Talk:Sukaphaa

Legendary

We need to emphasize that in all probabilities, the subject is a legendary figure who perhaps bear some imprints of a historical past. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to believe Yasmin Saikia "in all probability". Jayeeta Sharma, reviewing her book, says: "Saikia contests these accepted wisdom" (emphasis mine) (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20203149). These are accepted by most historians today. And Sharma does not endorse these contests, on the other hand she challenges them. She writes: "Saikia's work is thought provoking, but it leaves quite a few questions unanswered." Which is academic speak for "you have not done your homework". Saikia's views are, at most, WP:FRINGE. Chaipau (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You have long-tried to brand Sikia as FRINGE but that is your opinion.

• Sharma takes issue with aspects of Saikia's work that are rather-irrelevant to what is under dispute. Notably, she ends her review by concluding that Yasmin Saikia's work is a valuable reminder of the fascinating connections between such "invented" identities, political frontiers, popular memory, and contemporary myth making.
• Nonetheless, Sharma is, I presume, not the final arbiter of scholarship on Assam. Sanjib Baruah, reviewing her book, notes her argument(s) to be fascinating, bold, timely, and on the whole, quite persuasive notwithstanding the cryptic last line.

If you have equally reliable scholarship (see WP:HISTRS) that negates Saikia's scholarship, you are free to present them. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Sharma is not the arbiter here, but the one who says that Saikia is FRINGE. Sharma says "Saikia contests these accepted wisdom. The standard till Saikia was that Sukapha is historical (See Guha 1983). The onus is on you to show that historians today have accepted her positions and accept Sukapha as legendary. Just a few words in "fascinating, bold, etc." is not enough to show that her claims as accepted as historical.

This is the accepted wisdom, widely accepted till now, as stated by Sharma (who is a professional historian, btw and have trained on Assam's history, unlike Saikia, who has not).

From the mid-nineteenth century, Assamese intellectuals and British officials transmuted local chronicles into printed knowledge, disseminating widely their narrative of the Ahom, the warrior followers of the hero Sukapha. He and his followers were said to have made their way from Upper Burma to Assam in the thirteenth century, finally becoming its rulers. They ruled success fully until buffeted by Burmese and British ambitions, assisted by the Ahom warrior elite, Brahmin, and caste Hindu service elites. This was the generally accepted outline of the Ahom presence in Assam.

What Saikia is claiming is that:

In deconstructing this, Saikia posits an alternative view of the precolonial Ahom as a relatively open-status group whose membership came from a diverse set of local peoples participating in a warrior ruling ethos. Rather than an inherited bodily identity, it was a prestigious rank achieved by those who had made it into the king's favor.

Unfortunately for Saikia, this was already said previously. Her claims are not new. Here is Guha in 1983 describing "Ahomisation" who connects this to a political position of the valley Shans (p12):

"The Valley Shans", says E R Leach, "have everywhere, for centuries past, been assimilating their hill neighbours ". This is observed not only in Upper Burma, but also in Upper Assam. There, the Ahoms assimilated some of their Naga, Moran and Barahi neighbours and later, also large sections of the Chutiya and Kachari tribes. This Ahomisation process went on until the expanded Ahom society itself began to be Hinduised from the mid-16th century onward."

Guha unambiguously states (p12):

Sukapha and his band of Ahom migrants entered Upper Assam in 1228 with a view to permanently settling there.

This is standard accepted history. You have a big job toppling accepted history in Wikipedia on the basis of a fringe claim.

Chaipau (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

On Saikia's qualifications:

• Saikia recieved her PhD in History (South Asia) in 1999 from University of Wisconsin-Madison on this topic; her thesis was titled A Name without a People: Searching to be Tai-Ahom in Modern India.
• Her MA Dissertation from the same university was (roughly) on the same topic and published as In the Meadows of Gold: Telling Tales of the Swargadeos in the Crossroads of Assam from Spectrum, Guwahati.

• Now, you might have your reasons to believe that Saikia "has not [been] trained on Assam's history" but I suggest taking it up with the university-administration than here.

On Saikia being a FRINGE source:

• I feel that we need to aproach RSN and check if the broader community translates "Saikia (2002) contests these accepted wisdom" as "Saikia (2002) is a fringe source." in light of the multiple adulatory reviews of Saikia's work and about a hundred and fifty approving citations.

TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The question is simply - "did Saikia overturn a hundred years of accepted history?" We are testing Saikia, not Sharma. Chaipau (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I presume it is you who raised an issue about Saikia having no training in Assamese history unlike Sharma? I also presume that it is you who nitpicked a line from Sharma's review to argue that Saikia is FRINGE.

HISTRS advises us to privilege recent academic scholarship. Were Saikia's revisionist work too recent, you could have argued about the need to give time to scholars to reject her reading. However, a quarter of a century has passed since she got her PhD (the book was published 3 years later); so, you need to find equally reliable sources explicitly rejecting Saikia than clutching at straws. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that you are seeking to change the status of Sukaphaa from historical to legendary. The onus is on you build WP:CONSENSUS on it. I have made my AGF arguments above. Chaipau (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

As much as the onus is on you to build consensus. Given the nature of your arguments on how Saikia is not trained in history or about Sharma branding her as WP:FRINGE, I am unsure about whether to AGF but I do, nonetheless. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

At this point, We are here: WP:TALKDONTREVERT. This is analogous to our discussion here: Talk:Tripura_Buranji#Reverts, except we are not editing

You mentioned Sukaphaa should be a legend. I said in GF that Saikia is trying to topple a well established history (Sharma) but others have not accepted it yet, beyond providing some fawning words. You disagreed.

I have already revealed my cards. If you take this elsewhere, I shall make these very arguments. Just as I did with our discussion on Tripura Buranji: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tripura_Buranji

Chaipau (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"Others have not accepted it yet beyond providing some fawning cards" — how do you construe an acceptance? Maybe, they need to explicitly write something like "... for the information of Chaipau, an anonymous Wikipedian, I am letting the world know that I am in agreement with Saikia's thesis... "?

And for the umpteenth time, why did you claim that Saikia had no training in history? Can you please strike it out? Or provide some credible evidence? TrangaBellam (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide citations and quotes where Saikia says Sukaphaa was a legend. Please provide citations and quotes of other reputable historians and scholars who critically accept this finding. Chaipau (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

The article has recently seen repeated additions of incorrect or misleading information that are not supported by reliable sources. Most of these edits appear to be coming from new or unregistered users and require frequent reversion. I am requesting semi-protection to help reduce ongoing disruption. Ser kham gogoi (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Reverting Request and Fact Check

@Ananya Taye

Can you tell me where you found this thing and what page number you take from?

Sukaphaa in Assam

Scholars characterise Sukaphaa as the leader of an agricultural community seeking land for permanent settlement rather than as a raiding conqueror. It appears he did not encroach upon the lands of the local peasants; rather, he opened up new areas of settlement, procuring with shrewd diplomacy what he direly needed for the purpose—the service of the local inhabitants. The establishment of these settlements, however, involved both negotiation and coercion. Guha describes the migrating group as a “self-governed body of armed peasants” which, while moving through the region, left small colonies at strategic places such as Khamjang and Tipam before settling in the Dikhou valley.

According to the Shan Chronicle and Buranji, there is no mention of their descent from the agriculture leader , and it has already been mentioned that Sukapha was a prince of the Mong Mao dynasty, and other Tai scholars and Chinese scholars have already proven this by comparing their historical sources and evidence.

But how can you provide facts without any truth here?

And your writing skill its showing another story of ahom

According to Baruah, Sukaphaa used conciliation to win over sections of the Moran and Barahi populations, but those who resisted were “ruthlessly killed”. Buranji-based reconstructions also portray his movement as strategically selective: after learning of a large population concentration on the Namdang, Sukaphaa's party became apprehensive and moved away from the area. His early polity thus developed through settlement, alliance, incorporation of local groups and selective military force, rather than through either purely peaceful migration or indiscriminate conquest.

It's true that Sukapha, the founder of the Ahoms, had allied with the Moran and Barahi, but the Ahom army wasn't strong enough to kill the natives of Assam. Sukapha was a wise man with diplomatic skills, so there was no chance he would kill these natives and face future problems. And what is Sukapha Party? You can also write Ahom, he is the founder of Ahom, you cannot say that, write it neutral way. WP:NPOV

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kariama (talk • contribs) 08:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Ananya Taye hasn't responded yet, when I undo it and it breing back again... it clearly shows that they don't have any explanation with this source and they are not interested in changing it to WP:NPOV.

Do you think it is way the ignoring an editor ....Theemausoliam -I forgot to tell you that I already asked the question but it didn't answer.

I request other editor please check this issue Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Kariama (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you tagged me here but the paragraph you're asking about has citations with page numbers in the article, which answers your question. Theemausoliam (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

You've already told me on my talk page, we should discuss it on the specific page of talk page. That's why I'm calling you, I've already mentioned the question about historical sources on the talk page but he not reply ,It is true that they are ignoring my massage and making complaint of false claims Kariama (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, this question is answered by the citations in the article. Theemausoliam (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Help: Reverting Request

@Admin can you check it once The page was written neutral way WP:NPOV or not and giving History Reliable Sources WP:HISTRS or not

Because in this page history of biography was presented one sided and many important scholars have not been mention this thing where the way its written in page . If they want to provide new sources, they should be give the Ahom O Din by Hiteswar Babaruah and Ahom Buranji Kosh , This was the latest research book by Nobin Buragohain in 2025 -26 and Assamese history experts have not denied the old history researches .

I think they deleted important sentences in this page . I requested bring back old page by Help:Reverting

Kariama (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I have made this a standard help request, any editor may help you with this. Admins have no more authority than any other editor, just extra tools that would be irresponsible for the entire community to possess. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

okay okay I understand ......But can you tell me whether AI photos can be used on historical and cultural pages?

You can check this since I've written a complaint about this on the talk page.

Talk:Ahom people#c-Kariama-20261003193500-Reporting on AI-generated photos uploaded to this page in Ahom people

This work is done by the same person to whom I am asking questions now in the talk page Kariama (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm marking this as closed given Kariama has undone the edits in question (Special:Diff/1378388525/1377681965). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:02, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Rotideypoc41352 Okay, I'll end the discussion here.

But Can you check it once this page and I think you should undo from 13:11, 18 December 2025

The Sukapha page Disputed chronology of Migration and Daniels’s alternative chronology

Many things are written in a very confusing manner, and Assam history acedemic this thing have not mention way they write in this page.

These sources was taken from hypothesis book  ; this history is not acceptable for an academic book.

Many students preparing for entrance exams will be confused if they read the extra material in this page , and many students will come and look up historical material. I wish this matter would be resolve here . Kariama (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Kariama, I've received a request on my user talk asking me not to do so (permalink). To avoid edit warring, you and the other party need to resolve the dispute. The customary steps are listed at WP:DR. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

To avoid decentralizing discussions on similar articles, I will also reply to User talk:Rotideypoc41352#Removal of cited content from Ahom pages here:

• I have only edited Ahom people and not the other articles listed.
• Far from revert[ing] these edits without any concrete reason, I—as stated in my edit summary—edited in response to credible concerns raised on Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#User:Ananya Taye (2) (permalink) and Talk:Ahom people#Reporting on AI-generated photos uploaded to this page (permalink).

As I stated above, I will be stepping back from these articles in the interest of avoiding edit warring—I do not, however, appreciate messages on my user talk implying I've done things I haven't. Hope that helps, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Replying to please review and verify the content and citations yourself before removing anything (from User talk:Rotideypoc41352#Removal of cited content from Ahom pages): anyone is allowed to contest a recent edit and initially revert to the last uncontested version by WP:BRD, and this is not forbidden by WP:CT/SA. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: I understand that concerns have been raised about AI use, but the links you cited do not appear to establish that the specific prose and citations you removed from Ahom people were AI-generated.

The Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#User:Ananya Taye (2) discussion principally concerns my editing workflow and the creation of Ghuguha Doul using an AI tool to translate the Assamese version of the article. I do not see where that discussion identifies the particular sourced material removed from Ahom people as AI-generated. More importantly, the Talk:Ahom people#Reporting on AI-generated photos uploaded to this page discussion you cited is specifically a complaint about two images, "Ahom dress 1.jpg" and "Ahom dress 2.jpg". It does not identify the cited historical prose in the article as AI-generated. A concern about images is not, by itself, a reason to remove unrelated prose and references.

Your edit also went considerably beyond reverting one recent disputed edit: this edit restored revision 1123610581, which dates from 24 November 2022. That consequently removed years of intervening changes, including sourced material and contributions by editors other than me.

I am also not disputing that an editor may make an initial good-faith revert of a recent contested edit. However, WP is not itself a substantive reason for removing content. The BRD page says that the reverting editor should actually disagree with the content and be able to explain that disagreement, rather than reverting merely because somebody else might object. It also explicitly states that BRD is not itself a reason for reverting and that the reverter should provide a substantive reason, or point to a previous discussion establishing one.

That is the issue here. The cited material appears to have been removed in response to another editor's request, without identifying what was actually wrong with the specific content—for example, whether a source is unreliable, a citation fails verification, the wording misrepresents the source, the material is undue, or there is some other policy-based problem.

WP/SA does not change this. It designates South Asia as a contentious topic and allows administrators to impose restrictions, including enforced BRD where appropriate; it does not create a general rule that recently added sourced material must be removed simply because another editor objects to it. Nor does a general concern about an editor's use of AI establish that all of that editor's contributions are defective, still less that years of intervening edits by other contributors should be rolled back. If particular passages are suspected of being AI-generated, inaccurate, poorly sourced, undue, or otherwise problematic, those passages should be identified and the problem explained.

I am therefore asking you to review the actual sources and content and state the substantive objection to the material you removed and to not remove or add anything just because some other editor has made a request. If there is a sourcing, accuracy, verification, NPOV, UNDUE, AI-related, or other policy problem, please identify it specifically so that it can be discussed and corrected. Ananya Taye (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ananya Taye I got headache after reading your statement, you can explain in short way or write in simple but it is difficult to read your point and I think you are using large language model because in long passage in formal way most of the professional editors make mistake but in your case its not happend and using sandwich structure MOS:SANDWICH and giving lots of policies, it seems your statement is correct.

And @Admin can you check it once and review this statement. Kariama (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 Okayy what you are saying I understand ,

I requested an undo as the page is now very difficult to read to see if the historical viewpoint was correct.

So I think it should be undone, but I'm not forcing you

@Ananya Taye can write in different new page what is calender problem in chornicle but he was written the main page of ahom and spaming same information with all related ahom page , I think he broke the rule of WP:DE or WP:FORK.

I will give issues on AI noticeboard , what he is going on. Kariama (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2026 (UTC)