Talk:Ahomisation

References

@Tizen03: the Reference section is missing the list. Chaipau (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain how to that. Do I have to add the websites & pdf in it ? Tizen03 (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Tizen03 (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: is it okay now ? Tizen03 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Citations

A more rigorous citation would probably be helpful. Also check for quality of the sources (how reliable they are). Sources and citations are one of the first things a reviewer is going to check. Impress the reviewer. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Content

Much of the article is about history, and much of the stated history is not about Ahomisation. For instance the very first paragraph after the intro (and most of the next paragraph too) talks about the exploits of Sukaphaa without a clear connection to Ahomisation. A reader will need to read the whole history to figure out about Ahomisation.

You probably need to write it like "Ahomisation started when Chaolung Sukaphaa (reign 1228-1268), also Siu-Ka-Pha, the founder of the Ahom kingdom of Medieval Assam, instructed fellow elites and soldiers from his native Tai people to marry into the local people"... or something like it. Then you describe the Tai part (that Sukaphaa was a Tai prince and he conquered many many people), followed by the locals part (which people were subjugated/defeated and what happened to them).

A similar approach is needed for the whole history part.

BTW, is there no social, linguistic or ethnic commentary on Ahomisation (Sanskritization notwithstanding) available? Being comprehensive is a good way to get the draft approved. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Neologism as title

I am concerned about the title of this article. The title term is almost unknown on the internet (I see 31 results at this writing) and given that even extremely rare topics and terms have much more than that, this is equivalent to unknown or non-existent. (I just invented "Greenlandization", and that has 643 results.) A big problem with this title, is that with the imprimatur of Wikipedia, other websites and sources may start to pick it up, and I think that process has already begun. I am in favor of changing the title to some Neutral, non-judgmental descriptive title, per article policy. I'm not sure what that title should be, but we, as Wikipedia editors, cannot be in the business of creating new terms, or echoing neologisms that barely exist in the wild. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Listed at: WT:INB, WT:AT, WT:W2W. Mathglot (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"Ahomisation" is not a WP:NEOLOGISM. It is taken from a WP:RS, published in 1983, and which is cited in the article. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3516963

Wikipedia is itself not WP:RS, and internet searches are even less reliable, especially for special issues such as the medieval history and medieval political/social processes of a not so studied part of the world.

FYI, Fylindfotberserk, Austronesier.

Chaipau (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand, perhaps, what a neologism is. It doesn't mean you, a Wikipedia editor, created the word for a Wikipedia article. It means that someone created it, perhaps a highly respected author in the field, but it is not well established in the academic and other reliable literature on the topic, and since Wikipedia is a tertiary source and by nature conservative in what terms we employ, we avoid neologisms in the literature until they are more established. Per WP:RSOPINION or even just MOS:QUOTE you can certainly use a neologism in the content of an article, ascribing the word to its originator in the text of the article, citing and generally double-quoting it. However, that doesn't work for an article title, and I know of no case where we have an article named after a neologism. This article is named after a neologism, and I think it's too soon for that, until it's clear that the word is accepted for that usage. Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolute counts tell us very little when the topic itself is only discussed in very specialized corners of academia. My challenge goes like this: how many sources can you find that discuss the same topic and do not use the term "Ahomi[s/z]ation"? How many of the sources that attest the term "Ahomi[s/z]ation" only mention it in reference to an earlier work, but don't use the term for their own discussion? Only with such data at hand, we can decide whether this "neologism" is really something that we should avoid as a title for this topic. –Austronesier (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely those data are what we need. The absolute counts don't tell us enough; but they are so low, that they do imply that there is very little wiggle room for the sources to lend support per the two questions you pose. Still, we should investigate that. Also, the result of those questions, especially if in a gray area, would be less important and could be dealt with appropriately in the article content, where the word should almost certainly appear (see above reply) but there are different standards for article titles which are stricter, and I don't think the default choice of title should be a word that turned up in one or two sources if the term hasn't really gelled yet.

Your point about "very specialized corners of academia" is well taken, and it might make an interesting discussion at WT:Article titles about how to deal with "very, very" specialized areas which have only a single-digit, say, number of reliable sources for a title that appears to be a neologism; how much use is enough use to name a Wikipedia after it? When is a neologism no longer a neologism? These questions go beyond the scope of the discussion here, but they underlie it, and perhaps it is a discussion that should take place there at some point. Meanwhile, what do we do with this title? Is a 1983 neologism and a couple of reliable pickups later enough for Wikipedia to throw its weight behind this term? I think we are already influencing use of the term external to Wikipedia, and that makes me very nervous. We should be more conservative: Wikipedia follows, we do not lead. If an academic neologism has some support but is struggling to emerge as the common name, once Wikipedia names an article after it, game over; that is its name henceforth. Do we really want a Wikipedia editor to be making that call? Mathglot (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I could not agree more that Wikipedia should WP:NOTLEAD. But I am not sure if WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS apply, to which WP:NOTLEAD seem to be associated.

Here is some discovery.

• I created this article as a draft in June 2020, [1], some 4 years ago.
• The earliest clear definition comes from Guha 1983, [2], who provides the framework under which this concept is elucidated.
• This follows a description of the process in 1981 by J N Phukan. (J N Phukan, "Some Religious Rites and Ceremonies of the Tai-Ahoms: A Search for Ahomisation", Lik Phan Tai, Guwahati Volume II, 1981, p43)
• The Ahomisation process is further critically examined by R Buragohain in 2001 who looks for contrasts with "acculturation" and Taiisation".
• Ahomisation as a process is accepted in PhD theses before 2020 (Sangeeta Gogoi, 2014 etc.)

In other words, Ahomisation was identified as a process some 43 years ago by Phukan, and endorsed within 2 years, by Guha who placed it in the historical context and created a theoretical framework. Burhagohain examines it critically in 2001 and Gogoi (PhD thesis, 2014) points to mentions in Buranjis (historical chronicles) that support this process.

This suggests that the term Ahomisation and what it meant was established long before it became an article in Wikipedia. In 2020, Wikipedia had to follow what was already established in academic journals and reports.

But I agree that a larger discussion on WP:NOTLEAD is probably needed, and this article could be taken as an example---but this article does not violate the current policies as they stand now. That discussion has to happen not here but elsewhere.

Chaipau (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither Ahom identity nor Ahom kingdom (it is also a modern name) existed before 15th century. Ahom is a modern name. To my knowledge, Ahom term doesn't exist in historical chronicles called Buranjis. How could there be anything called Ahomisation centuries back? Instead Assamisation process occured in past because Ahom kingdom was actually called Assam or Acham. Ahomisation term is primordialistic because it pushes Ahom identity beyond their origin. Northeast heritage (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Uhm, welcome back. OR, again? –Austronesier (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Austronesier. I am not sure how it is WP:OR but I believe my comment has put some light on this topic. Northeast heritage (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, your comment does not throw any light on the subject. Chaipau (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree. I know you are the main contributor of most articles related to Assam and I remember once you said my opinion does not count. So I am signing off. Northeast heritage (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)