Talk:Bishnupriya Manipuri

May 2026

@~2026-31738-52:. The term 'Bishnupriya Maipuri' is the first mention in the article. Not sure why you want another instance of it in that very sentence. I mean, - "Bishnupriya Manipuri, also known as Bishnupriya Manipuri or simply.." - in your version of the lead sentence doesn't make any sense. Please discuss your concerns in this talk page per WP:BRD instead of edit warring and changing longstanding content. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Y'all meiteis are distorting origin of bishnupriya manipuris. Remember how bishnupriya manipuris support y'all when Kukis attack y'all. If you need our support then stop distorting our origin. And let us add what is our right. If you need help when you are in danger, then try and respect those who support you. ~2026-31738-52 (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-31738-52: How big is this world according to you? I'm not a Meitei. My point was why are you adding the term Bishnupriya Manipuri twice in the lead section? Doesn't make any sense to have it as "Bishnupriya Manipuri, also known as Bishnupriya Manipuri[8] or simply as Bishnupriya,[a] is an Indo-Aryan lect[10] belonging to the Bengali–Assamese linguistic sub-branch" as in your version . Now revert your edit per WP:BRD and discuss here instead of putting allegations on random users. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

@Rajen09: If you are reverted for making changes to longstanding content (WP:BOLD B), and someone (me in this case) reverts you (R), then you are supposed to engage in discussion (D) and wait for WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD, but you started edit warring, which is disruptive, despite yourself claiming - "I understand the importance of consensus and the BRD process. Rather than engaging in further reverts, I will outline the specific proposed changes and supporting sources on the article’s talk page so that they can be discussed individually." in your talk page here. Kind of ironic. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand your BRD concern and I have moved the discussion to the article talk page.

I would note that the reverted material was not exclusively longstanding content. A number of the disputed passages were relatively recent additions, and several of my revisions were based on academic publications, court records and government sources that were introduced to improve sourcing, attribution and neutrality.

My concern is that the revert addressed the changes as a whole rather than evaluating the individual sources and proposed revisions. I therefore believe the best course is to examine the specific passages and sources on the talk page and determine, section by section, what content is supported by the available evidence and Wikipedia policies. Rajen09 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that the discussion should proceed section by section on the talk page, and I appreciate your willingness to involve other editors who have worked on the article.

I would like to begin with the lead section.

Section 1:

Use of the term “Bishnupriya Meitei”

The current lead states that Bishnupriya Manipuri is “also known as Bishnupriya Meitei”.

I reviewed one of the cited sources (Ajiliu Niumai, 2021), which uses the expression “Bishnupriya Meiteis” when referring to the community:

“The Bishnupriya Meiteis from Bangladesh, Myanmar, Tripura and Assam use the Bengali script and speak their own language…”

However, this source appears to use “Bishnupriya Meiteis” as an ethnonym for the people rather than as an alternative name for the language itself.

Could editors provide additional academic or official sources that explicitly use “Bishnupriya Meitei” as an alternative name for the language? If the term is primarily used for the community rather than the language, the wording in the lead may require further discussion. Rajen09 (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Apart from the major changes to the text, some of the obvious points I found disruptive in your edit:

• You have removed the hatnote, the maintenance template, English version template and the date template. You shouldn't be deleting the following:

{{Distinguish|Manipuri language|Bangladeshi Manipuri language|Assamese Manipuri language}}

{{About|a [[lect]]|the eponymous Bengali goddess|Bishnupriya}}

{{More citations needed|date=June 2022}}

{{Use British English|date=August 2025}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2025}}

• Second, you've deleted the sources supporting the total number of speakers, breakdown and other parameters. You've also removed the internal links for terms like 'Indo-Iranian languages', 'Indo-Aryan languages' in the infobox.
• Third, some of the sections are relevant to the Bishnupriya Manipuri people article and not here namely, History, Traditional medicine, Cuisine_and_food_culture Religion and Culture.

For other changes, please discuss with @Haoreima, Austronesier, Chaipau, and Pepperbeast:. Also refrain from using LLM, and are these your old accounts ( )? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk

I agree that it would be more productive to discuss the article section by section.

Regarding the speaker figures and infobox data, my intention was not to remove the underlying information, as those figures were already retained in my proposed version. My focus was on restructuring and sourcing issues within the article text.

I removed certain borrowed-word statistics because I was unable to locate a reliable source directly supporting the specific numerical breakdowns.

Regarding the editors you mentioned, you have already notified them, so I expect they will be able to participate in this discussion and provide their views on the relevant sections and sources ASAP.

Regarding the accounts you linked, those are not my accounts.

I suggest we continue with the section-by-section discussion below and evaluate each disputed point on the basis of sources, article scope and Wikipedia policies. Rajen09 (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Fyl, thanks for pointing me to this discussion. I haven't looked much into the substance yet, but just judging from a first glance I can't help to say that Rajen09 has turned a badly written, peakock-laden trainwreck into an actual Wikkipedia article. i mean just try to look at the three "According to" sentences in the lead of the "long-standing" version without literally supressing the urge to puke. Personally, I support the WP:TNT-approach by Rajen09. Obviously, we need to scrutinize the individual points of their version, but the old version is in IMHO not worth defending from a merely procedural standpoint. –Austronesier (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

TNT possibly. I am just enforcing statusquo and moreover, I found removal of them templates, sources as well as inclusion of those sections disruptive. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your time to review and facilitating the discussion.

I would like to begin with the lead section specifically the use of "Bishnupriya Meitei" or simply as "Bishnupriya".

So far, I have only been able to locate one source using the expression “Bishnupriya Meiteis”, and in that context it appears to be referring to the people/community rather than establishing “Bishnupriya Meitei” as an alternative name for the language itself.

Regarding the expression “simply Bishnupriya”, the cited Census-based references also require careful interpretation. In the Census 2011 language tables, the language is recorded as “Bishnupriya Manipuri/Manipuri Bishnupriya”on page number 10. The shortened form “Bishnupriya” appears to be used in compiled statistical tables and should not automatically be treated as the primary or common name of the language.

https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/42458/download/46089/C-16_25062018.pdf

Legal and historical sources use the term Bishnupriya Manipuri. For example, reporting on the Supreme Court judgment concerning the Bishnupriya Manipuri community states that the Court found no issue with the continued use of the term “Manipuri” by Bishnupriyas as part of their nomenclature. This supports the continued usage of the established term “Bishnupriya Manipuri” rather than suggesting that “Manipuri” should be omitted altogether.

https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/manipuri-stays-with-bishnupriya/cid/815356

In view of the above, I believe the lead should use "Bishnupriya Manipuri" as the name of the language unless high quality academic or official sources can be provided that explicitly establish “Bishnupriya Meitei” or “simply Bishnupriya” as alternative names for the language itself.

Therefore, my proposal is that the language be referred as Bishnupriya Manipuri in the lead. Rajen09 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The phrase "or simply as Bishnupriya" is directly supported by at least one high quality academic source. Linguist David Bradley wrote, "[T]here is a group who appear to be the descendants of Indic speakers originally settled in Manipur but now mainly in Assam, Tripura and Bangladesh, who speak an Indic language called Bishnupriya Manipuri or simply Bishnupriya." (Bradley, David (1996). "Nagamese". In Wurm, Stephen A.; Mühihäusler, Peter; Tryon, Darrell T. (eds.). Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas. Mouton de Gruyter. p. 758. ISBN 3-11-013417-9.) --Worldbruce (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the reference.

I tried to verify the quotation myself, but I have not been able to find the quoted text through internet searches. I also checked the Google Books preview, and the cited page (p. 758) is not available there. I have attached screenshots below showing that page 758 is missing from the preview available to me.

Another reason I am seeking verification is that the visible pages appear to be part of a chapter on Nagamese. Since the relevant page is not accessible, I am unable to see the context in which the statement about Bishnupriya was made.

Could you please provide a page scan or another accessible copy of page 758? That would help me and other editors verify the quotation and its context before we decide whether it supports inclusion in the lead.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gFh6hM5o-PumWtMl3EG1nB8sGUDb9NKU/view?usp=drivesdk Rajen09 (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The entire book is free to download by experienced Wikipedians through The Wikipedia Library here. As you have insufficient experience to qualify for access, you may request the material you need at the Resource Exchange. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand that I currently do not have access to The Wikipedia Library resources.

I acknowledge that some sources have used the shortened form “Bishnupriya”. The sources I have reviewed across different periods predominantly use “Bishnupriya Manipuri”.

For example, Grierson’s ‘‘Linguistic Survey of India’’ (1903) refers to the language as ‘‘Bishnupuriya Manipuri’’ (Vol. V, Part I, pp. 419–420). Likewise, the 2011 Census records the language as “Bishnupriya Manipuri/Manipuri Bishnupriya”, while “Bishnupriya” appears as a statistical grouping in compiled language tables.

Even in the source you cited, the language is referred to as “Bishnupriya Manipuri”. The point under discussion is therefore not whether the word “Bishnupriya” has ever been used in isolation, but whether it is sufficiently common in reliable sources to merit inclusion in the lead as an alternative name.

For that reason, I am not yet convinced that “or simply Bishnupriya” should be included in the lead. Based on the sources reviewed so far, “Bishnupriya Manipuri” appears to be the predominant form used in linguistic, census, legal and official sources.

Rajen09 (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Relying on a 1903 book and a 2001 census report will not convince anyone of your argument. Wikipedia prefers recent scholarship. Another high-quality academic source that calls the language "Bishnupriya" is: Satyanath, Shobha; Laskar, Nazrin B. (31 March 2008). "Lexicon in a Contact Language: The Case of Bishnupriya". North East Indian Linguistics: 75–92. doi:10.1017/UPO9788175968431.007. I suggest you drop the stick, accept that the language is sometimes called Bishnupriya, and focus on something else, such was whether it is sometimes called "Bishunpriya Meitei". I believe Haoreima is the one who added that clause. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Worldbruce:

Thank you, Worldbruce.

I accept that “Bishnupriya” is used in some reliable sources. My concern is only whether it needs to be highlighted in the lead, as it may be better discussed elsewhere in the article with context.

For now, I am happy to move on from this point.

@Haoreima:

Regarding “Bishnupriya Meitei”, I think that requires closer examination. Could you please clarify the basis for including that term as an alternative name of the language and provide the sources supporting its use? That would help move the discussion forward.

–Rajen09 (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Rajen09 (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Worldbruce, Fylindfotberserk, Austronesier, and Arjayay:

Over the years, the article has been edited by many contributors. While most statements are supported by citations, I have found several places where the wording appears to go beyond what the cited sources explicitly say. In some cases, it seems to reflect editorial interpretation rather than the source itself.

Because different editors have revised the article in different directions over time, I feel the article has never had a chance to become consistently neutral.

I would be grateful if experienced editors could review the article with fresh eyes, compare the wording with the cited sources, and help ensure that the content accurately reflects what the sources state, in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

If the current version is considered stable, I would also appreciate guidance on improving the article section by section through discussion and consensus rather than repeated revisions. Thank you. Rajen09 (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rajen09: We can do this one section at a time. For example, History and development section. We can discuss changes, if necessary, and build a consensus, then proceed to another section. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk:

Thank you. That approach sounds reasonable.

I would like to begin with the lead with WP:LEAD. Over the next 2–3 days, I will review the available academic, government and other reliable sources in detail and prepare a proposed lead based on them.

Rather than discussing every sentence individually at the outset, I will present a complete draft of the lead together with the supporting sources. If any part of the proposed wording is considered inconsistent with the cited sources or Wikipedia policies then I am happy to discuss and revise it. Otherwise, if WP:CONSENSUS is reached, we can update the lead and then proceed to the remaining sections one by one.

Rajen09 (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Rajen09 (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

That would be nice. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The lead should follow the body in the sense that the lead is a summary of the body's most important points. One cannot write a quality lead until the body has been hashed out. That's why the lead is usually the very last thing one should write. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Point taken. Rajen09 (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing and WP:DUE concerns: nomenclature, classification, and removed content

I'd like to propose several changes to this article, each grounded in sourcing policy rather than any editor's identity. I'm laying them out separately so each can be discussed on its own merits.

1. "Bishnupriya Meitei" in the lead sentence — WP:WEIGHT concern

The lead currently presents "Bishnupriya Meitei" as an alternate name on par with "Bishnupriya Manipuri." As far as I can find, this term traces to a single mention in one secondary source (Sahoo, Ajaya K., and I have not been able to cross-check it against any other independent source.

By contrast, "Bishnupriya Manipuri" is attested across a much broader and older documentary record:

• George A. Grierson, Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. V (1903), p. 419 — uses "Bishnupuriya Manipuri."
• Cachar School Board records (British period) — subdivided the heading "Manipuri" into "Meitei" and "Bishnupriya."
• Census of India, 1961 and 1971 — subdivided "Manipuri" into "Meitei" and "Bishnupriya."
• Letter of the Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities in India, 29 August 1973 — refers to "Meithei and Bishnupriya" as sub-groups of Manipuris in Cachar district.
• Government of Assam — OBC classification under "Bishnupriya Manipuri."
• Government of Tripura, SCERT — classifies the language under the Tribal Language Cell as "Bishnupriya Manipuri."
• Gauhati High Court / Supreme Court of India rulings on the community's nomenclature (see e.g. K. Kumardhan vs Union of India; Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Mahasabha proceedings).
• Bangladesh NCTB, Bangladesh o Bishwoporichoy, Class 4 textbook (prescribed for academic year 2026) — explicitly names "বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরি" and "মৈতৈ মণিপুরি" as the two linguistic subgroups of the Manipuri ethnic group.

Per WP:DUE, a name attested in one source should not be given equal prominence in the lead sentence to a name attested across a century of government, judicial, and educational records. I'd propose either removing "Bishnupriya Meitei" from the lead or moving it to a footnote noting it as a rare alternate usage in one source.

2. Removal of counter-evidence to the "dialect of Bengali/Assamese" classification

The revision as of 5 May 2022 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bishnupriya_Manipuri&oldid=1086349883) included the following sentence in the "Connection with Assamese language" section, discussing the Chatterji (Bengali-dialect) and Neog/Kakati (Assamese-dialect) classifications:

"But the assumptions were proven incorrect by scientific research and observation of morphology, vocabulary, and phonology of BPM."

This sentence, and the supporting discussion, is absent from the current version. The current version presents the "dialect of Bengali" and "dialect of Assamese" and "creole" classifications at length without the countervailing linguistic argument.

That countervailing argument is well-sourced. K.P. Sinha, The Bishnupriya Manipuri Language (Calcutta: Firma KLM Private Limited, 1981), p. 22, argues directly against the dialect classification:

• Similarities among Bishnupriya, Bengali, and Assamese derive from a shared origin in Magadhi Apabhramsa, not from one language borrowing from another.
• Different gender marking in verb forms compared to Bengali/Assamese
• Retention of number distinctions in verbs that vanished from Bengali/Assamese pre-10th century
• Unique case-endings (e.g., 3rd case: -la, 5th case: -ra, 7th case: -rã)
• A set of suffixes/affixes not found in the other two languages (e.g., -uni, -ãni, -kura, -uka, -re, -ei)
• A distinct future tense marker (-t-) absent in both Bengali and Assamese
• Unique pronominal forms (e.g., mi, tʔi for "you")
• A distinct negation pattern (prefixing nã-) shared with Assamese/Old & Middle Bengali but not Modern Bengali
• Over 10,000 vocabulary words not found in either neighboring language

I'd propose restoring a summary of Dr Sinha's argument alongside the dialect-classification material, consistent with WP:NPOV's requirement to represent significant viewpoints fairly rather than presenting one side's conclusion as more settled than the sourcing supports.

3. Removal of the script/alphabet section

The May 2022 revision contained a full section on the Bengali-Assamese script as used for Bishnupriya Manipuri, including vowel signs, consonants, and IPA transcriptions. This section is absent from the current version. I don't see a stated rationale for its removal in edit summaries. Proposing it be restored, or if consensus is that it belongs in a separate article, that a summary and a link to a fuller treatment be retained here.

4. Removal of shared Bishnupriya–Meitei literary history

The May 2022 revision noted that the 1925 literary magazine Jagaran, edited by a Bishnupriya social worker, published material in both Bishnupriya and Meitei; and that the 1934 Surma Valley Manipuri Association included Meitei, Bishnupriya, and Pangal members jointly. This material, documenting historical cooperation between the communities, is absent from the current version. I'd propose it be restored as relevant, well-sourced social history.

5. Balance in the classification/identity discussion

The article currently cites Ningthoukhongjam Khelchandra's characterization of Bishnupriya as a "fragmented Bengali Hindu community" who are "[e]thnolinguistically... Bengalis" (via Sanajaoba, Manipur, Past and Present, 1988, p. 152). This is a secondhand attribution (Khelchandra's view as reported by Sanajaoba), not a primary linguistic study.

For balance, I'd propose adding the view of M. Kirti Singh — also a Meitei scholar, first Meitei PhD/DLitt, Padma Shri awardee — from Religious Developments in Manipur in the 18th & 19th Centuries (Manipur State Kala Akademi, 1980), p. 20:

"Among kshatriyas there is a community known as Vishnupriya (Vishnupuriya) Manipuries. They are more dark skinned than the pure Meitheis."

I'm quoting this in full, including the "pure Meitheis" phrasing, rather than selectively. The passage is notable for two things at once: it's an explicit acknowledgment by a Meitei scholar that the Bishnupriya community is a "Manipuri" Kshatriya community — directly relevant to the nomenclature question discussed in Section 1 above — while also using language that implicitly frames Meitei as the "pure"/default Manipuri identity. I think both aspects are worth including rather than citing only the more dismissive Khelchandra passage currently in the article; presenting one Meitei scholar's framing without the other is a WP:DUE problem regardless of which direction the imbalance runs.

Summary

I want to be clear that I'm not raising these points based on any assumption about a particular editor's motives — I'm raising them because, comparing the current article against its own May 2022 revision and against the underlying sources, there's a pattern of sourced material supporting the "Bishnupriya Manipuri" nomenclature and the "distinct language" classification being removed, while less-supported or single-sourced material has been added or given more prominent placement. I'd welcome discussion on each point above, and I'm happy to provide full citations/scans for any of the sources referenced. Ashim2k (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you User:Rajen09? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm not Rajen09. My Ashim2k account was created in January 2008 and has 783 edits, mostly on the Bishnupriya Manipuri Wikipedia (bpy.wikipedia.org) — see https://bpy.wikipedia.org/wiki/বিশেষ:অবদান/Ashim2k for the full contribution history. Happy to answer any other questions. Ashim2k (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

OK. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Point #1 is the lowest hanging fruit. There's no need to resort to WP:DUE. "Bishnupriya Meitei" should not be in the lead because it is not in the body. Going further, "Bishnupriya Meitei" should not be in the body because no source directly supports it. The cited source contains the single sentence, "The Bishnupriya Meiteis from Bangladesh, Myanmar, Tripura and Assam used the Bengali script and speak their own language, which is influenced by Meiteilon (Mani-puri)." Interpreting this as meaning that the "own language" that Bishnupriya Meiteis speak is a language called Bishnupriya Meitei is original research, it goes beyond what the source explicitly says. I've never found a source that says there is a language called Bishnupriya Meitei. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)