Talk:Manipur State Constitution Act 1947

Added proper references
Hello, I have added proper references as you had asked. Also added proper title in the cited reference.ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC) the link you provided shows nothing about this constitution being obsolete from the King signing Merger Agreement.By the year 1949.the legal right of the state was already transfered to Council of ministers appointed under the dejure constitution.also stop removing content from citation.Beside there is high debate of Manipur merger agreement as forceful annnexation.India did not have a legal constitution in 1949.So read the constitution properly first before trying to vandalise it.Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 was legally in practise since 1947 itself  ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ   ( ꯆꯥ ) 14:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have used the phrase "effectively obsolete" not "obsolete".


 * I have included the sentence "However various separatist groups have disputed the Merger Agreement." which covers what you are saying.
 * I have added the correct title in the citation. If you are adding whole text in the title, it makes the page ugly and citation unreadable.ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is only about the Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 not Manipur Merger Agreement,what you added is totally in contrast with the article.
 * You yourself have reffered to Merger of Manipur into India in the earlier edit. My edit is in continuation of the same. ChunnuBhai (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the article properly this article is about law and constitution,not seperatism or manipur merger agreement.you can add those in Manipur merger agreement article.Thanks


 * The Act is not inforce right now, the Merger Agreement, lead to the Act becoming in-operational. The edit I made is in line with current status of the Act.ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You or Me is not the one to judge the validity of the act.But seriously stop vandalising content byadding unrelated topic which is already removed giving due reason ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 16:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop referring to my edits as Vandalism. and read WP:VANDAL to understand what constitutes vandalism on wikipedia.ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the edit disagreement between User:Luwanglinux and me
User:Luwanglinux has been reverting my edits on the article for reasons I do not agree with. also threatening me on my talk page, while I have tried to engage constructively. Request for other editors to comment and resolve the edit disagreements.ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ChunnuBhai (talk) let others editors come in but seriously why do you want to keep adding Manipur Merger Agreement which was already removed giving proper reason from the content as it is totally unrelated with this constitution.On the contrary Merger agreement is said to be a violation of this dejure law as claimed by experts ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 17:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop pushing POV by claiming "Experts say" something without giving references. Also there are many examples on wikipedia where, the successor legal instrument is mentioned in respective articles. e.g. Indian_Independence_Act_1947 mentions Article 395 of the Constitution of India and in Article 221 of the Constitution of Pakistan of 1956, Article 370 of the Constitution of India has sections on 2019 Actions. What I added is not unrelated to the current article. ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have given proper reference with reliable source from the journal of legal activist from Manipur.please look in above sections. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 17:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As per Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, ResearchGate is not considered a reliable source. Reason, it is self published and not peer reviewed research.ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously that content has been reviewed also the author is not any layman dude it really is line with Wp:RS.just google it if you wanna see.As for your info I never added that link in the main article but just on this talkpage to come to a consensus with this conflict ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 17:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The conclict is only about you reverting my legitimate edit.ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The conflict is about you adding unrelated topic categories even removing quote from content.I have explained in detail.since the edit was revised by an admin.I hope you understand. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 18:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Your RfC statement, whilst fairly brief, is decidedly not neutral. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thank for the reply. i will close this RfC and open a new RfC with precise question in neutral voice.ChunnuBhai (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing quote from Wp:Rs reference
User:ChunnuBhai has been repeatedly adding unrelated topic and also repeatedly removing quote from reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luwanglinux (talk • contribs) 17:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With due respect you have added a LOT of text as quote. If any user wants to read this much text, he will click on the link itself and read it for himself. ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ChunnuBhai Still you should not remove the whole quote ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 17:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Citation disagreement
is telling citation from an archive.org is unreliable source.an admin help is requested,I have not found any wikirules which state archive.org is unreliable source. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 14:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * archive.org is an archiving source site. It is not a publisher. Whether you state archive.org or not makes no difference to the reliability of the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol seriously do wikipedia not accept any sources without publisher as reliable source,what made you consider this a reliable source ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 14:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you quit making snarky comments. If you do not like Wikipedia policies, you are welcome to leave. Nobody is forcing you to edit Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Archive.org is not a source of any description. If you include archive.org links, the source is the website it is a copy of. noq (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wangam Somorjit
I will put down another comment here for the record.

For this citation that Luwanglinux added, claiming it to be published by "Waba Publications & Advanced Research Consortium", and the author claimed to be a "notable google scholar", Google Scholar knows nothing about the book or any citations to it. There are no publications of the author listed there. The "Advanced Research Consortium", which gave it web address as "arecom.org" is apparently that of a Mexican organisation. There is indeed an "Advanced Research Consortium" in Manipur, but its record in research is entirely unreported. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are too much this book is published under ISBN,published in Imphal,printed at Assam and the author is a Master degree holder in Manipur history from Manipur University,are you the one who will decide the validity of a publishihg house?.So what if it is Mexican organisation.?.read the book if you want its not written by some mediocre... ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 04:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are back to making snarky comments. You can also decide whether sources are reliable when you read and understand Wikipedia policies. If you don't like my decisions, you are welcome to take it to WP:RSN.
 * Master's degrees don't make any one a reliable source. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The credentials of the publisher need to be checked. And this particular publisher, which has the pretensions of a research organisation but seems to be no more than an NGO, gave a fake web address. So it is all the more dubious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Haorongbam Sudhirkumar Singh
, You have deleted information sourced Sudhirkumar Singh's PhD thesis to the effect that the MSCA had lapsed with the merger agreement. You offered no explanation for this. Even though we don't normally give high credibility to PhD theses in general, this thesis was carried out at Jawaharlal Nehru University, a top-rated institution of India for social sciences. The author is now a professor at Manipur University  and a credible historian. So I am afraid you cannot simply delete it. This seems to be an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ,You are interpreting the thesis in the way you like also you should know that Dewan abolishment is not related with Manipur State Constitution Act 1947.Dewan is related with British Raj you seem to have little knowledge about this act better stop imposing your idea without solid reference,I removed it because you put it with the expiration date which contradict with the various sources found.Here is what you added
 * 15 October 1949


 * My "little knowledge", as it might be, is not your concern. You have deleted a well-sourced piece of information from the article, where a professor of history at Manipur University has stated that the act "lapsed" precisely 15 October 1949. You can only delete it by appealing to equal or better quality sources as per Wikipedia policies. Ranting about my knowledge is not going to be of any help to you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have given you the reason for deletion with many reference,I also pointed out dissolving Dewan post is not related with this act as you quoted the post of Dewan abolished with effect from 15 October 1949 this fail to prove your claim of the act being dissolved on 15th oct 1949.With due respect this act was enacted by the de jure supreme ruler of Manipur in 1947 ,there is a great difference between de jure and de facto rule in politics as stated by experts ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 16:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It may also be noted that British rule ended in Manipur in 14th August 1947
, that is a ridiculous kind of sentence that does not belong in any kind of article. Trust me, the British rule ended all over the Indian subcontinent on that day. There is nothing to be especially "noted". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ,I don't trust you.Even Pakistan and Myanmar were included in British India.Indian subcontinent and the idea of India nation differ so greatly.Manipur got independence from British on 14th august 1947 but India got independence from British on 15th august 1947 its all fact.So give it a rest. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 16:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ok, please provide WP:RS for these statements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have given newspaper [ https://www.imphaltimes.com/news/itemlist/date/2019/8/14] link Manipur celebrate independence day on 14th august every year,what more proof do you need?. ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 16:36, 6 December 2020

(UTC)
 * Manipuris might celebrate it on 1 January for all I care. The statement is clear, and the RS for it should be equally clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ok here is another source see this


 * The first link you give is a Google Book search. The first source that pops up is the CIRCA pamphlet, which states (p.23):
 * This makes extremely clear that the independence of Manipur was part of the independence of India, not some separate event. This is quite the opposite if the special claims you are making. The source you picked is some propaganda booklet, hardly a reliable source. And the second link is also not a HISTRS, published in 2014 in a journal on "International Relations". For all you know, the author is just replicating the current Manipuri practice of celebrating it on the 14th August. The present day Maharaja critiqued this practice in the newspaper link you provided:
 * Finally, whether it is the 14th or 15th doesn't make a damn bit of difference. You are just chasing red herrings and wasting every one's time. What does this have to do with the Manipur State Constitution anyway? That sentence in the lead is still WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm its you quite wasting time and energy on this,is the reference from book also a pamphlet..the line in the lead is quoted from two lead newspaper of Manipur and Nagaland.Also the fact that Manipur celebrate independence day every year on this said day..peace ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 02:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the CIRCA booklet is a "pamphlet". It is arguing a position. But it is arguing it based on solid facts, which are thoroughly researched. Newspaper journalists don't have either time or energy to do any such research. They can only be depended on for "news", what they see and report. That is the policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm its you quite wasting time and energy on this,is the reference from book also a pamphlet..the line in the lead is quoted from two lead newspaper of Manipur and Nagaland.Also the fact that Manipur celebrate independence day every year on this said day..peace ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ  ( ꯆꯥ ) 02:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the CIRCA booklet is a "pamphlet". It is arguing a position. But it is arguing it based on solid facts, which are thoroughly researched. Newspaper journalists don't have either time or energy to do any such research. They can only be depended on for "news", what they see and report. That is the policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42748891. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sennecaster (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)