Talk:2023–2024 Manipur violence

393 temples supposedly destroyed
Link to revert

, Two sources were provided for this claim: Both Imphal-based newspapers, who do not have access to the Kuki-dominated hill districts. Where does their information come from? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by Imphal based newspaper having no access to Kuki dominated hill districts, I think you are quite misleaded here, there are Pangal community Naga community ( which some are correspondence of Imphal based newspaper) who can access all area of Manipur being groups uninvolved to this ethnic clash. also most of temples and shrines destroyed are uploaded through social media and many are located at the fringe.  &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If they have correspondents, the newspapers are obliged to tell us so. They put like "Special correspondent", "Churachandpur correspondent" etc. There is none. This is just recycled propaganda. Some nonsense organisation called "UKAL" (whose name The imphal Free Press can't even spell right), which is reproduced by supposed "Meitei Christian victims". This is not "news", just rumour like in social media. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * why are you lebelling an org as nonsense ? also if that is the only issue why are you reverting the other edits ? &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * UKAL short form of Umang Lai Kanba Lup is not any nonsense org as stated by Kautilya3, its an organisation established in 1979 for conserving the heritage of Lai Haraoba UKAL

The Umanglai Kanba Apunba Lup (UKAL) organization based in Manipur conducted extensive research and investigation to identify the desecrated sacred sites, which include those dedicated to ancestral and local deities from the pantheon of Sanamahi religion, as well as traditional Hindu mandirs. Working Committee on Protection of Meitei Temples (under the UKAL) informed that 393 Meitei temples and shrines were destroyed and burnt by Kuki militants. WCPMT convenor Mutum Maniton denounced that Kuki militants not only destroyed the shrines & temples but in some instances also humiliated the Meitei community by first kicking and spitting on the sacred sites before burning them. While stating that the committee has been collecting the data of the temples destroyed by Kuki militants, he urged people to give information if some destroyed temples have been missed out, by visiting UKAL headquarters located at Konung Mamang and submitting evidence in form of photos.... Out of 393 desecrated/destroyed sites, 223 Hingkhol Lai (homestead deity/Ishta devi in the pantheon of Sanamahi religion) shrines were desecrated: 41 in Kakching, 72 in Churachandpur, 20 in Bishnupur, 43 in Tengnoupal, 30 in Imphal East, 4 in Imphal West and 13 in Kangpokpi. 110 sites dedicated to Apokpa Laipham, the ancestral deity of the Meiteis, were also desecrated: 15 in Tengnoupal, 38 in Churachandpur, 22 in Bishnupur, 23 in Kakching, 9 in Imphal East and 3 in Kangpokpi. 44 laishang (holy shrines) dedicated to worship of forest deity Umang Lai were desecrated: 3 in Tengnoupal, 11 in Churachandpur, 4 in Kakching, 3 in Imphal East, 10 in Kangpokpi, 6 in Bishnupur and 7 in Imphal West district...
 * It is said there was an extensive research done by UKAL to identify temples desecrated or destroyed in the violence &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, your sources didn't provide any information about it, one even misspelt its name! If it is a respectable organistion, I withdraw my description. But still, we have no idea how it got its information and how reliable it is.

Umang Lai is described as a sacred grove.and the image shown is that of a tree. It is fine if people worship trees, but you can't go around calling them "temples".

The overwhelming majority of the 393 so-called "temples" are Hingkhol lais, which are described as homestead deities. Once again, it is doubtful if we can call them temples.

The Hindu Post article mentions 16 "Hindu mandirs", the only ones that can be classified as "temples", and these are said to have been "completely destroyed or desecrated". So, how many were actually destroyed? We have no idea. "Desecration" can mean a wide range of things, ranging from knocking down a gate to actually damaging the image of worship. It is too vague a description.

The article also claims that the Churachandpur Radha-Krishna temple was "completely destroyed or desecrated". Given that the article is gung-ho about twitter posts, I can't see how it ignored a TV footage showing the temple to be in tact, and Hindu demonstrators with placards saying "Don't believe in rumours"!

I am afraid it is all wishy-washy information/misinformation with no clarity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Umang Lai are not merely trees or sacred groves. In Sanamahism faith they are believed to be historical dwelling places of Gods or ancestors (ancestor worship tradition of Meiteis as evident from Sagei Apokpa literal meaning Father or Parent of a clan "sagei" ). Each Umanglai is associated with a small home (laishang/temple) as evident from the above photo of Umanglai, these religious structures are so sacred to the Meiteis and its tradition has been done since time immemorial.

In a survey conducted by Umanglai Kanba Lup (UKAL) in the year 2016, they recorded some 700 umanglais in Manipur. Umanglais are classified broadly into five groups: 1. Deities Associated with the Creation Myth: Pakhangba, Marjing, Koubru, etc. 2. Ancestral Deities: Poireiton, Khamlangba, Puthiba, etc. 3. Clan and Domestic Deities: Laishram Ereima, Usham Soraren, Tongbram Lairembi, Thongam Thongnangningthou, Soibol Lairema, Hijam Lairema, etc. 4. Royal family members who became deities: Tabung Ningthou, Naothing khong, Khagemba, Mungyamba, Khubomba, etc. 5. Desanskritised Hindu Gods: Ramji Ningthou (of Thinunggei), Senkudeva (of Yumnam Huidrom), and Kalika 6. Deified individuals who met violent death: Nonggabi, Tarung Lairembi, Yumjao Lairembi, Ereima, etc...


 * I have used the term temples and shrines so when I wrote about 393 its not only hindu temples or mandir but many of Laishang included. Just like almost every Christain Colony have a Church, Meitei Colony surely do have these Laishang or Umanglai and its associated temple or shrine. It is worth noting two Meitei Colony or locality in Kuki dominated Ccpur were reduced to rubble like a wasteland    &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We can't get into too much religious stuff here, I am afraid. I am happy to list temples and shrines separately, but they have to be public ones. No "household" stuff (because when a house may get destroyed all the household stuff too will get destroyed). So, tell me how many temples and how many shrines, and how you arrived at those numbers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I am bringing out 700 Umanglais approx survey by UKAL and its definition only because you seem to confuse it for some random trees. Those Laishang associated with Umang lai are for public, we can leave out Hingkhol Lai shrines as they fall under private properties, but they are indeed worship places and private temples. &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"Claimed"
, 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.  &#x1f432; 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.  &#x1f432; 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:

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:

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.

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.

Being an online encyclopedia, we should focus on WP:NPOV which need both side of the story of this conflict, thats all I suggest. &#x1f432; 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)  &#x1f432; 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)

Manipur kingdom
, 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:

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 &#x1f432; 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 &#x1f432; 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 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, 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.


 * 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).

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. &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC) &#x1f432; 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 wrote the initial paragraphs. See Talk:2023–2024 Manipur violence/Archive 1. 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..
 * 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
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * -- 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.








 * 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. &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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. &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. &#x1f432; 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)
 * , here is a summary of the quotes you have provided.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! 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)
 * 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)
 * 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" )  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.


 * 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.  &#x1f432; 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)




 * 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.  &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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. "

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)

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. "

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)