Talk:Rai Dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not been rated yet on the quality scale.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.

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)

[edit] 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)