Talk:Tanoli/Archive 2

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

Untitled section

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

I am sorry if my comments hurts you. Fortunately, I am in possession of a soft copy of both volumes of 1836 Dorn's work which I personally downloaded while studying in the University of Melbourne. You may be justified in your words as you have different version. I shall suggest you to also consult other version as it is university based work. East India Company had its own agenda of divide and rule. As a student of history, you shall agree with me that in the period of Painda Khan Tanolis had cordial relationship with neighbouring Yousafzais which altogether changed in the period of Jahandad khan. We need to think about it. We also need to conduct some new ethnographic studies, especially in the Mahaban area from which Tanolis migrated. regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastkhankhel (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My dear User;Mastkhankhel hello, and thank you for your comments here. I accept your aplogy. However-- No its not a matter of being hurt, its more about being accurate and rational as possible under existing circumstances. As a former PhD scholar who qualified from the UK and a full time research scholar I try my best to be balanced and to check out various sources, including the Dorn volume/s. However, the fact remains that Dorn supposedly made his translation from an original/old MS version of Kh Niamatullah's work but it DOESNT correspond to it at all, in many places. I have also read as I informed you the original version reprinted by the HEIC at Calcutta in 1799, from the famed Rampur MS, and I fail to see (a) honestly, why the HEIC would want to tamper with this due to some supposed 'divide and rule agenda'? What agenda? At that time the British hadnt even come close to the North-West Frontier and had no or very little idea about Pashtuns or other peoples here, such as Tanolis etc? (b) sadly, most of the present anti-HEIC speculations in post-colonial contexts seem to be based on such unfounded and facile speculations, of an emotional rather than a logical and objective approach. And the fact is, most of the early work either reprinted or carried out in the field, was quite above reproach. So, let us then please not enter into this controversial area, which just isnt borne out by factual evidence. As I requested before, we can only speculate on the origins of Tanolis and many allied tribes, lost in the remote mists of time. However, I do agree with you that we can at least try to look more closely at later historical events and try to posit informed points of view, on the basis of facts. In response to your comment, I would say that Painda Khan 'baba' had a rather mixed relationship with many people -- eg the Yusufzais as well as many other nearer tribes of Kala Dhaka (Black Mountain) who are not really Yusufzai or are also of mixed Yusufzai nature; also with the Agror mullahs/akhunzadas; and even with the Sikhs. For various politic reasons, we note that at times he was diplomatic towards them (eg when for example he had to send Jehandad Khan as a hostage to them etc) and at other times, he was strong and aggressive. Indeed, his relationship with even his brother Madad Khan, of Phulra, was not without controversy. Madad Khan at times outrightly joined up with Painda Khan's opponents and we know that at a time he even laid claim to Tanawal itself, and wanted 'more' so to speak. At that time, the time demanded such moves and measures for survival and Painda Khan was successful in this. Later on, by the time British rule was formally instituted, after March 1849, and Jehandad Khan was firmly and completely 'in the seat' by both his own power and by the formal legal dispensation and writ of British rule in the Punjab and Punjab Frontier, things were taking a very different turn altogether. The boundaries of Upper Tanawal/Amb were more or less being settled and demarcated. And Jehandad Khan had no or little need for subterfuge or diplomacy. He knew he firmly had British support behind him, so he could (a) afford to politically dominate over the Yusufzais and other people of the Mahaban (b) make his position further securer and better and stronger by siding with the ruling British colonial power in the region, by helping them in the early Black Mountain campaigns and (c) consolidate his own power and that of his descendants subsequently, by also assuming an 'indirect hand' in interfering in Swat, Buner and Malakand generally. There are hundreds of intelligence reports and items of secret correspondence dating back to the 1840s and later, held at the OIOC/IOR (India Office Records) at the British Library, London, showing the de facto situation via a vis Jehandad Khan's position and his strong contacts with the British government. Indeed, we can even say that he really laid the modern 'foundations' of Amb's special prestige till 1947. All the later Nawab sahiban till Nawab Farid Khan mostly followed the basic policy guidelines laid down by Jehandad Khan. Hope this helps you to place things into a larger/broader historical perspective? I am sure we can do further work on understanding Amb state politics , at the proper forum i.e. Amb (princely state) page. Regards, Khani100 (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2014

Tanoli migrated from Tonbol Pass or Taanal Pass to the Gardeez and Ghazni (Cities of Afghanistan) in 1100 AD. In 950 AD when Sultan Amir Sabuktigin invaded on Hindustan, Tanoli tribe came with his army and resided in the valley of Swat and Buner. Anwar Khan Tanoli was appointed as head or cheif of the tribe by Sultan Amir Sabuktigin.

Tanoli tribe is also present in different areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan

In Pakistan, they live in Swat, Mardan,Dir, Bajour,Buner,Shangla,Tanawal, Abbottabad,Pohar,Lakhala,Havelian, Haripur,Khalabat,Malakand agency, Dargai, Sakha Koat, Charsadda, TopiSwabi,

Tanoli tribe was prominent alliance of Ahamed Shah Abdali, Tanoli fought the battle of Pani Pat aginst Marrata. The Cheif, Zaberdast Khan Tanoli gained the title of Suba Khan from Ahmed Shah Abdale because of his bravery and boldness in the battle of Pani Pat.

In AD 1752 the Tanoli Chief Sardaar Zabardast Khan allied with fellow Afghan, and King of AfghnistanAhmed Shah Abdali, in his conquest of India. His renown was such, that he gained the title of Suba Khan from Ahmed Shah Abdali for his bravery in the historical battle against the Marathas at Panipat, where two hundred and fifty thousand strong army of Marathas were famously defeated by just sixty thousand of Abdali's soldiers and allied Muslim tribes. His later grandson, Mir Nawab Khan saw the Durrani empire crumbling and defeated the Durranis, thus freeing his kingdom of their control, however, in this battle he was killed by Sardaar Azim Khan

Amir Usman Khan (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, re User Amir Usman Khan, I would please like to correct that historically (a) No Tanoli called 'Zabardast Khan' was on record at the 3rd Battle of Panipat, there was one 'Zabardast Khan' who was from Jalalabad but he was an Afghan not Tanoli, and a commander under Ahmad Shah directly, (b) the 'Zabardast Khan' that you mention, was a Pallal Tanoli, who was in fact a later local administrator of Tanawal area, during Durrani times, he was given the title of 'Suba Khan' and was appointed by Shah Timur Shah, son of Ahmad Shah, quite some time later in 1771-1772-descendants of Zabardast/Suba Tanoli are settled in 3 places ie Bir, Shingri and Phuhar in Hazara, NWFP/KP. Also (c) Mir Nawab Khan was a Hindwal Tanoli, not a Pallal Tanoli, he was ancestor of the later Amb family of Tanolis, he had NO direct link or connection to Zabardast Tanoli, Pallal aka 'Suba Khan'; this Nawab Khan was the same person who was sewn up into a sack and thrown into the Indus river by Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan Durrani/Abdali, there was no 'battle' , he was punished for being rude to the Sardar's mother and his son Painda Khan escaped and later returned and established the Amb jageer; which became a full-fledged state under his son, Mir (later Nawab) Jehandad Khan, after the British recognised his claim formally. I hope you will please kindly make a note of these facts, thanksAsadUK200 (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200

Karlanee (Kerlani)

Karlani Afghan Tribes Genealogy & Family Tree.

• Roadh Bai
• Dilazak
• Mangal
• Kakai
• Torai or Turi
• Tanai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastkhankhel (talk • contribs) 05:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• 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

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

Started my User Page today, after duly registering.

Dear Asad I am really astonished why some friends are consistently rejecting the research / publications of a renowned historian of 19th century 'Bernard Dorn' who happened to be an expert in Afghan History. I have soft copies of both volumes of his book ' The history of afghans'. Please share with me your e.mail, I can send you the same for your satisfaction/ verification. You may not agree that Tanokhel is apex ancestor of Tanolis but at least we can take it as a view point for further research Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastkhankhel (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User Mastkhankhel, hi. Im sorry I dont understand what the problem is please? Bernhard Dorn's translation of Naimatullah Harawi's Makhzan is, I am sorry to say, a very poor and unreliable book and is not accepted as a proper citation or reference source, in any case. Nor is the Makhzan itself a reliable volume, as you know it was written in the Mughal Emperor Jahangir's time to please Harawi's Pashtun patron, a Lodhi sirdar, so its been rejected time and again as a reliable source. Please, make a note of this. I dont see anyone with any issue with you and cant fathom why you are astonished? I dont know if you have any prior problems or issues with other editors, but that's none of my business, all Im interested in is to ensure that high quality and reliable resources only are used in any articles that I edit, and I wish to see improvements here not degeneration. I have no issues whatsoever and certainly believe that your repeated edits were probably in good faith, however the source or sources that you employ, are not reliable or worth citing/refering to, so whats the point of repeating them? Further, please kindly also note the following points that

• In all these Indian/Pakistani tribe and caste related articles, it is mutually agreed by general consensus to behave with exceptional degree of civility and good manners, and to follow certain set standards of conduct and scholarly integrity. However, you seem to have some sort of problem, why have you vandalized my User Page with your note same as above? When you very well know you have to leave a message on a user's talk page?
• Also, it is mutually agreed by consensus, established some time ago I believe that none of the 19th c unreliable sources, nor British colonial adminstrators' books, nor similar material(s) will be used or cited in such instances on these tribe/caste related articles, and only modern, contemporary anthropological material of a scholarly nature, and published only by reliable publishers (I think some lists have been shared in notes here in this Talk page above) or appearing in reliable peer-reviewed academic journals, etc, is acceptable.

Hope you will please follow these regulations very carefully and kindly also maintain necessary decorum at all times. AsadUK200 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200

Dear Asad

I am sorry you are again imposing your will and trying to dictate your terms which in no way is considered a standard norm. I have always been polite and maintained all standards of conduct and scholarly integrity as depicted in my earlier notes rather others have to some extent shown aggressiveness in their notes . Frankly speaking, I suspect you are registered with various names and are consistently manipulating things according to your will. To keep the record straight let me tell you that neither you nor I, are an authority to nullify the research done by researchers of repute like Bernard Dorn and Neametullah. The remarks you have passed about Neamatullah are itself against the so called decorum you are referring to in your note. As a student of Afghan's history, let me tell you that the whole history of Afghans revolves around two books; Makhzen-e-afghani and Tarikh-e-Farishta. If these two books are excluded, nothing is left behind. You need to take note of it . As regards Bernhard Dorn's book, it was completed by him, after about seven years of writing Part-1, in 1836 when he wrote Part-2 of it. The reference which you are deleting time and again, has been taken from this very 2nd part. The logic in insisting on retaining this edit lies in the fact that it provides a convergent point for both theories about descent of Tanolis i . e Turco Mongols and Pashtuns. If Tanokhel, decendant of Ghilzai as mentioned in Dorn's book, is ancestor of Tanolis, then both the theories seem to be two faces of the same coin, and provides 'food for thought ' for the new researchers. At the end, I leave it to the Wikipedians to decide whether to retain this information or to delete, as they are the better judges.

Regards

I think that both users have some valid points, but the bottom line is, that Dorn's translation is not an acceptable work, it is a very poor translation with many problems and thus, not necessarily a reliable source for citation. However, let's try to reach a civlized consensus between both editors/users. Im going to make necessary amendments to reflect both perspectives. Regards Khani100 (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Khani100

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

Please note the following request about Tanoli while updating on wikipedia:

1] In 1752, the Tanolis allied with the Afghan Emperor Ahmad Shah Abdali and took part in military conquests, including the Battle of Panipat in 1761, under their chief Zabardast Khan Tanoli who was given the title of “Suba Khan” by Ahmad Shah Baba for his bravery. In the 18th and early 19th century, two of the main Tanoli clans, the Hindwal and the Pallal, fell into a feud and had a bitter struggle between them. The Hindwal clan gradually began to gain ascendancy, and Mir Painda Khan of the Hindwal clan successfully united all Tanolis into one entity, which eventually became the princely states of Amb and Phulera. The Amb State lasted until 1969, with its primary capital at Darband, and summer capital at Shergarh. The construction of the Tarbela Dam reservoir in the early 1970s submerged Darband, a capital of the former state of Amb, underwater.

202.61.52.148 (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but there seems to be some confusion about this 'zabardust tanoli' and another person who wasnt a Tanoli. Zabardust Tanoli DID NOT fight at Panipat in 1761. He entered afghan service later in 1775-1776, and was acting governor of the upper Hazara region. Please see https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabardust_Khan . There was another 'Zabardast Khan' a, Pathan , who actually fought at Panipat in 1761, and he had no connection to Hazara or the Tanoli tribe. Pl see https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabardast_Khan This confusion is commonly made. Hope this helps clear it up a bit. Regs, 39.54.177.195 (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Col (r) Mumtaz Khan

Note

Hello, I have removed a merger template that proposed erroneously to merge this with an article on the Yusufzai Pashtun tribe; whereas there is certainly no connection at all between them and Tanolis. I have also removed false statements which are falsely ascribed to some sources and I have once again corrected the introduction/start of this highly contentious article. I dont know why people have so many fundamental complexes about their origins and keep on adding and readding fale information to show/pretend to be what theyre not. AsadUK200 (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)AsadUK200

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

The Tanoli (Hindko language|Hindko/; ) might be a Pashtun tribe, connected to the larger Ghilji confederacy of the Pashtun people.JW Spain 'The Pathan Borderland' 1969 edThe Tanolis mostly inhabit the Tanawal Valley in the eastern part of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, which they took over around the 14th century and named after their tribe. Although Tanawal is today part of the Hazara division of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, in the past its larger portion comprised the two semi-independent native states or principalities of Amb (princely state)|Amb and Phulra, ruled over by Tanoli chiefs of the same family, from about the 1840s to 1969. Prior to that, the area or 'Ilaqa' of Tanawal remained an independent tribal territory from around the 14th to the 19th century.Dr Sher Bahadur Panni, "Tarikh i Hazara" (Urdu) 2nd ed. pub. Peshawar, 1969, pp. 103-122 The English writer Charles Allen (writer)|Charles Allen, citing from a draft manuscript written by James Abbott (Indian Army officer)|Major James Abbott at the British Library, London, writes that the Tanolis were "extremely hostile, brave and hardy, and accounted the best swordsmen in Hazara".

Tanolis (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: It is not clear what you are suggesting to change. Please clearly and specifically state which sections you are seeking to change or add content to, and provide sources for each change. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Note for Record

A user named Situish is consistently distorting the factual information regarding Tanoli Tribe which is neither supported by the Tanoli Tradition nor by the conventional as well as contemporary writers considered experts in the Afghan History . All such citations are being deleted in a phased manner declaring them unreliable. This practice is likely to ruin the whole article and the article may become redundant . The Wikipedia is to take note of it. Fahad AKM (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Fahad AKM Im sorry I must differ with you on this point- Sitush is a very senior and knowledgeable editor at Wikipedia and I think all his edits, here on this page, have been extremely accurate and useful. I must also add that there is some confusion as to the actual origins of the Tanoli, with many of them espousing the theory that they are of Turkic (Barlas) origins and some,more recently, claiming Pashtun origins. I have also removed an unreliable source cited here , as that is an Urdu volume by A Sadhroi, self-published by the writer, in Lahore, Pakistan; and in no way is that writer either an expert or scholar of this subject. It must please be borne in mind that there are strict Wikipedia guidelines regarding what is or is not reliable sourcing in Wiki articles; and I hope you will please try to accept and follow these properly thanks. AsadUK200 (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Prof AsadUK200

What we don't need are good editor of Wikipedia but those with historical and geneological insights into the wider Pashtun history, Hazara tribal knowledge and connected with the Tanolis, Tanaolies, Tanawalis, Taniwals and Tanis. Please also take the history of the leading Tanoli families as well as the ruling family i.e. Nawabzada Salahuddin Saeed Khan whose interview appeared in the international Herald, published from Karachi in which he clearly declared his family to be Pashtun. Furthermore the article also included the possibility of some of the clans of Tanolis as being either Barlas or Karlugh Turks given that before the arrival of the Tanolis a contiguous area i.e. Agror Valley was ruled by them and then they were ejected by Syed Jala Baba, son in law of the last Turk sultan, who in turn were ejected by the current Khans of Swati Pashtun origin. The Karlugh Turks are still residing in Behali village in Hazara. I know members of their family in Pakistan and the UK as well as the other leading Khwanain Tanoli families including the Nawabzadas. Over the years we had arrived at a comprehensive and balanced article but those with bias and vested interests see hellbent on ruining this important Martial Race of the Hazara region. Therefore, a renewed effort to go back to the original sources and bring some semblence of sanity back here. Those interested in doing this contact me and lets get this article back on track. Moarrikh

I also want to know who A sad in UK is and what discipline he is a professor in - seems a a sad depressive to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moarrikh (talk • contribs) 15:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No. If you try to do this then you will find yourself blocked from contributing You are not allowed to co-ordinate your efforts in this manner. And you must follow consensus regarding verifiability, reliable sources, conflicts of interest etc. Wikipedia does not exist to promote the claims of a community. - Sitush (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Re Reverts etc

Regarding reversion of 2 edits of mine by Sitush, which I have now redited again after leaving a note for Sitush on his Talk page-- the fact is, that the note that Tanolis live in Afghanistan was wrong, they dont. It seems from the page that the references following this assertion says this but the truth is, both James W Spain and Prof Dani only just mention that Tanolis live in Hazara area of NWFP/KPK. So, the statement was in essence a misrepresentation , i.e. someone trying to sneak in a line to cover with the already-cited references. I hope you see now why I removed the same. One has to be careful please, Ive noted time and again that some Pakistani editors belonging to certain tribes or clans or families, are out to promote themselves and their kin, and they are very persistent in adding false and erroneous statements. I hope editors will remain alert to these thanks. RegardsAsadUK200 (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)AsauUK200

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2016

A user named Situish is consistently distorting the factual information regarding Tanoli Tribe which is neither supported by the Tanoli Tradition nor by the conventional as well as contemporary writers considered experts in the Afghan History . All such citations are being deleted in a phased manner declaring them unreliable. This practice is likely to ruin the whole article and the article may become redundant . The Wikipedia is to take note of it.

LaibaTariq123 (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. If you wish to request an edit, you will need to tell us the specific words you want changed and what you want them changed to, and you will need to support your requested change by showing references to reliable sources (see WP:RS). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Further, if there are specific changes made that you object to, please discuss them here and make it clear exactly what you think is wrong and why, again supported by reliable sources (and please note that "tradition" is not a reliable source for factual assertions). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

The Tanoli (Hindko/Urdu: تنولی‎; Pashto: تنولي‎) is a Pashtun tribe[1][2] of the Karlanri tribal confederacy of the Afghans tribe inhabiting the Tanawal valley, in the Hazara region of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. Across the Durand line, there are also Tanolis living in Ghazni and Paktia provinces of Afghanistan. There is a controversy whether the Tanolis are Afghan[3] Pashtuns or Barlas Turks, because sometimes they are acknowledged as a Barlas Turkic tribe related to the Mongols, who are Pashtunified to an extent and have assimilated many Pashtun cultural features.[4] During the British Raj, the Tanoli, allied with other Pashtuns of the region, participated in the frontier wars c. 1840s against the British. In Charles Allen's analysis of these wars, the Tanolis were described as "extremely hostile,brave and hardy, and accounted for the best swordsmen in Hazara".[5] Members of the Tanoli tribe mostly inhabit the districts of Haripur, Abbottabad and Mansehra in the Hazara region of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. A branch of the Tanoli tribe also resides in Kashmir, mainly in Muzaffarabad and Srinagar. Some Tanolis are working and settled as far away as Karachi, Lahore and other parts of Pakistan. In Afghanistan, the Tanoli primarily live in the provinces of Ghazni and Paktia, in particular in Gardez.[6] Though today the Tanawal area is part of the Hazara division, in the past the larger portion of it comprised the two semi-independent native states or principalities of Amb and Phulra, ruled over by Tanoli chiefs of the same family, c 1840s to 1972. Prior to that, the area or 'Ilaqa' of Tanawal had remained an independent territory for long, from c the 14th century to the 19th.[7] The Tanolis may be different from their present day fellow Pashtuns of Taniwal tribe, who are instead referred to a subgroup of the Khostwal supertribe[8] and inhabit southern parts of Khost Province, primarily Tani District and adjacent villages of neighbouring districts.[9] Whereas, The Tanolis are considered to be of Karlanri origin but through a different super-tribe. HISTORY The Tanolis originally lived in Dara Tanal, in the Ghazni region of Afghanistan. In the 10th century, the Tanolis joined the army of the Ghaznavid Emperor Sabuktigin and traveled with them to Hindustan. After the conquests, the Tanolis settled in Swat and Buner, formed their own state and appointed Anwar Khan Tanoli as their first head. But later they came into conflict with the other fellow Afghan tribes who had newly migrated eastward into the region, most notably the Yusufzai. The Tanolis were defeated under their leader Ameer Khan Tanoli at a battle in Topi. When the Tanolis were defeated, they migrated further eastwards and crossed the Indus River under the command of Mawlawi Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, and succeeded to defeat the Turks settled on the eastern bank of the Indus River, capturing the territory and naming it after their tribe 'Taniwal'. Early British Census reports included several variant forms of the tribe name: Taniwal, Tanole, Tanaoli, Tanol, Tol, Tholi, Tahoa, Tarnoli, Tanis, Tanai, Turnouli, Tanawali.[10]

In 1752, the Tanolis allied with the Afghan Emperor Ahmad Shah Abdali and took part in military conquests, including the Battle of Panipat in 1761, under their chief Zabardast Khan Tanoli who was given the title of "Suba Khan" by Ahmad Shah Baba for his bravery (citation needed). In the 18th and early 19th century, two of the main Tanoli clans, the Hindwal and the Pallal, fell into a feud and had a bitter struggle between them. The Hindwal clan gradually began to gain ascendancy, and Amir Painda Khan of the Hindwal clan successfully united all Tanolis into one entity, which eventually became the princely states of Amb and Phulera. The Amb State lasted until 1969, with its primary capital at Darband, and summer capital at Shergarh.[4][11][12] The construction of the Tarbela Dam reservoir in the early 1970s submerged Darband, a capital of the former state of Amb, underwater.

LANGUAGE In most of the Hazara region, the principal language adopted by the Tanolis is Hindko although a significant number retain Pashto as their mother tongue especially in Pashto speaking regions. Those living in Afghanistan, of course, speak Pashto just as other Pashtuns do. Tanolis living in other parts of Pakistan have adopted Urdu as an additional language due to its status as the national language as is the case with all other native ethnicities of Pakistan.

DESCENT LEGEND As is also the case for all other ethnic groups of the region, tracing their lineage to an apical ancestor is crucial to the Tanolis' sense of identity. The Tanoli consider themselves descendants of one Amir Khan, a Barlas Mughal who, according to legend, arrived in the Tanawal Valley with his sons around 1500, having crossed the Indus River to get there.[4] It seems more probable that they came somewhat earlier, during the 14th century[13] at the time when various Turkic invaders were attacking and conquering 'Hindustan' (India). This claim of descent of Tanolis is also mentioned in The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British and Foreign India, China, and Australia (1841): "There is one chief who, though not a Eusofzye, yet from his position in the midst of, and intimate connection with, the Eusofzyes, and his singular history and character, must not be omitted in a description of the Eusofzye country. Paieendah Khan, of Tanawul, is a Mogul of the Birlas tribe, the same from which the Ameer Timoor was descended. All record of the first settlement in Tanawul of his family is lost, and it has long ago broken off all connection with the other branches of the Birlas, which are still to be found in Turkestan."[14] The Imperial Gazetteer of India confirms this line of descent, stating that Tanawul's "real rulers...were the Tanawalis, a tribe of Mughal descent divided into two septs, the Pul-al and Hando-al or Hind-wal."[15] The Sikh records[16] of the region also confirm this line of descent of the Tanolis: "The family of Paeendah Khan is a branch of the Birlas, a Mogul House, well known in history. All record of its first settlement in Tanawul is lost. It may perhaps have been left there by the Emperor Baber. Among the list of whose nobles, the name Birlas is found." This claim of descent has also been mentioned by J. M. Wikeley, who writes, "The Tanaolis claim descent from Amir Khan, a Barlas Moghal (in fact not a Mughal/Mongol but a Turk), whose two sons Hind Khan and Pal Khan crossed the Indus about the end of the 17th century, from the country round Mahaban, and settled in the Mountainous area now held by them and named after the tribe — Tanawal ProudTanoli (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Rewritten version

I have rewritten the article in its entirety. Of the old version's sources, one was British Raj-era ethnography by a soldier; that's not a reliable source. The other source, "Ahmad Hasan Dani Some tribes of Hazara and Kashmir Islamabad, 1991, pp 104-107", was unknown to WorldCat (yes, I checked the 183 works WorldCat lists for that author); I couldn't locate it at all. A Google search for the title brought up only this article. I couldn't find any reliable sources that authoritatively state whether or not the Tanoli are Pashtuns; I did find one that says the Tanoli themselves are of different opinions. Huon (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the article again

I have once again fixed the article and reflected the various sides of the arguments about the dubious origins of the Tanolis. I should add, that recently a number of genetic research studies (2018) were I believe done on some Tanolis , at the Hazara University, near Mansehra, NWFP/KPK , Pakistan and by some Pakistani students at a university in Arizona USA (I am trying to get more details) - some of these students visited here in Mansehra city and I actually met a couple of them in March-April I think. I think they were able to take some DNA samples but I strongly believe that a widespread Tanoli DNA based study must be carried out to resolve this matter ultimately, about their origins. Similarly, there are a number of other Pakistani tribes and clans (for example the Awans, Dhund-Abbasis, Swatis and etc) who have various historical-mythological claims about their origins that need to be studied via latest DNA tests/research. Maybe, we can help to arrange or facilitate such work? AsadUK200 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)AsadUK200

I will speak for Swatis they have no myths they are living in. DNA Studies have been done for them on Y chromosomal lines and the one you are referring to is MtDNA study. Swatis have always identified themselves as Dehqans the term that changed to Tajiks. However, due to their location Cis Indus the brits included them under Afghans for revenue record purposes. Azmarai76 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Those students met who carried out that study met you strange, Illyaas who was supervisor didn't mention you anywhere. Azmarai76 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I will repeat the Swatis Y chromosomal DNA lines for audience R1a ( different than Sarabani RM 512 ), Q and JM172. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

However, ethnogenesis of Afghans is itself obscure. They claim to be Bani Israel but majority are R1as, Qs, Js even H. That's what is called living with a myth. Azmarai76 (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

As is also the case for all other ethnic groups of the region, tracing their lineage to an apical ancestor is crucial to the Tanolis' sense of identity. The Tanoli consider themselves descendants of one Amir Khan, a Barlas Mughal who, according to legend, arrived in the Tanawal Valley with his sons around 1500, having crossed the Indus River to get there.[4] It seems more probable that they came somewhat earlier, during the 14th century[13] at the time when various Turkic invaders were attacking and conquering 'Hindustan' (India). This claim of descent of Tanolis is also mentioned in The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British and Foreign India, China, and Australia (1841): "There is one chief who, though not a Eusofzye, yet from his position in the midst of, and intimate connection with, the Eusofzyes, and his singular history and character, must not be omitted in a description of the Eusofzye country. Paieendah Khan, of Tanawul, is a Mogul of the Birlas tribe, the same from which the Ameer Timoor was descended. All record of the first settlement in Tanawul of his family is lost, and it has long ago broken off all connection with the other branches of the Birlas, which are still to be found in Turkestan."[14] The Imperial Gazetteer of India confirms this line of descent, stating that Tanawul's "real rulers...were the Tanawalis, a tribe of Mughal descent divided into two septs, the Pul-al and Hando-al or Hind-wal."[15] The Sikh records[16] of the region also confirm this line of descent of the Tanolis: "The family of Paeendah Khan is a branch of the Birlas, a Mogul House, well known in history. All record of its first settlement in Tanawul is lost. It may perhaps have been left there by the Emperor Baber. Among the list of whose nobles, the name Birlas is found." This claim of descent has also been mentioned by J. M. Wikeley, who writes, "The Tanaolis claim descent from Amir Khan, a Barlas Moghal (in fact not a Mughal/Mongol but a Turk), whose two sons Hind Khan and Pal Khan crossed the Indus about the end of the 17th century, from the country round Mahaban, and settled in the Mountainous area now held by them and named after the tribe — Tanawal.[17] ProudTanoli (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

One or more persons insist that Tanoli are Pashtuns. I saw some lists of Pashtun tribes, and Tanoli were not among them. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Tanolies are closely allied to Pashtun and numbered amongst them. They are called Tanoli Pathans by nieghboring tribes. However, terms Pathan, Pashtun and Afghan arenot 100% interchangeable so should keep that in mind. Azmarai76 (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2019

Tanolis are not Hindustani but Pashto 218.185.233.102 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The article says "The Tanoli describe themselves either as Pashtuns from the Ghazni area or as Barlas Turks." I don't see anything in the article that describes them as Hindustani. If I've missed something, please feel free to reopen the request (edit the page and change "yes" to "no" above) and provide more details with what you'd like to see changed. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What we fail to understand is Pashto is Easter Iranian family group language but has good number of Sansinscrit vocabulary to it. If we agree to decide things on nature of language Pashto is Saka language that will turn all speaking it into Sakas which im sure isnt the case. Azmarai76 (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at all conversion I felt no one knows the actual background of Tanoli tribe. I being a Tanoli from Darband,can clear one confusion and that is our culture resembles more to Pashtuns but our language is Hindko(different then rest of hazara hindko and there is rich mix of Pashto words). Family names for most of us use khan at end and its over the generations like this.We can easily understand and speak Pashto but we also can understand Punjabi as well.There were few sikh villages in Tanawal as well so it might be influence from them. Tanolis got setteled in Hazara region after fighting Yousufzais in Swat.

My request would be please not to delete any history already searched about Tanoli from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toseefrashid (talk • contribs) 10:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

My friend, all tribes living in KPK/NWFP now resemble majority Pashtuns in culture and habits etc because of living among them for many years. That does not mean they are Pashtuns. For example, in Hazara region there are some Awans who are a Punjabi tribe and they speak Hindko but their ways and manners are like Pashtuns. Same is with Dhunds (now calling themselves Abbasi) and Karrlal, and Swatis (who are mixed tribe of Pashtun and Tajik origins also some other indigenous blood) and many Rajput and Jatt tribes, and also Syed etc. They all speak Hindko in Hazara and also some Pashto is known to them and their customs and ways have adapted to Pashtun ways. Does speaking a language mean that you become from a certain tribal group or society? I dont think so. Also, all influential tribes living in Hazara now write 'Khan' with their names so that does not mean anything either. I think that Tanolis have also a mixed origin, they are mostly of Turki blood but also some Pashtun and local clans mixed with them. All historians seem to support this point of view. 39.62.171.97 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Col (r ) Malik Ameen Khan , Abbottabad

Please note that this page is not a forum for general discussions about the subject matter but rather for discussion concerning improvements to the article. I will revert any further general comments that do not include reliable sources to support them. - Sitush (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

False information about Tanoli tribe

This article talk/discussion gives so much false information, or misinformation. First of all, Tanolis are NOT a Pashtun tribe and there is no 'Tanabul River' in all of Afghanistan. I have spent almost 40 years researching many historical and geographic facts there but there is no proof at all of any such connection. Also, the Tanolis are neither Arabic nor Turkic, as also wrongly ascribed by some people. Here in this fake article, the writer has also given a list of books but except for one by Dr Sher Bahadur Panni (pub 1969) , the rest are no reliable books. They are all self-published by Tanolis in Pakistan (Hazara area KPK) or by some people paid by some Tanolis and are totally nonsense, no factual research at all.

In my many years of research in Afghanistan, I met some few Tanolis or 'Tanavoli' as they call themselves, in 2 villages near the Afghani-Iranian border . According to these Tanavoli people, they were originally nomadic people belonging to Luri or Bakhtyari Iranian tribes. They came from 'Tanavol' area of Luristan province in Iran. In that area, it is interesting to note, there are also some villages named 'Shirgarh' and 'Derband' , same as in Hazara area of KPK, Pakistan- is that a coincidence ? I don't think so. I believe this connection must be researched further to solve the mystery of the real origins of Tanoli people of NW/KPK Pakistan. I believe they probably came as nomads of Luri-Bakhtyari tribes and some settled down near Afghan-Irani border and some came further into India in 18th century and moved up to the Hazara and Kashmir areas (now in modern Pakistan). SyedAnjumAli1 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)SyedAnjumAli1

Plausible. believe the famous Iranian artist Parviz Tanavoli (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parviz_Tanavoli) is also from the same origins , though he was settled in Teheran and then shifted to Canada. Dasakalos (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Daskalos

Syed Anjum Ali :: Thanks for opening a new avenue that can be researched more I have come across two Tanoli Y chromosomal DNA Tests results at ftdna.com one is R1b and other one LM20. What lines these Bakhtiari people have that needs to looked at. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

However, Tanolies are much older than 18th century in these parts. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Syed Anjum Ali:: Greetings, I checked the Y chromosomal DNA lines of Bakhtiyaris from Lur they are J2M172 a haplogroup that doesn't match with available Tanoli Y chromosomal tests that as I mentioned above are LM20 and R1b1. Atleast, R1b1 haplogroup is Indo Aryan for sure and we can say Tanolis are Turks. However, the Barlas line can't be confirmed in this regard. Many Thanks Azmarai76 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mr Azamrai76 many thanks for adding this note, very interesting lines of inquiry. Yes, I see, that's good you have clarified at least some of the genetic make-up of Tanoli people. It would be ideal to have a really large scale testing of many various sections and groups, of course, to say anything with certainty but at least these few results suggest some possible directions. I feel that you may be right in that to some extent, the Tanolis might have Turkic (not Turk) origins with R1b1 haplogrouping -- in fact the Turks proper don't have many of these genes (including the Barlas as you rightly point out) but some Turkic or mixed-Turkic races do , for example, the Uyghur, the Bashkir and some other Caucasian tribes, including some sizeable Armenian populations and some small clusters of Tajiks in Central Asia and Afghanistan/Pamirs. In addition, during the 19th c a number of Central Asian and Caucasian slaves, boys and girls, were taken and 'imported' by slave-traders to the Gulf; and today you might find a number of their descendants (having the same haplogroup) intermarried in Southern Iran, Qatar and Bahrain. So, if we look at this from one perspective (a) R1b1 suggests a possible conglomeration of some Turkic and Caucasian origin bloodlines and (b) LM 20 suggests transplantation of these Turko-Caucasian lines (probably via immigrant populations to South Asia) unto some earlier roots e.g Indo-European to a little extent plus Dravidian , who are the most likely in this South Asian region to have LM20. Brohis and some Baluchi tribes also have some LM20 but not as much and they are rather far and out of the equation as far as Tanolis in NWFP/KPK are concerned. I note that very few Afghan/Pashtun populations have LM20 (mostly tribes settled among and semi-merged with the Baloch, for example the Raisani) . Fascinating. I wish I had the resources to look at several other mountain tribes in Hazara, Swat and Kohistan , as I have also noted in my studies that the Kalasha (in Kafiristan, Chitral) and the Burushaski also have exceptional high concentrations of LM20 haplogroupings . Are you aware of this research in Chitral/Gilgit areas? Do you belong to these regions? Are you also a Tanoli? Did you get your DNA tested ? It would be possible with extended DNA testing and reportage to build a more concrete picture over time. Regards SyedAnjumAli1 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)SyedAnjumAli1 (Syed Anjum Ali Bokhari, Pakistan)

No I amnot a Tanoli but from this area indeed. LM20 is a haplogroup that was mutated in Pamir Knot. Even is present in great number amongst Gujjars and Jat population. Even some Tarins speaking Watnesi a variant of Pushto. One can call it a race that has strong roots from the source of Indus River down to the whole Indus delta. Tanolies aren't even pashtunized people like neighboring Swatis or Pakta Dardic Karlanis. The only problem I see here on this page is two people, who are related. One is using Multiple IDs to make use of Wikipedia to effectively increasing his stature. Thanks Azmarai76 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

Majority of Tanoli tribe today speak Hindko language. Muneebll (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Muneebll:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -ink&fables «talk» 16:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hindustani

Can you remove this word Hindustani? as the research is being in progress so do not tag it without evidence. Tanawal (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 16:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Tanoli Notable people

Please add notable people in Tanoli page, names are given below; - Pakistan Navy led by Cdr Muhammad Shahid Iqbal Tanoli PN was part of the Parade 2021. - Muzaffarabad Tigers is owned by well-known business man and real estate developer CEO Islamabad Associates Mr. Arshad Khan Tanoli. - Abbotabad High Court Bar Association, President

 Haji Sabir Tanoli. Tanawal (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to update the notable people? Tanawal (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add notable people in Tanoli page, names are given below; -

Pakistan Navy led by Cdr Muhammad Shahid Iqbal Tanoli in Parade 2021. 

- Muzaffarabad Tigers is owned by well-known business man and real estate developer CEO Islamabad Associates Mr. Arshad Khan Tanoli. - Abbotabad High Court Bar Association, President Haji Sabir Tanoli Tanawal (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Tanoli's DNA ?

I Have read your research and amazingly Clearfield my vision about tanoli tribe . You mentioned that they aren't Afghani and also not Irani and turk but you know there is a strong claim by many of Tanolies that they are actually from Hazrat Abbas RZ progeny ,they are related to Abbasi and thing which reinforces this claim after your precious research is , Durab Khan Abbasi , Commander Of "Hirat Afghanistan" in the era of Mehmood Ghaznaavi Who came to conquer the state of Kashmir in late 900s and was actually the ancestor of Abbasids in Subcontinent. Durab Khan Abbasi's Mother was a turek lady so may be because of this generational interlinking, there strands of DNA have Turek touch .

please consider this aspect also in your research and maybe you'll get the answer

.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Azmarai76 Thanks q 37.111.134.189 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Tanoli's DNA ?

I Have read your research and amazingly Clearfield my vision about tanoli tribe . You mentioned that they aren't Afghani and also not Irani and turk but you know there is a strong claim by many of Tanolies that they are actually from Hazrat Abbas RZ progeny ,they are related to Abbasi and thing which reinforces this claim after your precious research is , Durab Khan Abbasi , Commander Of "Hirat Afghanistan" in the era of Mehmood Ghaznaavi Who came to conquer the state of Kashmir in late 900s and was actually the ancestor of Abbasids in Subcontinent. Durab Khan Abbasi's Mother was a turek lady so may be because of this generational interlinking, there strands of DNA have Turek touch .

please consider this aspect also in your research and maybe you'll get the answer.

.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Azmarai76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.134.189 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

http://prr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/handle/123456789/9941 This is a link of Genetic analysis of Tanolies, Jadoons, Syeds, Gujjars and Mandars plus Yusufzais. Azmarai76 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2022

Tanoli tribe is a pathan origin. Why you forcefully make them of barlas origin 175.107.50.15 (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Arshad Khan Tanoli

Arshad Khan Tanoli is the owner of Muzzafarabad Tigers, a franchise in Kashmir Premier League. He is also the former Chairman of Kashmir Premier League. Arshad Khan Tanoli is renowned Businessman working in Real state sector since last 15 years. He is science graduate with Degree in inorganic chemistry. He built his own company Islamabad associates 15 years ago. Arshad khan tanoli (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2023

Tanolis are Pashtuns migrated from Ghazni Afghanistan Tanoli100 (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Requesting editors to change certain info given in this Article

Article states that the "LM20 and other South Asian lines are also present as well but to a little extent". This is false when it comes to the Tanolis. The source given for this claim actually says that the "Tanolis exhibit the highest frequency of South Asian lineages with 48%". Therefore, the Tanolis do NOT have little South Asian lineage but most of their lineage is South Asian.

The article also states that the "Tanolis never submitted to the British colonial rule". This is alo blatantly wrong. As per the Hazara Gazetteer of 1907, page numbers 304 and 305 that entail the list of the provincial darbaris of the British, the Tanoli nawabs and other Tanoli landlords made up the biggest portion of the British Provincial Darbar in Hazara.

Therefore, I'd like to request an editor to remove the false claims that are still present in this article. 182.177.150.161 (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Add notable person

• Suba Khan Tanoli, Tanoli Chieftan who contributed to Afghan victory at the Third Battle of Panipat

49.199.87.19 (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

116.71.162.76 (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotAGenious (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Tanolis are arabs not turks or barlas They are from Banu Hashim tribe and decedents of Hazart Abbas R.Z , Uncle of Holy Prophet P.B.U.H . the only reason why they have traces of Turks in their Blood is Because Their forefather Zarab khan Abbasi who was the Commander of Hirat Afghanistan in Ghaznavi Reign , has the turk wife Kindly don't fabricate history plz do a proper research.

Serious Misinformation

First and foremost it is not reliable to cite a genetic study to conform to one's identity in this case tribe because we Tanoli never had any restrictions on who we marry. Having said that DNA is not reliable since scientifically speaking you gain traits from both your mother and father it is a lot more complicated than that to easily generalize an entire ethnicity just like that. For example, Syeds don't marry outside their tribe they are more likely to be easily identified since they never went outside their gene pool there are even genetic studies for the sake of the argument of how Italians are genetically diverse but that doesn't mean they are not Italians(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Italy). Furthermore, in regard to history, there's no proof or any evidence of us being Turks, Arabs, Mughals, Rajputs, or Abbasis for that matter. There's evidence of Tanoli coming from Afghanistan and considering that the country itself historically has been dominantly Pashtun therefore Tanolis have more chances to be Pashtun than any other tribe. Yes there's the case of the language but some do speak Pashto and the majority of them speak Hindko but we never spoke Turkish in fact take any Turkish tribe you will see one common theme how they have been able to preserve their language regardless of it was spoken in their country or not, Tatars in Russia or Uzbek in Afghanistan. Same case with the Arabs in North Africa since language is an important part of your identity. Tanolis have mostly adopted Hindko although considering that they came from Afghanistan they are mostly likely to have spoken Pashto in the past. And to add more there's a proper tree that connects us to Ghilzai tribe more than it does to other tribes and Pashtuns is an umbrella term to describe a vast number of tribes than Abbasi or Mughal or Rajput they are more singular terms there are groups among them but not as diverse or distinct as Pashtun groups. For the educated Tanoli read Al Afghan Tanoli by Ghulam Nabi Khan I am not able to get myself a copy I have yet to read its content to give a fair assessment but you can check here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noh08SnOlko) and as for other Tanolis just like how Bilawal Zardari can be Bilawal Bhutto same way Tanoli can be whatever you want. There are also many other sources and books but I would avoid anything written from inconclusive sources like the one provided by the article even then it mentions either Pashtun or Turk which is again inconclusive regarding the tribe's history because it seems it is just pure observations than actual, inquired information through survey or research. Even the vast majority of the Tanoli online claim Pashtun ancestry I myself was told by my father and grandparents we are Pashtuns it is indeed baffling how the article is been locked with the idea of Tanolis being Turks with vague and shallow assumptions with no historical facts whatsoever. You can try switching this article in other languages except for English and you will see that they mostly claim Tanolis as Pashtuns. Here is another good source(http://historyoftanolitribe.epizy.com/HistoryofTanolis/history.html?i=1)Khumiro101 (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)