Talk:People of Assam

Map
Would it be appropriate for me to add the map from Assam here? It's probable that a lot of readers would benefit from visual information on the region's location. I'll do so in the next several days if there are no objections. Adlerschloß 22:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the idea of putting the map of Assam.

Deepraj 13:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Group
Is the "ethic groups" of the Info box complete? What about Mising, Rabha, Tea Tribes etc? Bikram98 (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire section as well as that part of the info box should be removed. I shall do it if someone else does not in the meantime.  I am just stuck with some other work.  Chaipau (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Chaipau, that's utterly ridiculous. Someone says that a section is incomplete, and your resolution is to remove it entirely? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently the ethnic groups section is very wrong. It has very loaded political statements.  It is best removed in the current form.  The issue of ethnicity is complex and conflict ridden in the case of Assam. An editor should be able to reflect the complexity without pitting one ethnic group against the other.


 * I shall try to rewrite it at a later date. Chaipau (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Bikram, of course the section is incomplete. Be bold and add more information yourself. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is very biased against Ahoms... Had they been so cruel, how come other castes and tribes so easily integrated into one community? The ahom even honoured Brahmins by giving the post of Phukan of Ahom/Assamese kingdom. They peacefully assimilated Barahi tribe into Ahom, and many people from other tribes and castes including Kalita, Brahmin etc. The last names (Bora, Borua, Saikia, Hazarika, Phukan, Gohain) of different tribes, including Muslim people states it pretty much, how similarly they were treated along with the Ahom subjects ...

Where's the reference of these claims against Ahoms?

Assamese society and culture no doubt is from pre-historical era, but, it is quite well know, how the todays integrated Assamese society and culture came to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.236.210 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that the page Assamese people be merged into People of Assam. Both the articles are discussing same topic. Marlisco (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification
Well, the intent of both of the articles need to be first understood!

Assamese people is an article that speaks about people from Assam region - Brahmaputra Valley, whose primary language is Asamiya or Assamese and thereby, the lineage is determined by the spoken first language Asamiya. It includes Assamese Brahmins (Indo-Aryan group), Ahoms (Indo-Mongoloid group), Kalitas, Assamese Sikhs, Assamese Muslims and all other groups whose first language is Assamese that in turn associate them with the culture, tradition and history of Assam. These groups may be migrant from different regions in the ancient period however, all of them had imbibed this language and commonly associate with it without any ambiguity. e.g., Assamese Sikhs don't even know a word of Punjabi as the common language they associate is Assamese and follow the Assamese code of conduct regarding food, social discipline and dress. But they are aware of their Sikh identity and do wear the five Ks. In fact the Sikh community went in search of their history to Punjab however, their lineage is more embedded with Brahmaputra Valley as for the language - Assamese. The same analogy also applies to Brahmins, Muslims and others who speak Assamese.

People of Assam is a categorization within which 'Assamese people' (Assamese language speakers of Brahmaputra valley) constitutes a part. 'People of Assam' is an aggregate of Assamese people along with people from other regions of mainland Assam hills and plains - Barak Valley and Hill Districts who may strikingly differ both ethnically and linguistically. e.g., Bodo tribe speaks Bodo within the autonomous district of Bodoland, Mising, Motok, Sutiya have their own dialect variants and traditionally don't identify themselves as Assamese, as they don't contribute to the language family of Asamiya nor they may follow Assamese code of conduct regarding food, social discipline and dress. In Barak Valley, the primary language is Sylheti in spite of it being in Assam where the first official language is Assamese in most of the regions.

Thereby, 'People of Assam' is anyone belonging to the state of Assam that constitutes the Brahmaputra and Barak River Valleys, and the Hills; and the article cites anyone irrespective of the language family as a representative of that region.

There's no categorization under Wikipedia category as Asamiya or Assamese people unlike Tamilians or Punjabis with the justification that unlike other regions of India, Assam owing to its mixed demographics everyone is not Assamese and tribes and sub-tribes along with a few other communities identify themselves as separate and non-assamese as they may not align with the traditions and culture of Brahmaputra Valley, in general. Though that categorization existed, it was deleted with that reasoning!

So, as an approach; either a categorization be created like 'Bengali people', 'Gujrati people' and then remove the 'People of Assam' article or else retain both the articles as it is now. You cannot mix everything up! No categorization and also merging articles - both cannot be done! Undo one of these to do the other.

For Assamese people a Wikipedia categorization in the same name makes sense because of the groups who associate with the language family - Assamese and are a part of common Assamese code of conduct regarding food, social discipline and dress of Brahmaputra Valley. It is unfair not have a category for them and have that for every other community in India.

Please think! It's easy to put a proposal however, sometimes make an effort to understand the crux of it. I recommend to create a Category as Assamese people and not to merge these articles!

--Rex86 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the merge tag, it was disputed and no further discussion in two years. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Origin of Different Tribes with common origin.png

HbE frequencies
The HbE frequency tables are not relevant in the article, since the frequencies are determined by other factors (rainfall etc.) and interaction with other alleles. I am parking the tables here for a discussion, if needed. Here is an example of how HbE could increase in a population from less than 10% to more than 40% in about 50 years. "An increase in HbE among the Totos of Assam-West Bengal (from 0.099 in 1962 to 0.438 in 2013) with the high incidence of consanguineous marriages may also support the present conjecture." (p256)

Chaipau (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Other factors decrease the mutation frequency, it cannot create new mutations. Study biology first. External factors cannot create any mutation. Presence of mutation means presence of AA genes2409:4065:E96:261F:4C97:65EB:A420:C75A (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Read the article. The O2a1‐M95 is already mentioned, and you can check presence of this haplogroup in others. HbE is just not the right measure here.  Look at the example of the Totos. Chaipau (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Your viewpoint doesn't matter. This is a public platform. All studies are to be included. As already stated, HbE mutation was generated in the AA population. External factors cannot create mutation in any random population out of thin air. If that were so, all ethnic groups including caste Assamese groups living in humid Assam should be having the mutation.2409:4065:E96:261F:4C97:65EB:A420:C75A (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read up WP:IINFO. Chaipau (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

All research has equal value. Someone's POV doesn't matter here. 2409:4065:E96:261F:4C97:65EB:A420:C75A (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Toto is a Tibeto-Burman group with AA blood as well. Thus, it is mentioned that frequency in Totos have increased due to consanguineous marriages. Mutations may increase due to consanguineous marriage or can decrease due to environmental factors. But, the fact remains that HbE mutation is linked with AA genes. Like Totos, most Brahmins or other caste Assamese groups also undergo consanguineous marriages due to which their frequencies haven't increased. On the other hand, most of the Tibeto-Burmans have maintained their numbers too.2409:4065:E96:261F:4C97:65EB:A420:C75A (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if HbE is of AA origin the frequencies do not indicate how much of AA is present in a given population. The example of the Totos is an indicator.  The AA portion of their population could not have increased from less than 10% to more than 40% in 50 years.  If we are to then look for the presence of AA then nearly all populations have shown HbE, including Brahmins and Sikhs of Assam.  So your claim, that the presence of HbE is a "detector" (your coinage, not found in the article) gene, is not just WP:OR, it is also wrong.  Moreover, many linguists and authors have said the Boro-Garo languages have spread due to language shifts, not population replacement. People_of_Assam. So your claim is also wrong on this count.  Chaipau (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with User:Chaipau, the additions by the IP editor are a blatant misrepresentation of the source, e.g.: –Austronesier (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * pseudo-quote by IP: "Hb E gene is a gene which is exclusively found in the Austroasiatic race and resulted as a mutation. This is actually a detector gene to show the Austroasiatic heritage of different tribes."
 * Source (abstract): "A probable origin of hemoglobin E among an Austroasiatic population of Northeast India has been postulated"

Independent research
https://www.academia.edu/38616517/A_Genomic_study_on_Austro_Asiatic_and_Tibeto_Burman_Speakers_in_Northeast_India_pointing_towards_late_Neolithic_to_Bronze_Age_dispersals_from_South_East_Asia, Though it's independent research, it's useful to understand the past. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Migration timeline
1. Upper bound for all other groups and lower bound for Tibeto-Burman group isn't neutral point of view. 2. Assam belongs to Tibeto-Burman zone. Assam is directly connected to Himalayan range. Tibeto-Burman don't have to migrate anywhere. They are already in own land. 2409:4065:D8E:665F:540F:2AF:684E:4F1D (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this is WP:BE. I have proactively struck this through. They edited the page  and then reverted the edit . Chaipau (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey complain box. Resolve these issues otherwise you'll be blocked. 2409:4065:D83:29BB:D997:D4C:B9A0:9A85 (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's surely a self-made unsourced diagram. I reverted it because i wanted to discuss about it. 2409:4065:D83:29BB:D997:D4C:B9A0:9A85 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAICS, the diagram is simply a visualization of the prose, which has loads of sources. On the other hand, what are the sources for this statement: "Assam belongs to Tibeto-Burman zone [...] Tibeto-Burman don't have to migrate anywhere. They are already in own land"? –Austronesier (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, This is not diagram of neutral point of view. Lower limit for TB and upper limit for others isn't acceptable. Secondly, Assam is link between Tibet and Burma. If you can draw a diagram based on other sources than you can also infer "Assam belongs to Tibeto-Burman zone [...] Tibeto-Burman don't have to migrate anywhere. They are already in own land" from geography and other sources. Thirdly, Everybody evolved from Out of Africa people. Tibet is much closer than southeast Asia. 2402:3A80:DD5:E3B2:CAA8:B7A3:66C0:91D9 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For every dot in the diagram there is a source in the text. What are the sources for this statement: "Assam belongs to Tibeto-Burman zone [...] Tibeto-Burman don't have to migrate anywhere. They are already in own land"? –Austronesier (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't a diagram of Neutral Point Of View. Seriously, Now you need source for discussion also. 2409:4065:E93:4B7B:F944:D4C4:A4FB:74E5 (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't waste our time. It's all in the article, e.g. the Tibeto-Burman date is based on DeLancey 2012. And so on. BUT: what are the sources for this statement: "Assam belongs to Tibeto-Burman zone [...] Tibeto-Burman don't have to migrate anywhere. They are already in own land"? None, right? –Austronesier (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Why lower bound for TB and upper bound for others ? You have no answer, right? Don't waste your time in Wikipedia to spread lies. 2402:3A80:DD7:DA77:371E:2316:C228:FDBA (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Expected upper bound for TB is 4000-5000 years ago. Bhaskar varman claimed to come from China 4000 years ago. 2402:3A80:DD7:DA77:371E:2316:C228:FDBA (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Point 1. was original problem. Point 2. is just for imagining the situation. 2402:3A80:DD7:DA77:371E:2316:C228:FDBA (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bhaskarvarman also claimed to have descended from Narakasura, a mythical character, some 3000 years before him. Chaipau (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Point 1 is already answered, point 2 is moot, because earlier you said: "Tibeto-Burman don't have to migrate anywhere. They are already in own land", and all of a sudden you produce another unsourced and contradictive claim for TB having migrated from outside of Assam at 3k-2k BCE. –Austronesier (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comolain box Chaipau, Go check original copper plate. Bhaskar Varman claim his origin from Cakrabhrta or Visnu God. Austronesier, People who came from China must be Chinese, not Tibetan. Bhutan was also part of Tibet. Tibet and Assam is closer than Southeast Asia and Assam. Bhaskar Varman is from 7th century. He claimed 4000 years ago. It means 700 A.D - 4000 = 3300B.C., My question is why lower limit for TB and upper limit for other groups. It's biased and against TBs of Assam 2409:4065:E93:4B7B:CD94:D737:5E09:7724 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC) You two are sock puppet of each other. You'll be blocked very soon by unbiased Admins. 2409:4065:E93:4B7B:CD94:D737:5E09:7724 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Any unbiased person will say that Lower limit of one group and Upper limit for other groups is biased edit. 2409:4065:E93:4B7B:CD94:D737:5E09:7724 (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to engage in a discussion here with these blocked editors. Neither are these WP:CIVIL, but they are definitely WP:BE.  I have gotten over my WP:AGF fixation; engaging with them are not at all productive; I have very serious doubts about their . Chaipau (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me this time :) If things get bad in the main page, then PP will be the most handy solution. –Austronesier (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If you're incompetent to give any justification for your biased and useless edits then don't waste time here.2402:3A80:DC1:21A0:31E9:5ADB:C2E0:9685 (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely, long unproductive discussions are not useful for anyone. Any claim supported by atleast two modern reliable sources can be included in mainspace. If it has been contradicted by other sources, should be attributed. Older sources and isolated sources can also used through attribution on the ground of author having own wikipedia page. भास्कर् Bhagawati  संवाद  19:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, sources can only be included if they are reliable sources per WP:RS. And no, older sources do not simply become reliable "on the ground of author having own wikipedia page". A detailed WP page is dedicated to Athanasius Kircher, and yet his Oedipus Aegyptiacus is not a reliable source for a proper understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Older sources are reliable if their content is critically reviewed and corroborated by modern scholarly peer-review sources. –Austronesier (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, Chaipau, you have engaged with these people admirably and at great length. Page protection would be a good start. Further admin intervention may be required. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Simple English sentence - Upper bound for other groups and lower bound for Tibeto-Burman group isn't neutral point of view. 2402:3A80:DEC:75A8:5127:D6E4:1200:73B0 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC) If you are not biased and blind then can you ask  for  this ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/960416740 ) type of disruptive edits. He removed sourced and historical fact. Yesterday, Chaipau also agreed that Boro were known as Mech ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/960538538 ). Why is he so much against Boro people ? All of his edits go against Boro people 2402:3A80:DD6:7520:4E45:E0F4:F188:F00C (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

On a whim I went checking—it seems I started Boro people some sixteen years ago. It will be sixteen in about three weeks. That was my third edit on Wikipedia. This was the version then:. My second edit on Wikipedia was to correct the definition of the Bodos—then it was defined as a rebel group and I think I corrected it to mean a people, who were struggling to maintain their language and identity. I probably created the Bodo (community) page after creating the red-link in the Bodo page, which later on moved to finally rest at "Boro people." Much water has flown down the Brahmaputra, it seems. Now we have a sock declaring "All his edits go against Boro people". My only regret is that even after sixteen years, Boro people is in a very sorry state. It has the look of a battlefield where terrible wars were fought, the grounds soaked in blood—what we wanted instead was a lush green field with nice trees, or maybe a few beautiful buildings. (Sorry for this bit of nostalgia---the curious thing was then, in 2004, we didn't know much about references and citations!) Chaipau (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Huh, 16 years ago, You tried to increase your edit count but now you become a dominant and arrogant. You're also attacking the Identity. It's clearly visible from your edits. Now, same goes for your community, Read Struggling to be Tai-Ahom in India by  Yasmin Saikia. 2402:3A80:DC4:2D56:589B:4E6D:5BA:987C (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC) We're not struggling to maintain anything. Languageless cultureless communities like Chaipau's community are fighting against Boro to erase our History, Language and Culture. It's because they have taken everything from us. Mastermind like Chaipau are creator of all the conflict in Assam. 2409:4065:99:BFAA:BCFA:5B83:6DE6:76B4 (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the above justifies admin action. Austronesier, what is your advice? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * these WP:CIVIL and WP:PA issues in the Talk space, though against WP policies, I am ignoring for now. I think with a little push we could get the article ready for an RfC(?) to get the cleanup tag removed. Chaipau (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If you can't be unbiased then don't waste your time. 42.108.36.85 (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the cleanup tag. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * indeed it does. Thanks!  Chaipau (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack is not acceptable in any case. The editor is in two minds, e.g. he stresed above, also claimed . भास्कर् Bhagawati  संवाद  00:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To see edit warrings between Bhaskar Bhagwati and Chaipau, Just check edit revisions in Varman dynasty. They are most rival editors to push POV in kamarupa kingdom. 2402:3A80:DD2:B5FC:92A4:A278:A484:C34F (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That diagram give speculated upper bound for others but lower bound for TBs. Editor should give speculated upper bound for TBs. I consider that diagram as biased and against TBs of Assam. 2402:3A80:DD2:B5FC:92A4:A278:A484:C34F (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you really care about reliability then remove all the doubtful references from Assamese pages. In fact, Books published under government of Assam are also biased. To know more about biased scholarship in Assam, read Searching for Historiography of Kamarupa by Jae-Eun-Shin. 2402:3A80:DD2:B5FC:92A4:A278:A484:C34F (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sock edits
The ew IP is most likely a sock of User:Sairg. –Austronesier (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Pinging .  Chaipau (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Shifting IPv6, not worth tracking down or blocking. I semi-protected for two months this time. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , we might could block this and this. It's not just our disruptor on those ranges, but a few spot checks I did showed nothing but poorly-written and unreferened throwaway edits. Conversely, we can semi-protect the talk page--but what I'd like to see also is a re-assessment of article quality (last done 8 years ago) and a good scrubbing (I just made some copy edits to the lead), because the better an article is the more easily I can justify semi-protecting a talk page. I'm interested in your and other editors' thoughts. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I welcome a call to scrub and polish. I have been working on the content and welcome all help in improving this article.  Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting you should suggest that, Drmies. I recently sent an email to a checkuser friend, wondering about rangeblocks, but they haven't gotten back to me yet. I communicated by email because I know you all can't publicly link IPs with user names. I'll send you the same email. We have recently had five IPv5s and one regular IP here that all seem to be singing out of the same choir book. I agree the article is far from high quality, and the same is true of several related articles, but I don't know enough about the subject to contribute constructively. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, never mind - I see you took care of it already. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, not all the Wikipedia emails make it through my university's filter. I've only blocked one IP, the most recent one, basically for dickishness, but I have not placed the rangeblocks. I am perfectly happy being guided by whoever your CU friend is. BTW I have not run CU, but I can have a look at the SPI, if there is one. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is so much on these ranges, I don't know what to look for and I don't see anything obvious. I need some backup here--maybe from, , , , , , --all of them have run CU on these ranges... Maybe we should just block half the subcontinent. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The SPI is here: Sockpuppet investigations/Sairg/Archive. The most recent named sock was Logical Man 2000, in May 2020. Since then they seem to have decided to use IPs. By my count five IPv6s and one regular IP. They all have identical geolocation; the regular IP lists a different provider. Should I list them? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone on Jio is being disruptive, you might consider page protection over blocks. Customers on Jio often bounce around on very wide IP ranges, like a /36 or a /32.  I don't think I'm familiar with that SPI case, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughts, NinjaRobotPirate. But that doesn't seem to be the issue. Geolocation shows the IPv6s as using Reliance and the regular IP as using Bharti Airtel. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply from the person I emailed: "Range is too active for a range block. Protection is likely your best option." -- MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not state things in black and white here per BEANS, but whoever you emailed is definitely right even in a categorical sense for this specific disruption. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Controversial propositions stated as facts, here: subsection "Austroasiatic"
Many of the statements in the article are extremely disputed but going by the article, seem like objective facts. The entire section of People_of_Assam is a good example. TrangaBellam (talk)
 * References? Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with you. Hypotheses are being presented as facts. Infact most scholars consider "The Northeastern Corridor May Have Served as a Major Passage of Entry Into India", therefore, Peopling of Northeast is better heading. KPAhmed (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm providing one reference - Ethnic India: A Genomic View, With Special Reference to Peopling and Structure KPAhmed (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * two points:
 * Not everyone considers NE corridor as a passage. In fact, writers such as Paul Sidwell have pointed out that the Ganges-Brahmputra Delta had been a barrier not just for humans but also for other animals (from other studies) and proposed that the Indian Austroasiatics (Mundas) had moved from the east via a sea route.
 * The scope of this article is Assam and it touches on the wider NE states only when necessary. The reason is that the peopling there was completely different.  Nagaland and Mizoram are vastly different and Arunachal even more so.
 * Chaipau (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC) (edited) 09:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, citations from Arunkumar2015 , Chaubey2011 speak about northeast. There are many routes to migrate like coastal route of Bay of Bengal. KPAhmed (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Arunkumar2015 and Chaubey2011 are used precisely in the way it is supposed to be used. Others too, such as DeLancey and van Diem have the following to say:
 * "(T)here is a growing body of opinion that the center of dispersal of the Austroasiatic languages may have been in, or at least included, the Brahmaputra Valley (van Driem 2001: 289–94, Diffloth 2005)." (DeLancey 2012:12)
 * "The Y haplogroup 02a is represented at a frequency of 77% in Austroasiatic groups in India and 47% in Tibeto-Burman groups of northeastern India. This patterning could suggest that Tibeto-Burman paternal lineages may have partially replaced indigenous Austroasiatic lineages in the northeast of the Indian Subcontinent and that Austroasiatic populations preceded the Tibeto-Burmans in this area, as linguists and ethnographers have speculated for over a century and a half." (van Driem 2007:237)
 * "While Kakati's assertion of an Austroasiatic substrate needs to be re-established on the basis of more systematic evidence, it is consistent with the general assumption that the lower Brahmaputra drainage was originally Austroasiatic speaking. It also implies the existence of a substantial Austroasiatic speaking population till the time of spread of Aryan culture into Assam, i.e. it implies that up until the 4th-5th centuries CE and probably much later Tibeto-Burman languages had not completely supplanted Austroasiatic languages." (DeLancey 2012:13)
 * This shows that the linguists of today and the latest genetic results are in agreement with what the older ethnographers have been saying—and van Driem has explicitly stated it.
 * Yes, the earlier theory was that the progenitor of the Munda people moved along coastal Bengal, which Sidwell points out is not possible . Please read the article first, particularly Section 1.6 and look at the map in page 45.
 * Chaipau (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reference. I agree with Sidwell. He support maritime hypothesis and disagree with Brahmaputran hypothesis. But this article is based on Brahmaputran hypothesis where Khasis are being presented as missing link between mainland indian austroasiatic and southeast asian austroasiatic. KPAhmed (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Where? This article mentions Sidwell's Mekong hypothesis and does not specifically mention any emigration. Chaipau (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * DeLancey, Driem , Kumar , Chaubey etc claim the Brahmaputran hypothesis . I'm quoting from Sidwell page 44 - "The predominant  hypothesis  tries  to  account  for  the  presence  of  Munda  (sometimes   combined  with  the  presence  of  Khasi)  in  South  Asia  via  a  migration  downstream  along  the  Brahmaputra.   This  Brahmaputran  migration  hypothesis  has  pre-Munda  speakers  crossing  the  watershed  between  the   Irrawaddy or Salween basin and eventually into Assam." He counter this hypothesis with strong historical linguistic and language geographic problem. Page 44 and 45 are good for understanding the concept. KPAhmed (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure your claim regarding the authors' positions is true. Even if it is true, please remember that when an author is cited, their entire corpus of work is not assumed to have been cited as well.  Chaipau (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Name of the journal itself is "Munda Maritime Hypothesis". KPAhmed (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh?! If you are unable to distinguish between a journal and an article title, we better stop here. Chaipau (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me clear your doubt. "The Munda Maritime Hypothesis" (you asked me to read before) is a peer-reviewed journal and "People of Assam" is wikipedia article. KPAhmed (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Will you allow me to edit ? KPAhmed (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * your edits above suggests you do not understand the difference between a journal and a journal article. Your insistence on "Please read van Driem..." suggests you do not understand the concept of citing.  I have left a note on your talk page suggesting where you could begin learning about these things.  If you insist on editing the way you are editing now without citations, then I shall have to report you. Chaipau (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, your edits are not required. We need not give the exact location of the BB Urheimat details here, since it is already disputed.  Since the subject of the article here is Assam, DeLancey's quote is more appropriate which specifically mentions Brahmaputra valley.  Chaipau (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought you would understand what i meant by journal. Yes, you are right. I should say journal article. Anyway, Can i use this(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Assam#cite_note-19) for driem2001 because i don't possess his book ?KPAhmed (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If not required then i will not edit but DeLancey wasn't austroasiatic specialist. He referred others. KPAhmed (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When we use a secondary source like Delancey we are showing wider acceptance in the linguistic community. Similarly, Sidwell here is weak even though he is an expert on AA.  Citing someone else quoting or agreeing with Sidwell will be a stronger citation. We are using Sidwell here only because his model agrees with some of the genetic results (van Driem probably as a co-author is some of them).  Chaipau (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "THE MUNDA MARITIME HYPOTHESIS" (Sidwell and Rau 2019) is very recent peer-reviewed journal paper. His claims are based on facts but some older scholars claimed many things based on someone else's hypothesis, whom should we prefer e.g. Taher 1993 vs Sidwell&Rau2019 14:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you haven't noticed Taher1993 and Sidwell&Blench2011 actually agree. Which in a way is stunning.  Sidwell&Rau2019 does not contradict Sidwell&Blench---it solves the Munda puzzle but does not have much for us.  Also, Taher is a geographist.  He rejects racial types and uses ethnolinguistic categories instead.  So it is a happy situation that he agrees with Sidwell&Blench.  Chaipau (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

'Related ethnic groups' parameter in the Infobox

 * 1) ) Since the article concerns migration of various people into the present day Assam at different times, shouldn't we be including the Tea-Tribes from Chhotanagpur, Khasis, Biharis, Bengalis, Nepalis, Marwaris, etc into the infobox parameter Related ethnic groups? Barring which seems discriminatory especially since the article is about people living in presnt day Assam.
 * 2) ) The use of the parameter, or rather the Infobox itself (Infobox ethnic group) doesn't seem right either, since we are not talking about a specific ethnic group here, but settlers in a state. All we have right now is a hodgepodge of castes, tribes, communities. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The infobox is too bloated. It has no meaning and we should just remove the list from there.  Chaipau (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree to that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the article is not about an ethnic group, we should use certain infobox parameters only with care or not at all. One of them is "related ethnic groups" (I don't like this parameter anyway for various reasons). I agree to remove it from the infobox. –Austronesier (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Chaipau (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Improvement
Taher, Guha and others of the 20th century shouldn't be used for the population history of the neolithic period. Their claims are based on guesswork or incorrect understanding of the past. Northeast heritage (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any benefit from weeding out authors you don't like. We will follow the regular RS rules. In most cases, what they have said have been borne out in recent works. Chaipau (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC) (edited) 03:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Historical linguistic, Genetic data and correct Archaeological dating weren't available to them. In fact, Current version of the population history in Northeast India is based on simplistic phylogenetic data. So, Hazarika made an effort to write population history of NE. Northeast heritage (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Placement of ethnic tribes in languages of assam
As assam is multiethnic state comprising of diverse indigenous culture and languages which were born and developed in the place that spread to entire northeast region post division of northeast era into different states, the priority of languages in the languages box should be given to the indigenous languages rather than languages which came later or not originating from assam or northeastern india.জয় আই অসম Metei91 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Tea Labourers
please provide reliable sources for your edits here. The current sources do not support the new peoples you have identified. Also, please do not back-project current ethnic identities to the times of their relocation. The list is also not required to be exhaustive here, and the link is provided for the full article. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , Yes I provided reference, where it is said that Sadri/Sadani Indo Aryan language is native language of Sadan, the Indo-Aryan ethnic group and the Sadani language later adopted by Dravidian and Austro-asiatic tribal. thanks Dev0745 (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And what about the addition or Kurukh and Odia-speaking groups? You have placed this information in statement referenced to Taher (1983), while the source doesn't mention them. That's called a WP:CUCKOO-edit and is a no-go. –Austronesier (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Austronesier has pointed out, the PhD thesis you have pointed to asserts that "Assam Sadri" (or Adivasiya) is not the same as Sadri. It says: "Adivasiya is a new name given by the Sabha for the creole. In their opinion, Sadri spoken in Jharkhand is the language of the Sadans or the Dikhus, literally meaning ‘outsider’. Sadri, spoken in Assam, is essentially different. The reason behind this is that, it is the product of heterogenous ethnic groups who came together to use it as a link language for socio-cultural reasons. Thus, Assam Sadri is essentially different from Nagpuria Sadri (Nagpuria) and other varieties spoken in different parts of the country."  Chaipau (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Kurukh(Dravidian) and Odia(Indo-Aryan) also spoken in Tea garden. But Provided reference only talk about adivasi, their language family i.e Dravidian and Austro-asiatic and don't mention their ethnic groups. So I am ok with it if u remove it. But they are mentioned in Tea garden community of Assam article. Dev0745 (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

, Why are you removing my edits. The two sources clearly mention it is Assam Sadri and Bagania. Is central government or state govt have recognised adivasia language? The Sabha don't own any language that is their not own. Scholar have not used Adivasia word for Assam Sadri. They have used Assam Sadri and Bagania. The name Adivasia is propaganda of tribal who are not the traditional speakers of the Sadri language. They should not be given priority as it is not their language. Scholar of languages should be given priority. Dev0745 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Why are you linking it to Nagpuri then? Bagania is not Nagpuri.  could you please help us here?
 * Chaipau (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The Assam Sadri is same as Nagpuri but it is influenced by Assamese language regarding it's tone and lexicon. It don't become separate language by this. Please read sources. Speakers don't identity it as Asaam Sadri but Sadri officially known as Nagpuri. It is Scholar who named it Assam Sadri as it is influenced by Assamese language. Dev0745 (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinion, but the source claims the opposite (look at the quote above). In any case, what language the community uses is not relevant to this article/section.  Here, we are just concerned about the peopling of Assam.  I shall wait for more inputs and then make some changes.  Chaipau (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

As your wish. But put scholarly view. Dev0745 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am removing this issue from this article/section since it is not germane to it. Please do not insert disruptive material this article without proper discussion. Chaipau (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring on Delancey
@2409:4088:9c09:183b::8288:6715 and @103.192.116.194 could you please explain why you had removed the text:, , , ,

These are properly cited relevant texts.

- since you have restored the text on at least one instance. - for admin visibility.

Chaipau (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, as mentioned, their reasoning was that it was WP:UNDUE. That said, IP/s, you are indeed expected to explain in detail why you assert the contested material is undue. Thank you. El_C 22:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, El_C.
 * In addition, none of the removal edits had non-default edit summaries except two. One that you referred to "Rv text WP:UNDUE" and the other is "rv text that not required" Chaipau (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * hi all, i opted to revert since it seemed to be removing a large amount of information without a real reason. At the time I reverted, it was the only edit made by that ip (Special:Contributions/2409:4088:9C09:183B:0:0:8288:6715), so i thought that it was vandalism. Also @El C/@Chaipau, please be advised that @@2409:4088:9c09:183b::8288:6715 may be unable to respond due to being affected by this rangeblock. Tantomile (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Tantomile, thanks for pointing out the rangeblock issue. Both non-default edit summaries I pointed out above are from the rangeblocked editor. Chaipau (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, UNDUE is a legit reason, if the basis for it is specifically explained. Currently, as far as I can tell, it has yet to. SFR, do you remember what that /22 range block was about? Looks like they can edit the mainspace, project space, template, etc., but are restricted from any and all talk pages, including less common ones like File talk, MediaWiki talk, Cat talk, etc. El_C 23:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There's some LTA, or LTAs, on it that harass and vandalize in those spaces. The problem is it's an enormous cell carrier, so no one wants to do a full anonblock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that they're allowed to edit non-talk spaces, but once there's a dispute, like here, they're unable to participate in the talk ones. Though seeing as they're also using 103.192.116.194 for some reason, it may be a non-issue for this specific case as that IP is unrestricted. Still, it's an odd dynamic. El_C 00:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If 103.192.116.194 and 2409:4088:9c09:183b::8288:6715 are same, it might open a can of worms. Chaipau (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, and it'll probably end up a full anonblock at some point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to request a status-quo-ante revert. I know it's not mandatory, but IMHO good practice especially when multiple editors apparently didn't agree with the removal of the text. I suggest Special:Permalink/1158358271 even when it postdates the first contested edit Special:Diff/1158312424, in order not overwrite the intermittent uncontroversial cleanup edit Special:Diff/1158328882 by User:Fylindfotberserk. –Austronesier (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted, because it involved removal of a large section of text without directly citing the main problem. Also I saw it getting previously reverted, so I thought that of vandalism. ComparingQuantities (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Resolution
I am submitting this by way of resolution to the issue whether the DeLancey claim on creolization is WP:DUE on not: "Meanwhile, the bearers of Y-chromosomal haplogroup O2a2b1 (M134) in the eastern Himalayan region expanded eastward throughout Sìchuān and Yúnnán, north and northwest across the Tibetan plateau as well as further westward across the Himalayas and southward into the Indo-Burmese borderlands. On the Brahmaputra plain, the early Trans-Himalayans encountered the Austroasiatics, who had preceded them. The relative frequencies of the Ychromosomal haplogroup O1b1a1a (M95) in Trans-Himalayan speaking populations of the Indian subcontinent (Sahoo et al. 2006, Reddy et al. 2007, Gaziet al. 2013) suggest that a subset of the paternal ancestors of some Trans-Himalayan populations in northeastern India, e.g. certain Bodo-Koch communities, may originally have been Austroasiatic speakers with matriarchal, matrilinear or matrilocal societies, who were linguistically assimilated by Trans-Himalayans, providing a molecular genetic correlate for the ancient process of creolisation argued for by DeLancey (2014)." Since the deleted DeLancey claims are mentioned by van Driem in this very context, the text is definitely WP:DUE.

The IP editor has not responded and too has asked the text to be restored since the deletion was opposed by many editors, the text deserves to be restored.

.

Chaipau (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, well, the protection expired yesterday, so there's not much else for me to do atm, even if I did have a decent grasp of the pertinent material (which I do not). So if there's WP:CONSENSUS for it, that'd be that. If not, you could look into further WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION steps, including content-related requests that are designed to better identify and codify that consensus: from the smaller 3rd opinion all the way to a wider Request for comment that is formally closed. I'm not really sure where you are now to advise further beyond that. Thanks. El_C 21:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @El C, yes, thank you for responding to my original WP:RFP and protecting the page, which definitely stopped an escalation.
 * This page has seen sustained IP attacks. Please look at Talk:People_of_Assam for a discussion in 2020.  It has been the norm since @MelanieN's semi-protecting the page  to ask for a WP:RFP whenever IP activity becomes unmanageable.  This is because the IP range is particularly large as @ScottishFinnishRadish pointed out earlier, and which @Drmies, @MelanieN, @NinjaRobotPirate, and @AmandaNP had touched on too in the thread from 2020.
 * We have engaged with these IP editors with WP:AGF earlier, as Talk:People_of_Assam will show and we intend to follow through within the WP:DR framework as required just as you have suggested.
 * Chaipau (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I'm pretty much in the same boat as EI_C. I don't have much knowledge on this subject, so I do not object to to the text being restored, unless there is significant opposition from others/lack of consensus. Tantomile (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tantomile thank you for your interest and contribution earlier when you tried to restore properly referenced texts against a deletion of a large section of text. I would encourage you to continue to take an interest in this article. Chaipau (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't mass ping admins. If you need help from an admin, you can go to Administrators' noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Other issues
I think nobody who knows me even just a bit will be surprised when I say that I don't see any merit in joining discussions that have things like In 2007, Austroasiatics wasn't clearly understood. Only in 2011, Chaubey et al rectified Austroasiatic haplogroup. C'mon, "Austroasiatic haplogroup"??? The correlation of genetics and linguistic affiliation is often tenuous, but the identification of Y-haplogroups with language families is utter BS. I'm otherwise on good terms with van Driem, but his father tongue hypothesis is complete rubbish. Just think of it: after only 10 generations, a person's Y-haplogroup tells us something about only one out of one thousand twenty-four of that's person's ancestors! Can anyone seriously believe that the other 1023 ancestors haven't taken a significant part in shaping the history of that individual? As for the rest, I'll have look at the relevant sources (NB the really relevant ones). –Austronesier (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment : Not sure what are the WP:UNDUEs as claimed by IP(s). However People_of_Assam section is written based on outdated sources like Taher 1993, Guha 1984, Sahoo 2007 etc when prehistory was hardly understood based on modern science. Obviously, there is some misuse of genetics studies, for instance - Expansion time of Austroasiatic is being used as arrival time of Austroasiatic. Northeast heritage (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, but your representation is false.
 * The first few cites are Hazarika (2017), Hazarika (2017), Taher (1993), Arun Kumar & Wei (2015), Arun Kumar & Wei (2015), Sidwell & Blench (2011), Sidwell (2022), Guha (1984), DeLancey (2012), Rau & Sidwell (2019), etc. These are hardly old cites and represent the latest from archaeology, geography, genetics, history and linguistics.
 * In particular observe [this quote] from van Driem (2007:237):
 * In other words, the latest genetic findings have reinforced what linguists and ethnographers has been claiming for the last century and a half---that the Austroasiatics preceded the Tibeto-Burmans, and that many of the original Austroasiatics shifted to Tibeto-Burman. Since the newer evidence supports the older theories, the older references are still relevant.  The older and newer evidence make each other stronger, and the sprinkling of older references are there to show continuity and antiquity of the basic scenario described by this article.
 * What the deleted paragraph does is provide the linguistic evidence for how this could have occurred. Post & Burling (2017:227):
 * and Delancey(2012:13):
 * The deleted paragraph was supported by the following references: DeLancey (2012), Post & Burlin (2017), and van Dreim (2007).  All these are from the last 16 years or so.
 * Chaipau (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC) 11:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In 2007, Austroasiatics wasn't clearly understood. Only in 2011, Chaubey et al rectified Austroasiatic haplogroup. So, Driem 2007 is also outdated. Linguist Delancey made interesting observation regarding Boro-Garo languages but his other claims regarding prehistory is not verified by modern science.
 * "The Y haplogroup 02a is represented at a frequency of 77% in Austroasiatic groups in India and 47% in Tibeto-Burman groups of northeastern India" is outdated and also false because many of north eastern tribes carry more than 80% O-M134 (sub-clade of O-M122).
 * Genetics is technical subject and it needs good understanding.
 * I could hardly find most plausible claims made by Hazarika, Sidwell, Rau etc in the article. Hazarika literally calls the population history of northeast "guesswork". Northeast heritage (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide the reference for 80% O-M134 in northeast tribes so we know the details on your claims.
 * If true, this is the genetic correlate for the claim from DeLancey (2012) that "The Tibeto-Burmification of the Valley must have been more a matter of the language replacement than wholesale population replacement." (quoted above). This also does not contradict van Dreim's claim either, quoted above.  So, yes, I do think you are mistaken on what this finding means.
 * We did have a similar discussion on primordialism when @Austronesier brought it up here. So I am pinging him here, if he wishes to chime in.
 * Hazarika is an archaeologist. I would like to not give his opinions on linguistics and genetics much weight (even though he studied under van Dreim). Chaipau (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * O-M134
 * I am not sure how you made this claim- "If true, this is the genetic correlate for the claim from DeLancey (2012) that "The Tibeto-Burmification of the Valley must have been more a matter of the language replacement than wholesale population replacement.". To me, Your contribution in that section is nothing more than imagined theories.
 * Austronesier, You are most welcome. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, this is a rather old work (from 2004). Though pioneering, it broad-bushes a number of issues and is rather restrictive in its scope. Some of the works cited here are more recent. I am not sure you can claim that Cordaux (2004)'s work negates Kumar et al (2015). Chaipau (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Cordaux is fine in its place and Kumar is fine in its place. But you need to first understand what is expansion time. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: Also, your claim "Expansion time of Austroasiatic is being used as arrival time of Austroasiatic." is false. The sentence in the text is: "Genetic studies on O2a1‐M95 Y-chromosomal haplogroup, associated with Austroasiatic speakers in India, show that they reached northeast India after an expansion time five thousand years ago." (emphasis added). Chaipau (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * after an expansion time != BP Northeast heritage (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please make yourself familiar with technical terms used in genetics. Expansion time doesn't mean arrival time.
 * Unfortunately even the use of after (after an expansin time) have not made you understood. Northeast heritage (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This sentence is worded carefully. The cited quote is (Arun Kumar & Wei 2015:
 * The expansion time for northeast India is given at 5.2±0.6 kilo years before present.  The article claims that the Austroasiatic arrived in Northeast India sometime after 5000 years ago which is a fair representation of the number given in the reference. Chaipau (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please define Expansion time. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please make your argument. We have used "expansion time" as in the source. Chaipau (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How did you interpret Austroasiatic arrive before 3000 BCE? Northeast heritage (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh. Where did I claim "before".  The word used is "after". Chaipau (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the figure created by you. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The caption makes clear whether the estimates are upper bounds or lower bounds. If the caption is not clear it can be updated. Chaipau (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Guha's claims are also based on mythology. "Revised versions of the Mahabharata and several puranas (c. 2nd century BC - 2nd century AD), the Kalika Purana of c.9th-10th centuries and the Prasastis of Kamarupa kings—all these indicate this early Indo-Aryanization of Assam." (Guha 1984:74) Northeast heritage (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This estimate is not based on mere literal reading of the epics as you seem to suggest. It is based on the dating the text in Mahabharata when Kirata and chinas are mentioned.  Since the word chin comes from the Qin (dynasty) it could have only be inserted in the Mahabharata after that time.  It is Guha's estimate that Indo-Aryans settled in Assam before then. Chaipau (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When did Guha become a scholar of prehistory? 7th century's pragjyotisha isn't same as Mahabharata's pragjyotisha. See Kamarupa Northeast heritage (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The caption makes clear whether the estimates are upper bounds or lower bounds. If the caption is not clear it can be updated. Chaipau (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Guha's claims are also based on mythology. "Revised versions of the Mahabharata and several puranas (c. 2nd century BC - 2nd century AD), the Kalika Purana of c.9th-10th centuries and the Prasastis of Kamarupa kings—all these indicate this early Indo-Aryanization of Assam." (Guha 1984:74) Northeast heritage (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This estimate is not based on mere literal reading of the epics as you seem to suggest. It is based on the dating the text in Mahabharata when Kirata and chinas are mentioned.  Since the word chin comes from the Qin (dynasty) it could have only be inserted in the Mahabharata after that time.  It is Guha's estimate that Indo-Aryans settled in Assam before then. Chaipau (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When did Guha become a scholar of prehistory? 7th century's pragjyotisha isn't same as Mahabharata's pragjyotisha. See Kamarupa Northeast heritage (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I agree. The best we can hope for is some correlates. I hope we can put this ghost to rest. Chaipau (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being naive.
 * I found a new book having some chapters related to prehistory of Northeast and Assam. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This book also uncritically repeats old claims. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You have a point considering that the age of correlating languages strictly with Y Hgs and mtDNA seems to be over in scholarship. However, Y Hgs and mtDNA have still some role to play here. You are making the mistake of condemning their use in a way suggesting that Y Hgs and mtDNA are utterly useless. Your argument (which I have often heard recently from amateur genetic enthusiasts) that Y Hgs do not capture most of the (male) ancestors is true *but* only if applied on an individual. In the case of a population (note the name 'population genetics'), your argument fails. The other males (~511 in number) forming part of the other 1023 ancestors also leave their Y Hgs to *other* males of the present population. Yes, Y Hgs and mtDNA may be more susceptible to drift and may provide less information about the ancestors (of course not to the extent you seem to imply) than autosomal ancestry. However, they still have some use. Ionian9876 (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

keeping in mind WP:NOTFORUM, I think we are best served if we work on specific changes to improve the article. Could you start a new section for that? We could keep this section to discuss the deleted paragraph. Chaipau (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Talk:People_of_Assam but I'll not participate any more. Here I have already pointed out many of the uncritical sources and claims. Obviously you have advocated uncritical claims such as : "Other scholars have pointed out that other river names such as Dibang, Dihang, Doyang and the like were mixture of Bodo di and -ong (Austric) which means water." (Bareh 1987:269–270)
 * I am tired. Signing off. Northeast heritage (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and bringing up these issues. Here are some takeaways from what I see.
 * As van Driem (2007) has pointed out the new genetic information has only reinforced the "century and a half" year of "speculation" that the order of immigration into Assam was Austroasiatic, Tibeto-Burman and then Indo-Aryan. You have not yet shown a genetic report that challenges this.  DeLancey (2012), Jacquesson (2017), Burling (2017) three other linguists who have worked on Boro-Garo languages, agree.
 * As Austronesier has pointed out "A haplogroup and a proto-language do not a people make", the genetic data has to be used very carefully. But since this is a issue of language groups, the findings of the linguists override others.  There is no evidence that the post 2007 genetic data challenges the status quo.
 * Taher (1993), Guha (1984) are older references, not old. They still hold true till newer findings become available.
 * Arunkuma & Wei, however you read it, and however you write it with an after or before, does not challenge the "century and half" of ethnographic and linguistic status quo.
 * Bareh (1987), who claims river names end with the Austroasiatic -ong is as much critical as other sources that claim the river names 'Dibang', 'Doyang' start with the Tibeto-Burman Di-.
 * Additionally, recent anthropologists such as Ramirez (2014), has clearly pointed out that Assam is passing through a stage of acute "ethnisation". In such a situation, projecting back ethnic identities today to 2/3 thousand years ago smacks of primordialism that should not be promoted in Wikipedia.
 * Chaipau (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC) (slightly edited) 12:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Driem et al. 2020 Northeast heritage (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you watched the accompanying video in the supplement, van Driem speaks from 2:43 who pretty much reiterates in more detail what he said in this citequote. He specifically mentions that the cultural area for the Austroasiatic speakers were much larger than the current eastern Meghalaya, and that the Tibeto-Burmans were secondary immigrants to the region.  He also seems to endorse Bareh (who you had objected to above as not critical) when he mentioned that this widespread cultural region is supported by toponomic studies as well.
 * Nevertheless, I would like to point out that this paper does not directly speak about Assam or mention the Boro-Garo languages.
 * So, this paper maintains the status quo. Chaipau (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not objecting the status quo. I know the scholarly assumptions very well. Though Archaeologists, Historians, Austroasiatic specialists and Geneticist have already debunked these assumptions, These are yet to gain currency. I am only objecting outdated sources and claims to support the hypotheses.
 * As said: As for the rest, I'll have look at the relevant sources (NB the really relevant ones), So I will wait. Northeast heritage (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Where have the status quo being debunked? Please do show.  You pointed to a paper, van Driem (2020), which basically reinforces the already known sequence.  I have quoted from yet another and even more recent writing from van Driem.
 * This is what he said in 2007: "This patterning could suggest that Tibeto-Burman paternal lineages may have partially replaced indigenous Austroasiatic lineages in the northeast of the Indian Subcontinent and that Austroasiatic populations preceded the Tibeto-Burmans in this area, as linguists and ethnographers have speculated for over a century and a half" where by "this patterning" he refers to the distribution of the "Austroasiatic" Y haplogroup in Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman speaking populations today.
 * And this is what he said in 2021: "On the Brahmaputra plain, the early Trans-Himalayans encountered the Austroasiatics, who had preceded them. The relative frequencies of the Ychromosomal haplogroup O1b1a1a (M95) in Trans-Himalayan speaking populations of the Indian subcontinent (Sahoo et al. 2006, Reddy et al. 2007, Gaziet al. 2013) suggest that a subset of the paternal ancestors of some Trans-Himalayan populations in northeastern India, e.g. certain Bodo-Koch communities, may originally have been Austroasiatic speakers with matriarchal, matrilinear or matrilocal societies, who were linguistically assimilated by Trans-Himalayans, providing a molecular genetic correlate for the ancient process of creolisation argued for by DeLancey (2014)"
 * Where do you see the difference, except for the additional evidence he has provided from DeLancey (2014), and the remnant matriarchal culture from Austroasiatic groups, most likely from Jacquesson (2017)? In other words, he has added the works of DeLancey and Jacquesson to his 2007 claims.
 * There is no evidence or justification for your claims.
 * Chaipau (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Outdated sources like Taher, Guha are the main reason behind this discussion.
 * I am not sure how these studies of language creolization and genetic composition of present-day population provide any evidence for timeline of peopling in prehistory. To my knowledge, Only aDNA can settle such issues.
 * Today we have better resolution of genetic ancestry and better understanding of languages. Decades old genetic and linguistic studies have now been superseded by latest research. Once you asked me to read DeLancey 2012 with open mind so I will also suggest you to thoroughly read Sidwell 2021, 2020's article by Chaubey, Metspalu, Singh, Driem etc.
 * You have been editing Wikipedia for so long. So your words seem to carry more weight than mine. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read van Driem yourself here. He gives linguistic, genetic etc. evidence to prove what you are trying to argue against.  This has already been pointed out to you.
 * Please take a note of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:IDNHT.
 * Chaipau (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM and WP:IDNHT are applicable to me or you? I am talking about Taher and Guha but you are beating around the bush. Huh, Driem 2021 is using decades old sources. Driem 2021 is a book, not peer-reviewed work. Just bcause his book was published in 2021 doesn't mean it's written in 2021. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

DeLancey Removal
Removed the text containing the revision by DeLancey (2012), as it's not suitable for the page as per WP:SDESC because it's all about Tibeto-Burman migration and not about Boro-Garo formation, so it's better to keep it concise. 103.44.172.186 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SDESC specifies the short description of an article, which for this article is the same as article name—"People of Assam" and not "Tibeto-Burman migration" as you suggest.
 * The part that you have deleted characterizes the nature of the Tibeto-Burman ingress and spread. This is the sentence that makes it clear: "It is expected that the Tibeto-Burman peoples were not as numerous as the indigenous Austroasiatic population, and the replacement was of languages and not peoples." So this deletion is definitely WP:DUE because it is about the migration and spread of the Tibeto-Burman speaking peoples, and not merely about the "Boro-Garo formation" as you suggest.
 * Furthermore, this claim by DeLancey is also accepted by van Dreim, as shown above. van Dreim too mentions this in the context of the Tibeto-Burman (who he called Trans-Himalayan) ingress, in exactly the same context as here: "The relative frequencies of the Ychromosomal haplogroup O1b1a1a (M95) in Trans-Himalayan speaking populations of the Indian subcontinent (Sahoo et al. 2006, Reddy et al. 2007, Gaziet al. 2013) suggest that a subset of the paternal ancestors of some Trans-Himalayan populations in northeastern India, e.g. certain Bodo-Koch communities, may originally have been Austroasiatic speakers with matriarchal, matrilinear or matrilocal societies, who were linguistically assimilated by Trans-Himalayans, providing a molecular genetic correlate for the ancient process of creolisation argued for by DeLancey (2014)" Therefore, this claim is not just a claim by one linguist, it is further acknowledged by other linguists and also supported by the genetic data.
 * In addition to removing the creolization formulation of DeLancey, you have also deleted the portion where van Dreim makes clear that the recent linguistic and genetic data that support a 150-year claim from linguists and ethnographers. In the edit summary you have stated "(rv. unreliable ref.)".  I am at a loss to explain how van Dreim (2007) could be unreliable---you will have to explain this.
 * Since the DeLancey part has been under discussion, I am leaving it alone for now; but since the removal of the van Dreim reference and associated text is a new deletion without adequate justification, I am reinstating it. The reinserting will also alert you that a part of your edits havs been reverted and that you are invited to engage further in the dispute resolution process.
 * Chaipau (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chaipau, I guess the IP's very objection is that DeLancey's text is "all about Tibeto-Burman migration and not about Boro-Garo formation", probably in the erroneous belief that Boro-Garo people are the only Tibeto-Burman-speaking group in Assam and thus the only one that matter for this article, which is of course an overly narrow perspective. And citing WP:SDESC in this context is indeed off the mark. –Austronesier (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Austronesier, yes very true. Among the non-Boro-Garo TB languages is Karbi, for instance, which Jacquesson places in the region even as proto-Boro-Garo broke up into the Boro-Garo languages (Figure 8 in Jacquesson 2017) But deleting DeLancey's creolization scheme seems like an odd way to make that point.
 * I find it significant that Jacquesson's green-colored languages correspond very closely with Burling's Rabha-group in his classification (File:Family-Tree-Boro-Garo.png). In other words, I see Burling, DeLancey, Jacquesson and van Driem all agree on this point---which is remarkable! Chaipau (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)