This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Bilby ( talk) 02:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC) furqan soomro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.202.26 ( talk) 18:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Fundamental metric tensor: - are you saying that this content which you removed is not in the source? - Sitush ( talk) 09:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand the repeated addition of
this, which appears to be contrary to
WP:NPOV. I can't actually find the quote mentioned in the edit summary anywhere in
the source but I do note that the first sentence to section 2 of that source says Writers differ on the origin of the Soomra race ...
, followed by an overview of various theories and what appears to be a conclusion of the author that By all norms of historical identification, the Soomra race appears to be an ancient indigenous race of Sindh
(last paragraph of section 2 in the source). -
Sitush (
talk) 17:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Because History blogs like this: https://thesalientfeaturesoftheruleofsoomradynasty.wordpress.com arent considered good sources for Wikipedia, I begin to resume these books that i found about the Soomra dynasty: https://ia802606.us.archive.org/10/items/ChronologicalDictionaryOfSindh/ChronologicalDictionaryOfSindh.pdf https://panhwar.com/Adobe/SKS.pdf It seemed that there isn't very much information avaliable about the Soomra Dynasty in English, but the last article was a mere stub and must be extended with the right information.
I ask your help, You seem to know more about Sindhi history that I. In my opinion the impartial parts are the chronological and description parts. Ididnt think that a "caste-bias" influenced the author in in point the capitals or the rulers of the Soomra dynasties for example.
They betrayed by there own people not war over a princess Maarij Ali ( talk) 18:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Unsorced... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.27.252 ( talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure what the controversy is, but this article was expanded by pulling in several sources, yet an IP address keeps deleting it by claiming that there’s been an insertion of word salad/unsourced information/POV. I’ve asked for clarification but they just revert revert revert. I thought this information about an 800 year old dynasty was pretty dry, so I’m not sure what else to do but to ask for a third party to chime in. Maybe something in it *is* controversial? It’s all sourced, and I just don’t see how an 800 year old dynasty is so provoking. heres one of several reversions: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Soomra_dynasty&diff=936781571&oldid=936591049 2600:1012:B047:92B6:385B:F931:C0FF:4A55 ( talk) 04:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Sindhi culture experienced a revival during Soomra rule, while Arab language and traditions continued to deeply impact Sindh.does not appear to be supported by the cited sources, and isn't implied anywhere else in the article. However, the additions otherwise do seem to be supported by citations to sources that look reliable. You may have a point about some unwarranted POV additions, but stonewalling the entire addition with vague and less-than-accurate edit summaries is unproductive. Find specific phrases that you take issue with, and we can address them individually. signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @ Rosguill:. A trimmed first paragraphs is fine, even though it removes lots of important information (like how this was the first dynasty to reestablish native Sindhi control after the Arab invasions). But I redid the wording bc it seems the real point here all along was to insert “Indian subcontinent” to make sure “India” shows up on this page rather than Pakistan. None of the rest of the article was really disputed, but the other user deleted lots of information essentially just to include “Indian subcontinent,” which I don’t think is appropriate- indian subcontinent is a huge area of 7 countries, so how is that a better choice than increased accuracy? I think it’s clear why the other person objected - they didn’t like the word Pakistan to be featured more prominently than India-n subcontinent, even though the land of modern Pakistan is where this dynasty was based. 2600:1012:B02D:C1D8:8A9:5CB:779F:C71D ( talk) 07:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Not sure where this idea that an old revision is set in stone. You’ve erased huge parts of this page with nonsense justification like “word salad” simply to stick in the word “indian subcontinent” (twice in the lead for some reason). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00C:4A17:F519:E5F0:9286:2865 ( talk) 19:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
According to historian Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya Soomara were originally Sodha. They were convereted to Islam.Vaidya, C. V. History of medieval Hindu India, The Oriental book-supplying agency, 1921, p. 189 [2]
How did we end up with so much detail? As far as I know, contemporary inscriptions/literature are absent and I would be hard-pressed to write more than two lines. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
[A]t that time Hind (India) and Sindh was a popular term to differentiate India and Sindh.TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Habibullah’s Journal (article - ?) from the University of Karachito be
the most extensive work on this dynasty. Only two primary sources — Mir Muhammad Maʿsum’s Tarikh-i Maʿsumi (completed c. 1600; crit. trans. ed. by Daudpota) and Tahir Muhammad Nisyani Tattavi’s Tarikh-i Tahiri (completed c. 1621) — are used but w/o source-criticism. [1] Notwithstanding that, in-text citations are seldom provided and it is impossible to find out the source of most claims. Secondary works by N. A. Baloch are used and he is praised for yeoman contributions to Soomra history — I need to read his works. [2]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dodo Bin Khafef Soomro III. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19#Dodo Bin Khafef Soomro III until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Khafif. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19#Khafif until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Bilby ( talk) 02:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC) furqan soomro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.202.26 ( talk) 18:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Fundamental metric tensor: - are you saying that this content which you removed is not in the source? - Sitush ( talk) 09:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand the repeated addition of
this, which appears to be contrary to
WP:NPOV. I can't actually find the quote mentioned in the edit summary anywhere in
the source but I do note that the first sentence to section 2 of that source says Writers differ on the origin of the Soomra race ...
, followed by an overview of various theories and what appears to be a conclusion of the author that By all norms of historical identification, the Soomra race appears to be an ancient indigenous race of Sindh
(last paragraph of section 2 in the source). -
Sitush (
talk) 17:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Because History blogs like this: https://thesalientfeaturesoftheruleofsoomradynasty.wordpress.com arent considered good sources for Wikipedia, I begin to resume these books that i found about the Soomra dynasty: https://ia802606.us.archive.org/10/items/ChronologicalDictionaryOfSindh/ChronologicalDictionaryOfSindh.pdf https://panhwar.com/Adobe/SKS.pdf It seemed that there isn't very much information avaliable about the Soomra Dynasty in English, but the last article was a mere stub and must be extended with the right information.
I ask your help, You seem to know more about Sindhi history that I. In my opinion the impartial parts are the chronological and description parts. Ididnt think that a "caste-bias" influenced the author in in point the capitals or the rulers of the Soomra dynasties for example.
They betrayed by there own people not war over a princess Maarij Ali ( talk) 18:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Unsorced... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.27.252 ( talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure what the controversy is, but this article was expanded by pulling in several sources, yet an IP address keeps deleting it by claiming that there’s been an insertion of word salad/unsourced information/POV. I’ve asked for clarification but they just revert revert revert. I thought this information about an 800 year old dynasty was pretty dry, so I’m not sure what else to do but to ask for a third party to chime in. Maybe something in it *is* controversial? It’s all sourced, and I just don’t see how an 800 year old dynasty is so provoking. heres one of several reversions: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Soomra_dynasty&diff=936781571&oldid=936591049 2600:1012:B047:92B6:385B:F931:C0FF:4A55 ( talk) 04:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Sindhi culture experienced a revival during Soomra rule, while Arab language and traditions continued to deeply impact Sindh.does not appear to be supported by the cited sources, and isn't implied anywhere else in the article. However, the additions otherwise do seem to be supported by citations to sources that look reliable. You may have a point about some unwarranted POV additions, but stonewalling the entire addition with vague and less-than-accurate edit summaries is unproductive. Find specific phrases that you take issue with, and we can address them individually. signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @ Rosguill:. A trimmed first paragraphs is fine, even though it removes lots of important information (like how this was the first dynasty to reestablish native Sindhi control after the Arab invasions). But I redid the wording bc it seems the real point here all along was to insert “Indian subcontinent” to make sure “India” shows up on this page rather than Pakistan. None of the rest of the article was really disputed, but the other user deleted lots of information essentially just to include “Indian subcontinent,” which I don’t think is appropriate- indian subcontinent is a huge area of 7 countries, so how is that a better choice than increased accuracy? I think it’s clear why the other person objected - they didn’t like the word Pakistan to be featured more prominently than India-n subcontinent, even though the land of modern Pakistan is where this dynasty was based. 2600:1012:B02D:C1D8:8A9:5CB:779F:C71D ( talk) 07:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Not sure where this idea that an old revision is set in stone. You’ve erased huge parts of this page with nonsense justification like “word salad” simply to stick in the word “indian subcontinent” (twice in the lead for some reason). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00C:4A17:F519:E5F0:9286:2865 ( talk) 19:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
According to historian Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya Soomara were originally Sodha. They were convereted to Islam.Vaidya, C. V. History of medieval Hindu India, The Oriental book-supplying agency, 1921, p. 189 [2]
How did we end up with so much detail? As far as I know, contemporary inscriptions/literature are absent and I would be hard-pressed to write more than two lines. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
[A]t that time Hind (India) and Sindh was a popular term to differentiate India and Sindh.TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Habibullah’s Journal (article - ?) from the University of Karachito be
the most extensive work on this dynasty. Only two primary sources — Mir Muhammad Maʿsum’s Tarikh-i Maʿsumi (completed c. 1600; crit. trans. ed. by Daudpota) and Tahir Muhammad Nisyani Tattavi’s Tarikh-i Tahiri (completed c. 1621) — are used but w/o source-criticism. [1] Notwithstanding that, in-text citations are seldom provided and it is impossible to find out the source of most claims. Secondary works by N. A. Baloch are used and he is praised for yeoman contributions to Soomra history — I need to read his works. [2]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dodo Bin Khafef Soomro III. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19#Dodo Bin Khafef Soomro III until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Khafif. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19#Khafif until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)