Talk:Soomra dynasty

Copyright problem removed

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

If there is mistakes in the making of the article , please mention them and work together to created a better article and not a stub.

How are you determining which bits of his book are impartial? - Sitush (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

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.

Wrong info some

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)

Request for comment

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/w/index.php?title=Soomra_dynasty&diff=936781571&oldid=936591049 2600:1012:B047:92B6:385B:F931:C0FF:4A55 (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't read through all the sources in detail and I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to assess POV from just a cursory read, but the written copy in the proposed edit seems like reasonable English that I would hardly describe as word salad. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  This edit is making me suspect that the other IP is not here in good faith. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Habibullah’s Journal from the University of Karachi is the most extensive work on this dynasty. This dynasty was not studied enough for anyone to make a clear statement. Habibullah’s work is the closest we have to WP:TERTIARY source. Please don’t add stuff that is not verified or in dispute. This version is very is concise and not in dispute. (2600:1001:B004:AEB1:69A5:32A1:F850:E0E2 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC))

Even setting aside that this obsession with tertiary sources is unwarranted, the other revision does contain tertiary sources, such as [1]. Reading through it more carefully, the assertion in the lead that 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)

My point exactly, thanks for understanding. (2600:1001:B004:AEB1:69A5:32A1:F850:E0E2 (talk) 21:24, 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)

This lede was established by Sitush here and many reverts before and has been kept this way for years. Please don’t change this. It is the most neutral established by a user who is most experienced in this subject. 2600:1001:B00A:567A:7970:94C2:B8FF:908A (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I added Pakistan in the lede here, hope this mitigates your concerns about “Pakistan” being suppressed, and is seen as a compromise. Thank you! 2600:1001:B00A:567A:7970:94C2:B8FF:908A (talk) 03:57, 21 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)

Soomara are originally Sodha

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]

Darkness

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)

Bunch of clowns: [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)

Someone found Habibullah’s Journal (article - ?) from the University of Karachi to 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. 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.

M. H. Panhwar's self-published book (which apparently received plaudits from USA; see three threads up) felt the very concept of citations to be a burden and did away with it. The sections on archaeology are a painful read.

Humera Naz (of UoKarachi) has published a few works (2, 3) on Sindhi folklore and discusses the Soomras. Too poor to be used in our article.

Of the sources, I purged: (a) the Meadows contribute towards community development in Pakistan (education initiatives etc.) and have no academic training in history, and (b) the SAGE article was by one 'Bill Ktepi', whose range of publications beggars disbelief for those unacquainted with the drafting of these "encyclopedias". TrangaBellam (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Dodo Bin Khafef Soomro III" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 (dc̄) 21:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"Khafif" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 (dc̄) 21:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)