Talk:Bodoland Territorial Region

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bodoland Territorial Region/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

bodoland.net and

Bodoland.org

Are broken links

Last edited at 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 09:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone lend me a hand by providing a good source for the demographic section or in other words the ethnicity statistics of the present BTAD autonomous region. Swift User 72 (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bodoland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315123126/http://bodoland.in:80/jaores/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=72:bodoland-at-a-glance&catid=25:the-profile&Itemid=45 to http://bodoland.in/jaores/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=72:bodoland-at-a-glance&catid=25:the-profile&Itemid=45

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for new Bodoland map

I would like to request experianced wikipedians to kindly create a map for Bodoland highlighting the current BTC districts and the proposed districts for the new state. Swift User 72 (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

The information in Protected tribal belts and blocks in Assam seems to relate to the history of this region. Jbh ^Talk 16:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose on the grounds that its unclear that the area or scope is equivalent. I've added a 'see also' to the history section in order to establish a link, but I think that more evidence for their equivalence is needed before merging. Klbrain (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bodoland.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

problematic text

At that time the tract was a malarial zone in consequence of Bhutanese atrocities, Chief inhabitants were Meches and Kacharis, the only classes of people able to live in the malarial zone^[1] To the south from this tract were chiefly inhabited by Koches and Rajbongshis^[2]

These are taken by Das directly from colonial writers, and are problematic because they seem define the situation not of the colonial period, but the arrangement made by Naranarayan. In the thesis, Das puts it in the section where she describes the situation in the pre-colonial times.

Furthermore, malaria was the pre-occupation of the British, not the native population—since the native population had already developed an immunity to the disease due to a mutation in the AA population. The Mech and Koch were not inherently more immune to it, though exposure to the disease increased the immunity of a population. A case in point is the Totos. As a result, any population with the mutation (which includes all pre-colonial population groups in Assam) will quickly develop an immunity to it when exposed. Except the colonial officers, who did not have this mutation. This is not relevant in this section.

References

^ The tract was formerly inhabited by people, called Meches and Kacharis, the only classes apparently able to live in these malarial zone in consequence of the atrocities of the Bhutias. (Das 1998:27)
^ South from this, there is a plain which varies from 16km to 32km in width, and was chiefly occupied by Koches and Rajbongsis.(Das 1998:27)

Chaipau (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: This is an observation. It's well known Europeans were the first people to do a proper survey and they knew who lived where. Your addition : "The region that eventually became BTR was first delineated around 1562 when the successor king Nara Narayan determined that the Meches and Koches peoples north of the newly constructed Gohain Kamal Ali could follow their indigenous customs whereas peoples to its south had to follow Hindu Brahmanical rites." claim that BTR is from Cooch Behar to Lakhimpur. Das is specific to Eastern duar, kamrup duar and Darrang duar. Das was not talking about western duar. Malarial issue may be ignored but Bhutanese atrocities on Meches and Kacharis isn't a lie. I don't understand your actions.

Northeast heritage (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, You are able to understand now. Expecting you to restore the cited text. Northeast heritage (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Raj ethnographers were colonial rulers who were racist and unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. Look at this discussion.

Second, that the Gohain Kamala Ali formed the southern boundary is a strong historical basis for BTR. It was Naranarayana's diktat that created two zones—one in the North and the other in the South. The western limit was the limit of Assam and the eastern limit was the Darrang duars. The far eastern duars, which were arrangements the Ahom kingdom had with the Sat Rajas beyond Darrang is not part of BTR. Chaipau (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC) (edited) 08:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no discussion about races and castes, This discussion is about population distribution. Here,Nobody is using those raj-era books. It's well-known fact that colonial documents serve as primary sources, Scholars use their data. And "Eastern duar" name is only used for regions between Sankosh and Manas river. Author was referring to facts and figures, not racism. So, There is no meaning of imposing burden of racism on her. Northeast heritage (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for bringing you @Sitush: here. As per an archived discussion about colonial ethnographer referred by Chaipau, I think you are the right person to comment on here. Recently some edits related to the historical (raj-era) population distribution of Duar regions (now Bodoland Territorial Region) cited from a recent reliable source were removed because the author refers to data given in raj-era book which were purely about population distribution, nothing do with races and castes. What would be your opinion on addition of such data? Thank you Northeast heritage (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, the Raj-era notions on malaria is non-sense. Second, the colonial writers picked and choose peoples as they pleased and as convenient to themselves. The material they provided cannot be used in toto without critical input. Das just repeated what those writers have said without any critical input. Das cannot be used as to quote these Raj-era colonial writers. Pinging Fylindfotberserk. Chaipau (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per WP:RAJ and anything parroting it per WP:FRUIT. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you assume (Second, the colonial writers picked and choose peoples as they pleased and as convenient to themselves) and argue, then it's not an argument at all. WP:RAJ is about castes. Here we are not claiming someone is superior or inferior. There are multiple evidence about population distribution such of census, languistic works. Northeast heritage (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't see any mistake in the report(Political Missions to Bootan), lastly I would say that if there are mistakes in the report then scholars will find out. You are free to update. If you just focus on history, Naranarayan allowed Meches and Koches to follow tribal culture to the north of Gohain Kamal Ali. This section of Koches were in Cooch Behar which included Western duar and most koches were Sanskritized who lived to the south of Gohain Kamal Ali. Northeast heritage (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Northeast heritage: you had re-inserted the problematic text even as the consensus is that it does not belong here. The consensus is based on WP:RAJ and WP:FRUIT, as stated above.[1] Please do not reinsert.

Political Missions to Bootan is also problematic for the same reason. These missions led to the Anglo-Bhutan wars that led to the breakdown of the pre-colonial arrangement and colonization of the Duars. WP:RAJ definitely applies here. Chaipau (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i can't agree with both of you. You've pinged someone to make discussion in your favor. I don't see WP:RAJ and WP:FRUIT. Northeast heritage (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused how do scholars write about RAJ era if they can't use RAJ sources as primary source. Northeast heritage (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Wikipedia pages have such citations which refers to RAJ sources. Northeast heritage (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All Raj sources can be challenged under WP:RAJ. Linguists, such as Jaquesson, have examined Raj sources in just the right manner. Seek him out, he has written extensively on Boro-Garo languages. Chaipau (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert. I do not understand what is right manner. Das has done a comprehensive study about the tract bordering Assam and Bhutan. Her scholarship isn't refuted by any scholar. Also, who decides what is the right manner to examine Raj sources? Though she refers to Raj sources but her claim is backed by further explanation. So, I don't see any problem in her scholarship. Northeast heritage (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Teahouse post brought this to my attention. I don't see how Das's thesis can be covered by WP:RAJ here. Could somebody please post the direct text which is used to justify the claim? If she gives credence to the data from the colonial period, it would seem it is fine to use. WP:RAJ does not state that modern scholars using colonial-era data can not be used as sources. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: thank you for your comment. I have replied to the RSN post. The discussion regarding this issue has been settled. The RAJ sources are unreliable. Please go to the RSN post where I have provided the link to the previous discussion and the consensus. Chaipau (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: Thank you for being here. @Chaipau: Concensus is not to use old and biased sources. Here nobody is using old and biased sources. And the primary sources - Political missions to Bootan (Comprises multiple reports) and Francis Hamilton are not known to be biased. Northeast heritage (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Northeast heritage: the source here is from 1863. It is not old? But that is not the least of the problem. Chaipau (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: Sources from 1863 don't deserve the bibliography of Wikipedia article. We are discussing about Das 1998. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Das's thesis. The exact wording used is important to find how/whether to include the debated phrase. Perhaps Northeast heritage could provide the text from Das which justifies their preferred edit?

I do not see a settled discussion, perhaps Chaipau could indicate where that happened? Boynamedsue (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: I have provided the settlement in the RSN page (it is at the bottom of the discussion). Perhaps take the discussion there? Chaipau (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how this works, you haven't "provided a settlement", you have stated an opinion which has not achieved consensus. The PhD thesis (p27) involves a modern scholar who has evaluated the old source and considered it trustworthy enough to repeat in their own voice, albeit with the qualifier "apparently". Applying WP:RAJ to this PhD thesis would be a grotesque misapplication of that policy. I would suggest including a variant of the text proposed by Northeast heritage, attributed in the following way "According to Smriti Das, at that time the tract was a malarial zone and, as consequence of Bhutia atrocities, was solely inhabited by Meches and Kacharis." Boynamedsue (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: sorry for the miscommunication—I was referring to the settlement at the end of the archived RSN discussion here.

Also, attributing it as "According to Smriti Das, at that time the tract was a malarial zone and, as consequence of Bhutia atrocities, was solely inhabited by Meches and Kacharis." is wrong. It is definitely not Das saying it. She is just repeating what was reported in 1863.

This is part of a much larger problem, not just a dispute on this page. This involves other pages as well and it is very acute for niche areas such as this. So request you to discuss in RSN.

Chaipau (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: Thank you for clarifying the policy. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She absolutely does use her own voice. Her footnote cites the 1863 text, indicating she has read and evaluated that text and considers it convincing enough to repeat the information it contains as factual. You are seeking to introduce a qualification that no modern academic text accepting a colonial era text as truthful can be reliable. This is an absurd position. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show where Das is using her own voice? I have shown in RSN that her sentence is a copy of what Eden wrote. I request you to please continue the discussion in RSN. Chaipau (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything an author writes in their work is in their own voice, except that which is a quotation. The fact she paraphrases and cites indicates she believes this to be true. Citing another scholar at the end of a paragraph does not stop a statement from being in the author's voice. I will continue this discussion here as I consider the RSN question to be irrelevant to this content dispute. No evidence has been presented to suggest Das is unreliable. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the German language map of India use in this page shows India inside China ?

Why the German language map of India use in this page shows India inside China ? BodoSingh (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The tract was formerly inhabited by people, called Meches and Kacharis, the only classes apparently able to live in these malarial zone in consequence of the atrocities of the Bhutias. (Das 1998:27)

[2] South from this, there is a plain which varies from 16km to 32km in width, and was chiefly occupied by Koches and Rajbongsis.(Das 1998:27)

[1]

[2]