Talk:Awan (tribe)/Archive 5

Deletion activity to notice
someone agin started deletion and keep it upto a single claim of origin. if he was needing to add in Arab origin regarding Qutab Haider with reasonable secondary evidence, may be no one have objection but new additions are not supported by evidence and he have deleted the fully refferenced claim as Son of soil. it is unfair to altered the references or add personnal comment inside reference which the meaning/purpose of reference

regards Alamsherkhan (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias
Dear sirs Today i edited and removed some names from the v overly long list of 'notable Awans' which, in my opinion, doesnt always meet Wiki notability standards and is somewhat biased and self-promotive--in good faith; and I also noted some basic problems therein which Ive pointed out, including factual fallacies eg listing of 'Malik Atta Muhammad Khan' as Awan, whereas he is from the Gheba tribe and so on. However, this list was fully reverted and I am sad to see this, as its not really encyclopedic content. I would please request that some one might take note of this thanks Asad u Khwaja (prof retd) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.104.201 (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear 'Sinebot' thanks I have made a note of your instructions regarding signing a post. 39.54.104.201 (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Asad U Khwaja (Prof Retd)39.54.104.201 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Alleged “bias”
Mr. Khwaja

From my experience of editing this article over the course of almost six years, it is widely recognised amongst Wikipedia editors that if the name of an individual for whom an entry exists on Wikipedia, is included in a list of prominent personalities (within an article dealing with, for example, a specific Punjabi tribe), then generally the inclusion of such a name is valid and warranted. Moreover, it is largely inaccurate to describe the list of names in question, as “self-promotive” – very few of the individuals in question, could realistically have added their names to the list that is being disputed, and this is underlined by the fact that some of these names were added after the respective individuals had long since passed away. Furthermore, nothing more has been added to the brief description of each of the individuals listed, save for their achievements, or what makes them notable figures (and even this information has been presented in an entirely neutral manner). As for the list of names being “unencyclopedic,” that is a moot point, especially in light of the first point I have made. However, in the interests of “factual accuracy” I have removed the name of Malik Ata Muhammad Khan (though his name was only ever included, because upon interviewing him, Michael Palin referred to him as the “Prince of the Awans,” for which proof had already been furnished). I have also removed the names of individuals for whom I was unable to find evidence of them belonging to the Awan tribe (even though it may be something that is known amongst Awans themselves), which could be referenced. Having said this, it is obvious that references establishing that they are Awans, does not have to be provided for those who surnames bear the name of the Awan tribe, nor for individuals such as Malik Amad Khan or Sumaira Malik, whom it has been pointed out, are the grandchildren of Malik Amir Mohamamad Khan.

As for the allegations that the article isn’t neutral, written from a “fan’s point of view”, or that it contains “wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information,” this simply isn’t true. The section dealing with the origin of the Awan tribe, deals with nothing more than the traditional belief of the Awans regarding their origins, and a range of (reliable and fully referenced) opinions expressed by a number of commentators in relation to this (both those that support and oppose the contention made by the bulk of the tribe – hence, it is entirely balanced). The section dealing with the history of the Awans, deals with a salient feature of the tribe, that is, a reputation it has built up over the centuries, in terms of its martial prowess, and the significant contribution it has made to the armies of ruling Muslim dynasties in India, the British Raj, and the state of Pakistan. More importantly, “independent sources that support the characterization,” have been cited in order to support and emphasise these points; to recap:

- “The Awans have a strong martial tradition,(Ali, I., 2003, ‘The Punjab under Imperialism, 1885-1947’, Oxford University Press, p.114.) and as a corollary, a widely-held reputation for courage. According to Sir Malcolm Darling, the Awans are the:”

Bravest of soldiers, toughest of cultivators and matchless as tent peggers. (Darling, M.L., 1934, Wisdom and Waste in the Punjab Village, Oxford University Press, p.46.)

“Christophe Jaffrelot states:”

''The Awan deserve close attention, because of their historical importance and, above all, because they settled in the west, right up to the edge of Baluchi and Pashtun territory. Legend has it that their origins go back to Imam Ali and his second wife, Hanafiya. Historians describe them as valiant warriors and farmers who imposed their supremacy on the Janjua in part of the Salt Range, and established large colonies all along the Indus to Sind, and a densely populated centre not far from Lahore.'' (Jaffrelot, C., 2004, A History of Pakistan and Its Origins, Anthem Press, p.205)

- “According to Denzil Ibbetson, the Awans may well have accompanied the forces of Babur, and the Awans of Jalandhar, who claimed to have shifted from the Salt Range at the behest of one of the early Emperors of Delhi, were particularly notable for being in the imperial service at Delhi.” ( Ibbetson, D., 2001, ‘Punjab Castes’, Sang-e-Meel Publications, p.170.)

- “The Awans were amongst those the British considered to be ‘martial races’”... (Bhatia, S., 1987, ‘Social Change and Politics in Punjab, 1898-1910’, Enkay Publishers, p.87.)

- “In particular, the Awans formed part of the core Muslim group recruited by the British during the First and Second World Wars.” (Talbot, I., 1996, ‘Khizr Tiwana: The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India’, Curzon Press, p.38.)

- “Contemporary historians, namely Professor Ian Talbot (Talbot, I., 1996, Khizr Tiwana: The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India, Curzon Press, p.38.), and Professor Tan Tai Yong (Tan, T.Y., 2005, The Garrison State: The Military, Government and Society in Colonial Punjab, 1849-1947, Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd, p.74.), have authored works that cite the Awans (amongst other tribes) as being looked upon as a martial race by not only the British, but neighbouring tribes as well.

“With reference to the British Raj's recruitment policies in the Punjab, vis-à-vis the British Indian Army, Tan Tai Yong remarks:”

''The choice of Muslims was not merely one of physical suitability. As in the case of the Sikhs, recruiting authorities showed a clear bias in favour of the dominant landowning tribes of the region, and recruitment of Punjabi Muslims was limited to those who belonged to tribes of high social standing or reputation - the 'blood proud' and once politically dominant aristocracy of the tract. Consequentially, socially dominant Muslim tribes such as the Gakkhars, Janjuas and Awans, and a few Rajput tribes, concentrated in the Rawalpindi and Jhelum districts in the northern Salt Range tract in the Punjab, accounted for more than ninety per cent of Punjabi Muslim recruits.'' (Tan, T.Y., 2005, ‘The Garrison State: The Military, Government and Society in Colonial Punjab, 1849-1947’, Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd, p.74.)

- “The Pakistani military has always heavily recruited Awans and as is consistent with the past, the tribe continues to produce a considerable number of recruits who occupy many of the senior-most ranks of the Pakistani Army. According to Philip Edward Jones:”

The Awan Tribe is perhaps the most heavily recruited tribe for the Pakistan Army. (Jones, P.E., 2003, The Pakistan People's Party: Rise To Power, Oxford University Press, p.61.)

Exactly what personal reasons or biases would individuals of non-Awan origin such as Darling, Jaffrelot, Ibbetson, Tan, and Jones, have for stressing the reputation that the Awan tribe has long held vis-a-vis bravery and martial ability, or for emphasising the considerable and distinguished contribution it has made to a number of military forces over the course of hundreds of years? (Indeed, an overwhelming contribution when it comes to the Pakistani army). It goes without saying that they may not apply to each and every Awan, but nevertheless, these happen to be outstanding features of the tribe (something that I can certainly attest to, that members of other tribes in parts of Pakistani Punjab, also acknowledge), which is why they have been remarked upon by a range of commentators. Nonetheless, I have removed additions, which although valid, have not been fully referenced (and where mention of the reputation of the Awans when it comes to courage, had not been referenced, amendments have been made, and references cited).

The remainder of the article deals with surnames and titles that members of the Awan tribe adopt, the fact that an outstanding feature of the tribe (also central to its identity) is that it is entirely comprised of those who profess the Muslim faith (or at the very least, were raised within it – and this point is also supported through the use of fully referenced citations), and the geographical distribution of the tribe; no reasonable objections can be raised in regards to any of this.

It is ironic that your own personal opinions have led you to arbitrarily remove names from the list of prominent personalities, as well as images from the photo gallery – though you may have had cause to object to Malik Atta Muhammad Khan’s name featuring within this article (on the basis that he is a Gheba), what reason did you have, for example, to delete the name of Ameer Faisal Alavi (about whom Wikipedia not only carries an article, but who was also a high-ranking figure within the Pakistani army of enough importance, to warrant obituaries – and to be widely discussed - in British newspapers and periodicals), or to remove Babar Awan’s image from the photo gallery (a senior-raking politician, who is constantly featured in the Pakistani media, print and television alike)? As such, I have made appropriate changes to the list of prominent personalities, and the photo gallery. Rawalpindi Express (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

 * Hello, Awan (tribe). This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


 * Dear User:Rawalpindi Express, hello! You really seem to have made a 'life's work' of this article on the Awan tribe, and spent many long years here on Wikipedia, on this one-article mission--and I think that much of what youve said above, in response to Khwaja sahib, makes sense. I also believe that if someone has a properly sourced and verifiable article and comes up to Wiki 'notability' standards, then well and good.

However, if you dont mind my saying so, please--there is certainly an element of bias in the article, in as much some of the language is concerned. Im not saying that the Awans arent 'brave' or a 'martial race' or whatever, etc-and i dont dispute that the British colonial writers you cite agree with what you have to say, but you must please honestly read your own article and admit that youve used certain phrases and expressions that do reflect a somewhat skewed/biased, or let us say 'pro-Awan' stance, no? The very fact of your having spent so many years, just on this one article, and adopted a combative/protective/exclusive stance towards it, is ample testimony to this. And, additionally, I must also please say that your response to Khwaja sahib, above, couldve been couched in rather less virulent and aggressive language. As an editor here he has as much right to express his opinion and make edits as you have, or as any of us have, to any article, and no one 'owns' an article on Wikipedia. An 'article' isnt as important here as human beings, and their rights of expression, and I do hope that you will kindly remember this in future. Thank you, and best of luck with your editing. Khani100 (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Khani100


 * Hi Khani100


 * 1. I do not consider this article to belong to me, and there are plenty of instances where I have built upon contributions made by other editors. Furthermore, a significant portion of the most recent additions to the article, have not even been made by me.

2. I really don’t see of what relevance it is just how long I have spent editing the article in question, nor the number of articles I may or may not have chosen to contribute to.

3. For you to maintain that the stance I have adopted towards said article is “combative,” “protective,” or exclusivist, is not an opinion I agree with, but you’re entitled to it – there are other editors who would disagree with you on this point, such as those who have expressed an appreciation in terms of the contributions I have made to this article, and the efforts I’ve made to ensure that it conforms to certain standards.

4. As for what you consider to be biases within the article, I have taken these points on board, and will amend the article accordingly. However, I would like to point out that authors such as Christophe Jaffrelot, Ian Talbot, Tan Tai Yong, and Philip Edward Jones (whose works have been cited), are not commentators belonging to the colonial era, yet to varying extents, they too have highlighted either the strong martial reputation the Awan tribe has cultivated over the centuries, or the significant contribution it has made to a number of armed forces during the same period of time - in other words, this a salient historical feature of the tribe, and reference being made to this is warranted.

5. I wholeheartedly disagree with you, as per your claims that my response to Mr. Khwaja was “aggressive” and “virulent” in its tone – however, if that is how you construed my words, then so be it. As it is, I am sure Mr. Khwaja is capable of defending himself. Moreover, I actually did make amendments to the article, that he recommended.

6. There has not been a single instance of me preventing someone from expressing their opinions via this talk page, nor making constructive edits to the article, so there really is no reason for you to emphasise this.

7. I find it somewhat ironic that you are attempting to give me a lecture on etiquette, when I find some of what you have to say, quite condescending. However, I am sure that you will appreciate that this is my opinion, so just as I didn’t take offence to what you had to say (though I did counter your claims, as I am entitled to), I trust you won’t object to me presenting my own take in regards to the concerns you have raised.

Regards Rawalpindi Express (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. This is not controversial. The correct title is Awan (tribe) per WP:DAB since there is only one tribe of that name. —  AjaxSmack  23:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Awan (Punjabi tribe) → Awan (Tribe) – I am requesting this move because the Awan tribe did not originate in the Punjab and is not exclusive to the Punjab. I am an Awan from Peshawar belonging to a family that has its known roots here for the past 400 years. There are thousands of Awans in this region and i have never met any whose family moved from the Punjab. A 150 year old shajra in my possession states our origin as Arab and Quraish. Changing its title to Punjabi Tribe i think is misleading and incorrect. So i request that this page title be changed to "Awan (Tribe)" Thank you.

Argument
The Awan tribe may not exclusively inhabit Punjab, and though a significant number of Awans are to be found in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, it is a fact that the vast majority of those belonging to the tribe, reside in the Punjab region (and have done so for centuries), where their heartland is to be found – as such, the Awans are essentially considered by historians and anthropologists to be a Punjabi tribe, and just glancing through the references section of the article, bears out this point:

Punjab District Gazetteers: Attock District, 1930

Griffin, L.H., The Panjab Chiefs: Historical and Biographical Notices of the Principal Families in the Territories Under the Panjab Government Kaul, H., Report on the Census of Punjab 1911

Wikeley, J.M., Punjabi Musalmans Rose, H.A., A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province

Ibbetson, D., Punjab Castes

Ali, I., The Punjab under Imperialism, 1885-1947

Darling, M.L., Wisdom and Waste in the Punjab Village

Bhatia, S., Social Change and Politics in Punjab, 1898-1910 Talbot, I., Khizr Tiwana: The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India

Tan, T.Y., The Garrison State: The Military, Government and Society in Colonial Punjab, 1849-1947

Ahmed, S., Class and Power in a Punjabi Village

Douie, J., The Panjab, North West Frontier Province and Kashmir

All of the above titles have been used and cited in the process of compiling the article, underlining the inextricable nexus between the Punjab region and the Awan tribe. Indeed, Aitzaz Ahsan, in his book The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan, categorically refers to the Awans as a “Punjabi tribe” (Ahsan, A., 1996, The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan, Oxford University Press, p.88.). You have presented your own personal example, so allow me to do the same; I too am an Awan, whose family originates from Punjab, where you will find a far larger proportion of the Awan tribe residing, in comparison to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – and of all such Awans whom I have come across (friends, family, and acquaintances, both in Pakistan, the U.K., and the U.S.A.), each and every one self-identifies as Punjabi (especially ethnically and culturally, and in the majority of cases, linguistically too). It is also pointless trying to establish where the Awans actually originated from, as this is something that the article clearly emphasises is a matter of considerable debate. Furthermore, both my mother and father’s families are also in possession of family trees tracing their respective descent to Arabia and Hazrat Ali, but these documents are not considered to be infallible sources by historians (not that I am demeaning their value).

Originally, the title of this article was Awan (Pakistan). However, another Wikipedia editor changed the title of the article to Awan (Punjabi tribe), and I can only speculate that this was due to an article entitled Awan (Kashmiri tribe) being added to Wikipedia. However, in the interests of respecting the wishes of those Awans such as yourself, who do not identify themselves as Punjabi, I have changed the title of the article to Awan (Tribe), as requested.

Regards Rawalpindi Express (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Survey
1. Thank you Rawalpindi Express for understanding that Awans are one of the few, or maybe the only tribe that's trans regional, cultural and linguistic in the Pakistani region but we are one tribe and one family. And you are right about the article's title as being Awan (Pakistan) before, so i think having one parent topic as Awan (Tribe) serves the purpose for Awans of every region and sub clan. I hope it will stay that way and if anyone wants to contribute towards Awans of different regions, it must originate from the parent article. Thank you and regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeman101 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

2. I agree with Rawalpindi Express that Awans can also be found in other provinces of Pakistan. It is also stated in "Martial races of undivided India," with reference of Joshua Project, with the following table:

Reference: Martial races of undivided India By Vidya Prakash Tyagi, p.200

Regards Averroist (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Response to User:Rawalpindi Express's Note, above
Dear User:Rawalpindi Express, Hallo, and thanks for your long response/reply. And for stating your position. May I please answer all your comments above, very briefly please?

1. Although you very generously state that you dont think that you 'own' this article, it seems to me at least that going by the previous history and track record of this article since its creation (by you i believe?) as well as various discussions here, on this talka page, that that isnt exactly the case, if youll excuse my saying so again. Some element of 'pssession' is certainly there and that is reflected in your definitely (at times) agressive style of responding to any changes or comments that others make, and that disagree with your pre-conceived notions.

2. There is certainly some 'relevance' in my opinion, please, that I have the right to express here, to the fact that over approx 6 years youve only spent time on this one article, or at least most of your time on it, which relates to the fact that a 'sense of ownership' tends to creep in, wittingly or unwittingly. Wouldnt you agree, objectively and honestly speaking?

3. Thank you, am glad youve taken note of some of the changes/ideas proposed by other editors.

4. I think that Ive already answered this in a diferent way, and I appreciate your deep knowledge of your passion (i.e. the subject of this article) but I guess other people, with some knowledge of some sort, at least have the basic right to express their legitimate disagreement and/or suggestions, and if you feel that youve done the right thing then good!

5. I am still of the opinion that you were a trifle short and rather aggressive in your address to Khwaja sahib, if you dont mind my saying so. It is an established principle here on Wikipedia not to 'bite' newcomers, or people acting/writing in good faith. And I believe any responsible and mature editor/user would comply with this, and any such editor/user has the absolute right and liberty to bring any violations of basic Wiki etiquettes to the notice of the editor/user who is in breach of this; and I think I have actually done the right thing. There is an acceptable tone of language and behaviour and no browbeating, bullying or intimidation allowed. Im sorry that you feel that I 'misconstrued' your remarks/attitude.

6. I have already answered this above.

7. My dear sir, you have every right to express your opinion and Im sorry if you found anything I said 'condescending'-- in fact, that isnt the case, but I felt duty bound to warn you to adhere by Wiki standards since in my opinion, a violation was there, and if you feel offended by that, I must once again express my profound regret/s.

With very best wishes and regards Khani100 (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Response to Khani100
Hi Khani100

I really do feel that here are many misconceptions you have regarding my conduct and my contributions to this article, chief amongst these being that you are under the impression that I created this article – I did not. I actually do not have any “pre-conceived notions,” and though this is an opinion you are entitled to, I do not consider it to be valid. As for my “aggressive style of responding to changes or comments that others make,” I have already pointed out on my own talk page, that I have only ever responded as such, when individuals have resorted to attacking me on a personal level (thus demonstrating the shortcomings in their own arguments, or baseless accusations they have levelled at me), or when the same individuals have repeatedly made changes to the article that constitute vandalism (despite previous attempts made on my part, to appeal to them in a perfectly civil and polite manner, not to persist with their non-constructive actions. Needless to say, these appeals were ignored); furthermore, I am not the only one to have taken exception to the manner in which these individuals have behaved, to the extent that there were other editors who lent me their support in opposing the actions of the individuals you make reference to (with some going so far as to report these individuals to senior Wikipedia editors). In fact, so incensed were other editors by the continual vandalism of the article by the individuals you maintain that I was harsh towards (which I simply don’t agree with – making a point forcefully as I sometimes do, is perfectly acceptable in my opinion), that a campaign was actually launched on Facebook by a number of concerned Awans, asking members of various Awan groups, to assist me in protecting the integrity of the article. There is a history to the interactions that have taken place on this talk page that you seem to be unaware of, especially in regards to the harmonious relationship I share with other editors who have contributed to, or taken an interest in, this article.

I didn’t take issue to you expressing the fact that I have spent a considerable amount of time working on this one article alone, I just said that I didn’t consider it to be a relevant point – however, you have now placed your comments within a specific context, which I appreciate, as I now understand where you are coming from. As for the question you posed, if you want an honest answer, then although I cannot speak for others in a similar position, as far as I am concerned, I have never felt that I “own” this article, "wittingly" or "unwittingly" (and I as I have pointed out before, I have happily worked with others who have made constructive additions to the article, welcoming their contributions, or incorporating them into the article. This remains the case) – that’s an honest and objective answer on my part. All I will add, is that until I made an effort to clean up this article, and to add the vast majority of references to it (as per the requests of senior Wiki editors), it was a complete mess, did not conform to Wiki standards on any level at all, and had been flagged as an article that was cause for concern.

Once again, I disagree with your assessment of the manner in which I responded to Mr. Khwaja. If anything, given that the article page was littered with a number of tags that had been placed there unjustly as a result of Mr. Khwaja’s remarks, and the fact that there were unhelpful actions he himself had taken that contradicted the stance he had adopted vis-a-vis the article, I believe my response to him was perfectly justified. I consider myself to be one of Wikipedia’s “responsible” and “mature” editors, and therefore the last thing I am going to do, is to “bully” or intimidate others. In my opinion, my response to Mr. Khwaja was measured, and there was not a single instance of me launching a personal attack against him, nor did I use crude language when addressing him – thus, as far as I’m concerned, the language I used, and the tone I adopted, was acceptable. However, it is clear that this is a subjective issue, and as straightforward as I attempted to be, my comments are open to interpretation – as such, if you feel that you did the right thing, then fair enough.

It’s okay, there’s no need for you to apologise, nor did I take offence to what you had to say. Personally speaking (for reasons I have gone into above), I think you may have overreacted to what I had to say to Mr. Khwaja. However, I acknowledge that you have been courteous when interacting with me, and though I have misgivings about your actions, your intentions were honest and well-meaning. Even though we are going to have to agree to disagree on this topic, I hope I have now cleared up any misunderstandings.

Best wishes

Rawalpindi Express (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Rawalpindi Express, thank you for your very detailed response to my earlier statements. Yes, I do understand what you are saying and appreciate your previous concerns and your on going interest in this article, and have studied/followed some of the previous history of this, too. I think that it's good to attempt to clear the air as it were and Im glad to leave it at that! : ) Once again, thank you for your attention. Very best wishes, Khani100 (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

You’re welcome User: Khani100. I too am glad that we managed to clear the air.

Best wishes

Rawalpindi Express (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Arab Origin Complicated
My suggestion is that the Arab Origin be changed to Arab-Persian Origin. Racial and ethnic boundaries were complex in the areas known today as "Arab Countries", Iran, and Afghanistan, which is something that scholars did not seem to pay attention to until recent times.

It is more likely than not that if you were to trace the lineage between Hazrat Ali and Qutb Shah himself, that there would be a good mix of people from present day Saudi Arabia, present day Iraq and present day Iran and maybe Afghanistan.

MsMalik1208 (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)June 24, 2012

Deletion of two photos
With regard to the deletion of two photos from the gallery, I agree with User: Qwyrxian that the long captions of these photos messes up the formatting, but I do not agree that "these two photos don't demonstrate anything to an English reader". One photo is a scanned copy of a certificate given by British tribe to one head of the Awan tribe, which demonstrates the influence wielded by the Awan tribe in the Punjab, during the era of the British Raj. The language of the certificate is English. The second photo is about a manuscript in Arabic language, the known ancient work dealing with the history of the Awan tribe. I therefore, have added these photos with captions in the right side of above sections. Regards Averroist 12:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the information is valuable, please cite it to a reliable source and add it to prose. Now, I must admit I'm somewhat biased, but I've almost never seen a picture of a piece of text that wasn't more useful as, you know, text. The only exception I can think of is if the subject of the article itself is the text. But if other users prefer to keep it in, I won't object too strenuously, so long as the captions are fixed. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 February 2013
FAMILY TREE Ali Ibn Abi Talib

Al-Abbas ibn Ali

Ubaid Ullah bin Abbas

Hassan bin Ubaid Ullah

Hamza bin Hassan

Jafar bin Hamza

Ali bin Jaffar

Qasim bin Ali

Al-Tiar bin Ali

Hamza bin Al-Tiar

Yeila bin Hamza

Abdul-Allah Qutb Shah Awan ibn Ya‘la

Abdullah

Saned ul Ulema

Muhammad Bahadur

Muhammad Badset

Muhammad Ghazi

Rahmat Khan

Daood

Ahmed Khan

Oajal khan

Muhammad Gohar

Muhammad Fateh Jang

Muhammad Ikhlaas

Muhammad Gohar

Muhammad Akbar

Muhammad Sarwar

Muhammad Bilal Ali

Muhammad Himayat Ali

Muhammad Hashim Derya

Muhammad Saeed

Khair Muhammad

Muhammad Khushal

Muhammad Arif

Mian Muhammad

Qazi Kalim Allah

Qazi Ghulam Muhammad

Qazi Mian Muhammad Amjad

Rizwan Ghulam Ahmed Alvi (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source; please see WP:RS. In any event, you need a source for all of it. Then you need to provide a context: we don't just put in a list of names. Why are these specific descendants important? How can we say this in prose instead of a list of names? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement from Pir Naseeruddin of Golra Sharif
More aimed at those who have knowledge of Wikipedia rules.

Wanted to ask, if the following youtube video could be added into the article? Note: the video is not in English but rather in Punjabi/Urdu.

It relates to the origins of Awans, confirming how they are descended from Caliph Ali (ra), spoken by a well known scholar of Pakistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKcsOhBw6dE

Keen to hear, what you guys may think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awan Budhal (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello my dear brothers, and fellow Awans. I feel, despite the above views etc,that there is no point in just giving our own claims/versions of our origins and descent. I think in the interest of scholarly objectivity and balance, as espoused by Wikipedia standards, we should give other views, opposing views, about Awans' indigenous origins. Let these stay, I have added a small section here again. Let readers/people decide for themselves what the truth is, in the light of objective perspectives. Thanks 39.54.114.15 (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Col (r) Malik Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan

Merger proposal
Please see my note on Talk page of Awans of Pakistan-- I think that that articls is a mere duplication of this original one, and that the same should be edited and much spurious material may be removed from it, and then it should be merged with this one. Thank you. 39.54.241.61 (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Col (r) Malik Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan


 * Yes, the articles should be merged. They are very obviously concerning the same subject. Working on the assumption that Awans are mostly found in Pakistan, the merge should be from Awans of Pakistan into this article as we're unlikely ever to have an article called, say, Awans of the US. - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see now that all of the citations at Awans of Pakistan were fake. I have thus simply redirected the article to this one. - Sitush (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for Discussion
For previous discussion on the article's talk page see Talk:Awans of Pakistan

User:Sitush, your redirect of Awans of Pakistan to this article Awan (tribe) is totally unjustified as both the articles are separate both in terms of content and context. Awans of Pakistan is one long article which deals with the full history of Muslim Awans who belong to Pakistan and is different from this article Awan (tribe) which is politicized and contains only "2 sentences" (one is lead section and second in history) apart from two statements by 2 different people and limited to a group of certain people.

Pixarh (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My response remains as stated at Talk:Awans of Pakistan. I think you may need to revisit some of our policies, including WP:V. I'm beginning to think that a read of WP:IDHT might not go amiss also. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sitush but rest assured I am thoroughly acquainted with them. Paradoxically, you do not seem to get the point. You have failed to respond at Talk:Awans of Pakistan which is why I had to request you for a discussion here. Further, this reply of yours here does not answer the question asked above.


 * You have reverted my edits and redirected Awans of Pakistan twice even after I had asked you to discuss the matter in detail using a redirect discussion or by proposing a merger. There is a need for discussion here instead of placing false allegations on me or threatening me, here. Also your warning for sanctions is certainly not the answer for your redirect.here.


 * You need to state the reason for your redirect and recent editing behaviour..


 * Due to your failure for discussion, and your above mentioned behaviour despite my constant askance, I must ask you few questions regarding the matter, you must answer each to defend yourself:


 * 1.This article is already tagged to require verification for its information and is limited to a small community group of landlords and army officials offering no traces of lineage or origin. The Awans are not Indians or Hindus but are Pakistani Muslims. The Awans of Pakistan is about Muslim Awans who reside in Pakistan and trace their descent to Hazrat Ali. This is a known fact and cannot be challenged by anyone. On what basis are you redirecting Awans of Pakistan to Awan (tribe)?


 * 2.One major notable example of an Awan is Sultan Bahu whose lineage shows that his ancestry meets Qutb Shah, who is the descendant of Hasan Ibn Ali. The book Sultan Bahoo The Life and Teachings states that "..Awans are the descendants of Hazrat Ali from wives other than Hazrat Fatimah...". This article contains no such reference to the lineage of the small group you are pointing to though in contrast Awans of Pakistan does as it is about the Awans of Pakistan whose origin and lineage is Muslim and meets Hazrat Ali. What makes you disregard this core point and redirect?


 * 3.Encyclopedia of Untouchables Ancient, Medieval and Modern states that "Awans migrated from Arabia to Khorasan (Iran) after the martyrdom of Hussain (son of Hazrat Ali. Then they settled to Kalabagh, on the banks of river Attock. Then Sultan Bahu's father settled in Multan." . This article talks about a rural community and their cultivation in contrast Awans of Pakistan presents the whole history of how the Muslim Awans migrated from ultimately to Pakistan. Where is the history of origin and migration of the limited set of people mentioned here? How do you classify a similarity between these people and the ones pointed out at Awans of Pakistan? Are you claiming these are the same people? If yes? Please clarify how and on what basis.


 * 4.H A Rose, in his book, A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province, Nirmal Publishers and Distributors, writes that Awans are have Arabian origin and trace their lineage to Hazrat Ali. They are the descendants of Qutb Shah and are also known as Qutb Shahi Awans with no adherence to Hinduism or Sikhism and is totally a Muslim tribe. This article does not define the religion of the small community called awan described in this article as it only says they are either army men or cultivators but the Awans are actually Muslims as my mentioned example explains given at Awans of Pakistan where their religion and religious ancestors are all mentioned in detail with references. Where is the religion or belief or head ancestors or even culture of the group you mention here? How can you simply redirect such a scholarly and totally different article to this one?


 * 5.Other sources and books mentioned advocate the same information as mentioned in the article Awans of Pakistan and none of it has got anything to do with this article. Infact, the redirect is totally unjustified and loss of encyclopedic information. You have simply disregarded valid information. Awan (tribe) and Awans of Pakistan are two separate topics and hence, be treated as two separate articles.  Pixarh (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you read WP:IDHT now? If not then please do; if you already have then you are heading for a block. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

 I've asked multiple times that you please discuss this matter. But you are continually talking off the topic. I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing. — Pixarh (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC).

why not to include the different theories of origins
Awans have different theories of origin like Qutub Shah (Semitic), Rajput but never have been confirmed. So why don't we include all those categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahirmullick (talk • contribs) 10:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Dilip Kumar
Dilip kumar's wiki entry says he is Awan in early life surely one of the greatest actors ever should be amongst notables on Awan page? Q3cctv (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have fixed that article and left a reply to your note on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Veena Malik?
just wondering cause she's of punjabi ancestry and is from islamabad which has a substantial population of people from the awan tribe and alot of Awans go by the name "Malik". Does anyone have any info about this or is does she instead belong to some other rajput caste like Jat or Tarkhan? Ofcourse, she's not a Sayyid.... is she? --2001:1970:5E5B:AE00:A023:40FB:A68:4A91 (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This talk page is for discussion of improvements to the article. Discussing alleged origins of a living person are not within scope. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Want me to ask this on her wikipedia page ? She's notable, has an article on wikipedia --2001:1970:5E5B:AE00:FDB5:B76B:216:451B (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Reliable means published in a book, major newspaper or magazine with a reputation for fact-checking - not a self-published source, blog, facebook, twitter or similar source She identifies herself means she needs to make a clear statement of self-identity - this is not what others have said, not who her parents are/were, or what they have said, not based on her family name or upbringing, but a clear statement "I am an Awan" or a very similar wording - Arjayay (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You need a reliable source in which she identifies herself as an Awan - there is no mention of that on her Wikipedia page whatsoever, let alone a reference to support such a statement.

She can't be an Awan. First off, she married a Pashtun (of the Khattak) tribe. Awans are of Sayyid (Hashemite) Arab ancestry, and the tradition sais a woman who is from the Banu Quresh can only marry a man from Banu Quresh Tribes. Therefore woman that's an Awan, Alvi, Qureshi, Abbassi, Sayyid or any of these Arabian ancestries (Patrilineal atleast) even when they are among Punjabis and Tajiks in the present day can only marry into those people only of Arabian origins. It is a well known fact that 99% of the Pashtuns (with the exception of a few Turis and Bangash) are not connected to the ancient Qureshis, especially since her husband was Khattak, not a sayyid. He is only assuming because Veena is Punjabi, her last name "Malik" is often used by Awans and that the Islamabad region has a high percentage of punjabis who are awans. But in reality, she could instead be of Brahmin/Kshatriya ancestry (meaning she's from a Rajput tribe like Tarkhan or Jat), why not research her roots for credible to pinpoint what she exactly is ?. I am now hearing stories that Shah Rukh Khan instead has Hindko ancestry from present day KPK, moreover, they said he was an Awan instead of Pashtun. Tell some Pathan that instead of yusufzai or niazi, they were really Awans in their face and see how they feel. But look at the bright side, despite you are really a Hindkowan, you are a Sayyid(depends on how much pride they would take in that, if at all). --2001:1970:5E5B:AE00:3540:E02D:F2A7:E15 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

^What a bloat of nonsense. Who said Sayeds, Qureshis or Abbasis can't marry non Arabs? Further more are you aware that the so called Hashemites of Mecca & Jordan were only Arabian on their paternal side and non-Arab on the maternal? Hussien Bin Ali's mother was Ciracssian while Abdullah of Jordan was half English. Your purity nonsense is pure fiction and quite laughable to say the least. Further more, if Veena Malik is an Awan then a source needs to be brought forward presenting that she is otherwise there is no need to mention her in this article. Akmal94 (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Jashua
I have temporarily removed Jashua project source as per objection by a User. Why it isn't reliable please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.232.137 (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 226 and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163 both of which conclude the Joshua project is not a reliable source The project defines itself as " a research initiative seeking to highlight the ethnic people groups of the world with the fewest followers of Christ. Accurate, updated ethnic people group information is critical for understanding and completing the Great Commission. Revelation 5:9 and 7:9-10 show that there will be some from every tribe, tongue, nation and people before the Throne." however "Joshua Project is not a formal research organization, but rather seeks to compile and integrate ethnic peoples information from various global, regional and national researchers and workers into a composite whole." It therefore admits it is not a "formal research organization", and exists to complete "the Great Commission" i.e. conversion to Christianity - Arjayay (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Chief
I'm not sure what is going on regarding the purported chief of the Awan but I reverted here because (a) the linked article - Nawab of Kalabagh - refers to someone who has been dead since 1967; (b) according to sources previously used in that article, such as this, the family referred to has been around since the 16th century, which is not "time immemorial" by a long stretch of the imagination; and (c) does the title Nawab even mean anything now in Pakistan or is it just glorification as happens with Indian so-called "royal" titles since 1971? - Sitush (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Well for your information "Nawab of Kalabagh" is a family heriditary title it passes from father to son Nawab Malik Amir Mohammad Khan died in 1967 after which his Son Nawab Malik Muzzafar Khan became Nawab and after his death his son now is nawab the death of one does not mean the end of the titular lineage second as for the title Nawab meaning something it is obvious that you have an axe to grind with the ancient royalty of the indian subcontinent but sadly for your kind information i must add that Even in the sourced article you talk about it can be clearly seen that the Descendants of the"Formidable Nawab" as the article says still hold power and are in politics etc as well and even apart from that.I have visited that area in my research extensively since 2002 onwards and what i have heard and seen there is that the nawab is still a formidable force though not to the old extent but at least 75percent of their power remains if you have doubts just read the daily newspaper's of the mianwali district on facebook and you will get an idea its not like india where all power's were taken from the ruler's as this is a tribal system and the cheif still holds power over his people they still have more than 50percent of their state to this day as for the same source saying the nawabs have been here since 16th century he was just quoting heresay from the mouths of illetrate people while i am quoting from a well known published historian of awan history who is also an awan himself and must know more about his true history than what some half literate people a newsreporter interviewd and than again he was writing after Nawab Amir Mohammad khans death in the time of his son Nawab Malik Muzzafar I shall quote from his book on the other Page on the Late Nawabs history as I see you do not like to admit old sources either mughal or british i also have a much older hindu source named the chachnama and i shall quote both of these and some other's on the other page as well i think this is explanation enough i shall now revert my edit if you have satisfied your doubts Yoohooyoo (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As for your saying that the author of the news article said 16th century he said at least the 16th century as the nawabs and their fort of dhankot is menotioned in the tuzk-i-baburi of emperor babur whom you dont belive any way that the fort and its rulers were there is even acknowleged by the chachnama of ancient hindu india and that is time immemorial as the fort and some other hindu temples on mari indus ridge are from the time of the mahabharata rather the pandavas stayed in those temples for 3years during their exile and that to a layman is time immemorial so there you have it any more doubts Yoohooyoo (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Before we take this any further can we please at least agree on a couple of things? Firstly, the information given at WP:OR means that our own personal research and knowledge counts for nothing here. Secondly, the information at WP:CONSENSUS means that the details given at User:Sitush/CasteSources, which have already been mentioned to you, are indeed valid and not just some crazed opinion of my own. I think it is important that you understand our policies before digging deeper into this because otherwise we will be talking past each other instead of with each other. You may also benefit from reading WP:NPA and WP:EW. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Well if you are non biased than here are the bare minimum facts i gave british source which i admit was not acceptable per policy than i gave a mughal source which i could not find anywhere in your or anybody elses guidelines but you said it is "not" acceptable so i gave a modern well known published source and even than rather than using the talk page "you" blatantly removed "my" edit and now when the page is according to your point of veiw correct than you go to talk,even still i "did not" edit war rather am using the talk page which means that "I" gave way yet "You" still blame me now get an independant ajudicator and tell me who is the enforcer.Now as for my objections well you did not as you should have answered any point by point which means that up to this point i have been by default correct and as this is the situation.I think there is no objection of my restoring my latest edit as factual and per policy because i may not know anything but the famous author of my source certainly did and i even pointed out the details in the other news source so there you are.Now either raise point by point objections to my "edit" so that i may "once again" rectify them because if you talk barebones facts with me rather than the "you" and "me" nonsense that i have so clearly emphasised above i am more than happy for i know my facts past and present or pray hold your horses and i shall restore my edits.Isnt that clear enough. Yoohooyoo (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not question whether or not the present Nawab wields considerable political power etc because that is irrelevant to the statement you were trying to insert. Abu Fazl and, indeed, all chroniclers from centuries ago, are not considered reliable sources. It is nothing to do with Awan people or even the present-day Pakistan - it is a consensus established by the Wikipedia community in a far more general manner. Please consider what is said at WP:HISTRS for some background to this situation. And, for what it is worth, we generally do not like to use caste- or tribe-affiliated sources regardless of the period in which they were written: they're usually biassed, often inaccurate and always the opinion of the writer. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also please like to refer to the note left on my Talk Page by User: Yoohooyoo and the rather offensive and aggressive tone therein. I merely edited the article to reflect a fact-- that at no time was the title of 'Nawab' given to the Maliks/Awan chiefs of Kalabagh as an hereditary one. As far as I could ascertain from British records, the father of late Malik Amir Muhammad Khan was given a personal title of 'Nawab' for his services during World War 1 and this title, in effect, died out with him. It was not for his descendants to use. People can call themselves what they like, de facto , if they have the local force to assert themselves; but that does not change the facts. I am sorry to see this extremely negative and bullying attitude going on. Wikipedia used to be rather strict about such things but I am sad to note a lax approach in recent years, browbeating has become common. That is why is it hardly worth it editing things here anymore and I have reduced my involvement. I would still urge Wikipedia to take notice and take hold of the reins again, if they can. Thanks. AsadUK200 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)AsadUK200

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020
Include the Surname Chaudhary with Khan and Malik. Majority Muslim Chaudharys belong to this Awan Caste. 125.99.141.222 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Muhammad Mahfooz Awan.jpg

Fake sourcing
Please do not fake what sources say. For example, until my clean up just now the article claimed that Jaffrelot supports the Qutb Shah ancestry but in fact Jaffrelot's only mention of the Awan is on p 205 of his book we (correctly) cite in relation to military prowess ... and that says nothing of Qutb Shah. Similarly, we attributed a claim about a number of military awards to Imran Ali but the Ali sources says zero about it. Another claim was that the Oxford Dictionary of Chess supported that a notable person was a member of the tribe when in fact all it supports is that the guy lived and he played chess.

In addition, people have been adding information based on unreliable sources. Please read WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I have just cleaned it up again. I know many Pakistani tribes like to claim a glorious Arab past but it is usually nonsense, just as Indian castes usually spout nonsense in claiming to be descendants of kings and warriors. Sultan-ul-Fahq publishers are not reliable, Herbert Feldman seems to have been some sort of political scientist & novelist rather than historian or anthropologist. That there is POV pushing going on here is evident because the tribe members are ignoring alternate theories from equally poor sources that mention Bactrian Greek, Jat and Rajput origins. See this op-ed for some general background, and also this. We desperately need good sources here because there are clearly many problems. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think Sultan-ul-Fahq publishers are reliable but I still entertained your concerns and replaced the citation with other reliable sources. I am not sure what you are accusing Feldman of, is it his lack of knowledge or the bias? Yes, There is a POV pushing going on here and is evident by your edits as you are not ready to accept the Majority point of view established with reliable sources. The sources which claims Awan of being a tribe with Non-Arab origin are extremely poor, and every claim of their Non-Arab decent is entirely different from one another. If you still think that the Majority claim of Tribe's Arab origin is biased then please read WP:BIASED. I am reverting your edit. Have a nice day. :)--Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is Ahmad Hasan Dani unreliable, as you said last year re this removal. The POV that is going on, and which you have been trying to assert for a year or more, is that of wanting to disregard other opinions about the origin. There is a reason why Jaffrelot says "legend" in the quote we use. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I said that because many books that are attributed to A.H Dani are not even written by him. Like the book which was quoted was not written by A.H Dani and moreover, it is not likely that he has written anything about the History of Awans because He was a Pakistani Archeologist who specialised in History of Northern Parts of Pakistan while the centre of the Awan tribe is in Punjab. --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? He was an archaeologist and historian. How are you sure that he didn't write it? Who did? Is there another A H Dani who was active at that time? Whatever, "unreliable" wasn't your reason for removing it, was it? - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see at least 10 mentions of "Awan" in this book by Dani, which suggests you are wrong in saying he never wrote of them. Unfortunately, I can't use it yet because I only have snippet view. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does this article from the Pakistan Journal of History and Culture (Jan – Jun 2017 VOL.XXXVIII #1) explicitly state on p 67 that there are various origin theories? - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The article you pointed out states

"Different sources claim Awan tribe’s origin differently. Some are of the opinion that it belongs to Hindus and Afghan. Sometimes, they are said to be offspring of Bakhtiari Younani but basically they came with Sultan Mehmud Ghazanvi to India as helpers. The meaning of word Awan is helper or supporter. They usually claim to be siblings of Alf Shah, generally known as Pir Qutab Shah, a descendant of Hazrat Ali (RA)."


 * It also supports the Majority view of the scholars on the subject. It says that different sources claim Awan tribe's origin differently but as I stated earlier that the sources which claims Awan of being a tribe with Non-Arab origin are extremely poor, and every claim of their Non-Arab decent is entirely different from one another as is evident by the article you referred. --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You do not get to choose your preferred theory. Please read WP:NPOV & note what I and others have previously said all over this page, ie it is clear there is no certainty & we must not pretend that there is. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Whilst not about the Awans, this has some useful background info to the Arab debate, notably where it speaks of the works of Dani and of Mubarak Ali. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , with this edit, you claim that Herbert Feldman states that Awans are of Arab origin. Please provide the relevant quote here from his book. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, Feldman doesn't mention anything regarding the origin of Awans. And Sitush is right regarding fake/poor sourcing and misrepresentation of the sources. BTW, Awans are just mentioned in a footnote on the page cited by Muhammadahmad79. And here is the relevant quote from the page no. 385 of the source:
 * Also, the other cited source for the Awan's origin claim is a translation of some 17th-century poetry and is published by Lulu.com – see WP:SPS. Such type of primary sources are not considered WP:HISTRS. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the other cited source for the Awan's origin claim is a translation of some 17th-century poetry and is published by Lulu.com – see WP:SPS. Such type of primary sources are not considered WP:HISTRS. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , I have a copy of the latest edition of The Indus Saga, which is cited twice in this article. And that book is also used as a fake source. The Awans are just discussed on a single page, and here is the relevant quote:


 * Note: The footnotes are on a different page in the book, but I am providing them right under the quotation. And the exact quote appears at the page no. 88 of its 1996 OUP edition, which is cited here. So it doesn't support the content for which it is cited here. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I found the Indus book via my online alumni resources about an hour ago & I too could only spot the bit that you cite. Thanks for doing the digging, though. I haven't yet managed to find the unlinked sources online but in the circumstances I think we may need to start over with them, too. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sitush, You could have simply wrote about A.H Dani below my previous answer instead of writing it above my previous answer and giving an impression that I didn't addressed that. It's unethical. I never claimed that I am "sure" A.H Dani did not mention Awans, I said that it is not likely and I still think the same because it was not his area of research. Plus, a book was cited which was never written by him. I just looked at the snippet view of the book by Dani which you stated all I could find was "Awan" being written as a surname or it is written that This raja must have ruled over Awan tribe etc. Yes, I have read the talk page and I think that discussion of minority views regarding any tribe or caste is pretty common in the Talk page of every caste/tribes related article. I also read WP:NPOV as advised and believe that if there is reliable enough source to state the minority view, then it should also be stated (please see WP:GEVAL). --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * NitinMlk, Thank you for pointing out that I misquoted Feldman but it was a good faith edit. I read that in an Urdu book "Tablegh-e-Islam aur Punjab" and it stated in its "Awan" section that "Herbert Feldman says that this Arabic tribe (Tribe of Arab Origin) posses extraordinary qualities like uncompromising attitude etc..." Sitush, also requested to me to quote Feldman but I was reluctant because I had not read the Original english text myself.
 * Moreover, the fact that Awan tribe is of Arabic origin did not needed any citation, Please see [this], because the fact that they are descendants of Ali ibn Abu Talib (A.S) was established, it automatically establishes the fact that they are of Arab origin as Ali (A.S) was Arabic. I still tried to cite a book which explicitly says "... they came from Arabia", I think it doesn't hurt citing something from an introduction of the poetry book, where it wasn't even needed, please see [this]. That Book was also not solely published by lulu.com, it was published by Maktab Islamic Books initially and then it's pdf form was later uploaded to lulu.com. I also read the Indus Saga by Aitizaz Ehsan and It was an excellent read, I think it is an amazing book with well researched content. It can also be used as a very reliable source to claim that the probability of Awan being an Arab tribe is little. This book was a hit in Pakistan and it is quite popular, so much so that people who agrees with the research by Aitazaz Ehsan are referred as the "Indus Saga Group", and popularity always attracts criticism, so there is a huge group which does not agree with the research of Aitizaz Ehsan which makes his book quite controversial but I still think that his book could be used as a very reliable source (please see [this]). It does not mean that the majority opinion regarding the issue could be discarded mainly because Aitizaz Ehsan did not gave an alternative Origin for the tribe. He discussed that the historical record of mass Arabs migration towards Sub Continent is not available, but the other opinion of scholars say that when the Muslim Rulers started [persecuting] the Ahl al-Bayt, to keep their rule unchallenged, Ahl al-Bayt started migrating secretly out of the Muslim conquered areas of that time. They migrated to areas like Afghanistan, [Sub Continent] and [Central Asia] and Awan was among those who migrated to Afghanistan later when Mahmud of Ghazni invaded Sub continent, they moved to Sub Continent. The migration was done as secretly as possible and the mass migration from Afghanistan to modern-day Pakistan was in the time of an invasion, so there is lack of historical record. I think both of the opinions could be mentioned in the Article, instead of not mentioning anything at all. --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the Dani thing is in the right place. Regarding the rest of your wall of text, please read WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SYNTHESIS, note that the opinion of the tribe would be discounted for any calculation of a "majority view" (because they have a vested interest) and then please explain why (a) one view should bear more weight than any other & (b) only two views should be shown when we have some evidence that there are more than two. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes I know about WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SYNTHESIS, but I did not make any claims here and I did not source anything from wikipedia, I just linked wikipedia articles for your ease in case if you don't know about Islamic History. The Persecution and secret migration of Ahl al-Bayt is a common knowledge which is extensively covered by many credible and reliable sources like [this book] and by many notable historians. As far as the "opinion of the tribe" is concerned, I think it can only create bias and biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone (WP:BIASED). But As a wikipedia editor I want every article to be as unbiased as possible, so I made sure to only cite the sources which are from neutral authors and all of the cited sources were from non-tribe authors except Ganj ul Asrar.
 * a) Majority Opinion should bear more weightage than the other because giving equal weightge can create false balance, please see WP:WEIGHT. Opinion of the majority of the scholars is that the tribe is of Arabic origin, so it should be given more weightage than any other minority opinion.
 * b) To be very honest, We only have reliable sources for only one theory of origin of the tribe, i.e. Arabic. Every other theory of origin is different from one another and is not mostly from reliable sources, anyone can WP:CITEKILL with reliable sources which advocates the tribe's Arabic origin while its really difficult to find even two reliable sources to support a single Non-Arab theory of origin. Plus many of the Non-Arab theories are based on complete assumptions like the term "Awan" might be a derived form of "Anuwan" which referred to the decedents of god Anu. Such opinions should not be cited at all, please read WP:VALID. Aitizaz Ehsan could be cited with his name and with the mention that he did not gave any other alternative theory of origin. Another thing which strengthens the Majority's Opinion is the fact that there is no mention of any such tribe in old Hindu scriptures and books, otherwise it would have been very common, which implies that these people must have come at least after the establishment of the Muslim rule in the Sub Continent. --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If we went by majority opinion, the articles for every caste in India would state as a near certainty that the caste was descended from a multi-armed deity or some such mythical being. We don't do it. Wikipedia is not and never has been held hostage by "majority opinion". We present things neutrally except in the case of WP:FRINGE. Sitush (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you mean by "held hostage by majority opinion"?, Editors should make sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable sources are covered, Please read WP:RS. As far as the mythical viewpoints are concerned, I think that they should be included in the articles, only if taken from reliable sources, but should be properly labeled under a different section, Please see WP:LABELFICTION. I totally agree that editors should present things neutrally, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, except in the case of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read the edit summary here. I am fed up of you trying to bludgeon your preferred origin claim into this article using terrible sources & snarky phrasing. - Sitush (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Could I use my own DNA test as a source for this article?
Hello everyone, I am new to wikipedia and was wondering if my own 23andme DNA test could be of any help for this article? I am from the Awan tribe predominantly and I also have met another Awan on Reddit's r/23andme subreddit who took a DNA test although I'll have to ask him if he's willing to share that information.

My results showed no Arab ancestry — Preceding unsigned comment added by June23account (talk • contribs) 04:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, we do not use genetics at all in caste articles. There are far too many issues relating to DNA studies etc, which is a rapidly evolving area of science but also often involves statistically insignificant studies and has a reliance on the self-identification of study subjects etc. I'm really not sure it is a great idea even to post your own results here. - Sitush (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Khadim Hussain Rizvi
To include on main page, under notable people:

"Allama Khadim Rizvi, Amirul Mujahideen of Tehreek-e-Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah (TYLR) is commonly known as Baba Jee by his followers, and Ustad Jee by hundreds of his pupils all around the country. By caste, Khadim is a proud Awan -- Awans claim their descent as the non-Fatimi children of Hazrat Ali -- like the hanged Mumtaz Qadri who gunned down Governor Salmaan Taseer."

Source: https://www.thenews".com.pk/tns/detail/564518-barelvi-revival — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.229.41 (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Need consensus
My edits were reverted twice, so I would like to reach consensus first before making them again. I made the following edits;


 * I restored the version of article which was reverted in accordance with WP:BANREVERT, because WP:BANREVERT is not always necessary and I think that previous version was much, much better and much more scientific. It also satisfies all cn and qn tags.


 * I added the following content under heading of "Genetic studies on Awan";
 * "Centre for Human Genetics of Edith Cowan University, Australia, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Pakistan and Institute of General Genetics of Russian Academy of Science, Russia conducted different genetic studies on Awan and its neighbouring tribes, namely Khattar and Rajput, which concluded that Awans are genetically isolated, endogamous and very different from it's neighbouring tribes."

The last best version of this article is for which I need your consensus, your input will be highly appreciated.

Sincerely, Wildhorse3 (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021
Karim Alvi Qadri (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC) The author of Mamba-ul-Ansab persian by Syed Moinul Haq junsvi (830 AH),1426 AD also mentioned Gazi Salar Masudi(Qutub Shahi Alvi Awan) is the nephew of Sultan Mehmood Gaznivi.geni tree - Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud :- Salar Masud s/o Salar Shahu Gazi s/o Ataullah Ghazi s/o Tahir Gazi s/o Tayyub Gazi s/o Shah Muhamad Gazi s/o Shah Ali Gazi s/o Muhammad Asif Gazi s/o Aon urf Qutub Gazi s/o Ali Abdul Manan s/o Muhammad ul Akbar(Hanfia) s/o Hadrat Ali RA : Ref.https://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Wikipedia is not a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  11:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I understand what you are trying to say but I looked it up and couldn't find a reliable publisher of this book. If you know any reliable publisher of this book then please do share. Also note that source is very old, the more modern it is, the better. Wildhorse3 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Unprejudiced, objective and impartial citations required in ethnicity and clan debates
'''Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan belongs to a Jat family of the Warraich clan and he is a lawyer and politician. He is not a social scientist, historian, researcher, anthropologist, or sociologist. His citations are prejudiced and biased since he is part of the same culture and social structure. Therefore, citation(s) of academic researcher and historian of outsiders who have no South-Asian origin or clan would be impartial, objective and unbiased.''' Socialscientist2021 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * DNA متعلقہ قبائلِ شمالی پاکستان.png

Qutb Shah descendants - incorporate in main article
Could we incorporate the following into the main article:

"The Awans are all Muhammadans. They say their ancestor was one Kutb Shah, a Sheikh of Iran, whose four sons accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni in his first expedition to India in 1002 A.D. and settled in the present Rawalpindi, Jhelam and Jhang Districts."

from 'North Indian Notes & Queries 1894 Volume 3 p.25'
 * No - that is a Raj source, which Wikipedia does not consider a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding more notable members of the Awan tribe to the list.
Muhammad Safdar Awan: is a Pakistani politician and retired Pakistan Army officer who had been a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan from June 2008 to May 2018.

Muhammad Sajjad Awan: is a Pakistani politician who has been a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan, since August 2018.

Amjad Awan: was a banker of the notorious Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

Firdous Ashiq Awan: is a Pakistani politician from Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. J-Khan1997 (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Genatic report
Please don't revert the piece of sentence on awan page, it is relevant and part of genetic report as I have written it with references. Ali Imran Awan (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Awans.
Hi, all editors interested in awan tribe, please don't panic about awan origin, as it is our identity, we have right to write about ourselves as we are using as reference Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Awans. http://prr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2751/1/2908S.pdf Page # 92, 93 which read: The haplogroup T1(originated in the Middle East countries) was only recorded in Awans. Tell me who live in Middle East countries? Arab or Indians? If arab then Awan surely belong to the Arab. Ali Imran Awan (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , your edits constitute WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I have looked through the citations you added and nowhere does it say that the Awans "have an Arab origin". You need to provide exact quotes from the citations that say this. The only thing the citation says is "A three-cytosine deletion (CCC) at position 16191-16193 observed in the ethnic Awan population residing in Mansehra." You yourself have made the conclusion that they are of Arab origin. The other sentence you added ("haplogroup T is only found in Awans, suggesting that the tribe is of Arab origin") is also unsupported. The citation does not mention Afghanistan either., you should also take a look at this. Orientls (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , my edits do not constitute original research. I am sorry but I think you didn’t go through the citation properly because map you removed saying it “self-made” was actually ‘figure 3’ in the cited DNA report. The report does say that Awans are closely related to Sayyids and that they fall in the same cluster. So, it automatically means that Awans are of Arab origin (origin from genetics is always based on genetic distance). Similarly, haplogroup T is a haplogroup of Arab origin, so writing origin of haplogroup T along with the mention of it does not constitute original research because its already an established fact. It just makes it easier for the readers to understand the genetic term. Please remember that established facts do not need citations WP:FACTS. Wildhorse3 (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wildhorse3, it is your own interpretation because the citation does not specifically say that Awans are related to Arabs anywhere in the paper (I read the entire paper). Per WP:VERIFY, you need to proved the exact quotes from the paper that support your assertion. I only removed what the citation did not explicitly say and actually provided quotes of what the article does say in the citation., look at the citation and see if you agree or disagree. Your input is necessary here or there will just be more edit warring. Orientls (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am with - I have read the studies that are being used as citations and there is no mention of the Awans being Arabs or being related to Arabs based on genetic evidence. It would be a clear breach of WP:V to add that claim in. Marsharbt (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All of you accept that Department of Genetics of Hazara University, Pakistan conducted a dental morphology and DNA analysis of major tribes in Northern Pakistan which recorded that haplogroup T1 (originated in Israel ) is only found in Awans,
 * Then could it suggest that only awan tribe having haplogroup T1 is origin of arab, because if they have T1 (originated from arab), where theg get this haplogroup T1 from? If their ancestors were not arab? None arab could not pass them T1.
 * ) Ali Imran Awan (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All of you accept that Department of Genetics of Hazara University, Pakistan conducted a dental morphology and DNA analysis of major tribes in Northern Pakistan which recorded that haplogroup T1 (originated in Israel ) is only found in Awans,
 * Then could it suggest that only awan tribe having haplogroup T1 is origin of arab, because if they have T1 (originated from arab), where theg get this haplogroup T1 from? If their ancestors were not arab? None arab could not pass them T1. Ali Imran Awan (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in getting in a caste war with a pov warrior but Ali Imran is insisting their source states that the haplogroup t1 is of arab origin but the source itself says no such thing: "The haplogroup t was only recorded in Awan population" CUPIDICAE💕  17:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Read it here contents 2.2
 * T1 is the most common descent of T-M184 haplogroup, being the lineage of more than 95% of all Eurasian T-M184 members. One of their descent lineages is found in high frequencies among northern Somali clans. However, it appears to have originated somewhere around the Eastern Mediterranean Basin, perhaps somewhere between Israel to the Jordan Valley.
 * If origion of T1 is in Israel and it recorded in awan Population as you can read it in this report
 * Then what could be the origion of awan tribe? Ali Imran Awan (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to read and understand WP:SYNTHESIS - you need a reliable source, that specifically states exactly what you are trying to add, not speculation, or extrapolation. - Arjayay (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

and - editor Wildhorse3 has been violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR by claiming that the Awans are Arab.They haven't added any original quotes to the citations to demonstrate that the citations actually say what they wants them to say. This seems part of an WP:AGENDA as they removed citations from the "History" section that affirm that the Awans are native to South Asia and that the claims of foreign origin are made to simply bolster their status.[ ] I think we should simply remove the whole "Genetic studies on Awan" section since it's being misused to support an uncited POV opinion that Awans are Arabs (contrary to what historians have stated). [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Misrepresentation"
User:Abhishek0831996 and User:Orientls, I do not understand what you think is the "misrepresentation" of sources in this article. Please specify and elaborate so that we can reach a consensus and not indulge in an edit war. Simply removing properly sourced stuff, that has been there for months, without any good explanation is not going to help. --Wildhorse3 (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Source does not say Awan are Arabs and you are using unreliable Geoview link which does not say Awan tribe lives in Afghanistan. Stop claiming that people agreed to your version. No one ever did. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The source Geoview is used in lead section, lead section usually summarises the entire article or contain very generic information for which sources are not compulsory. For example, the source Geoview is only used to support that "Awans can also be found in Afghanistan." but if you think that this information should be accompanied with a more reliable source than we can use bcn or cn tag or we can also just omit it. As far as the Arab thing is concerned, nowhere in the article is it stated that Awans are Arabs. You kept on removing the sentence from 'genetic studies' section that 'Awans and Arab tribe of Syeds fall in the same genetic cluster because of their similarity', even though this information is from the same reliable source, which is being used for other genetic info, and is also quoted. It does not mean that Awans are Arabs, it just means that there is an Arab tribe with which Awans have some genetic similarities (which technically do mean that Awans are Arabs but not explicitly). --Wildhorse3 (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to cite a proper source instead of stalling the process. It has been told above to you as well that your WP:SYNTH is not going to work. Your sources have to be reliable and support the information but you are not getting it. You must self revert now before I have to report you. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I couldn't get you. Can you please specify where I did not used a "proper source"? If you are talking about Geoview then as I said before we can remove that source and use a cn tag instead, so that someone might find a better source for it but if you still think that the sentence "Awans can also be found in Afghanistan" should not stay without a better source than we can remove it. Other than this, can you please specify where else do you think "proper source" is not used? As far as WP:SYNTH is concerned, I do understand what is synthesis and what isn't. I don't think that any content which I added is synthesis, but if you think so than please specify.--20:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Wildhorse3 (talk)
 * Asking me to explain what I have already explained and so have others above. This disruptive WP:STONEWALLING won't do any favor for you. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert until a consensus is reached. Did you even read what I just wrote? I didn't asked you to explain, I just asked you to specify what you think are problem areas. Where have you are anyone else explained to me? Can you please link that for me? I am trying to reach a consensus here and sorry to say but your are not cooperating at all. -- Wildhorse3 (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They have read and replied. If you continue to insist on misrepresenting sources and retain your source misrepresentation and call it "consensus" then you are doing nothing but WP:DE. Orientls (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hardev Bahri
Hardev Bahri’s name should be removed from the list of notable Awans, given that he was not an Awan, but actually belonged to the Punjabi Khatri community. Hassan B. Awan (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)