Talk:Oghi, Pakistan

The Swatis are not non-Pashtun and nor are the Tanolis as this article asserts. It has already been established elsewhere on WIKIpedia that both Swatis and Tanolis are of Pashtun background and of Afghan origin. Moarrikh

I edited the article to reflect the above comment that I made some time ago. Moarrikh (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.110.253.202 (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Races and Population[edit]

I know that majority of the people in oghao district speaks pashto.. Moreover, you have to be from moon to not know that swati's are a pashtun tribe. Also if we are talking about Islamic Republic of Pakistan's last census carried out in 1998, 74.9 percent of the population of khyber pukhtukhwa spoke pashto. I dont know which census is khwaja talking about. Tigerkhan007 (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC) There seems to be some dispute here regarding (a) races and their ethnic origins, since the Tanoli are certainly not Pushtuns in the accepted sense and the Wikipedia article for them also clarifies this; whereas there is some doubt as to the actual provenance of the Swatis. and (b) regarding the actual population and linguistic use by population-- according to the last Census of Pakistan (which had been quoted earlier but somehow tampered with by someone) the largest number of people speak Hindko, a North Punjabi dialect (approx 64%); followed by Pushto and Gujari; now, there might be sime possible duplication as many people are bi-lingual in these areas but there shouldnt be any exaggeration and/or fictituous claims. Furthermore, it is to be please kept in mind that once the Kala Dhaka / Tor Ghar area, which was a largely Pushto-speaking enclave of the Hazara region, which in itself is largely non-Pushtun, was once attached to the Oghi 'tehsil' or administrative subdivision- and has since 2011 become a separate district in itself. Thus, the figure for Pushtun speakers has to be actually reduced/discounted further, and Im certain future census reports shall reflect this. I would please request Wikipedia to lock down the section on population and languages in this article so that it might not be tampered with again, thanks. 39.54.32.206 (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Prof Asad U Khwaja[reply]

Dear Wikipedia, further to my above note. I have studied ghe History page of this article and it seems to be that this section has been changed a number of times, and the whole problem seems to centre around (a) the issue of how many people speak/use which language in Oghi and (b) regarding the Tanoli and Swati races and their ethnicity. The fact is, some form of informed discussion can go on here to resolve the issue, but at least, referenced/cited sources and information should not be tampered with please. That would be wrong. I think that the concerned section of this article should be marked as Disputed, and no one should be able to edit it, while the matter is under discussion. I hope thats ok? Im going to do the needful, thank you. 39.54.32.206 (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Prof Asad U Khwaja[reply]

I can adduse from the language style of the previous contributor that he is a Pakistani 'professor' but as Khwaja is an alien term in northern Hazara then his insights into this domain of knowledge seems slightly dodgy at best. This is evident from his many assertions above. Mr Khwajashould keep his professions to matters Kashmiri as it is obvious that he knows very little of the region called Hazara. Furthermore, the racial origin of the Tanolis is not established on Wikipedia and is still subject of discussion i.e. it is a contested issue. Swatis are definately Pashtun and majority of the tribes of Hazara are Pashtun whether they are monolingual or bilingual in Hindko/Pashto. Please keep to castes of Kashmir pages as you obviously have little knowledge of this region and its people. Moarrikh (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another correction to the self-declared professor Khwaja's contribution above is that Tur Ghar or Kala Dhaka was a PATA territory not an area linked to Oghi officially. PATA stands for Provincially Administered Tribal Areas. Furthermore, he should visit the webpage of Oghi's Senator, and the late Swati Khan of Agror's widow, Mrs Fauzia Fakhr uz Zaman, proclaims her husband's family and people as Pathans. Many historians in the past have considered them as an earlier horde of Yusufzais who were unsettled by later arrivals of their fellow Pashtuns and pushed into Hazara where they unseated Karlugh Turks in turn and divided the land amongst their own kith and kin. Moarrikh (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oghi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]