This article was nominated for deletion on 16 April 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This page was proposed for deletion by Bishonen ( talk · contribs) on 16 April 2020. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
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)
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)
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...
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)
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)
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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 subjectsIn 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)
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)
|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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
(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)
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)
Hi, While I have done edit to mention Jeypore as princely state There seems to be different sources claiming different status for Jeypore as princely state or zamindari at time of independence.
some claim to be princely state as under :-
while other indicate it was a
zamindari
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I will add source now, it’s Raphael Rousseleau’s book, year 2009 MasterClass8x ( talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)