The Grokipedia entry was filed under the Grade C banner although it is graded E.
Was
listed under Grade C
Now
listed under Grade E
Research
Corrections
When something here turns out to be wrong, it is corrected in the open and dated — never silently edited.
Corrections are a page here rather than a policy. Every correction gets a dated entry: what was published, what it was changed to, and why. This is how newspapers and journals build credibility, and it costs almost nothing Ninglekhu/ku heritage documentation project 2026 C.
Three kinds of entry appear below. A factual correction is a claim that turned out to be wrong. A grade change is a claim that was right but supported by less — or more — than we said. A removal is a name, photograph or record taken down at the request of the person or family concerned; the reason is not published, only the fact of the removal.
Where the research itself corrects a widely repeated claim — the attribution of Sakela, the date kipat ended, the composition of a festival dish — the correction is printed on the page carrying that claim, as a correction note, so a reader meets it where the mistake would have been.
The log
Question 1 offered only one route to an answer; the archival route the report names was added.
Was
One conversation with a Ninglekhu elder.
Now
One conversation with a Ninglekhu elder; failing that, the district gazetteers for Panchthar, Taplejung, Ilam, Terhathum and Dhankuta.
Question 20 overstated the search behind the four festival names.
Was
could not be corroborated in any source this project could reach
Now
could not be independently verified in this pass, with Kirat Yakthung Chumlung UK’s own calendar noted as community attestation
Seven ritual-specialist and customary terms cited the report where a better-graded field study was available.
Was
khadamang, samba, mangba, yeba, nahen, sugut, sogha: the report, at Grade C
Now
the Tribhuvan University theses, at Grade B, with the rite details the report gives
The das-limbuwan entry stated the number ten as fact; it is now recorded as tradition.
Was
ten thums, stated as fact at Grade D
Now
ten thums, recorded as tradition at Grade E
The matwali entry graded the placement of Limbus in the Muluki Ain’s second tier as high as the tier structure itself.
Was
the tier structure and the placement of Limbus in it, both at Grade B
Now
the structure at Grade B; the placement at Grade C, with the negative finding stated
The Yuma Sammang claim taken from J. R. Subba was published a grade above its source.
Was
Grade C
Now
Grade D
The Nepali transliteration of the Sikkimese marriage document Kepa Kitpa was misspelt.
Was
केपा किप्पा
Now
केपा किट्पा
The remark about what clan websites do with their sources was written as a standing present; it is now date-stamped.
Was
almost nobody online is currently doing
Now
as of August 2026, almost nobody online does
The Noto Sans Limbu coverage and licence claim rested on the report; it now cites the font’s own reference.
Was
the Unicode 4.0 reference alone
Now
the Unicode 4.0 reference and Noto Sans Limbu’s own
The breakdown of the Unicode block listed components summing to sixty-seven against the sixty-eight stated beside them.
Was
thirty base consonants
Now
thirty base consonants and the vowel-carrier letter
The limit of the linguistic evidence was written as a standing present; it is now date-stamped.
Was
an inference the linguistics does not currently license
Now
an inference the linguistics, as the report found it in August 2026, does not license
The Gorkha-conquest paragraph graded the documented dates of 1762 and 1771 as oral tradition, along with the tradition about named commanders.
Was
one Grade E chip covering the whole paragraph
Now
Grade B, on the report, for the 1762 and 1771 dates; Grade E for the rest
The 1631–1672 timeline row here and a callout on /limbu/origins each cited the same reference twice; the duplicates were removed.
Was
the same reference key listed twice
Now
listed once
Three clusters of the notable-Limbus section were published without a reference and without a grade.
Was
Politics, Sport and Academia-and-media: no reference, no grade
Now
the report cited on each, at Grade C; Bairagi Kainla’s biography carries its own reference and grade
The page summary attached the twenty-seven-year gap to the wrong pair of dates.
Was
twenty-seven years — the gap between Bengal’s recognition and Sikkim’s
Now
Bengal recognised Limbus in 1950 and Sikkim only in 2003 — twenty-seven years after its own 1976 list left them out
The claim that “Limbu” and “Subba” were written onto citizenship papers in place of thar names was published a grade above its source.
Was
Grade B
Now
Grade C
The launch post “ninglekhu.com opens” dated the end of kipat by the year alone; it now names the statute.
Was
the abolition of kipat in 1968
Now
1968 (second amendment to the 1964 Land Act)
The statement of how little exists was written as a standing present; it is now date-stamped.
Was
where zero sources currently exist
Now
where, as of August 2026, zero sources exist
Sabin Ninglekhu’s Principal Investigator role was published without a date.
Was
Principal Investigator of the project “Heritage as Placemaking”
Now
as of August 2026, Principal Investigator of the project “Heritage as Placemaking”
Jiwan Ninglekhu’s employment was written as a standing present; it is now date-stamped.
Was
currently at Deloitte
Now
at Deloitte as of August 2026
One evidence row carried two separate negative findings against a single reference; it is now two rows.
Was
one row: absent from a Nepali surname compilation and from two Tribhuvan University theses
Now
two rows; the theses row cites the Tribhuvan University theses at Grade C
The end of kipat was dated by the year alone; it now names the statute that ended it.
Was
converted to raikar in 1968
Now
1968 (second amendment to the 1964 Land Act)
The clan name is now written “Ninglekhu/ku”, and the site’s earlier position that “Ningleku” be kept out of the record was reversed.
Was
The clan was written “Ninglekhu” / “निङ्लेखु”, and “Ningleku” was held out of the record as an undetermined spelling (open question 7).
Now
The clan is written “Ninglekhu/ku” / “निङ्लेखु/कु”; both the Ninglekhu and Ningleku spellings are recorded as the clan’s own, and open question 7 is marked answered.
The clan name was restored to निङ्लेखु wherever it had been taken from the report’s plain-text extraction.
Was
निङ्खु
Now
निङ्लेखु
Found something wrong? Telling us is a contribution, and it is credited like any other.
Report a correctionSources for this page
Institutional or community publication
- C
Ninglekhu/ku heritage documentation project (2026). The Ninglekhu of Limbuwan: A source-critical history of a Yakthung clan, and of the people it belongs to. Ninglekhu/ku heritage documentation project (v1.0, 22 August 2026).