Talk:Manipur (princely state)

Added Myanmar template
I have added Myanmar template in this article owing to the historical relation of the two kingdom Manipoor Kingdom and Kingdom of Ava. Treaty of Yandabo is an example. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 05:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate articles
There are several articles about Manipur, some of which are duplicated here, Manipur, History of Manipur, to name two. I would rather see this merged somehow into the other two articles. No sense in trying to maintain the same information in different places. Student7 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Make a separate Kangleipak page
Make a new page for Kangleipak & move the pre-British history there. This page is about Manipur as a princely state only. Tizen03 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Yes, I want to split the information available in this article. Because two separate topics, an independent kingdom & of a princely state under the British has been merged into one in this article, which is quite misleading. Tizen03 (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the pre-colonial period be made into a separate article ? I already have a draft prepared, but was rejected because the information already exists in this article (princely state). The draft page - Kangleipak Tizen03 (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Kangleipak flag hoisted on 1947.jpg

Rubbish edit
has reverted three separate edits I made last night, , with an edit summary: rubbish edit the native name should not be tempered..Kangleipak is a native name found from old historical records the british termed Meitei as Meithei the only other name similar to Kangleipak is meitei kingdom but thats biased.

I would like to thank him for his generous description of my edits, but the edits covered a lot more ground than the "native name". So,, are there any objections to the remaining edits?

Coming to the name, I agree that it should not be "tempered", but the lead sentence has been repeatedly "tempered", by dubious editors, without edit summaries and without any sources. So this kind of cruft needs to be cleaned up.

The lead sentence cites 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica, which doe not have any mention of this native name. Neither does the current version of Encyclopaedia Britannica. So where is this name coming from?

Mind you this is a page on the princely state of Manipur, which came into being in 1823-24. So only those names that were in use at that time, and witnessed in English language sources can be mentioned here. The rest are WP:UNDUE.

Please see also MOS:OPEN which explains how the leading paragraph should be structured. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring historical records of Manipur,the lead section clearly stated Kangleipak kingdom until 1724,what is Meckley Kingdom? meckley is a term coined by Assamese,Moglai by bengali,kathe by burmese... .I don't know who created the infobox but most of the princely state are with infobox former country,maybe it was created to avoid forks, Manipur kingdom(KANGLEIPAK Kingdom)  had a history way longer than 1000 year and this article cover brief detail starting from 33 Ad not 1823-24.The name Kangleipak is coming from old historical written records of Manipur.Hope you are satisfied- ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ   ( ꯆꯥ ) 15:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not answered the first question: do you have objections to the remaining edits? If so, please state them.
 * You need to provide sources that state that the Manipur State was also called Kingleipak State during the period of princely state. If not, it is unsourced and will be deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No
 * it was actually called by many names,,,Sana leipak,Poirei leipak,"Meitei leipak" is also one among them ,kangleipak is a name found from historically record verified by National archive of Delhi as it was transcribed during early 18th century .. - ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 15:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stating that you had no objection to any of the other edits. I will reinstate them.
 * The Kangleipak name is still not evidenced. Only if the princely state that started in 1824 was called "Kangleipak" can it go in the lead or the infobox. Any other older names should go in the body.
 * Even the evidence for older name is very weak. There is no mention of it in the Hodson book. The letters you have provided about puya or something are WP:PRIMARY sources. You need to produce published sources that meet the requirements of WP:HISTRS in order to make this claim (even in the body). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you are really pushing the WP:HISTRS here,the lead even state the time it was called as Kangleipak.Also this article is not only about the time considered to be Indian princely state,period.If you are so against it seperate a page for the time before the Kingdom was neither part of British India or Indian princely state ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 04:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Kangleipak kingdom
So, two sources have been added for the claim that it was called Kangleipak Kingdom.

The second source is a random newspaper article. As per WP:NEWSORG, newspapers are only reliable for news, not history. The first source, whose author the editor didn't bother to specify, was actually authored by a gentleman called "Kungsong Wanbe", who was described by "Kangla Online" as "Former Secretary, Koren Historical Research Committee Manipur, Langol Tarung, Imphal". Supposedly an impressive scholar. But one who is completely unknown to Google Scholar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahh at another time you said google scholar knows nothing about the author or publisher,here is what you stated ,I have provided primary as well as secondary reliable source,give it a rest.History of Manipur is supposed to be known precisely by natives and Manipur have written records of their own since long back before coming of British.Be reasonable stop using wikipedia rules for your convenience. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 05:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Manipur India Congress
The linked article is to Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee and it fails to support even a single claim of the line stating Manipuri support union with India way back in 1947.it should not be reinstated without proving with reliable source or concensus. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 02:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Dubious
The infobox also claims that Manipur was a "Sovereign state" between 1947 and 1949. The sources in the Incorporation into India section are quite clear that Manipur signed the Instrument of Accession before the departure of the British. So it was not "sovereign" at any point since 1824. This infobox claim should be deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Manipur was indeed sovereign for a short period of time after British Empire gave its freedom on 14th Aug 1947,one day before India independence...Kings of Princely State were given choice by British to either remain independent or merge with India or Pakistan or Burma .Manipur choose to be independent .Manipur had been sovereign for more than 1000 year before losing against British Empire in 1891.King signed instrument of accession on 11 Aug 1947, but Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 enacted since May 1947.also "The section 9 (5) of Indian Independence Act, 1947 says " No order shall be made under this section, by the Governor of :any  Province, after the appointed day, or, by the Governor-General, after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, or such earlier date as may be determined, in the case of either Dominion,. by 'any law of the Legislature of  that Dominion." . Thus the retrospective effect of any order made under section 9 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 could not remove the Manipur State Constitution Act  (MSCA), 1947.".Manipur acceded to India only after 1949,with the controversial force Merger agreement of Shillong as claimed by many experts.again The section 8 of the Instrument of Accession says clearly " Nothing in this instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over the state  or save as provided by or under the Instrument, the exercise of any power , authority and rights now   enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or validity of any law at present in force in this State.",

Manipur State Constitution Act (MSCA)-1947 was never repealed or dissolved by the Indian Parliament or by the Manipur State Assembly. By this act Maharajah of Manipur was no longer the supreme head of Manipur in 1949,he already devolved his power to the elected council of ministers.He was only a nominal head just like President of India. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 03:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ::: your POV is the one that need to be revised why can't you accept the fact that Manipur was a sovereign democratic nation before merging with India. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 04:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can leave "my POV" aside. If I had made any POV edits (i.e., edits violating WP:NPOV), you are welcome to bring them up, and demonstrate how they violate NPOV.
 * Coming to the two sources you have provided, the first is a newspaper article (which is not reliable sources for history as I mentioned in the previous talk page section), and the second an opinion article on behalf of a "government-in-exile", i.e., self-professed separatist. Neither of these is authentic for history, or even to meet the bar on notability for an encyclopedia article. Unless there is scholarly consensus for a claim, it cannot go into the infobox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The word you stated since King signed instrument of accession,the past sovereignty of Manipur was questionable that is what I mean by your POV here also this A few Manipuris favoured integration with India and established the Manipur India Congress taken from without providing a reliable source or suitable link proving your favouratism violatingWP:NPOV, With due respect anything that is not written in book need not be treated as dubious multiple reliable sources discuss the problem and facts behind the claim. there are multiple sources focus on the quoted lines of Instrument of accession I quoted.Are these also a seperatist claim?,,,,,,|Before October 15, 1949, Manipur was a sovereign country with a written constitution and a partially democratic government,... ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 07:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also this quoted line "India to rule Manipur",publised in New York times in page 16 of Oct 1949 publication . Are you saying this is also non reliable source .Don't complain about the author or google scholar again..you can subscribe to the link I provided and check the detail..it was an archive record.. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 07:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This talk section was created to discuss the Sovereign State claim. Please do not side track from that issue. You are welcome to create new sections for other issues. The New York Times article never made any statements about sovereignty. It is quite irrelevant to the issue here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "India to rule Manipur" is quite a catchy quote which serve Manipur not a part of India at that time.Ok drop this too but Manipur sovereign before 1949 is not fake claim | Manipur celebrates 73rd Independence Day, ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 09:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The edits are frankly ridiculous, "South East Asia" (a wholly different region) in the lead and using the absolutely archaic spelling of "Manipoor" as a title are absurd edits at even a first glance. You can find references for anything but WP:COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED and WP:COMMONSENSE are something which seem to be lost here. Gotitbro (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * well I have given well source for the South East Asia..Manipur was not part of India historically well I am not trying to say present Manipur is not part of India but the fact that history of a Kingdom with more than 1000 years should be respected this revert only show your preference you even removed the native name and all reference There are many article like Ahom Kingdom,and so on answer me is this article only about the time Manipur became a princely state. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ   ( ꯆꯥ ) 08:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be South Asia then, references can't whip geography away. Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok let it be South Asia too I write is based on the reference and the fact that Manipur included in all South east asia history i.e with Myanmar.But why remove Kangleipak kingdom name dated with the time..08:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not violated any wikipedia rule while renaming the page too I followed the rule,this page title scope is too limited and its quite confusing with the erstwhile kingdom and its history...nor any admin or editor allowed a separate page for the Kingdom as it would be fork...So we need a consensus from both side.. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 08:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Start a move discussion then (see WP:RM). And your proposed title should be "Manipur Kingdom" not "Manipoor Kingdom", no one uses Manipoor now that is an archaic spelling. Lastly, Southeast Asia is not going in the lead, as the location that is, it would defy common sense. Gotitbro (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure Manipur Kingdom is the right name ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 09:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The title should be either "Kingdom of Manipur" or "Manipur kingdom". I personally prefer "Kingdom of Manipur", and also because JSTOR returns 18 versus 9 articles.  And Kingdom of Manipur is indeed in South Asia and not Southeast Asia.  If it had influences from Southeast Asia they should to be pointed out individually in the body of the article. Chaipau (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes Manipur is currently a part of India(South Asia).but historically Manipur was included in South East Asia and a sovereign Kingdom for more than 1000 years..Manipur relation with British India started after 1824... ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 10:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you will find a definition of Southeast Asia that includes Manipur. Both Assam and Manipur had Southeast Asian influences. But they were not part of Southeast Asia. Chaipau (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I never used Manipur is part of South East Asia in the lead but was a part of South East Asia.from the reference of the book I used.also by definition South is Asia is defined like this Southeast Asia or Southeastern Asia is the southeastern subregion of Asia, consisting of the regions that are geographically south of China, east of the Indian subcontinent and north-west of Australia.Geopolitically, the Indian subcontinent generally includes all or part of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, as well as Maldives.Manipur is very much to the east of India.If Manipur had been occupied by Burma till now or remain sovereign I doubt it would be consider a South asian region. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 10:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

see even this Ollie bye include Manipur in south east asia history and map
 * Please remove Southeast Asia from the lead asap don't restore content that even you know clearly untenable.

Gotitbro (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * yes I removed it. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 14:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Deja vu
, you have again inserted "sovereign nation" and such terminology into the page and edit-warred over it. Have you read the previous discussions above? Have you read the body of the article that says that Manipur acceded to India in August 1947? Have you checked the sources? Finally, what does your source Banerjee, 1958 say that validates your claim of "sovereign nation"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC) Redoing -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3 Analyzing the Instrument of Accession, there is no mentioned of acceding Manipur's sovereignty to India. But such analyses are the works of History experts, such as S.K. Banerjee, as he rightly did in this research article at The Journal of Policy Science. To refute this article, you'd have to follow the journal's guideline. Another point noteworthy here is that the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 is a legal Act passed by the Maharaja, king of Manipur in 1947. Analyzing the document shows that Manipur was a sovereign nation and that the sovereignty lies with the Maharaja, king of Manipur. Could you please point out a source that analyze better and refute such claim? Or if the Instrument itself mentions the lost of sovereignty of Manipur to India in 1947. Another point I would bring up here is the Merger Agreement of 1949, signed by the Maharaja, king of Manipur, and the Governor General of India. Analyzing Article I of the agreements demonstrate Manipur's sovereignty. Unless, you have solid foundation on the claim that Manipur was not a Sovereign between 1947 and 1949, I rest my case here. Thanks for bringing this up. Tanglei ariba (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are not understading the question. What does the paper say which, according to you, implies that Manipur was a "sovereign nation"? Please provide the exact quote. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're fixed on your personal opinion here, disregarding anything that says otherwise. If you look into those references cited for each of the sentences in my earlier edits, you'll find "sovereign nation" therein. Also, just as an education (now that this page has restrictions on edits, requested by you), references are meant to support a statement. In this case, the Manipur Constitution Act 1947, by Banerjee supports my statement on sovereignty of Manipur because the very article is on sovereignty, does this make sense to you? Tanglei ariba (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (I requested full protection. The EC-protection was an admin decision)
 * The term "sovereignty" does not appear in Bannerjee, 1958. Neither does "nation". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Banerjee is not the only citation I gave - look into the other references too. Your argument here is flawed. Try to read and understand those references. I will refute your protection requests because you do not allow other editors to contribute to this page. Tanglei ariba (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Manipur (princely state) → Manipur Kingdom – The scope of the article has been reduced, extended or otherwise changed the article title is in confusion with the Kingdom which exist before being a princely state many past edit warring have been the cause for it ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ   ( ꯆꯥ ) 10:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: But move it to Kingdom of Manipur not Manipur kingdom. Chaipau (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum: scholar.google.com counts — "Kingdom of Manipur" (177); "Manipur kingdom" (87). Chaipau (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 177 or 87 search result is not the issue here but the confusion and misunderstanding created by the title. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 10:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * since we are correcting the title name, we might as well correct it properly. Chaipau (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the title you suggest is not the proper name(it might create misunderstanding),will it not be better to avoid any future conflict with the title.Manipur is a very common name preceding with it is not against wikipedia rules and appropriate search. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 10:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to specify what the misunderstanding could be. You could say Maharaja of Manipur, as in the Merger Agreement, but you cannot use "King of Ahom" or "King of Maratha".  This is because Manipur refers to a geographic location and "Ahom" and "Martha" refer to ethnicities.  This is why "Kingdom of Manipur" is more appropriate and not "Manipur kingdom"  As the scholar.google.com proves "Kingdom of Manipur" is more popular that "Manipur kingdom". Chaipau (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes being a geographical location as well as a name for the Kingdom.Maharaja of Manipur and King of Manipur carry same meaning....Manipur Kingdom is more appropriate,British never used Kingdom of Manipur but Manipoor Kingdom.or Munnepoor Kingdom.The name Manipur itself is an imposition after late 17th century there had been quite a great confusion,why are you against the name Manipur Kingdom.someone previously pointed out scholar.google.com knows nothing about the reliablity of the author or publisher.There are as many as 87 for Manipur Kingdom too..this move and rename is not about vote for google scholar mentioning. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 10:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also there are no historic Kingdom other than Manipur Kingdom( previously known as "Kangleipak" or many other native names)... in the whole region of Manipur ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 12:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - User:Xufanc created this page as Manipur (princely state) and, when he finished, the page looked like this. As he writes, "The early history of Manipur is composed of mythical narratives." Much of these mythical narratives have since been added to this page, unduly so, and now the myth-makers seem to want to take over the page itself. Bad idea. If people want to create a separate article on Manipur Kingdom, they can feel free to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * are you saying early history of Manipur prior to being a princely state are myth?...user User:Xufanc created this page very thank you for that...but this page content are not only about princely state as I have told you before.many editor tried to make separate Manipur Kingdom article but it was all termed forks due to similar content,wikipedia not only works on personal view ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ   ( ꯆꯥ ) 14:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The very early descriptions could possibly be myths, but the historicity of the Kingdom of Manipur before British colonialism is not disputed. There indeed were rulers there that succumbed to the Burmese invasion and then eventually emerged in a princely state under the British after 1826. Chaipau (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Historicity of the Kingdom of Manipur is not disputed, but our knowledge of that history is. For the princely state, we have decent historical records, but for the earlier periods, we don't. So mixing up the two will lead to an unsatisfactory page. There is no reason why the earlier history can't go in History of Manipur. What else is that page meant for? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is 'LOIYAMBA SHINYEN': A LANDMARK IN MEITEI STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL MANIPUR, which states: The emergence and sophistication of the Meitei State under the leadership of the chiefs of the Ningthouja clan was the most significant development in the history Medieval Manipur. The kingship emerged in the 13th century and till the end of the eighteenth century Manipur was an independent kingdom. It became a princely state under the British in the 19th century. We also have R.K. Saha, "State Formation Among the Meiteis of Manipur' in Surajit Sinha (ed. ). Tribal Polities and State Systems in Pre-Colonial Eastern and North Eastern India. Calcutta, 1987.  So yes, the historiography is meagre, but it is history still.  We cannot ignore the continuity from the pre-colonial kingdom to the colonial princely state. Chaipau (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Agree with Kautilya re: History of Manipur. –Srnec (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Fine as it is. Not a kingdom for much of its history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Social science
When did manipur gain its freedom from the colonisers 223.179.209.157 (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The infobox has all the dates you need. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * MaharajaNarasingh.jpg

33 CE?
, You have changed the founding of the kingdom from 1100 CE to 33 CE, with this text in the lead:

I have previously told you about the requirements of WP:HISTRS. Please explain how these sources meet the requirements of WP:HISTRS. Also, tell us what these sources say that validates the claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3 Firstly, thanks for this approach. The citations therein are scholarly publications. Therein, historical facts backed by archaeological findings are presented. Thus, it meets the requirement of historical scholarships. There are numerous references available for this, however, such solid references are more than enough. You don't see 1000 references attached for statements such as India got independence on 15th August 1947. Furthermore, the start of Manipur kingdom at 33 CE well recorded in Royal chronicles, namely Cheitharol Kumbaba. Check for an article at the Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Tanglei ariba (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Scholarly" means essentially academic. Written by people with PhD's, who have training in research, and publish in peer-reviewed journals or in books published by academic publishers (such as university presses, Routledge, Academic Press, Springer etc.) See WP:SOURCETYPES. WP:HISTRS requires that the sources for history should be, at a minimum, scholarly, but preferably written by scholars of history. Your two sources are from authors of unknown credentials, and the publshers are also unknown. For the second source, you didn't even bother to specify the publisher. You also didn't give page numbers, quotations or any indication of where the information is to be found. I am afraid this is highly inadequate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 You could have just suggested to add more references. This would have been very constructive. Here is a "Scholarly" and "academic" publication, published by a Former Honorary Fellow, Institute of Advanced Research in Arts and Social Sciences, University of Birmingham, who btw also has a PhD (I don't agree with you on your statement - "Written by people with PhD's, who have training in research, and publish in peer-reviewed journals" but I'll leave you on that score). Look at p. 19 & at p. 23. You made false claims on the page by writing historically inaccurate statements, such as Manipur kingdom was formed in 1110. This is just misleading readers and a very bad conduct on your part. Tanglei ariba (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a translation of a historical work, and therefore counts as a WP:PRIMARY source. We are not allowed to use it directly. See page 2 for the caveats. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, we are ALLOWED to used it! Check the policy clearly. Second, this is not just any historical work, these are royal chronicles. You are using your own logic here to redefine what is history (flawed and irrational). It's really unfortunate that Wikipedia allows people like you to mislead readers and seriously needs attention from admins. @Daniel Quinlan I'm tagging you here to please look into this. I find it very disturbing to see incorrect information about the History of my people published here. Tanglei ariba (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PST. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 You need to explain which part says I cannot cite the references I have been pointing to. As I see it nothing in that applies here. Tanglei ariba (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
 * 4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the reference I cited qualifies both the points. You have access to the reference in question, right? I don't know your qualifications though. The author in the reference verified the primary source. There's no doubt about that in there. Tanglei ariba (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 You are making things up just to mislead readers on Wikipedia. Tanglei ariba (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The author of the book, Saroj Nalini Parratt, is a reliable source. The work is an English translation of Cheitharol Kumbaba, a primary source. The primary source does not become a reliable source just because it has been translated. It would be so only if the author has said that it contains authentic information. On pages 2-3 of the book, the author throws serious doubts on the authenticity of the information. She pointed out that the chronicles started being recorded from the 15h century CE, while the events are from the 1st century CE. The only parts of the book you can cite are the Introduction, pages 2-18.

You can take this to WP:RSN if you wish. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3 You keep iterating your points back and forth. WP:PRIMARY clearly states:
 * Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
 * Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
 * Your statement here, "It would be so only if the author has said that it contains authentic information. On pages 2-3 of the book, the author throws serious doubts on the authenticity of the information." falls into analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize which WP:PRIMARY says
 * 4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
 * Clearly, you are not aware of this policies, rather it is your intention to paint my edits in bad light and make my edits look wrong and not adhering to Wikipedia policies. WP:BEINSCRUTABLE Also, the translation is not the only reference available, there are plenty - I just don't want to cite 1000 references for this. Again, the other references I cited falls into the secondary source. Tanglei ariba (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You can take it to WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are the one in disagreement here, go ahead and take it there. Thanks! Tanglei ariba (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"Independent kingdom"
, You have added the "independent kingdom" phrase that I recently deleted.
 * In the first place, "independent" is out of place. There is no Wikipedia page about any country or state that presents "independent" as a primary characteristic. Neither does your source.
 * Secondly, the source says:
 * So, as you can see, "independence" is not a permanent feature. It rarely is.
 * So, as you can see, "independence" is not a permanent feature. It rarely is.


 * Thirdly, the source is wrong. Manipur came under the suzerainty of the Burmese Toungoo Empre in 1555–1557. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There were invasions from both sides so independence is not permanent feature indeed.You have removed the reference also, can you elaborate how it is wrong? the reflist you mentioned here are not accesible by me &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you click on the references, you can find the full citations. The source is "wrong' because it didn't seem to be aware of the fact that Manipur had become a tributary to the Toungee Empire during 1555-1557. Almost all Burmese history books mention this fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At various point of time political power changed hand but its a fact historically Manipur was an independent kingdom ruled by Meitei dynasty or clans.




 * .. &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * , all editors of Wikipedia are required to follow WP:NPOV, and that is especially required in a contentious topic like this one. (See the banner at the top of this talk page.) You cannot cherry-pick sources that suit a particular POV and insert their judgments into the LEAD. A highly reputed source says this:
 * Not only is it published by a high-quality academic publisher, but also the book has 526 citations on Google scholar. You cannot ignore such viewpoints and give WP:UNDUE weight to selected sources.
 * The facts are that
 * Manipur became a tributary to the Toungoo dynasty under emperor Bayinnaung.
 * When the Toungoo dynasty became weak, it is presumed to have become independent, and raided the Burmese territory in reverse, espcially during the time of Gharib Niwaz (Manipur).
 * After the Konbaung dynasty replaced the Toungoo dynasty (starting from Alaungpaya), Manipur was repeatedly raided and presumably had to make concessions of some kind or other.
 * When all else failed, the Burmese rulers drove out the ruling family and installed puppet rulers. This period has been called "seven year devastation".
 * Manipur managed to drive out the Burmese with British help, after which it is deemed to have become a protectorate of the British Empire.
 * After the 1891 rebellion, the British demoted to a princely state, and more or less ruled it directly with the nominal headship of the kings.
 * Throughout this period, "independence" claim is quesitonable. Please feel free to add content to the body with attributed claims for various sources. When dust settles, we can discuss and decide what should be said in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is reverting a sourced content instead of editing or modifying justifiable for WP:NPOV ? What I presented is that historically Manipur was an independent kingdom ruled by Meitei dynasty as it was a kingdom, none of the source you mentioned claimed Manipur was never independent since the beginning, I did not remove content or source you added I added only the content I found which is WP:RS I will revert your edit not as edit war but to re edit and add this burmese occupation as well please modify instead of removing source content WP:GF thanks  &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:VNOTSUFF. But thanks for adding the rider about the Burmese suzerainty. I can live with it for the time being. But my position is that talking about "independence" of the lead entirely UNDUE. Much more relevant to the topic of this page is the fact it was under complete Burmese occupation for seven years prior to the British suzerainty. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that 7 years period is called "Seven Years Devastation" in local dialect
 * Chahi Taret Khuntakpa. Manipur and Burmese kingdom can described as two brothers frequently challenging each other for power. Manipur kings Khagemba and Garibnawaz are sometimes even glorified as emperor by local.https://imphalreviews.in/garibaniwaz-pamheiba-the-master-of-manipur-and-upper-burma-west-of-irrawaddy-1709-1748/ &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Burma is 20 times the size of Manipur. It is silly to compare the two. Occasionally, the dint of history might give you a competitive advantage. But it will be a temporary blip. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Burma is 20 times the size of Manipur. It is silly to compare the two. Occasionally, the dint of history might give you a competitive advantage. But it will be a temporary blip. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

New additions to the British protectorate section
Here is the expanded paragraph with your addition, where I believe the red bits were yours:

1. The first thing to notice is that the paragraph is considerably larger, making it OVERWEIGHT. It cannot be done unless we agree that such OVERWEIGHT is needed.

2. The first red sentence, claims "combined Anglo-Manipuri troops", which they were not. They were Manipuri troops commanded by two British officers Captain Grant and Lieutenant Pemberton (who later became Major and Captain respectively). The Imperial Gazetteer says:

So the British troops were sent to Cachar and only Manipuri troops were sent to Manipur. I see no reason why you need to expand the paragraph to deal with Cachar, which is off-topic. Johnstone writes: A Burmese history book says:

Phanjoubam Tarapot wites:

3.The claim that Gambhir Singh "defeated" Burmese forces in Kabaw Valley is also dubious.

Tarapot:

4. As for Manipur having become "independent", we have been discussing it at multiple pages, and the quotation you have provided from Parratt & Parratt in no way settles the issue. Even as an opinion of the authors (there were two), it is UNDUE because the Treaty of Yandabo does not state that Manipur was going to be independent. Even if some British writers used the term, it only means that it was supposed to be independent of Burma. A standard interpretation of the treaty according to modern scholars is:

I will write some comments on your sources in due course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 1 - I was using the term Anglo Manipuri troops taken from Parratt, supported by both Malemsanba and Arthur Purves Phayre (" The occupation of Manipur was at length accomplished by a levy of Manipuris and Kacharis, unencumbered with baggage, led by Gambhir Sing  "), I was referring to the First Anglo Burmese war battle at Cachar, Manipuri led by Gambhir Singh proved decisive in winning the battle in general, but Gambhir Singh troops defeated them in Manipur  , as the battle ended in Kabaw Valley. It would not be wise to assume only Manipuri levy, not other British troops fight the war against Burmese and won eventually resulting in the  signing of Treaty of Yandabo.


 * 2 - The importance of Cachar is that Manipuri king Gambhir Singh took an important part in driving the Burmese out of Cachar ( which was a British territory), this is favourable to Manipur Kingdom after the war, as even British Colonial Officer, Mackenzie himself stated," Subsequently by the Ava Treaty of 1826, Gumbheer Sing was recognized as the Rajah of Manipur, though without any corresponding obligation so far as the British Government was concerned ", We can clearly see British treated Manipur as independent in the early stage or a protected state with very little interference, so the lead section of British protectorate since 1824 is not suitable. Also, Gambhir Singh was not exiled , but he fled to Cachar with some of his people.


 * 3 - I did not claim Gambhir Singh defeated the Burmese forces at Kabaw valley. the combined troops of Manipur Levy and the British troops under the command of Captain Grant defeated the Burmese in the Kabaw Valley and occupied it. it clearly mean it was under the command of Captain Grant that defeated Burmese force at Kabaw Valley.

Lastly, I am agreeing with a loose form of British suzerainty, so my focus is not on the independent claim but the fact that Gambhir Singh helped British in the battle of Cachar, before Manipuri Levy was formed and troops led by Gambhir Singh defeated the Burmese in Manipur and expelled them &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for agreeing about British suzerainty.
 * But Anglo-Manipuri troops still doesn't fly. Cachar should not be discussed here. It is not part of "Manipur (princely state)". There were no British troops in Manipur Levy. No British writer said there were. If Parratt says it, he is simply mistaken.
 * There are detailed discussions in sources about what happened in the Kabaw Valley. It was only the Samjok raja who tried to fight them there. But again, as a matter of fact, there wasn't much fighting. They got scared and fled.
 * The original wording is perfectly fine. You haven't given any reason to add anything significant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And, you don't seem to have processed the very important information that the Burmese troops were withdrawn, both from Manipur and Kabaw Valley, because Burma was under British invasion. The main fighting was in the Burmese mainland. Manipur was a side show. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We are discussing about the history that relates with Manipur, why is Cachar insignificant, it discusses about the start of British relation with Manipur ruler and British suzerainty in Manipur. &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that Cachar is "insignificant". I said it is off-topic. If Cachar has to be included, there is a lot that needs to be included. All the Manipur princes went to Cachar, and carved out their own little fiefdoms inside it, and eventually drove out its rightful king, who then went to the British and appealed for help. Do you want all that in here? There is loads of stuff about Manipur that needs to be written. Why don't you worry about that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If its needed we should add it in a short summary if possible, and why is "Anglo Manipuri troops" a wrong term when the war is fought by both Manipur and British troops as acknowledged by scholars &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which scholars have acknowledged it? Please provide a quotation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see it in Parratt & Parratt. There are no citations in the paragraph at all. So not much weight can be given to this source. Moreover it was only used for the Silchar operations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Parratt, did not use modern citation at all in the book "Queen Empress vs Tikendrajit", not just this paragraph, however there is an Appendix I, a note on sources on page 193. and Malemsanba as well as Mackenzie used Manipuri troop cooperated with British troops. Silchar operation is crucial background for things that developed later &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)




 * Also you seem to be downplaying the role of Gambhir Singh in the First Anglo Burmese war. &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
The Burmese history books, written by third party historians, say that the Burmese forces had been withdrawn from Manipur and Kabaw Valley. So, Pemberton's WP:PRIMARY source testimony doesn't fly. As for Cachar,

Gambhir Singh's force, paid for by the British, was 500 men. Calling it an "Anglo-Manipuri force" is an exercise in self-aggrandisement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 500 men was for the Cachar expedition, Pemberton stated there was reinforcement, for your info Parratt is also a third party historian &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And John Parratt is a theologian, not a historian. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They may not be historian with academic degree in history, but their works include extensive research of both primary and secondary references, this particular book is not a work of theology but rather history, its also not only Parratt even the primary sources proved the claim &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Academic degrees in history don't necessarily make one a "historian". They need to be trained in historical research. See WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Academic degrees in history don't necessarily make one a "historian". They need to be trained in historical research. See WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I was saying the same thing, they do not have academic degree but they trained through extensive research of both primary and secondary sources eg: Translation of "CK ( the royal chronicle )", "History and Culture of Manipur", "Queen Empress Vs Tikendrajit, Anglo Manipur Conflict of 1891" ( the one I was using as reference)   &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)




 * See this also, all these evidences proved combined force of British and Manipuri defeated the Burmese in the war and liberated Manipur from Burmese yoke &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What "evidence" does this supposed scholar provide? He cites Mackenzie, who has no discussion of the "war", but gives an extract from the Governor-General's minute, which says this petty state is "totally incompetent to defend itself against a Burmese invasion". All the supposed scholars of this volume are peddling their own POVs, nothing to do with any "evidence". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have pointed to Pamberton's primary and this as secondary, but you keep saying its POV, it seems like every Manipuri scholar are prejudiced in your opinion. Yes Manipur is a small state, whole Assam was annexed ( made British territory) after the war, but not Manipur. Historical facts can't be erased by POV right? &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not true. I have cited Pradip Phanjoubam often, and also Phanjoubam Tarapot (with some care). But there is no such requirement really. We don't sort scholars by ethnicity and apportion space for them. When there is a genuine cause for difference of opinion, it is a different matter. When it is an issue of facts, all that matters is the accuracy of the source. On that score, this group of Manipuri scholars fall way too short. I suggest you read the A. C. Banerjee, who has carefully worked out history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the passage you have quoted above has a glaring error. It says that the Manipur Levy was raised to the strength of 2,000 and Kabaw Valley was occupied after the treaty of Yandabo was signed. Even if the author was ignorant and confused, this should have been caught in the peer-review process. The fact that it wasn't implies that even the editing of this volume was of dubious quality.

The book's preface (p. ix) says that the authors of the book belong to a certain "Centre for Alternative Discourse, Manipur". And a news article says that all the articles had been previously published in the Centre's in-house journal. (Funnily, this is not mentioned in the book itself.) So, the journal's peer review processes are also suspect.

As far as I can see, there was no book review of the book published in a journal, and its citations are also very meagre. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The troops number may be disputed, but British ( Pamberton stated Gambhir Sing receive reinforcement before occupation of Kabaw Valley), Burmese as well as Manipuri scholars and historians stated that Gambhir Singh conquered Kabaw Valley during the First Anglo Burmese War. After which the treaty of Yandabo was signed.

&#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * According to Mackenzie, Manipuri Levy was increased to 2000 in 1825. Also, Manipuri Levy seem to be initially called "Gambhir Singh's Levy", historian Shyam stated ‘Raja Gambhir Singh’s Levy’ left for Manipur on 17th May, 1825, with Lieutenant R.B. Pemberton. The party, after facing so many difficulties, reached Maklang (a village in the valley of Manipur) on June 10 and expelled the Burmese from Manipur. Therefore, the conquest of Manipur in the First Anglo-Burmese War was the handiwork of the irregular and unpaid ‘Raja Gambhir Singh’s Levy.  &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So you are agreeing with me that there is a glaring error? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the part of the paragraph from Sanjeev, seem to have error, choice of word or printing mistake &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And that error went uncaught by the peer reviewers of the journal as well as the book? And also you, when you quoted the passage? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, it was my mistake that I did not check when I quoted, but you seem to be deviating from your self claim that Manipur levy was only 500 men when Kabaw valley was conquered in the First Anglo Burmese war. Do we have a concensus regarding Anglo Manipuri troops? What is your final suggestion for this collaboration of Gambhir Sing troops with British? Interstingly, through some intensive reading I find that the claim of "Manipur was declared independent by the treaty of Yandabo" was actually of Mc Culloch used by Parratt, see McCulloch page 38 &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are allowed to make mistakes. You are not expected to be a reliable source. But published sources can't. And, I should repeat, it is a glaring error, made deliberately by the author by stating "Subsequently" for the Kabaw Valley passage. How he could even imagine that Manipur occupied fresh territory after a treaty was signed, is quite beyond my comprehension.
 * Also, this highlights the poor quality of this edited volume, which you have been pushing non-stop for almost a month, claiming it to be "peer-reviewed" source, and therefore everything found in it should be inserted into Wikipedia. I hope to have demonstrated that you are entirely wrong. There is nothing sacrosanct about this book. It is of dubious quality and 90% of its content is controversial, opinionated and poorly sourced.
 * Coming back, we should limit this section to the new additions you have made to the paragraph, and in particular the bits highlighted in red at the top. I have also asked you to read Banerjee's book, which went through three editions and has close to 100 citations on Google Scholar. If you are making any claims that contradict what that book says, you will need multiple top quality sources to justify them. Nothing in the Noni-Sanatomba volume will be considered top-quality. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have admitted my mistake, you should stop making a mountain out of an ant hill, here is what you stated previously regarding reliable secondary sources,  "Routledge is an academic publisher. That means that it publishes books by established scholars, and it also gets them peer-reviewed by other established scholars. There are three or four such private/commercial academic publishers but there are many university press publishers. They all work the same way, and are counted as reliable secondary sources.", this particular book of Noni & Sanatomba is also published by the reputed Routledge, from these I can learn that not everything from reputed publisher should be consider as facts or reliable ( to make error is very common with human) until we compare it with other reliable sources  &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)