Talk:Soomro

Arbitrary heading

We are building the Project from a global perspective for use across the world, and not from the point pf view of any particular region or nation. Accordingly, contents of historical stubs and pages should reflect the aspiration of wikipedians to build a truly global encyclopedia. --Bhadani 15:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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 03:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Its look too much clustred of reference with too much red words. Please rewrite it for other.

soomro

please correct. the sardar and head of the soomro tribe is Mr.Mohammedmian Soomro the current PM of Pakistan. Not Mr. Ilahi Buksh Soomro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.137.28 (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC) soomros have no traditional sardars like other tribes in sindh and Balochistan neither of the two above mentioned are the sardars of soomro tribe as ther uis no sardari system amongst the soomras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.109.61.201 (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

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) 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

soomro real history

MAJ>: MOHAMMAD TARIQ SOOMRO. ENG: MOHAMMAD AZAM SOOMRO. our soomro real history is that the soomro came to pakistan with Muhammad bin Qasim in iraq.somroo cast realated to iraq place sammra.and the our brave elders fight with raja dahar and got sucess.that time 80 soomro's families struggle to sucess poor helped.it is not prepare my own story which i confess.it is reality which i describe to shire my sommro brothers to acknowledg.now lot of other cast people are converted to soomro cast they dont know about soomro history but which is truth so it our duty to bond this on. if any person have any doute so must be contect my Email address ismail_soomro1981@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.146.119 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need references on the "Notable Soomro" portion?

Most of the article is under-referenced, but I'm not seeing the utility of the {{unreferenced}} tag on the "Notable Soomro" section. All the individuals there have Soomro in their name, and all have functioning Wiki bios. Provided a name has a blue link, and it's clear by name or in their article that they're Soomro, I don't see the need for actual footnotes just to make the list. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

See User:Sitush/Common#Castelists - Sitush (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

soomro

sumra are not jats they are RAJPUTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.89.52 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC

The page underwent major changes with the addition of self-published sources.

Prior to these changes, the article was this, and specifically cited several sources which discussed the various proposed origins of the Soomro tribe, including native Sindhi, Rajput, Arab, and mixed-Arab heritage. Following the edits of a rather zealous editor, any discussion of the various theorized origins was completely obliterated, and the page presented one-sided information that made it seem that their potential Rajput origins were an open-and-shut case. He goes on to introduce a random story about their origins that was self-published by Harjani. There was a discussion about this author and his work at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Notion_Press_publications, and when it was removed, he re-introduced it with the crazy edit summary that he was the one removing self-published source, even though he clearly reinserted it.

He also changed several terms to introduce POV - such as that "some members of the tribe converted to Islam," even though this is an almost entirely Muslim tribe now - downplaying the current religion. In the infobox he tries to change this fact by including Hinduism as a current religion of the tribe, though if you actually read his citation, the only claim is that the tribe converted from Hinduism, not that they are currently Hindus. He also introduces subtle terms to emphasize this suggestion, like that this is not a tribe, but instead a "caste."

His edits are reintroduced on this and other pages with Srijanx22, whose infopage says he enjoys "trolling leftists."

Please add your perspective on whether this is disruptive. The two together are difficult to counter, since it doesnt seem like theyre interested in fact, and are much more interested in promoting POV. 03:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 2600:1012:b02d:f2e:84fa:3972:7c45:7f75 (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The plurality of sources affirm that the Soomro caste is of Rajput origin. You are trying to interject the fringe view that this caste from the Indian subcontinent has Arab ancestry. It is true that some intermarried with Arabs, but this caste is native to the Indian subcontinent. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if a plurality make that claim (and I'm not even sure that's the case), you cannot simply declare that the ethnic origins of a 800 year old tribe have been conclusively determined. You cited this source to make the claim that they are in fact Rajput by this quote "They converted to Islam but remained Hindu in their customs, dress and even in their names. Tarikh Waqa`i Rajisthan corroborates this viewpoint and confirms that Soomras were originally “Parmar Rajputs”." Im not sure why you decided not to read the very next sentences which said " Again, however, from Bashari Maqdisi, Al Beruni, and the Cambridge History of India (Vol. II), we note that it was during the Soomra rule (1025 – 1351 AD) that the “Rajput” migrated from India to Sindh.2 Dr. N. A. Baloch, the eminent modern scholar of Sindh has written as exhaustive book on the Soomra Period, in which the conflicting versions about the origin of the Soomra race are reconciled: a hybrid race of Sindhi-Arab blood, that emerged after the Ummayad caliph Sulaiman bin Abdul Malik (715-17 AD)’s decree asking Arab officers posted in Sindh to settle in the land permanently. Consequently they took Sindhi wives and subsequently married their daughters in Sindhi families. Hence, Dr. Baloch writes that “Soomras were descendents of these hybrid princes, whose ancestors, according to common legend, were either Arabs or their grand-sons on the mothers’ side”.3 The evidence, if a common legend can provide one, is nonetheless tilted towards the Arab origin. It is also suggested that the name Soomra is a corrupt form of the Arabic name Samarrai i.e. the inhabitants of Samarra, a town built by the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mu`tasim (r. 833 – 842 AD) in 836 AD and named ا􏰁􏰀ا 􏰂َ􏰃 􏰄􏰀َ َ􏰅 Sarrah man ra`a, i.e. pleased in he who sees it.4 "

So the Arab blood claim is a fringe theory, but its reported in the same article you used to state that they are Rajput?

In the last sentence you give 3 citation to support your claim that they are Parmar Rajput. One of them actually says "But as many kings of the dynasty bore Hindu names, it is almost certain that the Soomras were of local origin. Sometimes they are connected with Paramara Rajputs, --but of this there is no definite proof." Do you see that last sentence? So the first source says Rajput migrated during Soomro rule, the second says they were probably of local origin, and that there is no conclusive evidence that they are Parmar.

Another of the 3 (the Habibullah source) says literally nothing about them being Rajput, let alone Parmar Rajput. The only one of three sources that makes this claim is the "International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics" source, but I'm not sure how a journal about a language family in South India is an authoritative source when it comes to the ethnic origins of a tribe in Pakistan? If Dr Baloch, who wrote an "exhaustive book on the Soomra Period" is not authoritative, then how can a journal discussing an issue not even within its scope be?

Its also strange that you use a source to claim in the infobox that Soomro are also Hindu, even though the source you cited doesn't even make that claim! Here's what your source says "Mir Tahir Muhammad Nisyani, in his Tarikh Tahiri (1621 AD) asserts that Soomras were originally Hindus. They converted to Islam but remained Hindu in their customs, dress and even in their names. " *Originally* Hindus. Nothing at all about them currently being Hindu.

I think you even minimized their conversion by saying that "some" converted. The overwhelming majority, if not entirety, are Muslim, but "some" means "not a majority." In this scholarly source, there are referred to as a tribe that are overhwhelmingly Sunni, with a minority of Athnashari Shia.

Further, why did you re-insert a self-published book as a source? The Harjani Book is from Notion Press which is a self-publishing site. Its strange that your edit summary said you were removing a self-published source when you were actually inserting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.193.203.21 (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's focus on the issue. Sources 1, 7, & 4 in the article (the plurality of citations) all talk about the Soomro caste as being Parmar Rajputs. Including one source that mentions the fringe view of the caste having foreign ancestry is WP:UNDUE. Also, check your sources properly. The sources state that the Soomro practiced Hinduism. Do you know of any Arabs that were Hindus? We do know that the Rajputs practice/practiced Hinduism, which corroborates the fact that the Soomro are Parmar Rajputs. You and I both know that it is common for South Asians to make false  claims of foreign ancestry in order to elevate their status in society, when it actually holds no ground.[1][2] Please do not push a self-serving POV in this article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The three sources do not say that they are Rajput - they just mention this as a theory. The Habibullah expresses several theories of origin, and even mentions that Rajputs may have migrated to Sindh during the Soomra dynasty - which means that the Soomros cannot be of Rajput origin if Rajputs migrated only under their rule. This was already addressed above. The Journal of Dravidian linguistics source does not make the claim that they ARE Rajput, but just states that they are BELIEVED to be of Rajput origin. The Dani source clearly says there is no definite proof of this claim.

The practice of Hinduism does not corroborate what you claim, because the practice of Hinduism is not restricted to Rajputs. The sources also mention the work of Dr AN Baloch who states they were locals who intermarried with Arabs. Local Sindhis were Hindus too, so Hinduism as a practice does not make them Rajput.

As for their Arab origins, I dont believe any source says they were 100% Arab - that may have been a misunderstanding I wrote because youre right that no Arabs are Hindus. But the theory that their name is from the city of Samarra is not so far fetched, and we also dont know to what degree their heritage is mixed-Arab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B01E:F27D:831:ABBD:AEE7:8A26 (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)