| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sur Empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
suris were they pushtoons
editwere the suris pushtoons ,...plz reply if some one has the answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.231.60 (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes suris were afghans or pushtoons and were a sub tribe of large khilji or ghilzai tribe of Afghanistan and Pakistan,lodhi is also a sub tribe of khilji or ghilzai tribe so three times these khilji pathans or afghans or pakhtunes sat on the throne of delhi that is khilji dynasity,lodhi dynasity and suri dynasity and also ruled bengal,malwa,afghanistan,iran and central asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.91.28 (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they were. Go to the Sher Shah Suri article, look for the words "Sher Shah was of Pashtun descent" on the first paragraph and click on the sources. That person was the founder of the dinasty, and he was pashtun. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I have quastion
editwhat is historic and blood ties between the SURI, Syria(country) and Soor(red Color) in Pashtu language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.56.207 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
name of article: sur/suri
editLooking at a google books search, it seems that the name of dynasty in English history books is "Suri" with a final "i". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC) My bad, I made a spelling mistake. searching "Sur dynasty" also gives results. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sur Empire. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516085855/http://www.rbi.org.in/currency/museum/c-mogul.html to http://www.rbi.org.in/currency/museum/c-mogul.html
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) 18:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Edit dispute
editI have clearly edited per the reference.[1] N0n3up, please explain your reasoning for reverting my edit. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC))
- Highpeaks35 after analyzing the two edits, I have self-reverted to an extent. As you may have noticed, My edit is nothing more than reverting a troublesome IP who is currently being reported in an ANI report after constantly vandalizing articles. So in order to revert this troublesome IP yet at the same time deal with the errors you mentioned, I self reverted the parts that you pointed out were the error. (N0n3up (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC))
- Your edit has grammar errors, as seen here.
- The reference clearly mentioned "northern India"/Indian subcontinent, not the broader South Asia. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC))
- On it. (N0n3up (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC))
References
- ^ Kissling, H. J.; N. Barbour; Bertold Spuler; J. S. Trimingham; F. R. C. Bagley; H. Braun; H. Hartel (1997). The Last Great Muslim Empires. BRILL. pp. 262–263. ISBN 90-04-02104-3. Retrieved 20 July 2011.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Sanskrit as a common language, in the 1500 CE.
editThis article mentions Sanskrit as a common language in the suri empire. Which, given that Sanskrit wasnt in use since alteast the 3rd century bce, seems wrong. Even the source mentioned for persian as a common language mention hindavi, not sanskrit. [1]
References
- ^ Alam, Muzaffar (1998). "The pursuit of Persian: Language in Mughal Politics". Modern Asian Studies. 32 (2). Cambridge University Press: 317–349. doi:10.1017/s0026749x98002947. S2CID 146630389.
Hindavi was recognized as a semi-official language by the Sor Sultans (1540-55) and their chancellery rescripts bore transcriptions in the Devanagari script of the Persian contents. The practice is said to have been introduced by the Lodis (1451–1526).
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
February 2021
edit@Abdul afghan: You didn't provide a source in support of your change here, instead you seem to replace sourced content. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)