 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Let us upgrade edit
For the year 2006-07, let us concentrate on upgrading the contents as decided: Wales to upgrade quality of Wiki. Thanks. --Bhadani 03:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Removal of Content edit
@Sitush Can you explain why you removed the part about Ibrahim? Adam Shah came after Ibrahim. That's clearly mentioned in the source. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Sir Calculus I asked you not to ping me. You already know about edit warring - just give me a chance to develop the thing & please stop trying to own articles when you don't really know what you are doing. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't own any article on Wikipedia. You didn't explain why the url is useless. It's a link to the pdf of the book. I didn't add a google books url because "snippet view". Sir Calculus (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Sir Calculus It says it is in copyright. Are you telling me that the ISS have permission to host and distribute in full a copyrighted book that they didn't themselves publish? Or is it that the Institute of Sindh Studies and the Institute of Sindhology are the same thing, rather weirdly using two different names? We don't link to hosted copyright violations. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- And is a book with no footnotes, written by someone who was a practising lawyer, dramatist, short story writer and journalist, as well as research scholar and author of 20 books, really a decent source? There is a bibliography, listing 53 items, but it's useless without footnotes. There is also a quite extensive list of errors. It's shoddy, don't you think? - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't even make sense, as we paraphrase it: "Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, son of Muhammad Mehdi Khan, is the earliest known Kalhora, being referred to as Kalhoro Khan". That would make the father the earliest known, surely, not the son? - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Because the father wasn't known as "Kalhoro", the father was known as Abbasi. Anyways I think it's better if i give you the relevant quote: "..Chanio Khan died, leaving behind two sons, Muhammad Mehdi and Daud Khan. As per testimony of the dead chieftain, Muhammad Mehdi was given his Ummama (turban), which means he was declared to be the chief of the tribe socially and politically. His other son Daud Khan was given Tassbih (Rosary) and Mussalla (a mat for offering prayer on), which shows he succeeded Chanio Khan as spiritual and religious head. Muhammad Mehdi Khan died immediately after a few days of his father's death. According to custom, Daud Khan was to succeed as chief of the tribe, but Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, the son of Muhammad Mehdi Khan claimed to be the chief of his tribe and made such declaration. This Ibrahim Khan was also known as Kalhoro Khan.."
- This does make sense as it also supports the reference by brill in the Daudpotra article. Sir Calculus (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Sir Calculus So the tribe split? And Chanio Khan was actually Chanio Khan Abbasi? Can we really use such a poor source for this? And if we can, should we not actually explain the apparent illogicality? I struggle when sources are as bad as this. It seems odd that Adam is saud to be the first to be clear in history yet the author goes back another 10 generations. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Sitush The book has stated them of local origin. There was just a tendency to claim Arab origin in past times. Source is based on Mir Ali Sher Thattvi's Tuhfatulkiram. It's still a better source compared to others which are based on Colonial era sources. Interestingly, in the 1998 District census report they are included in Samaats.[1] Sir Calculus (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, because more is known about Adam than others, in great detail, as he interacted more, he had huge followers because he was a religious figure. He added "Shah" in his name. Sir Calculus (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Sir Calculus So the tribe split? And Chanio Khan was actually Chanio Khan Abbasi? Can we really use such a poor source for this? And if we can, should we not actually explain the apparent illogicality? I struggle when sources are as bad as this. It seems odd that Adam is saud to be the first to be clear in history yet the author goes back another 10 generations. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't even make sense, as we paraphrase it: "Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, son of Muhammad Mehdi Khan, is the earliest known Kalhora, being referred to as Kalhoro Khan". That would make the father the earliest known, surely, not the son? - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- And is a book with no footnotes, written by someone who was a practising lawyer, dramatist, short story writer and journalist, as well as research scholar and author of 20 books, really a decent source? There is a bibliography, listing 53 items, but it's useless without footnotes. There is also a quite extensive list of errors. It's shoddy, don't you think? - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Sir Calculus It says it is in copyright. Are you telling me that the ISS have permission to host and distribute in full a copyrighted book that they didn't themselves publish? Or is it that the Institute of Sindh Studies and the Institute of Sindhology are the same thing, rather weirdly using two different names? We don't link to hosted copyright violations. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't own any article on Wikipedia. You didn't explain why the url is useless. It's a link to the pdf of the book. I didn't add a google books url because "snippet view". Sir Calculus (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)