Talk:Tanoli

I am really wondering why some people on Tanoli wiki talk page are consistently opposing new research and outrightly rejecting some authentic citations with an intension to be in their own shoes. we need to be broad minded and accept new research.The one Khani100 is consistantly rejecting citations of the books which he even not read or have access to them. I will refer to one such example of "History of Afghans" a translation of Makhzen-e-Afghani of Neamatullah. This book was written by Bernhard Dorn, a history professor, in1836 published at London,and comprises of two volumes. At page-49 of volume 2, it is clearly mentioned that Tanokhel was grandson of Ghilzai who himself is believed to be of Turkic origin which to some extent is in consonance with the claim of Tanolis as some Tanolis claim Turco-Mongol origin. Like Tanolis, Ghilzai are pushtunified to such an extent that they are now considered an integral part of pashtuns. My sincere advice to Khani100 is to stop referring to an incomplete version of Dorn's work of 1829 and focus on the final version of 1836 comprising of two volumes. I hope, by reading volume 2 of the final version of Dorn's work Published in 1836, his confusion about reliability of the content added will stand removed as his discussion suggests that he has consulted only volume-1. I wish we,The Tanoli, engage in some constructive discussion and arrive at some consensus on decent of Tanolis. God bless you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastkhankhel (talk • contribs) 15:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, my dear friend. I have already answered your objections again and again and nowhere either in 1829 or 1836 do I find a mention of any of the so called 'issue' that you mention; and I must again insist that Dorn's incomplete translation isn not an reliable source here, nor an accurate one. I am basing this on my personal reading of the original text of Khwaja Harawi's 'Makhzan' , in its 1799 print or reprint, based on an original handwritten MS from the old Rampur library. This was published for your interest, by the Honble East India Company, and after 1800 was also taught as part of the curriculum at the old Fort William college syllabus, for a long time. The thing is, as a fellow Tanoli, I believe that (a) the Tanoli might be of partial Pashtun and partial/mixed Turkic descent and (b) that over time, we might have been to some extent 'Pashtunified' by living in close proximity with Pashtuns proper; but the thing is, to be honest (and I sincerely hope you will not take offence at my candidness) that there is no real, acceptable historical evidence of this speculation and trying to 'manufacture' some sort of fake and cooked up 'evidence' is neither truthful nor good. It serves no good purpose. Let's then agree, as brother Tanolis, to remove all fictitious and unreliable material, and lets be objective and unbiased and let's think beyond some narrow 'tribal', egotistical mentality and embrace positive Wikipedian editorial standards, here. I hope you will try to understand and appreciate these points, at last. I have repeated these time and again here and on your user talk page, and I have no wish to be engaged in a negative editorial war as its self-defeating and useless. Thank you, and very good wishes, Khani100 (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100

Template:Castewarningtalk

Government

The rulers of Dir originally held the title of Khan but from June 1897 onwards were styled Nawab Khan Bahadur of the Tanoli tribe. The royal status of the rulers was abolished in 1972 at the same time as most other princes of Pakistan.

Tenure	Rulers of Dir
Unknown dates	Gholam Khan Baba
Unknown dates	Zafar Khan
Unknown dates	Qasem Khan
1863–1874	Ghazzan Khan
1875–1886	Rahmat Allah Khan
1886–1890	Mohammad Sharif Khan (1st time)
1890–1895	Mohammad `Omara Khan
1895 - December 1904	Mohammad Sharif Khan (2nd time)
December 1904 - February 1925	Awrangzeb Badshah Khan
February 1925 - 9 November 1960	Mohammad Shah Jahan Khan
9 November 1960 - 28 July 1969	Mohammad Shah Khosru Khan
28 July 1969	State of Dir dissolved

Karlanee (Kerlani)

Karlani Afghan Tribes Genealogy & Family Tree.

• Roadh Bai
• Dilazak
• Mangal
• Kakai
• Torai or Turi
• Hanee
• Wardak (Verdag)
• Aurakzai (Orakzai)
• Afridi or Apridee
• Khattak
• Khakwani (Khogyani)
• Sheetak
• Bolaaq
• Zadran (Jadran)
• Wazir
• Masid (Mahsud)
• Daur (Dawar)
• Sataryanai
• Gaarai
• Bangash
• Banosee (Banuchi)
• Zazai (Jaji)
• Gorbuz
• Khostwaal
• Atmaankhel (Utmankhail)
• Muqbal

A very dubious article now

For the record-- and assuming 'good faith' throughout -- I must say, very sadly, that this article has now become an extremely dubious and unreliable document, which does not at all meet any of the Wikipedia standards. Among many problems, the three major issues with it are (a) the article seems to be rewriting history entirely, on the basis of selected and very slanted and biased accounts only, without allowing for the objective presentation of any contrary views, (b) it is bent upon proving, falsely, against all the authentic records, pedigrees and histories of the Tanolis themselves (and I am also one) , that they are somehow Pashtuns, whereas this is not at all the case--indeed all our earliest real/genuine pedigrees affirm our Turkish/Central Asian origins , and all sorts of highly unreliable and dubious statements have been used in this article as spurious references, to support this one-sided and bizarre view and (c) even existing historical records, where cited/refered to, are used either selectively and out of context or even falsified. This is very worrisome indeed. For example, one very glaring example-- I have an old, original copy of Naimat Allah/Niamatullah Harawi's Makhzan i Afghan (History of the Afghans) which is an original resource, in Persian. In this, only THREE sons of Qais/Abdul Rashid are listed i.e. the forefathers of all the Afghan/Pashtun tribes proper: Sarban, Baitan and Ghurghusht. There is NO MENTION at all of any 'Karlani' , or aby Tanoli/Taniwal/Tani etc, as descended from any of the old Pashtun lines. So where and how come have the authors of the present article (in its present form/shape)have listed this fictitious figure, and linked the Tanolis to him? Are they consulting a spurious/fake translation? Or have they just made up information that in fact doesnt exist at all, or isnt cited/given at all, in the book they are supposedly refering to?! I must say these questions and doubts are serious ones and that despite repeated requests, and please, to kindly present a properly balanced/objective discussion of the Tanoli origins (indeed as was available in earlier versions) , there seems to be a stubborn and wrongful insistence on forcefully representing Tanolis as something they are not. Why? Are some people there following some obscure personal agenda that insists upon ascribing a spurious Pashtun origin to the Tanoli race? And why? Why be ashamed of what one truly is? Why try or pretend to be something one is not? I hope some neutral and objective editors can help answer these disturbing queries. Its strange that this terrible and one sided article is allowed to remain, even protected, whilst other articles are at once corrected. Regards 39.54.23.19 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Col (r) Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan

I would please like to bring to everyone's notice that I have today removed a name from the 'notable Tanolis' list, which didnt have an already-existing Wikipedia page and who didnt seem to me to be very notable. Some references given about this person werent at all reliable either, and I would please request that such names etc shouldnt be added thanks. Also, I have indicated some dubious areas/sections of this article, which have no references at all, to the best of my knowledge there was no 'Zabardast Khan Tanoli' at the Third Battle of Panipat. And the section on the Amb forces in Kashmir needs also to be developed and referenced properly, thanks. Khani100 (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100

Sources

Hello again, apropos the above discussions about our (Tanoli) origins, Im not so sure about whether we are Turks or Pushtuns etc--but some sources dont seem to be really reliable to me. At least ONE source seems fictitious, please see ref No 10- who is Ghulam Nabi Khan, is he some scholar or recognised expert or similar authority? And I have never ever seen or read any book called Al-Afghan Tanoli published either in Mansehra (which is my original native city) by any 'Gul Publishers' in 2001 or at any other time? Is it a self-published work? Is it a self-promotion exercise funded by some of the richer Tanolis? What 'Tanoli geneaological trees' does it show or mention? None of the existing Tanoli trees /pedigrees, even with the Amb ex ruling family, go accurately beyond the 18th century, so how come someone is claiming to be some sort of 'Bani Israel'? This is the first I am hearing of this! Could some editor please share this book/resource, if it exists, or attach a complete and detailed pedigree /tree linking the Tanoli to Bani Israel, please? Isnt there some sort of check or limit on Wikipedia as to the verifiability/reliability of sources? I would very much like to have further detailed evidence of these claims, and as to the reliability of this source. Thanks againKhani100 (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100

My dear fellow editors, I have today made an extensive check and revision/correction and found several issues, most of which I have tried to address-however the most problematic issue remains that there are very few reliable sources cited for a great deal of material in the text. Most of these statements are general ones, and in fact, based on my own extensive readings and research, I see that they are obliquely presented i.e. reference is made to some other aspect or fact in books but the references herein suggest (wrongly) that these are somehow connected to the statements being made. For example (just one instance as illustration) there is a statement made that in Niamat Ullah al Harawi's 'Makhzan i Afghan' (Dorn's 1836 translation) the Tanolis are descended from Mato, of the Baitani lineage of Pashtuns etc. However, on checking Dorn, one finds the reference to Bibi Mato but no reference to any Tanoli descendants. Please, this is intellectual/academic dishonesty, DONT give an citation that refers to something else but is given here purporting to be about something/someone else, when that is not the case. Many such examples abound, and also a number of citations/refs taken out of context. In addition, there were a couple of spurious and highly unreliable 'sources' and I have removed these, please dont add self-published sources by any Tanolis who arent recognised experts on the subject, as that constitutes a Conflict of Interest apart from being without real substance, giving a bad impression of the whole article. Sources and refs must preferably be highly dependable/reliable, thanks. Also, please dont add statements that are totally without historical foundation or evidence/proof, based purely on some sort of puffery, or self-promotion. Such stuff, even in good faith, does no good service to hard facts and history. I have tried to fix this up to some extent and removed or modified some of the statements etc, but I hope that reliable sources will be cited for material needing references, and in case no real factual material is available, please, remove the statements. Thanks again, very much. I hope we can make a realistic and sensible/balanced article of this. Khani100 (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100

See Talk:Tanoli/Archive_1#Complete_rewrite, all this stuff has been slowly introduced by user Mastkhankhel over several months. I think that we should start by reverting back to the version of 13th June 2013, before he started editing the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Eric Naval, there is a even better version of March 2010 i think, which could also be reverted to in my view. But the argument is same, again, how can unreliable sources be used to show some sort of 'Pakhtun' origins? Over time, before also, in 2008 to 2010, many editors working here on this article identified many fake books and articles cited here from sources and publishers that dont exist or are only for self printing etc. Whats the use of trying to change history and facts on such flimsy basis? I really dont know what to do, and now this article is locked up for non registered editors, which is not really fair either. Some non registered editors are so by choice, they are doing regular work and are genuine editors, whereas some people who might be registered are perhaps not fully acting in good faith, and may have some ulterior motives of their own to promote. 39.54.247.222 (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Col (r) Mumtaz Khan

Hallo, all. Yes, thats ok, we could revert to either of the older versions, as suggested above. However the problem remains that *This article has been citing a number of sources that were extremely dubious and not at all upto Wikipedia standards. For just one example, I recently removed a supposed book about the Tanolis by some Ghulam Nabi Khan, and neither this person nor this book have ever been heard of anywhere by anyone. I think User Eric Naval has somewhere in the Talk archives probably mentioned some 'Gul Publishers' in Karachi but this hasnt at al been printed by them. It has supposedly been printed by some Gul Printers in Mansehra city, KPK, Pakistan, but I have now scoured every inch of Mansehra city and the only Gul Printers there are a small printing firm who print wedding cards, visiting cards etc; so if someone did get any such book printed by them in English or Urdu (which they know nothing about there) then it must have been self/vanity publishing. The User Mastkhankhel has not been able to satisfy me on this point and his claims seem rather dubious, regarding the existence at any time of any such book. In a similar way, in some earlier drafts of this article, I recollect at leat 2-3 other supposed works heavily cited, which in reality didnt exist at al and naver did exist at any time. This will not do at all.

Even other works cited, are often cited out of context or wrongly, just to forcibly prove a point or hypothesis that Tanolis are, at any costs, Pushtuns, although there does seem to a lot of controversial/opposing material in this regard too, new and old, and I firmly believe that this should be properly utilised to create a true and balanced picture of the Tanolis possible descent. At best, it can finally only be speculated that the Tanolis might be of mixed Pashtun origins, but have certainly over the centuries adapted Pashtun ways, habits and customs and are definitely a race allied to the Pashtuns.

here are also some false statements made herein, about some 'Zabardast Khan' who is claimed to be a Tanoli, who supposedly fought at the Third Battle of Panipat in 1761, along with the Durrani/Afghan forces. But there is not an iota of evidence about this, the only Zabardast Khan who at any time figures in the Afghan Durrani annals, was a Suleman Khel Ghilzai, son of Saranjam, and he did not live anywhere near the Tanoli/Tanawal region at all. It is sad to see such obvious historical distortions , for what reason, one wonders? Whilst always assuming good faith, at times one is compelled to say that there are strange and disturbing illusions at work in the minds of many people who want to inflate themselves or their tribes and families, by 'creating' fake 'history'. This is not doing any good service to anyone at all, least of all to Wikipedia which is a site trusted by many readers who turn to it for facts, not fiction.

There also seems to be a fair amount of Conflict of Interest involved on the part of some few people, who are probably again just promoting themselves and/or their families, relatives and elders etc. How are we to ultimately check this trend? How long can we keep this article locked? How are we to maintain any sort of integrity in this time and again, if, time and again, people will subject it all over again to venal and biased/partisan change/s? There are lots of similar questions to be addressed. A process of drastic culling is needed here, followed by regular maintenance and supervision. Maybe, like some of the other articles here like the Dhund Abbasi and Khokhar etc, this too can be curtailed or maybe even simply deleted and a redirect link provided to some other linked article , maybe the one on Amb state? All these aspects need to be considered by some proper, expert and neutral editors , very careful and objectively. I also feel there is some amount of sock-puppetry also going on here, with a few users actually pretending to be many, and writing and rewriting this article according to their own tastes. I think that this aspect also needs to be referred to and looked at by the admins.

These are only some of major concerns. If by just reverting and then re-editing the article, things can become better then why not? I must say, however, that I would prefer to submit this firstly for some sort of detailed resolution to the expert attentions of the senior/expert editors. I trust that my be ok, thanks. Khani100 (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100

Removed further wrong information today

I have removed some further wrong information today , most prominently (a) claim based on Dorn's very poor and incomplete translation of Niamatullah AL Harawi's 'Makhzan i Afghan' whereby its wrongly claimed here that Bibi Mato had three sons. In fact in the real and authentic account of the 'Makhzan' this is the geneaology given: Baitain, son of Kais/Abdul Rashid had one daughter Bibi Matto and she was married to a half-Persian and half-Turkic prince Shah Hussain, and had two sons, Ghilzai and Lodi/Lodhi, and from them are descended a host of tribes but there seems to be no mention of Tano, at all. Shah Hussain also had a second wife, a Tajik lady Bibi Mahiya/Mahaya, and from her were also descended several tribes, which were adopted into the Pushtun lineages, later on. Again no Tano is mentioned. I think someone should check up the edition of Dorn's half-finished translation and see the veracity of these claims please. Also (b) a false claim was made (also mentioned above by me in an earlier note)that some Tanolis 'allied' with the Durranis and supposedly fought at the Third Battle of Panipat, which just isnt true. Someone cites a reference for this (which I have now removed) thet the source for this information is p 123 of the 'Hazara District Gazetteer of 1883' but I have this document in front of me as we speak, and page 123 lists 'Agriculture, Arboriculture and Livetstock' in Hazara area, and I have no checked 3 different editions of this work. It does not anywhere at all, mention any of the supposed Tanoli people that were supposedly at Panipat. What is one to construe of this please? Its very bad to have to see this sort of thing, here. People trust Wikipedia. Khani100 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100

Some more wrong info removed now-- someone claims that the 'Pashtun origins' of the Tanoli (or some supposed remote ancestor, Tano) are mentioned on p 49 of the translation by Dorn, of Naimat ullah 's 'Makhzan i Afghan' -- but I have consulted both an old edition of Naimat ullah's original text and also Dorn's incomplete and rather poor translation of 1829 and there is no such mention at all. If any serious editors wish to consult Dorn's translation they can do so online here : History of the Afghans , Dorn translation, Vol 1, 1829 . You will please specifically note that on p 49 the story is continued of Bahlol Lodhi's rule, and has no origins material at all. What more can one say? This article mostly seems, to be based on big misrepresentations and false/wrong informationKhani100 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100

Further note for the record

Hello, dear editors, on Wikipedia, I would like to make this further statement on record, w ref to the above comments by User Mastankhel who is also a Tanoli like me. But who seems to have taken umbrage to my corrections and bona fide edits and candid comments. I have already answered the objections again and again and nowhere either in 1829 or 1836 do I find a mention of any of the so called 'issue' that were mentioned here and removed by me; and I must again insist that Dorn's incomplete translation is not a reliable source here, nor an accurate one. I am basing this on my personal reading of the original text of Khwaja Harawi's 'Makhzan' , in its 1799 print or reprint, based on an original handwritten MS from the old Rampur library. This was published for your interest, by the Hon'ble East India Company, and which after 1800 was also taught as part of the curriculum at the old Fort William college syllabus, for a long time. The thing is, as a fellow Tanoli, I believe that (a) the Tanoli might be of partial Pashtun and partial/mixed Turkic descent and (b) that over time, we might have been to some extent 'Pashtunified' by living in close proximity with Pashtuns proper; but the thing is, to be honest (and I sincerely hope that no one will take offence at my candidness) that there is no real, acceptable historical evidence of this speculation and trying to 'manufacture' some sort of fake and cooked up 'evidence' is neither truthful nor good. It serves no good purpose. Let's then agree, as brother Tanolis, to remove all fictitious and unreliable material, and lets be objective and unbiased and let's think beyond some narrow 'tribal', egotistical mentality and embrace positive Wikipedian editorial standards, here. I hope all editors will try to understand and appreciate these points, at last. I have repeated these time and again. I have no wish to be engaged in a negative editorial war as its self-defeating--last time I was on Wikipedia (the reason I quite editing here regularly actually, and the matter can be evaluated from records please) was also due to a similar matter, when some 'big' and 'influential' people in Pakistan took exception to my attempts at making unbiased and objective edits to another page and to correct unreliable fallacies based on wrong or false or 'self made' sources, of a highly unethical nature. That really depressed me. I see so many Wikipedia pages/articles developing so well, so beautifully, but somehow, when we come to Pakistan-related pages, especially pages relating to tribes, descent/origin stories and family histories etc, we descend into an abyss of petty squabbling, falsity and all sorts of humiliating and insulting arguments and conflicts. When will this ever change? Why arent we the wiser for our experience? Why cant we develop objective, rational academic and research standards? I would hate to think that I was once again pushed out of the Wikipedia, perforce by somethign of teh same sort. I hope , please, we will all maintain civility and high standards and give up insisting on false and fake premises. Thank you, and very best wishes to all. Sincerely, Khani100 (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100