Talk:Kakkezai

Vandal edit of cited content by anonymous user 68.79.208.153
Anonymous user please do not vandal alter mess up cited content as you have done in your last edits on this page. It is also apparent that you are messing up content on various other pages including massive deletions and not a single verifiable contribution of information see page after page of your contribution. In addition to your personal commentary 68.79.208.153 Cheers Intothefire (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Kakkezai are NOT Punjabi_Shaikh
In my humble point of view, this page has only been created to "substantiate" that Kakkezai are somehow Punjabi_Shaikh by using just one quote by from Denzil Ibbetson, Edward MacLagan, H. A. Rose, "A Glossary of The Tribes & Casts of The Punjab & North West Frontier Province", 1911, pp 502 Vol II. Here is the direct link to that page.

It is important to note that the creator of this page, Intothefire, did not point out to the confusion of Denzil Ibbetson which he has outlined under a footnote, "Mackenzi says the Kakkezai are also called Bulledee (Bileladle) but he does not explain the term. Gujrat Sett. Rep., p. 27. Bulledee may be transliteration of Baledi 'one who herds oxen': Pujnabi Dicty., p. 86". That tantamounts to confusing the readers of Wikipedia. McKhan (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi McKhan

Your point is well taken.
 * The footnote from the cited page that you mention should be available in the article and there is consensus ,should you wish to incorporate this in the article  I will not revert.


 * I see that you have blanked the entire page containing a verifiable quote from a notable source along with the references and citations . This is improper from a wikipedia standpoint.


 * After blanking all the contents, next you have unilaterally redirected this page without first putting a merge tag and discussing .This is also improper from a wikipedia standpoint.


 * I would not have an objection to the redirect were this done in a proper way and I believe we can easily reach concensus . The only issue is that verifiable content from a notable source must stay in the new merged article.

Cheers Intothefire (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to your post on my page, my friend I have no reason to dispute other sources you mention on Kakkezai or Kakezai. My only contention is that any article must be allowed to incorporate different strands of information as long they stand the rules of Wikipedia .The article is richer for it . When you remove or blank information , while it may be in line with your frame of things , it may not be fair to another viewpoint.


 * Thank you very much for your kind response. However, with all due respect and apology, what I gather from having this page on Wikipedia along-with Kakazai that there is an attempt being made to prop up the Pujanbi_Shaikh clan which, I am afraid, also goes against the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. I did not blank the page (Please, feel welcome to review the history.) but simply redirected it to Kakazai as this page is simply causing confusion for Wikipedia readers by creating an impression that there is a difference between Kakkezai and Kakazai NOT only in spellings but also in their ancestory. I would like to reiterate that I am Kakazai by myself and I have done quite an extensive research on the topic of Kakazai. The quote which is being used is a disputed quote under the light of "Tareekh-e-Kakazai" (a.k.a. "Hidayat Afghani - Tareekh-e-Kakazai) Tarkani" (Originally Published May, 1933) as well as pages, Page 176-177, Page 178-179 and Page 18-181 of Tazkara (also called "Tazkira-e-pathan"), a book by Khan Roshan Khan. The writer of "Tareekh-e-Kakazai" (a.k.a. "Hidayat Afghani - Tareekh-e-Kakazai) Tarkani" (Originally Published May, 1933) has addressed the quote which is being used on this page quite thoroughly. Indeed, I appreciate your contention, however, I find it unfair to treat quotes written by the Western authors as authentic quotes compare to the books written by the authentic / native historians of the region on the relevant / pertinet subject matters. I, sincerely, hope that you will kindly think about it. Best regards. Sincerely, McKhan (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi McKhan Thankyou for your polite post. Cheers Intothefire (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please put the merge tag on the two articles and I will not oppose.
 * My opinion regarding the quote  I have provided from Rose and Ibbetson is that it should stay in the merged article . However if you add a precursor note  stating that this is a disputed quote I will not oppose.
 * Hope this way we can reach concensus.


 * Once again, thank you for your kind and prompt response. Since I have already pointed out, very humbly, that the quote is disputed under the light of "Tareekh-e-Kakazai" (a.k.a. "Hidayat Afghani - Tareekh-e-Kakazai) Tarkani" (Originally Published May, 1933) as well as pages, Page 176-177, Page 178-179 and Page 18-181 of Tazkara (also called "Tazkira-e-pathan"), a book by Khan Roshan Khan, therefore, I would like to invite you to write a justifiable note which can be used in due course in order to help the Wikipedia readers to avoid any confusion. I, seriously, did not think about the merger, however, it will be my pleasure to explore the opportunity with you. May I take this opportunity to point out, with all due respect, that there is no quote being used on Kakazai page despite the reference section which has combination of native as well as non-native sources (Urdu, Persian and English) to maintain Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view as well as integrity, clarity and balance of the subject matter. Best regards. Sincerely, McKhan (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)