Talk:Oiniwar dynasty

Development of Hinduism
The article currently says that Sugauna became the core of linguistic and philosophical development of the Hindu religion. It is sourced (poorly) to a 1949 book about literature. Is it really correct? It seems an extraordinary claim to me. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This source might be of some help regarding some claims, not necessarily all. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yes it could be. I am just a little concerned that Jha isn't as good a historian as he thinks he is. Some of his phrasing in the book I have just been citing is very much the style of someone who is too involved with their subject, and some of what he says in it is quite frankly bizarre. Eg: I was about to use it to expand on the various capitals but he says But it is also not known ... how long the capital continued at Sugona. Again, it was shifted from Sugona to Devakuli ... by King Deva Singh Say what? He doesn't know when it moved but in the next sentence he says when it was moved. It is terrible, and the book you mention (which seems to be much better written) is citing him! - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And how do claims like this square with the importance of centres such as Varanasi? I freely admit to not being an expert on Hinduism. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am also not an expert on Hinduism. But, can't there be more than one centres? I am looking for some additional sources, let's see if it can be found. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, there can be more than one centre. It is just the wording makes it read as if it was the heart of the thing. I am struggling to find sources other than Jha but perhaps you will have more luck than me. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am getting some sources but the Google Books is allowing me to read only few sentences. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my problem, too. And we do not usually allow use of snippet views from Google Books because they lack context. We don't know what is said before or after the snippet and it could be a significant qualifier to the bit that we can see. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush @Jakichandan The reference on mithila being the centre of the sanskrit learning and Hinduism can be understood from the book The wonder that Was India Vol 2 -SAA Rizvi  'https://archive.org/details/TheWonderThatWasIndiaVol2SAARizvi/page/n95'. During this Period Kaasi/Prayag/Nalanda/Odantpuri/Takshila etc have been felled by Bakhtiar Khilji and Sarqi rulers. So was the condition of Bengal after Illyas Shah, during this period Mithila have been breeding place for sanskrit/Philosphy and Hinduism. Oiniwars have been a great patron as well as themselves learned Brahmins. The same View you can get from History of Philosphy by VidyaBhusan

There have been latest research on Oiniwar family and that show they have not only ruled current Mithila region but also have ruled Areas of Champaran and Gorakhpur. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/110341/pandey_1.pdf?sequence=1. Page 205. Aforesaid Paper in Conjunction with what SAA Rizvi have written in his book the wonder that was India Page 52 explains many fact. a) Raja of Tirhut refused to accompany Firoz shah on expedition to win Bengal/Orrissa b) Kings of Champaran and Gorakhpur have helped Firoz tughlaq

Its due to this influence of family Firoz Shah left by only deposing Kameshwara and making his Son Bhogiswara as king — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suyasham (talk • contribs) 07:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Fall of Karnat dynasty
The article currently says Subsequently in 1353, when the Karnat Dynasty collapsed, he became the first Maithil ruler..., but according to this the Karnataka (or the Karnat) dynasty fell in 1324. It is likely that Oiniwars started ruling from 1353 while the Karnataka dynasty had fallen some years ago in 1324. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. This is why I was seeking the book I mentioned at WP:RX. As so often happens, there was probably a hiatus as one dynasty collapses and another emerges. The Karnats were apparently also known as the Simroun or Dev dynasty - there are some mentions of them in other articles but, again as so often happens, the stuff either isn't sourced or is poorly sourced! It's a nightmare, isn't it, and it isn't helped by Jha being such a poor writer.


 * Should we change it to something like "in 1353, following the collapse of the Karnat dynasty in 1324, ... "? That leaves room for manouevre. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This might be a helpful change. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. I have to go out now. Don't be scared to edit! - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Raj Darbhanga
I can see the page you think is relevant in the source added with this edit but I cannot see the page immediately preceding it (ie: p. 261). The one preceding that says that the entire dating thing has been the subject of dispute in recent years and so it may be relevant to this article. Can you see it? - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sadly, no. It is not part of preview as per Google Books, so I can't see. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I need to see it. Will dig around because it could be very significant. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Single source
We rely almost entirely on the work of Makhan Jha, who says pretty much the same thing in several books, sometimes word-for-word. He isn't a good writer but I'm not sure if that is because of his skills in the English language or just carelessness. He certainly contradicts himself in minor ways, as some of my recent edit summaries suggest.

We really could do with finding some alternate sources. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Please update the "demise" section
The last ruler of this dynasty, Lakshminath, and his ally Ibrahim Lodi, both died in the Battle of Panipat against the invading Mughal forces of Babur. Please update/pipelink accordingly. However, the way editors of Ibrahim_Lodi have created the paragraphs, I can not tell if this text is supported by the citation appended to the last para or not. Thanks. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Rajput claim
We have an old-ish source that says that the "Rajputas" were significant in the army, and that claim in turn in based on the work of a poet. Given that "Rajput" didn't really have any great meaning until the 16th century (see the sources in Rajput for that) and that poets of the period played fast and loose with their descriptions, I'm not entirely convinced that we can make the leap from Rajputa to a linking of Rajput. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Changing to Rajaputas is fine and more accurate in fact however the poet (Vidyapati) in question was a historical figure in his own right whose work has received much commentary. We should also note that he is recorded as working in the court of the Oiniwaras so he was not just any random poet but someone with intimate knowledge of the Oiniwars. However the author Radhakrishna Choudhary has a tendency to use "Rajaputa" as opposed to "Rajput" even when speaking about modern groups and zamindars in his other works.2001:630:E4:4220:949A:5FF7:595:E04D (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, fine by me. Thanks for responding. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)