User talk:ShangNam

Lachit Barphukan
Where is it written - Lachit belong to Ahom family. ?

Link doesn't work. First give me proper link otherwise I'm going to inform higher administrator for spreading fake information by you people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerfectingNEI (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @PerfectingNEI, First of all check my reference below--
 * The Government encyclopedia said it ছেঙ-লুঙ-মুঙীয়া লাচিৎ
 * Also, Check the Book By Birendra Kr. Gohain
 * Second, Don't think to vandalise Ahom Pages ; Chaipau may not be an Ahom Boy!! Sometimes he removes the good Ahom Edits for some simple reasons in Ahom Pages too.--ShangNam (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't think I'm fool. Stop giving me useless links. We need prove. Tamuli title belong to chutia tribe only. Writing anything isn't enough. Where is the prove ? Show the prove he belong to Ahom family ? Anybody can write any book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerfectingNEI (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @PerfectingNEI What ?? Can't you read the government encyclopedic Article ছেঙ-লুঙ-মুঙীয়া লাচিৎ?? Every Details and proof are there, with the names of manuscripts proof where all the things are mentioned. If you can't study reliable references than stop arguing me. What Tamuli??? Read WP:RELY which verified my Proofs/sources!! Again do not disturb me without reading the Sources. --ShangNam (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Haha,  Your link =  তাই আহোম উন্নয়ন পৰিষদ  :P  It's  nothing to do with government. Make it accepted in Delhi university — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerfectingNEI (talk • contribs) 14:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The cite Vikaspedia Is An online information guide launched by the Government of India.Check yourself the page--Vikaspedia.
 * And also See the Book Lachit Barphukan the National Hero of Assam . Also, Lachit the name itself came from Ahom language which is according to the Tai Naming. Also, Lachit Borphukan was funeral by Ahom Ritual Moi-Dam. There are many chronicle and manuscript records but I don't think you can further understand those proofs as you are even unable to understand the Vikaspedia.ShangNam (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

✅

Recent edit to Ahom people
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Specifically, your reversion of the contribution by 106.198.241.182 added redundancy back into the article that they had helpfully removed. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! StudiesWorld (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message, however, I am not going to revert again but the source reference said that Ahom ate beef. Some people have already tried several times to remove the contents check it- removing the fact-1 more in the history section, So I Reverted if you think it's shouldn't than please do yourself, also you can check the sources yourself. Thankyou. --ShangNam (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the reference to beef should be included. The reason that I reverted your edit is that the exact same text was still in the article earlier in the paragraph. I believe that 106.198.241.182 was attempting to remove this redundancy. If there is a reason that it should appear twice, please let me know. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Now I Confirm that you have the misunderstanding, I said that there is a proper reference that told Ahoms ate beef. Check (Gogoi 2011:227) which is freely available on the internet (link is in the reference section). Please try to understand  (Gogoi 2011:227) confirms that Ahoms ate beef, so we should add in the article that Ahoms ate beef. ThankYou now I think you understood the thing [[File:Emoji u263a.svg]]. --ShangNam (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that the Ahoms are beef and I agree that it should be in the article. However, at this time, it already appears earlier in the same paragraph, “Even, some kinds of insects are also good food, for the ahoms. Rice is the staple food and Lao (homemade rice beer) ; Luk-Lao or Nam-Lao (rice beer, undiluted or diluted) are traditional drinks. The ahoms also ate beef” Therefore, I don’t think that it should be added again to the end of the paragraph. Do you agree? PublicWorld (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Yes it shouldn't repeat; it may be added in the constantly complicated reverts, Thanks For Your Time And Contribution. Have a nice Day/Night (where you live)!! ShangNam (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahom people
Please note that the Ahom people are not Tai people today. Yes, they originated with Tai, but the Ahom people has included a lot of other peoples in their ranks. Please do not use Wikipedia as a vehicle for revivalism politics. Chaipau (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all I think you don't have sufficient knowledge about Tai-Ahom, They are Tai Ethnic Group , And for the 5% mixed one who Didn't call themselves as Ahom You are trying to remove the true reliable data. Based on which source you are saying Ahom are not Tai?? Read the Reference Section With full concentration. Each and every Book stated Ahoms as Tai Group and here you are trying putting your own formula! Wikipedia is not your privet property so stop adding your own decision and let the sources define what is Ahom and have been done by almost all authors, the Phd These too which you often refer !! --ShangNam (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, So You Think I am a politian are the writer of the sources are Politian too Whom you often called as Phd. These Author?? I wan't to tell you that I am even not at my age of a Voter Okay. So, don't judge blindly see refernce talk without breaking the Civility. --ShangNam (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That the Ahoms who have come to Assam came without women folk (except for Sukapha and a few others) and is well recorded, even in the Buranjis (e.g, in Atan Burhagohain's Bahgarhiya Buranji). The only true Tais in Assam died out in the 13th century itself.  Their children were born of the local Tibeto-Burman women.  Moreover many other ethnic groups joined the Ahoms.  All this is well recorded.  Chaipau (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Ahom came without woman ?? Really you need to do the real studies based on chronicles buranjis not from brainwasher Authors. First thing there were 2000 women out of 9000 Tai came from Muong Mao and no one is genetically pure, but here you are denying the Phd These who stated Ahom as Tai. Can you please tell me are the Dai people of China or the Shan people of Shanland are pure Tai? They also mixed with Burmese and Han Chinese even in Tai states of Burma the population of High Chinese is higher than tai, And I will recommend visiting Institute of tai studies and research see what chronicles mention. Without studying the Real Chronicles you are believing the authors who even don't know Ahom language and translated the Tai chronicles to Assamese. Answer me-

I want to add the real History, not the Manipulated Assamese Translations, And if you still don't believe they are not real you can apply for the carbon dating. --ShangNam (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How the Joymoti Explained in Thai Script if there were no connection among Ahom and Thai??
 * How The Buddha Jataka Tales Came to Ahom Religion if there were n connection as Scholars stated they were directly translated from Tai Language of China??
 * How Khampti people came to need help from Ahom as the same descendants from the invasion in Hkamti of Burma??
 * Why Ahom kingdom was stated as Ha-Cham by other Tais??
 * Why Phuraluong is found in Tai of Burma and stated as Phura-Tera-Sangha??

And You Can't Stop the unsourced vandalism on the Bihu Page but you can revert the sourced content in Ahom pages--ShangNam (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC).


 * You are probably doing very good work, but primary sources are not allowed in Wikipedia. We can only use secondary or tertiary sources.  Please look at Wikipedia policies on reliable sources WP:RS.
 * Nevertheless, here are some points for you to consider.
 * Phura-tera-sangha, Jataka tales and other issues are addressed in P Gogoi. These are seen as (partial) Buddhist influences.
 * That the Tais who came into Assam came mostly with males is given in Buranjis themselves (Bahgarhiya Buranji for instance).
 * It has been known that the language experts themselves do not know the language themselves. Look at the comment from Terweil in Ahom language.  So, even secondary sources based on Tai sources will be suspect.
 * The language revivalism is based on sister languages (for example Tai-Aiton and Tai-Phake), which have totally different tone systems. So the revived language itself is an artificial language.  This is not my comment, but from people who are involved in revivalism.
 * There are two different origins of the Tai people who came to Assam. One suggests Mong Mit and the other Mong Mao.  No one knows for sure.
 * There is no challenge that the people who came into Assam were Tai. But now, the Ahom people are not Tai.  You are trying to unwind 800 years of history.  Sorry.
 * Chaipau (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)