Talk:Marri (tribe)

Remove redirect

Marri is also the name of a Baloch tribe... that is curently very much in the news. A redirect to the parasite needs to be removed. 61.17.86.74 (talk · contribs · logs) 11:45, 23 February 2006

Let us upgrade

For the year 2006-07, let us concentrate on upgrading the contents as decided: Wales to upgrade quality of Wiki. Thanks. --Bhadani 03:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Anglo Marri wars merger proposal

To some extent, Anglo Marri wars duplicates and otherwise overlaps the information in Marri. The Anglo Marri wars article is short and, on reviewing the comments at the AfD, unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time. It makes sense to merge Anglo Marri wars into Marri since Marri is the broader topic. Merging would provide background material and context for the wars that would allow readers to understand the wars better. Please comment below with Merge or No merge and with your reasoning. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 16:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• No Merge - The topic of Anglo Marri wars is specific for military perspective but the aticle of Marri is more specific for historic and ethnic perspective. Let Anglo Marri wars to flourish further with the passage of time. Marrigreat (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge for the reasons given. This is a muddled, poorly referenced and POV article which needs more editors working on it. It's also a very small, badly documented topic. Marri is where users would expect to find it and where it can be properly edited. andy (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - There are two topics: the people today and their history. But both articles are small, overlapping and in need of attention. Merging, with the history section clearly separated from other topics, would make give a fuller picture and make it easier to upgrade as a whole. If (seems unlikely) the section on wars expands greatly, it would be easy enough to break out as a separate main article later. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Just Redirect Anglo Marri Wars here - I just did some clean-up on the Marri article. On second thoughts, there is no useful information in the Anglo Marri wars article that is not in this article. The war article has four parts: 1) General history of partition of Balochistan between Persia and Britiish Raj, no mention of the tribe. 2) First Afghan war, repeated in Marri. 3) Second Afghan war, repeated in Marri. 4) Unreferenced statement that the Marri tribe refused to fight in the 1st world war. Parts 1) and 4) have no particular value in the Marri article. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - They are many articles like the Anglo Marri wars in the Wikipedia which just created for the perspective of dealing of military expeditions and history of wars. For example, Anglo-Aro War, Anglo-Ashanti wars, Anglo-Burmese Wars etc. You can not see any such merging tag on them like on this article. What is difference between Anglo Marri wars and all the said articles mention above. No merging is the better solution for the future point of view. It is a wishful thinking that the section on wars in Marri would not expands greatly in future. Let the topic of Anglo Marri wars to flourish further in its own space. Marrigreat (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• No, the key thing about the Anglo-Marri wars is that they never took place... andy (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow!. Where have you got this peace of true information? I just amazed by your comment. Just check the section of Bibliography in the article of Anglo Marri wars. Marrigreat (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We've already been through this in AfD. You were unable to supply the page number in any work of reference where the phrase "Anglo Marri wars" was used. Battles maybe, skirmishes and fights definitely, but there has never been even one war let alone wars in the plural. andy (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you define the word "war"? Just check the article War in great detail. Second there is also an indication in the Anglo Marri wars referencing Encyclopedia Britannica Eleventh Edition that "the fort of Kahan, which he was trying to relieve at the time, was forced to capitulate with the honors of war." What is the meaning of the "honors of war" there? Marrigreat (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake! "Honours of war" is a specific military term - see here. It does not mean that the combatants were taking part in a war, just that the defeated soldiers were allowed to walk away with their flag flying rather than being imprisoned or put to the sword. War is "an international relations dispute" which takes place between "national military units" - if an independent Marri nation had formally engaged its national army in a strategic fight with the British nation then that would have been a war! But the Marri are a tribe, not a nation: it is conceptually impossible for them to have an international relations dispute because that's something that takes place between nations. Why am I wasting my time on this pointless semantic argument? Please just read the dictionary. andy (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are once again going in the wrong direction. Just check these links.[1] [2] [3]. The word "war" means "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties". Although Marri tribesmen were independent and according to tribal customs, the "Sardar" or "Nawab" is the ruler of the whole tribe. As according to the definition of word "war", Marri tribesmen atleast were a party who were fighting and were involved in a bloody conflict with the British Empire. You can not rule out that Marris were not a party at all. I think that is enough for the meaning of the word "war". According to your definition, War on terror can not be fixed in a war category but I am sorry that is not true. Marrigreat (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm sure you're right: the Marris are an important tribe who had a ruler all to themselves; they engaged in a series of notable and bloody wars with the British, (strangely overlooked by historians) from which they no doubt emerged victorious; and the definition of war in the WP article is far too restricted - I hope you'll correct it asap.

The point of this debate, however, is the merging of the two articles. The article about these important wars is, sad to say, a thin and badly written article which is largely copied from an obsolete source and has very few active editors. Marri on the other hand is a perfectly good article which several editors are working on. That's why they should be merged. andy (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• No Merge - The reason is quite fair and clear. First, if these are not alike the wars of other which User:Marrigreat mentioned in his opinion than there is no space for this article in Wikipedia otherwise there is quite room for this article because the other articles mentioned above are reason for this to stay alive in Wikipedia. 203.130.7.109 (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That misses the point of this debate. Marri is a better, stronger article and already contains pretty much everything in Anglo Marri wars. Also someone might search for "Marri" to find out something about them but they'll never search for "Anglo Marri wars" because there never were any wars - there's nothing on Google or Yahoo apart from links to this article. If you want to promote your ideas about the Marri, then the main article is the only sensible place to do it! andy (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Text from Article

Text from article, which requires reference and does not make sense.

He has killed many of his cousins to eliminate any sort of competition in ruling the tribe. He is well known for being interested in taming chickens.

Quality

This article is written very poorly in an unprofessional manner. I've made what grammar adjustments I can without rewriting the article, because, frankly, I know nothing about the subject matter. If anyone has the knowledge, please rewrite this so it can be better understood and conform to Wikipedia standards. --108.225.134.12 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marri (tribe). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081101091010/http://san-pips.com/PIPS-SAN-Files/SAN-Pakistan/SAN-PAK-Article47/San-Pak-Main-A47-D.asp to http://san-pips.com/PIPS-SAN-Files/SAN-Pakistan/SAN-PAK-Article47/San-Pak-Main-A47-D.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012171910/http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsSep2004/newsbeat1sep.htm to http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsSep2004/newsbeat1sep.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)