Talk:Thangjing Hill

Contesting detail additions

Simon0117, I have accepted your deletion of the Khongjai expedition, for now. But this content is WP:UNDUE detail. If you disagree, please explain why it is needed.

Luwanglinux, It is unclear what the historical signficance of the deporation of one "Bamon" (I suppose Brahmin). Please find WP:SECONDARY sources that discuss the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Simon0117, the material you added today is completely off-topic. There is no mention of Thangjing Hill in it at all. Please explain how it pertains to the topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Simon0117, you claim you can't remove a content which is mentioned a peered reviewed journal article. Yes, I can. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Whether the material is appropriate for the article needs to be decided through WP:CONSENSUS. The WP:ONUS for arguing for its inclusion rests on you. You have so far not made any effort to discuss any issue, but have been reverting the content to your preferred version. This constitutes WP:edit warring, and you can be blocked for engaging in it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Kautilya3, It will confuse people if we say about arrival of khongjai kuki refugees in lushai expedition without the previous context between between khongjai kukis and lushais. It should not be a problem for anyone since the content is sourced from a peered reviewed journal article. WP:CONDUCT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon0117 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for responding after all lthese days! There is no mention of "khongjai kuki refugees" on the page. They are called Kuki-Zo refugees. Neither is there any mention of "Thadou Kuki tribe". So, I don't understand what "confusion" you are talking about. Here is the content that you added:

The Thadou Kuki tribe initially settled in the Lushai and Chin Hills but were unable to withstand the advancement of Mizos(also known as lushais). They were gradually chased by lushais northwards to Cachar hills between 1840 and 1850 A.D. and the Thadous of Chin Hills were moved north into Manipur, where they settled in the southern region.

References

Your main project seems to be claim that the "Thadous of Chin Hills were moved north into Manipur" which is a bogus claim, but it doesn't belong in this page in any case. Recall that you had removed the well-sourced fact of Ching-Thang Khomba invading Khongjais in 1786, claiming that it was "irrelevant". Now, why are you adding dubious content about Khongjais here?

This source you are using is completely unsatisfactory. In the first place, you didn't even provide a WP:full citation. Even when I am able to locate the paper, it is a three-page summary and all the footnotes are missing! It is not clear who is the publisher of this journal. It has an editor-in-chief in Taiwan but the banner gives a phone number in India. We can take it to WP:RSN if you wish, but I am afraid this is a completely worthless source.

Finally, I should point out that you are continuing to edit war. The protocol we use is WP:BRD. When an edit is contested, you are expected to discuss it on the talk page, and achieve WP:CONSENSUS, before reinserting the disputed content in the page. Let this be your last warning. You have been informed about WP:discretionary sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3

Regarding Unsatisfactory Source, besides the already given peer reviewed journal artcle, the additional sources for the migration of the Thado people towards the southern region of Manipur after being pushed northward of Lushai Hills by lushais and then by the Sokte can be found below :

1) "The Lushais moved northward by about 1810 A.D. and the Thado were gradually pushed northward of Lushai Hills were similarly, conquered by the Sokte and were driven towards north into Manipur where they settled in southern region of Manipur. as mentioned in "THE LAND SYSTEMS OF MIZORAM, CHAPTER–I, Page 4 in official mizoram govt website.[1]https://landrevenue.mizoram.gov.in/uploads/files/historical-evolution-of-mizoram.pdf

2) "Distribution and Adaptation of the Mizos in North-East India" by T. John Chinliankap Zou, a Ph.D. thesis available on the Mizoram University Institutional Repository., Page 15

3) "Tribes of Mizoram" on the Tribal Tours in India website.

Regarding a bogus claim, but it doesn't belong in this page, this is the context of arrival of New Kukis in the southern region of Manipur. Also, the context of lushai expedition.

Finally, giving warning for adding content from a peered reviewed journal article is an act of WP:HARASS Simon0117 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

We can get to the issues of sources if and when we need to. But you haven't addressed the very first issue of relevance. The content you are trying to add, sourced or not, has nothing to do with the Thangjing Hill. You yourself have previously removed my content saying it was irrelevant. So, surely you understand what "irrelevant" means. Why are pretending that you don't? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ukha Loikhai village

Kautilya3 I have not been able to access the full pages for the Bamon being sent as Loi to Thangjing Hill for now. So, I am ok with your deletion for now also please provide other scholarly sources for the claim of Thangjing Hill under control of Ukha Loikha Kuki village Chief. the term Ukha Loikha itself is a Meitei or Manipuri word meaning (" Ukha " under tree and Loikha "Under servant" ) and the reference used is self claim of a politician Paoleinlal Haokip🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 04:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the Bamon banishment is trivia and doesn't warrant mention in an encyclopedia. As for the Ukha village, I don't think you can call Paolienlal Haokip's statement "political". It is the elected legislator making a factual statement about one of his constituents to the Minister of Forests. We leave it to the Ministry to contradict it if it is false. Moreover, the factoid is corroborated by numerous sources, including the Anglo-Kuki War literature, e.g., Higgins went to the Thangting Hills to "punish the Ukha Kukis".(Guite, Fighting the White Men till the Last Bullet 2019, p. 47)

As for Ukha and Loikhai, it seems that they are two villages, which have merged. But Ukha has always been the more important village. Whether the names are Meitei names, I can't say. But there is no evidence of Meiteis being present in these locations in anything I have seen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The claim of Paolienlal is political as his claims are contradicted by various other scholarly sources.

• Perhaps, originally the capital of Moirang was at Thangjing hill, then it was at Ngangkha where Thangjing was installed as the king
• Kapo Nungkoitongpa maiden was given inmarriage to the king of Thangching.4 They opened up the road to Makak. Lairikyengpa Aaton and others left for Makak. They completed (the road) from Wangthonpi to Hoitraopi.....Thangching here refers to the principality of Moirang

I doubt British author used the word Thangting (a relatively invented new term by Kuki first seen from their book called Zalengam ) instead of ThangChing or Thangjing but the point is the claim of Thangjing hill came under control of Ukha kuki village chief is a vague one that is contradicted by various other sources, it the the content I removed 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where it is "contradicted". Paolienlal Haokip says the chief of Ukha has a "settlement officer" report, which would at best imply happenings since 1891. Your sources are not talking about this time period at all. So, no contradiction.

Secondly, Saroj Nalini Parratt seems to be making it clear that "Thangching" was used for the principality of Moirang. So you can't attribute all such mentions to the Thangching Hill.

The spelling "Thangting" was the one used in the source I cited, Guite. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You have repeatedly added a disputed claim without having a WP:CONS that too for history section

This line Eventually the Thangjing hill came under the control of Kuki Chief I do not find supportive or inline with any scholarly source. KNO claim is contested here again by a group As for the Khagemba giving sacrifices to Thangching hill, I mentioned it for the historical event in 17th Century which is very much appropriate in the history section although the words can be modified a little. Since we are discussing history of Thangjing hill, lets follow WP:NPOV and we should dicuss its historicity before the advent of British in Manipur as well and in order of time period The hill where Thangjing Koirel Lai settled for some time came to be known as Thangjing hill till todayp-148

The Thangjing Koirel Lai Mentioned here is related with Moirang Kangleirol or folktale of Moirang

The source that use Thangting spelling claim as if Kuki Chief were independent from Manipur kingdom but this source contradict it again

The following is a list of hills and mountains within Manipur territory; the approximate height of some of them along the line of road between Kachar and Manipur are added:- ...South-1 ThangChing 2 Khong Sungkul... p 4-5

🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 19:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I "repeatedly" (actually twice) added the content because you didn't provide valid objections. First you said you needed more sources, which I provided. Second, you said it was "contradicted". I showed you that it wasn't. It is seems that you dislike Paolienlal Haokip. It is not my problem. He is an elected legislator, and he made a factual statement in a letter to the Minister. If he is wrong, the Minister needs to say so. The factual statement in question is:

The MLA said that so far as the Thangjing Hills are concerned, the Chief of Ukha (Loikhai) has clear orders of the settlement officer, excluding the land belonging to Loikhai village, which includes Thangjing Hills, from the Churachandpur Khopum Protected Forest.

That was more than a year ago. Did you see a refutation from the Minister?

The line Eventually the Thangjing hill came under the control of Kuki Chief comes from the historical context. Every British administrator that wrote about Manipur said that that entire area was Kuki territory. Here, for example, is Brown, Statistical Account:

General locations of the Hill Tribes.—Although no abrupt boundary line can be drawn between the tracts of country occupied by the two races of Nagas and Kukis, it may be taken for granted that a line drawn about a day's journey south of the Government road, or even at the present day less, running east from Kachar to the Manipur Valley (about 24° 70' north latitude), would represent the boundary which separates the two races, the Nagas lying to the north of this line, the Kukis to the south.

No British administrator ever said that any Meiteis lived anywhere in the hills, except when they had to take refuge from Burmese occupations.

The only question then is whether this particular hill was excluded from Kuki territory on account of its religious significance etc. Paolienlal's information shows that it was not excluded.

The CPPKT group that you mention didn't provide any information that contradicts this factual position. They only asked the government to "clarify" it.

I will pick up the problems with your new conten tin a separate section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thangjing Hill is very much included within the Churachandpur Khoupum - protected forest since a long time [2]

This is one among the proof of declaration by Ministry

The Manipur Forest Department issued a clarification that K. Songjang village is a new settlement established in 2021, much after the notification of the Protected Forest in 1966, and, violates state forest conservation laws.

[3] it was declared through legal official notice way back in 1966. It seems like KSO and Paolienlal claim are defying govt order or legislative rules and they seem to be confused with Manipur State prior to joining Independent India and Manipur State of India. They are alleging something about a 1912 agreement signed by President, Manipur Darbar of British colonial period.

The student organisation said the notification of 1966 declaring the extent of the boundaries of the Churachandpur- Khoupum Protected Forest was “arbitrarily done since the declaration had covered vast individual village land which is owned by the village chief or the villagers since eons ago. The Village Chiefs could also produce documents dating back to 1918 signed and issued by the President, Manipur Durbar”. [4] Thangjing hills significance for Moirang people and Meitei as a sacred mountain and origin story for Moirang tribes has ample historical proofs. Meitei are a mixed of several tribes or clans and their ancestors once lived in the mountain of Manipur including Thangjing Koubru etc and Meitei worship ancestor

I am saying this because it seem like you are saying Meitei never settled in Mountains of Manipur [5] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 15:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding territory or area inhabited by Meiteis we can refer to Hodson's book The Meitheis as well

The Native State of Manipur lies between Latitude 23° 50r and 25° 30' North and Longitude 93° 10' and 94° 30' East, and consists of about 7000 square miles of hill territory, and of 1000 square miles of level country forming the broad valley, to which the Manipuris have given the name Meithei Leipak, or the broad land of the Meitheis

and the map [6] given in the book as area inhabited by Meiteis, I think overlap with the location of Thangjing hill

Please maintain WP:INDENTATION. It is becoming hard to figure out where your comments begin and end. Also proper citations will help instead of plain urls.

Paolienlal Haokip said that the the lands belonging to the Loikhai village were excluded from the Churachandpur-Khopum forest. None of your sources say otherwise. Please focus on the issue at hand, and don't waste time on useless tangents.

You keep claiming it is "contradicted" by this or that. They don't cut it. In order to contradict it, you need a source that says that the Loikhai village was not excluded from the Churachandpur-Khopum forest. Do you have any such source? If you have it, please provide it. If you don't, rest your case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

References

OR and SYNTHESIS

Luwanglinux, I have just done a huge revert because you are going on adding loads of dubious content which doesn't verify. For example, this in the lead:

This mountain peak is a part of the Churachandpur-Khoupum Protected Forest which was declared by Government of Manipur in 1966 under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927

References

Which of those sources said "this mountain peak" is included in the reserved forest?

And, why are you adding Plain url citations as if you are a newbie editor? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Dubious history

The Thangjing Hill is much associated with Ancient Moirang people and its origin. Thangjing Koirel Lai is the first king of Moirang and the name of the mountain Thangjing Hill is derived from his name.In the 17th Century King Khagemba offered sacrifices in this sacred hill for the prosperity of his Kingdom.

References

• Where does Saroj Nalini Parratt say anything about the "Thangjing Hill"?
• Citation 2, for which we have only a snippet view, says "Perhaps". Are there any structures on the Thangjing Hill to suggest that it was an old capital? At 2,000 metres above the sea level?
• Where do citations 2 and 3 say that the Thangjing Hill is named after Thangjing Koirel Lai?
• Are citations 3 and 4 works of history?
• Does citation 5 say sacrifices were offered at the "hill"?

All this is very poor quality editing! You are filling up the page with dubious legends and folktales. If this continues, I need to escalate this to the admins. You have been alerted to the WP:ARBIPA sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Contested topic is the claim of Kuki village chief of Ukha as owner of Thangjing Hill

Eventually, the Thangjing Hill came under the control of the Kuki chief of Ukha

this is the line I am saying is contradicted by many other sources

Forest Department, Manipur has informed that the department has initiated mass tree plantation drives at Kanglatongbi-Kangpokpi Reserved Forests (Koubru Hills), Churachandpur-Khoupum Protected Forest (Thangjing Hills), catchment of Singda Dam and other places of the State under the aegis of Chief Minister N Biren Singh and Forest Minister Th Biswajit Singh. In a release, Dr Aditya K Joshi, IFS, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF, Government of Manipur stated that the mass tree plantation drive shall be intensified across the State till August 31, 2022 during which the Government is planning to plant more than 75 lakh seedlings in the forest areas with the assistance of various CSOs, voluntary agencies, NGOs, youth clubs and students.

Churachandpur- Khoupum Protected Forest was notified under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 by the Government of Manipur with a well-defined schedule of boundaries vide Notification No. 55/10/66-M (2) dated 17.09.1966 and Manipur Extra Ordinary Gazette No.124-EI00 dated 21.09.1966

[7]

• As you have claimed this is unverified you should provide the reference that say Thangjing hill is excluded from Churachandpur-Khoupum protected forest

Once Notification of the Protected Forest has been issued, no fresh right can be acquired and activities such as quarrying of stone or the burning of Lime or Charcoal or the collection or subjection to any manufacturing process or removal of any forest produce and breaking up or clearing for cultivation, for building, for herding cattle or for any other purpose is prohibited in such Protected Forest as provided under Section 30(C) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

[8]

• This legislation that came into force in 1966 again nullifies the claim that Thangjing hill is under the ownership of any person or chief 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 02:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)