Talk:2023–2024 Manipur violence

"Claimed"

Luwanglinux, this edit is very strange. The WP:ONUS is for you to explain why it is needed. What does "claimed" even mean in this context? Who is claiming it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The media coverage section points out and discuss about partisan nature of Manipur's local media. But, the wider audience is covered by mainstream media. The inclusion was based on a research study by a group of reputable independent scholars. I added both POV or both side of the story of this conflict for WP:NPOV. Meitei majoritarianism or Anti Christain sentiment is claimed by one sided Christain supporters. It is alleged Christain Kuki did not spare Meitei Church in the violence. Except the ethnic conflict reason, none of the reasons given in the article passed the litmus test. I tagged it claimed as its also dubious propaganda as much as the rest of the reasons. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I see. So you propose to rewrite the whole content of this page by grading the mainstream Indian media as "biased", based on this report by supposedly "reputable", "independent" scholars?

What kind of evidence exists for them to have been "reputable" and "independent"? What reception has this supposed research study received? Has anybody agreed this study is of any worth, outside the Imphal circles?

What about international media? Have these reputable independent scholars declare them to be biased too? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying we should rewrite the whole content of the article based on the research study, but both sides of the story should be discussed specially when conflict like these involve propaganda from both involved parties. For evidence anyone can check it out, there is systematic and data analysis. There is an online ebook format here of the research study accessible to all. This involved scholars who had done other research work published in reputable journals previously . It is very strange and sad, whenever Imphal based publication comes Kautilya3 discriminate it like rubbish things stating things such as "Has anybody agreed this study is of any worth, outside the Imphal circles?, Both Imphal-based newspapers, who do not have access to the Kuki-dominated hill districts. Where does their information come from?" rather than the content or the authors credibility. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Association of Meitei Christian Victims

So this Goa source mentiones an "Association of Meitei Christian Victims". But they have been mentioned in October 2023 quite often. One paragraph in The Sangai Express says:

Of the 350 Churches torched in the course of the violence, more than 50 per cent belonged to the Meitei Christians. As such, the narrative that the violence is a religious conflict is highly misleading, they said.

I don't know why they think it is "misleading", because by their own admission, more than half of the destroyed churches were Meitei churches. So how can it not be a religious conflict?

Philem Rohan, who is supposed to have become their representative, also shows the same kind of inconsistency:

Philem Rohan Singh, a popular Meitei Christian travel vlogger who has become the face of the community, told New Lines that “people from these groups [Meitei Leepun and Arambai Tenggol] may have been involved but largely this has come from the Leikai [village neighborhood] committees exacting personal revenge from the Christian families.... Rohan Singh also contested the “communal” narrative — that there were fault lines within the Meiteis — alleging instead that the churches were destroyed by the Kuki-Zos.

So, Leikai committees were extracting "revenge" from Chrinstian families, but it is not "communal". Go figure!

But, apparently, blaming Kukis is part of the programme.

He shared a list of 13 such churches, of which New Lines verified that 10 were still standing, unharmed.

I think this conclusively demolishes all the testimony provided by this group of informants. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Blame game is from both sides if I must say, in one instance a kuki drunk fellow who did not return home for a few days was published or propagated as murdered by Meitei which later returned unharmed after 4 days.

“They burnt our vehicles and vandalized Church property on May 3 and May 4 by Kuki people following the same faith”, a Meitei Christian victim from Churachandpur, Warrepam Sobha Meitei told media persons at Manipur Press Club today. Ofcourse they didn’t burnt our Church because there are many houses of the Kuki people in the surroundings. But their motive was cleared they looted and took our church property and vandalized in the campus, Sobha said adding that why the Kuki Christian followers destroyed the churches run by the Meitei people. Another Meitei Christian Victims of the violence Pastor Angom Shantikumar said that his Church – Manipur Baptist Church located at Sugnu Zouveng in Kakching district was vandalized by a mob on May 28 evening and later burnt by the armed Kuki militants. “We – all communities of the Sugunu area formed a peace committee to maintain harmony in the region but all of a sudden on May 27, we were told to leave the area as the Kuki militants were reportedly targeting the Meitei people”, He said adding that the Church was surrounded by the Kuki Villages and later we vacated the area our church was attacked and burnt...

Being an online encyclopedia, we should focus on WP:NPOV which need both side of the story of this conflict, thats all I suggest.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means representing fairly and proportionately the views published by WP:RS, not the views of the involved parties, whose biases are evident. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV also states "without editorial bias", there should not be selective ignoring of sources , also I am waiting suggestion for 393 temples and Umang lai Laishang destroyed in the violence including private temples (Hingkhol Lai) 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 05:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Not all "sources" are equal. WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources are treated differently, And, among SECONDARY sources, there are many considerations that decide the relative reliability. You need to read WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS thouroughly and see its application in many contexts in order to understand how the criteria apply. Note in particular, As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. You are not allowed to bring up presumed "editorial bias" without presenting evidence and looking at the relevant context. See WP:ASPERSION. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "393 temples", I have already responded in the section above, stating, So, tell me how many temples and how many shrines, and how you arrived at those numbers.. You haven't yet done this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Manipur kingdom

Luwanglinux, I see here an attempt identify the present-day Manipur state with the historical "Manipur kingdom". Note that there is no schoarly consensus on this. Some dissenting views:

In the pre-colonial period, the hill people lived as independent and sovereign nations in their respective chiefdoms, free from any external control.

Historically, the valley region of the state was under a monarchical system, whereas the hill areas are under tribal sovereigns.

Ever since the colonial government brought the hill areas by annexation into the fold of Manipur, which was then only the Imphal Valley, the hill tribes and the valley community have been "living together separately," with certain separate administrative arrangements.

This is not something we can get into on this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The statement of saying Manipur kingdom is Imphal valley is wrong as per various WP:RS, it needs correction or it should be dropped if there is no relevance 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 13:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, you kind of ignore all historical facts and records, just because some scholar argue without any sense. Like you said sovereignty is not something one can claim as per wish, so what is this tribal sovereignty in Manipur kingdom? Does it even make any sense 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As I can observe, there is a lot of edits (@Luwanglinux) and reverting (@Kautilya3) in overall. But it's okay as editing also a process of consensus. See, the tendency to keep your preferred version is understandable.

After running through discussions in this section, I have removed the part from the "Background" section (second line as quoted):

"It consists of the Imphal Valley, associated with the Manipur kingdom, and the surrounding hills populated by hill tribes.",

as @Luwanglinux is in favor of another view of Manipur kingdom, and @Kautilya3 is in favor of the existing view. Whereas, @Kautilya3, has also expressed that we cannot into dissenting views.

Hope, it is agreeable to both of you - @Kautilya3 and @Luwanglinux. Feel free to discussing definitely if not satisfied.

Happy editing. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The original content was reliably sourced, along with a quotation, and I provided three more sources here. If Luwanglinux want to contest it, he needs to present his sources and make a case. Calling it "wrong information" based on his own beliefs hardly behooves a Wikipedia editor. That is road to an WP:AE block/ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Alerting Chaipau, whose content is being discussed here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no historical basis for identifying the Manipur kingdom with the present-day Manipur state. Editors here read much more than what they cite in the articles. Please show evidence of Manipur kingdom's administration of the Hills. Even the British did not administer the Hills in the true sense of the word till after the Kuki wars in the 20th century. Chaipau (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no historical basis of identifying the Manipur Kingdom with the present-day Imphal Valley either.

Some editors perhaps think that they read it better and understands better than others. But I think all are worth what they are and worthy of appreciation for contributing voluntarily in Wikipedia.

Talking about Manipur Kingdom, there are numerous sources. One among them says, "Manipur consists of about 8000 square miles, chiefly hills surrounding a valley 630 square miles in extent." (James Johnstone, Manipur and Naga Hills, p85)

As one of your party expressed that we do not want to get into this for the article (understandably because, this is historical and out of the scope for the article). Just minimal removal of portion that the other party view as wrong. For the statement that "Even the British did not... in the true sense...Kuki wars...", as of now we may keep it out of scope for discussion (WP:OR as of now), but ready to discuss if required. Hope that clarifies further why and how we need to improve the article. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Okenkhwairakpam that is not what I said. Chaipau (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Kautilya3 the sources provided are dubious, these are rather one sided opinions of the scholars involved which I believe is not a historical record. Roluah seem to use opinionated statement of KK Suan ( a political science professor) as reference and Lal Dena ( a retd history prof ) seem to use a reference which does not match with content claimed “Before the connection of the British government with that of Manipur took place, the latter, not to speak of exerting influence over the tribes, was unable to protect the inhabitants of the valley from their exaction and blackmail, and even after the conclusion of peace with Burma, and fixation of boundary of Manipur, the majority of the tribes were independent, and known to us little more than by name.” (McCulloch, 1859:73)., I can't find these quoted text from this page mentioned

• Manipur kingdom and its rule over the hills of Manipur is evident from Kohima Stone in present day Nagaland as mentioned by James Johnstone, also Kabaw valley was a part of Manipur Kingdom and under the rule of various Meitei kings.

Our first acquaintance with the Nagas practically began in 1832, when Captain Jenkins and Lieutenant Pemberton escorted by Rajah Ghumbeer Singh's Manipur troops, forced a passage through the tu Us with a view to ascertaining if there were a practicable route into Assam. They came via Paptongmai and Samagudting to Mohong Deejood. There is every reason to believe that the Manipuris in former days did penetrate into the Naga Hills, and exacted tribute when they felt strong enough to do so. All the villages have Manipur names in addition to their own. But during the period of her decadence, just before and during the Burmese War of 1819-25, any influence Manipur may have possessed fell into abeyance. At that time it was re-asserted, and Ghumbeer Singh reduced several villages to sub-mission, including the largest of all, Kohima, at which place he stood upon a stone and had his foot-prints sculptured on it, in token of conquest. This was set up in a prominent position, together with an upright stone bearing carved figures and an inscription. The Nagas greatly respected this stone and cleaned it from time to time. They opened a large trade with Manipur, and whenever a Manipuri visited a Naga village he was treated as an honoured guest, at a time when a British subject could not venture into the interior without risk of being murdered.Even up to the Naga Hills campaign of 1879-80, the Nagas regarded Manipur as the greater power of the two, because her conduct was consistent; if she threatened, she acted. One British subject after another might be murdered with impunity, but woe betide the village that murdered a subject of Manipur. A force of Manipuris was instantly despatched, the village was attacked, destroyed, and ample compeiisation exacted. The system answered well for Manipur; many of the Nagas began to peak Manipuri, and several villages paid an annual tribute. Still, up to 1851, we considered that we had some shadowy claim to the hills; though we never openly asserted it.

The Manipuris conquered the Kale-Kabaw valley, and Zimme with other frontier states became independent.Sinbyushin ruled from 1714 to 1733.

It is impossible for Manipur Kingdom to even invade Kabaw valley (now a part of Burma) if its rule is limited within the central valley (Imphal).

I shall now proceed to describe generally the territory of Muneepoor, through which lie the routes leading from the districts of Sylhet and Cachar to the Ningthee river, and central portion of the northern provinces of Ava. 1st. The country inhabited by the Muneepoorees is, by the Burmahs called Kathe, which term they equally apply to the people ; by the inhabitants of Cachar it is named Moglie ; by those of Assam, Meklee, and by the Shans, or those who inhabit the country east of the Ningthee or Khyendwen river, it is known as Casaay, of which term the Burmese word KathC is a corruption. Such avariety of names, to designate the same tract-of country, has created much difficulty to our geographers ; and even in the latest maps, published within the last three or four years, the same errors and mistakes are found, which characterised the very first attempt to illustrate the geography of this remote corner of our Indian possessions. Cassay is in these maps still represented as a separate kingdom, lying to the south of the Muneepoor Territories, and the features of the whole country are in numerous instances totally distorted.

Manipur Kingdom was much larger than the present day Manipur State which boundary was fixed by the British. If there is a territory of a kingdom, there is a rule of the kingdom. Manipur kindom frequent armed conflict with Burma over Kabaw Valley existed before British came to India. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 20:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 20:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The extent of the Manipur kingdom prior to the advent of the British was debated quite extensively when Chaipau wrote the initial paragraphs. See Talk:2023–2024 Manipur violence/Archive 1#Changing Manipur's history and boundary?. It became clear that there is no scholarly consensus on it, and there is no clear evidence available either. The British writings are wholly inadequate to settle the issue, because they didn't write anything about Manipur before they themselves got involved, and when they got involved, they altered the situation. For instance, they armed and equipped Gambhir Singh with modern weaponry, using which he subdued the hill tribes. (Mackenzie, Relations with the Hill Tribes 2012, p. 150).

The best that can be said about the traditional Manipur kingdom is that it might have exerted some kind of control over the hills close to the valley, and perhaps those along the trade routes, but even then it was limited to occasional collection of tributes, not extending any form of administration. See

• Kamei, Andrew Lathuipou (2023), Governmentality: Power and Counter Conduct in Northeast India's Manipur and Nagaland, Taylor & Francis, pp. 72–74, ISBN 9781000953664

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Manipur Kingdom also called Meckley and various other names is an evolved state from chieftainship (led by Ningthouja or Mangang clan) to a kingdom. Even Moirang, Khuman and other clans had its own principalities at one point of time in history.

• The state formation started in the valley, and the kings subsequently established their control over the tribes in the hills.

• Manipur, known through various names in the region between South Asia and South-East Asia, history records its existence as a sovereign Asiatic kingdom since ancient times. Known as Kathe to the Burmese, Meklee to the Ahoms, Mooglei or Moglai to the Cacharies, Cassey to the Shans, the people of this land have undergone several ordeals in the course of its long drawn civilizational history. Historically evolved practices over the centuries...Through a long process from the 1st century A.D to 15th century the Meitei came into existence as an organised state during the reign of king Kyamba (1467-1508) with the internationally recognisation of its sovereign status by Shan king of upper Burma side by side with the mutual demarcation of the boundaries(A. Lokendra Singh, 1986:3). The recognition of the internationally entity of the Meitei state (kingdom) by powerful king of upper Burma in 15th century proved the power and strength of Meitei union. As a result of the fusion of Indo-Aryan and Mongoloid peoples, the nucleus of the Manipuri (Meiteilon)—speaking people of today was formed and this nucleus is believed to have formed in the first centuries of the Christian era (R.K. Jhalajit Singh, 1992:20). The Meitei language marked the symbol of the Meitei nationality and on the basis of its unilingual character the Meitei kingdom stood a nation state (Gangmumei Kamei, 2010:20)

• Manipur Kingdom gradually developed from chieftaincy to a state (Battacharjee,2003: 365).The central plain had witnessed the evolution of a powerful kingdom from many petty principalities each independent of one another.Meitei, Angom,Moirang, Khaba Nganba, Khuman, Chenglei and Luwang were the seven tribes who interacted and fought among one another over centuries until their final emergence as one Meitei tribe (Manikchand, 2014: 18–20). The ‘Loiyumba Shinyen’ named after King....On the other hand, in the hills, the Chief of each tribe held autonomy over his principality and allotted some surplus as a sign of tribute for the King in the valley. This gestured a friendly relationship, and they remained allies. In cases where the dues were not paid, the king sent for an ambush or invaded villages, thereby imposing his suzerainty and collecting tributes. Ethel Grimwood mentioned how Thangal General12 was feared upon as he destroyed villages in hills for non-payment of revenue (Grimwood, 1975: 61–62). Once the King withdrew, these villages enjoyed their independence and were hardly intervened

As stated previously, suzerainty of Manipur kings over the hill tribes of Manipur is evident from above sources provided. It might not be wrong to state Meitei kingdom started from the central valley(Imphal) . But the statement that Manipur kingdom (that got recognition of British) as Imphal Valley kingdom make no sense at all. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 04:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Pemberton unearthed a Shan chronicle in Manipur, which pertains to the historical account of the kingdom of Pong located in upper Burma. Numerous researchers from Britain, India, and Burma have engaged in extensive discourse over the identification quandary surrounding the kingdom of Pong and its potential correlation with the Moguang realm of Mau Shans in upper Burma. According to the Shan chronicles, there is evidence of a historical relationship between the kingdom of Pong and Manipur dating back to 777 CE. This connection is established by the visit of Prince Samlongpha, who stopped near Moirang while returning from Tripura. “The fact of this visit is also recorded in the ancient chronicles of Manipur though the period assigned to it is earlier by sixty years than that given in the Shan chronicle -a discrepancy in dates, which it was equally vain and useless to attempt to reconcile" (R. B. Pemberton, 1835, p. 114).He also made reference to the historical occurrence in the year 1475 CE, under the leadership of Kyamba, wherein a joint offensive was launched by the monarch of Pong and Manipur against the subordinate ruler of Khumbat. Additionally, he has substantiated these facts by cross-referencing the records from Ava, with a minor discrepancy of approximately three to four years, as documented in the chronicles of Manipur.Pemberton provides a concise overview of the political landscape in Manipur, spanning from the era of Garibniwaj to the reign of Gambhir Singh, culminating in the signing of the Yandabu peace treaty in 1826 CE. During the course of his analysis, he extensively examined the deep-seated reluctance of the Meiteis towards the Burmese domination, and further attributed the sentiment of animosity towards the Burmese to the influence of religious prejudice and fanaticism. He had also provided a satisfactory allocation of the advanced military position of Manipur to safeguard the eastern frontier, as well as the different military routes and passes that connect it with the British possessions and those of Ava

The claim that The British writings are wholly inadequate to settle the issue, because they didn't write anything about Manipur before they themselves got involved, and when they got involved, they altered the situation. For instance, they armed and equipped Gambhir Singh with modern weaponry, using which he subdued the hill tribes. is out of context, in the sense that it is impossible for British to write about Manipur before they know of its existence, and the reign of Pamheiba aka Garibniwaz (no British involvement during his period) is well documented by British author such as Pemberton and other Burmese author as well. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 05:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The British commentators would have written what the Meitei elites would have told them. They were administrators or army officers, not historians. We regard them as WP:PRIMARY sources. They cannot be used to contradict modern historians and scholars, unless the issues are specific issues of fact. What control the Meitei kings might have exerted over the hils involves deeper study and interpretation.

Most of your quotes above don't say anything about the hills. Please avoid quoting extensive irrelevant text. (Even though I am glad to read them, they don't contribute to the resolution of the issue.) The Kabaw Valley in particular is not relevant. It is not "hills".

You haven't said whether you have read Kamei's book I cited above. It contains a good review of the existing literature. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Luwanglinux, here is a summary of the quotes you have provided.

Quoted text	Comments
Johnstone (1896), pp. 41-87	not about pre-colonial situation, not WP:HISTRS
Cocks (1919), p. 59	not about hills
Pemberton (1835), pp. 19-21	not about hills
Bhattacharjee (2003)	not detailed as needed for WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Seems to cover "surrounding hills" only.
Oinam (2017)	not about hills
Behera (2021), pp. 259-271	seems to cover colonial period, not pre-colonial
Nongmeikapam et al. (2023)	not about hills

Most of them are irrelevent to the issue or inadequate. Bhattacharjee (2003), the only one that fits the bill, doesn't consider the issue in enough detail, and it probably extrapolates from the meagre evidence available from the Meitei chronicles. The other sources I have provided deal extensively with the relations between the hills and the valley. But even this article only claims that the Manipur kingdom exerted control over the "surrounding hills", not the entire state as it exists at present. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Lathuipou, I believe is not a historian ("Andrew Lathuipou Kamei joined the Centre of Law and Governance at Jawaharlal Nehru University in 2013 to pursue his Master of Philosophy (M.Phil) and Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.). In 2015, he successfully submitted and defended his MPhil dissertation titled “Experiencing the State: Techniques of Governmentality in Manipur.” He was in the finishing stage of his doctoral thesis when he passed away at the young age of 31" ) [2] seem to use opinionated commentary which exploits British authors commentary as reference. I am afraid if his work can be WP:HISTRS. British were the one who were so involved in the hill valley divide as they saw the hills lack development (evident from British colonial authors work) compare to the valley of Manipur. British colonial writing consideration should be limited in both ways.

Besides,the rulers of Manipur also did not interfere into the village level judicial administration of the hill areas except in sensational cases and the inter-village or inter-tribal conflicts.The inter-tribal disputes were administered directly by the reigning kings and punishments were given according to the nature of crimes committed. In most of the cases of inter-village or inter-tribal disputes, the ring leaders who incited the feuds were either killed or imposed heavy fines

Bhattacharjee (2003) did mentioned about Manipur king suzerain over the surrounding hills of the central valley, what I stated was that Manipur Kingdom rules was not limited to Imphal Valley only. Manipur kingdom boundary fluctuate from time to time based on the power of the ruler. Relation with the hill tribes and the king was complex but it did not mean the surrounding 90% of Imphal valley were sovereign hills.

It might be worth mentioning a kingdom which was known by various exonyms such as Meckley, Moglai, Kathe etc before British intervention to a 700 sq miles kingdom as propagated by some scholars with vested interest. I am not only using work of British author, but that of Burmese historian. Imphal valley is surrounded in all sides by Manipur hills ( present day 90 % area of Manipur), it would not be wise to assume a kingdom would expand upto Myanmar during Khagemba, Pamheiba reign etc leaving out the area of 90% of the land in between the two valley, unless the king and its troop can fly. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The situation at the moment is that you have deleted well-sourced content from the article, claiming it to be "wrong information", and have nothing but WP:OR to offer in return. There is no authentic information about the extent of the traditional "Manipur kingdom". Only speculations, that generally assume that it was the same as what the British eventually decided and implemented. Bhattacharjee (2003) only talks about the "neighbouring hills" of the valley. He doesn't make any claims regarding the extent of the kingdom.

Kamei's book was published by an international academic publisher, who found it to be worthy of publication. The pages I have referred you to, pp. 72-74, are a review of the existing work and views, including those of Meitei scholars. If you think he misrepresented the views of the original scholars, you are welcome to dig up the original sources and show where he has done so. Speculations on your part are not welcome here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

After the conquest of Kyang Khambat, the two parties signed a treaty of friendship which fixed the boundary between Manipur and the Pong kingdom. Cheitharol Kumbaba mentioned the territorial boundaries of the two independent kingdoms: “Moongkhong Muwai was to be the northern border of Manipur and the land of dwarf mango groves was for Pong; in the east, the territory of Manipur limits to the Loichari Hills...Some facts relating to the works of consolidation in Kabaw Valley are given below- First, during the time of Khagemba, the king posted officials at important places like Tammu and Angoching Hills. He also sent his forces time and again to suppress any act of rebellion..“the people of Samsok who fled were asked to come back, and on Sunday, the 13th March,1725, the king of Manipur, after performing funeral rites of those killed, went up to the Ningthee to have rest.” It justifies that Samsok was under the direct administration of Manipur. Accepting it G. Kabui also wrote, “Samsok was a great source of revenue because of the tribute in form of paddy ”... Cheitharol Kumbaba again records: “On Tuesday, the 2nd January, 1738 (Leipakpokpa, 3rd Wakching), Moirang Yumthangba, who had gone to Samsok to improve irrigation canals also came back.”53 Lastly, the same source also expresses: “On 9th Lamda, 1738, Nongthonba Yumthangba left for the Kabaw Valley to develop land...

This seconday source which is a work of historian WP:HISTRS again prove the administration of Manipur Kingdom was not limited to central Imphal Valley only, Angoching is a hill in present day hill area of Manipur Ukhrul district

Andrew Kamei's book include, " The Imphal valley areas of the present-day Manipur once formed the core of the ancient kingdom of Manipur which is claimed to have been established in 33 AD. The Manipur Royal Chronicles, Chaithariol Kumbaba, written around the fifteenth century AD traces the establishment of Manipur Kingdom to 33 AD with Nongda Lairen Pakhangba as its first ruler. At the height of its imperial power in the seventeen century, its territory included parts of the Burmese Kingdom (Kamei 1991, 2015) " which shows territory of Manipur kingdom before British intervention in the 18 century, but this fact completely omitted when the opinionated claim of Manipur Kingdom territory and administration limited to Imphal Valley before British came, and the tribute (loipot) collected is annual not occasional. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 09:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Warring Groups

I have removed the following part in the section "Warring groups":

"Secessionist Meitei insurgent groups, having previously escaped to Myanmar due to Indian counter-insurgency operations, are believed to have returned to Manipur in the midst of violence and begun to conduct operations against the Kuki-Zo villages. "

Notes

References

The source is too weak to warrant an entry. We need to place the well sourced, and corroborated facts and information that merits Wikipedia, not beliefs of some random news. Please feel free to discuss if any user/editor have contrary view on this edit. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What is meant by "sources are too weak"? Who decides and how? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I said "the source" not "sources" as you misunderstood.

And please read the content carefully, "..., are believed to have returned ...". Can we posit "belief" of some weak, random news source and make up a statement for an encyclopedia. And for your reasonable doubt of "Who" and "How", please re-run, and see if I am making some sense, and you may decide for yourself as a responsible editor. The content of the source are also full of uncertainties pertaining to the statement posited. Moreover, there are contrary statements even in the source itself. So, the source itself (that is for "Who?"), and the content which written with uncertainties, guesswork (that's for the "How?"). If you find difficulties in reading and understanding the source content, please feel free to ask. Happy to discuss line by line.

Concerned editor may also take it as an opportunity to put another source that corroborates the "belief" into a fact, and posit genuinely. Else it is original research (WP:OR), misinterpretation of source (WP:SOURCEMIS).

Hope that clarifies. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary said, Belief cannot be part of Wikipedia.. Are you citing some Wikipedia policy for this? Or is it a rule you made up yourself?

Since insurgent groups operate secretively, information about them is always laced with such uncertainties, even in the top-quality sources. Nobody has said that such information has to be excluded anywhere.

In any case, that is pretty old content. This article hasn't been updated for months. There is a lot more information available now, including the NiA chargesheet, which I will be adding eventually. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, we must add prominent facts, well published, and even minority view if worthy of an encyclopedia (please correct me if I am wrong in interchanging wikipedia and encyclopedia), not some wishy-washy beliefs.

"Since insurgent..... secretively, .... uncertainties,...". Aren't you reasoning yourself for your preferred version? I would rather not doubt the capabilities of news professionals, than give my own reason believe a news piece with uncertainties and guesswork in almost every paragraph. You may re-consider it yourself, I respect experienced people of their wits and wisdom. We must improve the article rather than clinging on to preferred version.

For the NIA chargesheets..., would appreciate eventually.

Thanks again. Happy editing. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Luwanglinux, Please self edit/remove the discussed part that you reinstated:

"Secessionist Meitei insurgent groups, having previously escaped to Myanmar due to Indian counter-insurgency operations, are believed to have returned to Manipur in the midst of violence and begun to conduct operations against the Kuki-Zo villages. "

Reasons:

1.Original research (WP:OR),

2. Misinterpretation of source (WP:SOURCEMIS)

3. Edit summary does not cover reason for reinstating the discussed portion (WP:EP),

4. It is discussed in the talk page with no reasonable counter point (WP:DON'TPRESERVE),

5. Not improving the article (WP:IAR),

6. One contributor claims to have a lot more information available presently and intends to add eventually, hopefully to improve the article (WP:PERFECTION).

7. Weak source in view of context (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

As there is no significant counterpoint for a long time, the part as discussed is removed for the reasons as discussed above.

Removed part:

"Secessionist Meitei insurgent groups, having previously escaped to Myanmar due to Indian counter-insurgency operations, are believed to have returned to Manipur in the midst of violence and begun to conduct operations against the Kuki-Zo villages." Thank you. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have also removed the statement from the section:

"Some of them also fired on the security forces, resulting in gunshot injuries to an Army major."

Reasons:

WP:OR

WP:SOURCEMIS

WP:5P2

- The statement is a conclusion not stated by the source cited.

- Broadly misinterpretation of cited source.

- Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.

If any contributor has other views, please feel free to discuss. Happy editing, and happy discussion. Thank you. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Warring Groups-2

I have also removed the following part from the section "Warring groups":

"In September, one militant was arrested, along with four other civilians, for travelling with illegal arms wearing police uniforms. After the court granted him bail, he was rearrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and taken to Delhi. Subsequently NIA issued a public warning stating that Myanmar-based insurgent groups were organising to wage a war against India by exploiting the ethnic clashes."

References

Reasons:

(a) There is no merit of random arrests to be part of the section.

(b) Selective sourcing, say biased view.

(c) Other such arrests are too prominent that reflects opposing view.

Please feel free to discuss if any user/editor have contrary view on this edit. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not a "random arrest". It was an arrest by NIA, which normally investigates terrorism-related charges. How many such arrests have taken place during this conflict? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Random arrest in the sense of random picking from some arrests by NIA. As for the "How many... in the conflict?", I hope you answered it yourself that you are aware (view previous section talk). Thanks you again. Happy editing. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the Times of India is not generally reliable. See survey at RSN (disclaimer: I have voted there). Chaipau (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:TOI doesn't show a clear consensus on this. I think it can be used with due care. I will find other sources too, just to be sure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained re-instating of the discussed content. I have removed the following:

"In September, one militant was arrested, along with four other civilians, for travelling with illegal arms wearing police uniforms. After the court granted him bail, he was rearrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and taken to Delhi. Subsequently NIA issued a public warning stating that Myanmar-based insurgent groups were organising to wage a war against India by exploiting the ethnic clashes."

Any contributor of the contrary view may come up with constructive points to discuss and improve the article, especially this section in this case. Happy discussion and happy editing. Thank you. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Drone Attack

Hi concerned editors, Please review the following information to determine if it is well-sourced and deserves inclusion:

Insurgents in India's Manipur state have carried out a deadly attack on security forces, using drones to drop explosives in what police called a "significant escalation" of violence in the restive northeastern region. A 31-year-old women was killed and six people were wounded Sunday in what police said was an "unprecedented attack" by rebels who used drones to drop the heads of rocket-propelled grenades.

"While drone bombs have commonly been used in general warfare, this recent deployment of drones to deploy explosives against security forces and the civilians marks a significant escalation," Manipur police said in a statement Sunday. The attack outside the state capital Imphal was carried out by "alleged Kuki" rebels, the statement said.

Those injured included an eight-year-old girl -- the daughter of the woman who was killed -- as well three civilians and two police officers. "The involvement of highly trained professionals, possibly with technical expertise and support, cannot be ruled out," the police said.

Sources: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/manipur/woman-killed-daughter-injured-in-firing-in-manipur-by-suspected-militants/article68593169.ece

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/others/woman-killed-4-others-injured-in-fresh-violence-in-manipur-101725196003019.html#google_vignette

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/manipur-violence-2-dead-9-injured-in-firing-by-militants-drones-bombs-gun-attack/articleshow/112973642.cms

https://www.barrons.com/news/indian-insurgents-in-manipur-launch-deadly-drone-attack-88d91d93

https://www.ifp.co.in/manipur/drone-attack-attempt-to-derail-peace-efforts-manipur-government DangalOh (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

In subsequent development of the drone attack, a second attack was carried out on 3rd September 2024 in a village called Senjam Chirang leikai which is a Meitei village, 3 more people were injured. According to Manipur police, in the combing operation that was carried out, a drone and some weapons were seized.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/manipur/three-injured-in-second-drone-attack-in-manipur/article68598426.ece Dafountainhead (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Everything is attributed to Manipur Police, who are not a reliable source per Wikipedia criteria. We need independent sources acknowledging these claims.

The woman and her daughter were targeted by gunfire, not drone attack [3]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes "Manipur Police" functioning in Churachandpur District which consist of Kuki people is an unreliable source and basically non functional as they let every Meitei house bombed and reduced to dust. Unlike in Imphal and adjoining valley district where Manipur Police still functioning like any other police department of the country. For example in valley district, lots of Meitei militants or extortionist arrest have been made however such arrest has not happened in Churachandpur or Kangpokpi district as the police personnel are of the same tribe. This can be ascertained by the fact that a head constable, Siamlalpaul was suspended for posting a viral video where he was seen posing with armed Militants. In response to the suspension, a 300-400 strong mob burned down the churachandpur DC office and SP office and due to which the DC and the SP were airlifted the next day

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/manipur-mob-barges-into-churachandpur-govt-office-complex-1-killed-101708048106822.html Dafountainhead (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

See also this NDTV article which dispels a lot of the hype. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

What about providing attribution, such as intelligence reports and Manipur Police, for the statement? Whatever it may be—drone, bomb, or gun—let's note it as per the sources wiki consider reliable. I think that would be fair. Providing attribution should ensure a balanced perspective. Omitting this information might come across as a strong bias towards a group. Not saying that the bias dosent work the other way too. Lets try to bw more neutral. Regards DangalOh (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we would attribute it to the Manipur Police if and when we decide to add it, But why should we add it at all, given that all we have are vague unsubstantiated claims? There are plenty of important developments that happened over the last 12 to 15 months that haven't been covered yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That is all fine, but I am amazed that someone would remove 'claimed' for things that can't be calculated with data and are intangible and vague, like 'Meitei majoritarianism,' using sources that employ terms such as 'BJP majoritarianism' and phrases like 'may have,' but then straight out marks data-driven reasons as 'claimed.' And regarding anti-Christian sentiment, do we have data on who was mainly responsible—Hindus or Sanamahists? Isn't there a proper Meitei mainstream group that hates Hinduism as well and wants Sanamahism back? Who destroyed the churches? Followers of which religion? Both together? And the other zo people group is so secular that they dont have any anti hindu or ant sanamahist feeling? Everything here is vague,synthesis, extremely selective using questionable sources, and mainly aimed at pushing a narrative instead of acting as an unbiased encyclopedia.The main editor here is complaining, saying, "No, no, we won’t add this or that because when we wanted this or that to be included, it wasn’t added either." But I'm not going to waste my time here, as there are so many other 'more interesting for me' topics that may need some discussion and attention. Happy editing to you. Prayers for people affected. As usual, i am out of here too. Dont wanna lose my hair over this. DangalOh (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable sources. What those reliable sources say are not tagged as "claims", unless there are disagreements among the sources.

The tags that I removed and added yesterday were the original tags that have been there for a long time, and appear to have been vandalised in recent days. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

It seems that drone attack(s) merits entry in the page. For the woman casualty, we might need to look closer if it was from the drone or otherwise. Not read the sources very closely as of now. Just my preliminary view. 2409:408A:809D:7CDA:0:0:1650:28B1 (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)