Talk:Dahir of Aror

message: Same issues here as with bin-Qasim in Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim.Plz reflect changes accordingly.Hkelkar 10:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Same issues

message: The Chach Nama can be considered  to have only as much reliability as the Pakistani version of Bangladesh s war of liberation in 1971 .  Accounts from Bangladeshi , Western ,and  Indian sources  of the events , circumstances , background play , leading to the struggle and subsequent  independence of Bangladesh seem to tell a diametrically opposite view than the official Pakistani Government explanations .
The Chach Nama is an important document no doubt but it is no gospel truth . 
On the other hand the propensity to invariably  belittle and  demean sons of the soil but non Islamic indigenous rulers , Sindhi , Punjabi ,Pashtun , compared to Arab , Persian conquerors   by contemporary Pakistanis is fascinating .
Surely it might not be a comforting thought to be invariably   reminded that ones forefathers were unworthy of any respect . Granted that Pakistan as India have a considerable number of people from non south Asian descent including Arabic or Persian , but an overwhelming majority are indigenous . Genealogical Accounts of Pakistani clans posted on Wikipedia tell an interesting tale , all are clamoring for foreign origins . 
The Arab or Persian Royals pursued an active policy of discrimination , suspicion ,and open hostility to Indian Muslims as well . Does the zeal  to create a new Pakistani history intrinsically also need to necessarily trash ones own  forefathers   ?Intothefire 06:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The questionable veracity of the Chach Nama .

message: Paragraph removed:
""Assimilation and accommodation, rather than destruction and displacement, are the terms most appropriate to describe the way in which Aryan warriors established their rule among India's indigenous tribes. The resultant polity was a loose federation of tribes under the authority of a Hindu—sometimes Buddhist or Jain—king. This became the political model for Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms ""
Clashing sentence with source:
"First, the largely Buddhist population of Sind was unhappy with their Hindu rulers and their ethics of nonviolence inclined them to welcome the invaders."
The first paragraph talks about a general situation across time and area. The second paragraph is specific to Dahir.--Tigeroo 05:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Paragraph

message: Listed for the following items:
#Citation do not conform to guidelines in WP:Cite and can unverifiable.
#Sources are often from non-peer reviewed articles and questionable sites, opinion columns.
#Organization & Language - The narrative is quite confusing and hard to understand and gives less information and sounds more like a propogation of a particular view. Keep in mind the Wikipedia maxim, "Show don't tell" when attribute opinions and views.--Shamiana 14:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Could it be ??seems the case to me .
Cheers
Intothefire 10:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok lets, start this simpler one item at a time. I have removed items that appear in personal webpages atm. I.e. from dalsabzi, or a personal webpage at some university of user jamali, and the daily pioneer op-ed column. These are easy to identify non-RS sources.--Shamiana (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is user Shamiana the same as user Tigeroo ????

message: Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them by Sita Ram Goel - the material added that temples  were destroyed are actually from this text. 
All the references either show the work of a writer in a published book or a news article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenhawk 0 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok lets, start this simpler one item at a time. I have removed items that appear in personal webpages atm. I.e. from dalsabzi, or a personal webpage at some university of user jamali, and the daily pioneer op-ed column. These are easy to identify non-RS sources.--Shamiana (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Credible Sources that Depict Destruction

message: Is it just me or does the portrait seem to date from the Victorian era at earliest? lol  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConArtis (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Raja dahir.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Per article-naming convention, I think this page should be moved to Raja Dahir (currently a redirect) or Dahir (raja); generic titles (of which "raja" is one) are not capitalized, except when the first word of a sentence. I prefer "Raja Dahir", per WP:UCN; thoughts? Miniapolis 20:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I have deleted the image, which was identical to that of Maharaja Sawai Madho Singh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted image 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Raja Dahir's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "chachnama":
From Rai dynasty: "Chach Nama - The queen falls in love with Chach who becomes the Ruler through her love", Packhum.org
From Muhammad bin Qasim: The Chachnamah, An Ancient History of Sind, Giving the Hindu period down to the Arab Conquest. (1900). Translated from the Persian by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Karachi: Commissioners Press.
From Rai Sahasi II: Chach Nama - The queen falls in love with Chach who becomes the Ruler through her love. - The passing away of Sáhasi Rái from this world.- Chach son of Seláij ascends the throne.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Raja Dahir]] 

message: I will be back. Yeah, this isn't how this goes down. 103.163.200.185 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is quite clearly heavily biased 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: @Fylindfotberserk I reverted sock edits on this article because of the POV removal of "present day Pakistan" after Sindh which was long standing text, do you mind if I restore? "Sindhi" brahmin part looked like it violated MOS: ETHNICITY Kiu99 (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the "present day Pakistan" part, and removed "Sindhi" since I'm not sure such an ethno-linguistic identifier exited that time, though Brahmin should be kept. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts