User talk:Chaipau
Archives
Sunyatphaa(Udayaditya Singha)
Hiii..I have already mentioned in the article Sunyatphaa that Udayaditya Singha is the younger brother of Chakradwaj Singha. You can check the introduction and the ancestry portion of the article Sunyatphaa (Udayaditya Singha). As for the son of Suhungmung, I have consulted two books, "Ahomar Din" by Hiteswar Barbarua, first published in 1924 AD and "Tungkhungia Buranji or A History of Assam 1681-1826 AD" by Surjjya Kumar Bhuyan, first published in 1933 AD. Both of them mentioned the name of Suhungmung's son as Sureng. In the genealogical table showing the kings of Ahom Dynasty, published by Department of HISTORICAL AND ANTIQUARIAN STUDIES IN ASSAM, the name of Suhungmung's son who was the ancestor of Sunyatphaa is given as Sureng. If you need any more information, i will be happy to provide. Thanks. Lachitbarphukan (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm... this is interesting. Golap Chandra Barua's "Ahom Buranji" says Chakradhwaj Singha was the grandson of Shuleng, the Saring Raja (p186). Do you know if there is a r/l confusion in the Ahom language? Chaipau (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, i am not aware of r/l confusion in Ahom Language. I have found that there are some minor differences in the narrations of all historians, regarding any historical events, names, etc. As a result, confusions do occurs. But such confusions are minor problems which can be dealt easily by sharing our knowledge and mutual understanding. Anyways, i will read the book "Ahom Buranji" by Golap Chandra Barua. If you need any more information or book on Ahom History, do let me know.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Asam Sahitya Sabha Presidents, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Margherita (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Lower Assam
About your note I would not have as in-depth knowledge of geography, history and government of Assam as you would have . However I suspect some articles and categories relating to Kamrup, lower Assam and western Assam overlap or are duplicate. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Addition of new article
I have created the article Sulikphaa. Please add it to the list of Ahom Dynasty.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Done Chaipau (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Ulfa logo.svg missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Kamarupi Prakrit
While I understand your frustration, alleging vandalism on the part of a user who disagrees with you (as you did in this edit) assumes bad faith, so it's best to avoid. Thanks. —Rutebega (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please be aware that I am attributing the act of deleting a duely referenced text as vandalism, not the position that an editor has disagreed with me. Chaipau (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Pronunciation of Assam
.png)
|
Pronunciation of Assam |
| Could you tell me the correct pronunciation of Assam in IPA? Bijay Dutta (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC) |
Hello, thanks for creating this article. I was wondering if you are able to add refs? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Talkback message from Bishnu Saikia
It's fine. I am changing the images in a moment. Please look at Sankardev's talk page. Bishnu Saikia⇒✉ 14:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Coz' I am a little bit hesitating to give the reply. Bishnu Saikia⇒✉ 14:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brajavali dialect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maithili (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Bishnu Saikia⇒✉ 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Delete of Haridev
Speedy deletion nomination of Haridev
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Haridev requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Bubka42 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The current structure has been built during the Ahom times,[4] in "Kamakhya Temple"
Chaipau, The reference book given mentions "The temple of the goddess Kali or Kamakhya on the top of the hill was built during the domination of the Ahoms." (Banerji 1925, p. 100). It also mentions "This temple was built on the ruins of another structure erected by king Sukladhvaja or Naranarayana, the first king and founder of the Koch dynasty of Cooch Bihar, whose inscription is still carefully preserved inside the mandapa. (Banerji 1925, p. 100)" That means the book treats Sukladhwaj and Naranarayan to be the same person-though they were not. Moreover it describes Naranarayan as the first king and founder of Koch dynasty of Cooch Bihar, whereas Viswa Singha was the first king and founder of Koch kingdom. Last but not the least, Maharaja Naranarayan was not under the Ahom king(in fact, during Naranarayan's reign, Ahom king paid tribute to king Nara Narayan). The very inscription in the temple itself mentions Maharaja Naranarayan and his brother Chilarai as the ones who rebuilt the temple during Maharaja Naranarayan's reign(ref no.6: Sarkar 1992 p16. It is said that Viswa Simha revived worship at Kamakhya. According to an inscription in the temple, his son Chilarai built the temple during the reign of Naranarayana, the king of Koch Bihar and the son of Viswa Simha, in the year 1565). So, please justify the statement- "The current structure has been built during the Ahom times,[4]". Books can be wrong; so, do justify, reply and take necessary steps.
Above all,domination also means 'the state of being dominated'2 and here the words 'during the domination of the Ahoms' may mean that at the time when the temple was built, Ahoms were under domnation by Koches (in 1563 chilarai occupied capital of Ahom kingdom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilarai). The sentence is "during the domination of the Ahoms" and not "during the domination by the Ahoms". eg. see the context of using'domination of' in the following pages- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chinese_domination_of_Vietnam and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chinese_domination_of_Vietnam Padmanlp (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your discussion on whether Naranarayan and Chilarai are the same or whether they were the first kings of the Koch dynasty is not relevant to the current discussion. The author is an archaeologist, not a historian, writing in 1925 when much of Assam's history was not known, let alone widely. They have no bearing on Banerji's archaeological findings.
- Banerji talks of two structures. The current structure (1) which was built during the "domination of the Ahoms", and the previous structure (2) which was built by Sukladhvaja/Naranarayan. Your assertion that "domination of the Ahoms" may mean "Ahoms were dominated" would then mean the current structure (1) was erected when the Koches dominated the Ahoms (1562). So, did Sukladhvaj/Naranarayan build the previous structure (2) too? Recalling that Naranarayan became the king in 1540, this would mean he built the temple twice within a period of 12 years. Obviously this makes no sense, and your assertions that "domination of the Ahoms" means "Ahoms were dominated" is wrong.
- OTOH, recall that the Ahoms under Rudra Singha/Siva Singha established the Parvatia Gosain in Kamakhya and the Tungkhungiya kings became Sakta worshipers and were closely associated with the temple. So everything makes sense if you consider the current structure was built by the (not fully) by the Ahoms, and the previous structure by Naranarayan. You would be further convinced when you look at the Kamakhya temple architecture. The western portion, with the aphsidal end and sloping roof does not match the cuboid middle portion in the middle with the smaller mandaps. You can easily discern the shape of the Ranghar in the western building. Also notice that all the mandaps on the middle cuboid structure is identical to the main mandap, except for one, which has a sloping roof instead, which is obviously a later addition.
- There are actually three periods. The first was the massive 10th century structure which Viswa Singha discovered in ruins. The second structure, build by Naranarayan with some of the ruins, the chief remaining original characteristic of which is the main mandap; and the third structure, which was built by the Ahoms, on top of the Koch structure.
Firstly, I was to use "may mean" and not merely "mean"(you can check in 'Kamakhya Temple' Talk page where I have used 'may mean'). Sorry for that. By the way, I did not get what makes no sense. Secondly, Naranaraya defeated Ahom king in 1563 and the building time of the temple is also around that. So, it is quite probable that the author means what I have told(as you already pointed out author may not be aware of the exact time when Koches defeated the Ahoms). Moreover, if you read the book carefully, it mentions the ahom period construction separately in later portion of the paragraph and is suitably agreed if we interpret what I asserted. Lastly, supposing if you knew all these, can you justify just one line you wrote: The current structure has been built during the Ahom times ??(even after knowing present structure is mostly due to Naranarayan and Chilarai)!