Jump to content

Talk:Soomra dynasty: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 32: Line 32:
Well, in this case, the "caste affiliated publications" must have certain phrases or opinions that are controversial or no genuine.This phrases are inadecuated for the Wikipedia No?. But the entire source and his information? That is very extreme. Many biased sources have useful information and i dont think that M. H. Panhwar had created the whole book from his head and his "caste-bias".
Well, in this case, the "caste affiliated publications" must have certain phrases or opinions that are controversial or no genuine.This phrases are inadecuated for the Wikipedia No?. But the entire source and his information? That is very extreme. Many biased sources have useful information and i dont think that M. H. Panhwar had created the whole book from his head and his "caste-bias".


And in the case of the "Chronological Dictionary Of Sind", M. H. Panhwar mentioned OTHER sources that he agreed or disagreed. I propose to use the impratial information of his books and the sources that he menntionated in them.
And in the case of the "Chronological Dictionary Of Sind", M. H. Panhwar mentioned OTHER sources that he agreed or disagreed. I propose to use the impartial information from his books and the other sources that he menntionated in them to make his affirmations.

Revision as of 23:05, 25 July 2017

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)[reply]

Query re: removal

@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)[reply]

Dont remember saying that. The sources indicate that the Soomras were indeed Rajputs, and so that Arab origin theory is most likely legend. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput origin

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)[reply]

Improvement of the article

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.

If there isn't much in the way of reliable sources then we don't say much. Aside from recent edits being so poorly cited that it is difficult to discern whether they are sourced or not, M. H. Panhwar seems to be/have been an engineer by profession. I'm not even convinced whether the plaudits to his book from some academic in the US are in fact genuine. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, we do not used caste/tribe-affiliated publications for statements about history etc. That source is thus affiliated. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case, the "caste affiliated publications" must have certain phrases or opinions that are controversial or no genuine.This phrases are inadecuated for the Wikipedia No?. But the entire source and his information? That is very extreme. Many biased sources have useful information and i dont think that M. H. Panhwar had created the whole book from his head and his "caste-bias".

And in the case of the "Chronological Dictionary Of Sind", M. H. Panhwar mentioned OTHER sources that he agreed or disagreed. I propose to use the impartial information from his books and the other sources that he menntionated in them to make his affirmations.