This page was proposed for deletion by Kautilya3 ( talk · contribs) on 5 May 2021. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
taken from this [3] [4] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)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.
source is this [5] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)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)
Please do not insert random information from random sources without considering relative reliability. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
A philosophy PhD from within Manipur? No.Cheitharol Kumbaba will be mentioned but along with caveats. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)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
[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.
[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)
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)
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.
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)
Though, Sebastian as well as Aggarwal deems the very burning to be Puya Meithaba.
🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)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.
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)
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)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)
@ 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)
Sebastian as well as Aggarwal deem the very burning to be Puya Meithabaand 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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.
it raises the whole question of what this whole section is doing here.Good point.
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)
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. [1]
Meetei books (written in Meetei script also called Puya) were destroyed.?
original content of Cheitharol Kumbaba? Parratt's book contains scans of the Palace Manuscript. TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
References
What happened in the very first commemoration does not belong to lead. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
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.
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)
This page was proposed for deletion by Kautilya3 ( talk · contribs) on 5 May 2021. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
taken from this [3] [4] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)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.
source is this [5] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)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)
Please do not insert random information from random sources without considering relative reliability. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
A philosophy PhD from within Manipur? No.Cheitharol Kumbaba will be mentioned but along with caveats. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)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
[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.
[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)
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)
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.
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)
Though, Sebastian as well as Aggarwal deems the very burning to be Puya Meithaba.
🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)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.
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)
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)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)
@ 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)
Sebastian as well as Aggarwal deem the very burning to be Puya Meithabaand 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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.
it raises the whole question of what this whole section is doing here.Good point.
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)
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. [1]
Meetei books (written in Meetei script also called Puya) were destroyed.?
original content of Cheitharol Kumbaba? Parratt's book contains scans of the Palace Manuscript. TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
References
What happened in the very first commemoration does not belong to lead. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
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.
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)