us—stating the relevant principles to follow here. Chaipau ( talk) 21:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Creffett: Thank you. Actually, I decided to step down because i don't want to waste more time just to add single. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 14:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It is widely accepted by Scholars that Mahamanikya was Kachari king. Boros are also known as Kachari. Mahamanikya was called Varaha Raja. Therefore, scholars tried to connect Varaha with Boro but Dominant senior editor Chaipau don't allow me to add this cited content :
According to Bardalai, Mahamanikya was popularly known as Varaha or Barahi, with passage of time it began to pronounce as Bara or Boro. [1] [2] For example - Dimasa have sanskritized form Hidimba-sa , Tipra have sanskritized form Tripura , Koch have sanskritized form Kuvaca.
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 13:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This move was requested by Chaipau on the basis of better phonetic . https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=944496316&oldid=944345409 But he is claiming Bodo instead of Boro in Mech people. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Mech_people&diff=955379667&oldid=953909077 Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 16:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Mushahary's reference was added on 30th April 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=954154602&oldid=954153996 But page move happened much before. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Chaipau glorify Ahom people ( example - Removed other possibility of origin of Assam and kept only Ahom claim https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assam&diff=prev&oldid=952880242 ) . He removed many references and cited content. He constantly push his POV. Constant removal of reference and content - example https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=956210563&oldid=956210476 Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 04:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Usually, it is good practice to keep unused references that are clearly related to the topic and helpful for readers (and also for potential editors who want to expand the article) in a "Further reading" section. Looks as if at least a few fall into this category. – Austronesier ( talk) 10:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Chaipau has been removing vital information related to Boro people. Chaipau has been moving pages, deleting information, presenting distorted information. This is misuse of Wikipedia. Chaipau treat wikipages like his personal dairy book. Biased character of Chaipau is clearly visible because he removes information. When everything is related then you can't remove things related Boro and add some fabricated stories. You can't use wikipages to spread information as you wish. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Austronesier: I just want to add content from reliable sources. Some scholars have written entire chapter based on assumption or WP:FRINGE. There are many vital information missed by them. These are repeated by some scholars or ignored by some scholars but Chaipau don't want them to be written because many things goes in support of Boro people. I'm totally against removal of information by Chaipau. Reliable information must be written then only people know judge the truth otherwise wikipedia will become Chaipau-pedia. You can check his edits, He had removed many cited content from this page. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 12:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Dalton concluded meaning of Boro from the saying - "Boro heri geder heri". Chaipau removed the content https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boro_people&diff=956280868&oldid=956276462 Reason given by Chaipau : "Boro heri geder heri is not etymology of Boro. Boro is great in Indo-Aryan, cannot be self-identification of Boro" . Boros use Saan for sun (eng). There may be some linguistic relation with Indo-European. What is big deal if Boro word have similarity with Indo-European word ? Why do User:Chaipau have so much problem with Boro people ? Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 14:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Chaipau has removed following references -
{{
cite thesis}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
citation}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite thesis}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite thesis}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
citation}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Logical Man 2000 (
talk) 06:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Since, Many information and citations were removed. Therefore, Some references became unused. Still many references within it can be used.
Logical Man 2000 (
talk) 20:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Content removed by Chaipau " Section of Boros were known as Rangtsa or Ramsa. According to tradition the Kacharis had their domain in
Kamarupa and they belonged to a lineage called Ha-tsung-tsa or Ha-cheng-sa or Hachengsa and Kacharis called themselves Rangtsa or Ramsa.
[1] *
Bishnu Prasad Rabha,
[2] Activist, musician, songwriter and painter. A section of Boros called themselves Ramsa, which means Children of Ram.
[3] "
Logical Man 2000 (
talk) 14:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
::
User:Chaipau mail (
User talk:Chaipau#Logical Man) other editors and admins to block other users with sockpuppet allegation. If you're trying to spread fake information then you'll surely have conflict with those users who love to add true information. It's possible that you remove those specific information to match the conflict with other users. You may have conflict with many users, It don't mean i'm wrong, May be you're wrong. It's well known Bishnu Rabha was Boro. You removed the content. Boros of southern side called themselves Ramsa. All Ramsa section of Boro know it. If you remove these basic things then you'll surely have conflict with all other users. Why do you want to remove so many things from this page ? This must be biggest question for all future editors who will read this section. Then they'll surely learn about you also.
Logical Man 2000 (
talk) 15:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Chaipau mostly edit
Ahom people related pages where he writes things which support claims of
Ahom people. He has a habit of removing things which support claims of
Boro people. He only argue with other editors and mail admins to block other editors
Logical Man 2000 (
talk) 17:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The population count seems to be sourced wrong. The population number as it stands now is the number of Bodo language speakers (1.45 million) [8]. But it should rather be the certified count from census tables, which is 1.36 million. [9] The language numbers are more appropriate in the Bodo language page. Chaipau ( talk) 01:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Bodo language speakers those who speak Bodo language as their mother tongue. Bodo population is more than what is counted as Bodo language speakers. Large population of Bodos who live outside of Bodoland region doesn't speak Bodo language but Assamese as their mother tongue. Nehemiahnarzary23 ( talk) 01:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Bodo language speakers those who speak Bodo language as their mother tongue. Bodo population is more than what is counted as Bodo language speakers. Large population of Bodos who live outside of Bodoland region doesn't speak Bodo language but Assamese as their mother tongue. Nehemiahnarzary23 ( talk) 01:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: , South korean also have relation with Ayodhya, see Heo Hwang-ok. Can you give any source for your claim "this claim has no credibility" in this [ [12]] ? You have removed sourced text. It's against the policy of wikipedia. Boros have Mythical relation with Rama. Its clear from their folk tradition and Its clearly written in myths section. I believe you know the meaning of myth. So, You're free to not believe it. Anyway, I just keep checking Boro people page and make corrections. 2409:4065:49E:77D5:7078:DCA1:D5E5:C03E ( talk) 22:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Austronesier: Ofcourse it's Myth, not History. And can you provide a source for your claim - "The source by Dodiya is not about Bodo history, so of little relevance here." ? Don't assume and accuse others. The Source is about influence of Ramayana. It clearly mention about Boro and many others. If you have other source then add it. 47.29.133.83 ( talk) 08:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Austronesier: This has nothing to do with History. It's myth only. Wikipedia doesn't work based on our saying. Wikipedia need reliable source. That source is reliable. It talks about different communities including Boro. Cited text is for Boros. That books ofcourse talk about Boro and many other communities. So, It can be used for Boro and many other communities. If you don't believe me then you can contest it's reliability in WP:RS noticeboard. Thanks. 2409:4065:E0B:7CE7:1021:CBEB:B4F1:190A ( talk) 09:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
If this information which you intend to add here with such verbose obstinance is so important, why is it not possible to present a source which covers the Boro people as main topic, instead of citing a volume about Rāmāyaņa-related mythology which only devotes a single sentence to that information on 300 pages? – Austronesier ( talk) 12:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Some non-bodos who doesn't know Bodo history continuously targeting this category saying Bodo surname doesn't mean Bodo. Which is stupid argument seeing the present scenario. Bodos never take anyone's surname now, though they may have taken before. Also, Bodos' surname are never taken by other communities. Boro people aren't heterogeneous group. Nehemiahnarzary23 ( talk) 01:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
|region=
parameter (Assam in this case), but without the rounding part since as per the
template documentation, full numbers are mentioned. The same is followed in
Greeks, a GA article and in other Indian articles
Tamils, etc. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 16:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
|population=
which is 1.45 million (supported by census 2011 for the total number of Bodo speakers in India), we are discussing about the numbers in one specific region ie "|region1=
= Assam" and |pop1=
which is 1,407,711, as per
C-16 Population By Mother Tongue, but 1,361,735 as per
A-11 Individual Scheduled Tribe Primary Census Abstract Data and its Appendix. For that specific state number, we can have a range, but whether we should round it is a question since the template documentation suggest full figures, also supported by the
Greeks article and many other ethnic article. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 18:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
|region1=
, |region2=
,... fields even if in millions, and a rounded figure "X.YZ million" is added for the top |population=
. Now a range in the case of |region1=
Assam , is likely necessary as per the above excel sheets, seem easier to portray using rounded off numbers, but we need to be cautious that it does not look like it includes the figures of Mech, Kachari, etcs which is the primary topic of discussion here. Another thing to note is that we have nation-wise breakup of numbers in major populations, however in this case and in many NE tribal population articles, we have state-wise break-up, which is not advised in the template documentation. Perhaps we should remove them. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 07:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: 1.48M? It seems the discussion above was zeroing on something 1.42M -ish for the total, isn't it?
We may also mention that the number of speakers undercounts the number of ethnic Boro people since not all Boro people are L1 speakers of the Boro language..- Actually the opposite is happening, the number of speakers according to the C-16 Population By Mother Tongue is higher (1,407,711) than the number (1,361,735) declared in A-11 Individual Scheduled Tribe Primary Census Abstract Data and its Appendix
|population=
would remain same as in current with a note mentioning about the L1 thing.|region1=
Assam" will use a range based on the above 1,361,735 - 1,407,711 or rounded format 1.36 M - 1.40MThe output infox would look something like this (with examples for both raw and rounded off numbers):
Total population | |
---|---|
1.45 million [1] (2011) | |
Regions with significant populations | |
India | |
* Assam: | 1,361,735 [2] to 1,407,711 [3] (2011) |
* Assam: | 1.36 million [4] to 1.41 million [5] (2011) |
- Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 15:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Total population | |
---|---|
1.45 million [6] (2011) | |
Regions with significant populations | |
India | |
* Assam: | 1.41 million [7] (2011) |
References
@ Northeast heritage: place your objections here. You do not need to place ARBIPA alerts on my page, I am aware of it [14]. Chaipau ( talk) 03:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
From the colonial period, the Bodos have been defining themselves as a community in opposition to other communities." Where is the synthesis? Most authors have identified the early 20th century as when the process began, as Pathak has done here. But if you want to refer to the identity consolidation in the later half of the 20th century in the Bodo Movement conquest, that is a different matter. Chaipau ( talk) 04:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@
Chaipau: This sentence - They are concentrated mainly in the Bodoland Territorial Region of Assam, though Boros inhabit all other districts of Assam and Meghalaya.
- requires copyedit IMO. Part of it is redundant, "though Boros inhabit all other districts of Assam", since the lead sentence already says "largest ethnolinguistic group in the Assam state". Second, the "and Meghalaya" part implies that Boros are found in all districts of Meghalaya at significant percentages, which likely is not the case. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk) 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
We are having some issues with interpretations of what the Authors said and what an editor interprete. I assumed good faith in the editor since she/he is a senior editor but not a single source discusses "Boro Identity Formation". Authors discuss socio-religious and political transformation or aspirations of the community. Based on "From the colonial period, the Bodos have been defining themselves as a community in opposition to other communities. The Bodo-educated elites and intelligentsia have been articulating their divergence from the Assamese caste Hindu society and highlighting issues like land alienation and social and economic backwardness."
, The editor interpreted the "Boro Identity Formation" began in the colonial period. To my understanding, Neither her/his interpretation is correct nor the section name is WP:DUE. Should there be some changes? I will appreciate your comments.
Northeast heritage (
talk) 02:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Pinging the concerned editor @
Chaipau:
Northeast heritage (
talk) 17:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Historians, Anthropologist, Linguists never claimed Boro identity formed in 19th-20th century.". This is a strange claim since the quoted statement says precisely that. Also, the very first two lines from the abstract of the article has this to say: "
The term "Plains Tribal" was first used by the colonial rulers in Assam to lump together a diverse set of people defined in semi-geographical and semi-sociological terms. It was taken up and crafted into an identity in the competitive politics of late colonial Assam by representatives of tribal groups who successfully welded this diverse set into a unified political and social category.". In other words, the identity of the Boro's were being crafted on the notion of "plain tribe", a colonial construct.
Identity formation and autonomy in the Assam plains in the early 20th century: The Bodos". The first sentence is "
This chapter brings into sharper focus the processes of identity formation of the Bodo community from the early decades of the twentieth century till independence.". Here again we encounter the start of the Boro identity formation in the late colonial times. The author specifically states that the identity formation was triggered by local elites to find space in the colonial state: "
Parallel to the efforts of the colonial state to define and govern Assam, there were efforts by these communities to identify and locate themselves in the social and political milieu of the colonial state. Developments in colonial Assam valley were thus linked and products of political struggles among local elites." (p160)
Boro Identity formation began in colonial period, based on
"From the colonial period, the Bodos have been defining themselves as a community in opposition to other communities. The Bodo-educated elites and intelligentsia have been articulating their divergence from the Assamese caste Hindu society and highlighting issues like land alienation and social and economic backwardness.". I object this interpretation while waiting for third opinion. Northeast heritage ( talk) 07:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
"Boros identity formation in the colonial period began when the Boro elite and intelligentsia began differentiating themselves from the Assamese caste-Hindu society"instead of
"Boros identity formation began in the colonial period, when the Boro elite and intelligentsia began differentiating themselves from the Assamese caste-Hindu society". If it is acceptable, I will have no more objection to this issue. Northeast heritage ( talk) 16:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Your dispute is not legitimate, given you have not provided any source, even after repeated requests. Chaipau ( talk) 16:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Northeast heritage, I am not sure why you are inserting this: [17] and [18]. I removed it because of the following reasons.
...the proper name to refer to them was Borois not attributed. I looked at his "Account of Assam", and I could not find the word "Boro" anywhere.
His greatest accomplishment is the survey of Bengal (1807-1814), to which he added a wealth of information about Assam. After that, for one year he took charge of the Botanical Gardens in Calcutta, which he handed over to Wallich (23rd Feb. 1815), leaving India forever on the very same day. He then assumed the name Hamilton.. He did not even enter Assam, which was off limits to him.
Assam was very much a kingdom. Actually, Buchanan could not enter Assam, which was then closed to foreigners. All his information, as he himself explained, was collected from people he met in Rangpur or closer to the border. His approach came from outside.
So you are trying to insert an unreferenced claim from a PhD thesis here, about an issue where the original reporter did not even visit the place? He was reporting about people in Bengal not about Assam, first hand. His information has to be used keeping these caveats in mind, and Jaquesson does an excellent job doing so.
I rather go with Jaquesson who traces the use of the term Bodo to Hodgson.
Sorry, this quote from Daimari fails verification. Chaipau ( talk) 17:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC) (edited) 17:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
As such, whenever Bodo is used in the body of the thesis, it is used as a colonial construct." (p14) Not just he, but most academics today agree (look at Sanjukta Das Gupta, cited in the article; Jaquesson etc.) So it is important to figure out how this colonial construct impacted the Boro identity formation. Daimari himself says that "
However when they became colonial subjects, Boros increasingly transitioned from this fuzzy existence to a more definite and defined category. One of the factors facilitating this transition was the knowledge produced by the British administrators and anthropologists through descriptive accounts, ethnographies, ethnologies, gazetteers and subsequently the census." (p5) Unfortunately, modern academics do not consider this as records but "colonial constructs". Wikipedia too considers the Raj ethnographers as unreliable. And as a result, we can at best state when specific claims were made and not state the claims in WP:Wikivoice. Chaipau ( talk) 11:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Northeast heritage, thank you for the link. It is just as I had suspected. Here is the complete paragraph:
The Kachharis form a tribe, of which a few families are settled in two eastern divisions of this district, and a great many in the lower hills of Bhotan, and in Asam. Indeed they allege, that their prince was sovereign of that country, when it was invaded by its present rulers ; and he still retains the sovereignty of a considerable extent of hilly country south from Asam, and east from Silhet (Cachar R). It is perhaps from this territory, that they derive the name usually given to them; for my informants say, that the proper name of the people is Boro. Although long separated from their prince, and scattered through dominions of more powerful sovereigns, they allege, that they still retain their loyalty, and every year contribute to give him support. Each family, wherever settled, gives from one to five rs. , which are collected by persons regularly deputed from Kachhar the number of families in this district may be about 200.
I shall change the text and references accordingly.
Chaipau ( talk) 14:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)