Talk:Samma dynasty

Samma dynasty was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 4, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Samma dynasty. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samma were Kshatriya

According to historian Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya Sammas were originally Lohana kshatriya. Reference: History of mediaeval Hindu India, page no. 189[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.233.59.20 (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samma Dynasty is Muslim rajput Dynasty Sandhi Muslim (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly added lohana there without any citation

"The Sammas, a Lohana tribe, gained control of Thatta in the southern Sindh from the Sumras around 1335, and expanded their territory northward to Bhakkar and beyond.."

No citation reference has been provided RS6784 (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Samma are not Lohana tribe 2409:4041:2E16:67E7:0:0:5B8B:2409 (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Interesting Geek (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2021 (2)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Samma is originally Kshatriya not Lohana tribe 2409:4041:2E16:67E7:0:0:5B8B:2409 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Interesting Geek (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Origin and Establishment

According to Chachnama, Samma was a branch of Lohana tribe.^[1] Ala al-Din Khiljl (1296-1316) mounted a number of campaigns in the region battling the Sumra princes whose cycle of capitulation/rebellion could be charted exactly to the perceived military stress on the metropole. Yet, the Delhi Sultans and their governor rarely resorted to invading Sumra held territories - relying, instead, on alliances with tribal elite and local power struggles. Against the Sumras, Khiljl advanced the cause of the Lohana tribe of Samma. The conflict guaranteed a rolling supply of princes and tribal chiefs wanting alliances with the center. The tussle for dominance between the Sumras and the Samma lasted until the reign of Firuz Shah Tughluq (1351- 1388), when the Jam emirs of Samma were finally able to end Sumra dominance, taking over lower Sindh.^[2]

@Interesting Geek: Please add this Section in article. I provide two reliable references. Thanks in advances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.106.219 (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Elliot, Henry M. (1867). The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period Vol. I - page - 362. Trubner & Co., London.
^ Ahmed, Manan (2008). The many histories of Muhammad b. Qasim: Narrating the Muslim conquest of Sindh - page - 99. The University of Chicago.

Merge

All of these articles—Jam Unar, Jam Tamachi, Jam Raidhan, Jam Sanjar and Jam Nizamuddin II—are extraordinarily poor, ill-sourced, and mostly reproduced off (unreliable) century-old texts^[a] leveraging their PD status. In reality, information on these rulers are scarce and often non-existent — premodern Sindh did not have a vibrant literary culture. All that can be obtained stems out of fragmentary mentions in Mughal chronicles etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge Nothing to gain by merging. If anything, let's improve these individual articles. @TrangaBellam: पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: + I am afraid suggesting a merge during one month without any advertissement (we usually post on project pages when no feedback) and "closing" all by yourself is not quite proper procedure, especially when you know your merge proposals have been regularly countered in other areas. I suggest you refrain from deleting content, unless you obtain real consensus. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regularly countered by you, who has been noted to have a battleground mentality by at-least one other editor in the project discussion? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: Please just follow proper procedure, you are not alone here. You need to obtain consensus, like it or not, that's how Wikipedia works. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the discussion since I do not recall advertising the discussion in projects.
@Future participants: Pat has objected to my collapsing of these meta-comments; they are (now) irrelevant. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy: you are not allowed to delete the Talk Page comments of other contributors [2], and then hiding their comments by collapsing them is strongly against etiquette [3][4][5]. Your previous merge closure was quite borderline: one month without any advertissement and "closing" all by yourself. My point is that these articles may not be perfect (I am uninvolved in their creation and development), but they do have significant content, sometimes specific images (tombs), so it seems really extreme to want to merge these. Better to bring improvement to these articles about historical rulers. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, collapsing is regularly done and it is not against etiquette. The way out was to request me to re-open the discussion due to valid grievances; not sneak in a comment underneath a closed discussion.

I do not wish to continue this discussion; have the last word. Can you at-least agree to separate off this meta-discussion (excluding your oppose !vote) into a subsection, so that future participants are not put off by this bickering? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, please leave my comments here, do not "separate them off".... Also please do not WP:CANVASS when advertising a Merge Request [6]: just posting on the relevant project pages is sufficient, and more neutral. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Referring to "History of Sind - translated from Persian books" by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg; see Jam Sanjar, Jam Tamachi, and Jam Unar for the most egregious cases. Jam Nizamuddin II fits too but at the least, his (believed) tomb has some discussion in other sources. Fredunbeg was a colonial bureaucrat—the Deputy Collector of a province in Sindh—, and did not have any training in history.

Oppose merge, in good part because this is the province of WP:Pakistan and I'm not sure they've been informed. Pinging @Mar4d, Saqib, Nadirali, and Smsarmad: Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS And Thatta is world famous, and an important part of the History of Pakistan (I remember including it in the lead long ago; I hope it is still there). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not proposed for Thatta (or the Necropolis) to be merged? Nadirali is banned by the community and Smsarmad has not edited since 2019 - probably unwise to wait for their response. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. Some of the Jams are buried in Thatta which is a UNESCO WHS and receives attention. So, it is better to wait for the sources to pay them more attention individually. As long as the articles are reasonably well-written they should be kept. If they are not, then even merger is not necessarily the best solution. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because Wikipedia is a work in progress and merging isn't a catch-all solution, just because an article is a WP:STUB or hasn't been fully developed. Merging Jam Nizamuddin II is a ridiculous idea. Mar4d (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only information about Jam Nizamuddin II in the article — after a pruning of unreliable sources — is about his tomb! You need to show that scholars treated individual rulers as worthy subjects of dicussion outside of a perspective that centers on the dynasty and/or the necropolis. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu-Speaking domination on the page.

Once again the illict-imperial Urdu Speakings have restored the page with Urdu to meet their own audiences when they don't realize that Urdu Speaking didn't exist in Sindh till 1947 and that Samma dynasty was one of the greatest Sindhi dynasties ever and now that you guys want to ruin it for your own "Pakistan" or holy land you guys have done the changing of it removing the rights of Native Sindhis from the page.

I ask once again for why? you cannot Erase Sindhi language, history and nation from root doing so will be sured that Karama will pay back to you. Jeay Sindh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NameIsShaheer (talk • contribs) 10:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

@CrashLandingNew I have already mentioned in the edit summary that in the academic field, government sources are not to be used. Also, reliable academic references are to be cited, not news papers, which seldom have facts verified.

Also, I'm warning you, if you keep reverting and accussing me of vandalism, you will be reported. You have just come from a week long block for edit warring, next block will be indefinite. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using a threatening tone and stop stalking my contribution history please.

Coming to the topic, stop doing blanket removal of sources. You removed them without any discussion. It appears you want all the mention of Samma's Rajput origin to be removed. A clear case of POV pushing CrashLandingNew (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jats and Lohana are different castes

@Sutyarashi Lohanas and Jats are different caste. This is academic reference. Read footnote 151, I request admin to correct it in main page and remove Jat word from the main article. ^[1] 49.43.33.176 (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's what André Wink reference states. If you have any objection over it, you can take it to WP:RSN. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://archive.org/details/ReligionAndSocietyInArabSind/page/n201/mode/1up

[1] Elliot, Henry M. (1867). The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period Vol. I - page - 362. Trubner & Co., London.

[2] Ahmed, Manan (2008). The many histories of Muhammad b. Qasim: Narrating the Muslim conquest of Sindh - page - 99. The University of Chicago.

[3] Referring to "History of Sind - translated from Persian books" by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg; see Jam Sanjar, Jam Tamachi, and Jam Unar for the most egregious cases. Jam Nizamuddin II fits too but at the least, his (believed) tomb has some discussion in other sources. Fredunbeg was a colonial bureaucrat—the Deputy Collector of a province in Sindh—, and did not have any training in history.

[4] ttps://archive.org/details/ReligionAndSocietyInArabSind/page/n201/mode/1up

[1]

[2]

[a]

[1]