Talk:Jeypore Estate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is sold out to frauds. Two users named Rexxs and Regentspark are running this page and I suspect they are looking for bribes. They removed Prince Vishweshvar's 'Maharajah of Jeypore' saying its unconstitutional as the Indian government abolished all titles. However, when it comes to other wiki pages like Padmanabh Singh and Muhammed Abdul Ali mentioning them as kings, maharajahs and prince, they deleted my questions and blocked my username for harrasment. They will delete this as well, but I will continue posting this message with other usernames and IP addresses until this issue is clarified. This online bullying of money swindlers should not run for long. Wikipedia must immediately block these so called admins cum cheap swindlers. I am going to post this in the talk page of every wiki admin. Rules should be the same for everyone, just because some royals throw a few pennies at jobless admins, they ignore their pages and let them use titles. Hattershush (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never edited either Padmanabh Singh or Muhammed Abdul Ali], liar.
This encyclopedia is not the place for hagiographers to puff up the status of titular maharajahs whose titles were abolished by the Indian government years ago. If you're so keen to meet me, please feel free to drop in to the next Manchester meetup (when we're able to have one) and I'll be happy to explain to you in person why you're mistaken about my reasons for upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. You can do that politely or otherwise – either is fine with me: your choice. --RexxS (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Sources dating to the era of the British Raj are unreliable and not suitable to support content in Wikipedia.

There are several paragraphs and tables either entirely unsourced or cited using only unreliable sources. --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with RexxS. To repeat what I wrote at the recent AFD: the main two sources used are unreliable and need to be removed. In particular:
  • The aristocracy of southern India (Vadivelu, 1903), which is an outright hagiographical work. Its section on the then king of Jeypore begins:

    His Highness the Maharajah, Sri Sri Sri Vikraima Deo, Azem, Mahalrajah, Yujadud Dowla, Mahabat Assar, Yedal Yemeenay, Salatnut, Samsamay, Killapathay, Islam Sri Jhadkhand Badusha, Maharajah of Jeypore, of the Solar Race, the possessor of a hilly tract, in the Vizagapatam District, is naturally mild and pacific like his father, possesses a quick apprehension and extensive capacity, evinces talents for business, and is no less distinguished for sobriety and decorum of deportment than for literary acquirements...

  • Nandapur: A Forsaken Kingdom (KSB Singh, 1939), which is an effort to reconstruct the medieval era history of the Sankara dynasty's rule by an author who, as the book's introduction notes, is "a scion of a Raj-family which once held independent authority in the Orissa Gadjaths; and he has now become a distinguished member of the present Jeypore, the old Nandapur, Maharaja family by marriage. His second son Sree Ramakrishna Deoas Yuvaraja of Jeypore, will,..., carry forward the Jeypore line into the new Self-governing Federated India."
Thus, even if one discounts their antiquity and obscure publishers, neither of these works are reliable independent sources that one can build an encyclopedic article upon; and, while they are of potential value as primary material to a scholar studying the area's history, they cannot and should not be read uncritically or used as sources on wikipedia. Instead a good starting point for rewriting this article would be:
  • Schnepel, Burkhard (2002). The Jungle Kings: Ethnohistorical Aspects of Politics and Ritual in Orissa. Manohar.
    ISBN 978-81-7304-467-0
    .
See review of the above work. Other writings of Burkhard Schnepel, though older and less detailed, may be easier to access, eg:
See also:
Abecedare (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed two paragraphs - one uncited and the other cited to Times of India, acknowledged as unreliable. This whole article is now stuffed with unreliable sources and puffery. I intend to work through and eliminate all of the uncited content and the content sourced to unreliable sources, particularly those dated to the Raj, which have been shown multiple times to be lacking in the basic standards required of having any reputation for accuracy. --RexxS (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would still suggest removing the lock because there are some minor changes that must be made. Also, I am not doubting Schepnel’s work but there are a lot of things that are completely incorrect. For example, the book mentions the royal family as Rajputs but in reality they are Kshatriyas of Indo-Aryan lineage. In other words, it’s like tracing your Queen’s lineage with the Han Dynasty of China. The article edited by some Sitush is intentionally degrading the main component of the article viz the Suryavansh dynasty. For eg. Last paragraph under History is insignificant however there was a tiny rebellion and he felt it important to add it in the article.

In more than three places, he has mentioned it as a “little kingdom” although they covered an area of 26,000km2 also mentioned by him. So I don’t really get why admins are so keen on the editing and locking this article. Hattershush (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hattershush: I've already explained to you how to suggest changes, why are you having difficulty with that?
It really doesn't matter what you think about Schepnel’s work, because they are a reliable source and you're not.
If the reliable source mentions that the royal family are Rajputs, then that is what Wikipedia reports. To take your example, if our only reliable source stated that Queen Elizabeth was descended from Genghis Khan, then that's what Wikipedia would write. Please let me know if that's not clear enough for you.
Please don't ascribe motive to Sitush's edits. It's not your place to comment on another editor, and I hope I don't have to warn you again about that.
WP:NPOV
requires us to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So if there was a rebellion covered in reliable sources, then we should cover it too. If you have sources that describe it as "a tiny rebellion" or insignificant, then let's see them, otherwise the reliably sourced content stays.
If you were to read the sources, you would find that "little kingdom" is an aphorism coined by at least one of the authors. Once you've read the source, you'll be able to understand the context, and will be better equipped to comment on the use of that literary device.
There's a lot you obviously don't get, but I'll do my best to enlighten you. The article is locked from editing by new editors because of a spate of single-purpose accounts persistently adding unsourced, or unreliably sourced, content to the article in an effort to turn it into an hagiography. I'm personally fed up of wasting my time in removing such poor content, and I have no intention of re-opening the floodgates for it to be added again. I hope you understand the position more clearly now. --RexxS (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalinga

Shouldn't this be a part of the Kalinga article? Much of the history predates Jeypore and is the history of the larger region. Perhaps move this to History of Kalinga otherwise much of the pre 1637 content will need to go. --regentspark (comment) 21:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate

This article is inaccurate from beginning till end. The Jeypore Samasthanam kings are Kshatriya not Rajputs. The source cited is the only book that says so. Therefore, it can’t be trusted. The paragraph of Bissam-Cuttak is trivial and it would be better if you could remove the protection from this article. I’d like to add some facts to it.Hattershush (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can suggest changes to the article here on the talk page and, assuming that they are
reliably sourced and in line with our WP:Policies and guidelines, someone will make the change for you. Make sure your suggestions are clear (as in "remove xxxx text from the article because of yyyy reason" or "add the following text to xyz section") and include sources. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
All of the content of Wikipedia is based on sourcing. Where a relevant claim is made in a reliable source, our article will generally report it. If you assert that Schnepel, Burkhard (2020) [2005], "Kings and Tribes in East India: the Internal Poitical Dimension", in Quigley, Declan (ed.), The Character of Kingship, Routledge,
Raj era are generally unreliable, and you'll need some modern scholarship to make your case. --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I would still suggest removing the lock because there are some minor changes that must be made. Also, I am not doubting Schepnel’s work but there are a lot of things that are completely incorrect. For example, the book mentions the royal family as Rajputs but in reality they are Kshatriyas of Indo-Aryan lineage. In other words, it’s like tracing your Queen’s lineage with the Han Dynasty of China. The article edited by some Sitush is intentionally degrading the main component of the article viz the Suryavansh dynasty. For eg. Last paragraph under History is insignificant however there was a tiny rebellion and he felt it important to add it in the article.

In more than three places, he has mentioned it as a “little kingdom” although they covered an area of 26,000km2 also mentioned by him. So I don’t really get why admins are so keen on the editing and locking this article. Hattershush (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is locked because there have been too many promotional edits, sockpuppets, people with a conflict of interest etc editing the thing in outright defiance (not mere ignorance) of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You are demonstrating a rather similar attitude, unfortunately. For what it is worth, I have said somewhere recently that we probably could do with an article about the historiographic meaning of little kingdom, little king etc. It has nothing to do with the square miles/kilometres/feet ruled and everything to do with the relationship between various kingdoms and "their people" in a region. That you do not know this suggests to me that you haven't actually read any of the the Schepnel sources because it is explained to some degree in those. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To add further to the "little kingdom" point, Nicholas Dirks wrote an entire book about them - The Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 1988, ISBN 978-0-521-05372-3 - and he and Schepnel are not the only historians to have used the term. - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Washbrook (see
JSTOR 312492) notes of little kingdoms that Inside community institutions - temple sects, lineage-based 'little kingdoms', mirasi villages - relationships between privilege and responsibility and between the appropriation of surplus and its reinvestment in production can be seen to have been close. The power of the 'little king' was in many ways transmitted and legitimated through the 'gifts' he bestowed on his favoured subjects In many ways, judging by some of the screams of protest that emerged in June from people claiming to be tribals from the Jeypore area, the successors to the royal dynasty of Jeypore continue that tradition of careful distribution of largesse. - Sitush (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Linking citation title to full text

I've now restored the link from the citation title to a full text version of this citation in Further reading for the third time:

In separate edits, Headbomb first removed the link from the citation title completely; then removed the link to a full text version and substituted a link to an abstract; then repeated the action. Each time that I've attempted to make the link to the full text version at http://www.fupress.net/index.php/rss/article/view/9116/8896 it has been reverted and a link made to an abstract. --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a link to an interstitial download page. Using the DOI link is more stable and provides the abstract at a glance, which is the standard way to link to papers.
b} 21:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
No, that's a link to a page that embeds the pdf directly into the page for anyone having a plugin that handles pdfs. It also provides a download link for the full text for those whose browsers don't render the pdf. The standard way to link from a citation title is to give the reader the full text where it is available, not just the abstract. In my version, the abstract remains available immediately from the doi for those who wish to use the doi.
If you wish to add the redundant s2cid, then I have no objection as long as you don't remove the link from the citation title to the full text. Similarly, this is in a Further reading section, so it needs the |ref=none to avoid harvard error false positives for editors using Ucucha's script. I hope you can respect that. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

Indopaedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has twice removed reliably-sourced content [1], [2]. The second one was after having received a DS/PIA alert. They are also intent on emphasising the non-existent "Maharajah of Jeypore". @RegentsPark: as I've already reverted the original edits, I don't feel comfortable applying a sanction, so would you be kind enough when you get a chance to review their contributions and take whatever action you think appropriate, please? --RexxS (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reverting

What’s the reason behind reverting the entire article ? The edits that were made in the article prior to the recent reverting used primary sources such as the “Odisha District Gazetteer” which is a book prepared under the government guidelines and by genuine writers. The other sources were from Newspaper articles covering the history of the region. But for some reason RegentsPark reverted it back without giving an explanation. Are the rules meant to be different for admins ?

If the edits are disallowed and reverted in the same manner then I don’t think it’s the same Wikipedia that allowed editing, the current admins don’t let others work. Such a shame Dersvey8 (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:SOCK asap) --RegentsPark (comment) 13:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Struck through yet another sock's comment. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions reverted

(Moved from User talk:RegentsPark)

May I know why has my entire work has been reverted when I have provided a plenty of sources as per the guidelines of Wikipedia ?

Please respond before I file a complaint for unexplained reverting. Rodotype (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is in the edit summary. In your edit, you removed the "mythical" attribute and the "claimed belonging" to the suryavansh kingdom. Since that kingdom is mythical, you cannot make definitive statements about it. Also, the cite you provide says nothing about the fabled Ujjain king. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Kingdom of Jeypore is not the Suryavansh dynasty so The kingdom was ruled by a dynasty who claimed to belong to the mythical Suryavansh dynasty and hence have been referred to as the Jeypore Suryavanshis. is more accurate. The lilavati stuff is unsourced. Schnepel uses "so called" in relation to Jeypore ant the Suryavanshis. You've removed Schepel's statement that Cuttack was independent of Jeypore. I'm sorry, but I can't selectively revert your edits so if you could add them piecemeal, that would be helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

I've removed it. Please provide a reliable source that this was the actual coat of arms if you want to reinstate the image. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Indian Rajput not reliable ?

(Note: moved from User talk:RegentsPark)

I need an explanation on why Indian Rajputs is not a reliable website ? Which policy of Wikipedia does it breach ? It is used by numerous pages and no administrator has removed it. Therefore, if you can’t provide a proper explanation then I will have to file a complaint against you for continuously removing sources from one particular page as per your own wishes. RudolphHitz (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:HISTRS). Also, please use article talk pages for content related comments so that others can see the discussion.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Unfortunately, the other reference, http://kingdomofjeypore.in, is not reliable either. Please read
WP:HISTRS carefully. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Coat of Arms

I've removed the coat of arms that someone added to the article. Please note that everything (emphasis added) on the page must be supported by

reliable sources. "Own work" coat of arms is definitely not sourced. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Princely State or Zamindari ?

Hi, While I have done edit to mention Jeypore as princely state There seems to be different sources claiming different status for Jeypore as

zamindari
at time of independence.

some claim to be princely state as under :-

1. [3] 2. [4] 3 [5] 4 [6]


while other indicate it was a

zamindari

1. [7] 2 [8] 3. [9]

Going into depth I feel it seems status of State was reduced to status of Zamindari in between by British, most probably after 1880 but not sure of exact dates. These are some sources I found.

Accordingly, I welcome other editors to do needed changes citing RS.

Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jethwarp,

Actually, it was made a zamindari in 1777 when the British defeated them (as mentioned in Gazetteers) but later in 1930s it’s status was promoted and was made into a princely state (as mentioned in modern sources like Accessions List, India & Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences and other government websites).

I hope that helps. Odiahistory (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure some legal cases after independence mention as zamindari, ( cited above ) other older sources mention as State, needs research Jethwarp (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think legal cases can be considered as primary sources. The task of a legal case is to focus on the legal issue rather than the status of the zamindari/princely state. Most of the sources that you mentioned are primary and reliable sources, like books and government websites, which have also correctly stated the status of Jeypore’s neighbouring zamindaris and states.

Even I have seen many sources mentioning it as a princely state. I’ll try to find them and get back to you. Odiahistory (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know legal case cant be considered as primary source, I have cited both type of sources in my opening remarks, however, it is not clear exact status on date of Independence of India. Jethwarp (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found one article, seems like it was published by the government.

[[10]]

However, it does clarify (sort of) that it was a princely state when it merged to the state of Odisha in 1950.

Page 1 - “ ……This Suryavamsi rule remained for five turbulent centuries till the princely state was annexed to the state of Odisha in 1950.”

Page 2 mentions its status in 1803 when it recently got annexed by the British - … “ The Jeypore Zamindary Estate was the largest one of the Madras Presidency. In the “Permanent Settlement” of 1803, Jeypore tribute was set at 16,000 rupees.”

Apparently, I have read about some zamindaris that had their status promoted to that of ‘princely states’. This seems to be the case here. This zamindari must have got promoted in its later years. Odiahistory (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is RS as published by Indrajeet Mohanty Reader in History VD Auto College Jeypre, further in he says opposite on very 1st page (page 69) .....till abolition of estate in 1953 linking rajas with mythological Vikramadiya, regards Jethwarp (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a matter of debate. However, I found some other government sources and websites that mentioned it as a "state" (here [11] ). It does not seem to be a typo because it has mentioned the neighbouring principalities like 'Parlakhemundi' as an 'estate' or zamindari ( here [https://gajapati.nic.in/history/ ). So, the government sites have mentioned Jeypore as a state several times in different pages but it is very much a matter of research. Odiahistory (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have found some other sources that I previously mentioned. I am sharing it here, please have a look [12] (pages 9 & 189) , [13] (page 193), regards.Odiahistory (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the second link and for some reason the full sentence is not coming up. Therefore, My advice for the second link viz. [14], is that you just type the word "princely" to see the result, you should see a sentence stating " ... Vikram Deo, the Maharajah of Jeypore (an erstwhile princely state in Orissa), the college now proivdes instruction, among others, in chemical technology and pharmacy up to the degree and postgradutae degree levels ....", regards.Odiahistory (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple affair to ascertain whether or not an entity was a princely state. Anyone proposing that Jeypore (or anywhere else in dispute) as being a state should be requested to provide an official GOI reference, with full date in 1947 or 1948, of the signing of the Instrument of Accession to the Dominion of India. The Governor-General's notification of acceptance of same would also suffice. Equally, anyone claiming merger into the Union of India should similarly provide a reference with full date to the merger agreement in 1950 or later. Pending the provision of these references, the entity should be termed an estate (with the word zamindari, talukdari, jagir, etc, in parentheses).

The government website of Odisha itself recognises Jeypore as a princely state so there is no point of acquiring a Government certificate. If you have a problem contact the royal family via Twitter or Instagram, instead of posting nameless suggestions. MasterClass8x (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Unreliable British Raj Sources

Sources dating to the era of the British Raj are unreliable and not suitable to support content in Wikipedia. MasterClass8x (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a flat statement that is not correct. I notice your recent edit has removed some more recent academic sources & left far older ones! Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even more reliable academic sources were removed on 27th September by Lancepark without any Edit Summary or reason of their removal. Even the title of the article was changed from “Kingdom of Jeypore” to “Jeypore Estate”. When there are several sources that claim Jeypore was an estate and later got promoted to a lower tier princely state. It should be changed back to “Kingdom of Jeypore” as it covers the early history when it was a kingdom. MasterClass8x (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeypore Estate

Moved from User talk:RegentsPark

May I know why have you removed my edit? I am providing a legitimate source of Raphael Rousseleau. MasterClass8x (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You've replaced "Jeypore Zamindari" with "popularly known as Jeypore Samasthanam" (unexplained change to sourced information)
  2. You say "Gajapati empire finished in 1560, so how can Jeypore be tributary until 1777". However, the content you removed clearly says "that existed from the mid-15th century to 1777 CE as a tributary state of the Gajapati Empire and following its decline retained various degrees of semi-independence until it became a vassal state of the British". It does not even remotely imply that the estate was a tributary of the Gajapati empire till 1777.
  3. Prince of Kashmir. I'm not going to bother with this one.
  4. The "Under the present town organisation of Nandapur...." appears to be unsourced and it is unclear what the purpose of including it is.
  5. You've removed a lot of sourced information with the edit summary "Wikipedia does not allow the use of colonial era (pre-independence) sources. Read WP policy". Unfortunately, most of the sources removed by you are not pre-independence and the one that is colonial is probably kosher.
  6. In another edit, you removed sourced content about someone named Mayanka Devi being a claimant. In a subsequent edit, you say "Where does it say that Mayanka Devi is claimant?" (it doesn't, because you removed it).
These are a few examples. Much easier to revert to a clean version and I suggest you get consensus for your edits on this talk page before you try to make changes to the article going forward. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will add source now, it’s Raphael Rousseleau’s book, year 2009 MasterClass8x (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MasterClass8x: Unfortunately, your additions are not good. First, you've again removed Gajapati with the same edit summary about 1777. Are you even reading my notes above? The text clearly says that the estate was first a tributary of the Gajapati kingdom and then following its decline (bolded to make it easier for you) retained various degrees of semi-independence. Also, your new additions are not kosher. Rousseleau clearly says that the Vinayak from Kashmir story is a legend, you're converting it into a fact. Your quote is mostly correct though the addition about Vikramaditya appears to be your own (I don't see it in Rousseleau's text). But, Rousseleau only describes the mound and does not associate it with Vinayak, that's your own addition. The entire quote is unnecessary. Sorry, but no. I again suggest you discuss your edits here on the talk page first. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeypore_Estate&oldid=1207824226"