Talk:Rai dynasty

Untitled

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 15:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions

I would like to suggest some copy-editing to improve this article's flow. I speak English as a first language and I would be happy to do it, or to help. First though, I would like to ask some questions. Much foreknowledge is assumed. Truly global means people around the world should be able to understand it.

1)There is no mention of place or time anywhere; I had to look up Sindh to find out what part of the world this is about, and which century. It is now in Pakistan, correct? Was Sindh in India during the Rai Dynasty?

2)What is meant by "He called his minister to see the letters"?

3)What is a "munshi"?

Thanks in advance for helping me to understand. Shyland 12:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shyland, I have updated the article on the basis of Chach Nama and added links also. The point wise reply is as under: 1)Before 1947, India included Pakistan. 2)Minister had to look after correspondence of the state. It has been updated. 3)Munshi means assistant or book-keeper. Hope now you like the format. Thanks burdak 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Burdak, you have enlightened me :). I did a little copy-edit ...but there is something wrong with the references / footnotes. A lot of them are numbered [1]. Some bot tried (unsuccessfully) to fix it; I tried again but I guess I don't know how. Can you take another look? Thanks, --Shyland 10:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

2 questions

I'd like to add 2 questions regarding this topic. 71.126.248.168 (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)McS 1) Geographical and polictal boundaries: The kingdoms of Rai, Chach etc had geographical boundaries that at times included neighboring states. Most of punjab was controlled by them. Does any one have details on how it maps on current day maps and at what time

2) The defination of buddhism is in question here, As it wasnt a religion and rituals were different and often to me seems mixed with the local tribal religion etc. How would i go about adding that? To what extent was it a buddhist kingdom to what extent was it a syncretic beleif

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 08:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The dynasty did not extend into Rajasthan but into Gujarat till Surat (see lede). So changed project banner to Gujarat.Jethwarp (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirected article Rani Suhanadi kindly be restored

Seniors , its requested , article Rani Suhanadi which is redirected to this article kindly be restored. As Rani Suhanadi was a wife of Rai king . --Jogi don (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Jogi don, do you have anything to add to the current page? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Coins

@पाटलिपुत्र:, the coin and the caption, added by you, is very interesting. But, we need some additional context. A reader who is hearing of this dynasty (and Sindh) for the first time will fail to understand the relevance of the coinage of a ruler, who is not mentioned anywhere in the article!

Assuming Ranaditya Satya was ruling Sind (which parts?) c. late fifth century, what do you make of this dynasty? My firm belief — bolstered by Asif's scholarship on Chachnama — has always been that the Rai dynasty was the fertile imagination of `Ali Kufi interspersed within contemporary legends etc. but there is no consensus among scholars to such effect. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TrangaBellam:! I don't know much about this dynasty really. Feel free to remove the coin image if unnecessary. It does seem there is a contradiction between this coinage (rather plentiful actually in the region) and the (supposed?) existence of a parallel Rai dynasty... but maybe you have access to sources that could elucidate this matter? Best. पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel that the coin image is a decent addition - see the newly drafted Overview section where I have tried to contextualize it. More later. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Do you have a copy of this book which claims to have come across evidence of coinage from this dynasty for the first time? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Sindh. “Sri Shahi Rasra(...)”. Circa mid 6th century CE

Sindh. “Sri Harsharuka”. Circa late 6th-early 7th century CE

Hi @TrangaBellam:!No, unfortunately, no copy of that book, but there is an interesting summary here [1], and a few page extracts:[2][3][4] Quite a lot on numismatic sites, but nothing on CNG. पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Thanks! File:Śri Harsharuka of Sindh.jpg needs to go into the article, preferably as part of a gallery containing coins of Shahi Rasra(…), Jayataka, and Bharharsha. But I was unable to source images of such coins. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Added File:Śrī Bharharsha of Sindh.jpg. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Cool. In the description of this coin , CNG attributes Ranadityasatya to the Rai Dynasty [5], apparently sourced from "Fishman&Todd pp. 62-3 and fig. 4.10".पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I am aware - Ctrl + F "Ranaditya might have been the first Rai ruler, Diwaji" in the article. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I think User:Rani nurmai has the F&T book, per Talk:Ranaditya Satya, but he is on Wikipedia on and off, and might be a little bit tough to contact.... पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I left a note at their t/p. If you know of their email, I will appreciate a pointer! TrangaBellam (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have purchased a copy. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

To Do

Sfn the sources and send to GAR. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rai Sahasi II.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Caste-derived-POV pushing

David Ludden, notwithstanding his mastery of the agrarian history of colonial India, etc., has no expertise on topics of early medieval India; to compound things, he does not even spend an entire line on our subject in the essay! I do not know how to parse "Jat Buddhist" either which, according to Google Books, has not been used by any other author before. Consequently, the source is insufficient to tag the Rais as "Jat"; as I note in the body, their origins [ethnicity] remains unknown. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Michel Boivin notes the Rais to be Buddhists. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam, it will be perhaps best to just exclude the caste out of the lead completely. PadFoot (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rai dynasty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) 14:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 02:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review on. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

General comments

I'll be adding comments as I go. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite a few issues already. I think the topic is interesting, and the research seems sufficient, just needs to be written in a way that meets the GA criteria, particularly 1a. I'll leave it here, and a copyedit should be performed further in the article, ensuring concision, metaphors and clarity are prioritised. I'll complete the review once this is finished, please ping me when done. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see you only edited the stuff I pointed out, can you please make sure the issues with concision, metaphors and clarity do not persist through the article before we continue? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave I will appreciate if you can list the issues; eyes have grown too accustomed to the current version which was drafted by me in entirety; TrangaBellam (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I have continued reviewing for a bit. I understand that it's difficult for you to copyedit, but when I have a concern every sentence, the article is not close to the standards of GA. Continuing to review at this point is a full rewrite, one that I am unwilling to do as it goes beyond what is expected of GA reviewers. When I didn't want to immediately fail this; I hoped by identifying issues and giving examples you would be able to apply them, but at this time you're too close to the text. Hopefully you can get some distance and then read with some fresh eyes. My biggest concern at this point: Reading the article, I cannot tell if historians generally believe it existed. Even if this review didn't earn a little badge, I hope this stuff helped, and I'm glad you brought it here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Prose/content

• The lede doesn't summarise the information in the body.

• Will do.

• First sentence should specify that it is a claimed polity, not that it existed for sure if scholarship does not reflect this.
• Gloss the Chach Nama

• Sorry?

• I'm unfamiliar with the topic, so when I read it "comes from the Chachnama" I don't know what it is. A short explanation (i.e. a 10th century book) should be provided. This is called a gloss.

• I know that; was wondering about the need to gloss over Chachnama in the lead itself! But, I can see how it will be more helpful to an average reader. Will do.

• such attempts remain speculative and unconvincing. this needs to be in the body and sourced.

• Deleted from the lead. Fring-ey stuff by otherwise-respected numismatists; UNDUE for body and lead, I say.

• as colonial bureaucrats mined the Chachnama to justify their invasion of Khairpur by drawing from historical precedents

"mined": metaphor

I saw you didn't do this, do you disagree that this should be changed?

Nah, I will rewrite the lines.

"Chachnama" spell it the same way for consistency

Done

by drawing from historical precedents unclear what this means

Will do.

• Not sure why the first footnote is there rather than elsewhere.

• Neither am I; let me recall what I must have thought. Removed, per WP:HISTRS - fringe, old, and barely influenced scholarship. So, UNDUE.

• The last Sassanian mints discovered from the region—of Peroz I (r. 459–484)—a new Brahmi legend "Ranaditya Satya" appears on the reverse, which was probably the name of an eponymous local ruler/governor. wordy, more concise

• Done.

• Sometime soon, Sindh appears ungrammatical, vague

• Done.

• fallen off the orbit of idiom

• Done.

• The Rai dynasty's origin might have laid in this power vacuum. attribute

• Why?

• Because it's speculation, and we don't want people thinking Wikipedia is speculating. We want people to know who is thinking this.

• And, what policy says that? Do you think the readers to be so stupid to not figure out that the ones who engaged in the speculation must be scholars?

• our knowledge of the Rai dynasty remains rudimentary This is implying that it existed and we just don't know much about it, which is at odds with the rest of the article.

• What is the oddity? We have a curious text, which some scholars believe to be an accurate recording of late-ancient history while some do not. Hence, scholars like Habib have described the Rais, as it is described in the Chachnama, but scholars like Asif are not. I assure you that our readers will be able to make sense of it.

• pertaining to the dynasty, can be located strange wording with located, different verb needed

• Done.

• accordingly, doubts persist about the accuracy of the historical narratives contained within the text redundant

• Nope; not at all. But rephrased.

• rejects Asif's doubts Asif had doubts? only Ahmed's had been noted.

• After I sent this for review, some editor (rightfully) moved the page Manan Ahmed to Manan Ahmed Asif. Fixed.

• However, scholars have disputed the claim and some view it as an original revisionist work drafted for political purposes; accordingly, doubts persist about the accuracy of the historical narratives contained within the text. This is a misrepresentation of the literature if note 4's summary is accurate.

• Really? Explain.

• Nonetheless, its narrative implies in spite of the concerns of historians, which weren't around in the subsequent examples

• This, I grant, was poor choice of words. Fixed.

• British Gazettes what are these? Why is it capitalised? Is it an actual gazette named "British Gazettes" or just general gazettes?

• Do a Google Search? If you are absolutely unaware about South Asian history (and historiography), you cannot expect to read this article and understand every single bit of information. Our articles are not targeted at laymen pace popular belief - see WP:ONEDOWN.

Suggestions

• Note where Sindh corresponds to today.

• I need to think on this.

• reeling too colloquial for my liking

• Done.

• Can Hephthalite–Sasanian War of 484 be linked to Hephthalite invasions

• Done.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.