Talk:Tanoli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Tanoli is part of the WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Comments edit Afghan Tanoli for wasting time in our tribes .. go look histry of Afghanistan .. Tanoli previously pashton tribe, and since when outward FDI in Pakistan and India these people histry change that gives the win .. does not mean what some of the tribe pashton forget their language will change their home .. Tanoli is a tribe of pashton here in Afghanistan and its language is Pashto in India and Pakistan do not know that was .. Gardaiz Ghazni and both are cities in Afghanistan .. even with Pakistan and India us is not anything that, we are pashton

[edit] Barlas Origin

www.tanolis.onesite.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.204.220 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand why this page cites theories with no proof. There is proof from documents that the Tanoli race is descended from the Barlas Mughals, then why is this not mentioned anywhere?

Who is this Paktun pushing alleged Tanwali who hides this information? I order you to come forward and admit your wrong doing. If you are arguing, then why are you not arguing full facts? Why are you turning us into something else? I have both books that have this proof of who we are? We do not live in Afghanistan, we live in Pakistan so out of cuckoo land.

User Raja, we are not Punjabi and although you do not say we are, we dont like to be linked there either, as there is much bad blood between us and the sikh killers who devastated our people, and we resisted and defeated. Please refrain from editing our page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dil tarasha (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 March 2007

tanolis doesnt belong to mughal at all.mughals have their own rich n strong background.their history shows a totally different origin tht is central asia.turkamanistan n uzbekestan.not from afghanistan.tanoli belongs to affghanistan.their froefathers came from the origin of afghanistan.zabardast khan tanoli who was called suba khan,his forefathers were from kala dhaaka who came their from afghanistan.so there are many things which shows tht tanolis were resident along by the river bank in tanawal came from afghanistan before mughals.so i'd like to request to wikipedia administration that please kindly dont miscoat the history of tanoli.they are not mughals at all.tanoli are pathans of afghanistan.thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Khyberpass2 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 April 2008

[edit] random

I ran across this page using the "random page" link. I agree that the text is copyright infringement. The contextual stub that I added does not infringe, however, and would make a fine stub for this article.

- Nate —Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanSmith (talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 December 2004

keeping these bad information on tanolis, you whatever you want to think about the tribe will be like, when you change origin of Tanoli and well thought of changing people too, you can change all, but you can never change their language, that Tanoli Afghan origin is, is a tribe of pashton, and tanolis original language is Pashto, I am a true Tanoli my original language is pashton, please, do not put bad information on tanolis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.204.220 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article re write

I have re written the article from it's previous form but have included the theory of where they theorise they are possibly from. I have evidence from many sources to suggest that they are descendants of the Janjua. 'Tehreek e Janjua' (sahiwal Press) by Raja Mohd. Anwar Khan and 'Chronicles of Earley Janjuas' Dr Hussain Khan are both sources for the given info.

I have for obvious reasons removed the 'aboriginal' tribe references, sounded too much like a colonial write up.--Raja 19:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy up

Have wikified and done a tidy up as best as I can after consulting some references (and lots of research) also added and further elaborated the entire article. Please feel free to add further info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.207.76 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 January 2008 --Enric Naval (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism 202.83.173.117

You are vandalising a page you know next to nothing about. I have provided fully referenced sources and yet you have provided not one. If you continue to vandalise this page I will recommend your banning from wiki. You arent even prepared to talk about this and your uncivil behaviouir towards other pages is also clear. Cease immediately. I am reverting this page back to it's original fully sourced version.--Raja 17:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical evidence for Pakhtun origin of Tanawalis now also know as Tanolis

I have given many sources for the Pakhtun origin theory. Also I have written a critical analysis of the various issues concerning the language, culture, history and relationships with fellow Pakhtun tribes of Tanawalis e.g. Jaduns, Dilazaks, Swatis etc. who all live adjacent to the Tanoli areas and have intermarried and share valleys, lands and language. Tanawal, Pakhli and Mansehra, as well as Abbottabad's Orush valley, are all territories that are similar in many ways and are central to the Hazara identity and culture. The references given by the Janjua 'theorist' are definately fradaulent as this writer has consulted the original material and not found any references to Janjuas or raja Tanoli anywhere. The books by the two Janjua writers, who do not belong to the great tanawali race but are northern Punjabis whose sources are dubious to say the least and who are trying to concoct a 'history' that has no historical foundation. Furthermore, the history of a people is determinded by it's own oral and written accounts. The ruling family of Tanawal do not list Raja Tanoli in their geneological table nor does he figure in their family accounts - are they wrong, deluded or should we accept their version of their own history which is consistent with those written by non-Tanawalis? Abbasid accounts , for a very small minority of Tanolis, is more plausible than a Janjua 'history' for all Tanawalis. 17:06, 25 October 2006 (Pakhtun Tanoli)

[edit] Reply to Pakhtun Tanoli

Hello and thank you for your input here. I would stress that;

a) The sources that I quoted, I actually have copies of them to back up proof,so I am surprised that you question them IF indeed you have their copies as you state. I can even post a picture here of the texts in question for the ones you have questioned if you would like? I dont believe you anticipated this offer, but I more so dont believe you have consulted the texts yourself as YOU suggest.

b) The Janjua have no need to use another's history seeing as their own history is fully referenced and sourced as was this article until you starting inputting nonsensical 'point of view info' without any referenced citations. But regarding your delusion of Tanolis baring no attachment at all to Janjuas, it is claimed elsewhere (not by me or any other Janjua solely) of this connection and it's synonimous relevance to each other yet again [1] were this not the case then why are people mentioning it?! I dont agree all Tanolis are Janjua, but there are true Raja Tanoli descendants (real Tanoli Janjuas) who have genelogical tables showing this and have been mentioned by even Mughal Jehangir, so where you claim that it doesn't show on the Nawab's genelogical table I cannot understand BECAUSE had he actually had a genelogical table in the first place, then surely the Barlas Mughal or Abbasi theories would be put to rest would it not!

c) You have been 'revert warring' an article without any discussion at all. I have incorporated your Pashtun origin theory into the article and you completely deleted the Janjua theory? Thats rather uncivil and immature considering there isn't any mention of a 'Tanoli nation' in Hazara pre colonial era texts.

d) Before accusing me of any nonsense please see this link [2] which is undoubtedly a mention of a Tanoli Punjabi Musalmaan, so before badmouthing Punjabis, read your OWN history properly. And in case you call that a one off, here is Subedar Kalandhar Khan of the 91st in his full Tanoli glory [3]

If you want a proper discussion, with respect, according to wiki ethics I will engage with you (though I am very busy, I will Inshallah accomodate you) but if you want to be abusive (which till date I have NOT been towards you) then I will disengage and report you.

The text Chronicles of Early Janjuas by Dr Hussain Khan is written BY A TANOLI, so how can you ignore it? He was a professor of history at Peshawar University no less, so chances of a deluded Punjabi cannot be accepted (I can print his background from his book on here with an actual picture too if you want proof?). Keep things in perspective. I dont believe every person who calls themself a Tanoli is a genuine Tanoli by descent, they are all geographically named instead of by blood I believe, especially given the Swati example you give which is interesting. But to totally deny EVERY contrary evidence without debate indicates a Point of View, which isn't encyclopedic. (This is an encyclopedia, hence neutrality must be maintained. This is NOT a eulogy page).

Secondly, I have not come across a SINGLE source by any historian which records Tanolis as Pashtun, absolutely none. I would appreciate a Yousafzai text which would accept them as their brethren (Again THERE IS NONE) I would gladly accept a local account for this by neighbouring Yousafzais etc but again I am dissappointed here too. 'Al Afghaniya Tanoli' is a strange case. Pashtuns are not the be all and end all of all things Afghan. Syed's are absolutely not Pashtun, yet they are Afghans by localised centuries of inhabitance and cultural practice. So Tanolis culturally Afghan background is not disputed. But to change them ethnically, give them another faith i.e. Pakhtunwali, is a bit far fetched and extreme to say the least.

Now be civil and engage properly.--Raja 10:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanoli Sub Tribes

aoa to all

i am a tanoli and very interested in the history of my tribe. i tried to mail to the person who offers to give the scanned pages of "tareekh-e-tanolian" but my mail bounced back due to invalid email address or some reason i dont know. I request to tanolis or whoever has got any literature about our tribe, please send me the data or identify me the book shops from where i can buy these books. my email address is "farhanullahk@gmail.com"

your cooperation in this regard would be highly appreciated. regards farhan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.207.76 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 January 2008

[edit] 1- Sadial Tanoli,

Sadial Tanoli tribe is living in the areas of 1-Bammochi Khurd and Bammochi Kalan. The most famous names are as under

Shamraiz Khan Tanoli DAE in electrical Engineering from Pakistan, BE In Electrical Engineering from Washington international university USA, MBA From college of commerce USA, and Presently working in KSA from 25 December 1995.Now in a Telecom company (BATCO Telecom Professional company)as Project Manager i:e International well recognize company in Telecommunication field, Web site is WWW. Batcogroup.com. He serve also in Pakistan as Electrical Instructor in Technical training centre Mansehara, Haripur(Khalabut Town Ship) Bajour Agency Mangora (Swat).Under directorate of Manpower and Training NWFP Pakistan, 5 years.(from 1990 to 1995).

Mohammad Rafiq Tanoli:- Insta Phone Manager Graduated from Karachi university and diploma in computer Engineering from Karachi. MBA from college of commerce USA. and working since 1995 in Insta telecom Mobile company as Manager. He serve his services in Islamabad, Abbottabad, Topi Swabi and Peshawar area for the development of Mobile services, and always achieve his Goal.

Mazhar Iqbal Tanoli CA: Executive Manager Working in life insurance company in karachi. he develop a lot of programs for his organization,

Sohail Ajab Tanoli:- Lecturer in Karachi University. Presently Studying for PHD Mathematics in Germany.

Zubair Ahmed Khan Tanoli:- Mechanical Engineer In Pakistan Petroleum company in Pakistan. During his study he did a lot of project and wrote a book in a Group of 4 Engineers. which is included in the course of Engineering university Karachi.

Naheem A Kareem Tanoli:- CA 2nd officer in Muslim commercial Bank Karachi. He achieve his goal in a very short period and working in karachi Pakistan from 2004. to up date.

Amjad Pervez Tanoli:- Associate Engineer in Electrical technology. working in a telecom company in Islamabad.

Thora, Sherwan, Pahteel ,Shaheed Abad, Chummatti, Kangran.Lassan Nawab saheb,Beer Pohar,Bandi Mutrach, Khalora Takia Hall, Bachha, Pind, Gandian, Kangran, Kangrora. Rutta barilla, Kothiala Sandu Galli, and other area of the tanowal. 2- Karlal, 3- Jadhal, 4- Kargowal, 5- Sunhall.

212.116.220.23 10:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Engineer Shamraiz Khan Tanoli

MBA in Telecom From USA.

Presently working in Saudi Arabia in Telecom company as a Project Manager.

E-mail:- shamraiz@batcogroup.com

[edit] January cleanup

This article is in a complete mess at the moment and needs to be wikified asap. The current debate of origin is taking place away from this page and should be discussed here.

Although citations have been requested for info (personal opinions and points of view are not allowed on wikipedia, all assertions MUST be cited and sourced).

The citations have been requested since autumn '06 and still none have been provided. I can only conclude that none are available, hence not applicable for this article.

Unless citations are provided, the article will be dealt with as per wiki policy and previous 'cited version will be used. Please feel free to debate and contribute anything here so that the matter can be discussed and article progressed.--Raja 14:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This article does not need any alterations. This Supersingha needs to get back to his own pages to do with his own race and ethic group.

Strange, because here is a Punjabi Tanoli Punjabi Tanoli Army Subedar so your implied racism must now take this into account. Infact in Sir Ian Scott's book, "A British Tale of Indian and Foreign Service: The Memoirs of Sir Ian Scott", that, "Amb is mainly occupied by Tanaolis, who, like the somewhat mixed population of Phulera, are not Pathans, and do not speak Pushtu. The small trans Indus state of Amb state is, however, entirely Pathan." (Radcliffe, 1999, p66, p67). So which ethnic are we talking about here?!

It is apparent that he is interfering with issues he knows next to nothing aboput. If Wikipedia does not bar him from meddling then there are other ways to deal with this problem.

Such as?

There is enough evidence to justify the assertions put fprward in the references section.

Great! Please provide them instead of "alleging to bring it forward". Thats IF you have it.....

I have gone around researching on the Wiki site on various issuesthis so-called Raja has put his nose into and it seems he is not satisfied with anything that contradicts his obsession with trying to prove something that is not historically true. He is not even willing to accept Tanawalis own historians nor the Tanawal ruling family who reject they are janjuas and also that they ever had an ancestor from that line as so adequately written by Pashtun Tanoli.

Funny because the same royal family dont know their origins. Infact they dont know if they are Aryan, Indic, Mongolian or Pashtun at all. They have never confirmed it because they simply dont know. But your use of language is very poor.

Mr Supersingha says they are wrong and is using the tricks of the trade of Wikipedia editing to put conditions on this article that is wholly correct. Well Mr Supersingha I will provide thse citiations and if I do that then will you put up and shut once and for all? You will need to aoplogise to the whole Tanoli nation and Pashtun Tanoli to. Tahirkheli 16:38 7 January 2007

Again, poor language. But either way, instead of posting up threats to provide the info, why dont you save yourself the time and effort and actually do it instead of threatening to do it. But before you go, here is another connection with Janjuas ;-) [4]--Raja 15:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a tanoli and proud to be one. I know that my ancesters were tanolis and that is enough for me to know and make me proud of my race.Tanolis are a brave and distinct people of the tanawal mountains and they spread from Mardan to Baluchistan.There is a pashtun tribe in and around Queeta, who proudly say they are Tanolis and so do my brothers in Mardan, who are in a majority there, in around four villages. Tanolis are a race with a proud and prosperous history; so it is common for people to relate themselves to us, we should not see this as a negative aspect but we should not start believing these allegations.And secondly mr.janjua, what do you mean by stating that the royal family doesnt know of its origins, i thought you were a sensible person before you typed that, they are also tanolis and all the tanolis are from the same bloodline,if you have any doubts clear them because im from that family and i confirm it,A TANOLI WAS A TANOLI, IS A TANOLI AND WILL REMAIN AS A TANOLI !!!

Firstly, you misread what I wrote. When I wrote the main Nawab family doesn't know it's origins, I meant in terms of whether they were Barlas Mughal or Pathan Yousafzai. That was actually documented in a national article. They ofcourse know they are Tanoli. I have absolute respect for the brave Tanolis, but the derogatory remarks made by the members above really do put a shame to the name Im saddened to say. The info presented in the article referred to a mentioned link to Janjuas, but also highlighted other links too. This is an encyclopedic site and therefore all sides of the story must be presented in an open and fair way.--Raja 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barlas

[edit] Mumtaz

Im not going to get drawn in to the above arguments (goodluck!). But I did have a couple of questions for you, which I hope, in the vein of respect for the truth, we can atleast make a gesture to talk in a professional manner about info we do know?

Right, before I begin, I fully understand Tanwal has many tribes etc but my interest is also in tribes in general.

I wanted to ask, if you can help;

• 1. I have heard there are some Tanoli branches in Balochistan, do you have any info as to their connection with the main two septs, Hindwal and Palowal.

• 2. I've read somewhere that there are some Tanoli settlers in Kashmir, do you have any knowledge of them?

• 3. The Nalwa campaign against the Tareen chiefs confederacy, was quite a big chapter in the life of Hazara, and I was thinking of writing a neutral article as I find much info from the Sikh historians to be quite biased against the Tareen confederacy. Do you have much info on this? If not, do you have any sources in Pakistan NWFp that can help with this?

• 4. Can you dig up any info on the Tanoli tribes alliance witht the Abdali campaign of India? This is an abundantly large portion of history which isn't well covered or info collated on. It would help to have this covered. You can take this up, or if you, I can help you write this article, following wiki rules, literary language, formatting etc.

Despite our debates and rants, I reckon the article here has massively suffered. Much of the tribes accomplishments (whatever their origin, ethnic makeup, I can't care anymore) are being ignored and relegated to 2nd place.

It's up to you if you wanna help, I am offering you a chance to improve this article as well as helping me with it. Likewise, any info I can provide you (I have a large enough library on Northern Indo and certain aspects of Afghan history) I'll be happy to help out.

Let's start again. Rozeh are around the corner and I don't want this going on through Ramadan too....--Raja 11:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

aoa to all

i am a tanoli and very interested in the history of my tribe. i tried to mail to the person who offers to give the scanned pages of "tareekh-e-tanolian" but my mail bounced back due to invalid email address or some reason i dont know. I request to tanolis or whoever has got any literature about our tribe, please send me the data or identify me the book shops from where i can buy these books. my email address is "farhanullahk@gmail.com"

your cooperation in this regard would be highly appreciated. regards farhan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.208.171 (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the book "TAREEKH-E-TANOLIAN". its been written in 1939. I will scan all the pages of that book. If anyone interested, Please email me, I will also send you those pages. [sales@ugowireless.biz] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.53.158 (talk) 12:51, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Brothar we are mughals and we are warriors. Do not believe these confised people who say we are pashtoon. We are not. --Dil tarasha (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New liar

Brothers and meani aulad. Why you make us pashtun when we are proud mughals? we have the books and proof to state this, so why lie? are you an insecure pashtun cartoon wannabe? Daffa ho!

I dont know about the dirtiest style of language. sir when you are talking about castes, do you think that what everybody said about his cast or nation inluding you is quranic words. The authenticity of Hadith can be challenged, do you understand what I mean? why should I tell a lie? what can I get? furthermore, what I stated, I did nothing on my own.In reserch you must be open hearted,you would have heard sometimes a fool can teach wisdom to wise.I told that I read a statement in the book of the Atchison college about most respectable student of that time Sultan Muhammad Khan of BERE that we TANOLIES are descendent of PATRIARCH YOUSAFpbuh sir you can get this book from my friend BASHARAT KHAN presently working in STATE LIFE OFFICE FAROOQA BAD PLAZA MANSEHRA ROAD ABBOTTABAD SIR THIS BOOK IS ALMOST 126 YEARS OLD I have produced all this just to prove that I m not LIAR . Akhtar Saeed akhtarsaeed60@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.155.36 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 March 2008

This is impossible, since the lineage of Yousaf pbuh never continued, so what are you talking about? Thats a lie and unciteable claim --Dil tarasha (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

since the book of Atchisons college student is written by English and in English Yaqoob is written as Jacob, Dawood is written as David. Similarly Yousaf is written as Joseph. You know that the christians follow Hazrat Essa allaih islam, they just write it as Jesus, whereas, we the Muslims respect all prophets and we write P.B.U.H with their names as a sign of respect. In the book of Ghulam Nabi Khan, he claims we the Tanolis are descendents of Yousaf Allaih Islam. Therefore, being muslim i wrote as P.B.U.H with Yousaf Allaih Islam. whereas in that atchisons book is only written as JOSEPH. And hence such a detail is enough to prove my point. so stop reffering to me as liar, oyu would have confirmed what i said and i didn't say anything without any proof so you just don't want to admit that the milk is white not black. i m telling u its white but u still believe its black. Being a civilized peson you don't have a right to call anyone a liar without any solid proof and again whatever and whosoever wrote in history books is never as true as THE VERSES OF THE HOLY QURAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.155.36 (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

--99.233.155.36 (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)AKHTAR SAEED

[edit] Tanoli page being deleted

Hey come on guys, stop fighting over this mughal/pashtun thing, if you guys are tanolis,you should be proud of your great history and should be proud to be tanolis rather than associating yourselves with other tribes. Our history is great, thats why many tribes have associated themselves with us. But this fight here will get you no where, by the way the Tanoli page here on wikipedia is being considered for deletion, if you guys dont stop vandalising this page it will be deleted soon. So please only add notable and relevant material to the page and try to make this page presentable. Cheers!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitanoli (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Captain James Abbott This book also mentions the fact that the original language of the Tanolis was Pashto but some have forgotten it and now speak Hindko in areas where the majority speaks this language. spoke Pashto. Pashto also known as Pakhto, Pushto, Pukhto Pashtoe, Pashtu, Pushtu or Pushtoo) is an Iranian language spoken by Pashtuns living in Afghanistan and western Pakistan. ... It has been suggested that Hindku be merged into this article or section. ...

I dont know about the dirtiest style of language. sir when you are talking about castes, do you think that what everybody said about his cast or nation inluding you is quranic words. The authenticity of Hadith can be challenged, do you understand what I mean?

Akhtar Saeed akhtarsaeed60@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.155.36 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] semi-protect the page already

Today 27 March the page has been vandalized and reverted 9 times, 4 times by 80.37.184.60 [5] [6] [7] [8], once by 99.233.155.36 [9] and then 4 times by 80.37.184.60 [10] [11] [12] [13] until he was blocked for a week. It appears to be the very same idiot vandal that vandalized the page so many times that caused it to be nominated for deletion. I didn't follow the history, but his accounts were blocked and now he's resorting to using IPs --Enric Naval (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

P.D.:In 25 March it was vandalized 3 times by apparently the same person, also from an IP [14] [15] [16]. That same IP vandalized the deletion nomination of tanoli. It's obvious it's the same vandal again and again, maybe two different vandals at most --Enric Naval (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

After i reported it at WP:RPP, The page was protected for a period of one week by User:Gb. The main vandal has also been blocked for one week by User:Hersfold. Maybe we can have a week now to focus on other parts of wikipedia! TheProf - T / C 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NO doubt there are quite a few vandals out there who are trying to mess around with this page and most add unnecessary material for example a few weeks ago a person had added the name of some shop keeper to the list titled famous Tanolis of today, which is in no way notable enough to be put on Wikipedia. I do consider myself an expert on this page as I have ample knowledge of the history and present status of the Tanoli tribe. I am keeping watch on this page and will certainly edit any irrelevant material and also correct the grammar where a user has added relevant material in an unimpressive manner.Wikitanoli (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removal of tags

The "dispute" tag has been up since March 2007 [17], because the article said that Tanoli were Pashkun. Since then it has been made clear that it was an unsourced claim introduced by an abusive user that has kept copy/pasting the same non-referenced version several times per day, using sockpuppets and IPs. Since the article no long claims the Pashkun link, and since the vandal removes the tag anyways, I think this tag is no longer necessary.

The "Inappropriate tone" tag was added on 21 March when the non-vandalized version was up [18]. Unfortunately, no explanation was goven on the talk page about the specific concers, and we only have the edit summary of "peacock language, weasel words, etc" to judge if it still necessary. Looking at the differences between the tagged version and actual version, it appears that most un-attributed claims have been cleaned up. The tag can be removed, and I suggest to list the specific concerns when adding it again. I also advice the regular editors to source the paragraphs and attribute according to WP:NPOV instructions things like "the Heroic Tanoli Khan" to the book where they got the sentence from. I advice using the inline citations with the "ref" tag. This would prevent the re-tagging of the article, and the deletion by well-intentioned editors of stuff that looks like WP:OR original research or NPOV when it's actually a direct quotation from a history book. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for the "ref" tag. I added the {{Morefootnotes}} tag to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored the cleanup tags that a IP took out. The article *does* require cleanup and *does* have an unencyclopaedic tone. The solution is improving the article, not deleting the tags. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is an encyclopaedic site, which grows by contributions from every where, now if you think that it needs cleanup or correction, then please write that in the discussion section, and specifically where you think correction is needed (that is if you cannot correct it yourself). Adding a tag is useless, unless you notify here about views concerning the problems in the article. I did not remove the tag concerning footnotes becauase yes, there are no footnotes connecting with the references, but I have put in bold the lines which have been written by Authors and I have also mentioned page numbers of those books where these lines are taken from. This does have the same effect that a footnote would serve but still, yes, i believe footnotes must be included in the article and the tag should be kept there. But the other tags are not clear and the person who has put them up, should write his concerns here and specifically where he thinks correction is needed? Cheers Wikitanoli (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic site and this article clearly fails to live up to Wikipedia quality standards. Therefore I added the {{cleanup}} tag back again. There is still an on-going edit war here, so I don't see why that template was removed.

/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

The article should now be temporarily semi-protected. Hopefully this will make it possible to rework it to an acceptable level. Any suggestions?
/ Raven in Orbit (t|c) 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be good, but the guys at WP:RFPP will surely say that there hasn't been enough disruption. You should rework it anyways, and just revert every time the vandal appears --Enric Naval (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, a short while ago I semi-protected the page for a period of two weeks. _GB^T/C 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GB. *phew* -- Fullstop (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ps: @ Raven/Enric: Mughal Kayanis has the same problems. The OR/SYNTH is much more obvious there. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well folks, two weeks passes like nothing and I'm not sure how to proceed from here. Neither of the contributions below makes any sense to me. I wish I knew more about Afghanistan! Maybe some CEing is all that is needed? I guess this is not a candidate for a permanent semi-protection yet.

Fullstop, I've added that one to my watchlist. I assume there are a series of related articles in this case.

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 19:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume that if there was anything in the material below that should have been added, it would have happened by now. As it stands its just more contextless, unsourced, apropros-of-nothing stuff.

As for being a series... Yes, they are a series in that they all say close to nothing. They are a series of hagiographic cruft, descent blah from royalty blah or nobility blah or some such thing. No content, no proper referencing, no wikification, no love, no care. Just lots of cut-and-paste with a liberal sprinkling of bold face and italics. And of course the obligatory "notable foo" magnets. Other than "notable foo" and the leads, one could fill them with Lorem ipsums and no one would notice. The Kayani Mughal article should be speedied for atrocious OR. Its full of it.

This article on the other hand is better than the rest of the series in that it at least has a reasonable lead section (though the prose needs cleanup). The rest of it needs a sharp shave with Occam's razor. Its sheer unreadable. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, there is a lot of blanking out ahead then. I'll be working a lot over a few days, but I'll try to stay tuned.

Maybe some more semi-protection is handy here? Or even AfD? I'll have a look at it.

Cheers

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article for another month. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] version posted off-site

I see that our friend User:Pakhtun Tanoli has decided to get his own website for his favourite version of this article --Enric Naval (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that anyone really cares who (what?) these Tanolis are, we haven't seen any sources to suggest that they are not Pashtun either. All we have are some rah-rah hotheads flinging ad-hominems at each other.

So, given that this article lacks sources as much as Pakhtun Tanoli's version does, I thought I'd apply the same pitiful "research" methods, and this is what I came up with:

1. Gbooks...

• "A Glossary of the Tribes & Castes of the Punjab & North-west Frontier" (1914)
  This is the only source on gbooks that refers to the Tanolis of this article.
  • p. 455 (index): "Tanaoli, Tanoli, Tanol, Tol, Tholi, Tahola, Tarnoli -- a tribe of Hazara"
  • p. 216: "I have included in my account of the Pathans a few allied races, who though not usually acknowledged as Pathans, have by long association become assimilated with them in manners, customs, and character. They chiefly occupy Hazara, and are called Dilazak, Swati, Jadun and Shilmani."
  • p. 255: "The remainder of the district, that is the northern and central portion, is held by tribes which, whatever their origin, have a long association with the Pathans in language and customs, the Jadun holding down the Dor valley from Bagra upwards to Mangal, the Tanaoli holding the Tanawal tract in the west center of the district between Abbottabad and the Indus, much of which belongs to the semi-independent Nawab of Amb, while the Swatis hold the whole mountain country north of Mansehra and Gari Habiullah."
  • p. 256: [Section title: Races allied to the Pathan] The Tanáoli are said to claim descent from Amír Khán, a Barlás Mughal, whose two sons Hind Khán and Pal Khán crossed the Indus some four centuries ago and settled in Tanawál of Hazára; and they say that they are named after some other place of the same name in Afghánistán. But there can be little doubt that they are of Aryan and probably of Indian stock. We first find them in the trans-Indus basin of Mahában, from which they were driven across the Indus by the Yúsufzai some two centuries ago. They now occupy Tanáwal or the extensive hill country between the river and Urash plains. They are divided into two great tribes, the Hindwál and Pallál, of which the latter occupy the northern portion of Tanáwal, and their territory forms the jagdír of the semi-independent Chief of Amb. Of the 40,000 Hazára Tanaolis, 8,737 returned themselves in 1,881 as Pallál, 1,964 as Dafrál, a sect pf the Pallál, and only 1,076 as Hindwál. It is probably that clans were not recorded in the Amb territory where the Hindwál, and indeed the great mass of Tanáolis dwell. They are an industrious and peaceful race of cultivators; but their bad faith has given rise to the saying--Tanáoli be-qauli, "the Tanáoli's word is naught."

2. Gscholar:

• "Livelihood Strategies in North-West Pakistan" (June 2005)
  This is the only source on gscholar that refers to the Tanolis of this article.
  • p. 13 [Chapter: Village profiles] [Section: Gali Badral (foothills)]
    In the side panel, the Tanolis are mentioned as distinct from the Mughals. No other refs on page to Tanolis.
  • p. 47 repeats data from p. 13

Key phrases from above related to the Pashtun versus Mongol-Turkic issue:

• "whatever their origin, have a long association with the Pathans in language and customs"
• "though not usually acknowledged as Pathans, have by long association become assimilated with them in manners, customs, and character"
• "claim descent from Amír Khán, a Barlás Mughal"
• "there can be little doubt that they are of Aryan and probably of Indian stock"
• in the present-day distinct from the Moghuls

Conclusions:

• the "Pashtun" thing is not altogether incorrect (see what Pathan redirects to)
• the "Moghul Barlas" thing is based on the claim of descent from one "Amír Khán."

Both pieces of information are in fact fairly obvious in the first para of the "Origins and History" section.

And... while the "Moghul Barlas" stuff in the lead is -- in the way it is presented -- false, there is absolutely no need to make that assertion in the lead anyway since its dealt with properly in the first section.

The key terms in "claim to descend" and "allied with" are not noted anywhere in the article. The use of such distinguishing vocabulary would have cleared the air long ago.

-- Fullstop (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

quick note, if the source uses "Pathan", then let's use Pathan, since someone might write an article describing the differences between them and Pakhtun. Looking at the explanations on the target article and their sources, Pathan and Pakhtun are overlapping groups, but they are not identical, and there seem to be a lot of subtle distintions depending on where they live. For example, Hindkowans are Pathan, but they are not Pakhtun. Now, if I can just finish other articles and come here to add those sources to the article..... --Enric Naval (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

yep, good plan. All should be well if we stick to the sources, to include the "claim to" and "association with" clauses. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)