Talk:Puya (Meitei texts)

Puya proof
The proof that puya exist before 18th century and it was verified by National archive of India in 1969 as a historical written document or literature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luwanglinux (talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

2 PuYas
Moving page is not necessary when there is 2 PuYas with different content. Former is original and latter is Frabicated. PuYas are religious texts while Literature are writings of any languages.
 * 1) The one with Heelel was written in Meetei mayek.
 * 2) The one without Heelel was written in Bengali script.

Puya is not religious book nor it is a single book or few book
why is there a so many misinformation and repeated revert in this article.Luwanglinux (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * HOW many editor should I consult to reach a concencus regarding all the misinformations in this article This "Nongsamei puya" is also a puya

Stop tagging Puya as religious texts
Proof have been found that it is not only religious records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luwanglinux (talk • contribs) 04:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"Meetei Puya(Meitei Puya Lailik)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Meetei Puya(Meitei Puya Lailik). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 25 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. noq (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Puya literal meaning
Should it be removed or not ? &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It will be added back, once I get a good source. This article will be expanded. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you, since its a meitei word I know it too and I think "pu" equating with ancestor is contained in the book you sent me too in critical comment by Parratt &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Scholarship
20 years has passed since Parratt's observation. What is the recent progress in this field? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * notes of a court case, which indirectly gave legitimacy to the authenticity of Wakoklon Puya. This has been cited by Brandt, too. Does or  know of any way to access the court ruling? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * News 1. Case 1 and Case 2. The petitioner contended that [t]he expert committee which was constituted by virtue of a court order submitted report recommending existing 27 scripts as the correct Meitei Mayek to the Govt. of Manipur, was not scientifically done whereas the expert opinion given by the Chief Epigraphist, Archaeological Survey of India, is based on scientific research. Would be interesting to read the report of the expert committee (this is its acceptance by Governor) as well as the opinion of Chief Epigraphist. This semi-coherent text is interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam, I can't be of help this time with accessing court ruling sorry but the actual letters from Wakoklon puya is not 27 script but 18 with other suffix and mathematical symbol this is my own report as I have read the scanned copy of original wakoklon puya &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Pamheiba Larei Lathup Puya

 * Larei Lathup Puyas are the puyas which record details of kings reign and their dark side of the story sometimes even detail of their defeat often unfavourable to the king's reputation. The literal meaning of Larei Lathup can mean hidden secret. There is no english translation nor full publication of the puya(Pamheiba Larei Lathup Puya) itself yet as far as I know. &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Splitting page
Can Puya (Meitei texts) be splitted and expanded from the present page Meitei literature which is within sub section Meitei literature of Meitei literature &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)