Talk:Soomra dynasty

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: - are you saying that this content which you removed is not in the source? - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Query re: removal 

message: 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 , followed by an overview of various theories and what appears to be a conclusion of the author that  (last paragraph of section 2 in the source). - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rajput origin 

message: They betrayed by there own people not war over a princess  Maarij Ali (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong info some 

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

text: My point exactly, thanks for understanding. (2600:1001:B004:AEB1:69A5:32A1:F850:E0E2 (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Dodo Bin Khafef Soomro III" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Khafif" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]