Talk:Kalhora

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 03:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Content

@Sitush Can you explain why you removed the part about Ibrahim? Adam Shah came after Ibrahim. That's clearly mentioned in the source. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus I asked you not to ping me. You already know about edit warring - just give me a chance to develop the thing & please stop trying to own articles when you don't really know what you are doing. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't own any article on Wikipedia. You didn't explain why the url is useless. It's a link to the pdf of the book. I didn't add a google books url because "snippet view". Sir Calculus (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus It says it is in copyright. Are you telling me that the ISS have permission to host and distribute in full a copyrighted book that they didn't themselves publish? Or is it that the Institute of Sindh Studies and the Institute of Sindhology are the same thing, rather weirdly using two different names? We don't link to hosted copyright violations. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

And is a book with no footnotes, written by someone who was a practising lawyer, dramatist, short story writer and journalist, as well as research scholar and author of 20 books, really a decent source? There is a bibliography, listing 53 items, but it's useless without footnotes. There is also a quite extensive list of errors. It's shoddy, don't you think? - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't even make sense, as we paraphrase it: "Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, son of Muhammad Mehdi Khan, is the earliest known Kalhora, being referred to as Kalhoro Khan". That would make the father the earliest known, surely, not the son? - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Because the father wasn't known as "Kalhoro", the father was known as Abbasi. Anyways I think it's better if i give you the relevant quote: "..Chanio Khan died, leaving behind two sons, Muhammad Mehdi and Daud Khan. As per testimony of the dead chieftain, Muhammad Mehdi was given his Ummama (turban), which means he was declared to be the chief of the tribe socially and politically. His other son Daud Khan was given Tassbih (Rosary) and Mussalla (a mat for offering prayer on), which shows he succeeded Chanio Khan as spiritual and religious head. Muhammad Mehdi Khan died immediately after a few days of his father's death. According to custom, Daud Khan was to succeed as chief of the tribe, but Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, the son of Muhammad Mehdi Khan claimed to be the chief of his tribe and made such declaration. This Ibrahim Khan was also known as Kalhoro Khan.."

This does make sense as it also supports the reference by brill in the Daudpotra article. Sir Calculus (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus So the tribe split? And Chanio Khan was actually Chanio Khan Abbasi? Can we really use such a poor source for this? And if we can, should we not actually explain the apparent illogicality? I struggle when sources are as bad as this. It seems odd that Adam is saud to be the first to be clear in history yet the author goes back another 10 generations. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush The book has stated them of local origin. There was just a tendency to claim Arab origin in past times. Source is based on Mir Ali Sher Thattvi's Tuhfatulkiram. It's still a better source compared to others which are based on Colonial era sources. Interestingly, in the 1998 District census report they are included in Samaats.[1] Sir Calculus (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because more is known about Adam than others, in great detail, as he interacted more, he had huge followers because he was a religious figure. He added "Shah" in his name. Sir Calculus (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

District census

Sir Calculus you've re-added a district census report. I think Sitush had told you before for avoiding such sources because they are not usually peer-reviewed and not published by academic sources. Also, Sarah Ansari, a RS, thinks it more likely that the tribe is in fact Jamote? Perhaps Sammat should be replaced with it. Sutyarashi (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! @Sutyarashi. Apologies for the late response, I was a bit occupied with something irl.

No, Sitush did not tell me to avoid this source. He stopped me from using old census for tribes (RAJ era ones) though. The source merely states the Sammat tribes which is for Sindhis with indigenous origins. And it is from a census from a region where the tribe belongs. So yeah.

As a Sammat Kalhoro, I am aware of the meaning. But I would like to ask you what you think Sammat means.

And regarding Jamote, it is a diminutive of Jam. Hence the term Sammat is not unfit. Writing Jamote would not hurt but Sammat is kind of standard, so it is better suited. I will wait for your response. If you do not have any objections, then I would like to revert. Sir Calculus (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any personal views regarding Kalhoras or Sammat. The only problem I see here is the source used for Sammat affiliation of this tribe as a census report is very unlikely to be reviewed by academics. If this is the only source for Kalhoras being Sammat, then it falls under WP:FRINGE, and should not be inserted into the lede (see WP:UNDUE). Sutyarashi (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I asked what you think Sammat means. Because clearly there seems to be some confusion. Otherwise you would not mention WP:FRINGE. Kindly define Sammat here, what you think it means. Sir Calculus (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

How is it even relevant? The discussion is about the relevancy and reliability of a source. A census report is not an scholarly reference. A number of RS state that Kalhoras believe themselves to be of Abbasid origin, whether it is true or not is another matter. I would not object reintroducing Sammat ethnicity into the lede if you have additional academic sources for it. Otherwise it's both WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, especially since the very origins section mentions three different theories of origins. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

How is it even relevant? Because we're discussing Sammat here. If you do not even understand what it means then how can we have a discussion regarding the term? Sammat is not an ethnicity, lol. It is a term for Sindhis of indigenous origin. You even mentioned that adding Jamote is okay. Shows you have no understanding of what the term Sammat means. It is not fringe to call them indigenous. It is supported by multiple refs. This discussion will progress when you can define the term you are worried about. It is as basic as that. So I ask you again? What do you think Sammat means? If you can define it, then this discussion can develop and we can end early instead of just going round. And yeah, the census report calls them Sammat because that is what we Kalhora identify as locally. The available scholarly reference is used for history, that Kalhora claimed Arab origin at a certain period. A census report about a local tribe is reliable for the short lead. We are not using it for the history section. We are using it for "INDIGENOUS". If you are disputing their nativeness then you clearly need to read more. Sir Calculus (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

How is it even relevant? Because we're discussing Sammat here. If you do not even understand what it means then how can we have a discussion regarding the term?

I don't know if I can't express myself properly or you are not able to understand it, but the issue here is about this source which is purported for Sammat affiliation of Kalhoras, not the definition of Sammat ethnicity, which is irrelevant.

It is not fringe to call them indigenous. It is supported by multiple refs.

And where are these references? I won't object if you can provide them and show that there academic consensus over Sammat origins of Kalhoras.

And yeah, the census report calls them Sammat because that is what we Kalhora identify as locally.

Give a read to WP:OR then. Your personal observations don't amount to anything without RS stating so.

Now, the very origins section in the article contains 3 different theories of origin:

• Sarah Ansari believes that Kalhoras are "likely" Jamot.
• Kalhoras believe themselves to be Arab Abbasids
• A colonial officer believed them to be Channas, though ideally the last one should removed per WP:RAJ.

If you insist that "Sammat" ethnicity should be mentioned in the lead when higher quality sources don't state so, and you're not even able to provide additional sources for this claim, you really need to read what WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:OR are. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You are not able to express yourself properly. I understand your concern but you still fail to see my point. Where are the references for indigenous? Right in the lead. And in the origins section as well. Your understanding of Sammat is what's causing the difficulty here. You still fail to define the term you are arguing about. There aren't 3 different theories of origin. The Kalhora asserted an Arab origin when they wanted to rule. The Arab origin is refuted by other refs including on the Daudpotra article. The Channa text and ref was added by me to clarify that it is only supported by a colonial officer. It can be removed if you want. Now the Jamot is not a "different theory of origin". This is why I keep asking you about your understanding of the term Sammat because clearly you appear to be clueless as you have so far failed to define it. Indigenous Sindhi tribes are all included in Sammat. Sammat is not a tribe, it is a group of tribes, a term of classification. Sammat tribes are the indigenous Sindhi tribes. Read the quote you have added. "The castes which are usually included in Samats are". So I urge you again, clear your confusion of the term. So the discussion can develop. The census report is not "fringe" for calling them indigenous. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Where are the references for indigenous? Right in the lead. And in the origins section as well.

The first reference in lead doesn't even use the word indigenous. The second reference first states the Arab origins theory and then that the author of Kalhora Dour-e-Hukoomat, refutes it. Now, I will ask you to read WP: SYNTHESIS and to avoid original research.

This is why I keep asking you about your understanding of the term Sammat because clearly you appear to be clueless as you have so far failed to define it.

I have no intentions in going into circles. Read my previous reply.

I don't think you can furnish any additional sources for why mention of Sammat is necessary in the lede or how there is consensus over their indigenous roots.

This discussion has now started to become WP:IDHT, and so if you agree, a third editor can be opined for the reference and claim you want to re-add. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You really need to put more effort into understanding the references. The first reference in the lead states Much of the region came into the orbit of the Mughal Empire during the 17th century—Muslim emperors ruled first through the local Kalhora clan and later though Talpurs from northern Sindh

The second reference states the historic Kalhora claims. Not a scholarly theory but a claim. The Kalhora Dour-e-Hukoomat is a book published on Kalhora history, lol. By a reliable author on Sindh's history whose books are reviewed by the Journal of Pakistan Historical Society. You can look up on ProQuest for an instance. Furthermore, the indigenous claim is supported by an additional ref in the origins section (which you yourself believe to be RS). The ref claims the Kalhora 'claimed' to be Abbasids in reality they were Jamots.

I have no intentions in going into circles. Read my previous reply.

If you do not wish to go into circles then why do you stop the conversation from developing? I asked you a very simple question 'What do you think Sammat means?' yet you have been avoiding it so far. I already told you I understand your concern about the ref but you did not respond to my concerns.

I don't think you can furnish any additional sources for why mention of Sammat is necessary in the lede or how there is consensus over their indigenous roots.

You should not assume things in haste and actually read the references and my replies. I already told you Sammat tribes are the indigenous tribes but you refuse to listen.

I will ask you to read WP:SYNTHESIS and to avoid original research.

This discussion has now started to become WP:IDHT

You should look these up and read what they say. It is already established that indigenous groups are Sammat. The reference is published. Regarding IDHT, you should really read what it says. "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" Do I have to state again how many times you ignored my question concerning the edit?

Anyway, I am going to support the census ref with a stronger, more notable ref and publisher.

I am going to trim the origins section a bit because the consensus regarding their origin is clear, both official (census report) and scholarly. And of course, I will add a reference. This conversation keeps going into circles and it is tiring. Especially the "indigenous" doubts, it is simply absurd. Here's how I put an end to this with a peer-reviewed journal ref:

....Savarna customs and the practices of Sammat castes gradually gave way to ashrafization, and resultantly, Soomra, Samma and Kalhora indigenous castes (locally known as Sammat) were further ashrafized....

....With the further influx of Sunni Hannafi Sayeds, Dargahi (Shrine) culture was perfectly institutionalized during the rule of Kalhoras, the ashrafized Pir rulers. Kalhora had inverted their descent from the local indigenous caste to the Abbasi Arab descent after having claimed the transfer of spirituality from the Sayed Pirs....

And an additional ref to further help clear your doubts about "indigenous": As the social and political turmoil reached its turning points during Mughal rule in Sindh, the indigenous religious person Mian Adam Shah Kalhoro led the foundation of religious-cum- political movement for the freedom of Sindh from Mughal rulers known as Mianwal Movement.

Feeling cute today so here's another ref as well to clear your doubts. :))

Three times the Afghan army was sent to Khurasan to bolster the feeble rule of Sh ̄ahrukh M ̄ırz ̄a. Another army was sent to Sind after the Sindhi emirs of the Kalhora tribe were deposed by Fath Al ̄ı Talpur.

Now I am going to update the article. Sir Calculus (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)