Talk:2023–2024 Manipur violence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent edits - Oct 2023

@Okenkhwairakpam: I have reverted your most recent edits. This is done because the reporting from Manipur has become increasingly partisan, as reported in this editors guild report. As a result, any news/opinion from Manipur has to be vetted and corroborated, and cannot be used directly.

Chaipau (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

EGI team are out on bails from Supreme Court of India on the Fake report case in Manipur violence that started on May 3rd 2023

The houses of the senior journalists of EGI were raided by Delhi police on UAPA charges on 3rd October, 2023.

How can you refer their report which hasn't been proved true to write an article for Wikipedia?

Moreover, the EGI report is obviously a report derived from the documents hosted on ITLF website.

https://www.itlfmediacell.com/document/

https://www.itlfmediacell.com/itlfsite/uploads/2023/07/Birens_War_ITLF_Media_Cell_.pdf

https://www.itlfmediacell.com/itlfsite/uploads/2023/07/Countdown_to_3rd_May_ITLF_Media_Cell-1.pdf

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/manufactured-report-manipurs-top-forest-official-slams-editors-guild-of-india-4372530/amp/1 Gy9$y (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Police raids, arrests, and court filings against journalists and their reports are not WP:RS. If you require clarifications regarding this, please refer the issue at WP:RSN. If you do, please leave a note here that you have brought this up there. Chaipau (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is a clarification from a related issue: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_412#Scholars_under_police_investigations

Chaipau (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Okenkhwairakpam: I have reverted your edit again. The development that Meiteis have abandoned Kuki areas is not in dispute. Please find WP:RS to cite that uses neutral language. References that say "Kuki lies" are clearly partisan. Chaipau (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

While citing the complicated matter, it must be straight from the horse's mouth not from bias, prejudice & unfairness source. Clapping with only one hand doesn't produce sound. We must write only the truth from both sides neutrally by ransacking the trash. Dr. Zhivago111 (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources.

Babloo Loitongbam (who definitely counts as a reliable source) mentioned on 10 May that exaggerated stories of the violence in Churachandpur have been circulated within the Meitei community.[2]. I presume this is what you mean by the "horse's mouth".

I support User:Chaipau's revert. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Everything related to violence happened after May 3rd, 2023. The debate is where exactly it started. The valley people have retaliated sharply this time rather than keeping quiet which was what the Kukis expected. No videos/photos of the first attack on Kangvai as claimed by this article or the Kukis have emerged till now.

The first videos circulated were of Meitei houses being burnt down by the armed Kukis in Churachandpur during broad daylight. What is happening now for 5 months is the Aftermath of it. Gy9$y (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by summarising WP:RS, not by analysing videos. That constitutes WP:OR.

The Sangai Express report published on 4 May, had a section on Moirang (subdivision/block). I can see that the newspaper has now forgotten all about it and brushed it under the carpet. But we are not going to do that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Well...you have given video links here as well. You are referencing it here. When you can do it on your whims and wishes as and when it pleases you, why can't I ask for it? Gy9$y (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I used the video to establish the timeline, which weren't given in the Sangai Express article. But now The Wire article gives the sequence. So you can ignore the video. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's go to the Moirang section:

Moirang

Several houses, shops and vehicles have been torched at Torbung, Bangla, Kangvai and Phougakchao Ikhai situated along the adjoining areas of Churachandpur and Bishnupur districts.

It is reported that the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM.

There was an intense confrontation between the supporters of ST demand for Meetei/Meitei and the rallyists and they pelted stones, used slingshots against each other in the evening.

Later, a large number of people from Churachandpur side stormed towards Bangla and Torbung along Tiddim Road and destroyed several shops.

The agitators overpowered the locals and began attacking the Forest office at Phougakchao Ikhai before they were dispersed by the police who fired rounds of tear gas shells and resorted to blank firing.

Reportedly, agitators coming from Churachandpur side also shot some rounds in retaliation and set on fire at least six houses and vehicles including a van, Maruti Alto, Honda Activa and two heavy vehicles (JCB) at Phougakchao Ikhai.

There is a report of people on both sides sustaining injuries but there is no report of people succumbing to injury so far.

Meanwhile, a specific report received by The Sangai Express said that many people from Kaprang, Torbung, Phougakchao Ikhai and over 100 poeple who were housed at a relief camp set up at Durga Mandop at Saiton have fled elsewhere in view of the tense atmosphere.

Ibudhou Moirang Thangjing Lai Committee is currently providing shelter to four-five families at the relief camp at Saiton Gy9$y (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"It is reported that the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM.... "

✓Who launched the counter agitation? - The Meiteis

✓So... who torched the properties of the Meiteis? - The Kuki rallyists

/// "Properties of Meiteis" were torched for launching a counter agitation against the rally by the Kukis" ///

"There was an intense confrontation between the supporters of ST demand for Meetei/Meitei and the rallyists"

✓There was a standoff between the two communities.

"Later, a large number of people from Churachandpur side stormed towards Bangla and Torbung along Tiddim Road and destroyed several shops."

✓ Who are these large number of people? ..The Kukis from Ccpur

✓Who destroyed the shops? ---Kukis

"The agitators overpowered the locals and began attacking the Forest office at Phougakchao Ikhai before they were dispersed by the police who fired rounds of tear gas shells and resorted to blank firing."

✓Who are these agitators who overpowered the locals? ---the kukis

✓Who are these agitators that attacked the forest office?

---The kukis

"Reportedly, agitators coming from Churachandpur side also shot some rounds in retaliation and set on fire at least six houses and vehicles including a van, Maruti Alto, Honda Activa and two heavy vehicles (JCB) at Phougakchao Ikhai."

------+

✓ Who are this agitators from CCPUR that fired gunshots in retaliation to the police's blank firing? ---Kukis

✓ Who set on fire houses and vehicles at Phougakchao Ikhai?-----The Kukis

What's there to hide this article? Who's hiding it? It's all in here. I gave you all the answers.

Maybe you were finding it hard to comprehend the meaning of the written words. Gy9$y (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You omitted Kangvai. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gy9$y, please note that Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM. And this is not a WP:SOAPBOX where you can promote a cause. Wikipedia cannot perform WP:OR. Please use your participation here to improve Wikipedia, not to push a WP:POV. Chaipau (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm here to rectify the mistakes in this article. I know it's not a forum. When you guys are headstrong and hellbent on not listening to other's views and try to create a biased article according to your own narratives, I'm not watching this silently.

" neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias" Gy9$y (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I never omitted Kangvai..

"Several houses, shops and vehicles have been torched at Torbung, Bangla, Kangvai and Phougakchao Ikhai situated along the adjoining areas of Churachandpur and Bishnupur districts."-- this is a brief summary of the news. If you want to debate..Torbung comes first then..why not Kangvai?

Check the Youtube tube link( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DiGmTFIeU&si=jSbHQTIxuEUTXQan) sent in the other reply...a live coverage from Torbung where the guy says that they are going towards Kangvai from Torbung as the Kukis have outnumbered them , beating the Meiteis and destroying vehicles on the way. He has called for help and support from the Meitei people to proceed towards Kangvai. to help curb the violence. So try to connect the dots. Gy9$y (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation & Motivated news

In all world news including digital media, kuki has created a false narrative in early days of violence by providing motivated, one sided to every news correspondent,isreal, europe, Christian missionary even UN. But meiteis don't have any idea about this false propaganda war in early days. 49.37.98.152 (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Kukis are lier, shameless,imposter. They always tried to spread false news to the World, dont believe them 223.239.64.11 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Kukis are creating unrest in every places they enter. they are barbaric and liar. the article is all one sided. wiki should research about its correctness before posting such article as this article is all false and ruins the image of Metei people before the whole world. 164.100.149.86 (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes , the article is written by kuki people , whole one sided story to misguide the whole world to hide their evil and greedy deeds. This Manipur violence 2023 is no violence against Christainity,They lied about the no . Of churches vandalized, no of people died , they lied everything. Kukis atleast for Jesus Chirst , God’s sake please speak up the truth without siding between the two community, that way peace will prevail soon. 2607:F130:0:110:0:0:0:25 (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

On the other side more meitei are dead and the kuki don't stop attacking meitei villages.when they attack and meitei defend ,they will play the victimcard and say that the majority are oppressing the minority. Please stop all these. 2607:F130:0:110:0:0:0:25 (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2023

The ignition of the riot hasn't been established yet, and there is already a committee headed by HC judge to look into it. There are social media testimonies on how the riot started from churachanpur itself, with the burning and cleansing of meiteis on the third of May. Twitter accounts posting the pics and videos are testimonies to that. The retaliation in the valley on 4th May, although unfortunate, was the aftermath of the attacks on meiteis in the hills. The Christian and tribal angle has also already been debunked by Nagas, meitei Christians of Manipur. There were earlier attempts to ignore foreign involvement and narco elements, but the spike in arrests of drug smugglers in Mizoram proves otherwise. Even the Home Minister Amit Shah blamed the illegal influx as one of the major causes of the riot on the floor of the Parliament. Truthfairylove (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

Violence is due to two communities which is started by kuki in may 3rd and planed for years to the meiteis. The kuki are trying to be victim playing and change the face if themself in the internet 103.229.47.116 (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Background

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of the following should be used in the Background section of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

A. The existing Background language.

The article content in question is in the Background section, in the second paragraph, and reads:

The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19, by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state.

B.

The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after 1891 by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state, which was made more substantial after the Kuki Rebellion of 1917–1919.

C.

The hill tribes, whose administration had largely been left to the respective chiefs known as Khullakpa by the Meitei Kings, came to be administered by the British after the Anglo-Manipur War of 1891. The British administrative control became more intensive after the Kuki Rebellion of 1917-19 and they continued to administer the hill areas directly until 1947. Scholars believe the colonial administration employed the "divide and rule" policy which widened existing divide between the peoples.

Please enter A, B or C below in the Survey section with a brief statement. Please do not reply to the comments of other editors. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Discussion section; that's what it's for.

References

Survey

• C seems to be most helpful to readers, providing additional context. The other two options do seem to not tell the whole story, which I would hesitate doing without a Main article hatnote. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option B. It was arrived at in a lengthy DRN discussion as an improvement of the current text A. It mentions the date of 1891 as the first instance of administration of hill areas, since some WP:RS say that.

I am not in favour of Option C as it omits the fact that the hills formed a "non-state space" prior to 1891 (using a modern term "Zomia" that spans a much wider hilly region in south and southeast Asia). It cannot be said that it was simply a matter of largesse by the Meitei kings that the administration was left in the hands of local chiefs, but rather inherent in the nature of the situation of a hill-valley divide. Section 4.5 of the Andrew Kamei's book (citation 7) discusses the various scholarly views of the pre-colonial context. In particular, it mentions the practice of "loipotkaba", where "the conquered tribe mostly those in the vicinity of the valley who were otherwise not under the administration of the monarch would have to pay an annual tribute to the Meitei king failing which reprisals would be undertaken". Gangmumei Kamei (citation 2) states, "In the pre-colonial period, the hill people lived as independent and sovereign nations in their respective chiefdoms, free from any external control.". This is similar to the "suzerainty but not sovereignty" view in the Tibetan sovereignty debate.

I also don't see any need to bring in the supposed "divide and rule policy" of the British, a common trope in post-colonial literature, since the divide clearly existed in pre-colonial Manipur. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• C . As a previous editor mentioned, it seems to provide a clearer picture of the background.Tms369 (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• B: B is an update to A after further discovery during the DRN discussion mentioned above (archived). There were two major findings during the DRN discovery.

1. Finding 1: Scott's formulation of Zomia is the predominant framework used by scholars working on Northeast India issues. The reference cited by u:Tms369 is a PhD thesis published (2023/2024) that is a novel application of an alternative framework that was defined by Focault, even as the author admit's Scott's formulation is the predominant one. Since this is a novel application in the study of Northeast India and is yet to be noted by the wider scholarship it is WP:FRINGE and, therefore, is not enough to remove the Zomia reference from the text in A or B.
2. Finding 2: Additional references accessed during discovery that specifically deal with the history of administration of the hills reinforce claims from earlier references that the hills were not administered by the valley in the pre-colonial period; that the British staked claim to the hills in 1891 but did not introduce administrative structures immediately; that the administrative strictures were only gradually introduced in steps leading to the Kuki rebellion in 1917-19 in which the British put down the rebellion forcefully; and that the British implemented full administrative command soon after the Kuki rebellion.
3. Furthermore: Option C is unacceptable because it is not supported by WP:RS, even though it is more verbose and seems to explain the conflict to an audience that is unaware of the literature already available. Rather this text verbalizes the rhetoric that one side of the conflict is making—that the hills were historically under control of the valley kingdom and thus the valley dispensation has a right to the land in the hills and that the people of the valley and the hills were same and that they were "divided" by the British. This is clearly a partisan point of view in this claim which is not supported by scholarship (WP:POV). This text is unacceptable in Wikipedia.

Chaipau (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• C. This clearly describes the administrative policy of the British during that time.16:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Gy9$y (talk)

• C . per InvadingInvader. DSP2092^talk 09:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure

Link to old DRN discussion

Tms369, please provide WP:Full citations and page numbers for the Version C so that it can be inserted into the page. It also occurs to me that we never properly verified if the content is as per the sources. The content suggests that the chiefs or "Khullakpas" were gone after 1891. Do the sources really say this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe I had already given all the page numbers in the DRN discussion page. I'll give it here again if you want to add the page numbers to the footnote.

Sitlhou, H. (2015). Confronting the State: Land Rights Discourse in the Hills of Manipur. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(30), 70–77 (pp 71-72)

Kshetri, R. (2006). District Councils in Manipur (p 3-5)

Dena, L. (2014). British policy towards Manipur, 1762-1947, Third Edition (p 60,82-84,75)

Kamei, A. L. (2023). Governmentality: Power and Counter Conduct in Northeast India’s Manipur and Nagaland. Taylor & Francis (pt 80)

FYI I am done with this discussion which has dragged on for multiple months. Tms369 (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

After perusal of concerned dispute, closed discussion, and DRN, edit is made in the relevant section. In view of WP:BALANCE, contested view is also kept. For the order, consensus view is kept first followed by older contested view. Hope it is acceptable for editors/users on both sides of the dispute. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Manipur Violence 2023

This link may please be refer

https://www.ifp.co.in/manipur/cocomi-spokesperson-khuraijam-athouba-focuses-on-narco-terrorists-mercenaries-at-unhr-session-yet-again Manoj63h (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"Attempts & Appeals for Peace" Section - Opinion

There should also be section mentioning various attempts to bring peace from this violence with a suitable heading. Yes or no? If no, why? If yes, under what section heading? And please bring up all the attempts (it occurs to me that various parties including, global bodies, neighbouring states, government bodies, CSOs, communities have called for and attempts made to bring peace). It will be unfair to all those attempts and appeals by not having a section mentions. Talks and opinions please? Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Please note that this is an encyclopedia. We have WP:NOTNEWS, and nothing called "fairness".

If you can state which peace initiatives were notable, we would have some idea of what you have in mind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 If I am getting it right, in your opinion:

1. There should not be such a section
2. Reason is WP:NOTNEWS
3. There is no fairness or unfairness of article, section, and wikipedia
4. You are not aware of any notable peace initiatives
5. You would want me to talk out my mind so that you have some idea of what is in my mind

• Please correct if state wrongly.

Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I have now put in bold what I wrote, so that you can read it again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Thank you for making your point a bit clearer. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Latest official data

Of the 166 civilians killed in the Manipur violence, 98 have been identified as members of the Kuki-Zo community while 67 hailed from the Meitei community, revealed information provided by the Manipur government to a Supreme Court appointed committee. In addition, one woman was from the Naga community. In all, nineteen women from both communities (Kuki-Zo and Meitei) were killed in the ethnic violence till October 7. Data also shows that most of those killed were in the age group of 30 to 40 years while five were minors, including a seven-year-old boy.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/manipur-government-data-shows-kin-of-less-than-half-the-victims-paid-compensation/article67583885.ece 2409:40E1:E:1B36:19D3:340D:DC93:6913 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Manipur

"Manipur Violence caused by External Agression and influx of thousands of refugees and illegal immigrants from Myanmar, Bangladesh " Please refer the BBC news reference

First time in the history of BBC, they came out with a true picture of MANIPUR VOILENCE. It is neither A HINDU-CHRISTIAN FIGHT NOR A HINDU -MUSLIM FIGHT. IT IS THE FIGHT FOR THE DOMINANCE OF OPIUM FIELDS AROUND HILL AREAS.

INDIAN MEDIA WAS GIVING IT A COMMUNAL COLOUR to defame Modiji and BJP and all the opposition parties had grabbed the opportunity to kick back BJP.

Congress definitely has a  hand in it as it has got a CHINESE CONNECTION. MAY BE WRITTEN IN THE MOU signed by PAPPU AND HIS MOM.

The naked parade could be knowingly and willingly carried out one as Woman also is involved in the billion dollar opium business AND there is a VIDEO OF NAKED WOMEN MOVING AROUND BEATING POLICE WITH A BATON snatched away from the policeman.

This is BIG. A Generally Anti-India BBC acknowledges below facts regarding Manipur violence :

• No its not about Christians vs Hindus or Hill vs Valley - they have lived peacefully together for ages*

• Its about THE WAR ON DRUGS*

• The underlying tensions in Manipur stem from a complex interplay of various factors, one of which is a crackdown on drugs in recent years. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led state government, under Chief Minister N Biren Singh, who is a Meitei, launched a controversial campaign targeting poppy farming.*

• Since 2017, his government claims to have destroyed more than 18,600 acres of poppy farms, the majority of them in Kuki-inhabited areas.*

• Manipur has long battled a drug-addiction crisis and is among four north-eastern Indian states bordering Myanmar, the world's second-largest opium producer*

• A paper pasted on a corrugated tin wall declared local support for a "war on drugs". A local "committee for the war on drugs" urged people to stop poppy plantation and "save our generation".*

• The scale of poppy farming in these parts is unclear. According to official figures, more than 730 acres of poppy farms in Imphal East district - home to 16% of Manipur's estimated 3.3 million people, and including Naga, Meitei and Nepali inhabited villages - have been destroyed since 2017.*

• Then there's the brewing fault line over undocumented illegal immigrants from Myanmar, a country with which Manipur shares a near-400km (248-mile) border. Stickers bearing the message "go back, Burmese refugees" have begun appearing on storefronts and residences across Meitei villages.*

• A state government panel identified 2,187 immigrants from Myanmar in four districts of Manipur until end-April. An official note spoke of a "large number of illegal migrants" and said the "recent violence was fuelled by influential illegal poppy cultivators and drug lords from Myanmar settling in Manipur".*

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-66161535

• Please share maximum, for information of the public at large*

Manoj63h (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2023

Add in Recurrent violence section

13 Meitei men were found dead in Tengnoupal. Their bodies were found near forested area killed by unknown people.

sources-

https://scroll.in/latest/1060163/manipur-13-meiteis-found-dead-in-tengnoupal-identified

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/our-worst-nightmare-13-men-found-dead-in-manipur-identified-came-from-across-valley-districts-9055843/

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/13-slain-manipur-youths-identified-families-seething-over-govt-failure/article67607910.ece 2409:40E1:1071:E7F9:18D2:BADA:DB5D:8391 (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  23:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023/Change name to Manipur Conflict

Well there haven't been any update since September but so much happened in the conflict since and are still continuing, at this point the title should be changed to Manipur Conflict as it is a full scaled armed conflict, has been since the start of it. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Also I urge more active participation and adding of the latest information. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Contribution of foreign hand

Union Home Minister in his speech in parliament said the influx of refugees from Myanmar is contributing to the conflict. This along with reaction of Kukis has been reported in national media, namely, The Hindu, on August 10, 2023, entitled "Home Minister’s remarks draw sharp reactions from Kuki groups in India, Myanmar". Jamesoinam (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 Manipur violence caused by Kukis

2023 Manipur violence caused by Kukis who are not original settlers of Manipur but only during the British reign.

For more details please refer to the authentic information

https://www.e-pao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=manipur.Ethnic_Races_Manipur.The_Kukis_in_Manipur_Part_2_By_M_Ranjit 106.213.80.99 (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG are not reliable sources for history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Add about - "2 Meitei students killed"

Add this

• 2 Meitei students missing from Imphal presumed killed after photos surface - (https://indianexpress.com/article/india/manipur-two-meitei-students-missing-imphal-killed-8956292/)
• 'We Saw the Photos': Father of One of the 2 Missing Students Killed in Manipur - (https://www.thequint.com/news/india/manipur-violence-photos-of-dead-bodies-meitei-students-surface)
• Photos of bodies of two Meitei students who went missing in July surface on social media - (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/photos-of-bodies-of-two-meitei-students-who-went-missing-in-july-surface-on-social-media/article67346320.ece)
• Manipur news: Thousands of students protest in Imphal over deaths of two missing Meitei youths - (https://www.livemint.com/news/india/manipur-news-thousands-of-students-protest-in-imphal-over-deaths-of-two-missing-meitei-youths-11695719921752.html)
• In Manipur Horror, Pics Show 2 Students Killed, 2 Armed Men Behind Them - (https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/in-manipur-horror-pics-show-2-students-killed-2-armed-men-behind-them-4423464)
• Manipur Bans Mobile Internet Again Amid Protests Over Dead Students' Photos - (https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/manipur-reimposes-mobile-internet-ban-till-october-1-4426141)

103.251.217.210 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: There were about 200 people killed in the violence. Individual details about some of them may be added in due course, but we can't just highlight one case. It would be WP:UNDUE. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this deserves a mention in the Recurrent violence section as protests by thousands of students in school uniforms happened for the first time. This incident caused mass media coverage across India and globally after a relative calm. The Internet ban was reimposed. For the first time, a CBI team led by Special Director, Ajay Bhatnagar, arrived in Manipur.

[3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BFbBSzsdrI

Lairencha (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the current blow-up in Imphal does need to be covered. Please feel free to suggest text to add, along with citations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

On 25 September 25, photographs of two Meitei students, Phijam Hemjit (20 years old) and Hijam Linthoingambi (17 years old), surfaced on social media. They were residents of Tera Tongbram Leikai in Imphal and had gone missing on June 6.[4] One of the photographs showed the two students siting in a forest area with two armed men at the background.[5] Another photograph showed the lifeless bodies of the two students lying on the ground. In the following days, students in Imphal protested against the killing of these two students. Manipur Police and Rapid Action Force were accused of resorting to use of excessive force, tear gas, and pellet guns. [6] Hundreds of students were injured in the protests. Among the injured were a student who had more than 40 pellet bullets on his skull, another student whose shoulder was shattered by pellets allegedly fired from a closed range, and a third student who got blinded in one eye. [7] [8][9][10] [11] On 28 September, the Manipur government constituted a committee to verify the complaints of alleged excessive use of force on protestors by security forces.[12]  The protests also led to the govenment banning mobile internet again till October 6. [13] The internet ban was earlier lifted after five months on September 23.[14]

On September 30, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested a man from Churachandpur for being part of a "transnational conspiracy by terror outfits based in Myanmar and Bangladesh to “wage war” against the Government of India by exploiting the current ethnic unrest in Manipur. [15] [16] [14] On October 1, the Central Bureau of Investogations (CBI) arrested four people from Churachandpur for the killing of the two Meitei students. [17][18][19] The arrests led to Indigenous Tribal Leaders Forum (ITLF) in Churachandpur calling for a shut down of the district.[20] The NIA and CBI have refuted accusations of being high handed and said no partiality have been shown against any community and the rule book of the Indian Penal Code jas been abided by. [21] Lairencha (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2024

<Cause of incident:Abuse of power> Sappling grows (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

Before 3rd of may there was already violence taken place in kuki dominated areas of Churachandpur where Meitei temples were vandalised https://www.indiatodayne.in/manipur/story/manipur-unrest-in-churachandpur-as-protests-turn-violent-550326-2023-04-28 . In the due course of the violence several meitei innocent civilians have been killed by the Kuki Militants https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/three-killed-in-fresh-violence-in-manipur/article67161087.ece . Two meitei students were killed by the kuki militants namely Linthoingambi and Hemanjit https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/cbi-arrests-4-people-in-connection-with-killing-of-two-manipuri-youths/articleshow/104091228.cms , the public came to know this when the images of their murder went viral in social media on September 2023. As of now their bodies have not been recovered. The Manipur Government announced that this is an external aggression as there are several reports of involvement of Myanmar rebel group PDF siding with the kuki militants https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2023/Aug/06/manipur-myanmar-binary-blame-junta-not-its-victims-2602636.html . The Central Government also stated in the parliament that the root cause of the violence is due to illegal immigration of Kukis from Myanmar https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/centre-blaming-myanmar-migrants-for-manipur-violence-is-dangerous/article67212603.ece as a reult the Government Of India has now banned the free movement regime with Myanmar https://www.livemint.com/news/india-calls-for-immediate-suspension-of-free-movement-regime-with-myanmar-amit-shah-11707376441979.html , also the Union Govt. has confirmed border fencing along the entire 1643km long Indo-Myanmar border https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/modi-govt-decides-to-construct-fence-along-1643-km-indo-myanmar-border-home-minister-amit-shah/articleshow/107463621.cm . EditorNex (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no mention of "Meitei temples" in the first source. This article is about the "ethnic violence", as mentioned in the lead sentence. The other events only form the background, and are covered in the "Background" section as needed per WP:DUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Illegal immigrants

I was curious about this edit of Iskandar323, which introduced this passage under the summary of "copyediting".

In 2023, the state government in Manipur began efforts to remove what it claimed where illegal immigrants from settlements in reserve forest areas. Officials stated that illegal immigrants from Myanmar had been settling in Manipur since the 1970s.

References

In a later edit, they deleted the scratched out phrase.

The first sentence apparently comes from this statement in the source:

But Meiteis say that the protest against ST status is just a facade. The Kukis are unnerved by the state government's drive to remove illegal immigrants from settlements in reserve forest areas.

The second sentence from these statements in the source:

"Kukis are migrating illegally from across the Myanmar border and occupying forest land in Manipur. Recently, the Manipur government started an eviction drive to clear illegal settlements in reserve forest areas. The drive was in all areas, including those inhabited by Meiteis and Muslims, but only the Kukis are protesting," says Chand Meetei Pocshangbam of the All Meitei Council.

"Meiteis are demanding an NRC because of the sudden population spike in the last two decades in areas bordering Myanmar. Illegal immigrants from Myanmar have been settling in Manipur since 1970s but the movement has intensified now," he says.

Apparently, "Chand Meetei Pochshangbam of the All Meitei Council" has turned into "officials", and his claims climbed out of the quote marks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

If you check the diff, I didn't introduce the material, but merely moved it from one section to another. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is the block of edits that you made. This content wasn't present before your edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Change it as you see fit. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Background section on refugees

I have deleted from the mainspace a huge section on refugees from Myanmar, which is growing and growing. Please note that material in the background sections has to be validated by sources that connect it to the present topic. You can't simply add whatever you personally think is relevant. That would be considered WP:OR. Also, all the material concerning Mizoram should be deleted. Pinging Chaipau for his input.

The renewed outbreak of civil war in Myanmar has caused an influx of refugees in the states of Manipur and Mizoram. Dozens of illegal immigrants, including ex-security, forces reportedly entered Manipur. In July 2023, there were an estimated 50,000 refugees who had fled into India.

While the Myanmar refugees are given familial treatment with compassion to take shelter by the state government of Mizoram, the Manipur government's view on the matter is somewhat divergent. Dominant Zo-Kuki demographic of Manipur's Churachandpur district which borders the state of Mizoram, and the dominant Mizos have strong ethnic relation with each other and also with Kukis of Myanmar. While Chief Minister Zoramthanga of Mizoram, under his governance, shows a sense of compassion towards refugees including ex-forces of Myanmar, at least some Zo-Kuki portion in Manipur are not happy with the attitude of Manipur government, under the leadership of Chief Minister N Biren Singh, towards them who are, if not together, in the proximity of Myanmar immigrants.

In addition to the influx, drug trafficking, spillover of the war and the Myanmar junta's use of aerial bombing and napalm has destabilized the border region. In January 2023, the Myanmar Air Force carried out airstrikes targeting the Myanmar-based Chin National Army's headquarters, near the India-Myanmar border. The air attacks violated Indian airspace and soil, according to local Mizo organizations and the international research and advocacy organization Fortify Rights. India expressed its concern to the junta about its military actions near its sensitive northeastern region in the wake of massive exodus of refugees into India. Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah stated that the influx of Kuki people from Myanmar created insecurity amongst the Meitei people of Manipur and triggered the violence. According to ground reports, many refugees also brought arms with them and instigated drug turf wars.

References

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the paring down by @Kautilya3. Immigration as a contributing factor has emerged ex post facto, after the fact, and should not be placed in the background section. Chaipau (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The sub-section had a lot of contribution from my side. Would have considered looking if it fits in other sections example: Overview. I don't fully agree removing all of it as such as it also explains genuine sentiments of the Kukis, to some extent their displeasure towards the Manipur govt. vis-a-vis Mizoram govt. which also had some voiced audibly. But anyways if two editors agree on the same edit (more of a deletion), I respect. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2024

Addition of Aigejang Shooting to the See Also section. Minmarion (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 On hold pending whether the page Aigejang Shooting passes review by new page patrollers or not. If so, will add. —Sirdog (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, no harm in just adding it now. If the link becomes red enough people are watching this page where it'll be swiftly removed.  Done. —Sirdog (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Recurrent violence

After perusal of the content and sources cited, I have removed these

"On 17 June, the Archbishop of Imphal stated that 249 churches have been burnt in Manipur.

The state police face allegations of siding with the dominant Meitei community. In an effort to call for peace, opposition leaders visited the violence-affected areas on 29 July.

On 14 December bodies of 64 recently killed were handed to their families."

Reasons:

1. WP:Relevance of content - The content does not have any relevance at all to the section (Recurrent violence)
2. Also in view of MOS:Oversection
3. Without any relevance to the section and far from Manual of Style, it is bloating the article

If any of our respected editors and anyone for that matter think it otherwise, please come up with your valuable points, so that we can discuss.

Thank you. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2024

Please also highlight the fact that most of the encroachers evicted by the current dispensation are from the Meitei community. 122.164.102.52 (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

393 temples supposedly destroyed

Link to revert

Luwanglinux, Two sources were provided for this claim:

• "'Religious conflict narrative is misleading'". www.thesangaiexpress.com. Retrieved 2024-06-24.
• "Meitei churches not spared by Kukis". Imphal Free Press. Retrieved 2024-06-24.

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. 🐲 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 ? 🐲 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 🐲 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 🐲 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. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

References

"Claimed"

Luwanglinux, 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. 🐲 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. 🐲 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:

Of the 350 Churches torched in the course of the violence, more than 50 per cent belonged to the Meitei Christians. As such, the narrative that the violence is a religious conflict is highly misleading, they said.

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:

Philem Rohan Singh, a popular Meitei Christian travel vlogger who has become the face of the community, told New Lines that “people from these groups [Meitei Leepun and Arambai Tenggol] may have been involved but largely this has come from the Leikai [village neighborhood] committees exacting personal revenge from the Christian families.... Rohan Singh also contested the “communal” narrative — that there were fault lines within the Meiteis — alleging instead that the churches were destroyed by the Kuki-Zos.

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.

He shared a list of 13 such churches, of which New Lines verified that 10 were still standing, unharmed.

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.

“They burnt our vehicles and vandalized Church property on May 3 and May 4 by Kuki people following the same faith”, a Meitei Christian victim from Churachandpur, Warrepam Sobha Meitei told media persons at Manipur Press Club today. Ofcourse they didn’t burnt our Church because there are many houses of the Kuki people in the surroundings. But their motive was cleared they looted and took our church property and vandalized in the campus, Sobha said adding that why the Kuki Christian followers destroyed the churches run by the Meitei people. Another Meitei Christian Victims of the violence Pastor Angom Shantikumar said that his Church – Manipur Baptist Church located at Sugnu Zouveng in Kakching district was vandalized by a mob on May 28 evening and later burnt by the armed Kuki militants. “We – all communities of the Sugunu area formed a peace committee to maintain harmony in the region but all of a sudden on May 27, we were told to leave the area as the Kuki militants were reportedly targeting the Meitei people”, He said adding that the Church was surrounded by the Kuki Villages and later we vacated the area our church was attacked and burnt...

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

References

Manipur kingdom

Luwanglinux, 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:

In the pre-colonial period, the hill people lived as independent and sovereign nations in their respective chiefdoms, free from any external control.

Historically, the valley region of the state was under a monarchical system, whereas the hill areas are under tribal sovereigns.

Ever since the colonial government brought the hill areas by annexation into the fold of Manipur, which was then only the Imphal Valley, the hill tribes and the valley community have been "living together separately," with certain separate administrative arrangements.

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 🐲 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 🐲 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 Luwanglinux 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 Chaipau, 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.

Our first acquaintance with the Nagas practically began in 1832, when Captain Jenkins and Lieutenant Pemberton escorted by Rajah Ghumbeer Singh's Manipur troops, forced a passage through the tu Us with a view to ascertaining if there were a practicable route into Assam. They came via Paptongmai and Samagudting to Mohong Deejood. There is every reason to believe that the Manipuris in former days did penetrate into the Naga Hills, and exacted tribute when they felt strong enough to do so. All the villages have Manipur names in addition to their own. But during the period of her decadence, just before and during the Burmese War of 1819-25, any influence Manipur may have possessed fell into abeyance. At that time it was re-asserted, and Ghumbeer Singh reduced several villages to sub-mission, including the largest of all, Kohima, at which place he stood upon a stone and had his foot-prints sculptured on it, in token of conquest. This was set up in a prominent position, together with an upright stone bearing carved figures and an inscription. The Nagas greatly respected this stone and cleaned it from time to time. They opened a large trade with Manipur, and whenever a Manipuri visited a Naga village he was treated as an honoured guest, at a time when a British subject could not venture into the interior without risk of being murdered.Even up to the Naga Hills campaign of 1879-80, the Nagas regarded Manipur as the greater power of the two, because her conduct was consistent; if she threatened, she acted. One British subject after another might be murdered with impunity, but woe betide the village that murdered a subject of Manipur. A force of Manipuris was instantly despatched, the village was attacked, destroyed, and ample compeiisation exacted. The system answered well for Manipur; many of the Nagas began to peak Manipuri, and several villages paid an annual tribute. Still, up to 1851, we considered that we had some shadowy claim to the hills; though we never openly asserted it.

The Manipuris conquered the Kale-Kabaw valley, and Zimme with other frontier states became independent.Sinbyushin ruled from 1714 to 1733.

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).

I shall now proceed to describe generally the territory of Muneepoor, through which lie the routes leading from the districts of Sylhet and Cachar to the Ningthee river, and central portion of the northern provinces of Ava. 1st. The country inhabited by the Muneepoorees is, by the Burmahs called Kathe, which term they equally apply to the people ; by the inhabitants of Cachar it is named Moglie ; by those of Assam, Meklee, and by the Shans, or those who inhabit the country east of the Ningthee or Khyendwen river, it is known as Casaay, of which term the Burmese word KathC is a corruption. Such avariety of names, to designate the same tract-of country, has created much difficulty to our geographers ; and even in the latest maps, published within the last three or four years, the same errors and mistakes are found, which characterised the very first attempt to illustrate the geography of this remote corner of our Indian possessions. Cassay is in these maps still represented as a separate kingdom, lying to the south of the Muneepoor Territories, and the features of the whole country are in numerous instances totally distorted.

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. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 20:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 🐲 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 Chaipau wrote the initial paragraphs. See Talk:2023–2024 Manipur violence/Archive 1#Changing Manipur's history and boundary?. 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. (Mackenzie, Relations with the Hill Tribes 2012, p. 150).

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

• Kamei, Andrew Lathuipou (2023), Governmentality: Power and Counter Conduct in Northeast India's Manipur and Nagaland, Taylor & Francis, pp. 72–74, ISBN 9781000953664

-- 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.

• The state formation started in the valley, and the kings subsequently established their control over the tribes in the hills.

• Manipur, known through various names in the region between South Asia and South-East Asia, history records its existence as a sovereign Asiatic kingdom since ancient times. Known as Kathe to the Burmese, Meklee to the Ahoms, Mooglei or Moglai to the Cacharies, Cassey to the Shans, the people of this land have undergone several ordeals in the course of its long drawn civilizational history. Historically evolved practices over the centuries...Through a long process from the 1st century A.D to 15th century the Meitei came into existence as an organised state during the reign of king Kyamba (1467-1508) with the internationally recognisation of its sovereign status by Shan king of upper Burma side by side with the mutual demarcation of the boundaries(A. Lokendra Singh, 1986:3). The recognition of the internationally entity of the Meitei state (kingdom) by powerful king of upper Burma in 15th century proved the power and strength of Meitei union. As a result of the fusion of Indo-Aryan and Mongoloid peoples, the nucleus of the Manipuri (Meiteilon)—speaking people of today was formed and this nucleus is believed to have formed in the first centuries of the Christian era (R.K. Jhalajit Singh, 1992:20). The Meitei language marked the symbol of the Meitei nationality and on the basis of its unilingual character the Meitei kingdom stood a nation state (Gangmumei Kamei, 2010:20)

• Manipur Kingdom gradually developed from chieftaincy to a state (Battacharjee,2003: 365).The central plain had witnessed the evolution of a powerful kingdom from many petty principalities each independent of one another.Meitei, Angom,Moirang, Khaba Nganba, Khuman, Chenglei and Luwang were the seven tribes who interacted and fought among one another over centuries until their final emergence as one Meitei tribe (Manikchand, 2014: 18–20). The ‘Loiyumba Shinyen’ named after King....On the other hand, in the hills, the Chief of each tribe held autonomy over his principality and allotted some surplus as a sign of tribute for the King in the valley. This gestured a friendly relationship, and they remained allies. In cases where the dues were not paid, the king sent for an ambush or invaded villages, thereby imposing his suzerainty and collecting tributes. Ethel Grimwood mentioned how Thangal General12 was feared upon as he destroyed villages in hills for non-payment of revenue (Grimwood, 1975: 61–62). Once the King withdrew, these villages enjoyed their independence and were hardly intervened

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. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 04:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Pemberton unearthed a Shan chronicle in Manipur, which pertains to the historical account of the kingdom of Pong located in upper Burma. Numerous researchers from Britain, India, and Burma have engaged in extensive discourse over the identification quandary surrounding the kingdom of Pong and its potential correlation with the Moguang realm of Mau Shans in upper Burma. According to the Shan chronicles, there is evidence of a historical relationship between the kingdom of Pong and Manipur dating back to 777 CE. This connection is established by the visit of Prince Samlongpha, who stopped near Moirang while returning from Tripura. “The fact of this visit is also recorded in the ancient chronicles of Manipur though the period assigned to it is earlier by sixty years than that given in the Shan chronicle -a discrepancy in dates, which it was equally vain and useless to attempt to reconcile" (R. B. Pemberton, 1835, p. 114).He also made reference to the historical occurrence in the year 1475 CE, under the leadership of Kyamba, wherein a joint offensive was launched by the monarch of Pong and Manipur against the subordinate ruler of Khumbat. Additionally, he has substantiated these facts by cross-referencing the records from Ava, with a minor discrepancy of approximately three to four years, as documented in the chronicles of Manipur.Pemberton provides a concise overview of the political landscape in Manipur, spanning from the era of Garibniwaj to the reign of Gambhir Singh, culminating in the signing of the Yandabu peace treaty in 1826 CE. During the course of his analysis, he extensively examined the deep-seated reluctance of the Meiteis towards the Burmese domination, and further attributed the sentiment of animosity towards the Burmese to the influence of religious prejudice and fanaticism. He had also provided a satisfactory allocation of the advanced military position of Manipur to safeguard the eastern frontier, as well as the different military routes and passes that connect it with the British possessions and those of Ava

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. 🐲 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)

Luwanglinux, here is a summary of the quotes you have provided.

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)

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" ) [22] 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.

Besides,the rulers of Manipur also did not interfere into the village level judicial administration of the hill areas except in sensational cases and the inter-village or inter-tribal conflicts.The inter-tribal disputes were administered directly by the reigning kings and punishments were given according to the nature of crimes committed. In most of the cases of inter-village or inter-tribal disputes, the ring leaders who incited the feuds were either killed or imposed heavy fines

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. 🐲 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)

After the conquest of Kyang Khambat, the two parties signed a treaty of friendship which fixed the boundary between Manipur and the Pong kingdom. Cheitharol Kumbaba mentioned the territorial boundaries of the two independent kingdoms: “Moongkhong Muwai was to be the northern border of Manipur and the land of dwarf mango groves was for Pong; in the east, the territory of Manipur limits to the Loichari Hills...Some facts relating to the works of consolidation in Kabaw Valley are given below- First, during the time of Khagemba, the king posted officials at important places like Tammu and Angoching Hills. He also sent his forces time and again to suppress any act of rebellion..“the people of Samsok who fled were asked to come back, and on Sunday, the 13th March,1725, the king of Manipur, after performing funeral rites of those killed, went up to the Ningthee to have rest.” It justifies that Samsok was under the direct administration of Manipur. Accepting it G. Kabui also wrote, “Samsok was a great source of revenue because of the tribute in form of paddy ”... Cheitharol Kumbaba again records: “On Tuesday, the 2nd January, 1738 (Leipakpokpa, 3rd Wakching), Moirang Yumthangba, who had gone to Samsok to improve irrigation canals also came back.”53 Lastly, the same source also expresses: “On 9th Lamda, 1738, Nongthonba Yumthangba left for the Kabaw Valley to develop land...

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. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 09:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

References

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. "

Notes

References

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)

As there is no significant counterpoint for a long time, the part as discussed is removed for the reasons as discussed above.

Removed part:

"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." Thank you. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have also removed the statement from the section:

"Some of them also fired on the security forces, resulting in gunshot injuries to an Army major."

Reasons:

WP:OR

WP:SOURCEMIS

WP:5P2

- The statement is a conclusion not stated by the source cited.

- Broadly misinterpretation of cited source.

- Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.

If any contributor has other views, please feel free to discuss. Happy editing, and happy discussion. Thank you. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)