Talk:Puya Meithaba

Additions

User:Luwanglinux, you are requested to discuss your additions at the talk-page, prior to inserting them. I don't understand why the popular narrative about introduction of untouchability (irrespective of historical accuracy) is even relevant. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Well TrangaBellam historical accounts of Manipur are not properly researched yet there were even finding of very old ornaments and material by archaeological team at Kangla which dates back to BC period but it was not published in reputable journal or newspaper of India yet. Its too easy for you guys to claim everything as dubious.But we native of Manipur knows our history based on primary historical records, its so funny Kautilya pointed Puya Meithaba like a folk tale, if so Garib Nawaz should be a folktale too.There were no untouchability in Manipur before advent of Vaishanvism or hinduism.Its fact but there is no journal , even sources from news agency like epao.net is considered as dubious website by you guys? Am I wrong?. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 18:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Please note that this is not a forum. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you discuss on talk page while inserting texts on Puya Meithaba or completely removing everything of the previous version? Only emphasizing what you wrote on History of Manipur in this main article too, I am not taking talk page as forum, just answer why do you delete reference taken from book published in Manipur or news reference epao.net as unreliable reference most of the time. I will try to find some more reliable source for that untouchability in detail 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 19:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3 gave the reply somewhere. Nobody forbids those who publish books in Manipur from publishing in international journals of repute. Once they do, their narratives will be covered as well. E-Pao is some kind of hybrid news-blog and certainly inferior to journals of history. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Manipur's local publications will always be underrated compared to national and international publications. This is the same for all individual regions of India, or of any other country for that matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Myth or Historical event

The title of the Journal is "Boundaries Blurred? Folklore, Mythology, History and the Quest for an Alternative Genealogy in North-east India" also the paragraph state

In 1729, however, the Manipuri King Gariba Nawaz formally converted to Hindu sect known as Vaishnavism and orderd the entire sect to follow suit. Myth and controversies abound this disruptive event in Manipuri history. It is said the king assembled many of the puyas or religious manuscript of pre hindu religion and burnt them.Ancient manuscript fell out of use in the community and the people who refused to convert referred to as "loi" and exiled. The loi living on the outskirt of the valley still attest to this history today...Meitei Clans were given name of hindu clans or gotras..

Historicity of the event can't be totally ruled out Manipuri people were the sole witness of that event, it was even recorded in Cheitharol Kumbaba the royal chronicle of Manipur. Only controversies is regarding the exact date as Manipur follow its own date Maliyafampalcha Kumsing that time.

Also see this Imphaltimes article analyzing the historicity and background of the event [1] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

This too [2] -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luwanglinux (talk • contribs)

Folk history does not mean false history. It just means that the information has come down to us through folklore. We will never know whether it is true or false, unless some historical evidence comes to light. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Historical event and folklore are quite different, historical evidence as well as effect of Puya Meithaba are already there in Cheitharol Kumbaba as primary source it happened in 17th century. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 12:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3TrangaBellam Is this enough historical evidence of burning of Puya in 17th century , it even mentioned the page of Cheitharol Kumbaba..

Chethaba Kumbaba also records another unfortunate event o f burnt down o f the entire sacred books (puyas) of Meeteis which were collected from in the hand o f scholars and religious philosopher on 17th o f October, Sunday 1732.

Puya meeithabaor burning down of entire Meeteisacred books which were collected from in the hands of scholars and religious in 1732 and the mode of preaching, receptiveness of the people particularly the Brahmins, external influences intelligently channelized through the ruling house and the influence of the varnaorder, that the Hindu religion is so wedded to daily life in the medieval Manipuri society. This research study will analysis the major transformations in the cultural base with the emergence of Hinduism in Manipur in dance, literature, architecture, songs, music and drama, within the context of a synthesis or assimilation of native literary, legendry and historical materials in which the prevailing culture underwent assimilation and projected further in the post-Hindu traditional performances of Manipur.

taken from this [3][4] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 15:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

A philosophy PhD from within Manipur? No. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

what difference does it make if she is from within Manipur not mainland India?, She is a research associate and the journal was written with strong references...ok now what about this

IntheOctoberof1732A.D.,heorderedtheincinerationofthe PUYAS.ThisisknownasthePUYAMEITHABAwhichmeans the “burning of the PUYAS” (Lalit). PUYAS literary means the “stories of the forefathers”.Thosewhoopposedtheking’sorderedfledtheland andwhateverremainsoftheManipuriscriptwashiddenawaytobesavedfromthe wrathof theking(Ray,2009)

source is this [5] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 16:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

You believe that a professor of media studies from a (deemed) university publishing over their own journal, which is not indexed by any international database of repute, is the ideal source to contradict Sohini Ray, a former professor of anthropology and Carmen Brandt, a faculty of contemporary South Asian Studies at University of Bonn? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean to say the historical evidence exist in Cheitharol Kumbaba as well as in books written by Manipur scholars and it was published as a research paper by Manipur University, Dr Nunglekpam Premi Devi's work is available at international database.But Kautilya outrigtly rejected on the pretext that she is not a historian but a philosophy PHD. Also why can't the work of Manipur scholar contradict the dancer cum anthrapologist Ray Sohini view of an event that happened in Manipur recorded by royal chronicle of Manipur 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not insert random information from random sources without considering relative reliability. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

How is a thesis published by Manipur University under the guidance of an associate professor of arts stored by Shodhanga[6](The reservoir of Indian thesis) a random source? , Are you saying publication of Manipur University is not reliable ,And is Cheitharol Kumbaba not a reliable primary source 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 15:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3 has already replied A philosophy PhD from within Manipur? No. Cheitharol Kumbaba will be mentioned but along with caveats. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't throw Wikipedia policies at anyone who doesn't align with your views and opinions. Here is what Wikipedia says:

"A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view."

That paper was not published at a random place. It's from a reputed university.

When you say, "A philosophy PhD from within Manipur? No" that clearly shows your editorial bias. @Kautilya3, you seem to be perfectly okay with using a thesis written by Thongkholal Haokip when he was at the Department of Political Science, Presidency University, Kolkata for the "2023 Manipur Violence" article. But you didn't say, "A Political Science PhD from within Kolkata? No" to his article about hill administration and Zomia stuff. Are other Wikipedia editors seeing this @Kautilya3 manipulating Wikipedia policies? Are there no Wikipedia editors that can monitor biased editors like them? Roman3141 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

And Sohini Ray published that paper in 2009 when she was at Santa Monica College. And according to Wikipedia, "Santa Monica College (SMC) is a public community college in Santa Monica, California.". Let's present both views and move on, shall we? Roman3141 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Politican scientists can write about history. Both are social scieces and use similar methods to some extent. If there is a dispute between a political scientist and a historian on a historical matter, then we might have some tricky tuning to do, not otherwise. But please don't transport issues from one page to another where they don't belong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

And please don't use different yardsticks and arguments on different Wikipedia articles. Policies and guidelines need to be consistent across all Wikipedia articles. Roman3141 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC on edit dispute between user TrangaBellam, Kautilya and me on Puya Meithaba event

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

RFC about an event that happened in Manipur during King Pamheiba aka Garib Nawaz period, user Kautilya and TrangaBellam outrightly rejected every book or news or journal source from Manipur saying they are not reliable and random. They reverted my edit even if proper reliable source were added.Prove of the record of the event in Manipur royal chronicle Cheitharol Kumbaba is also rejected by them. Trying to reach consensus on talk page was not fruitful too. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 15:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This RFC lacks a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. Please provide a brief neutral statement or question that can be answered via RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hipocrite The question is about the historicity of the event which I am able to provide multiple reference that the event was recorded in royal chronicle of Manipur with even the date of the event.Should this event be considered as a historical event or a folktale as they claim. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 18:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. Please provide a brief neutral statement or question that can be answered via RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hipocrite Should puya meithaba be considered a historical event or not? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 20:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Given reliable sources dispute the historic nature of the burning, it would be inappropriate for it to be relayed as undisputed fact. Hipocrite (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added multiple reliable source which shows the historicity of the event , current version still lack mentioning of historicity as well as primary source of Cheitharol Kumbaba record about Puya Meithaba which was written in Meitei language . 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 10:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

On closer reading, Brandt seems to not reject the burning of the manuscripts, but that the destruction was not as extensive as claimed. She seems to show that the destruction of the manuscripts entailed destruction of just about 120 manuscripts, and not all Meitei scripts.

Although the latter fact is today often reinterpreted to enhance the sacredness of these manuscripts that could not be destroyed by fire, since they had either flown away or were written in waterproof ink and hidden underwater, it suggests that the intensity of the destruction drive of Garib Niwaz could not have been that extensive and definitive. ... one of the most important points for this article is that King Garib Niwaz seemingly did not specifically target the Meitei Mayek when he ordered the burning of manuscripts today ascribed to Sanamahism. This becomes most obvious in the fact that not all manuscripts in Meitei Mayek were burnt but rather, according to various sources, ‘only’ 120, 122, or 123. Furthermore, apart from The Court Chronicle of the Kings of Manipur (The Cheitharon Kumpapa), several other documents were written in this script, including during the reign of Garib Niwaz according to Wangam Somorjit.

Chaipau (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Chaipau Yes, Not all puya were burnt..some tried so hard to hide it..proof is Wakoklon Puya found in 19th century... it was mentioned in various sources of Manipur scholar that the number of books were roughly 120, Garib Nawaz attempt was not to banish Meitei script but Sanamahism.On reading of a puya(Wakoklon Heelel Thilel Salai Ama ilon pukok ) which was transcribed during Pamheiba times verified by archive of India as historic writing of early 18th century later found from Longa Koireng(little far from Imphal valley)..writes in lead in Meitei

Puya ase ningthem Pamheipa hakthakta sinthokpane lepna khangpiyo Pamheipa ningthem Hakthak faopata Maliyafampalcha cheihi Kumsing lee cheising cheichat 3107 sulapane Cheihiki kumhou ahanpa numit taki sinthokpa hwpana numit 15 ni changna wakching ki thanin ta loiye Lailik asi mangpa yatapana Chaopa eihakna sinthokhwpane lailik ase eenung eeyek khunung eeyek suplapa houfamki puya ne lepna khangpiyo

which means "This puya was copied or transcribed from original during King Pamheiba(Garibnawz) time It was 3107 Maliyampalcha Calendar year.This was copied since the beginning of Wakching(a meitei month) for 15 days and I Chaopa have copied it because this book should not be lost and know for certain this book is the composite origin of Eenung script and Khunung script. sources [7] [8] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 14:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is a translation of Wakoklon puya in Bengali Assamese script written in Manipuri language you can verify my english texts of Meitei words here [9] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 14:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Luwanglinux: WP:PRIMARY sources are not usable in Wikipedia. You may use them in talk pages, but they are no good if secondary sources contradict them. It might be fruitful to revisit WP:RS and read the already given secondary sources a little more closely and critically. Chaipau (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Yes I know primary source are not reliable and appropriate for wikipedia I am agreeing with you on the context that not all puya were burnt 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 16:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added history section and information with reference to reliable journals including Indian history congress publication 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 06:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

Since LL mentioned Wakoklon Puya up above, it is interesting to note Sohini Ray's comments over Ray, Sohini (2009). "Writing the Body: Cosmology, Orthography, and Fragments of Modernity in Northeastern India". Anthropological Quarterly. 82 (1): 137. ISSN 0003-5491., [T]here have been several controversies regarding the authenticity of the Wakoklon puya, and many segments of Meitei society still do not accept it as an authoritative text.

Caroline Brandt notes, [T]he authenticity of the Wakoklon Puya was challenged (mainly by Hindu scholars who doubted, for instance, the age of its language), dealt with in court, and is even today controversial. One reason for the doubts regarding the authenticity of this puya obviously lies in the fact that script activists did not only (re-)discover puyas, but also produced them, and thus themselves produced ‘authentic’ sources for the (re)invention of their tradition. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Yes, its the only puya which was tested by archive of India(National archive of India,Delhi) for its year of how old the puya is , as I told you from meitei texts translation this puya was indeed copied from original in early 18th century and "Manaba Apunba Marup" hold that certificate or paper about archaeological testing of this puya. Check this link[http://paochelsalaitaret.net/puya/puyaproof.pdf..After reading the puya I came to know that none of borrowed word are used in the writing.It only use ancient Meetei language...Its also one of the primary source we can rely on.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Step back --- this is a contemporary annual event

We need to step back. Brandt clearly says Puya Meithaba is an annual event held annually since 1979. I have added a full citation. This is clearly referring to a contemporary event, not the legendary event from the past. Chaipau (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Chaipau the Puya Meithaba has a historical background too, annual event is a new one it was meant to remember the event of the past. We can't remember some illusion.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 16:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Luwanglinux: I think it is best to go by WP:RS as has been explained. Chaipau (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I think I have provided enough Wp:RS I really need opinion from non involved party ,stating like step back in is like owning the article 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not WP:OWN but WP:BOLD. Please add your WP:RS. Caveat, we in Wikipedia cannot determine the historicity of the 18th-century event, we can only report what is being said. Chaipau (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Chaipau Please see this sources..[10] [11] [Bachaspatimayum, Mary (2011). "Changes in the Religion of the Nepalese of Manipur: Conversion and Acculturation". Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 5 (1): 34–52.] [Aggarwal, Kailash S (1992). "To include or not to include: An attempt to study the language conflict in Manipur". Language Problems and Language Planning. 16 (1): 21–37.] [Laisram, Rena (2013). Early Meitei History: Religion, Society and the Manipur Puyas.] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 18:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you quote the relevant part from the article by Kailash S Aggarwal? He writes (pg. 31), This burning of old manuscripts, popularly known as "Puya Meithaba", is said to have taken place at the beginning of the 19th century, when almost all the manuscripts in archaic script were burnt by royal decree.

Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal is not indexed over any reputed database. Not even in UGC Care, which seems to be India's Beall's List. So it is not reliable. the same goes for JHSS. I don't know what's there over the second link. Rena Laisram's book has been published by a local publisher and is not reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• WP:CITEVAR states If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article. Chaipau, please revert yourself. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think that Chaipau's framing of the subject as a commemorative event is good enough. (Though, Sebastian as well as Aggarwal deems the very burning to be Puya Meithaba, which is hardly incorrect.) I have removed a few redundant lines from his version and shifted a few lines too. A lead is unnecessary for such a short article. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Please consider reverting to the new citation style. The older citation style does not allow for specific full citation quotes.
• If this article is about the contemporary event, we need not discuss the historicity of the legendary event in the first paragraph. We need to address the significance of the contemporary event.
• I intend to add more relevant information as I discover this. Please do not presume the length of this article.

Chaipau (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I do not understand. I have not changed your citation style, yet?
• Though, Sebastian as well as Aggarwal deems the very burning to be Puya Meithaba.
• Sure, the article is a work in progress. If you discover much more information, a summary can be added back as lead. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• TrangaBellam exiled of loi are very much related to puya meithaba this event is even related with forced religion conversion. please do not act like you know everything about the article.Lets cooperate you have reverted more than thrice. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 19:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• For the last time, we need sources to clearly link exiles of lois with Puya Meithaba. Your belief that they are relevant to each other does not matter. My next step will be asking for you to be banned from the topic area, as the last administrator who blocked you had suggested. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

you are now threatening me? Did Ray Sohini exactly mentioned puya meithaba is a folk legendary event? I have read the journal.It only states On the Field site column

In 1729, however the Manipur king Garib Nawaz formally converted to the Hindu sect known as Vaishnavism and ordered the entire community to follow suit.Myths and controversies abound concerning this disruptive moment in Manipur history.It is said the king assembled many of the puya or religious manuscripts of the pre hindu religion and burn them.The ancient script fell out of use in the community and the people who refused to convert ,referred to as loi ,were exiled.The loi living on outskirt of the valley still attest to this history.

🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 20:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I have not added folk/legendary. Kautilya3 had and he explained his reasons, somewhere above. Why are you asking me?

She is summarizing the popular narrative about Garib Niwaz's reign. Such a summary about Niwaz's reign (as determined by reputed scholars) can be added as background but it need to be far nuanced and probably in a foot-note. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

She clearly mentioned myth and controversies abound this disruptive moment in Manipur history,(referring probably to the change of religion "disruptive moment") those myth and controversies are not exactly stated as Puya Meithaba. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 20:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

referring probably to the change of religion "disruptive moment" Roughly yes; you have got the subject of that particular paragraph. The subject is not Puya Meithaba. If it were so, all the details would have been relevant. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam User:Kautilya3 User:Chaipau Is this also not a reliable source for historicity of the event [Session, North East India History Association (1982). Proceedings of the North East India History Association. The Association.] on page 200 and this [Lisam, Khomdan Singh (2011). Encyclopaedia Of Manipur (3 Vol.). Gyan Publishing House. ISBN 978-81-7835-864-2.] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 20:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide the full quotation? You can try reading Singh, Aheibam Koireng; Singh, Sanasam Amal (2014). Bonfire of Books: Cataclysmic Rupture in the Early 18th Century Manipur. Centre for Manipur Studies, Manipur University. ISBN 978-81-8334-057-1.

An user (Serial 54169 or something similar) had pointed me to an excellent article on sources about Indian caste. From that page, I managed to access User:Sitush/Common#Gyan which is self-explanatory. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

On the 17th Mera (Sunday), 1732 all the sacred Puyas of Meeteis written by Maichous(Scholars/prophets/Sakei Pibas) were got collected and burnt down to ashes.This episode was known as "Puya Meithaba"( Burning of scriptures)

This is the full quote from the book publised by Gyan publishing house with ISBN number 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 21:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

also see the book of North East India History Association which mentioned "Puyas(chronicles) had also been burnt". I am not able to get a hold of the full text yet for that. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 21:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I linked a particular page to say that Gyan is unreliable. Why didn't you read it? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that at first I though you were asking for full citation about the book but I have also mentioned regarding north east India history association which mentioned the burning of puya. To balance our view their should be a historical background section and the word legendary should be strike out as numerous proof of the event in Cheitharol Kumbaba record is given with reliable sources 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 05:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam and Luwanglinux: I would like to revert the focus of the article back to the annual contemporary event. There is no controversy regarding this event. This annual event has had a tremendous impact on the narrative of the Meitei people not only at the folk level but at the academic level as well. The discussion on the historicity of the 18th century would be discussed lower down, not in the first paragraph. Chaipau (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Please keep the conversation in one place. I have already stated above that both Sebastian as well as Aggarwal deem the very burning to be Puya Meithaba and wait for your response about why such views shall be discarded. Ratna Mutum is a below-par source but she holds the same, too. The current version strikes a nice balance. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam:, we are going by the definition of Brandt, which says: "a yearly public event referred to as ‘Puya Meithaba’ since 1979" (p126) and I had added this in the citation, and which you have removed here[12]. First and foremost, please do not remove cited and referenced texts. Second, the 18th century event should appear in a section within this article since it is an issue (historic vs legendary) that has arisen from the contemporary annual event. Irrespective of what it was, the annual event has had a significant impact on Manipuri political, cultural and academic life (as stated both by Ray and Brandt). This is the notability of this article. Chaipau (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I am stating that we, as editors, cannot choose to go by the definition of Brandt and ignore Sebastian/Aggarwal/Mutum. This is not so difficult to get. Your linked edit-diff is wrong. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

On the flip side, you cannot accept Sebastian etc. and ignore Brandt. As you have yourself stated, Brandt is a well-known and reputed author publishing in a reputed journal. You cannot pick and choose your definitions. (And this is the corrected edit diff where you removed cited texts: [13].) Chaipau (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I did hardly ignore. I guess we can agree on this version. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is much better. Chaipau (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

What this article is not about

This article is not concerned with : (1) Religious history of Manipur. (2) Social history of Manipur. (3) Pamheiba's reign.

We have separate articles for all three. Certain aspects from these domains might be discussed (with sufficient context) at the background section but Luwang Linux's additions do not fit. They do neither reflect the recent academic developments. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You should not decide the content of this article alone. You have reverted this article more than 4 times to version you like... You have removed reference which was quite notable under WP:HISTRS This article is much related with religious history of Manipur, Pamheiba reign and Vaishnavism in Manipur.Puya Meithaba or destroying of Puya took place because of that very reason as acholar Chelliah reported clearly 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 06:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

What is written in the current background section? Why are you duplicating already-existing information about Pamheiba imposing Hinduism?

How does a reader, looking for information on Puya Meithaba, benefits by knowing that Meiteis had contact with mainland India [a contested fact, see Broeder] since ancience? Or by knowing the details of pre-Hindu Meitei culture?

Why are you duplicating already-existing information about script-change and claiming it as an uncontested fact? Same applies for the libricide. These are discussed in the next section. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not add anything more than the information I found from the reliable source (journal) also I never removed any part which contested the historicity of the event, but you keep removing even WP:HISTRS reference claiming unrelated or irrelevant while either folk or written history of the event exist because of religion conversion during Pamheiba reign ,this is already a disputed article but you were acting like you own the article 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 07:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This reply fails to address any of the raised queries. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you not state it yourself This article is not concerned with :(1) Religious history of Manipur.(2) Social history of Manipur.(3) Pamheiba's reign. I was replying that these were indeed related with this event.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I also noted, certain aspects from these domains might be discussed (with sufficient context) at the background section. So, please address these specific queries. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I have made a mistake of not quoting the words of scholar which I intended to simple reporting about historicity of the event but the history section I added was with reliable source. Background discussion is too short and too limiting the scope of this article 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 09:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Please follow MOS:QUOTE. Quotes distract from the article. Chaipau (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Chaipau I am ok with your revert but should not those information and history about hindu missionaries and arrival of vaishnavism be more precisely mentioned in relevant section after all they are not opinion of scholars mentioned 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 12:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This article needs only as much information about about the conversion as is relevant to Puya Meithaba's context. The focus in this article is Puya Meithaba, what it is, and what is its significance and impact, etc. We may direct readers to other articles for more information: {{main|Hinduism in Manipur}}. Chaipau (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation styles

I have changed all the citations to harvtxt. We should follow a single citation style on any given page. Also, the quotations follow the reference, not precede it.

While I am at it, I would also like to request editors to add the missing page numbers. That is needed for easy WP:Verifiability. The ability to add page numbers is the whole point of sfn citations! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed—full citations needed, with quotations. There are a number of misreadings of references and quotations will help tighten the text. Chaipau (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: could you please point me to a style guide that says quotes should follow reference? Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If you use template:citation, it automatically puts the quote at the end. So that is the standard format. WP:FOOTQUOTE is the style guide, but it doesn't say anything about the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I see. Most styles (APA, Chicago, etc.) follow the convention that we are citing a quote. Which means the citation comes after the quote. Chaipau (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, the normal practice is to list the entire text in the Bibliography, and give specific page numbers in the sfn citations. That way, we get to see which is page is being mentioned for which content. But at least one of you is doing the opposite, i.e., give page numbers in the Bibliography, but no page numbers in the sfn. This makes it difficult to find the source material for any particular claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Someone introduced an additional layer of "notelist" and it is making it more difficult to follow. Chaipau (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone came to this article and changed the reference style in contravention of established policy. Which is causing all these issues since I am not fluent in sfn. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Royal Chronicle

(1) Any source which comments on the context of production of Deva Ms will be welcome. [The likely context has been obtained. Not interesting.]

(2) What does the version kept by Moirangthem Chandra state? It does not seem that Parratt was able to access it. Do we have any scope of knowing what's in this manuscript?

(3) Also, there is a copy of the Meitei version, kept by Oinam Bhogeshwar. Again, it does not seem that Parratt was able to access it. Do we have any scope of knowing what's in the manuscript?

(4) Can anyone access Page 90-98 of "The Chronology of Meetei Monarchs: From 1666 CE to 1850 CE" by Wangam Samarjit? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't help with any of these issues, but I notice that Parratt mentions on page 15, note 11, that there is a "tradition", which is not contained in Ch. K, that Puyas were burnt. But our page attributes it to Ch. K.. I wonder why that is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking into this some more, I find that there are 4 citations given, but only the first one has anything to say about Ch. K. I don't know why the other citations have been added.

And, the first citation, Parratt, is clearly saying that the official manuscript doesn't have this, but some of the apocryphal manuscripts do. And they have changed one word to make it appear as if Ch. K. is supporting an independent tradition about the books being burnt. And even these variants don't say that they were "burnt", perhaps destroyed, removed, or made unclean. Parratt is clearly implying that the whole thing is very fishy, which is not represented in our content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

But our page attributes it to Ch. K. I fail to get your point.

I don't know why the other citations have been added. I don't know why this edit removed only two. Now, removed.

Parratt is clearly implying that the whole thing is very fishy, which is not represented in our content. We do note that Saroj N. Arambam Parratt holds that the manuscript-copies were likely forged to support the collective memory. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The addition of "apocryphal" solves the first problem but then it raises the whole question of what this whole section is doing here. Parratt says:

There is a tradition, not contained in the Ch.K., which has it that during the reign of Garibniwaz his guru Shanti Das burnt all the Mss in the archaic Meetei script in the interests of his Hinduising programme in 1732 CE.

This "tradition" is what should be covered to explain the origin of the wholt thing, not Ch. K. At present, the content is appearing to say that it all comes from Ch. K. and then says that it doesn't. So it is really shooting itself in the foot and terribly confusing the reader.

The current sentence still has OR. The Ch. K. doesn't use the term "Puya". It doesn't say that they were destroyed by Gharib Nawaz. Even the corrupted version of Ch. K. uses language far different from what is being stated here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

it raises the whole question of what this whole section is doing here. Good point. Every [Many] scholars (including Ray and Sebastian, who critically interrogate the popular narratives) mention the Chronicles to have described this event. So, we need to discuss the details.

Your point about starting with the tradition is taken.

Even the corrupted version of Ch. K. uses language far different from what is being stated here. No. Parratt translates the Deva Ms line as Meetei books (written in Meetei script also called Puya) were destroyed. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

No, Puya means a lot more than "Meitei text":

Puya/Purana in Manipur context means sacred lore/texts (scriptures used in the plural sense) which are accepted as the sacred scriptural texts of the ancestors. They are written in Meitei script by the specialists of sacred lore and rituals.

The apocryphal Ch.K. doesn't say anything like this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, I am aware of that. So, I assume that you are taking issue with the bracketed (my emphasis) part in Parratt's translation of the Deva Ms line — Meetei books (written in Meetei script also called Puya) were destroyed. ?

I have again re-drafted the section. Please check. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• If I get access to those books even including the original content of Cheitharol Kumbaba , I think I can provide a transliteration in english for the meitei words 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 04:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the original content of Cheitharol Kumbaba? Parratt's book contains scans of the Palace Manuscript. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Can you send me the link of the page you mentioned, I can't access even a single page of this google book search lead me only this far [14] [15] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 07:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have access to Cambridge Core? All three volumes are on it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3 No I don't have access to Cambridge core, I will try if I can access that library .🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 09:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is the link. If you can't get hold of it, try asking at WP:REX. My library doesn't allow me to share stuff. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I will ask at WP:REX I have open a Cambridge core account but seems like this need institutional affiliation of my account to access the content 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 15:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Kautilya3 Can you tell me in which chapter it is contained ? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 18:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you check the link above? The cited pages are in Part 2 and the glossary following it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes,I checked it someone responded and asked me which chapter or page I need, thats y I am asking u to confirm it 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 19:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You are pointing to the second volume. I have used the first volume. First volume is not on CCore. It is only on Ebook Central. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• The Cheitharon Kumbaba is a WP:PRIMARY source, so has limited use in Wikipedia. There are various scenarios under which the royal chronicle will not record Puya Meithaba, and various others under which it will. We need secondary/tertiary sources for this. Chaipau (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

For what? Parrat's critical commentary on the text is not a primary source. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have got the required pages from Snahal's 1992 catalog of manuscripts. Maybe, Luwanglinux or someone else can translate the Meitei portions? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: This link required pages only show a lists of writers and hard to read due to small size of texts I would like a pdf scanned copy of the pages email to me if you can 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Lead dispute

What happened in the very first commemoration does not belong to lead. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Do not agree. The commemoration is defined as Puya Meithaba and what happens in it has been changing. Chaipau (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Fine. I am willing to agree on this version. Except about the first line, whose specifics are discussed below. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• PB has been defined as the current commemoration by Brandt. It should stay. Chaipau (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• My version states Puya Meithaba (Burning of the puya) refers to a legendary 18th-century burning of religious scriptures during the reign of Garib Nawaz or to its annual commemoration in post-colonial Manipur (since 1979; generally held in the month of January) So, it has stayed. the question is why you prefer Brandt's definition to take priority over Sebastian/Aggarwal/others? If you ask the same question to me (why I prefer the other way), it's because of the relative numbers.
• Also, please restore the status-quo since it was agreed upon by both of us. WP:BRD. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I have not touched your version, but restored the agreed upon version---which included the definition of the Puya Meithaba as both the commemorative events as well as the 18th century event, on the basis of Brandt and others. Furthermore, the present-day commemoration event does not celebrate the 18th century event but rues it. This has to be brought out properly, because this gives the context. This is also discussed in detail in the body of the article, and the lede gives "synopsis" of what is in the article.

Furthermore, I do not give Brandt's definition preference over others'. But there is no dispute that it is the present-day Puya Meithaba that has any meaning or notability. The 18th-century event may or may not have happened. Why should we have a Wikipedia article for it?

Chaipau (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I know you have been focused on the historicity of Puya Meithaba. And I think it deserved to be said very clearly that there exists no historical witness to this book burning. And you are doing a wonderful job at digging in on that front. Yet, historicity is not the be all end all of this issue. Brandt (2018, p126) writes: However, the historicity of the relevant happenings is secondary in the given context; it is of more importance for our purposes to see how these events assigned to the past are (re-) interpreted and instrumentalized for today’s identity politics in Manipur. Therefore, Puya Meithaba is important in the present-day political context, not in the context of a supposed 18th-century book burning event. Chaipau (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)