Talk:Kuki people

In list?
Are the Kuki in the list of 135 officially recognized ethnic groups? Badagnani 12:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes they really are and is .... they are officially recognise ethnic groups you can refer here..... .....................................

........................................................... ............................................................................

reply: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangmi Milhem (talk • contribs) 13:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In post-independent India, according to the Government’s Constitution Scheduled Tribes Order of 1951, ‘Kuki’ has been recognised in five different ways: a)	Tripura, Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram  they are listed as ‘Any Kuki tribe, including by The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950’; b)	in  Nagaland, as ‘Kuki’( in Nagaland state only five tribes are recognised: Garo, Kachari, Kuki, Mikir and Naga) ; c)	in Manipur, as ‘Any Kuki tribe’ by The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) (Part C States) Order, 1951; d)	The Constitution Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order, 1956, introduced twenty-nine ‘tribes’ (including Nagas) and removed ‘Any Kuki tribe’ introduced by The Constitution  (Scheduled Tribes) (Part C States) Order, 1951; e)	‘Any Kuki Tribes’ re-introduced in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangmi Milhem (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

user:Hangmi/Milhem6:30,25 sep 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangmi Milhem (talk • contribs)

Kuki
Yes they are recognised as ST people in all the states of North East India. The individual tribe is listed in the Scheduled tribe list, just as Naga people, where individual tribe is listed. User:Bdebbarma


 * Sorry, I was referring to the 135 ethnic groups on the List of ethnic groups in Myanmar, not India. Badagnani 13:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Judaism/Jewish?
The info box here lists Judaism as a religion practiced by the Kuki, and that members of the ethnic group reside in Israel, but the article mentions nothing about this. Presumably this is a result of recent conversion to Judaism? What's the story here? --129.11.12.201 (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Clean up
This article needs a massive clean up, including for the following issues: If no-one else does it then I will but - be warned- if I do it then it could easily end up being stripped back to something between stub and start class. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * prose and grammar
 * full citations (page numbers, publishers etc)
 * more citations, preferably of modern sources
 * removal of utter trivia
 * removal of POV
 * removal of excessive number of images

Old Kuki and New Kuki
I see no mention of this in the article, although we use "Old Kuki" in a number of related articles. See for example this source. Doug Weller  talk 10:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the related articles are but the mention of "Col. J. Shakespear" in the source that you link is one of the half-cock amateur historian-ethnologists of the Raj era. I'm not sure we can give much weight to it, although I acknowledge that it is mentioned in a much more recent work. The new/old distinction is new to me but I'll see what I can dig up. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, a quick read round suggests that the old/new thing is a colonial term based on, for want of a better phrase, scientific racism. I'm seeing modern sources that refer to the "so-called old Kuki" etc. This looks like it might be useful both for the specific issue and perhaps also in other ways. I'll do some in-depth reading, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kuki people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140115085847/http://globalchinnews.org/ to http://www.globalchinnews.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

New Kukis
Change: According to CA Soppit, with respect to Manipur, the "Old Kukis" were first heard of in 16th century, while the "New Kukis" migrated to Manipur only during the first half of the 19th century. W. McCullough in his account published in 1859 as well as R. B. Pemberton in his Report on Eastern Frontier published in 1835 also suggest large migration of Kukis in Manipur at the start of 19th Century.[7][8][9]

To: According to CA Soppit, with respect to Manipur, the "Old Kukis" were first heard of in 16th century, while the "New Kukis" migrated to Manipur only during the first half of the 19th century. W. McCulloch in his account published in 1859 as well as R. B. Pemberton in his Report on Eastern Frontier published in 1835 also suggest large migration of Kukis in Manipur at the start of 19th Century.[7][8][9]. This is further echoed by Sir James Johnstone (British Political Agent in Manipur, 1877-1886) in his memoir published in 1889. “The Kukis are a wandering race consisting of several tribes who have long been working up from the South. They were first heard of as Kukis, in Manipur, between 1830 and 1840; though tribes of the same race had long been subject to the Rajah of Manipur.”. According to Sir James Johntone, McCulloch settled them in the exposed frontiers as peaceful subjects of Manipur. Maipaklammaba (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that the text needs revision, but not exactly in the manner you have requested. I will work on it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You MUST NOT paraphrase history if at all possible. That's why changes I submitted are in quotes. Sir James Johnstone is an authoritative figure in that part of the region and timeframe. You must provide the text as it appears and reference the document and let people form opinions for themselves.
 * As for the first part that was already there I will let you make the call. However your new edit says "the "old Kukis" migrated to the Manipur area at the beginning of the 11th century" based on reference 7 (2007) which seem to reference back to CA Soppit (1887). CA Soppit's literature talks about 16th century. Therefore I feel that you have removed a more correct account with one written in the 21st century. The '11th century' in reference 7 seems like a typeo. Unless a 21st century version is a peer reviewed one, I would advise you refrain from using it over historical documents written by a neutral observer. Maipaklammaba (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The current text is the result of corruption carried out by a user called about a year ago. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Blog reference removed
I have taken out "who migrated from neighbouring countries of Bangladesh and Myanmar. " as the link https://blog.mygov.in/a-glimpse-of-the-indigenous-tribes-of-Myanmar-part-1/ does not resolve, is not on the web archive, is a blog, is anachronistic (if there was any migration, it was before Bangladesh and Myanmar existed), and is inconsistent with historical records referenced in the article. 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:5C6C:4381:E780:5335 (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:5C6C:4381:E780:5335 (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Population numbers
I removed the population numbers that somebody has recently added to the infobox (83,968), citing the language census data. This is incorrect. As you can see from the page itself, there are a large number of tribes grouped under the label "Kuki", and each of them has its own language. There is no general agreement on which tribes should be classified as "Kuki" and which tribes by some other name, such as "Zomi" or "Chin". The Government of India completely sidesteps the question. So, in the census, all the major languages are listed under their own name (Thadou for example), and only those people whose language is not mentioned in the census languages are counted generically as "Kuki". Sometimes, it is listed as "any Kuki". Even scholars are confused about this terminology, but it should really be understood as "any other Kuki".

It is certainly unsatisfactory that we don't have a clear-cut definition of "Kuki" so that we cannot document important information. The best that can be done at this time is to create a table in the body listing the population numbers for each tribe that is recognised in the census, which somebody labelled as "Kuki" at some point in time.I generally go by the 1886 Gazetteer of Manipur, which is generally authentic but may be incomplete in some ways. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what definition of Kuki you believe in. They are a tribe in India and Myanmar and the population of major speakers also determines that ethnic group's population. You shouldn't have removed the source as it was reliable and regardless they are found in India and Myanmar. 2600:1700:2F01:CDC0:21ED:CDDA:E9A4:FB70 (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They are not a "tribe"; they are a collection of tribes.The census is a WP:PRIMARY source. We need WP:SECONDARY sources that validate it.
 * Secondary sources contradict the figure cited by the census. For example, here is Reuters, saying 16% of the population of Manipur is Kuki. That amounts to 296,927, many times over the census figure. Then there are other Kukis in Assam, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya and Myanmar. Nobody knows the total number. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Kuki
The truth about Kukis is that most of the Kukis are Foreigners and Refugees coming from Burma ( now Myanmar ) as stated above. They do not have ancestral land in Manipur. The Kukis themselves say that they are nomadic tribes coming from Myanmar Hayumshidaba (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Kuki
Kuki are nomadic tribe. Hayumshidaba (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)